QE 2 a sad end

[jenno10388]

Then neither is/was QE2.

Both are liners, or neither are.

Both are also cruise ships.

The last major "pure" transatlantic liners included the SS France, and look how successful she was as a liner... Thankfully Cunard did not make the same mistake. They built a combination liner/cruise ship in reply and launched her as QE2.

Please tell me in which ways QE2 was physically superior to QM2 (other than top speed), thank you. I'd be interested to read of your personal observations onboard QE2 and on QM2, and how they differ, by way of comparison.

 

All best wishes.

 

As always, the judge has spoken!...

 

People are entitled to their own opinions pepp... As much as it has & always will displease you..

There is no right or wrong answer to this matter. It would always simply be a matter of personal opinion.

[Whitemarsh]

As always, the judge has spoken!...

 

People are entitled to their own opinions pepp... As much as it has & always will displease you..

There is no right or wrong answer to this matter. It would always simply be a matter of personal opinion.

 

Jenno, Jenno, Jenno....

 

You've transferred all your affections to the HAL board, been absent from the Cunard boards for I don't know how long, and yet apparently qualified to lecture Cunard stalwarts.

 

Personal opinions aside, there is usually a right or wrong answer to every question. One can hold whatever personal opinion one likes; having said that, the personal opinion may be wrong.

[jenno10388]

Jenno, Jenno, Jenno....

 

You've transferred all your affections to the HAL board, been absent from the Cunard boards for I don't know how long, and yet apparently qualified to lecture Cunard stalwarts.

 

Personal opinions aside, there is usually a right or wrong answer to every question. One can hold whatever personal opinion one likes; having said that, the personal opinion may be wrong.

 

Some may say I've branched out alittle from the same old sqaure and broadened my horizens whitemarsh...

 

The topic is whether the QE2 is more of a true liner over the QM2.

It was stated that in that particular posters personal opinion the QM2 is not a true liner. But naturally someone has jumped in and demanded evidence to back up such ludicrous claims... Seems to be the trend around here to shut down anyone with a different point of view from the dusty old norm..

There are many factors to consider in regards to the topic of 'true ocean liner' but unfortunately based on my research, I would have to say that more evidence leans towards the QE2 being a 'true liner' than the QM2. Afterall, I do not recall any ocean liners of the past (before typical modern cruise ships existed) featuring apartment block style balconys. That's just one observation.

 

But as I said, everyone is entitled to an opinion. It's not up to you, or anyone else to say whether its right or wrong.. No matter how amazing some of the regulars around here think they are.

[Whitemarsh]

Some may say I've branched out alittle from the same old sqaure and broadened my horizens whitemarsh...

 

Who are these people? What are their names? :D (Thanks Margaret)

 

Good for you that you're trying something different. Rumour has it that HAL attracts the morbidly obese, but I'm not sure why. You will be able to confirm if this is true on your upcoming HAL voyage.

 

The topic is whether the QE2 is more of a true liner over the QM2.

It was stated that in that particular posters personal opinion the QM2 is not a true liner. But naturally someone has jumped in and demanded evidence to back up such ludicrous claims...

 

Surely that is the point of Cruise Critic - to discuss ideas - there's always going to be discussion and a bit of back & forth banter. If a person wasn't able to handle someone disagreeing with their opinions, then it seems to me that a forum such as this is probably not the best place for them.

 

Seems to be the trend around here to shut down anyone with a different point of view from the dusty old norm..

 

Oh come on now, it's not as bad as all that.

 

But as I said, everyone is entitled to an opinion. It's not up to you, or anyone else to say whether its right or wrong..

 

Taking that statement to its logical conclusion it would be impermissible for me to correct the belief of someone who believed that the earth was flat. They would reply that it's their cherished opinion that the earth is flat and it's not up to me to say whether their opinion is right or wrong.

 

A more sensible approach is to recognise that whilst we all have opinions (which may or may not be accurate) we live in a free country and have the right to tell someone that the opinions they hold are wrong.

