dare i say it Titanic


Forum Topics & Rules Manuals & Literature	New users Click-here to sign-up

Thread Number: 16598
dare i say it Titanic

[Down to Last]

Post# 177066 4/14/2012 at 09:58 (4,393 days old) by anthony (leeds uk)
Checkrate/Likes With all the interest in [that ship ]again this week i wonder if anyone knows where there any vacuum cleaners on board

Post# 177068 , Reply# 1 4/14/2012 at 10:53 (4,393 days old) by Brandon_W_T ()
Checkrate/Likes I can't imagine a ship at that time would settle for anything less than a Hoover. They were the best, and most advanced machines at the time. Brush rolls were still under their arms, and accessibility was vast. They were the largest vacuum company in the world at the time. This is an interesting question. 100 years later, its about time someone researched that.

Post# 177082 , Reply# 2 4/14/2012 at 13:10 (4,393 days old) by truckerx (Palm Springs, CA)
Checkrate/Likes Gosh! In 1912, if Hoovers were used aboard The Titanic, they might have been the model "0?" Brandon might have the answer.

Post# 177099 , Reply# 3 4/14/2012 at 13:36 (4,393 days old) by Brandon_W_T ()
Checkrate/Likes The only date reference I can find is of the model 183 Hoverette from 1912. The machines would have likely been from this list. Possibly the model 2, from 1911.

Post# 177114 , Reply# 4 4/14/2012 at 14:02 (4,393 days old) by jimbeckwith ()
Checkrate/Likes *Titanic* Brandon- Where did you get the cut sheet on the early Hoovers? Very neat! Would you consider posting that literature in the "Library" section of this website...it is invaluable information to anyone interested in vintage Hoover machines, especially those before 1920. I know quite a bit about the Titanic and her sister the Olympic, and have most of the technical journals covering them at the time of their building, but I have never seen a reference to any sort of vacuum cleaning system or machines used on board to clean the carpets, and she had acres of the stuff aboard...interesting to speculate if The Hoover was there!

Post# 177115 , Reply# 5 4/14/2012 at 14:09 (4,393 days old) by gottahaveahoove (Pittston, Pennsylvania, 18640)
Checkrate/Likes *Amazing!!* But, sad to think that they'd be lying on the bottom of the cold, dark ocean.What might be left of them.

Post# 177116 , Reply# 6 4/14/2012 at 14:12 (4,393 days old) by Brandon_W_T ()
Checkrate/Likes Fred in Minneapolis posted these in 2008 for the hoover 100th.

Post# 177117 , Reply# 7 4/14/2012 at 14:13 (4,393 days old) by kirbymodel2c (Nottingham, England)
Checkrate/Likes Hi Hi, Interesting thought what vacuum cleaner they might of had on board the Titanic. I'm not convinced the Titanic had Hoover vacuum cleaners on it as I believe Hoover did not come over to the UK till 1919. But I'm sure someone in the UK who knows more about Hoover than I do can confirm that. James:o)

Post# 177118 , Reply# 8 4/14/2012 at 14:13 (4,393 days old) by Brandon_W_T ()
Checkrate/Likes moar

Post# 177119 , Reply# 9 4/14/2012 at 14:15 (4,393 days old) by Brandon_W_T ()
Checkrate/Likes James you're right! WOW! I completely forgot about that! The possibility could still be there, perhaps. Maybe Goblin?

Post# 177120 , Reply# 10 4/14/2012 at 14:17 (4,393 days old) by truckerx (Palm Springs, CA)
Checkrate/Likes 2 Suppose no one knows.....we should get down there and get them before someone else does

Post# 177130 , Reply# 11 4/14/2012 at 16:54 (4,393 days old) by djtaylor (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Checkrate/Likes *Finally, something I ACTUALLY know...* The short answer is no. Until the mid to late 20's ocean liners did not carry their own vacuum cleaners. Between sailings out of their home ports cleaning crews would be sent onboard to, among other things, vacuum rugs and upholstery. Most of the vacuums used were large tank-type. I think there was a thread about very early vacuums and someone in England had an American built tank-type from around 1910ish??? That is the kind of thing that were used. It was much later that vacuums became cheep enough for the shipping lines to buy them in bulk and add vacuuming to the list of chores that the maids and stewards had to do between sailings. I read this info in a book called The Only Way To Cross by Bill Miller. Justin

