New Cunard Ship coming in 2022

Am I correct in thinking QM2 will still be the one and only in her class?

Am I correct in thinking QM2 will still be the one and only in her class?

Well, in another thirty years or so she will be ending her planned lifetime, so there may be a successor 'last ocean liner'.

I'm hoping that is an annual school project for naval architects somewhere.

With the present use of QM2 and her woefully diminished speed (7 days to cross the North Atlantic... that was the passage time in the 1890s on Cunard!) there really isn't much need for a specially designed "liner". Most of the heavy plating and framing is for high speed crossings where the possibility of "pounding" in high seas is an issue. The Vista class QE and QV cross the Atlantic quite safely and comfortably in eight days as it is. And they make as many winter crossings as does QM2 in fact. Few. And if anything, their layout gives a more defined class system than QM2 with a completely "ship within a ship" for grill passengers.

As it is, QM2 is overbuilt, over-engined and over-designed for her present service and I doubt she will be repeated. She was designed for the prevailing six-day crossings then and could indeed do it in five. She is wasted on seven-day ones. The main difference seems to be that she has kennels and since few bother to transport their cars anymore, that's about the extent of the "liner" distinction.

With the present use of QM2 and her woefully diminished speed (7 days to cross the North Atlantic... that was the passage time in the 1890s on Cunard!) there really isn't much need for a specially designed "liner". Most of the heavy plating and framing is for high speed crossings where the possibility of "pounding" in high seas is an issue. The Vista class QE and QV cross the Atlantic quite safely and comfortably in eight days as it is. And they make as many winter crossings as does QM2 in fact. Few. And if anything, their layout gives a more defined class system than QM2 with a completely "ship within a ship" for grill passengers.

 

As it is, QM2 is overbuilt, over-engined and over-designed for her present service and I doubt she will be repeated. She was designed for the prevailing six-day crossings then and could indeed do it in five. She is wasted on seven-day ones. The main difference seems to be that she has kennels and since few bother to transport their cars anymore, that's about the extent of the "liner" distinction.

I doubt it very much, Jerry. Cunard never went back to five-day crossings when they went to six days for the same reason: save fuel costs. And no way are they going back to six, either. It's the classic "well if they're in a hurry, they can fly" excuse. And by making the North Atlantic crossing into a one-week cruise, they are off the hook. And fuel costs are as low as they get and have been for two years and counting. Most people now don't even remember QE2 as a "proper" North Atlantic express liner crossing from Southampton to New York in actually 4 1/2 days both as a steamship and after re-engining as motorship. 29-30 knots. Flat out. Now what was a crossing... today, QM2 is a loafer and it's sad really since she was built to be an Atlantic Greyhound.

I’m with you 100% Peter. I don’t think there will be another QM2. Sure Cunard will build other cruise ships they will call a “liner”, but they won’t have the liner attributes that QM2 has. The cost to overbuild such a ship is astronomically expensive, and completely unnecessary given the realities of a 7 or 8 day crossing that has become the norm today.

I’m very thankful we have QM2 and I love the ship (quirks and all), but I think she is the last of her breed. I hope she is with us a long time.

I doubt it very much, Jerry. Cunard never went back to five-day crossings when they went to six days for the same reason: save fuel costs. And no way are they going back to six, either. It's the classic "well if they're in a hurry, they can fly" excuse. And by making the North Atlantic crossing into a one-week cruise, they are off the hook. And fuel costs are as low as they get and have been for two years and counting. Most people now don't even remember QE2 as a "proper" North Atlantic express liner crossing from Southampton to New York in actually 4 1/2 days both as a steamship and after re-engining as motorship. 29-30 knots. Flat out. Now what was a crossing... today, QM2 is a loafer and it's sad really since she was built to be an Atlantic Greyhound.

Couldn't have said it better. We live in strange times. You are spot on in that Cunard now crosses the Atlantic at 1890's pace. The first time in history that there is no striving to go farther, faster. Same with airlines. In the history of aviation, when Concorde was retired, there was nothing better, faster, higher to replace it. The much promoted "Dreamliner" is actually a bit slower than the 707 of 1958. Yes, yes, I know it is more "efficient". That is not the point. We should have 3 day crossings not 8!

The one mode of travel that seems to be improving in terms of speed is train travel. Everything else (ships, planes, cars, busses) is either stagnant or even slower.

I’m with you 100% Peter. I don’t think there will be another QM2. Sure Cunard will build other cruise ships they will call a “liner”, but they won’t have the liner attributes that QM2 has. The cost to overbuild such a ship is astronomically expensive, and completely unnecessary given the realities of a 7 or 8 day crossing that has become the norm today.