 

Of course this may soon change as a result of the Orwellian laws that Nicola Roxon is aiming to introduce which would make it a crime to offend someone.

 

No matter how amazing some of the regulars around here think they are.

 

They are pretty amazing though don't you think?

 

I bet the HAL boards are just filled with boring commentary on how HAL doesn't have a niche market - except of course the morbidly obese - and what a boring cruise line HAL is.

[seasidegal]

As always, the judge has spoken!...

 

People are entitled to their own opinions pepp... As much as it has & always will displease you..

There is no right or wrong answer to this matter. It would always simply be a matter of personal opinion.

 

 

I'm fairly new to posting on the Cunard Board, however, I've read it for years and am really impressed with the quality of 'conversation' and the topics that are discussed.

 

The posts are usually very informative, quite entertaining at times, and the subjects extremely interesting. Most posters are very polite and helpful.

 

I will have to, respectifully, disagree with your opinion of Pepperrn, as he was one of the long-time posters who first impressed me with his polite posts and patience with some of the questions that are asked on the board. I think I've read most of what he has written (along with many of the other 'regulars' on this forum-I would mention you by name but fear I would forget someone) and I can't think off hand of any of his postings that were judgemental. He is quick to say 'sorry' if he feels or thinks someone has been offended. He is also a wealth of knowledge on the QM2 (among some others here) and I've appreciated learning from him and the others.

 

Please tell me in which ways QE2 was physically superior to QM2 (other than top speed), thank you. I'd be interested to read of your personal observations onboard QE2 and on QM2, and how they differ, by way of comparison.

 

All best wishes.

 

I think the above quote shows an interest in another's opinion and using the words "thank you" and 'all best wishes' doesn't appear to me to be rude in any form. The back and forth (as Whitemarsh as so well said) is one of the purposes of cruise critic and is also how we learn from one another. This thread has been very interesting on the fate of QE2 and I also would be most interested in reading more on the subject of 'true ocean liners'. I do hope that retafcruiser and Pepperrn continue to share their views on this subject (along with others).

 

This is a good opportunity to say thank you to all the Cunard Regulars who share their experiences, their helpful tips and their very entertaining humour.

Thank you!

 

I think HAL will be great!

 

Jenno10388: We have friends who have cruised on Hal for years and are as attached to it as some here are to Cunard (QM2) and they certainly think it is 'great'! I hope you also enjoy it as much as they do. Happy sailings.

[cruisetrail]

Some may say I've branched out alittle from the same old sqaure and broadened my horizens whitemarsh...

 

The topic is whether the QE2 is more of a true liner over the QM2.

It was stated that in that particular posters personal opinion the QM2 is not a true liner. But naturally someone has jumped in and demanded evidence to back up such ludicrous claims... Seems to be the trend around here to shut down anyone with a different point of view from the dusty old norm..

There are many factors to consider in regards to the topic of 'true ocean liner' but unfortunately based on my research, I would have to say that more evidence leans towards the QE2 being a 'true liner' than the QM2. Afterall, I do not recall any ocean liners of the past (before typical modern cruise ships existed) featuring apartment block style balconys. That's just one observation.

 

But as I said, everyone is entitled to an opinion. It's not up to you, or anyone else to say whether its right or wrong.. No matter how amazing some of the regulars around here think they are.

 

I have an opinion that the Eiffel Tower is not a tower.

So I am entitled to post my opinion whatever technical nonsense it is.

 

There was time when true liners did not have superstructure.

Then was time when true ocean liners did not have apartment block balconies.

The QM2 with apartment block balconies is a true ocean liner built as a true ocean liner for 21st century.

[jenno10388]

I'm fairly new to posting on the Cunard Board, however, I've read it for years and am really impressed with the quality of 'conversation' and the topics that are discussed.

 

The posts are usually very informative, quite entertaining at times, and the subjects extremely interesting. Most posters are very polite and helpful.

