 Titanic.com - Titanic News, Photos, Articles & Research | Forum Index Titanic news  TITANIC'S SISTERS
|
Browsing this Thread:
11 Anonymous Users
 Bottom  Previous Topic  Next Topic |
 1 |
|
|
|
|
|---|
Topic options
Threaded
Oldest First| Poster | Thread | Rated: 2 Votes |
|---|
|
Re: TITANIC'S SISTERS | #20 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2003/9/14
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users  |
As I remember it, Olympic's average passenger lists in 1912 were the worst of any year before the war, and it was not until 1922 (when third class traffic was falling rapidly) that she fell back to or below her 1912 levels. In 1920, she was actually at her most popular as far as average passenger lists go.
As regards passenger numbers falling, I don't have a list to hand. I remember some figures. In July 1912 she was sailing eastbound with 1,400-1,500 passengers, which was good but down on the 2,300+ she had carried eastbound in July 1911; yet on her first westbound crossing after the mutiny, in May 1912, she carried a little over 400 passengers. I did get together a table listing the passenger carryings year-by-year for my Olympic book, but it just gives Olympic and not other vessels for comparison -- as that data is incomplete even though I now have some I did not have at the time (2003-04). Best wishes, Mark. |
|||
|
_________________
Mark Chirnside, Warwickshire, England. 'RMS Olympic: Titanic's Sister.' |
||||
Posted on: 2007/4/2 15:30
  |
  |
|||
Mark Chirnside
Visit Website
|
Re: TITANIC'S SISTERS | #19 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2006/7/7
From New Mexico, USA
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Very interesting! You said that Olympic's 1912 lists are hard to compare because of the Hawk collision, cancelled voyage, and the Titanic. Was there a relative drop in passenger booking on Olympic right after Titanic sank? Maybe due to fear? I do remember reading that her crew actually went on strike until they recieved enough lifeboats.
|
||
|
_________________
"Why is it the ship beats the waves when the waves are so many and the ship is one? The reason is that ship has a purpose". Sir Winston Churchill www.mrmarshall.proboards62.com |
|||
Posted on: 2007/4/2 14:38
|
|
||
|
Re: TITANIC'S SISTERS | #18 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2003/9/14
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Absolutely -- life surprises, doesn't it?
In 1911 Mauretania's third class passenger lists were actually slightly better westbound, so it maybe that there's a lot of difference in the Southampton-NY and Liverpool-NY passenger routes. I have got the comparative figures for 1911, and Olympic's average passenger lists beat Mauretania in every category bar 'second class westbound,' but her real competition was in the other Southampton ships, not Mauretania from Liverpool. In 1913, Olympic's westbound third class passenger lists had the clear edge over the eastbound; and in 1914 (before the war's outbreak in August) they reverted to the 1911 situation, whereby eastbound passenger lists were higher than the westbound. By 1914, for every three westbound third class passengers, Olympic would be carrying about four eastbound in third class, but the difference is not nearly so marked as it was for 1911. Bear in mind that we don't have any 'full' years for comparison prior to the war. In 1911, Olympic missed the height of the season due to the Hawke collision, and was only in service from June anyway; 1912 figures are distorted by her cancelled voyage, Titanic's loss, low passenger lists, and her early withdrawal for a refit; in 1913, she only sailed from April onwards and not the full year; and in 1914 she sailed until August in peacetime but then the passenger figures got distorted enormously for few her post-August commercial voyages. Best wishes, Mark. |
|||
|
_________________
Mark Chirnside, Warwickshire, England. 'RMS Olympic: Titanic's Sister.' |
||||
Posted on: 2007/4/2 9:27
|
|
|||
|
Re: TITANIC'S SISTERS | #17 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2006/7/7
From New Mexico, USA
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Well, you know, I remember watching a documentary (it may have been Lost Liners), where a maritime historian explained that we forget that the trans-Atlantic liners were not just for bringing loads of passengers from Europe to America. On the contrary, there were many of immagrants that would work in the United States for a while, make their "fortunes", then return to their home countries.
