Jump to content

Talk:Costa Concordia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 94.101.120.73 (talk) at 21:32, 17 January 2012 (→‎Past tense?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Why draft and draught?

Why are there entries for draft and draught in the specs column? Are they not the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.168.160 (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's obviously an error. Could someone check the draft from a reliable source and remove the incorrect one? Passenger ships rarely have more than one operating draught since they don't take that much "cargo" and the changes in draft due to consumed fuel etc. are usually compensated with water ballast. Tupsumato (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Draft is the American spelling, draught is the English spelling. I've removed the incorrect (unsourced) measurement, leaving the measurement sourced from the Fakta om Fartyg website. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've also corrected my typo in the ibx, Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refloat

It will be refloated surely ? Even if its an insurance write off to the current owner, surely someone will refloat it and repair it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.147.167 (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It the tore in the hull is really 60 meters long, as reported, then it must have been a high-speed or high-powered collision. The keel is probably wrecked and the ship must be at least cut in half or three parts, before the individual pieces can be refloated and towed away for the breakers. If fact, these ships were originally built from modules, two or three of them, each one containing dozens of pre-fabricated "lego blocks" of several hundred tons of weight. Maybe the wreck should be left where it is to serve as a memento mori? 87.97.51.159 (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you see the slideshow of damage, you may think that it can't be refloated. I have no knowledge, but imagine that it'll be eventually cut up & removed for scrap value, to reduce any further potential environmental damage, stop people putting themselves at risk by visiting or trying to board the shipwreck, and remove the 'eyesore'. It would be interesting to hear news on the owners' intentions. Trafford09 (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTCRYSTAL. It's not our job to speculate on what may and may not happen, merely to report what reliable sources say has happened. If ya ask me, a bit of filler and some duck tape and she'll be a good-'un . Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why such speculation is taking place on the talk page, not the article.--RadioFan (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will be scrapped on site. The salvage value is enormous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.34.105 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORUM. "...bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article..." JunCTionS 21:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC). Seems like nobody read this. This discussion should take place in any of the many forums online and not in this talk page. 217.216.30.226 (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think the ship could be re-floated, repaired, and returned to service. If you remember; the damage to the USS Cole (DDG-67) [1] was quite extensive, yet it was repaired, and has since returned to service. The damage to this vessel looks very similar in nature. The real question is; Who would want to sail on the vessel after it was repaired?--Subman758 (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that the Costa Concordia weighs some six-seven times as much as the USS Cole, so refloating and righting her will be difficult especially in shallow water. For sure the ship will be removed, but will it be in one piece? Surely that will be something that we will add to this article when it happens! If they can remove the ship more or less intact, the damage can quite likely be repaired and the ship can be returned to service after a long stay at a shipyard. As for the willingness of the passengers to return, this is not the first ship that has been involved in a serious incident. If there will be long-lasting effects, they will affect to the whole cruise industry.
Anyway, until official sources give a statement regarding the future of the vessel, the article should treat her "as is, where is" and not begin to speculate, as per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Let's keep an eye on what happens and update the article when new information emerges. Tupsumato (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ship will probably be written off and scrapped, so the cruise line can cash in on the insurance money fast, for example to cover compensation and lawsuit expenses. On the other hand, the insurance company does not want to object too much and drag leg, so other customers having big insurance contracts do not feel FUD and hurt the business. A refloat-rebuild could take years and the result would be dubious at best.
Furthermore, the successfully refurbished Cole was a warship, built for twice the speed and much worse open ocean meteo conditions and to take battle damage. The structure of a giga-cruise-liner cannot be compared to a ship of the line! (Not to mention the difference between the quality and strenght of Bethlem Works made US structural steel and italo-russian steel, which any unfortunate FIAT 124 owner can attest to, versus those F150 rednecks...) 91.82.36.49 (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, naval ships and cruise ships can not be compared. The latter are generally much more complex and more difficult to design, as economical aspects must also be taken into account. As for US built quality, you might want to take a look at the most recent cruise ship your yards attempted to build... ;) Tupsumato (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone find details of the design of this ship, or any of its sister ships? It would help Wiki users understand some of the issues relating to this incident by reference to hull profiles, schematics of the construction (eg: bracing, ribs, use of watertight chambers, even hull thickness). I am not a naval architect but would find more factual background useful. Perhaps access to a "Boy's Own" type cutaway drawing (showing engine placement, use of electric thrusters, and backup systems) would help temper some of the more extreme speculation. Do shipbuilders publish a list of the electronic navigation aids installed on these craft? Links to sources of information would be sufficient 86.176.89.251 (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Concordia was classified by Registro Italiano Navale, so you might be able to get some info from their website. Mjroots (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, much appreciated. I will investigate further. 22:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.167.163 (talk)
As far as I know RINA does not have a public online database like e.g. DNV, so finding detailed information might be difficult. As for general arrangements or steel drawings, I seriously doubt that they can be found online. Doesn't hurt to look, though. You can probably find some information from the maritime publications that came out when the ship was completed. Tupsumato (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current News Alert

