Talk:RMS Aquitania

Rewrite needed

This page still has text copied verbatim, but without quotes or attribution, from http://www.greatoceanliners.net/aquitania.html. And while that site is interesting, is has POV and is not always correct, and some of those flaws have shown up here. Kablammo 12:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sister Ship(s)?

There has been some confusion on this subject. For clarification; Lusitania and Muaretania were in fact sister ships despite being built in different yards. Their design, layout and engineering were substantively identical. Only in decor and some superficial areas were there any differences. The Aquitania was not a sister ship. She was a running mate that differed dramatically in vital areas from the earlier liners. She was built primarily to ensure a weekly service between Britain and New York and also as a response to the Olympic Class liners that emphasized size and luxury over speed. This is pretty much the unanimous consensus of all maritime historians that I am familiar with. Claims to the contrary should not be made without citing reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

RMS Aquitania

Dear Wiki, For your information, every ship has a unique IMO number, which makes each vessel immediately identifiable. For example, people looking for the Aquitania may well come across a bulk carrier when the are looking for 'the famous one' - and you have NOT got that number in your History file on the right hand side!! I did try to sign in but your system is too complicatd so I have reverted to this. I have been researching my father's war trips and 15 months with Cunard White Star on Queen Elizabeth, Aquitania, Britannic and SS Cuba has taken an awful lot of effort: 1 - apparently Cunard lost many records 1943-44, 2 - exigencies of war meant my father lost his service records to torpedoes as well as bombs, and the records in National Archives etc. are far from complete. Therefore I suggest that you add IMO number 1135583 to Aquitania's History. Thank you R B Hamilton 83.100.208.30 (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, 1135583 couldn't have been Aquitania's IMO number. If you look at Wikipedia's page on "IMO number", you'll see the following information, which I've summarized. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted a resolution creating the IMO number system in 1987 - long after Aquitania was scrapped in 1950/51. Lloyd's Register had introduced ID numbers in 1963, which became seven-digit numbers in 1969. These numbers were the origin of the IMO number system. Further, an internet search for "RMS Aquitania ID 1135583" shows only 5 results, 4 of which do not include the number itself. The sole remaining result - https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/media/aquitania.465296/ - shows the following, which I quote: "IMO/ID 1135583, Dead". Elsquared67 (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

A New Edit

I have edited and added information on this article. I want to state which information I've added and what I've taken from where.

• Information about the ship's depth- University of Kentucky;
• Information about the ship's height- GG Archives;
• Information about the ship's last commercial voyage- great ships;
• Information about Winston Churchill's words on Aquitania- Liverpool Echo;
• Information about the ship's original service speed- Lloyd's Register Foundation;

-I have also added three notes, which can be easily checked and confirmed at any time and information at the beginning about Aquitania's displacement, which is mentioned in the article later on.

As for what I've edited. In the beginning, I stated that Aquitania's service speed became 44km/h in 1936, when RMS queen Mary entered service. This is mentioned in the article itself already.

In addition, I've added some photographs and paintings of and related to Aquitania. If there are any problems related to my edit of this article, please let me know. Ale.ch.geor (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)