 

I will have to, respectifully, disagree with your opinion of Pepperrn, as he was one of the long-time posters who first impressed me with his polite posts and patience with some of the questions that are asked on the board. I think I've read most of what he has written (along with many of the other 'regulars' on this forum-I would mention you by name but fear I would forget someone) and I can't think off hand of any of his postings that were judgemental. He is quick to say 'sorry' if he feels or thinks someone has been offended. He is also a wealth of knowledge on the QM2 (among some others here) and I've appreciated learning from him and the others.

 

 

 

I think the above quote shows an interest in another's opinion and using the words "thank you" and 'all best wishes' doesn't appear to me to be rude in any form. The back and forth (as Whitemarsh as so well said) is one of the purposes of cruise critic and is also how we learn from one another. This thread has been very interesting on the fate of QE2 and I also would be most interested in reading more on the subject of 'true ocean liners'. I do hope that retafcruiser and Pepperrn continue to share their views on this subject (along with others).

 

This is a good opportunity to say thank you to all the Cunard Regulars who share their experiences, their helpful tips and their very entertaining humour.

Thank you!

 

 

 

Jenno10388: We have friends who have cruised on Hal for years and are as attached to it as some here are to Cunard (QM2) and they certainly think it is 'great'! I hope you also enjoy it as much as they do. Happy sailings.

 

Thank you for your well wishes! I really am looking forward to it :)

 

I'm glad your first encounters with some of the members here were good. I seem to recall being made to feel stupid for asking questions after I booked my first Cunard trip. But regardless of that, it was a fantastic trip. But I won't be thanking anyone here for it.

 

All the best

Steve

[guernseyguy]

If the rest of the article is as accurate as this:

 

Originally featuring three classes of service

 

We may have little to worry about....

[foodsvcmgr]

I will boldly attempt to offer my opinion on QE2 vs QM2.

 

My experience is 14 days sailing on QE2 and 21 on QM2 starting in 1979 through 2010.

 

I would have to agree with pepper that other than top speed, QM2 is the superior ship, and even on this point it must be remembered that Cunard choose to run QM2 at embarrassing low speeds to save fuel, she is technically capable of coming within 3-4 knots of QE2's maximum.

 

I agree with Louise that QM2 is far more stable, I recall really being thrown around on QE2's 3 Deck on a transatlantic in heavy weather.

 

I believe that our collective fond remembrances of QE2 as the "better" ship are not so much on a technological basis, but on an emotional basis for her graceful good looks and the many intangibles that are no longer quite the same on QM2. For me anyway, these could include the British crew, silver service for meals, the Columbia/Caronia restaurant category, the 5-6 night crossing,etc.

 

But taken as a cold steel piece of hardware, QM2 is a modern masterpiece second to none. She may not be perfect, but she certainly meets the definition of an ocean liner, albeit like QE2 before her one that is also

a contemporary cruise ship.

[Louise D]

I will boldly attempt to offer my opinion on QE2 vs QM2.

 

My experience is 14 days sailing on QE2 and 21 on QM2 starting in 1979 through 2010.

 

I would have to agree with pepper that other than top speed, QM2 is the superior ship, and even on this point it must be remembered that Cunard choose to run QM2 at embarrassing low speeds to save fuel, she is technically capable of coming within 3-4 knots of QE2's maximum.

 

I agree with Louise that QM2 is far more stable, I recall really being thrown around on QE2's 3 Deck on a transatlantic in heavy weather.

 

I believe that our collective fond remembrances of QE2 as the "better" ship are not so much on a technological basis, but on an emotional basis for her graceful good looks and the many intangibles that are no longer quite the same on QM2. For me anyway, these could include the British crew, silver service for meals, the Columbia/Caronia restaurant category, the 5-6 night crossing,etc.

 

But taken as a cold steel piece of hardware, QM2 is a modern masterpiece second to none. She may not be perfect, but she certainly meets the definition of an ocean liner, albeit like QE2 before her one that is also

a contemporary cruise ship.

 

I agree with you completely, and especially the comments about QE2's graceful good looks. I recall that in the TV programme made about the last voyage of the QE2 to Dubai, many passengers made similar comments. The QE2 really was beautiful ship. In my opinion, it was also a perfect size for both crossing and cruising.

