WesWorld

Sinking them will be harder.

Olympic will take 5.

Normandie will take 7.

Marianne, when finished, will take 13.

So what odds will the bookies give for multiple hits?

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10 You know, I was looking at the data for Olympic (II)...

Quoted

Length to Beam Ratio: 11.11 : 1

... which is way too high for a vessel >8000 tons...

*Places bets on the Olympic breaking in two when she tops out at 40 knots*

rassin' frassin'.... report fixed.

And Oceanic can take 6.

Quoted

Do the Length to beam ratio apply to civilian ships?

As far as I know, it applies to any design >8000... though I would ignore it if a historical design is used (but then, how many historical designs are there that are >8000 tons and have a L:B ratio >10:1?)

Quoted

Sinking them will be harder.

Not as hard as you think...
Springsharp notes on Ocean Liners:

Quoted

Ocean Liners: These are a special class of merchant ships

Springsharp notes on Merchant ships:

Quoted

Also, for civilian merchant ships, divide crew and damage survival values by 10 - they have small crews, and lack the extensive compartmentation of naval ships.

... so that would mean that, since the liners are civilain merchant ships, they can only take 1/10 of the shell and torpedo damage that the report gives.

You know, I was looking at the data for Olympic (II)...

Quoted

Block coefficient: 0.478

Seems rather low for a vessel that big... I expect it more to be around 0.6 or more for a liner...


Regarding the crew and damage stuff in my previous post...

I looked back at my early 1920s design liner as I remembered that I used slighly different values for that one.

A liner needs a bigger crew than a normal merchant ship and so instead of dividing the value by 10, I divided it by 2. I did the same for the torpedo damage value, but kept the shell damage value as merchant vessel (divided by 10).

I made a rough sim of the Wilhelm Gustloff some hours ago (... unfortunately forgot to save it). The sim could take about 5 torpedo hits. Divide it by 2 give you 2.5 hits (thus 3 hits are needed to sink Gustloff, which matches the number of torpedo hits scored by Marinesko's S-13 historically).

As I forgot to save it, I can't exactly remember the crew figure given, but it was about 21-22,000 tons normal. The Kongo's normal displacement is about the same size so that would mean a complement figure given of about 900-1200. The Gustloff crew was given to be some 400-450 or so, so that would mean either dividing the lower value by 2 or the upper value by 3 to get the crew figure for a liner. I think more sims of historical liners and compare the figures with the real life crew would give a better idea, but as I see it, dividing the crew by 2 gives a reasonably close figure as to how big the crew is on a liner... at least better than dividing it by 10 anyway...

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
You know, I was looking at the data for Olympic (II)...

Quoted

Block coefficient: 0.478

Seems rather low for a vessel that big... I expect it more to be around 0.6 or more for a liner...

Well, that's the reason it was originally narrower; Any higher BC, and it needs more than 6 shafts, which seemed excessive, even given her expected speeds.

End result is, she's a bit narrower at the fore and stern than most liners, especially at/below the waterline, hence her modest capacity for her size. Not much of a way around it given Springsharp's way of handling high-speed ships.

I think the speed is excessive. How many ships existed in the 1930s that had a speed of 40 knots? (and with "ship" I mean something that is a lot bigger than those small MTBs) When it comest to Ocean Liners, the fastest liner I can think of is the current holder of the Blue Riband (westbound) the SS United States and its maximum speed is given as 38.3 knots.

Actually I thought 40 knots was abit excessive too and as Stuart has said she suffers in the crew capacity department because of it, which for a luxury liner can be a career killer.

The Manxman class minelayers were in the 40 knot department but that was what, 1938?, and they certainly were no liners.

Don't know, but 1938 sounds good enough. So that is one class of ships of the how many classes that existed in the 1930s?


Using the next values per class:
1st Class => 20 tons/passenger
2nd Class => 10 tons/passenger
3rd Class => 3.6 tons/passenger

and keeping it fairly simple will give you 300 first class, 300 second class and 800 third class for a total of 1400 passengers. But that is assuming that there will be a third class and from what I read in one of Shinra's posts, that is doubtful.

Considering that at full speed, it will be vaporizing about 270 tons of oil per hour, or about 6515 tons per day, I do agree with Stuart that "the White Star Line will go broke fueling Olympic II". Now Shinra stated that "Olympic's unlikely to run every voyage at high speed", but I would assume that since its cruising speed is 36 knots, that will be its regular service speed. That would mean 184 tons/hour or 4416 tons/day which is still a lot. Going across the Atlantic and back will require almost 30000 tons of fuel.

Regarding the "Olympic is hoped to cash in on enticing more high-paying customers in better accomodations and a reputation for speed" bit.

Now, if the French facilities are good and they offer their tickets for a much lower price, then that might be the end of Olympic. Also if people want to go really fast, they're more likely to travel with an airship across the Atlantic.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
Now, if the French facilities are good and they offer their tickets for a much lower price, then that might be the end of Olympic. Also if people want to go really fast, they're more likely to travel with an airship across the Atlantic.

