New picture of Queen Elizabeth

I guess that is off Venice, what an ugly stern,

:eek: It looks like Photoshop was used to combine parts of a cargo ship, a contemporary passenger ship and a traditional Cunard ocean liner.

Nice paint job! ;)

what an ugly stern,

I know,I know.....but I guess it means more deck space for the poor people......

I guess that is off Venice, what an ugly stern,

Thankfully the QM2 has the classic ocean liner profile because she is a Transatlantic Liner and next January even then at the age of being 7 years old,The QM2 can still be considered at least almost a brand new ship and I admit that the QM2 is my favorite ship.I agree with you the new Queen Elizabeth has an ugly stern :eek: Regards,Jerry

Surely it's the eternal dilemma. What is more important

Are we more interested on the interiors ( looking out) or the outside ( looking in) ???

Don't forget the original iconic Queen Elizabeth was built B.B.C. (before balcony cabins.)

Surely it's the eternal dilemma. What is more important

Are we more interested on the interiors ( looking out) or the outside ( looking in) ???

 

Don't forget the original iconic Queen Elizabeth was built B.B.C. (before balcony cabins.)

As saying goes, it's not the external appearance, what's on the inside that's important. I know that's true when it comes to people, so perhaps it applies to ships too. Well, for the sake of QE, let's hope that's the case.:)

She is ugly, but her interiors as seen on the Cunard blog are breathtaking. Since we will be on board, it is, as some have noticed, the inside that will count.

One thing for sure, there probably won't be as many photos taken of the QE during the tandem crossing in January with the Queen Victoria.

She is ugly, but her interiors as seen on the Cunard blog are breathtaking. Since we will be on board, it is, as some have noticed, the inside that will count.

Breathtaking? it's exactly like the Queen Victoria, the Eurodam and the Ruby Princess. I love how someone like Peter hypes the differences on QE..all one has to do is look on Princess..where these ammenities were tested out...just in different colors.

If the cap fits.....

Oh Peter..say hi to David.

The new Queen Elizabeth should have been built with a identical stern like her sister Queen Victoria :)

And why not? Everything else about Betty is close enough to Vicky that they're nearly identical :D

Breathtaking? it's exactly like the Queen Victoria

Kevin, you see no irony in you complaining about lack of originality?:rolleyes:

look on Princess..where these ammenities were tested out...just in different colors.

Go on....post the photographs!

Your right Capn, It is ugly. I printed pix of Victoria and Elizabeth from the Cunard Deck Plan pages and while both have the 'Hotel Afloat" look at least the Victoria is a bit more graceful looking.

I wonder if the design has anything to do with the complaints of soot and noise from the stack, or if its just more 'how many passengers can we get aboard'?

As others have said, both of these queens cannot hold a candle to HM Queen Mary 2, now there is a Cunarder worth the name.

Mike

I know,I know.....but I guess it means more deck space for the poor people......

Aren't Cunard cutting down on the deck space by doing away with the lower terraces or is it the same amount just moved up. I think that is correct.

Aren't Cunard cutting down on the deck space by doing away with the lower terraces or is it the same amount just moved up. I think that is correct.

No - its a lot more space for the Britannia pax - the losers are the QG/PG suites below which now have shallower balconies. There were no public terraces below this deck.

I wonder if the design has anything to do with the complaints of soot and noise from the stack, or if its just more 'how many passengers can we get aboard'?

Some more passengers and a LOT more deck space for Britannia pax.

Can it be called Middle-age spread in the rear? :D(Even though she's a new ship her namesake was ... built ages ago).

Please: her name is the R.M.S. Queen Mary 2, not H.M.S.

Thank you kindly.

http://media.shipspotting.com/uploads/photos/rw/1165267/Ship+Photo+QUEEN+ELIZABETH.jpg

Progress. :rolleyes:

 

Progress. :rolleyes:

If I could take the liberty of paraphrasing a well known old saw - “progress is in the eye of the beholder”.

Compared with the English longbow, early firearms were so inefficient, so slow to bring into action, and so woefully inaccurate that it is almost incomprehensible that they were tolerated at all, and yet there is no doubt that they represented progress.

I don’t think that there was a single officer or soldier in even one of Britain’s historic mounted cavalry regiments who regarded it as progress when asked to give up their beloved horses in order to drive around in nasty, dirty, oily, claustrophobic tanks reeking of petrol fumes, and yet, those same tanks - under armed, under armoured, mobile death traps that they were - undoubtedly would be considered progress by any military historian worthy of the name.

Ask any railway enthusiast if they were happy about the move from steam locomotives to diesel and electric traction, and you will receive a very robust answer indeed – and yet that was progress too, for a very wide variety of reasons, mostly economic.

Now harsh economic imperatives drive the design of cruise ships, but the results still represent progress of a sort. Just because one is averse to some particular aspect or characteristic in the evolution of a design, it does not mean that it isn’t progress. And, like time’s arrow, the arrow of progress is irreversible. The world will not give up its jet airliners to return to the “golden age” of piston powered biplanes, the railway companies will not suddenly bring back the Gresley A4 Pacifics or the Union Pacific Challengers, the automobile will not disappear from our highways in favour of horse drawn carriages, and the cruise industry will not revert to using beautiful ocean liners with three funnels and the sleek lines of a thoroughbred transatlantic greyhound. Attractive though some of those propositions may appear, they are simply never going to happen.

So I suggest that we all simply get over it and give thanks to whatever higher power we believe in that ocean travel, against all the odds, is still possible. Because, in my humble opinion, ocean travel is what it's really all about.

J

The world will not give up its jet airliners to return to the “golden age” of piston powered biplanes, the railway companies will not suddenly bring back the Gresley A4 Pacifics or the Union Pacific Challengers, the automobile will not disappear from our highways in favour of horse drawn carriages, and the cruise industry will not revert to using beautiful ocean liners with three funnels and the sleek lines of a thoroughbred transatlantic greyhound. Attractive though some of those propositions may appear, they are simply never going to happen.

Actually you picked a bad railway example. There are several railway trips behind Gresley A4 Pacifics and a brand new Gresley A1 Pacific has recently been built (to the old design) and runs on the current mainline network.

Similarly I run a bus company whose buses and coaches date from between 1961 and 1967, i.e. the newest is 43 years old.

Peter

Actually you picked a bad railway example. There are several railway trips behind Gresley A4 Pacifics and a brand new Gresley A1 Pacific has recently been built (to the old design) and runs on the current mainline network.

Peter

Peter, I'm sorry, but I disagree totally - it is in no way a bad example. Those locomotives represent our heritage. They are not in use on every day scheduled services. Of course they still exist. Just as Queen Mary still exists but she isn't doing too many transatlantic voyages these days. Preserving our industrial heritage is a totally different thing from the notion of using that kind of technology to meet the day to day requirements of mass passenger transport.

There are many Spitfires still capable of flying and still thrilling the crowds at air displays, but they are not used to equip front-line RAF squadrons. The Household Cavalry still has a mounted regiment, but they don't take their horses to Afghanistan. Historic vehicle rallies are held through the country, but you don't see too many steam traction engines travelling up and down the M1 in revenue earning freight transport service.

Oh, and by the way, the A1 Pacific was designed by Arthur Peppercorn, not Sir Nigel Gresley. Here's a photo of Tornado taken at Platform 10 in York last Saturday.

J