QE2 after SOLAS 2010?

[rjms74]

Dear all,

 

I have just seen the following interesting post on a UK cruise TA website re the retirement of QE2:

 

QE2 WILL NOT RETIRE AFTER SOLAS:

 

Date Posted: 3 Jun 2005

 

RUMOURS that the Queen Elizabeth 2 might be taken out of service by 2010 when new Solas requirements come into force have been dismissed by Cunard. According to Cunard’s European director Carol Marlow, the QE2 will remain in the fleet after 2010 when new Solas rules relating to use of combustible materials on cruiseships are implemented.

 

The ship, which was first launched in 1967, is undergoing a series of rolling refurbishments to “make sure she continues to look great”, Ms Marlow said.

 

The QE2 will have travelled 5.3m nautical miles by the end of the year, and bookings for the ship are 35% up for this year compared with 2004, Ms Marlow added.

 

Cunard’s 2006 programme for Queen Mary 2 and QE2 goes on sale on June 4 with early booking offers of up to 45% on QM2 and 50% on QE2. Deposits on booking have been reduced from 20% to 10%. Cunard plans to increase the number of short break voyages on QE2, which were a feature of the 2005 programme. There will be 19 crossings between Southampton and New York on the QM2 with the launch of package holidays including a six-day crossing, two night’s hotel accommodation and a return flight. The new packaged product offers four different levels of accommodation with fares starting at £949.

 

 

***** I was surprised to read this, but if this is true surely Cunard / albeit the Carnival Corporation would have to spend many millions of dollars to pass the SOLAS regulations esp. re all her real wood interiors - nice though they are!

 

It would be interesting to hear fellow Cruise Critic members comments on the above.

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

 

RJMS74

[guernseyguy]

RJMS74,

 

Much as I'd love to believe it, I personally doubt it - and wonder whether Carol Marlow has the technical expertise to know the answer - I'm not sure what 'Cunard's European Director' does - but she does seem to have expertise in bookings and itineraries, and says the rolling refurbishments will keep her 'looking great'....AFAIK all the wardrobes/drawers in the cabins are of real wood - a source of lovely creaks on a stormy Atlantic - and almost certainly not SOLAS compliant. In 2010 the QE2 will have 41 years of service under her belt - astonishingly old for an express liner - few of them made it past their mid-twenties - so sooner or later she will be joining the great majority.

 

Peter

[KenC]

I have also seen this report on several sites and must say it seems a little strange that a little known European director would 'leak' this information rather than Cunard make a proper announcement. As we know the SOLAS regs coming into force in 2010 concern other fire precautions other than combustible materials. So, is someone somewhere planning a MAJOR rebuild of QE2 or did Ms Marlow have a 'cocktail conversation' with someone who was over eager to post a story? Whatever the case, there is no reason to believe that QE2 would be (or should be) allowed to flout safety regulations.

 

Ken

[KenC]

... Surprised no one has noticed - but QE2 seems to have a blank in her 2006 schedule from arriving at the end of World Cruise on 23 April to sailing on Mediterranean Splendours on 9 May. So its got to be a drydocking or one long charter!!!!

 

Ken

 

Posted this on another thread - if it is a drydocking then that suggests QE2 sailing well into 2008 at least. Good news for you transatlantic bareknuckle enthusiasts but bad news for those of us who would like to see some more up to standard Cunard ships.

 

Ken

[Cunard Cruiser]

I did some research on the web about Carol Marrow "press release" regarding QE2 SOLAS and sailing after 2010. I found her press release with all the same text for the 2006 schedule. However no info on QE2 and SOLAS. At the moment it seems like a rumor

 

Here is the link:

 

http://w5d2.ccnmatthews.com/scripts/ccn-release.pl?/current/0526007n.html

[dougnewmanatsea]

Well it seems that this really is the official company line. David Dingle, managing director of Carnival UK/P&O Cruises, which from the UK perspective includes Cunard (their other brands are P&O Cruises, Ocean Village, and Swan Hellenic, and I believe they also represent Princess in the UK), reportedly stated during a press conference aboard ARTEMIS today that "there is no reason why QE2 should not continue sailing after 2010".

 

Personally I remain skeptical that this would be possible, but I will stop short of making the sweeping proclamations that some have. It seems to me that this would hinge on what "Method" of compliance to SOLAS 1960 she was originally built under. I have always had the impression that she is probably a Method II ship (combustible materials allowed), not Method I (no combustible materials), but I have never been able to confirm this with any certainty. The fact that there is lots of visible "wood" in QE2 does not by any means make her a Method II ship as contrary to popular opinion, "real wood" is not necessarily banned. I am sure we have all been on ships built after 1980 (when SOLAS 1974 came into force, and all new ships had to be built only of incombustible materials) that have laminated wood veneers, wood furniture, teak decking, etc., all of which is perfectly legal one way or another, though I don't know how some of these things (like the teak decks) qualify as I've never been able to get my hands on the actual rules. One thing I do know is that in reality most "incombustible" materials are not truly incombustible, and would in fact combust at some point, as would QE2's and many other modern ships' aluminum superstructures. "Incombustible" as far as SOLAS is concerned simply means that the material has passed a test where it will not burn if exposed to an open flame for a prescribed amount of time. It does not indicate that the material is actually incombustible in the strictest sense.