If they want to get there FAST, they'll fly via airplane, Luft Hansa is going to be inaugurating regular scheduled service between New York and Berlin in late 1936 using Fw-205 Condors, which cruise at 180 knots.

Even worse for Olympic I would say.

I am sure that the RCN will be happy to pick them up as auxiliary cruisers when to company gets into trouble

Heh. Fast troopships, more like.

The French Liners are undoubtedly not-too shabby, but White Star intends to continue upholding it's reputation for having the finest appointments aboard ship, which is likely to attract the richer customers, as historical;

5600 tons - 800 Tourist class (7 tons per passenger)
4000 tons - 300 Premier class (15 tons per passenger)
2000 tons - 80 Elite class (25 tons per passenger)
1900 tons - Cargo/Misc

Needless to say, should it really be needed, doubling Tourist class into conventional steerage at 3.5 tons per passenger would not be too difficult, bringing capacity from 1180 to 1980 with the simple addition of more beds to each cabin.

As for Fuel economy, there's a very simple solution for voyages not needing speed; Olympic should still be able to make 32 knots running 4 shafts at cruising RPMs.

As with the Deutschland from 30 years ago, it is likely that Olympic will run occasional voyages at high speed for PR reasons, but more often run at a slower (and more comfortable) pace for routine runs.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
Even worse for Olympic I would say.

No worse than the rest; with the coming advent of regular airplane flights, and the larger than historical (and still ongoing) airship service, Olympic should fare as well as any other liner; Between the historical American immigration restrictions of the period, competition from the air, and more large liners than historical, I suspect Oceanic, Normandie, Marianne, etc would start having trouble filling their berths, while Olympic will likely have a loyal customer base that prefers her reputation as a fast, luxurious ship....Just as her namesake did.

There are no plans to convert any White Star ships into auxilliary cruisers, as the concept was shown to be extremely outdated and unworkable during the Great War. However, their value as troopships is indeed an obvious one, and there's likely some poor fool in Halifax who's been told to find a way to turn them into 'cheap' fleet carriers, just as the option was investigated for the Queens and other ships historically.

If you want to go fast, you travel by Fw 205, but its uncomfortable given the flying altitude, and long as well. For reasonably fast and comfortable you take the airship. For palatial or dirt cheap you take the liner. It'll be some time before we get to fast and comfortable planes.

No argument on that from here: the Fw-205 is targetted to those for whom time is more important than comfort.

Hey! No stealing the "Elite" class!!!

The thing about Olympic is that it costs lots of money to build (it is twice as expensive as the Normandie), it costs lots of money to fuel (especially if it goes really fast across the Atlantic) and it costs lots of money to maintain. This means that the tickets need to be really expensive (even for the Tourist class) if it ever wants to become profitable and such a price will scare away potential passengers. The incredibly high cost of the vessel and the fact that the "loyal customer base" might not be big enough to counter the cost will mean that it will run into such problems much sooner than other ships and might drag WSL down with it...

... but that is how I see things.

I'm still not convinced Olympic gets a fair shake on passenger complement, as Canis had similar problems trying to use springsharp to design the historical United States (I've never been able to get a decent sim of the Shimakaze, either. SS doesn't handle high speeds well);
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?postid=23464#post23464

As I said previously, the problems you keep listing are ones that face all liners, and will face them all even harder as immigration slows down and competition from the air increases. Better to spend the money on a fast ship that'll be kept full, than a slower ship that'll be half empty. Yes, Olympic might eventually be a loss for White Star, but less of a loss than the slower giants being considered and built.

Quoted

I'm still not convinced Olympic gets a fair shake on passenger complement, as Canis had similar problems trying to use springsharp to design the historical United States (I've never been able to get a decent sim of the Shimakaze, either. SS doesn't handle high speeds well);

Well, Canis said:

Quoted

It won't work unless you drop her speed down to 27 knots, and she did over 40 supposedly on trials!

Looking at wiki yesterday (or was it the day before yesterday?), I found out that:

Quoted

The maximum speed of the United States was deliberately exaggerated, and kept obscure for many years. An impossible value of 43 knots (49 mph) was leaked to reporters by engineers after the first speed trial. The actual top speed - 38.3 knots (44.1 mph) - was not revealed until 1977.

(... okay... it was yesterday when I looked at it)
It would still be hard to sim the America at 38 knots, but it should be significantly easier than with a +40 knot speed.

I got something of a Shimakaze... but that was with the old HS rules and was more like a small cruiser than a cruiser-sized destroyer (coming it at just below 4000 tons).

Quoted

As I said previously, the problems you keep listing are ones that face all liners, and will face them all even harder as immigration slows down and competition from the air increases. Better to spend the money on a fast ship that'll be kept full, than a slower ship that'll be half empty. Yes, Olympic might eventually be a loss for White Star, but less of a loss than the slower giants being considered and built.

Immigration might go down but tourism will go up. This is the reason I use "Tourist Class" on my ship and most likely the reason you use it as well. It sounds cheap but not as cheap as "Third Class" but cheap as "Excellent Deal to get to the other side".

The problems I keep listing are the ones that will hit expensive ships much harder much sooner than cheap ships.

