Yes, their have always been theories that Titanic's steel was indeed brittle. But I don't think its the case. Harland & Wolff was a top ship building business, one of the most expensive ones of its time. The White Star Line was one of their top customers, and H&W did their best to produce only top quality ships for them. Yard workers actually referred to Titanic's steel as "battleship quality". This was good steel. The steel Titanic used wasn't a new brand or anything, it was tried and tested. Thats why it was used. It was proven to last.

All this " Titanic steel was too brittle..." is a bunch of horse dung. Yes, they didn't have the steel tests like todays, but Titanic's steel was the best at that time.

Have you noticed WHERE they get the Titanic steel for these tests?

Not from a warehouse, but ---

RIGHT!! The bottom of the ocean!

Now, tell me, after almost a hundred years on the ocean floor, do you think that their steel analysis might be flawed?

Is Titanic's steel brittle NOW? Yes, it is.

Is Titanic's steel brittle THEN (1912)? No, it wasn't.

As for safety, you can blame the (really) outdated regulations for Titanic's lifeboat shortage, ect., and of course, the human factor can be added to the mix.

It's known that the lifeboat drill, which was scheduled for Sunday, was cancelled by Captain Smith, for reasons unkown (at least, me anyway).

Pride definitely was a major thing in Belfast. Everyone knew about what was going on at Harland & Wolff, since they employed a large portion of the town. Frances John Parkinson Jr. who's father, Frances John Parkinson Sr. was a woodworker and crafted some of Titanic's elegant doorways, talked about how when his dad heard of the disaster, he ran out the door because he had to buy a copy of this special newspaper and he cried when he read it. Ken Marschall described it very well, saying "Shipbuilding was Belfast at that time".

I would doubt she was ruched because, to an extent your countries pride went along with what they where building. You have to think of it in the context, for those breif four days, not only was Titanic the biggest passenger liner, she was larger than any military ship, or cargo vessel. Todays Queen Mary 2, though huge, is dwarfed, by the new American aircraft carriers (and soon the new british ones), and the new generation of cargo ship. So really, its all relative, as i said, countries pride rested with these ships to, somed up best, in my view, the battle between Normandie and the Queen Mary. Today, our pride is expressed else where, like the world cup, nations very credibility (well amongst the die hard footie fans atleast lol) rests on there boys (dont mean to be sexist) performance as they play against the worlds finest. Back then, that didnt really exist, Titanic was such an important, expression of determination and all the rest, to think the men who built her, bolted her together as fast as they can. Seems atleast to be a bit of a let down.

Yes, but we'll never know if Olympic would have been destroyed by the Germans or not. Olympic was pretty fuel efficient compared to other ships and had a great reputation with the public. "Old Reliable" is a good nick-name for Olympic. I'm sure the British could have possibly found another use for her besides scrap metal. Olympic is and always will be in Titanic's shadow, same as Britannic. The tragic story surrounding Titanic and the circumstances that it occured will always put them into the background. But I think both vessels have very interesting storys to tell.

I would of thought getting Olympic back out to sea would be the sensible thing to do, Titanic didnt need these parts at the time, get them on Olympic, make Titanic its new part, I mean its the sensible thing to do.

Olympic, well she lasted 24 odd years, survived the war, and was still in good condition, at the time of scraping, she unlike her modern counterparts, wasnt sprayed with anti corrosive compounds etc. In terms of keeping her....Doubtfall, She Would no doubt be Destroyed in the war, by the germans, or even the brits who needed the scrap iron. You may argue, well they kept Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, but remember, they still ran in service after the war. Keeping Olympic would be a costly exercise with no real benifit, and also, what kind of tribute is that, sister ship of the doomed Titanic. Olympic would just be in her sisters shadow

Bell is right, there is foundation for a argument on this issue. I don't believe Titanic was rushed necessarily, but I do see where the Harland & Wolff workers of course tried their hardest to do it as fast as possible. They needed the money to support their familes, and the faster they worked, the more money they got.

I do believe that the decision by H&W to use parts from the Titanic to help get the Olympic back into service as quickly as possible was the right thing to do. Lord Pirrie knew that Ismay was in the business to make money, and without the Olympic on the sea, they would definetly be hurting. Titanic was still in the fitting out stages, so not repairing Olympic as fast as possible and just taking their time would result in a greater loss of profit than just taking the parts already in place on Titanic and getting Olympic back out on the sea.

Also, Olympic's demise was definetly premature in my opinion, Mark Chirnside, author of "RMS Olympic: Titanic's sister" wrote a great article on this exact theory. It is quite interesting. Here is the link for it:

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/item/1502/

I believe it most likely was - the ship was doomed from the start, so many things were working against it.

Granted hindsight is only 20 20 - but for gods sake the rutter was even to small for the ship.

Harland and Wolf were so money hungry at one point after the Olympic was damaged they took parts from the Titanic to get the Olympic running again so they wouldn;t lose any more money ... what does that say about the company?

Niether the Titanic,Birtanic of Olympic stood the test of time well. 2 of the 3 sank, and Olympic was deconstucted for the final time in 1935. So again what does that say?


With all the history surrounding it one might think they would have kept the Olympic around.

No i meant i take what i said back lol, there isnt a thread up.....atleast as far as i can tell.

To say it was rushed, well, there probably is foundation of such an argument, the men who worked at harland were payed by how much the did, more you do the more you earn. That said, if you are doing the same thing over and over again all your working life, your bound to be quick at it.

bell i think your answer was rushed never mind the thread but i will take it back