I think the current news notice needs to be added to this article. I would do it myself but I am not sure where to even begin looking for the right code Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --RadioFan (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that'ts the notice I was meaning. (Sorry forgot to log in) Magnum Serpentine (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loss?

Ship now showing on webcams as lying on her side. It is likely that she will be declared a total loss. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I think it is. [2] Goodvac (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Costa Cruises

Costa have issued a statement about the loss. Suggest that if this is used, a link via the Wayback machine or similar is provided. Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect page

Following other precendent in wikipedia, it would be prudent to start a page Shipwreck of the Costa Concordia and redirect it back to here for now. Also, if the details of the shipwreck continue to expand, the content can be pasted in there (since this article is primarily about the boat, not the accident). ChrisUK (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've already done it! 12:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Grounding vs Sinking vs Wreck vs Foundered

So I get that the ship ran aground, but for all intents and purposes, she sank, and is now a wreck. If she had drifted into slightly deeper water, there would be nothing left to see. I think we can compare Concordia to MS Sea Diamond and consider changing the heading from Grounding to Sinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A ship is said to founder when it fills with water and sinks. This ship meets this definition, but since it is in shallow water it is only partially submerged. The ship is not grounded as it is on it side. This ship could also be declared a wreck. Note that it is not a ship anymore since it doesn't float. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.18.96 (talk • contribs)
You are correct in that if it had been deeper water the ship would have sunk. Technically, she is aground with an 80° list. A similar situation to MS Riverdance in 2008. I wouldn't worry to much about such details at the moment, they can be sorted out once an official announcement is made as to the fate of the ship. For now, let's keep the article updated from reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it is routine to tow a ship that has grounded off the bottom or a sand bar. If you call on the radio "I have grounded on a sandbar" it is not an emergency. The vessel was materially wrecked and the Captian steered her into shallow water. Agound with an 80 degree list is much better than partially capsized which suggests she is not on the bottom and is floating on her own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.18.96 (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the complete absence of the word SINK from this entire article (with the sole exception of the line "the shipping line initially insisted there was no danger of sinking") is actually a significant problem. It smacks of an article that has been processed through new-speak in order to remove commercially harmful language. It's really perfectly simple: this ship has sunk and is now a wreck. Please update the article accordingly. Fig (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then where's your reliable source that says the ship has sunk? Goodvac (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A ship doesn't have to sink to be wrecked. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, but "wreck" is already established in the article. I just object to saying the ship has sunk when sources have not reported it. Goodvac (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google the phrase "Costa Concordia sunk" and get 5,790 results. Fig (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found one source that says the ship has sunk. Two that say the ship is sinking. Considering the controversial nature, we shouldn't say the ship has sunk (which has the connotation of the ship's being irretrievable) until high-quality reliable sources have reported it (such as Reuters, Associated Press, AFP, or other major news agencies). Goodvac (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I just found this USA Today article that states "The 114,500-ton Costa Concordia is the largest ship ever to sink." I'm no longer opposed to including "sink" in the article. That article was actually from expertcruiser.com Goodvac (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are Google search results generally accepted as a benchmark when deciding which wording to use in the article, especially in today's world where everyone can say anything about everything? Tupsumato (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no shipping expert, but in the form of English I'm familiar with, sinking means ending up under water. So this ship hasn't sunk. HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's certainly "wrecked aground" not sunk. Selery (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think sinking could be a correct term. It is not run around, that is significantly less worse. A ship run around is not materially unable to float but rather hung up on the ground or reef etc. If it was wrecked in deeper water and just the funnels were visible then most people would say it sunk. If a ship is wrecked due to taking on too much water, hasn't it sunk because it was no longer floating? Even if it lying on its side? And this ship is certainly wrecked. The side of the ship lacks the structure to support the ship. The nonvisible side will certainly be crushed beyond repair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.18.96 (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The word wreck also doesn't appear anywhere in the body text (it appears in a caption, and in links). This looks like an attempt to sanitise the article. This is clearly not a grounding - groundings are solved by towing at high-tide or by adding floatation aids. That clearly isnt going to happen here. Fig (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But then again grounding was the initial event that caused the incident. Evacuation was already well underway when the ship settled to the bottom without catastrophic consequences. If there was a fire on a passenger ship and it sank afterwards, would the article be named "Unlucky ship fire" or "Unlucky ship sinking"? As for "sanitizing", I would also try to avoid using words that do not accurately describe what happened. Personally I will refer to the ship as "wreck" once it is certain that it can not be saved. We'll probably get some sources regarding the issue once the passengers have been rescued and people have time to think what to do with the wr... ship. Tupsumato (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The most similar situation is the MS Herald of Free Enterprise. That article says it capsized. And yet the Herald while on its side was only partially submerged. MS Riverdance is not a good alternative as that ship was beached. - fdewaele, 16 January 2012, 19:01 CET.