 

However, just think how the huge QM2 can be manoeuvred about so easily, compared to the smaller QE2. I am continually amazed how QM2 can so readily rotate in tight areas without the assistance of tugs. It would have been impossible for QE2 to do this.

 

I am really looking forward to being on QM2 and going in and out of Milford Sound in NZ as the ship will need to do a full turn and there is a relatively confined turning circle in that sound. In all the years I went on QE2, she never went into Milford Sound, as I doubt she would have been able to turn and get out. There are no tugs down there!

 

I recommend anyone interested to watch the web-cam the day QM2 is in the Milford Sound on 16 March. You should get a great view as the huge vessel enters the Sound, turns around and comes out again.

 

Louise

[david,Mississauga]

...

I believe that our collective fond remembrances of QE2 as the "better" ship are not so much on a technological basis, but on an emotional basis for her graceful good looks and the many intangibles that are no longer quite the same on QM2. For me anyway, these could include the British crew, silver service for meals, the Columbia/Caronia restaurant category, the 5-6 night crossing,etc.

 

...

 

Thank you, foodsvcmgr, for the posting which I agree with entirely. In addition to the above, I have two other fond memories. One is the real wood panelling in the staterooms and corridors. (I know it is not the fault of Cunard or Carnival that the panelling in the QM2 is "faux" and I appreciate the expanse of real teak decks.) When we first travelled First Class on the QE2 in the early 1970s we had a large cabin on Three Deck which was substantially panelled in dark wood - and it had two port-holes as opposed to one which we were used to in the Tourist cabins.

 

Secondly, there were over 100 single cabins in total and they were available in every class, from inexpensive inside Tourist to large ones in Queen's Grill, so it wasn't necessary for a passenger travelling alone to pay a surcharge of 175 or 200%.

 

There was also a certain feeling, which I can't possibly describe, that enveloped me upon boarding the QE2 - although not on the first few voyages. I have experienced that only on two other ships: P&O's Canberra and Union-Castle's RMS Windsor Castle. I have yet to feel that on the QM2, however much I love that ship. Perhaps as the ship ages it will have the same effect.

[seasidegal]

Thank you, foodsvcmgr, for the posting which I agree with entirely. In addition to the above, I have two other fond memories. One is the real wood panelling in the staterooms and corridors. (I know it is not the fault of Cunard or Carnival that the panelling in the QM2 is "faux" and I appreciate the expanse of real teak decks.) When we first travelled First Class on the QE2 in the early 1970s we had a large cabin on Three Deck which was substantially panelled in dark wood - and it had two port-holes as opposed to one which we were used to in the Tourist cabins.

 

Secondly, there were over 100 single cabins in total and they were available in every class, from inexpensive inside Tourist to large ones in Queen's Grill, so it wasn't necessary for a passenger travelling alone to pay a surcharge of 175 or 200%.

 

There was also a certain feeling, which I can't possibly describe, that enveloped me upon boarding the QE2 - although not on the first few voyages. I have experienced that only on two other ships: P&O's Canberra and Union-Castle's RMS Windsor Castle. I have yet to feel that on the QM2, however much I love that ship. Perhaps as the ship ages it will have the same effect.

 

 

This is a most interesting thread. I wish I had the experience of sailing on the QE2, I've seen pictures of cabins like you describe, david,Mississauga, and, to me, they have that 'real' ship look. Very warm and cozy. Now ship's cabins have a 'hotel' look and function. Probably most people would appreciate the latter but I would be inclined to the QE2 style.

 

"There was also a certain feeling, which I can't possibly describe, that enveloped me upon boarding the QE2"...

 

That is the feeling I got when I first boarded the QM2...she had me at 'hello'.

 

Thank you for sharing your remembrances.

[loubetti]

I agree with your opinion of the cabins, however, one HUGE problem with QE2 was the lack of queen or king sized beds in the majority of cabins. You needed to travel PG or QG to get those. Otherwise it was single beds with a dresser cabinet in between.

