Titanic Versus Today

[pepperrn]

Did you get your stats from Wikipedia? They are incorrect. The Oscar Wilde is 43,000grt.

Hi Olliesmum,

Thank you for your post (sorry, quick correction, hate to point this out, it is gt, not "grt" for all ships built after 1982). And no, not from Wikipedia, but from this site:

 

http://www.irishferriesfreight.com/business-centre/vessel-profile.aspx

 

Looking at pictures of the Oscar Wilde, and of the Titanic, I can't see that that they have much in common, frankly (except they are/were ships).

(Of course, one of them has actually transported passengers from A to B, the other failing to do so).

 

I'm sure, if you look at both vessels, you can see that one ship looks nothing like the other, and therefore, given this fact and the difference in size, length and design, this doesn't actually allow one to judge what Titanic would look like against a modern cruise ship in Cherbourg or elsewhere.

 

When I've seen the Oscar Wilde in Cherourg, she has been across the harbour at the ferry terminal, not at the Gare Maritime Transatlantique at the Quai de France where large ships dock.

 

Best wishes,

Edited November 14, 2013 by pepperrn

[Olliesmum]

Hi Olliesmum,

 

When I've seen the Oscar Wilde in Cherourg, she has been across the harbour at the ferry terminal, not at the Gare Maritime Transatlantique at the Quai de France where large ships dock.

 

 

I have been to Cherbourg five times on Cunard ships and on four of those occasions Oscar Wilde has been tied up alongside them. On the fifth occasion she was not in port at all. I've even got photos to prove it.

 

Or perhaps I need to go to Specsavers and I was actually looking at an aircraft carrier.

[Sekhmet]

Thanks for sharing the good news. That new Tornado isn't exactly an antique design, but still a most welcome development.

 

There are actually quite a number of new "old" steam locomotives under construction in the UK, including one on the Heritage Railway where I am a volunteer (Severn Valley Railway). Also on our railway is a working replica of an 1808 Trevithick engine, "Catch Me Who Can", and there have been one or two working replicas of the famous Stephenson's "Rocket" of 1829.

[RobertQM2]

Yes, Jim, such excursions in antiques are popular in the US too. But no one is investing in building and operating new antique steam vessels, new antique steam trains, .....

 

The Brits do that, with a brand new steam locomotive called "Tornado" built to the original blueprints, just minor safety modifications. And as a miracle it is very succesful! http://www.a1steam.com/

 

And the thing about the helium Zeppelins is a similar story as well. I got a ride to my 50 birthday in the newly built NT07 around lake Constance. That was a ride of a lifetime, as well as having a great day out behind a steam train (and a flight in a DC3 to my 40th).

 

So the market is there, but it is a small market to be realisic (btw the A1-Steamtrust is building another loco, see website above).

kind regards

 

Ooops just saw that Tornado was mentioned above, sorry!

Edited November 16, 2013 by RobertQM2

[glojo]

It is p[ossible that the owners of this new ship have not done their research and there will not be a market for that ship, but is it also possible that they believe they can compete?

 

From what I am reading the QM2 is now only 80% full on this ltest crossing and I wondert how many of those fares are heavily discounted?

 

There is a very loyal following on this forum for the Queen Mary but does that following pay the bills?

[keithm]

The market won't support two ships doing crossings.

 

David.

There are plenty of other lines that do TA's. Most do the southern route(to avoid rough seas)but they're still TA's.

[BlueRiband]

Lines other than Cunard generally make TAs just for repositioning moves. This is fine for those wanting an EB in March or a WB in October. They also run Florida on the US side to the Mediterranean on the European end. Anybody who wants to cross at another time or direction, or take the traditional route out of New York, usually has just one ship to choose from.

 

If a movie about Titanic can spur interest in transatlantic crossings, imagine the effect a real Titanic II can have.

 

As quoted from Stephen Payne's 2005 publication ".....After the 1997 Titanic motion picture, cruising, particularly transatlantic crossings, had seen an upsurge in popularity. The financial implications of building a new liner, as opposed to a cruise ship, to replace the QE2 were considered. Eventually it was decided that if a large optimised ship could be developed, maximising ticket and on board revenue potential to offset the costs associated with the liner, the project could be a viable proposition. From this premise Queen Mary 2 was designed and built..."

Edited November 17, 2013 by BlueRiband

[pmb1]

…

 

If a movie about Titanic can spur interest in transatlantic crossings, imagine the effect a real Titanic II can have.

