turquoise 6

Now that I have read the whole thread I note that it went "off topic" about photography without these !!!! and capital letters, which indicate shouting,[ just in case you don't know] from yourself.

mmmm.

anyway this site is all whining and throwing out whatever one feels without

thinking. Even better when one can offend someone else .

Like you Sea tiger,: !!!!!! YES YES NO NO:rolleyes:

I agree with you about the flying. I just came back from Wales to Detroit via Amsterdam, return, and I didn't expect to say it so soon in life, but I am done! [with flying]. I did spend and extra $100 each way to go "economy comfort" for a bit more leg room and more backward tilt of the seat, but the taking off of shoes, belt, being patted down and given the third degree, having lipsticks and liquids in bags has done me in. OK, perhaps I am jetlagged, but I am looking for my next cruise with the minimum of flying and a back to back Southampton/NY sounds like heaven.

Viva Cunard.

NO NO ,you missed by point!!! It has nothing to do with fear of flying????

MY post was about having regular TRANSATLANTIC SERVICE. The QM2 was designed for this and did this in 2005 ,but later did more cruises.:(

I think the OP is simply suffering from Golden Age Syndrome... much as I hate to cite fiction, this phenomenon something well illustrated in a movie who's name is escaping me but the main character thought the 1920's were the golden age, and in the movie he goes back to the 1920's and his love interest in that era thinks the Belle Epoch was the golden age, so they are both transported to that era, then they met Gauguin and Lautrec, who wish they lived in the Renaissance... it is all a matter of perspective.

 

The judge I practice in front of often complains about how we did just fine before cell phones and laptops, wishing for when things were simpler.... I said "well your honor, do you really want to go back to smoking at counsel tables and relying on mail for emergency relief?"

 

Interestingly, the "14-day back to back" the OP refers to is a relatively new thing, crossings were traditionally 6 days each way up until a couple of years ago. Like his honor, it's funny how we pick and choose the things we want from the old days and forget how things really were. Does the OP want to go back to the class system as well?

NO NO NO . whining whining and distorting .:eek:

Class system??? what are you ranting about. LOL

If I were to take your question seriously I would VERY respectfully suggest your stance regarding the draft of a ship being relevant to its being a cruise ship or liner, stable or unstable, suitable for crossing the North Atlantic or not suitable, MIGHT not be correct but PLEASE look on this as a question.

 

Why do you take that stance regarding draft and what is a liner? My thoughts are that shipping companies that had prestigious routes that they regularly plied wanted a new word that did not make their ships sound like a ferry plying its trade across the English channel so the likes of the Cunard Line simply called their ships 'liners' This was in an age before passenger aircraft so these 'liners' were indeed ferries that were operating to a schedule ferrying folks plus cargo across an expanse of water from Port A to Port B and returning possibly with just cargo.

 

Now the aircraft has taken over the major role of long distance passenger carrying these 'liners' started to become cruise ships that made their money entertaining guests to a wonderful holidaying experience. Same ships performing a different role.

 

I do not understand this heavier plating you talk about and need a Naval Architect to explain that to me. A modern warship has quite thin plating, so thin you can look down the length of the ship and see just how distorted this is as it moulds itself to the ribs.

 

I am NOT a Naval Architect and these are really questions being asked to stimulate this topic.

 

I would suggest we could have whatever draft you want but if you have a tall superstructure then it could see the ship 'misbehaving' :rolleyes:;) or becoming quite unstable. Would the material being used to construct the superstructure effect the ship's stability, a tallish superstructure made of aluminium might be lighter than steel but again we need the experts to discuss this as to me there are risks using lightweight and relatively weak materials?

 

As I have said in previous posts experts have debated for decades if not centuries the choices regarding the design of ships namely length as opposed to breadth.. and I am guessing the answer will not be found on this forum.

 

Just like Whitemarsh has said, I also pointed out when we first started discussing this issue, we are talking to folks that are wearing rose tinted glasses, or folks that are reading and believing posts wrote by folks wearing those rose tinted glasses.

 

The Vista class ship is a beautiful vessel that could easily perform the role of a trans Atlantic ferry and just like the Queen Mary 2 it will have to respect mother nature, the bigger ship will obviously have a greater ability to take on the elements but common sense will dictate it will not run the risk of causing unnecessary damage or injury. Bottom line is that these ships will have different routes to cross this expanse, plus they have state of the art weather information technology that offers amazingly accurate assessments, plus of course they have the satellite imagery that tracks weather movements.