Post# 177135 , Reply# 12 4/14/2012 at 17:16 (4,393 days old) by danemodsandy ()
Checkrate/Likes 1 *Justin:* No WONDER everyone wanted to sail on the Titanic - she was probably the only ship afloat at that time with clean carpets! I'm sure they swept while at sea, either with brooms or carpet sweepers, but I still cannot imagine how yucky carpets would have gotten in a week.

Post# 177139 , Reply# 13 4/14/2012 at 18:23 (4,393 days old) by Real1 ()
Checkrate/Likes *She....* wouldn't have had electric vacuum cleaners. Since there was at least one crewman for every passenger (i.e., steward and/or stewardess per cabin), they would clean a cabin's carpet by hand with a whisk and long-handled dustpans. Same with any lounge areas that had carpets. Large, luxurious throw rugs were more common than anything else. Cabins in first & second class were made to look like small, warm country estate rooms. Kevin

Post# 177149 , Reply# 14 4/14/2012 at 21:37 (4,393 days old) by aeoliandave (Stratford Ontario Canada)
Checkrate/Likes 1958's A Night to Remember is on Turner Classics right now. My favorite of all the Titanic films because it features stories from all four classes - First, Second, Third (Steerage) and Crew. This must be a cleaned up print because the image is spectacular. There was really no need for Cameron to re-make it, imho... Dave

Post# 177189 , Reply# 15 4/15/2012 at 02:06 (4,393 days old) by danemodsandy ()
Checkrate/Likes *Dave:* The Cameron film does offer one thing that "A Night to Remember" doesn't, and it's there in generous measure, thanks to CGI special effects that didn't exist in 1958. Cameron made the RMS Titanic LIVE again. We not only see her interiors quite accurately depicted, we see her sail. We see passengers strolling her decks, we see her bow cutting the water, we see other craft being buffeted by her wake. We get views that help us grasp her size, her speed, her incredible grace once she's out past Queenstown (now Cobh) and fully under way. I have issues with Cameron's film, don't get me wrong. But at least you come away from it with a very fair sense of what the ship was like during those five brief days of her service life.

Post# 177219 , Reply# 16 4/15/2012 at 14:44 (4,392 days old) by jimbeckwith ()
Checkrate/Likes *Titanic* Cameron's film is the closest anyone can ever get to actually being there...I was blown away by it.

Post# 177225 , Reply# 17 4/15/2012 at 17:35 (4,392 days old) by aeoliandave (Stratford Ontario Canada)
Checkrate/Likes Wellllllll, if you happen to be driving through Branson, Missouri or Pigeon Forge, Tennessee - yes, there are two of them, duplicate half-ships - you can pretend. CLICK HERE TO GO TO aeoliandave's LINK

Post# 177252 , Reply# 18 4/16/2012 at 00:05 (4,392 days old) by danemodsandy ()
Checkrate/Likes *For Me....* ....Cameron's big achievement with "Titanic" was to make audiences understand what the ship represented in its time. The Edwardians prided themselves on their mastery of the physical universe; the RMS Titanic was a technological wonder for 1912. It had ship-to-shore radio communications, water distilling equipment, on-demand electric heat in staterooms, electric lighting in all classes, telephones for crew communication and - rather ironically - ice-making equipment. These were amenities many hotels on land still lacked. It was unthinkable that the newest, largest and greatest moving object ever built should be lost to a glancing blow from an iceberg. It would have been bad enough had RMS Titanic been in service for a time, but she was fewer than five days into her service history. Old Rose in "Titanic" sums it up: "I can still smell the fresh paint. The china had never been used. The sheets had never been slept in." After seeing Cameron's movie, you grieve for the people who died, of course. But you also grieve for the beautiful, graceful and elegant creation that was the RMS Titanic.