 

With regard to the 2010 milestone I have heard loads and loads of sweeping generalizations for probably a decade already, but have never been able to find anyone who can actually explain the details or say which ships will be able to pass and which won't, let alone why. QE2 oddly enough is a particular dark spot as until these statements from Carnival/P&O Princess/Cunard, I had heard nothing on this issue at all except sheer speculation (most of which simply assumed that in 2010 "she must be doomed" for unspecified reasons).

 

Personally I have always been of the opinion that she would never make it to 2010 anyway, but again we have a lot of rumors and no hard facts whatsoever.

[guernseyguy]

The SOLAS Chapter II-2 2002 regulations can be found as a .pdf here:

 

http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-consult_archive8_reg1-8.pdf

 

One point the guidance notes make is that 'generally accepted non combustible material such as steel or aluminium' do not need to be tested - the rest have to be non-combustible up to 750C.....which I doubt much of the wood would be. I have also read that another issue for the QE2 is blind alleys/stair cases (after the Scandinavian Sea fire)....and I for one, of those of us who have wandered her hall ways and staircases in broad daylight, lost, would not like to try repeating the performance crawling on the deck because of smoke.....

 

Peter

[dougnewmanatsea]

The SOLAS Chapter II-2 2002 regulations can be found as a .pdf here:

I assume these are the regulations which result in the 2010 milestone?

 

I ask only because it says "goes into force in 2002" and having read it only twice I'm still not quite clear on which parts apply to ships built before 2002.

 

the rest have to be non-combustible up to 750C.....which I doubt much of the wood would be.

It depends on just what her "wood" is.

 

I know there are laminated wood veneers which are non-combustible.

 

It also appears that a veneer of 2.5mm or thinner would be legal even if combustible.

 

I have also read that another issue for the QE2 is blind alleys/stair cases (after the Scandinavian Sea fire)....

This is something I have seen raised a couple of times, but it does not seem to be addressed in the PDF you linked, unless I missed something.

 

Anyhow thanks very much for that link, as I said I've only read it twice so I haven't really absorbed it yet.

[Vic The Parrot]

David Dingle, managing director of Carnival UK/P&O Cruises,

 

 

 

 

 

You made up that name, didn't you??

 

 

:D :rolleyes:

[guernseyguy]

I assume these are the regulations which result in the 2010 milestone? I've only read it twice so I haven't really absorbed it yet.

 

Doug,

 

I'm as confused as you are....the IMO site does not show the regulations, only lists the chapters & where you can buy a copy. AFAIK its Chapter II-2 that is the 'killer' and is the one that has to be implemented by all pre-1974 ships by 1 October 2010. IIRC the QE2's wooden furniture is solid wood.....

 

Peter

 

PS Vic

 

No, David Dingle is a real name - P&O cruises UK - see here :http://www.carnivalcorp.com/Sections/InvestorOverview/CorpGov.aspx

[dougnewmanatsea]

I'm as confused as you are....the IMO site does not show the regulations, only lists the chapters & where you can buy a copy.

Yes but from your link it seems that the MCA has been so kind as to post the whole thing online.

 

Unfortunately, as I expected, it is a load of dense legalese that will take a while to decipher!

 

I will read through it more carefull when I have the time.

 

If QE2's wooden furniture is solid wood, it will all have to go.

[KenC]

2.5mm is quite thick for timber veneer - could imagine that most of QE2's timber finishes would be thereabouts or thinner. Not sure about the furniture - it's all built-in and matching the wall panels so maybe it is veneer covered too (didn't look that close).

 

There is still plenty of time to do a big makeover before 2010 (though presumably not enough time in the 2 week 2006 drydocking) but would Cunard want to spend all that money? Perhaps it's part of a marketing strategy to keep the British market in ignorance - after all, would Joe Public want to sail on a ship that was due to be scrapped because it didn't meet safety regulations??? Doesn't quite sound right against the cosmopolitan and elegant marketing going on at the present.

[Cunard Cruiser]

The following link is regarding a new P&O liner plus the future of QE2. David Dingle was quoted:

 

http://www.thisishampshire.net/hampshire/southampton/shipping/SOTON_SHIPPING_NEWS0.html

 

 

If Mr. Dingle is true to his word, which I hope he is, will there ever be a QV?