Nautical chart

There's a chart of Giglio here: (click on "(+) Visualizza la Tavola I.I.M.") The grounding area looks like it's marked as 6 fathoms (11 meters) but navigable (white) which generally means no reefs or rocks. Does anyone know whether she ran aground where she lies, or somewhere else? Selery (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, she hit a "sandbar" some distance off the island and attempted to reach port there. All will become clear in the next few days. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, there's nothing along the path at [3] which could possibly be shallow enough. I guess we'll have to wait to find out. But, don't we know that many passengers were already disembarked on Giglio at the time of the accident, right? That implies she was at least close to port already. Selery (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, where does it say anything about fathoms in the link you provided?

There is a better nautical chart here: http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/01/14/foto/le_scole_ecco_gli_scogli_sulle_carte_nautiche-28110610/1/
The Wikepedia description of the post-rock course seems impossible ["This reef was about 800 metres (870 yd) north of the entrance to the harbour of Giglio. The vessel continued for approximately another 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) until just north of the harbour entrance. The vessel then turned in an attempt to get close to the harbour."] How can the ship be 800 yds North, then go another 1000 North and still be "just North"? Perhaps the "reef" was the one 800 yds South (not North) of the harbour? There are rocks SOUTH of the harbor that could have been the impact point. This is the "reef" circled by Repubblica on its chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.214 (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article distinctly said the reef was 800 m north and the vessel continued for another 1 km north of the harbour. What is this nonsense about the distance being 800 "yds" and 1000 "yds"? Why are you changing the quoted distances? Since it was officially measured in metres, leave it that way, otherwise you just corrupt the data. This is just plain ignorance.

Because la Republica is reporting, as confirmed by the WSJ, that the impact rock is indeed the outcrop "Le scole", which is South of Giglio Porto, I have now entered that info into to main text of the article, with both citations. I have not yet "corrected" the article's assertion that "this reef was... north of...the harbour" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.214 (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friday the 13th

Is it really necessary to point out it was Friday the 13th so explicitly? It seems rather sensationalist to flaunt superstition in this way. 67.163.102.158 (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be looking at an old version. It was removed earlier. And I agree, including that was tasteless. Goodvac (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, naming the day is against the MoS. I've removed this a second time, and added an edit note. Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map

The Italy map was removed in this edit by Goodvac (talk · contribs). I appreciate that there is a map of the port area showing where the ship came to grief, but the map I added showed the location of the wreck in relation to Italy. Should the map be reinstated or not? What do other editors think?