 

I have posted that picture of the Disney ship just because I believe that bow MIGHT make the Vista class more comfortable in adverse sea conditions but again this is a question and not a statement. My personal thoughts are the Queen Elizabeth and the Queen Victoria do not want to be any bigger.. The Queen Mary 2 in my opinion is too large for the type of cruising I want, clearly it suits the needs of Cunard and I am but one person. All I would ask though is quite simply:

 

Would the two smaller Cunard ships handle better with the bow design of the Disney ships?

 

My highlighting :o

 

Is it possible for you to look in your diary or other documentation and perhaps post the date of this trip please as I have NEVER seen any footage of ANY Cunard ship struggling in heavy seas!

 

If we were chatting over a pint of beer I would jokingly suggest you might have enjoyed an extra night cap... :eek: but the written word does not convey the humour behind this remark so I will not say it!! ;);)

 

Was it the slamming or vibration of the ship that caused this discomfort?

 

Please note I am NOT in any shape or form having a dig at you, trying to score points, argue or disagree... I am asking questions and offering explanations

As a passenger who have sailed Transatlantic on may Ocean Liners ,I know

when I feel discomfort on a ship in rough seas.

The QM2 has been tossed up and down,to the point we couldn't walk in the stateroom or halls.

The FRANCE gave the best ride in a storm. A streamlined designed ship.

Perfection

Naval architecture is a VERY specialised subject which is way, way above my pay grade and I do not pretend to know anything about this topic.

 

I have read posts on this thread that must surely come from some very knowledgeable folk as they are talking about a ship's draft as being connected to a ship's stability. Much respect to them for their knowledge and it did make me smile as there has always been the debate of 'short and wide verses long and thin' traditionally warships have conformed to the latter whereas some naval architects have tried to suggest a more stable platform would be shorter and wider.

 

Does draft mean more stability?

 

I love the lines of the old ocean going liners, they just exhume both style and elegance, BUT... Were they more stable, were they better sea going ships capable of better sea keeping? My heart says you bet but my brain says I doubt it! All I know is that any LARGE cruise ship or liner would steam through seas a much SMALLER warship could not possibly dream of doing. We would stand in awe as these huge vessels would glide serenely by as we were riding out conditions they dismissed with utter contempt but...

 

The old Queen Mary had a length of 1019ft the new one 1354

Old had a beam of 118ft (36m) new one 135Ft (41m)

DRAFT.... 39ft (11.9m) new Queen Mary 2 33ft (10.1m)

 

The old Queen Mary used to roll like a pig and eventually had to have stabilisers fitted to give her some degree of comfort but note the draft of this ship!

 

To glibly suggest that draft is the be all and end all of a ship's stability might not be as black and white as some will try to pretend.

 

We talk about an ocean liner and state that the modern cruise ship is never going go compare to these fine ships but in reality are we perhaps romanticising and living in the past?

 

For those of a delicate disposition I suggest you look away now but for those that believe draft is the answer then how would you fare if the ship rolled to this type of angle

Prior to her refit the old Queen Mary had occassionally reached this amount of roll and sopmetimes slightly more... For a frigate this would be nothiong unusual and would simply get the chefs cursing the bridgestaff.

 

I would respectfully suggest that most of you folks have NEVER experienced this type of movement (I accept some might have)

 

Once the old Queen Mary had those magic stabilisers fitted she never again rolled as much BUT her movement was still way, way more severe than these modern cruise ships.

 

A trifle gaudy but it caters for a certain market, however the lines of this hull are to me the lines that Cunard should look at?? The superstructure needs a whole new rethink and perhaps the Queen Elzabeth superstructure could be super glued in place of what it has at this moment in time? ;):(

 

 

As I said right at the biginning of this post... I know NOTHING about Naval Architecture and this post is wrote to stimulate debate and perhaps denounce what has been stated about 'draft' :)

so what do you think?

Seriously? You would rather change ships twice just to limit the QM2 to crossings?

 

Like I said in another thread, if you are interested in just being on a ship without actually traveling or seeing other cities or countries, why not just spend two weeks on the Queen Mary? Now THAT is a liner :)

I like transatlantic crossing. I like the rt from new york. 14 days. I like sailing across the Ocean. Have NO INTEREST in going to california and staying

in the Queen Mary Hotel. (which sailed on , when I was a child) I am not Interested on a European cruise on the QM2.

I am Not Interested

I don't understand.... if you want to tour Europe or Noth America in addition to crossing the Atlantic, isn't it easier to stay on the same ship for the cruise portion rather than change to a cruise ship then back to a liner for the trip home? Why lament the dual use of the QM2 that gives you the best of both worlds?