 

Of course, balcony cabins were also an issue. These were added, but only for the top end of QG passengers.

 

The ship was built to carry 2 to 3 classes of passengers (trans-Atlantic liner thinking). If I recall correctly, "C" stairway would get you anywhere, while one would avoid "A" stairway like the plague.

 

Otherwise, a great classy ship, and one that will be missed! She had her quirks, but being on her as she took on force 12 seas with aplomb was amazing. A typical "cruise" ship might be visiting King Neptune under such conditions! Heck, QE2 took an almost 100' wave on the bow, and the damage was so minor that they waited until the next dry dock to fix it!

[3rdGenCunarder]

I agree with your opinion of the cabins, however, one HUGE problem with QE2 was the lack of queen or king sized beds in the majority of cabins. You needed to travel PG or QG to get those. Otherwise it was single beds with a dresser cabinet in between.

 

Of course, balcony cabins were also an issue. These were added, but only for the top end of QG passengers.

 

The ship was built to carry 2 to 3 classes of passengers (trans-Atlantic liner thinking). If I recall correctly, "C" stairway would get you anywhere, while one would avoid "A" stairway like the plague.

 

Otherwise, a great classy ship, and one that will be missed! She had her quirks, but being on her as she took on force 12 seas with aplomb was amazing. A typical "cruise" ship might be visiting King Neptune under such conditions! Heck, QE2 took an almost 100' wave on the bow, and the damage was so minor that they waited until the next dry dock to fix it!

 

No, not C. E went Everywhere and G was Good. A connected the lower cabins with the associated restaurant (Mauretania) on Upper deck and also to Boat deck for outside access. The annoying part of A was that it skipped some decks (Q and 1, IIRC). D was originally a first-class stairway, which is why the lifts didn't go all the way down to 5 deck, and the stairway narrowed at some point (maybe 3 deck?). The deck numbering added to the confusion. Unlike a building, QE2's deck numbers were lower as you went up.

 

QE2 was a bit of a rabbit warren on the lower decks. And yes, the cabins were small. And yes, she had no balconies at first, and later a small number of balconies. I started cruising back when you sailed on a ship and they all had those little side hallways and small cabins with portholes instead of windows, etc etc. So I accepted (and loved) QE2 for what she was--a SHIP, not a floating hotel. Sadly, not many people would find her cabins acceptable by current standards. Most people cruising nowadays "learned" to cruise on floating hotels and would be shocked to hear that getting a cabin with TWO portholes was a big deal. Hell, getting two lower beds was a posh cabin when we started our cruising days! A porthole was really living it up!!!!

[balf]

There was also a certain feeling, which I can't possibly describe, that enveloped me upon boarding the QE2 - .

 

David, you put that so well, I keep hoping to get that feeling that I got aboard QE2: never happens.

 

There is no contest technically, QM is superior in every way and QE had so many quirks including a joke air con system, but for me it's just a bit sterile if that is the right word.

 

One thing as well, it fitted through the Panama Canal.

 

David.

[Jim Avery]

David, you put that so well, I keep hoping to get that feeling that I got aboard QE2: never happens.

 

There is no contest technically, QM is superior in every way and QE had so many quirks including a joke air con system, but for me it's just a bit sterile if that is the right word.

 

One thing as well, it fitted through the Panama Canal.

 

David.

 

QE2 "smelled like a ship". At least till the Diesel re power. She had the exact same smell as Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth before her. Wood polish, Bread baking, and traces of fuel oil/steam. Always smells better than a Diesel ship.:eek: And yes, there was a special feel. Call it wishful thinking or what you will, the moment on board was a special feeling. Not bad on QM2 but basically non existent on QV. All my subjective opinion from sailing Cunard Queens since 1950. Your mileage may vary.:D

[F27TW]

Surely some Russian Oligarch can buy the ship & make it his personal yacht. It sounds far fetched, but some of those guys have the money & ego to do it.

