Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Interesting, since the newer frigates of European navies like the Saschen class and FREMM use CODAG and CODLAG instead of a pure turbine setup. Although unlike the US they do not have 30+ knot carriers to keep up with.
  2. So why are a lot of US Navy ships like the Arleigh Burke, OHP, and Ticonderoga classes COGAG? They do not do 30 knots all day and more often cruise at a slower 15 knots or so, from what I know.
  3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each setup, say if you want to build a 35 knot ocean liner that can cruise at 30 knots all day long, like the QE2 or SS France? Diesel engines are bigger than gas turbines but use less fuel, and take forever to accelerate to 30 knots, gas turbines are smaller but use a lot more fuel. Did the QE2 cost less to run at 30 knots cruising speed using her diesels compared to the QM2 at 26 knots cruising speed? Because if the price of crude oil stays near 30 dollars a barrel for the long term, that might open up some possibilities towards say, Cunard, building a new ocean liner again, since the QM2 is nearing 20 years old.
  4. Free coronavirus vaccination packages? Free PPE packages?
  5. Why is there no mid-market intermediate cruise line that I am aware of? Basically a cruise line that slots between Carnival/Royal Carribean/Norweigian and Crystal/Regent Seven Seas/Seabourne? Basically a cruise line that will deliver a higher standard of service and food compared to the mass market cruise lines, while being below the luxury cruise lines. Basically a Buick or Acura or the cruise industry, in that Buick or Acura are near luxury brands that slot between Cadillac and Chevrolet. Is there a market for a mid-market cruise line, with prices between say, Crystal/Regent Seven Seas and Carnival? Basically there seems to be a large gap in terms of the market between Regent and Norweigian that you can slot another brand. Maybe you can say that Holland America and Cunard used to fill this gap but it seems that they have also really moved downmarket.
  6. Will some countries or places like Taiwan, HK, Korea, and NZ that pursued stamp out the virus strategies instead if herd immunity, or have simply acted very early and effectively to contain and eradicate the virus from their population, and appear have managed to almost eliminate coronavirus from their countries, enact travel bans against people from countries like Sweden that have pursued herd immunity strategies with respect to coronavirus, that is the strategy of deliberately exposing their population to the virus in the hopes that their population will gain herd immunity? Or even if a vaccine is made, suppose it is not completely effective, will we see places like NZ and Australia basically ban people from countries where coronavirus has already been very widespread among the population like the US, UK, and Canada for the foreseeable future, even for those who have already been been vaccinated, such as cruise ship passengers, due to doubts about the vaccines effectiveness? Also there is the possibility that coronavirus seems to be like herpes, that once you get it, you can never really flush it totally out of your body, and some virus will always remain in your body waiting to be reactivated and infect people again, so you will always be like a ticking time bomb waiting to reinfect unaware people.
  7. From my inexpert point of view, it seems like the Titanic could have taken the same sort of damage as Costa Concordia without sinking or worse, capsizing?