Not for me. I always enjoyed the back to back from NY

And sometimes

I don't enjoy the extended cruises nor do I have the min of 21days

The Qm2 is not a cruise ship, but an Ocean liner

You can pick up the Qv or Qm for cruises in Europe

& you can a change of ships.

But Vista class ships are NOT ocean liners :D

 

Barry

Including vista ships, fishing trollers,

Container ships, tug boats

Bow into waves or the vessel could tip:rolleyes:

Popcorn at the ready...

I have sailed on 4 blocks of flats so far - they are the P&O Arcadia, QE and QV (all Vista class ships) - and RCI Voyager of the Seas. Mostly, any big blows that came along on these ships saw us with quartering swells/waves and they all performed quite nicely. In particular, I had a distinct feeling on VOS that she was riding like a train on tracks.

 

BUT!! - and this is a really BIG BUT!! :D -- we were forced to tackle a Force 11/gusting into Force 12 (officially a violent storm at force 11 and a hurricane at force 12??) HEAD ON while in the Atlantic on Arcadia. We were on route to Barbados (actually heading for the Azores but that had to be cancelled.) The reason it had to be cancelled was because this Vista class ship did not like BIG seas coming head on to her at all - and they had to slow the ship to 10 knots to prevent damage (to the ship and/or passengers) . I think this is where these modern design ships are weak - being forced to face huge seas head on. It is not always possible to avoid storms -- this one was so big that it basically covered an enormous area of the Atlantic and I believe that the Captain had no alternative but to commit to his course. We all survived of course -- but I would much have preferred at that time to be on QM2 :D

 

Barry

Really???:eek: Doesn't that worry you?

 

Sir Martin

England. Therefore the Sir,a knight of the round table> She must have given you BRAIN DAMAGE by the

BANG !! hehehehe

Hi Turquoise I understand what you are saying but the draught, displacement are all interesting factors.

 

My ferry remark was VERY much tongue in cheek but surely a ferry is a vessel that is designed to carry goods and\or passengers but I would very much disagree with your last part of the definition regarding small body of water!! English Channel might be deemed smallish but ferry services to Norway, Spain etc are certainly not. Then what about scheduled services to possibly New Zealand from Australia. Once a ship is transporting goods or passengers on a sceduled run then is it a ferry? It does sound silly and this remark was indeed tongue in cheek so can I call the World's biggest container ships ferries if they are on scheduled, regular runs? Thinking also of the old bannana boats :)

Your great Ocean going liners were quite small compared to the ships of today and I would suggest they were far, far and in fact FAR less stable than the modern Vista class cruise ship that some folks appear to be so critical of.

 

As I said previously I do have my own ideas of the differences but is it draught or beam?.

Hi G. Yes ,I have seen the ferries that sail in Northern Europe . They look like cruise ships.

The Ocean liners of the past were smaller,but they were stable and were beautiful to look at and sail on.

The Qm2 is a stable ship,but i have been in a few big storms on the transatlantic ,and the ship "rocked" . I remember hitting a storm and I could

not walk in my stateroom.

I don't think the vista ships are stable for the transatlantic run,as they were made for cruising in shallow ports. the draft is not deep enough

I think it may well be a case of needs must... If the market was there the Queen Mary 2 would still probably remain ferrying :p;) passengers from Southampton to New York and vice versa but I would suggest it is no longer viable to have her devoted to this one single role and she has slipped into her new task of cruising the high seas offering her own perhaps unique style of cruising with the occassional ferry trip across the pond? Not sure about 'unique' and perhaps style might be a better word although she is the only ship with a planetarium.

 

What do we mean by 'liner' as opposed to cruise ship? I have my ideas but I would be interested to hear the observations of others that use this saying.

Ocean liners are designed and built to carry passengers across an ocean from one point to another,with a regular schedule. Cruise ships are designed

with a smaller draft to for holiday traveling and getting into more ports of call. A ferry is a boat in commercial service for transporting automobiles,people,ducks,chickens, horses,beer etc over a river or a comparatively small body of water.

In a way this debate has a lot in common with an exact opposite form of transport.

 

Concorde

 

An aircraft that offered a service that was allegedly no longer required.

 

If there was a need for a scheduled transatlantic service then I would like to think that any business would quickly recognise the need and a Vista class vessel would be just as capable as the Queen Mary to supply that service. Speed can always be coupled with navigation where the ship just steams around a storm as opposed to steaming through it..

 

At present all three Cunard ships are on a supposed world cruise itinerary and looking at the speeds these ships are cruising at shows absolutely no diffedrence between the fastest vessel or the slowest. Queen Victoria 12knots, Queen Mary 14 and the Queen Elizabeth 18. Speed eats fuel, fuel eats into profit. High speeds across the Atlantic are a thing of the past and it looks like they will never return.