The other map shows the wreck in relation to Italy in the top right corner. Goodvac (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shows the wreck in relation to Tuscany, not Italy. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then the smallest box in the top right. Goodvac (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, maybe. Let's see what others think. Not worth a war over though. Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both maps are worth including with the focus being on the one which shows the site in relation to Italy.--RadioFan (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is the best http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/01/14/foto/le_scole_ecco_gli_scogli_sulle_carte_nautiche-28110610/1/
Nautical charts are much better that terrestrial maps at given info re coastlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.214 (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the bulk of the info on the grounding has been moved to that article, I've reinstated the map. Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AIS

Marine Traffic site using AIS information reports that the ship was going at approximate 15.5knots. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.151.21 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that's a fascinating trace. Assuming the arrowheads represent regular updates, it looks to me as if a couple of readings have been removed - presumably for legal reasons. They are precisely the ones that would show how close the vessel actually came to the headland. Chris55 (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources with new info

Goodvac (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that [5] is a news radio agency report current within the hour and quotes the Governor of Grossetto saying the missing persons count is down to 41. Selery (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures on Commons!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rvongher Selery (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bad verbage

"before a lifeboat drill starting in Savona and visiting Marseille, Barcelona, Palma, Tunis, and Palermo." This makes it sound as if the drill lasted the whole time the ship traveled between these locations. If that's not what you meant, reword this. 4.249.201.74 (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Cruises notices pages about accident

Here is a listing of the Costa Cruises news release pages about the Concordia, by language. The non-English languages are posted to assist with Wikipedia work on other language Wikipedias.

There doesn't seem to be a central list (like on a Costa-dedicated corporate site) but there are various versions in different languages. The news releases are available in English, Italian, Spanish, French, German, and Portuguese. Other regions may have websites in other languages, but the accident news release pages are in English. There are various versions, with some differing information (contact phone numbers) corresponding to different regions. Some page versions do not list phone numbers. As time passes there may be a possibility that some pages won't update, or will update later than others.

English:

German:

French:

Italian:

Portuguese:

Spanish:

Non-English pages using English news releases, but can also be used as links in respective non-English Wikipedias:

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUMMARY for Costa Concordia disaster

I'm updating at Costa Concordia disaster because with 14,200 Google News hits already and the largest cruise liner grounding in history, I believe it merits its own article and the section in this one should be reduced to WP:SUMMARY style.

Here are some updates:

Selery (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the largest ship ever to sink." -- USA Today Selery (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, passenger ship[6]. Selery (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense?

There's a little flurry of activity turning descriptions of the ship's amenities into past tense, e.g. changing "has four swimming pools" to "had four swimming pools". I don't think this is appropriate yet. HiLo48 (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. She still very much exists, so everything should still be in the present tense. If in the future she were to be scrapped, that would be the appropriate time to make these changes to past tense. I just changed a few occurrences back to present tense. --Lest69 (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still happening though! diff - 220 of Borg 11:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the ship is declared constructive total loss, I think we could safely change the tense from present to past. Until then it's still a ship that can potentially be saved and put back to service. Tupsumato (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At minimum, it will take weeks to refloat the ship and get it off the bottom. The gash along the side would have to be fixed by underwater divers. Then it will need to be towed to dry dock, have the gash fixed plus all damage from resting on its side. Anything electrical will have to be fixed along with all water damage. It might be fair to say it "was" a cruise ship. It may be a cruiseship in the future, but it is not now since it materially cannot serve its purpose of taking on passengers since it is 40% underwater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.18.96 (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STOP WITH THE PAST TENSE SHE WAS NOT DELCARED A TOTAL LOSS YET! --Yankeesman312 (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only present tense is appropriate. It still "has 1,500 cabins"! At some point it will be wrecked, at which point the tense should change. Don't go thinking anyone will salvage this boat by the way. It can't be "towed to dry dock and fixed". The superstructure is beyond repair. Even if it were possible no-one wants to cruise the med on a shipwreck! 94.101.120.73 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could be declared a loss

Industry experts believe Costa will only be insured for 500 million dollars, which isn't enough to rebuild her. Total Loss?. --Yankeesman312 (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hit by an Israeli sub?

Um, the article says that the ship hit an Israeli submarine... Ttow1944 (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more, (unless the Israelis are fiendishly clever at camouflage and disguised their sub as a rock reef. RS for that?) and the editor who did that edit, and was repeatedly vandalising the page was blocked @ 02:17, 15 January 2012. - 220 of Borg 03:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ship's Course: The location of the "Reef" and path of subsequent maneuvering