Considering that the other ships are cheaper than Olympic and carry more passengers, they can afford to charge less for a ticket than Olympic and thus attract more paying passengers. If you look at the list below (based on the tonnage list you posted in my Liner thread), you'll see that only the 'planned' QE is more expensive than the Olympic. And this list is only the construction cost. A fuel cost list and maintenance cost list will most likely reveal something similar.

1 - SS Normandie - $38.029 million
2 - RMS Queen Mary - $46.405 million
3 - Floating Palace II - $48.464 million
4 - SS Aquatanius - $50.726 million
5 - RMS Oceanic - $56.452 million
6 - SS Marianne - $58.780 million
7 - SS America - $64.753 million
8 - RMS Olympic - $73.060 million
9 - RMS Queen Elizabeth - $96.087 million

Now, the Floating Palace is about 1/3 cheaper than the Olympic to build, it'll be cheaper to fuel and cheaper to maintain. With Luxury about the same as Olympic and when Olympic just wastes its abilities whenever it travels at 32 knots, the Floating Palace is only 9 hours slower crossing the Atlantic (a distance of ~2800nm if I recall the figures I calculated yesterday correctly) than Olympic and the Floating Palace tickets can (and will) be significantly cheaper than the Olympic tickets because it can be afforded to be much lower as more passengers go onto the Floating Palace and the ship is cheaper (... and of course money is gained from the Vegas-sized casino). I doubt that the people will notice the 9 hours difference with so many things to do aboard the Floating Palace.

There is place for 80 Elite class passengers on the Olympic. If we assume that it is $1000 dollars for an Elite Ticket, that will give WSL $80,000 from those 80 tickets. To get the same amount of money from its Elite Tickets, the Floating Palace tickets can go as low as $201. Now if we keep all the additional costs to run the ship (and the construction cost) in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if the Floating Palace ticket could make the same profit as Olympic with $150 per ticket (or maybe even as low as $100). At $200/ticket, I can attract much more potential Elite Class passengers than at $1000/ticket, passengers who cannot afford a $1000 ticket but can afford a $200 ticket.

... but that is just a simple example. The more expensive your tickets are, the bigger the gap will be in ticket price with a cheaper rival.

... Of course I don't mind flinging a few more numbers at you. Simple example...


Olympic

Tourist: 800
Premier: 300
Elite: 80

vs

Floating Palace

Tourist: 1200
Business: 420
Elite: 398



We keep it simple and keep the Olympic prices like this:
Tourist: $20 ($16000)
Premier: $200 ($60000)
Elite: $2000 ($160000)

This will result in Olympic Ticket Gains for a full ship of $236,000 per crossing.


Now the Floating Palace owners go berserk and offer tourist places for a buck (just an example but it is a possibility to attract tourists) and the rest is cheaper than Olympic as well... something like this:
Tourist: $1 ($1200)
Business: $100 ($42000)
Elite: $500 ($199000)

This will result in Floating Palace Ticket Gains for a full ship of $242,200 per crossing... more than Olympic at much lower prices with the same luxury (except Tourist Class, but at a buck a ticket, they won't complain) and only 9 hours slower on the 2800nm trip across the Atlantic.

Conclusion: It is a bad thing to run the Olympic at such a low speed... Of course, running it at a higher speed makes it more expensive...

Conclusion 2: Running the Floating Palace on the Atlantic route will ruin the Olympic and WSL... oh wait! That is just something that happens in my visions.

Quoted

Conclusion 2: Running the Floating Palace on the Atlantic route will ruin the Olympic and WSL... oh wait! That is just something that happens in my visions.

If we really want to start delving this deep into the intracies of transatlantic economics, I find it hard to believe that the primarily American/European clientele will flock from the presitgious American/European lines to an Asian upstart crewed and owned liner in this time period, plus without a home country to 'base' out of for the route, I suspect the relevant taxes and duties imposed on such a foreign competitor would also do a great deal to reverse your anticipated profit margins, Roo.

I don't see a source for that wikipedia quote, while many of the cited sources on the United States article still list 'over 40 knots'. From my interpretation from reading various books and articles, the 'over 40 knots' figure was reached during trials, when the ship was run at a very light displacement, and other ideal conditions, with 38 knots being the maximum speed when loaded and fitted out.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc

Quoted

Conclusion 2: Running the Floating Palace on the Atlantic route will ruin the Olympic and WSL... oh wait! That is just something that happens in my visions.

If we really want to start delving this deep into the intracies of transatlantic economics, I find it hard to believe that the primarily American/European clientele will flock from the presitgious American/European lines to an Asian upstart crewed and owned liner in this time period, plus without a home country to 'base' out of for the route, I suspect the relevant taxes and duties imposed on such a foreign competitor would also do a great deal to reverse your anticipated profit margins, Roo.

I agree, particularily when you see the market is already flooded with liners.

SS Normandie
RMS Queen Mary
SS Aquatanius
RMS Oceanic
SS America
RMS Olympic
RMS Queen Elizabeth

...and soon the RMS Olympic II, Marianne and La Argentina, when the war ends and the Argentinians start paying the bills again....and the SS Posiedon will be laid down as well.