From what I have read, 1907 was the first million immagrant year for the United States. Maybe by the time Olympic came into service, some of those early immagrants were starting to trickle back to Europe and such? |
||
|
_________________
"Why is it the ship beats the waves when the waves are so many and the ship is one? The reason is that ship has a purpose". Sir Winston Churchill www.mrmarshall.proboards62.com |
|||
Posted on: 2007/3/31 23:08
|
|
||
|
Re: TITANIC'S SISTERS | #16 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2007/3/27
From Maryland, United States
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
That is odd! One would think it reversed. But that's what makes life interesting; things aren't always predictable
 Daniel |
||
Posted on: 2007/3/31 22:04
|
|
||
|
Re: TITANIC'S SISTERS | #15 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2003/9/14
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Quote:
In 1911, Olympic's average passenger lists westbound were 533 first class, 304 second class and 441 third class; eastbound, she averaged 509 first class, 254 second class and 854 third class. Westbound you could say first class had the best passenger lists, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of capacity; whereas it was third class on the eastbound voyages -- oddly enough! Best wishes, Mark. |
|||
|
_________________
Mark Chirnside, Warwickshire, England. 'RMS Olympic: Titanic's Sister.' |
||||
Posted on: 2007/3/30 18:25
|
|
|||
|
Re: TITANIC'S SISTERS | #14 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2006/7/7
From New Mexico, USA
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Mark and Dan, thanks for the replies. Very well thought out. Interesting perspectives.
You know what, I know Titanic was not filled to full capacity, but I never really looked into what classes were not filled. Was there more vacancies in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd? Or were they all relatively even? Did Olympic have trouble filling a specific class on certain voyages more that the rest? Seems like the time period would implement that 3rd class would have the most berths filled up because of the immagrants. |
||
|
_________________
"Why is it the ship beats the waves when the waves are so many and the ship is one? The reason is that ship has a purpose". Sir Winston Churchill www.mrmarshall.proboards62.com |
|||
Posted on: 2007/3/30 15:42
|
|
||
|
Re: TITANIC'S SISTERS | #13 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2003/9/14
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Quote:
Hi Daniel, Olympic carried about the same number of passengers as Titanic on her westbound maiden voyage, and was practically fully booked on the return journey. For the time of year, Titanic's maiden voyage passenger list seems to have been a good one. Liners did not always sail fully booked, in fact far more often than not they did not sail at capacity. Best wishes, Mark. |
|||
|
_________________
Mark Chirnside, Warwickshire, England. 'RMS Olympic: Titanic's Sister.' |
||||
Posted on: 2007/3/30 9:36
|
|
|||
|
Re: TITANIC'S SISTERS | #12 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2007/3/27
From Maryland, United States
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Quote:
The Big 'U' as the SS United States was also called, is at the Walt Whitman Bridge in Pennsylvania. I intend to visit this summer. She isn't open for tours, but just a chance to see that ship is a treat in itself. She was the fastest ocean liner ever built, with 240,000 horsepower steam turbines, over a hundred thousand more than here nearest rival. She was designed by Francis Gibbs, the same man who designed the Missouri. She had a cruising speed of about 36 knots, and could attain a maximum speed of 43 knots, 20 in reverse. She was the last ship to take the Blue Riband. But I digress; this is a Titanic forum  Back to the subject at hand.I do believe that had Titanic not sunk, only ship buffs like us would know of her. Heck, if one is not a ship buff, Mauretania would be unknown to most, excepting the rare few who paid attention to its mention in Titanic at the beginning of the film. Given some of the events leading up to Titanic's launch, it was probably good that it was the Titanic and not the Olympic; she was not at full capacity on her maiden voyage (don't know if the Olympic was or was not, but there was a lengthy coal strike going on at the time, which disrupted schedules and though it ended on April 6th, only 922 passengers were aboard when she left Southhampton, picking up more at Cherbourg and Queenstown to bring the total to 1316, barely half of Titanic's capacity. Anyway, I don't think they're dumb questions at all Daniel |
||
Posted on: 2007/3/29 23:35
|
|
||
|
Re: TITANIC'S SISTERS | #11 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joined: 2003/9/14
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Hi MGY Friend,
Quote:
While it's true that it has been claimed that Olympic was less popular, if we look at her passenger lists (on average) and the total number of passengers carried each year, a different picture emerges. Throughout the 1920s, Olympic had a clear edge over Mauretania and her average passenger lists were higher. To my mind this is an important comparison, in that Mauretania was -- shall we say -- her closest rival when Olympic was being designed (albeit on the Liverpool route rather than Southampton-NY). As for Aquitania she had an edge on Olympic, as in the late 1920s Aquitania was averaging 900-1,000 passengers per crossing compared to Olympic's 800-900 passengers. This was to be expected as she was newer and Cunard had designed her to be an improvement, as well as spending more money on modernisation than White Star had spent on Olympic. However, Olympic's first class carryings stand up well in comparison to Aquitania's first class passenger carryings. You may wish to read my Olympic retirement article at www.markchirnside.co.uk Best wishes, Mark. |
|||
|
_________________
Mark Chirnside, Warwickshire, England. 'RMS Olympic: Titanic's Sister.' |
||||
Posted on: 2007/3/29 23:00
|
|
|||
 Top Previous Topic Next Topic |
1 |
 |
|
You cannot start a new topic.
You can view topic.