The Wikepedia description of the post-rock course seems impossible ["This reef was about 800 metres (870 yd) north of the entrance to the harbour of Giglio. The vessel continued for approximately another 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) until just north of the harbour entrance. The vessel then turned in an attempt to get close to the harbour."] How can the ship be 800 yds North, then go another 1000 North and still be "just North"? Perhaps the "reef" was the one 800 yds South (not North) of the harbour? There are rocks SOUTH of the harbor that could have been the impact point. This is the "reef" circled by Repubblica on its chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.214 (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Because la Republica is reporting, as confirmed by the WSJ, that the impact rock is indeed the outcrop "Le scole", which is South of Giglio Porto, I have now entered that info into to main text of the article, with both citations. I have not yet "corrected" the article's assertion that "this reef was... north of...the harbour" Steve-O — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.214 (talk)

I have now removed the sentence "This reef was about 800 metres (870 yd) north of the entrance to the harbour of Giglio." It had no direct footnote and the next footnote, presumably by the same editor, cited la Repubblica, a newspaper which, as I cited, states the the "reef" was "le scole" which is south, not north, of the harbour. With respect, I let stand that editor's other statements about post-reef maneuvering, which now make more sense. Time will tell and this will all be much more certain in a day or two.

Better way of linking to disaster article

I posted a proposal on the use of Template:Current related with an example taken from this article. Comments welcome. DarTar (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation - which agency?

Who is going to do the technical investigation into the accident?

http://www.amem.at/pdf/AMEM_Marine_Accidents.pdf says it would be the "Commissione Centrale di Indagine sui Sinistri Marittimi" CCISM - At www.guardiacostiera.it Is this true?

We need to have a Wikipedia article on the authority who will do the technical investigation WhisperToMe (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked that question at WT:SHIPS and got the same answer. Hopefully, with the weekend over, an official announcement of the investigation being opened will be made. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propulsion

Might be good to add more detail on the propulsion system. It's apparently diesel-electric, with two motors of either 21 or 34 MW each, but I'm having trouble finding a good source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, diesel-electric with traditional shafts. Since the total installed power is around 75 MW (six Wärtsilä 12V46 medium-speed engines), I would assume that the rating of the propulsion motors is closer to 21 than 34 MW, but of course we need a source for that. Unfortunately RINA does not have a public database. Any change of finding maritime publications from the time the ship was delivered? The basic data should be in one of them. Tupsumato (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found one that's available online. Might have to go to an actual library. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Displacement mis-quoted?

The 51k tons of displacement in the data table looks excessive to me. Wasn't the 250 meter long Bismarck circa 50k tons, clad in 33cm thick Wotan armour and wide as a pregnant hippo, with four massive and a dozen smaller gun turrets on top? There the windguards were probably thicker than the hull plating of the Costa. What could displace 51k tons of water on Costa, when the pre-fabricated cabins are mostly made of plaster and light metal frame and most of the interior space is indeed the empty space of atriums?

BTW, it would be interesting to know if a sturdier north atlantic ship, like the QE2 could have survived the same rock-scraping event? Reportedly the QE2 hull plating is 28mm steel, app. double of what's usual on Med-sea and Caribbean giant cruise ships. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the displacement is around 50,000 tons based on the main dimensions (Lwl ~270m * B 35.5m * T 8.2m * rho_w 1.025 kg/m3 * lambda ~1.006 * C_B ~0.6 approx 49000 tons). The block coefficient is probably larger, so 51k tons seems reasonable. As for QE2, I think the result would have been more or less the same. Those inch-thick plates are not that strong. Tupsumato (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Cb likely .65 or more. QE2 perhaps finer for speed which would mean lower dp if the product of underwater dimensions is the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.151.107 (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem I have with the displacement is that it is unreferenced. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True. We should find one ASAP as quite many sources already quote her displacement as 114,000+ tons i.e. mix it with gross tonnage. Tupsumato (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "See also" section

This section has been removed twice now. As far as I can tell, the section is relevant, and three of the vessels mentioned are of direct relevance to this loss. I'm not sure that Express Samina is relevant, but will open that one up to discussion. If any editor has any strong opinions on those ships listed, or feels that there are better candidates for inclusion, please say so. The section should be kept as short as possible (say 4 max) as we can't list every shipwreck here. Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely relevant in the article about the disaster, but not necessarly in the article about the ship itself. Tupsumato (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See alsos should be limited to links that would be included in text of a comprehensive article on the subject. The subject here is the ship. None of these other vessels has anything to do with this ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.154.206 (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Costa_Concordia&oldid=471933546"