Post# 177254 , Reply# 19 4/16/2012 at 01:25 (4,392 days old) by Real1 ()
Checkrate/Likes *I....* had the privilege of sailing on the SS United states as a boy....a Caribbean cruise out of NY Harbor. Docked in a slip next to the SS United States was the SS France. The SS France was just a few cabins bigger. And before someone tries to correct me by saying the United States was not a steam ship, it was. It had 8 boilers and 4 steam turbine engines. It was a lot for a boy to take in, but I managed somehow. The magnificence of the United States will always be with me. I've been on luxury cruises since then, but no ship ever even close to the United States. Sad story today....rotting away in some harbor after several failed attempts to restore her. On to vacuums..... Kevin

Post# 177260 , Reply# 20 4/16/2012 at 06:28 (4,392 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)
Checkrate/Likes Frankly I'm sick to death of Titanic - the film, the music, everything that is associated with it - I don't know why the Americans take great pleasure in celebrating Titanic or going mad for a ship that smacks in the face of the British for not testing it properly. Still we see the film every year, still we have to keep being pestered by anniversary celebrations. It is a sadness for those families who lost actual victims. I don't see 9/11 being boosted so much - or is that too close to home?

Post# 177265 , Reply# 21 4/16/2012 at 08:17 (4,392 days old) by danny ()
Checkrate/Likes *HOOVER BOOK* Hi I am Danny ryan from Hamilton onterio Canada and I have those PICTURES. As well Danny.

Post# 177272 , Reply# 22 4/16/2012 at 09:39 (4,392 days old) by anthony (leeds uk)
Checkrate/Likes *vacs on hat ship* yes the film was fabulous when it came out the special effects but the icing on the cake would have been to see someone vacuuming the acres of brand new carpets . In the years since the films realease i have often wondered why no one has ever built a replica of the ill fated ship and sailed it back and forth across the pond people would be falling over themselves to travel on it the owners would clean up [excuse the pun]of course this one would have to have radar ?

Post# 177275 , Reply# 23 4/16/2012 at 10:19 (4,391 days old) by Real1 ()
Checkrate/Likes *Well....* for one thing Anthony, it would be incredibly 'bad luck' to make a replica and sail it across the Atlantic-sailors are notoriously superstitious about such things. Quite frankly, except for its old-fashioned luxury appointments and the English ill-fated 'class society' concept, there were better and more interesting passenger ships made after the Titanic and the Olympic. Kevin

Post# 177276 , Reply# 24 4/16/2012 at 11:29 (4,391 days old) by gottahaveahoove (Pittston, Pennsylvania, 18640)
Checkrate/Likes *Well, MY thoughts* It WAS a beautiful creation. It WAS a tragedy, for all of the lost lives, etc. We just saw the 100 th anniversary of it all. As far as 9-11 being too close to home... it happened 2 hours from my home.I know people who just missed death. Our own member, Joe Kassock lost his partner in it. I drove to Newark 4 days after. I saw the "glow" from the fire. I smelled the "burning". Some think it should be seen more, others, it's too much. Someday, they'll make more movies about 9-11. All Titanic survivors are now gone. We reflect, remember, and are still fascinated by it all. The World Trade Center, The Pentagon, and the PA site are very new, very real, and the U.S. pain is very deep. One also must remember that 9-11 was an act of terror. The Titanic wasn't. The fans of Titanic aren't blaming anyone. Just my thoughts on it all. As far as 100th anniversaries: we gathered in North Canton to celebrate HOOVER'S century birthday. We stood in a factory that had JUST closed. That was sad, too. But, we remember, reflect, rejoice, and lament, all at the same time. We can only imagine the horror that night on Titanic.We heard of some of the horrors in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. We dream of what those people could have done with their lives. Sad, indeed.

