Jump to content

Talk:RMS Mauretania (1906)

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

Straight bow - pitching in heavy weather

[edit]

Q: The article states: “Designed so that the ships could plunge through a wave rather than crest it, the unforeseen consequence was that the Cunard liners would pitch forward alarmingly, even in calm weather, allowing huge waves to splash the bow and forward part of the superstructure.”

Does the article mean “ploughed forward” instead of plunged forward ? Plunged implied pitch, rather than uninterrupted progress. The straight bow was designed to go through waves , not pitch up, which reduces speed, but keeps the deck from being washed over green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.178.8.8 (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ship design and construction

[edit]

In the book "How it is done or Victories of the engineer" By_Archibald Williams from pages 73-116 the design and construction of the RMS Mauretania is shown. The RMS Mauretania is being used as a very detailed example of what a, then, "Modern Ship" needed in order to be designed and built. Many photos are included of the building of the RMS Mauretania from the keel building to the building of its turbine engines.(CaptianNemo (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?id=ykgwAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA73#v=onepage&q&f=false

Hi, I've adjusted the inflation adjusted loan to 2015 because CURRENTYEAR (2016) fails - no data yet. However I notice that the Template:Inflation template explicitly says don't use it for capital values - perhaps we should remove the adjusted value. --Drpixie (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laid up

[edit]

Question - what does "laid up" mean (technically) and what is a "breaker's yard"? I think these terms should either be scrapped in favor of something more readily understood by novices or linked to the proper terminology. Istvan 02:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Laid up means that it is taken out of service. In the meanwhile it may still be maintained on minor scale. BoH 21:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer agreeing with the person above - "Laid up" means that a vessel has been removed from service and is being stored somewhere until it is either resored to service, sold to another company or sent to the shipbreakers (Breakers).

Regards Flexcoupling 07:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Blue Ensign

[edit]

Why does it show the Blue Ensign and not the Red Ensign? BoH 21:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can mean several things but the normal one for a ship of the era of the Mauretania is that the captain (the ship had many captains throughout her 28 year service) would normally be an officer in the Royal Navy Reserve which allowed him to fly the Blue Ensign instead of the standard Red Ensign.

Regards Flexcoupling 07:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The Mauretania

[edit]

This article goes back and forth between referring to the ship as "the Mauretania" and just Mauretania. Is there a proper or preferred way to do refer to a ship? Should the article consistently use one or the other? Xous 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of books I've read use "the" and "she". Enigma3542002 04:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christening and Launching

[edit]

Traditionally, when a ship was launched, it was also christened- that is blessed and given a name, with a bottle broken over her bow. So the Mauretania was launched and christened at the same moment.Gary Joseph 03:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, based on what I've read. Enigma3542002 04:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mauretania Bar in Bristol?

[edit]

The bar mentioned in the article, supposedly now called Bar III, where in Bristol is it? I can't find it. Does it still have that name? Does anybody know the longitude/latitude? Thanks --Ragemanchoo (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom of Park Street, very obvious Redcliffe maven (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Location

[edit]

"The ship's name was taken from Mauretania a Roman Province on the North-East African Coast,"

You're right. It's fixed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:The full deck plans of the RMS Mauretania circa 1906.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:The full deck plans of the RMS Mauretania circa 1906.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turbines, props

[edit]

I couldn't find a good article on the history of marine steam turbine propulsion. Mauretania and Lusitania must have been among the first transatlantic liners to employ it, no?

PS: Caption refers to "Mauretania's original three-bladed propellors." Were they replaced with something else? Sca (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with the Olympic class

[edit]

What is the point of this section? I can't think of any other articles where we have this sort of comparison of ship classes (Lusitania has essentially the same section). Why not post a detailed comparison with the RMS Aquitania or the German Imperator class or the CGT's SS France (1912)? There is nothing comparable in the articles about the Queen Mary and the SS Normandie who really were very intense rivals. Further the section reads like an advertisement for the Olympic class to the point where it raises some serious WP:DUE concerns. Indeed if it had been written a hundred years ago my guess is that White Star would have paid the author handsomely. But my secret suspicion is that this is fan cruft from one or more Titanic enthusiasts who never stop looking for opportunities to insert some reference to the object of their unrequited love anywhere possible. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't consider myself to be an enthusiast of any type, and have but one edit here, but have over 50 on the page for Lusitania and if memory serves, I did contribute to the comparison section there. Both Lusitania and Titanic were lost, both losses were the subjects of similar inquiries, and those inquiries show how the designs of these vessels contribute to the manner of their sinking. On a less technical subject, these ships were rivals and competed at every level (as did trains in their heyday, and aircraft now). None of these methods of conveyance existed in a vacuum, and differences between and among competitors are legitimate inquiries. Kablammo (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Mauretania was powered by the then-new steam turbines - IIRC, the first large ship to be so powered - whereas the Olympic class were powered by the older reciprocating engines. As the two ships were otherwise built to broadly similar designs to the same purpose a comparison between the two is therefore useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.249 (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly Lusitania and Mauretania are the only two articles that have this strange section. It feels unnecessary as this isn’t an article about the Olympic Class as the section contains mostly technical information better left to the Olympic’s article. And conversely there is no similar comparison on any of the Olympic class ship articles, or any other of the era’s large express rivals to Maury or Olympic. I’m going to be bold and delete. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on RMS Mauretania (1906). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RMS_Mauretania_(1906)&oldid=1231662115"