 

Folks that enjoy these crossings appear to demand or want high speed... The king is dead, long live the new king. Are we perhaps seeing the queen Mary 2 being used more and more as a cruise ship and less and less as a Transatlantic *ferry :eek::eek:? ;) (humour)

 

*Ferry = merchant ship designed to carry passengers or cargo across an expanse of water.

 

You say liner, I say ferry

 

You say tomatoe, I say tomato :)

The QM2 is NOT a ferry,It is a cruise ship. It was intended to be an Ocean Liner,but didn't live up to that role.

Many great Ocean Liners became cruise ships in their later life. Eg: France to Norway. The Mauritania, Statendam , Constitution ,Independence

The Rotterdam became a hotel.

Only two sailings from NY for B2B. out of 52 weeks!

That's sad. The Qm2 has lost it's legacy to be a True TransAtlantic liner, as was the QE2 and those Cunard ships before. The QM2 has given up or lost

the NEW YORK port base , and the regular Liner schedule.

The point of the post was QM2 and its now downgraded TA service..there are plenty of slow "cruise" liners around..ie QV/QE to enjoy ..The Transatlantics prior to 2010 were something no other passenger ship was capable of . NYC and the NorthAmerican market has lost a number of sailings with this new service operation..This ship was desgined and built by Cunard of the late 1990s/early 2000s for the Transatlantic market out of NYC with only 3 or 4 European cruises per summer..I dont know if the oil prices ruined the business model for that service..but todays sailings are not what the pre-Princess/PO.. Cunard mangement had in mind when this ship was planned as every broucher was almost all about Cunard and the Atlantic crossing...

Yes ,your comment is true about the downgrade service of TransAtlantic service. The QM2 will not have the same legacy of the Ocean Liner QE2.

This is the fault of Cunard

The Qm2 has given up the what the QM2 was made to do, TransAtlantic Voyages. I was looking at the 2013/2014 schedules and I don't see any

roundtrip sailings from Brooklyn /New York. The Qm2 is now a cruise ship.

I am going to have to fly one way and sail the other. I miss the the roundtrip

and consistant transatlantic schedule. I am now reconsidering the benefit of flying!:)

Local media in Oz reports that the new ship will be an almost complete replica of the original Titanic although obviously with state of the art navigation and safety (!) systems. It will have the 3 segregated classes, no TV, no Internet for passengers, in fact the full 1912 "experience" (apart from the iceberg). It might work as a gimmick for a while but I'm sure the novelty value will quickly pale and Clive Palmer - who plans to sail in 3rd class/steerage BTW - will find himself with a huge white (star?) elephant.

 

And coming from a superstitious naval family as I do I'd be very wary of a ship named after a doomed predecessor.

wow, this is how to KILL A DREAM. CYNICAL ,SACRED ,SARCASTIC,

There's a reason for that. They can't fill her if they do nothing but TAs for several months in a row. They've balanced TAs and cruises in order to keep her as close to full as possible for all sailings.

 

Beyond the maiden voyage, does anyone know what Titanic II will offer for itineraries? I doubt she'll sell out with a consistent schedule of TAs.

" theres a reason for THAT":confused:..thank you for THAT;)

Are they building Andrea Doria 2 ??????

The Andrea DORIA was a beautiful ocean liner,as well as the Italian Line fleet.

travelers prefer to fly than take the Ocean Liners to the southern transatlantic

route. so ,I doubt if that would happen. The Titanic is a different story:cool:

now that is funny!!!!!!!!!!!!

THATS FUNNY?????:confused:

My daughter went to Belfast and the people there have a motto about the Titanic:

 

"It was fine when it left here!":D

NOT TRUE!!!! Do your research ,heheee:)

And wasn't that just about the most cringe-worthy, toe-curlingly embarrassing outpouring of worthless verbiage that ever assaulted your ears?

 

J

the ship is being built in CHINA!!!!!

and whats wrong with that??? The Titanic was built in IRELAND!!!!!! HEHEEE:)

I imagine Cunard are thinking that they have a fleet of three modern ships with all the amenities (including balconies) that the modern cruise market demands and not some half baked replica of a 100 year old ship that sank on its maiden voyage with the loss of over 1,500 lives.

 

J

and look forward to see Titanic 2 sail.

Cunard gave up on the idea of the QM2 being a transatlantic ocean liner with a consistent schedule. The QV & QE and cruise ships,not ocean liners .