Mr. Matthew, regarding the Queen Victoria...

As I mentioned I would do, I did a bit of research and found this website:

http://www.worldcruise-network.com/projects/victoria-cunard/

that totally bore out your statement that the QV is not a liner. I didn't doubt you in the least but I needed to understand why. Now I do.

Thanks for pointing out my error. Had you not, I would have continued to refer to her incorrectly.

Regardless of the fact that she is not a liner I am sure that she will do Cunard proud. She is an absolutely lovely vessel.

I do think there is at least one error in the Technical Specifications.

As written, the hull's beam is wider than the bridge wings. The opposite is usually the case, so officers on the bridge can observe the length of the ship, particularly when backing away from finger piers.

I do think there is at least one error in the Technical Specifications.

 

As written, the hull's beam is wider than the bridge wings. The opposite is usually the case, so officers on the bridge can observe the length of the ship, particularly when backing away from finger piers.

The tech specs indicate a beam of 41 meters above the water line. Could it be that this would be somewhere amidships, well aft of the bridge? Other sites agree that the beam, I expect at the waterline, is 32.3 meters.

The tech specs indicate a beam of 41 meters above the water line. Could it be that this would be somewhere amidships, well aft of the bridge? Other sites agree that the beam, I expect at the waterline, is 32.3 meters.

The Queen Victoria is a Panamax ship and the present locks are 33 meters (108 ft 3.21 in) wide.

Wikipedia claims that the widest ships to transit are the two North Carolina class battleships, USS North Carolina and USS Washington, which had beams of 33.025 metres (108 ft 3.875 inches). (They must have scraped off a quarter inch of paint from each side!)

So the specs claim of "a beam of 41m (135ft) above the waterline" can only refer to the extreme width of the Grills Upper Terrace on Deck 12. Then the "36.6m (120ft) at the extreme of the bridge wings" makes sense.

Paul

The Queen Victoria is a Panamax ship and the present locks are 33 meters (108 ft 3.21 in) wide.

 

Wikipedia claims that the widest ships to transit are the two North Carolina class battleships, USS North Carolina and USS Washington, which had beams of 33.025 metres (108 ft 3.875 inches). (They must have scraped off a quarter inch of paint from each side!)

 

So the specs claim of "a beam of 41m (135ft) above the waterline" can only refer to the extreme width of the Grills Upper Terrace on Deck 12. Then the "36.6m (120ft) at the extreme of the bridge wings" makes sense.

 

Paul

Sounds exactly right to me, Paul.

Thanks.

Well, that explanation does make some sense - but Grills Terrace is part of the superstructure, not the hull.

I of course was referring to hull beam, and the bridge wings do allow officers on the wings to scan the length of the hull. I shouldn't think they would be as concerned about superstructure above their level as they would be for objects below their level.

Well, that explanation does make some sense - but Grills Terrace is part of the superstructure, not the hull.

 

I of course was referring to hull beam, and the bridge wings do allow officers on the wings to scan the length of the hull. I shouldn't think they would be as concerned about superstructure above their level as they would be for objects below their level.

I agree. However, I've seen beam reported at a few different levels on some specifications that I've read. In fact, that's the only reason that I mentioned it.

From Cunard's QV Technical Information:

Lengths

Overall: 964.5 feett (294 meters)

Beam: 106 feet (32.3 meters)

Beam at bridge Wings 120 feet (36.6 meters)

Draft 26.2 feet (8 meters)

Heights

Keel To Funnel 205 feet (62.5 meters)

Above Water Line 179 feet (54.6 meters)

About the "liner" issue: Especially with her thicker plating and strength, surely she is an ocean liner as opposed to the run of the mill cruise ships even though her looks will deceive. How she makes it across the north Atlantic in winter will be interesting! As far as RMS is concerned, the Queens Mary And Elizabeth were RMS while Cunard's smaller and slower vessels, e.g. Mauritania 1939, Caronia 1949, were not. Clearly, the latter two were "ocean liners" however. So it would seem to be a semantical issue and fun to talk about, perhaps in Victoria's Commodore Club, mid ocean, hopefully no waves breaking above our windows!

John Maxwell Graham has stated that there are only two liners in existance (you know which) but other "experts" on these boards have claimed that even cross chanel ferries are liners.

I'll stick with John and accept that soon there will be just one.

David.