[KenC]

"...... He went on to say that tough new maritime regulations due to come into force in 2010 did not necessarily mean the end for Southampton's Queen Elizabeth 2, which this year saw the 36th anniversary of her maiden voyage from Southampton.

 

"The ship is doing fantastic business at the moment and there is no reason for QE2 not to go on further than 2010," said Mr Dingle.

 

"The ship was built to have a long life.

 

"It would not take a great deal of money to be spent on her to ensure her continuing career."

 

Now, a relatively old vessel, QE2 would have to undergo a programme of alterations to comply with the 2010 regulations."

(THIS IS SOUTHAMPTON on 21 June 2005)

 

There we have it - an admission that QE2 will have to undergo some work or alterations to comply with SOLAS in 2010. It's a pity he equates her doing 'fantastic business' with survival and talks about it not taking a great deal of money to continue her career - IMHO they need to spend shed loads of money as well as reduce the number of pax carried to make her anywhere near acceptable in her current role. Neither of which will contribute to the profit she must currently be turning in to earn this reprieve.

 

Interesting news in the same article about the possible new P&O cruiseship - which is one of the new Princess Grand Class currently being planned. Rumour has it she will be called Canberra (2????) - how cool would that be????

[dougnewmanatsea]

Rumour has it she will be called Canberra (2????) - how cool would that be????

Not very, if you ask me ;) !

 

Seriously, I do not like the idea... I am not fond of the GRAND-class behemoths and the idea of P&O positioning one as the successor to the incomparable CANBERRA does not strike me the right way.

[KenC]

Not very, if you ask me ;) !

 

Seriously, I do not like the idea... I am not fond of the GRAND-class behemoths and the idea of P&O positioning one as the successor to the incomparable CANBERRA does not strike me the right way.

 

Oh for Pete's sake Doug - don't you get into the nostalgia thing too!! Canberra was a trail blazer and a real workhorse - incomparable? I don't think so.

 

You in the western hemisphere have more than enough modern cruise ships to shake a stick at - don't begrudge the UK some permanent up to date tonnage sailing out of Southampton to choose from.

 

Ken

[dougnewmanatsea]

Canberra was a trail blazer and a real workhorse - incomparable? I don't think so.

Well, I don't think there has been a ship like her before or since.

 

No, as a ship herself she may have had many peers but as an "institution" she had none.

 

And I am the one getting into "the nostalgia thing"? If you ask me it's P&O - they're trying to capitalize on people's nostalgia by choosing this name for their newest ship!

 

You in the western hemisphere have more than enough modern cruise ships to shake a stick at

Take some of 'em, I don't mind ;) !

 

don't begrudge the UK some permanent up to date tonnage sailing out of Southampton to choose from.

Well, you can have the ship herself as far as I'm concerned - saves us from having another GRAND-class tub cluttering up our waters ;) - but I do not think it is a good idea for them to call her CANBERRA. I really don't. It will invite comparisons that are best not made.

[KenC]

.....And I am the one getting into "the nostalgia thing"? If you ask me it's P&O - they're trying to capitalize on people's nostalgia by choosing this name for their newest ship!.

 

But Doug - QE2, QM2, Arcadia, Oriana, Rotterdam, Bremen, Europa etc, etc. - it's what shipping lines do, they recycle popular names - remember the lonnnnnnnnnng discussion on this board about names for the new Cunarder (pre QV), they included Mauretania, Aquitania, Franconia and all other Cunard icons of the past 100 years. It's not an insult to a memory or a comparison, it's a tradition. Oh no ..... now I'm getting nostalgic!!!

 

Regards

 

Ken

[dougnewmanatsea]

it's what shipping lines do, they recycle popular names

This is true.

 

But CANBERRA is a legend, larger than life... They should leave her that way. Or at least, if they do reuse the name, they should save it for something that has some hope of being a worthy successor to the original, not some cookie-cutter Princess ship.

 

I have to admit that I don't dislike the choice of name as much as I did the first time I heard it, which was well before rumors started going around publicly. Maybe it will grow on me eventually, I don't know.

[KenC]

Give it 30 years Doug and you'll be reminiscing about Canberra 2 too (or as HM said at the launch of QM2, "I name this ship Queen Mary too")

 

I have nothing against the first Canberra - I grew up with her, watched them make a huge scale model on kids TV (imitating the real shipyard construction). Watched her career change from line voyages to Australia to cruises (and how nearly that didn't happen at all). Planned which cabin and which cruise I would like to take long before I could afford such extravagences (by the time I could, the bloom had gone off and she was the worse kind of pack 'em in Brit cruise ship). Seen her many times in Southampton (but she never quite had the presence of a Cunarder). Watched news of the Falklands War daily, almost expecting the Argies to take her or QE2 out (and no, QE2 may not have been as close to the action as Canberra but yes she was just as much at threat from an exorcet attack). Felt a tinge of regret when she was withdrawn and scrapped (but was that for her or for my lost youth??? Better she was withdrawn than tarted up, her dignity compromised by some two cent company and kept in service beyond her natural timespan).