Post# 177280 , Reply# 25 4/16/2012 at 11:59 (4,391 days old) by Real1 ()
Checkrate/Likes *The....* Titanic was thoroughly eclipsed by the Queen Mary, the Queen Elizabeth, the QE2, the SS France and the SS United States just to name a few of the greater ships made after. Ships that had decades of illustrious history/service, including service in WWII and beyond. To capitalize on the Titanic 5day, ill-fated cruise into ruin and tragedy is to ignore all the wonderful ships that came after her. If anything, the arrogance of its owners and the flaws of her design led to much safer ocean liners and cruise ships for future generations to enjoy, myself included. Kevin

Post# 177281 , Reply# 26 4/16/2012 at 12:23 (4,391 days old) by gottahaveahoove (Pittston, Pennsylvania, 18640)
Checkrate/Likes *So true....* So many improvements, etc, were made because of that terrible disaster. Think about how much safer the travel of the President is because of that fateful day in Dallas in 1963. NONE of that would be allowed today. Of course, there is danger. But, these events, and others, have made improvements and helped safety for so many others "after".Thank God.

Post# 177284 , Reply# 27 4/16/2012 at 12:39 (4,391 days old) by westingman123 ()
Checkrate/Likes *lessons learned* Speaking as someone who has been fascinated by Titanic since childhood, there are many reasons it holds our attention. To begin, the tragedy of Titanic spelled the beginning of the end of Edwardian class distinctions. The ship herself was a marvel of her time. Yes, she was later eclipsed, but her beauty and attention to the first and second class details were the epitome of luxury in 1912. There was even electric lighting in steerage, unheard of at that time. Personally, I think a large part of the reason we are still thinking about Titanic is the drama of the night. There was heroism and cowardice. Lives saved and too many lives lost. And, let us not forget Captain Smith, who went down with his ship. Or the Strauss couple, who refused to be parted and perished together. These are the events and people that we remember and honor--not "smack in the face of the British", at least to my reckoning. May the lost souls rest in peace, but not forgotten!

Post# 177288 , Reply# 28 4/16/2012 at 14:19 (4,391 days old) by gsheen (Cape Town South Africa)
Checkrate/Likes I love the look of the Hoover model 184 in Brandon's pics, does any one have one in the club

Post# 177289 , Reply# 29 4/16/2012 at 14:33 (4,391 days old) by danemodsandy ()
Checkrate/Likes *Titanic....* Actually exceeded British Board of Trade regulations concerning lifeboats. The regulations of the time (based on gross tonnage, not passenger capacity) only required her to carry 16 lifeboats, and she had 20. While this does not excuse White Star Line, it does point to regulations not keeping up with the increased passenger capacity of North Atlantic liners. I agree that the luxury of Titanic (and her nearly identical sister ship Olympic) was later surpassed. But these two ships (and their ill-fated sibling Britannic) were among the first super-luxury liners, offering comforts many people of the era had yet not experienced on land, let alone sea. It was not every day you could - as Lady Duff-Gordon did on Titanic - have hothouse strawberries in April. Having clean, smokeless, safe electric heat on-demand in your stateroom was previously unheard of. Having electric lighting as the sole illumination for all classes and all areas of the ship was pretty new. Being able to keep in touch with your business interests, family and friends on shore via Marconigram (wireless telegraphy) was a science-fiction wonder that had only been available for a few years at that time - it was the equivalent of a sat-phone today. There were some things we'd consider "primitive" now, sure. Private baths were in only the most luxurious suites; everyone else bathed in bathrooms that had to be booked with a bath steward, even in First Class - an arrangement also common in luxury hotels on land at the time. But there was a swimming pool. There was a gym. A library. Cafes were open for between-meal refreshments. Fresh flowers were everywhere. And for those who wonder why we still remember the Titanic disaster: We don't remember it half enough. The incompetent bureaucrats who did not require enough lifeboats for her are still with us in a new generation, making different laws, but paying no more attention to reality than they did in 1912. We thought Titanic was primitive in her safety features and that more modern ships would never fail so spectacularly - except that only this year, Costa Concordia could and did and capsized into the bargain, because modern ships are incredibly top-heavy, to accommodate today's demand for outside balcony suites. We're in a new century, but all we've accomplished is to invent new mistakes, because what we have NOT learned is how to stamp out incompetence, greed and hubris among our ruling classes. And the biggest reason for remembrance is this: People died. One thousand, five hundred and fourteen of them, to be exact. The healthy ones froze to death in the icy North Atlantic. The older ones had fatal heart attacks as soon as they hit that freezing water. Some were electrocuted. Some were cooked alive by steam escaping from broken pipes. Some were crushed by fixtures breaking loose, by machinery, by pianos. And a few, trapped in spaces where there was still air, were turned into jelly by the pressure of the sea as Titanic plunged to the bottom. Those people did not deserve those fates; all they were trying to do was to get from one place to another. I think they will always deserve to be given a special place in our collective memory.

