This could be somewhat unpopular as an opinion, but Titanic's sinking has been romanticized greatly, fueled partly by a slew of Hollywood movies. There were several great ships marking their firsts - Titanic was just one of them of its time.
If we delve into 20th century maritime history, passenger accounts & disaster records of ships such as SS Lusitania or MV Wilhelm Gustloff were far more shocking to read, as compared to RMS Titanic.
I'm 50 and hence rather older than several films on the subject. Titanic has always been held up as the ship wreck within my lifetime for several reasons. I think the key one is the notion that she was considered unsinkable and yet sank on her maiden voyage. In Belfast, where she was built, they like to say she was fine when she left there. Schadenfreude.
When she left Soton for NY, there was a long, slow burning fire in one of her coal bunkers. Apparently this was fairly common in steam ships. This ship was absolutely massive for the time and let's face it a set of steam engines/turbines of that size, powered by coal are essentially explosions waiting to happen in many places. That's basically how they work too. Then you stick it on an extremely unforgiving ocean and plough a track over several 1000 miles at a pretty high speed. Add crew and passengers and a huge number of distractions and other operational things like plumbing and you have a recipe for disaster simmering away.
How the crew avoided going mad on these monstrous Heath Robinson (Rube Goldberg for the left pond) contraptions is absolutely beyond me. I'm not too surprised that she hit an iceberg if the boss decided to head into an ice field, just to shave a few hours on the crossing time. This is a vessel that steers like an iceberg and is basically staffed by crew who are already half maddened by the complexity of stopping her from exploding or worrying about the pre dinner champagne being too warm.
She also had a few other firsts and I think that she sent the first SOS over wireless, all this stuff adds to the story. Add in a few conspiracies (was she really the Olympic - that's a no for me) and that is really why she gets top billing. The films are a result not a cause.
The captain had a remarkably good record of safety. This likely both helped cause the accident (it is believed he didn't react quickly enough) and helped make it shocking that it happened at all.
It was a civilian ship, so we likely have a fuller picture of what happened helping to make the story interesting. Military vessels often cannot have their full story told for reasons of national security. The most compelling details may be classified, removing juicy tidbits from the public record.
Enough people survived to tell the tale in substantial detail, giving us compelling tidbits like "the band played on." One survivor was a socialite who became known as The Unsinkable Molly Brown and her life inspired both plays and films.
Some people see the sinking as an act of God, punishment for hubris because they bragged it was unsinkable. For people who want to believe in a spiritual view of things or karma, it's psychologically and emotionally compelling that they made the brag and then not only did it sink, it did so on the ship's maiden voyage. It's like a story a hack author would write to promote ideas like "Don't be a braggart, you foolish fool!" only it really happened.
"it is believed he didn't react quickly enough) and helped make it shocking that it happened at all."
Smith was born in 1850. Back then 52,000 tonne displacement ships were pretty rare (rocking horse shit rare).
I contend that the likes of Titanic were too complicated and too big and unsafe by design. Nowadays we have far bigger ships. I've sailed on a monster cruise ship into NOLA from the Gulf of Mexico - we overtook a tanker on the way upstream and the manoeuver took about 30 minutes. The really mad thing was that we all had to park up for several hours in a herringbone formation before entering port.
Huge stockpiles of coal means that you have loads of dust which is easy to ignite. We know she set sail with at least one fire on board.
The Captain (Smith) didn't stand a chance, in retrospect and in my opinion. There was way too much going on.
One study suggested the metal was unusually brittle and that is likely a significant factor in the disaster. Another found that the Captain's decision to leave the doors closed -- which has been questioned by some people -- was the right call and slowed the sinking. All other scenarios sank dramatically faster and had other issues, though I don't recall the details.
I can imagine that some sort of mistake in judgement occured rooted in confidence that was somewhat misplaced. His track record of safety was with ships other than the Titanic. I can also well imagine I've misspoken or misremembered and it was some other error that was made that was attributed to "overconfidence" due to his impeccable record.
But overall I agree that much was out of his hands and repeating what I've heard might be one possible factor is not intended to malign his character.
> I'm 50 and hence rather older than several films on the subject. Titanic has always been held up as the ship wreck within my lifetime for several reasons.
I’m 49 and agree with all of this. My father is 76 and it’s always held a fascination for him too. He had me read A Night to Remember which he himself had read as a kid. I remember following the discovery of the Titanic by Ballard with great fascination.
Because it is romantic. The "unsinkable" ship, one of the largest passenger ships ever built at the time, sinks on its maiden voyage. The first-class passengers live opulent lives with ballrooms and swimming pools and fine dining and the famous grand staircase, as steerage passengers are crammed in down below. When disaster strikes there aren't enough lifeboats to evacuate everyone, and as panic sets in the limited lifeboats are launched half empty or are mislaunched and freefall into the ocean. As the ship sinks the band plays on...
Sure, the Lusitania may be more "shocking," but it's certainly not more romantic.
The disaster of the Titanic had nothing to do with the casualties. It was mostly due to the fact that this ship was supposed to be unsinkable, indestructible and yet she sunk on her very first trip.
It's curious how in the last decade the upper price of a lego set has grown so much. Lego finally realized that there's an untapped adult market for lego sets. It's been fun to see that transition (despite the effect it's had on my wallet.)
The UCS series has consistently been expensive, but they were usually really expensive compared to the majority of sets available from LEGO. The vast majority of sets released in 2007 were much smaller and cheaper.
Whereas now there are multiple $500+ sets on sale concurrently, multiple sets that have multi-thousand-piece part counts. It's undeniable that in the last 10 years LEGO has significantly leaned into serving the adult market.
They make boat sets with little weighted keel pieces that will give them enough weight to sit nicely in the water; this might have some form of ballast inside it somewhere...
According to WP: "The density of surface seawater ranges from about 1020 to 1029 kg/m3"
According to WP: ABS is 1.060–1.080 g/cm3
Lego sinks in seawater.
If you saturate a beaker of water with salt then lets go here for some results because I can't be arsed to go back to school: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saline_water
Roughly 1.193 g/cm3 which is more dense than ABS so Lego will float in salt (NaCl) saturated water.
If we delve into 20th century maritime history, passenger accounts & disaster records of ships such as SS Lusitania or MV Wilhelm Gustloff were far more shocking to read, as compared to RMS Titanic.