 

Thats a worse fate than being scrapped. :rolleyes:

[Whitemarsh]

QE2 "smelled like a ship". At least till the Diesel re power. She had the exact same smell as Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth before her. Wood polish, Bread baking, and traces of fuel oil/steam. Always smells better than a Diesel ship.:eek: And yes, there was a special feel. Call it wishful thinking or what you will, the moment on board was a special feeling. Not bad on QM2 but basically non existent on QV. All my subjective opinion from sailing Cunard Queens since 1950. Your mileage may vary.:D

 

I may have missed it, but I don't recall QM2 smelling of anything. Have I missed it, does QM2 have a smell, and if so is it similar in anyway to QE2?

[capnpugwash]

I may have missed it, but I don't recall QM2 smelling of anything. Have I missed it, does QM2 have a smell, and if so is it similar in anyway to QE2?

 

Often as I have been walking along the corridors in the passenger accommodation areas on QM2 there is a real smell of ship, oh no I've spelt that wrong! Too many small gauge pipes I suppose. It does make me move swiftly along though. :)

[glojo]

Interesting debate and from '69 until about 1986 she was steam powered but was the fuel that fired the boilers oil or diesel? I only ask because in the Royal Navy we changed from burning oil in the mid 1960's and those same oil fired boilers then used diesel as their fuel. A MUCH, MUCH cleaner fuel which was also far easier to use.

 

 

I tend to look on the QE2 as being one of the first cruise ships as opposed to being the last great cruise liner. I loved the looks of the real, older liners with their funnels amidships and the Queens always being so identifiable by the number of funnels.

 

When we wear rose tinted glasses we talk about how the great liners were amazing sea going ships that could weather all storms whilst still being extremely stable...

 

I fear however that these thoughts are best kept for our night time dreams as nothing could be further from the truth. The QE2 was I suppose possibly dragging Cunard into the 20th century and she was far, far more stable than her more senior sister ships, the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth. These elderly vessels would ply the Atlantic but contrary to our rose tinted memories these ships would roll like a pig in rough weather. They would roll to angles that are NEVER experienced by modern Cunard ships and yet we are always hearing talk about how the newer vessel lack the sea keeping capabilities of older vessels?? Thankfully they underwent major refits to have stabilisers fitted to help control the stability.

 

The QE2 has lines more in keeping with modern cruise ships but she still had links to older liners, she did however have state of the art stability features which stood her apart from the older liners but that funnel which might be described as being in just the aft third of the ship is more in keeping with more modern ships than the traditional liners that were plying their trade when she first came into service.

 

I love the traditional interiors of the modern Cunard ships and feel that are a vast improvement on the ships they replaced and whilst I miss the looks of the old Queens, I welcome the more modern, more luxurious interiors of the newer ships and if I had to choose between the old or the new, then I'm sorry but the QE2 is dead, long live the (new) Queens :);)

[balf]

Often as I have been walking along the corridors in the passenger accommodation areas on QM2 there is a real smell of ship, oh no I've spelt that wrong! Too many small gauge pipes I suppose. It does make me move swiftly along though. :)

 

Yes, we have a note of these c..ppy areas, so we can avoid them when booking cabins. And, no, the list is not available for public scrutiny.

 

David.

[balf]

 

There is often an aroma of cooking, ciggy smoke on the stairs deck and balconies, that strong paint smell on the open decks at times, and the "hold your nose as you pass by" on some corridors, but you are right, it does not have a distinctive smell, unlike QE2.

 

Smell, I think is linked more to emotions than any other of our senses. Go into one of our old cathedrals and tell me you can't get the smell of many centuries.

 

Think I'll have a lie down now.

 

David.

[Jim Avery]

I may have missed it, but I don't recall QM2 smelling of anything. Have I missed it, does QM2 have a smell, and if so is it similar in anyway to QE2?

