The "SS United States" will maybe sail again?

[Trenchfriend]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...eat-ocean-liner-could-set-sail-once-more.html

 

[Fading Fast]

I've been following its fate in news stories for (my guess) three decades now and it would be great if the ship can be saved, but the conclusion of the article sort of jumps the gun on the "feasibility" study that will determine if it survives. And away from that, with all the pork in our government and all the private money devoted to preserving history, how can this ship - which truly has a unique and special place in history - not find a way to drop itself into that sluice of cash?

 

[Zombie_61]

I'm in favor of preserving history and historical artifacts (in whichever form they take) as much as possible. And I hope they're able to save this ship. The question is in how they'll define "restored" if that's feasible, because you just know the temptation will be to "upgrade" the ship as much as they possibly can; for some components, it would likely be mandatory in order to meet current nautical standards. And therein lies the conundrum.

Example: You buy a car. You love the car, and want to keep it as long as you possibly can. Eventually it will need repairs of some kind, so you have it repaired. If you keep it long enough, eventually you would have to replace every single part on the car. Old car, all new parts--is it the same car you bought if none of the original parts remain?

Admittedly, that's taking the situation to an extreme. But if they're restoring the S.S. United States in order to preserve it's history and make it seaworthy at the same time, but are forced to make upgrades that didn't exist when the ship was still in service, what's the point? Again, I'm in favor of saving the ship if it's possible; I just hope they're able and/or allowed to preserve as much of it as possible.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Much like the Titanic II project, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Shangas]

I agree. I'll believe it when I see it. I've seen loads of these big, publicised "WE CAN DO IT!!" restoration projects just crumble to dust. Again.

And again.

And again.

And again.

I couldn't tell you how many times I've read in the local newspapers that the state government was going to restore Flinders Street Station. I've lived here over twenty years and I haven't even seen them put on so much as a new coat of paint, so I'm generally highly skeptical of claims like this.

 

[tonyb]

I'm all for historical preservation. I've gone far as to join the Nat'l Trust for Historic Preservation.

But I also know that bills must be paid and books must be balanced. Much as I might find some termite-eaten, earthquake damaged old house worthy of preservation, I'm not the one paying for it.

And I grudgingly accept that restored stuff -- buildings, old commercial districts, ocean liners, whatever -- will by necessity be something other than what they were pre-restoration. We can all point to rehabilitated districts that were once the habitat of scruffier sorts that are now yuppie playgrounds. The structures remain, but that's about it.

 

[ChiTownScion]

What the plans to restore the SS United States- and the scheme to launch a Titanic II - gloss over is the fact that what people will put up with regarding travel accommodations change radically over the decades. If you can find that one in a hundred person who'd prefer a seven day crossing on the Queen Mary II to a seven hour Heathrow to JFK flight, he/ she now prefers a balcony stateroom that makes- in its crudest form- the first class cabins of yore seem pretty low end. Frankly, I doubt that they could ever make the SS United States into a viable commercial entity in this age.

Heck... I'd love to see a 21st Century Normandie making crossings! But there were not enough people even in the late 30's to make its unsurpassed art deco luxury a financial success: Cunard made its money, not on the revenue of first (cabin) class passengers, but on those on second (tourist) and third class. Normandie was overloaded with unsold first class accommodations and barely broke even. I doubt that we could run enough Fedora Lounge excursion trips to justify resurrecting the finest liner of the golden age.

 

[Stearmen]

Well, we can all agree that the SS United States is the more graceful of ships. The modern cruise liner, not so much!

 

[Stearmen]

P.S. am I the only one that immediately thinks of capsizing when I look at these new ships?

 

[tonyb]

I'm in favor of preserving history and historical artifacts (in whichever form they take) as much as possible. And I hope they're able to save this ship. The question is in how they'll define "restored" if that's feasible, because you just know the temptation will be to "upgrade" the ship as much as they possibly can; for some components, it would likely be mandatory in order to meet current nautical standards. And therein lies the conundrum.

Example: You buy a car. You love the car, and want to keep it as long as you possibly can. Eventually it will need repairs of some kind, so you have it repaired. If you keep it long enough, eventually you would have to replace every single part on the car. Old car, all new parts--is it the same car you bought if none of the original parts remain?

Admittedly, that's taking the situation to an extreme. But if they're restoring the S.S. United States in order to preserve it's history and make it seaworthy at the same time, but are forced to make upgrades that didn't exist when the ship was still in service, what's the point? Again, I'm in favor of saving the ship if it's possible; I just hope they're able and/or allowed to preserve as much of it as possible.

It's akin to the fellow who has his grandpa's axe, which has had two new heads and four new handles.

Certain "vintage" cars can be built entirely from new parts. British Motor Heritage at one time offered an entirely new MGB body. Perhaps they still do. Model T Fords can be assembled from all-new parts. I believe that's true of Model A Fords as well. And I think I recall some talk of doing the same with early Mustang bodies.

So, is that '63 MGB made entirely of components of much more recent manufacture really a '63 MGB? I say no, even if it is indistinguishable from a "real" one via anything other than laboratory analyses. Hell, it is probably a better car, seeing how the unibody structure had yet to suffer fatigue.

 

[St.Ignatz]

I could see Her every day at work from the control center window.

Tom D.

 

[Trenchfriend]

She's just such a great piece of machinery.

 

[Zombie_61]

P.S. am I the only one that immediately thinks of capsizing when I look at these new ships?