Post# 177295 , Reply# 30 4/16/2012 at 16:04 (4,391 days old) by luxman107 (USA )
Checkrate/Likes Anyone see Jame Cammerons, 2 hour national Geo special .."Titanic,The final Word" absolutely excellent show

Post# 177296 , Reply# 31 4/16/2012 at 16:41 (4,391 days old) by Real1 ()
Checkrate/Likes *This...* isn't about those that "didn't deserve to die", but about why people are so fixated on one blundered passage, on one cold night in the North Atlantic. History is rife with people and large groups who "didn't deserve to die". It was from your failed "bureaucrats" that ocean liner safety moved to the next level. Most safety regulations are written from a long history of lost lives; witness OSHA & MSHA. More people are fascinated about the Captain's blunder on the Titanic, its owner's brag about being "unsinkable" and the fact that it was famous as a 'class level' ship for the idle rich, than anything else. To capitalize on the memory of the Titanic going down, ignores and belies all the other great ships that gave decades of meritorious service "after". We're not talking the Holocaust here...there's always a certain amount of eminent danger when you board an ocean liner....you just hope you have a good ship, good crew, a good captain and a structured escape plan. The Titanic lowered many lifeboats into the water with just a few people in them...your death count would be quite different if each life boat and been loaded to capacity. No one can say with certainty what happened there.... The fact that the Costa Concordia was run aground has absolutely nothing to do with safety equipment or a faulty ship design. Any incompetent captain can run the greatest of ships into something-enough to cause a catastrophic event. Not that many yrs ago, a commercial ferry off of Norway couldn't get her sea doors closed properly and the whole ship went down in minutes. It was one of the worse modern maritime disasters on record, killing over 500 people almost instantly. Do we see geographic specials and movies made about that event(?)...the answer is obvious. Kevin This post was last edited 04/16/2012 at 17:03

Post# 177299 , Reply# 32 4/16/2012 at 16:59 (4,391 days old) by danemodsandy ()
Checkrate/Likes *Kevin:* Titanic hit an obstacle, which breached her hull. Sank. Costa Concordia hit an obstacle, which breached her hull. Sank. No one is lessening any other tragedy, or dishing out any disrespect to any other occurrence, or belittling any other ship's accomplishments. This is merely the centenary of Titanic's sinking, and that is what happens to be on our minds, and as friends, we thought we'd discuss it a bit. Sorry if that's offensive to you.

Post# 177305 , Reply# 33 4/16/2012 at 17:24 (4,391 days old) by Real1 ()
Checkrate/Likes *What.....* is "offensive" to me is the prattling on about an ill-fated ship with bad metallurgy, a 'company man' captain that housed the idle rich and because of that, it captures so much attention & imagination. Considering all the greater ships that came "after", I consider all the hullabaloo about the Titanic insulting to maritime history. Again, this isn't about the memory of the individuals who died on the Titanic, but about the foolishness & arrogance of the people responsible for her sinking. It's really become more of a story about the decadent rich, ship owners and bureaucrats against those who were not....in simpler words, the rich (and what they represented) against the working crew and people in steerage. Looking at Britain today, 'class society' did not win out or keep the Titanic afloat.. Kevin