 

That's my point, it doesn't smell like a ship.:eek::D Maybe the stuff that made the old ships smell like ships also killed Noro......:D:D

[Jim Avery]

Interesting debate and from '69 until about 1986 she was steam powered but was the fuel that fired the boilers oil or diesel? I only ask because in the Royal Navy we changed from burning oil in the mid 1960's and those same oil fired boilers then used diesel as their fuel. A MUCH, MUCH cleaner fuel which was also far easier to use.

 

 

I tend to look on the QE2 as being one of the first cruise ships as opposed to being the last great cruise liner. I loved the looks of the real, older liners with their funnels amidships and the Queens always being so identifiable by the number of funnels.

 

When we wear rose tinted glasses we talk about how the great liners were amazing sea going ships that could weather all storms whilst still being extremely stable...

 

I fear however that these thoughts are best kept for our night time dreams as nothing could be further from the truth. The QE2 was I suppose possibly dragging Cunard into the 20th century and she was far, far more stable than her more senior sister ships, the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth. These elderly vessels would ply the Atlantic but contrary to our rose tinted memories these ships would roll like a pig in rough weather. They would roll to angles that are NEVER experienced by modern Cunard ships and yet we are always hearing talk about how the newer vessel lack the sea keeping capabilities of older vessels?? Thankfully they underwent major refits to have stabilisers fitted to help control the stability.

 

The QE2 has lines more in keeping with modern cruise ships but she still had links to older liners, she did however have state of the art stability features which stood her apart from the older liners but that funnel which might be described as being in just the aft third of the ship is more in keeping with more modern ships than the traditional liners that were plying their trade when she first came into service.

 

I love the traditional interiors of the modern Cunard ships and feel that are a vast improvement on the ships they replaced and whilst I miss the looks of the old Queens, I welcome the more modern, more luxurious interiors of the newer ships and if I had to choose between the old or the new, then I'm sorry but the QE2 is dead, long live the (new) Queens :);)

 

In the steam days, Bunker C was used. A heavy oil that needed heating to flow well and be injected into the boilers. We all realize QE2 is dead but does that mean we must delete all our fond memories? As far as seakeeping, just go to the Commodore Club and check the ship models underwater hull form. QE2 is totally unlike the Vistas and has significant differences from QM2 (not just the pods). QM2 gets much of its improved stability from its extra wide beam in proportion to the older liners.

[glojo]

In the steam days, Bunker C was used. A heavy oil that needed heating to flow well and be injected into the boilers. We all realize QE2 is dead but does that mean we must delete all our fond memories? As far as seakeeping, just go to the Commodore Club and check the ship models underwater hull form. QE2 is totally unlike the Vistas and has significant differences from QM2 (not just the pods). QM2 gets much of its improved stability from its extra wide beam in proportion to the older liners.

Hi Jim,

We also used heavy oil (FFO) but as I said in the mid 1960's the Royal Navy changed across to diesel (apart from I believe the Royal Yacht)

 

Using dieselallowed a longer period between those awful maintainance periods where we had to get inside the boilers with large 'saws' to cut out all the soot that gathered between the piping. Because time is money I would have thought merchant ships would have also made this change and PLEASE look at this as a question as I am very interested in this issue.

 

I understand where you are coming from regarding the stability of the QE2 and I would suggest it is a significant improvement over her older sister ships.

 

Have you any knowledge of how much roll the modern Cunard ships can expect to experience on the roughest of crossings. I have yet to see ANY footage that shows anything like even seven or eight degrees which is a minimal amount of movement.

 

I have watched Youtube clips of all three modern Cunard ships which talk about rough weather with storm, or hurricane force winds and yet the ship is barely rolling. An amazing achievement and MUCH respect to the Naval Architects that designed these ships.

 

We must NEVER delete our memories of the older ships but should we also have balanced memories ;):) which can compare apples with apples? I love the old ships, my father was a Royal Navy gunner that spent the Second World War attached to these older liners sailing the high seas.

 

The old liners look like cruise ships as opposed to these new things that somehow look like a floating block of flats but by crikey they are FAR, far more stable than the older but much smaller ships. :o

 

I am NOT having a go at anyone and I am just someone that enjoys asking questions to better educate myself. :o