 

I’m very thankful we have QM2 and I love the ship (quirks and all), but I think she is the last of her breed. I hope she is with us a long time.

I maybe going out on a thin limb but I predict that there will be another proper Transatlantic Liner in the decade of the 2040s if Cunard is still having good bookings with the crossings and that the crossings are profitable. Yes I know that Ocean Liners cost more to build than Cruise Ships but the good thing about Ocean Liners is that they are built to last and it is more cost effective to build an Ocean Liner that could last 40 or more years than to build a Cruise Ship that will only last about 25-30 years. Regards,Jerry

Yes but ships over time (except for rare occasions) become vastly less desirable the older they get which translates to less revenue generated and less desirability to keep them in operation. Will QM2 in her twilight years capture the magic of QE2 in hers? It's possible- she has a much better chance than Empress of the Seas.

You can run anything virtually forever but does the public want to participate forever and the costs to do so compound heavily each year past a certain point. QM2 is a great "halo" product that at least lends credibility to Cunard's liner heritage (the others certainly don't) but I think at this point if you asked them they would say they wish they build 2 extra vistas for the cost of one QM2. Their accountants do at least.

I for one would never have sailed on Cunard if not for QM2. Seven years later we're Platinum.

I for one would never have sailed on Cunard if not for QM2. Seven years later we're Platinum.

Very similar to my sentiments. If it were not for QM2, it's highly unlikely we would have sailed with Cunard. Now we find ourselves having sailed ten voyages with Cunard, seven of which have been on QM2, and we have two more QM2 voyages booked. We have not sailed on the same ship more than once on any line (including Cunard) except for QM2. That's how much QM2 has meant to our cruising history and future plans.

Very similar to my sentiments. If it were not for QM2, it's highly unlikely we would have sailed with Cunard. Now we find ourselves having sailed ten voyages with Cunard, seven of which have been on QM2, and we have two more QM2 voyages booked. We have not sailed on the same ship more than once on any line (including Cunard) except for QM2. That's how much QM2 has meant to our cruising history and future plans.

And I think your sentiments are both a complete validation of why she was built in the first place. It was a perfect storm when she was conceived and built-QE2 was long in the tooth, the movie Titanic had everyone stirred up about transatlantic crossings, and the owner and CEO had a warm spot for transat liners ever since he emigrated on Mauretania 2.

She's a highly unique ship with incredible power, speed, and strength. As noted by others on this thread- she's way over-engineered for what she's deployed on right now- 7 day crossings are plodding and slow compared to what she's capable of. I for one long for the quick 5 and then 6 day crossings that QE2 and originally QM2 made. I'd frankly be willing to pay for for a 5 day crossing that doesn't take a whole week out of my time in Europe- I think I'm probably in the minority of wanting to pay more for less which is part of the issue.

My point wasn't that QM2 was a mistake, she wasn't- she's made the modern Cunard. She kept the public's attention after QE2 was gone. It is that when QM2 heads to Shanghai in 2045 to become a floating hotel it's doubtful they will spend the resources again to create a ship with such unique capabilities that were only used for 3-5 years of her otherwise extremely long working life.

And I think your sentiments are both a complete validation of why she was built in the first place. It was a perfect storm when she was conceived and built-QE2 was long in the tooth, the movie Titanic had everyone stirred up about transatlantic crossings, and the owner and CEO had a warm spot for transat liners ever since he emigrated on Mauretania 2.

 

She's a highly unique ship with incredible power, speed, and strength. As noted by others on this thread- she's way over-engineered for what she's deployed on right now- 7 day crossings are plodding and slow compared to what she's capable of. I for one long for the quick 5 and then 6 day crossings that QE2 and originally QM2 made. I'd frankly be willing to pay for for a 5 day crossing that doesn't take a whole week out of my time in Europe- I think I'm probably in the minority of wanting to pay more for less which is part of the issue.

 

My point wasn't that QM2 was a mistake, she wasn't- she's made the modern Cunard. She kept the public's attention after QE2 was gone. It is that when QM2 heads to Shanghai in 2045 to become a floating hotel it's doubtful they will spend the resources again to create a ship with such unique capabilities that were only used for 3-5 years of her otherwise extremely long working life.