No, you aren't; they do look top-heavy. But, having sailed on three of them since 2004, I can say they're surprisingly stable unless the seas are really rough.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Men want this:
http://rhwood.blogspot.de/2010/09/rough-seas.html

 

[Stearmen]

It's akin to the fellow who has his grandpa's axe, which has had two new heads and four new handles.

Certain "vintage" cars can be built entirely from new parts. British Motor Heritage at one time offered an entirely new MGB body. Perhaps they still do. Model T Fords can be assembled from all-new parts. I believe that's true of Model A Fords as well. And I think I recall some talk of doing the same with early Mustang bodies.

So, is that '63 MGB made entirely of components of much more recent manufacture really a '63 MGB? I say no, even if it is indistinguishable from a "real" one via anything other than laboratory analyses. Hell, it is probably a better car, seeing how the unibody structure had yet to suffer fatigue.

A 1965 Mustang Restomod, with all new modern components, with only the original shell, is still registered as a 1965 Mustang!

 

[ChiTownScion]

Well, we can all agree that the SS United States is the more graceful of ships. The modern cruise liner, not so much!

Liners and cruise ships are two different breeds. The only true liner still crossing the Atlantic is Cunard's Queen Mary 2. And even her lines are more akin to cruise ships: because demand now is for balcony cabins, she had to be made wide enough to support a higher superstructure. The result is that she can't utilize the Panama Canal and has to go 'round the Horn on her annual world cruise.

Speed is another factor: The QM2 allows 8 days, Southampton- New York. You'd be hard pressed to find a cruise ship that could cross in less than 10 days on a repositioning cruise , same route. Cruise ships are designed for gentler seas, and from what I have studied, while some are capable of a transatlantic crossing, there is nowhere near the stability in the rough seas that are so common.

One further note: bellying up to the pool bar with hundreds of vacationers will never substitute for a true formal night of dining and dancing on a Cunard ship, in my opinion. It's bad enough that white tie dress on formal nights went the way of carrier pigeon after the Second World War, even on Cunard ("Formal" has come to mean, "black tie"... and that's a rant worthy of a thread in itself.), but at least it's not business suits and sport coats under the guise of an "elegant night" that other lines practice. Really wish we could have a new SS United States (AND a Normandie, AND a Mauritania, and several fleets of other classic liners), but there are not enough snooty dinosaurs like me (and perhaps, some of you) to keep that sort of elegance in travel alive as it once was.

 

[tonyb]

A 1965 Mustang Restomod, with all new modern components, with only the original shell, is still registered as a 1965 Mustang!

But what do you do with a "1965" Mustang built with of those reproduction body shells? How are those registered and licensed?

http://autoweek.com/article/sema-sh...roduction-body-shell-1965-mustang-convertible

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think it varies according to state, but in most states the chassis of such a car, rather than the body, would be the defining factor. There are many thousands of ultra-customized Volkswagens that have been turned into everything from woods skidders to imitation Duesenbergs, but they're still Volkswagens in the eyes of the law.

There are, by the way, actual and legitimate Model T Fords, built by the Ford Motor Company, and titled as 2003 models. Ford built a short run of them that year to celebrate the company's centennial, using all-new parts -- some were bought from companies licensed to reproduce them, but the chassis and engines were built by Ford.

 

[Trenchfriend]

My point of view is, that we absolutely need a new regular-lines-ocean-traffic.

Until the end of my life, I will not accept, that these paranoid humanity believes, it could play birdy and flying all over the globe. That's just brain-sick, to me. Humanity has to stay on the ground. And no one would ever have to deal with aviotophobia. I would allow airplane-voyages just to world-important businessmen and politicians. And other people on emergency, if todays modern worldwide communication-systems would be crashed. That would be a "natural balance", I think.

 

[ChiTownScion]

My point of view is, that we absolutely need a new regular-lines-ocean-traffic.

Until the end of my life, I will not accept, that these paranoid humanity believes, it could play birdy and flying all over the globe. That's just brain-sick, to me. Humanity has to stay on the ground. And no one would ever have to deal with aviotophobia. I would allow airplane-voyages just to world-important businessmen and politicians. And other people on emergency, if todays modern worldwide communication-systems would be crashed. That would be a "natural balance", I think.

Problem is: time is a luxury for many. That four week annual vacation that you good people in Germany take for granted upon going to work for a company is unheard of in the US: we start out with 2 weeks paid vacation a year-- IF we are lucky. I had to work for an employer for ten very long years before I got four weeks annual vacation, and I am one of the fortunate few in that regard.

Like you, I savor the journey as much as the destination. I'm afraid that makes us both somewhat of anachronisms: a virtue here in the Fedora Lounge, of course, but we're swimming hard against the tide in modern society as a whole. As much as I hate to admit it, modern jet travel makes affordable recreational travel a reality for millions, enabling the average Joe to take his family to destinations that were unthinkable a few decades ago. And I tend to think that most kids are like mine were: long trips bore them, and they'd rather get where they're going than savor any travel experience.

Most people today are like my wife: the journey should be as short as possible so that the destination can be enjoyed that much longer. I myself luxuriate in a three day rail journey each way across the North American continent, where as she'd rather endure the most excruciating coach class air travel experience for the sake of spending a few precious extra days at the destination. That we've stayed together over 30 years with such divergent views is a bit amazing... but she's learned to deal with my airline griping with humor and subtle bribery.

After she retires, we're planning an extended trip to Australia: I haven't quite got her convinced to forgo an 18 hour flight to Sydney for the sake of a trans- Pacific cruise on either a repositioning cruise ship or a passenger carrying container ship... but I'm working on it. "We can't afford the time" will no longer be a viable argument, so perhaps the odds may be growing in my favor.