As far as RMS is concerned, the Queens Mary And Elizabeth were RMS while Cunard's smaller and slower vessels, e.g. Mauritania 1939, Caronia 1949, were not. Clearly, the latter two were "ocean liners" however.

quote]

 

 

 

Hmmmm.... I have a whole album of old Cunard postcards that show MAURETANIA, CARONIA.... as well as a just about every other Cunard ship and they were all designated ROYAL MAIL SHIPS. They carried the mails! RMS was dropped when Cunard started to introduce the purpose built cruise ships CUNARD AMBASSADOR and CUNARD ADVENTURER.

 

The term 'liner' is a real misleading term. It has little or nothing to do with the thickness of the hull plating or the length of the ship... or anything else for that matter. A 'liner' is a vessel that sails on a 'liner service' as opposed top a vessel that is employed for cruising purposes. For Cunard the run from Southampton to New York is a liner run so any vessel employed on that run is a 'liner'. Crossings that are posititioning voyages are not considered to be line voyages. If Carnival were to start offering a transatlantic 'service' from say, Miami to Naples and the CARNIVAL XXX was employed carrrying passengers between those two ports on a regular basis then the CARNIVAL XXX would be called an 'ocean liner'! :eek:

 

Personally, I don't think the term liner carries any weight at all. It just sounds better than 'cruise ship'.

 

Stephen

Personally, I don't think the term liner carries any weight at all. It just sounds better than 'cruise ship'.

 

Stephen

 

 

 

And like we discussed elsewhere, the term sounds better than "guest vessel" :eek: :D ;)

As I mentioned I would do, I did a bit of research and found this website:

 

http://www.worldcruise-network.com/projects/victoria-cunard/

 

that totally bore out your statement that the QV is not a liner. I didn't doubt you in the least but I needed to understand why. Now I do.

 

Thanks for pointing out my error. Had you not, I would have continued to refer to her incorrectly.

 

Regardless of the fact that she is not a liner I am sure that she will do Cunard proud. She is an absolutely lovely vessel.

Thanks. I reckon I owe you a glass of champagne when we next meet on a Cunarder for that post. Deal?

Matthew

Thanks. I reckon I owe you a glass of champagne when we next meet on a Cunarder for that post. Deal?

 

Matthew

Deal, but only if I can offer you a good scotch in return.

Deal, but only if I can offer you a good scotch in return.

I don't think I'd need too much persuasion!

Matthew

I don't think I'd need too much persuasion!

 

Matthew

Will there be any refreshment for the Sidekick??

Will there be any refreshment for the Sidekick??

Of course......

Like I could stop you anyway!

Matthew

[quote name=PRINSENDAM;12563035

Hmmmm.... I have a whole album of old Cunard postcards that show MAURETANIA' date=' CARONIA.... as well as a just about every other Cunard ship and they were all designated ROYAL MAIL SHIPS. They carried the mails! RMS was dropped when Cunard started to introduce the purpose built cruise ships CUNARD AMBASSADOR and CUNARD ADVENTURER.

Stephen[/quote]

Yes, Stephen, you are correct; RMS Mauritania and RMS Caronia: I don't know what I was thinking (or not)! Thank you!

I agree entirely with Stephen. An ocean liner is not an ocean liner because of this or that feature of her design... She is an ocean liner because of the voyages she undertakes.

All the features cited as "making" QM2 an ocean liner are merely symptoms of the fact that she was designed as an ocean liner. A ship designed as an ordinary cruise ship could be pressed into liner service, though probably not with a good result. (This was briefly tried in the 1980s with the ASTOR - the first one, now ASTORIA, not the present ASTOR - on line voyages from the UK to South Africa with a decidedly negative outcome.)

QM2 is a liner, but it has nothing to do with her design. She is designed the way she is because of the anticipation that she would be a liner; she is not a liner because of the way she was designed. And I suppose when she is on cruises she is a cruise ship. (And when she's on a line voyage that's also a leg of a cruise... Both, I guess.)

As for QUEEN VICTORIA, as of now she isn't a liner, because her schedule is occupied by one thing: cruises. If at some point Cunard decides to run a regular liner service using her I guess she'll be a liner, albeit not a very good one (compared to QM2 anyway). She certainly was not designed and built to be anything other than a cruise ship. Whatever features are touted as making her a "liner" just come down to the fact that she is expected to undertake slightly more "active" itineraries than some other cruise ships.

Interesting series of postings! Can someone give me the definition of a "line voyage"?

Interesting series of postings! Can someone give me the definition of a "line voyage"?

Most simply, it is an advertised voyage between two or more ports for the purpose of transporting passengers and/or cargo. What the airlines do is actually what a 'line voyages' used to be by sea.

Stephen