The Vista Queens are not capable of 7 day crossings. They could only do 8 day crossings and they also do not ride the occasional rough North Atlantic storms well either. Try to sell North Atlantic crossings to the public when the Ship in question is not really designed to ride North Atlantic storms well and that same Ship gets that reputation and passengers avoid going aboard that same Ship for the North Atlantic crossings because of that reputation.Remember that the Vista Queens are not Liners. That is why I will stick to my prediction that when the time comes for the QM2's retirement and hopefully she'll make it to the decade of the 2040s, and if she still does get good bookings for her North Atlantic crossings her replacement will be another Ocean Liner. Regards,Jerry

For the technically inclined, here is a very concise description of QM2's unique machinery in an interview with her Chief Engineer, Brian Watling, that also explains why the ship went to seven-day crossings in 2010:

http://beyondships.com/QM2-art-Watling.html

For the technically inclined, here is a very concise description of QM2's unique machinery in an interview with her Chief Engineer, Brian Watling, that also explains why the ship went to seven-day crossings in 2010:

 

http://beyondships.com/QM2-art-Watling.html

I think that I may have heard that Stephen Payne regrets adding the 2 gas turbines and now he says that it would have been better to have a 5th diesel engine to generate more electricity than the 2 gas turbines since the QM2 needs electricity to sail. Am I right with this story of Stephen Payne's regret of the 2 gas turbines? Regards,Jerry

Can't say... but I suspect in hindsight, machinery of any type that proves too costly to use regularly isn't a good choice. And even now with fuel costs at low ebb.

Running those gas turbines must cost a lot indeed if you consider a six-day crossing would save a day. QM2 will make 24 trans-Atlantic crossings in 2018 and saving a day off each one gives 24 more "utility" days. So that's like two additional 12-day cruises or four more six-day crossings per annum. That's a lot of extra revenue production and would probably give a more flexible and varied schedule, too. But obviously, the bean cutters have massaged the figures to distraction and we're stuck with seven-day crossings I think for the rest of her service life. Indeed, the trend seems to be for even longer crossings by tacking on Hamburg at the end giving eight days total. And to think QE2 used to do Southampton-Le Havre/Cherbourg-NY in five days.....

I think that I may have heard that Stephen Payne regrets adding the 2 gas turbines and now he says that it would have been better to have a 5th diesel engine to generate more electricity than the 2 gas turbines since the QM2 needs electricity to sail. Am I right with this story of Stephen Payne's regret of the 2 gas turbines? Regards,Jerry

I’m sure I also heard that, I think QM2 was originally designed with two engine rooms of 4 diesels before the decision was made to use turbines, this was because the two GTs produce as much power as 4 diesels - so one extra diesel probably wouldn’t be enough... two maybe if a 7 day crossing was the new contract requirement.

Ultimately I think hydrogen fuel cells will become the new go-to power plants for ships; at that point a 6 day crossing schedule (where Cunard can squeeze 7 6 day crossings into the space of 6 7 day crossings) might be back on the table.

I think that I may have heard that Stephen Payne regrets adding the 2 gas turbines and now he says that it would have been better to have a 5th diesel engine to generate more electricity than the 2 gas turbines since the QM2 needs electricity to sail. Am I right with this story of Stephen Payne's regret of the 2 gas turbines? Regards,Jerry

Gas turbines are very light for their output, responsive to changing load/demand - but they are at their most efficient operation when running at full speed. And its rare that full power is needed. [and they need to burn more expensive low sulfur #2 diesel, instead of the 'heavy oil' that suffices for the low speed marine diesels]

On our recent TA, one of the diesels was offline and the turbines were needed for the entire cruise as a supplement.

I doubt it very much, Jerry. Cunard never went back to five-day crossings when they went to six days for the same reason: save fuel costs. And no way are they going back to six, either. It's the classic "well if they're in a hurry, they can fly" excuse. And by making the North Atlantic crossing into a one-week cruise, they are off the hook. And fuel costs are as low as they get and have been for two years and counting. Most people now don't even remember QE2 as a "proper" North Atlantic express liner crossing from Southampton to New York in actually 4 1/2 days both as a steamship and after re-engining as motorship. 29-30 knots. Flat out. Now what was a crossing... today, QM2 is a loafer and it's sad really since she was built to be an Atlantic Greyhound.

Don’t forget having 7 6 day cruises in the space of 6 7 day cruises would make Cunard more money all else being equal. The reason they extended was because the linear increase in consumption of the gas turbines as speed increases flipped the economics for QM2. If she’d been all diesel, it likely still would have been more profitable to squeeze in more 6 day crossings than fewer 7 day ones. Taking inflation into account, fuel is still more pricey than when QE2 was doing 5 day crossings, and the gas turbine fuel is more expensive still.

the linear increase in consumption of the gas turbines as speed increases

Fuel consumption increases faster with increases in speed than linearly. For example, friction resistance in the water increases approximately as the square of speed. This is regardless of the means of generating propulsive power. There really isn't a faster speed of a ship that makes economic sense regardless of how many more trips the ship can take, assuming that they'd have to continue to sell passage at a competitive price.

