Now,on the crest of Titanic-movie fans,and the growth of passenger shipping(of the more declasse sort),I have thought 86,000,but also 93,000,for the "Titanic-Times-Two" and since it is still smaller than the megacruisers and thus no longer unexplored territory.
The Cunard Queen Mary 2,in any event,is the one that it's important to be bigger than...unless it is NOT a "true oceanliner" despite their claims. The size,dimensions,capacity,and itinerary of this ship are not formally decided yet...there were reports it would be 85,000 grt,merely larger than any true liner ever,but it was also described as larger than the 109,000 ton Grand Princess...neither from a primary source.The question was whether Cunard's "largest ever" pledge applies to beating the Queen Elizabeth,the Grand Princess,or the Eagle...figures of 100,000 (actually on a forthcoming-ships list) and 120,000 were also seen.When "nearly 150,000" was announced,the question shifted to whether the ship's design would really bear out their loud claims that it would be a "true oceanliner".They talk the talk mightily,but will they walk(sail) the walk? The ship has been designed with a draft under 33 feet,and proportions unattractively close to a "cruisebrick".
Compared to the QE2 the "Gigantic" ship would be(on those proportions) about 150 feet longer and 11 feet wider...but the proportions do need examination.They may be malleable in order to ensure the desired speed...as the size may also be.In any event the service speed should exceed 41 knots (the current Hales Trophy benchmark)and the top speed should exceed 44.
The dimensions I have quoted are scaled up from the Titanic on the linear percentage increase(26%) needed to yield twice the volume. The Normandie scaled up 5.5% would be the same volume,1086'x124.5'.
A 29% linear dimension increase on the old Titanic would be needed to make the new ship longer than the Queen Mary II...it would still be barely under 100,000 gross tons.
Also,scaling up 5.5% from the Normandie's dimensions would yield the 93000 raw tonnage,working from the Normandie's original tonnage...but how much of this would be useful is unclear.(A raw scaleup from the Normandie's post-refit tonnage would be just a 3.75% linear dimension increase for 93000,doubtless unnoticeable).
As I have said,I would want a hull design more advanced than the SS United States,which was 990'x101.6',but the publication of both 51988 and 38216 as tonnage figures for the SS US without explanation for the remeasurement leaves me too unsure of what figures could be generated for tonnage in a scaleup.(Likewise,sources are contradictory as to that ship's draft).
I would want the new ship to stand on its own,not be seen as a new Titanic,a new SS US,or a new Normandie...but one must have some models.
The Titanic 34'4" max draft figure I've been given would scale up to 43'...still deeper than the 40' that would be the draft of a Normandie-plus-8.5% ship.
(but weight,of course,influences draft...many considerations in materials from structure to hull thickness have to be weighed).
To compare:
CARNIVAL DESTINY NORMANDIE+8.5% LINEARObviously,the slow cruise ship crams more tonnage into smaller
Gross tons 101353 101240 Length(ft) 893 1116.5 Beam 119 128 (Lido Deck 125) Draft 27 40 Speed(kts) 21 service,22.5 top >41 service,>44 top Passengers 2642 norm/ 2300-2500? 3350 top more?
The Queen Mary 2 is not much more linerish than the Carnival Destiny in profile,but to exceed its length with a Normandie scale-up would take it from 8.5 to 10.5%.
The Eagle ships,now in service,have been described as 136,000-142,000 tons with 138,000 the latest Royal Caribbean number. The World City is supposed to be 250,000.They are passenger ships but not liners,hence my description of my concept ship as the largest liner,and the longest,fastest passenger ship,ever.
The challenge now is likely to be to beat the new Cunarder.
Remember that volume goes up by the cube of dimension,hence the 8.5% scale-up of the 79280-ton Normandie yields 101240 tons because that's (1.085^3)*79280.
The 10.5% scaleup of the Normandie would be 106248 tons.
If the draft is to be held under 42 feet,I figure it would be possible to scale the Normandie up 13.5%,and then add an additional 3% in length to the existing form.This yields a ship 1200' in length (134' beam) and about 120,000 tons.Between Grand Princess and Eagle.
That 3% length stretch would actually fit the engines,though I'm unsure of their eventual layout or the dimensions of the waterjet-turbine assembly.
This ship would gross about 138,000 tons,but scaled from the Normandie's later tonnage it would be about 145,000.Structural extensions (mainly the construction of a deckhouse aft)added to the tonnage of the Normandie...to be conservative,I work up from the lower figure since the structure can't compromise the speed goals.This ship will go faster than any other ever by as great a margin as can be managed.As the extension took the form of enclosing open deck space,and this ship would likewise probably have little open deck space because of the bracing winds resulting from the speed,the Normandie scaleup figures are probably a bit conservative.
A 24% increase in each dimension of the Normandie,then,would yield a 151,000 ton size from its earlier tonnage,159,000 tons from its later tonnage...such a ship would be 1276 feet long...longer than World City though not in record-tanker class.
The beam of Normandie plus 24% would be 146 feet 4 inches...still 11 feet 2 inches narrower than an Eagle(157.5'),let alone World City(circa 170'). (The tanker record is 259 feet!).
The draft would be almost 46 feet,which would require lots of dredging. The draft figure for the new Cunarder is suspiciously low,but it would be useful to let them lobby for port facilities the new ship could also use.(There are deeper tankers and freighters galore though)
In New York Harbor,there are areas being dredged to 45 feet or more, though the Howland Hook container terminal on Staten Island is not as glamorous as the midtown Manhattan passenger ship piers.
(Footnoting,from the Normandie's post-refit tonnage the Normandie-plus-8.5% 106500 vs. 101000...and a 44.5% scaleup could beat World City.).
Assuming 51000 tons and 33' draft for the SS US we would have,for the twice-Titanic size,a 22.5% scaleup is called for,yielding 1213' length, 124.5' beam,and 40.5' draft.Again longer and deeper than a Normandie scaleup.However,if the SS US draft is pegged at 31',the draft would be only 38 feet,compared to 39 for the Normandie scaleup of this size. (The beams match almost exactly).
A bare Eagle-buster(about 138,000 tons) could be reached by scaling up the SS US(assuming it was 51000 tons) by 39.5%.This would be 1381 feet long,and again the same beam as a Normandie scaleup to that size. Starting from 31' draft the scaleup would reach 43 feet 4 inches, but from 33' a problematic 46 feet.
A 43% scaleup to the 150,000-ton size would yield 1416' length,144.5' beam,and(assuming 33' draft to start with) 47' draft,which seems less convenient than Normandie proportions by length alone.Assuming 31' draft,the draft of the scaleup is reduced to 44 feet 4 inches,able to manage 45-foot channels and piers if only they were long enough!
However,if the 1972 remeasurement of the SS United States to 38216 tons is deemed accurate and relevant,scaling it up becomes pointless. A 34.5% scaleup would be needed just to reach twice-Titanic size, and a 46.5% scaleup to reach 120,000 tons(with a ship 1450' long, compared to a 1200' Normandie scaleup-stretch or 1214' Titanic scaleup). If the remeasurement was simply deducting useless space that would NOT be useless in the new ship,a scaleup of the SS US remains a thought to reckon with in proportioning.The additional variant tonnage figure of 53329 is another wrinkle.
I'm interested in anything anyone out there reading this can offer,besides advice that it's not worth thinking about.