 

I wish people wouldn't be so quick to dismiss modern ships these days - I've seen it all before in the 60's and 70's with ships that are now described on these boards as legends, intitutions and the last real ship!!!!

[Transatlantic Tom]

 

I wish people wouldn't be so quick to dismiss modern ships these days - I've seen it all before in the 60's and 70's with ships that are now described on these boards as legends, intitutions and the last real ship!!!!

 

Ken:

 

I think that you're right in the sense that many people overdo this business of "back in the old days" with regard to ships. However, do you not agree that there has developed a certain standard type of ship these days that appears to be of the proverbial "cookie cutter"- type ???

 

One trend that definitely has emerged, with only a few exceptions, is the disappearence of passenger ships carrying 400-700-900 passengers. Everything now setting sail seems to be loaded with 2500-3000 passengers.

 

I personally miss the option of smaller ships.

 

Tom:rolleyes:

[KenC]

Hi Tom

 

know what you are saying BUT .... there are still smaller ships out there but they are so much more expensive to sail on because they lack the economy of scale offered by the cookie cutters (how I hate that expression - if I was a designer who had worked extremely hard designing a modern cruise ship class I would be mortified to have it so!!!). The days of Caronia and Sea Princess/Victoria/Mona Lisa are gone I'm afraid.

 

Lets not forget that even 20 or 30 years ago the smaller passenger ships you talk about were only for the reasonably well healed. You pays your money and makes your choice - have smaller ships that are absolutely wonderful on the eye but which the majority of modern day cruise pax (like me - can't speak for you) cannot afford OR fleets of larger (and more spacious pax against tonnage) mega cruiseships that normal folk can afford to sail on 2 or 3 times a year?????

 

How come I am always Devil's advocate on this board????

 

Best wishes

 

Ken

[dougnewmanatsea]

Give it 30 years Doug and you'll be reminiscing about Canberra 2 too

Won't happen Ken. I'll be too busy reminiscing about AURORA, ORIANA, and other modern ships I actually like ;) !

 

Admittedly I guess it's a little premature to condemn CANBERRA II at this point but if she is a GRAND-class ship there is not much chance of me liking her.

 

I wish people wouldn't be so quick to dismiss modern ships these days

I agree with you, in the sense that too many people dismiss all modern ships. I just dismiss some of them ;) !

[Transatlantic Tom]

know what you are saying BUT .... there are still smaller ships out there but they are so much more expensive to sail on because they lack the economy of scale offered by the cookie cutters

 

The days of Caronia and Sea Princess/Victoria/Mona Lisa are gone I'm afraid.

 

 

How come I am always Devil's advocate on this board????

 

Ken: Yes, the emotional part of this ship-lover forgets that the world, life and economics have gone forward since the 1950s and 1960s. We all certainly can see how this has changed the airline industry !!!

 

In terms of being Devil's Advocate, you are providing a valuable service here...challenging, posing different points of view, etc. Goodness knows that you have probably irritated many of the many QE2 fans on the CC (myself included occasionally !!!), but I know that you're being honest about what you write, and seem to have a great love for ships and the sea. On the latter point alone I know I'd enjoy meeting you for a drink and a chat at the Duke of Wellington in Southampton !!!

 

Cheers Ken !!

 

Tom:)

[KenC]

Doug

 

Glad to hear we agree that there are some admirable modern ships out there and yes you are right to be selective. I never meant to intimate that I like all modern ships - I dislike the latest Carnival/Costa classes for instance, but I have a sneeking admiration for the Princess Grand class inspite of their lack of elegance. I'm sure you would also acknowledge that there were some real ugly liners built throughout the last century not just at the end of it?

 

Tom

 

Guess I'm stuck with the horns, the tail and the trident!!! Will try to refrain from further criticism of QE2 - but would just like to add that I really would like to see Cunard make something worthy out of the old girl's interiors for the last few years of her career (not to mention refurbing all those tired cabins and even more tired bathrooms). I fear however that they are going to do the bare minimum and use her as a cash cow until her reputation crashes (I have already met many people in the UK and USA who have sailed and were not impressed) and the bookings dry up. Anyone care to contradict me?

 

Would love to catch up with you one of these days for a drink - don't know the Duke of Wellington though, wouldn't you prefer the Commodore Club on QM2???

 

Regards

 

Ken