Post# 177309 , Reply# 34 4/16/2012 at 17:42 (4,391 days old) by danemodsandy ()
Checkrate/Likes *Kevin:* Titanic's nearly identical sister ship, Olympic, sailed for twenty-four years without tragedy, even surviving a collision that breached two of her watertight compartments - BEFORE the retrofitting that was done after the loss of Titanic. Things happen that no one can foresee. Titanic ran into an iceberg where there wasn't supposed to be an iceberg, exactly as Costa Concordia ran into rocks where there weren't supposed to be any rocks. Neither vessel's captain had her exact position correctly determined, either - despite state-of-the-art resources being available in both instances. Yes, hubris was involved in the loss of Titanic. Hubris is also involved in building ships that are four times as tall above the waterline as they are below, as many, including Costa Concordia, are today. Costa Concordia was the warning bell that today's profiteers are ignoring - we will one day have massive loss of life resulting from these too-tall ships. ELEVEN ships were known to have been lost to icebergs before Titanic - all in the same general area Titanic went down - and no movement of passenger lanes southward was undertaken, nor were any lifeboat regulations changed. I understand you're unhappy about the focus Titanic is getting. But what I would suggest we all worry about is that nothing really important has changed since April 15, 1912.

Post# 177311 , Reply# 35 4/16/2012 at 17:54 (4,391 days old) by danemodsandy ()
Checkrate/Likes *Correction:* One ship lost to an iceberg before Titanic sank met her fate off the coast of Alaska.

Post# 177312 , Reply# 36 4/16/2012 at 17:54 (4,391 days old) by aeoliandave (Stratford Ontario Canada)
Checkrate/Likes . so, on a lighter note: Hoover 160 (1938-39 / 1945-49) being used on the Queen Mary.

Post# 177313 , Reply# 37 4/16/2012 at 18:14 (4,391 days old) by Real1 ()
Checkrate/Likes *If...* nothing has changed since 1912 as you suggest, then it would be common place today for luxury liners to go down. Not only is it uncommon, but a HUGE media circus if anything happens to a luxury liner at sea. The possibility of disaster by your estimation would be akin to something worse than riding on Amtrak. Instead, people did listen; many, many maritime safety laws were passed and equipment revised/modernized for the greater good of keeping people alive and rescue-able on big ships. It's foolish to even begin to compare today's ships and their navigational/safety devices to even 40yrs ago, let alone the Titanic primitive system. Would you travel on a luxury liner today in the North Atlantic with just crew 'watching' for icebergs and telegraphing other ships if they had 'seen' any(?) of course not. I don't agree that modern luxury liners are incapable of safety measures to prevent what happened to the Titanic, or that the bureaucrats related to luxury liners are out to get us. Are you seriously trying to maintain that in today's PC conscious societies, maritime boards and regulations are going slack and that your too-tall-above-waterline ships are all accidents waiting to happen? The only thing I'm seeing is that captains aren't the seaman of lore and are making bad decisions.... possibly because of the international standards of their training in dubious places. The seas aren't any calmer today (actually worse weather) and there's a hell of a lot more big ships on them than ever before. You should be more worried about an archaic system where a dubiously trained captain has final word over his crew & passengers. Kevin

Post# 177315 , Reply# 38 4/16/2012 at 18:17 (4,391 days old) by danemodsandy ()
Checkrate/Likes *Kevin:* I am bowing out of this discussion.

Post# 177340 , Reply# 39 4/16/2012 at 23:15 (4,391 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)
Checkrate/Likes Sorry to upset the apple cart, but I had great, great relatives who died on that ship - that's one reason alone to why I don't like the constant reminder. Titanic in all the films made isn't about celebrating a great ship or a great design, it's just another reminder of a tragedy - and in most British people's minds - unless of course you like ships and other maritime transportation. Of course the famous U.S film with Leonardo & Kate was a love story portrayal but the quality and near reality of the actual ship was pretty much spot on to what the original was like.

Post# 177341 , Reply# 40 4/16/2012 at 23:51 (4,391 days old) by danemodsandy ()
Checkrate/Likes 2 *Why Don't We....* Just ask that a moderator lock or delete this thread, since those of us who wanted to discuss an historic event presently on many peoples' minds seem to be infuriating and upsetting two posters who could have simply clicked over to threads more to their liking? Grrh!