  8. Or to simplify the question, let us just say if Carnival Liberty, which is a reasonably new cruise ship, sustained the same amount of damage as the Titanic in the same way, would she be able to stay afloat for at least 24 to 48 hours, unlike Titanic which sunk in only a few hours? Basically would a reasonably modern cruise ship, like the Costa Atlantica, be able to take the same amount of damage that the Titanic did in 1912 and not sink until all of the passengers are rescued, unlike Titanic? http://www.titanicology.com/Modifications_To_Olympic.html http://www.titanicology.com/FloodingByCompartment.html
  9. Technical question, do cruise ships have better watertight bulkheads compared to the Titanic's days? I would define this as, basically, the Titanic was designed to have four watertight bulkheads fill up at the front, and not sink, and have 2 watertight bulkheads fill up at the middle, and not sink. Now after what happened to Titanic, the Olympic was modified, in that the top of the watertight compartments were made higher, so that now 6 bulkheads at the front could fill up (and the Olympic had seventeen watertight bulkheads after these modifications), and the ship would still not sink, now the question is whether a modern cruise ship like the Liberty of the Seas or MSC Meraviglia has as good or better protection than the Olympic post-Titanic modifications? So that the front third of MSC Meraviglia's watertight bulkheads could fill up, and the ship would still float, assuming that the bulkheads hold for at least 24 to 48 hours? Or 2 bulkheads in the middle of MSC Meraviglia could be holed and she still would float, which was what the Titanic was originally designed for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Olympic#Post-Titanic_refit Post-Titanic refit[edit] Olympic as she appeared after her refit following the Titanic disaster, with an increased complement of lifeboats On 9 October 1912, White Star withdrew Olympic from service and returned her to her builders at Belfast to have modifications added to incorporate lessons learned from the Titanic disaster six months prior, and improve safety.[77] The number of lifeboats carried by Olympic was increased from twenty to sixty-eight, and extra davits were installed along the boat deck to accommodate them. An inner watertight skin was also constructed in the boiler and engine rooms, to create a double hull.[78] Five of the watertight bulkheads were extended up to B-Deck, extending to the entire height of the hull. This corrected a flaw in the original design, in which the bulkheads only rose up as far as E or D-Deck, a short distance above the waterline.[79] This flaw had been exposed during Titanic's sinking, where water spilled over the top of the bulkheads as the ship sank and flooded subsequent compartments. In addition, an extra bulkhead was added to subdivide the electrical dynamo room, bringing the total number of watertight compartments to seventeen. Improvements were also made to the ship's pumping apparatus. These modifications meant that Olympic could survive a collision similar to that of Titanic, in that her first six compartments could be breached and the ship could remain afloat.[80][81] At the same time, Olympic's B Deck underwent a refit, which included extra cabins (the parlour suites which proved popular on Titanic were added to Olympic), more cabins were fitted with private bathing facilities, and a Cafe Parisian (another addition that had proved popular on Titanic) was added, offering another dining option to first class passengers. With these changes, Olympic's gross tonnage rose to 46,359 tons, 31 tons more than Titanic's.[82] In March 1913, Olympic returned to service and briefly regained the title of largest ocean liner in the world, until the German liner SS Imperator entered passenger service in June 1913. Following her refit, Olympic was marketed as the "new" Olympic and her improved safety features were featured prominently in advertisements.[83][6] The ship experienced a short period of tranquillity despite a storm in 1914 that broke some of the First Class windows and injured some passengers.[84]
  10. Like if you look at the quality of the food at the buffet and main dining room, there really is a very heavy temptation to seriously cut food quality and make the food barely edible at the complimentary and get rid of things like lobster nights, in order to force people to eat at the specialty restaurants because the food at the free venues is so bad, so that the cruise lines can make more money from the specialty restaurants, or do things like charge 5 dollars for a glass of tap water.
  11. How many cruise ships now in operation can reach at least 25 knots maximum speed, which is consider very fast for a mere cruise ship? I recall the Superstar Virgo reaching 25.5 knots when she was brand new back in 2000, but she is more than 20 years ago now, so I doubt if she can still reach 25 knots. I exclude the Queen Mary 2 here since she is an ocean liner.
  12. Who is particular is Holland America line targeting? I mean looking at their ships I can see the benefits of adding water slides and rock climbing walls. The kids had tag along with their parents and grandparents would certainly find it enjoyable. And middle ages people might even find it to be a good addition
  13. How is cruising now different from 25 years or 20 years ago? I remember going on board Star Cruises back in 2000, and compared to my experience with Celebrity in 2014 and HAL in 2016 in Alaska, I really did not recall anything different. Are cruises for the same company now cheaper in inflation adjusted terms that they were in 1995 or the year 2000?
  14. Why does MSC cruises get such relatively poor ratings? I understand that it is regarded as an economy cruise line, but then so is Carnival, Royal Carribean, and NCL, but they get a lot better ratings compared to MSC.
  • Create New...