Fuel consumption increases faster with increases in speed than linearly. For example, friction resistance in the water increases approximately as the square of speed. This is regardless of the means of generating propulsive power. There really isn't a faster speed of a ship that makes economic sense regardless of how many more trips the ship can take, assuming that they'd have to continue to sell passage at a competitive price.

I know the overall power consumption per knot goes up exponentially, I was rather referring to the specific fact the GTs will use twice as much fuel for twice as much power generation and half as much for half - it’s closely linked, unlike diesels which won’t consume much more fuel running at 100% than they will at 80% or 50%. As for the more trips vs longer trips, they haven’t really put the prices up for 7 day vs 6 day, so they’re effectively losing £6m sale of rooms revenue for each trip they have to drop to accommodate the longer cruises. This is obviously made up for by fuel savings or they wouldn’t do it. If they adopted hydrogen fuel cells and all infrastructure was in place for this type of power generating capacity, then absolutely it would make sense to have more 6 day crossings as the savings from fuel consumption would be minimised.

Given that Carnival are looking at 3000 passengers, the ship will also need the 'biggest ballroom at sea'.

 

The Queens Room on Big Band Ball on QE in August was completely crammed every night, the thought of adding a further 1000 passengers to a similar size floor to that of QV an QE would be put anyone off sailing on her for life.

As avid ballroom dancers it is nice to see a comment about the ballroom at last! Certainly the Cunard ballrooms are far and away the best on the current cruise ships that we have experienced, though it is also true that there are times when the Queens Room on any of the current ships is packed with so many on the floor that you can at best shuffle along and not dance that well, especially on the big ball nights. However there are certainly times on most evenings when there is room to dance well. It's more a question of how many of the passengers are dancers rather than the absolute number of passengers on board on any cruise. It would be nice to know what plans Cunard have for the ballroom on the new ship - such as the size of the floor as well as whether there is plenty of space for tables around the floor, and whether there is a seated viewing gallery on the upper level or not, and also whether there is a bar nearby or not. On some other ships on other lines there are smaller dance floors than on the Cunard ships but also sometimes you can get more dancing done if there are fewer dancers making the density of people on the floor easier to handle for floorcraft. In addition there seems to be an increasing demand for sequence dancing on cruises in general - and for those dancers who enjoy the pure ballroom and Latin dances this restricts the time when you can dance unless you join in with the increasing number of the current several thousand sequence dances that have several new ones added each month! So having a dance floor for the sequence dances separate to the floor where only ballroom and Latin is danced would be mightily appreciated by some dancers, though that is probably not likely to happen.

Either way - if anyone hears of any details of the ballroom on the new ship I would love to see them.

Given that Carnival are looking at 3000 passengers, the ship will also need the 'biggest ballroom at sea'.

 

The Queens Room on Big Band Ball on QE in August was completely crammed every night, the thought of adding a further 1000 passengers to a similar size floor to that of QV an QE would be put anyone off sailing on her for life.

My answer to Egremont and Mcloaked is that the new Cunard Queen entering service in 2022 is based on the Pinnacle Class Cruise Ship design which is an enlarged design of the Vista Class Cruise Ship which Queen Victoria & Queen Elizabeth is based on. Both Queen Victoria & Queen Elizabeth are 964 feet long and 106 feet wide. The Pinnacle Class Cruise Ship is 975 feet long and 114 feet wide. And the new Cunard Pinnacle Queen will probably be stretched out another 30 or 40 feet in overall length to be either 1005 feet long or 1015 feet long. Regards,Jerry

My answer to Egremont and Mcloaked is that the new Cunard Queen entering service in 2022 is based on the Pinnacle Class Cruise Ship design which is an enlarged design of the Vista Class Cruise Ship which Queen Victoria & Queen Elizabeth is based on. Both Queen Victoria & Queen Elizabeth are 964 feet long and 106 feet wide. The Pinnacle Class Cruise Ship is 975 feet long and 114 feet wide. And the new Cunard Pinnacle Queen will probably be stretched out another 30 or 40 feet in overall length to be either 1005 feet long or 1015 feet long. Regards,Jerry

I will also add that the Pinnacle Class Cruise Ship design is a Holland America design that their first Ship MS Koningsdam is based on. Regards,Jerry