Post# 177874 , Reply# 41 4/21/2012 at 17:54 (4,386 days old) by jimbeckwith ()
Checkrate/Likes *Titanic* The story of the Titanic, as Walter Lord so aptly put it over 55 years ago, is really the story of the last night of a small town. Here we have a ship, built in the yards of Harland & Wolff at Belfast to the highest standards of the day, half again as large as any ship that had preceded it. Both she and her sister Olympic were considered the greatest technological achievements in marine engineering that the world had ever known. The highly respected periodical "The Shipbuilder" routinely published "Special Souvenir Numbers" marking the entry on service of such ships and in 1911, published one for the Olympic (entering service) and Titanic (building). These covered everything about the ship - from details of framing, plating and boilers to details of carpet and upholstery. It was this publication, not the White Star Line, that stated "by simply closing a switch controlling the watertight doors, make the ship practically unsinkable". For several decades, ships had grown ever larger, faster and more luxurious. It was the routine marine practice of the day to follow sea-routes known as "tracks" at speed in most weather and conditions. This was considered safe practice precisely because nothing had ever happened to make it seem otherwise. Shortly after the turn of the century, the miracle of wireless telegraphy had made communication at sea a reality, and via relay service, communication with land as well. It made the world seem a smaller place, and the sea lanes safer still. The Titanic had the misfortune to encounter on her maiden voyage what nothing before her had, and in a most unusual setting - no moon, a bitter cold night, a flat-calm sea, and an absence of other ships nearby in wireless communication. It is a story of "if onlys" in abundance, one of great valor and great cowardice, of arrogance, complacency and tragedy. One could not create a more compelling story if they tried, and therein lies lies its great power even one hundred years later.

Post# 177878 , Reply# 42 4/21/2012 at 18:07 (4,386 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland)
Checkrate/Likes That is a very interesting question. I've never thought of Vacuum Cleaners being on the Titanic, but there must have been, and going by the size of her, there would have been a lot of them. I'm pretty sure if they could get cameras into the cleaning rooms of the wreck they would see some intact classics. If they could remove them and bring some to the surface that would be even better. Being HOOVER'S they would probably just need a new bag and belt to get back into use, ha ha ha!

Post# 177916 , Reply# 43 4/21/2012 at 23:20 (4,386 days old) by Real1 ()
Checkrate/Likes *"Why Don't We....* Just ask that a moderator lock or delete this thread, since those of us who wanted to discuss an historic event presently on many peoples' minds seem to be infuriating and upsetting two posters who could have simply clicked over to threads more to their liking? Grrh!" Which completely ignores the fact that somebody else could have had a valid, different opinion than yours. There are no right or wrong answers here about the Titanic...not after 100yrs-just opinions. You should have let it go like you said you were going to...that says a lot about your character and about trying to run others off that don't agree with you. Kevin

Post# 177917 , Reply# 44 4/21/2012 at 23:54 (4,386 days old) by danemodsandy ()
Checkrate/Likes *Kevin:* I think there's rather a difference between holding a different opinion and telling others they really don't need to be talking about what they're talking about because it doesn't meet your personal standard for a great ship. Oh, and are you aware that the Queen Mary you hold up as an example of a great ship was built of precisely the same steel from precisely the same mill as Titanic, that nadir of the metallurgical arts?

Post# 178958 , Reply# 45 4/28/2012 at 12:04 (4,379 days old) by anthony (leeds uk)
Checkrate/Likes 1 *and to think* all i did was ask if there were any vacs on the dam thing .

Forum Index:

Other Forums:

Comes to the Rescue!

Woops, Time to Check the Bag!!!
Either you need to change your vacuum bag or you forgot to LOG-IN?
Discuss-O-MAT Log-In

New Members Click Here To Sign Up.

automaticwasher.org home
Discuss-o-Mat Forums
Vintage Brochures, Service and Owners Manuals
Fun Vintage Washer Ephemera
See It Wash!
Video Downloads
Audio Downloads
Picture of the Day
Patent of the Day
Photos of our Collections
The Old Aberdeen Farm
Vintage Service Manuals Vintage washer/dryer/dishwasher to sell?
Technical/service questions?
Looking for Parts?
Website related questions?
Digital Millennium Copyright Act Policy
Our Privacy Policy