 

Maybe, but I doubt it. The usual result is Myth 1, Reality 0.

[glojo]

Lines other than Cunard generally make TAs just for repositioning moves. This is fine for those wanting an EB in March or a WB in October. They also run Florida on the US side to the Mediterranean on the European end. Anybody who wants to cross at another time or direction, or take the traditional route out of New York, usually has just one ship to choose from.

 

If a movie about Titanic can spur interest in transatlantic crossings, imagine the effect a real Titanic II can have.

 

Not sure about that and if we want to look at ships that do genuine, regular, Europe to North america scheduled runs then should we be including cargo ships that now regularly offer berths for fare paying passengers? Are they also ocean going liners?

 

Transatlantic

 

Sailing every two or three weeks:

Bremerhaven, Germany (Day 1);

Felixstowe, England (2);

Antwerp, Belgium (4);

Le Havre, France (5);

New York, NY (14),

Boston, MA (16),

Philadelphia, PA (19),

Baltimore (21),

Norfolk, VA (22)

New York, 2nd call (25), all in the USA,

back to Bremerhaven (35).

Edited November 17, 2013 by glojo

[balf]

There are plenty of other lines that do TA's. Most do the southern route(to avoid rough seas)but they're still TA's.

 

Many ships do indeed cross the Atlantic to get to the other side and don't come back again for months. I don't think this is quite what we are talking about here.

 

David.

[BlueRiband]

Not sure about that and if we want to look at ships that do genuine, regular, Europe to North america scheduled runs then should we be including cargo ships that now regularly offer berths for fare paying passengers? Are they also ocean going liners?

 

Glojo, your detailed questions often spur great dialogue here but the issue on makes a ship an ocean going liner was already answered in detail by Stephen Payne himself, specifically to you, in the subforum. If you are going to again ask if the same questions then apparently nobody on this planet has the knowledge and authority to answer this to your satisfaction.

 

May I refer you to the five bullet points in the left column of this research paper here.

 

It reaches a point where it is no longer intellectual curiosity and criticism but plain obstinance. "Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still."

[glojo]

Glojo, your detailed questions often spur great dialogue here but the issue on makes a ship an ocean going liner was already answered in detail by Stephen Payne himself, specifically to you, in the subforum. If you are going to again ask if the same questions then apparently nobody on this planet has the knowledge and authority to answer this to your satisfaction.

 

May I refer you to the five bullet points in the left column of this research paper here.

 

It reaches a point where it is no longer intellectual curiosity and criticism but plain obstinance. "Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still."

Let me assure you and many others that Queen Mary 2 is unequivocally a thoroughbred liner. She embodies the hull form, strength, reserves of power and overall shape that are the prerequisites through and through. She may undertake round trip holiday voyages (cruises in other words) as well as offering a point to point ferry service (transatlantic crossings), but she is a liner. Period.

 

I concede that Marco Polo does indeed have her origins as a liner, but she is hardly in the same league and doesn't offer regular point to point sailings like Queen Mary 2.

 

Thank you for your question.

I have no idea what you are implying and yes Mr Payne did concede the ship I put forward was indeed an ocean going liner but no longer offered point to point sailings??

 

These modern cargo ships are bigger, more sturdily built than the Marco Polo and do they offer point to point crossings of the Atlantic?

 

It is sad that some folk cannot accept this ship is not the only ocean going liner afloat but there is nothing I or Mr Payne can do about that!

 

Can you please show me where Mr Payne has stated the Queen Mary 2 is the only ocean going liner????

 

ocean liner

 

(Concise Encyclopedia)

Large merchant ship that visits designated ports on a regular schedule, carrying whatever cargo and passengers are available on the date of sailing. The first liners were operated in the North Atlantic, notably by

Samuel Cunard of Britain, beginning in 1840. Their heyday lasted from the late 19th to the mid-20th century. Many were extraordinarily luxurious. Among the most famous were Cunarders such as the Mauretania and the Queen Mary; the German Vaterland (later renamed Leviathan), for many years the largest ship afloat; the ill-fated Titanic; and the United States. Their reign ended in the 1960s with the rise of jet travel, but liners ranging from cruise ships to refrigerated cargo ships continued to sail.

[BlueRiband]

If Concise Encyclopedia is your authority on the subject of what makes an ocean liner a liner then quotes from Stephen Payne or anyone else won't supersede the encyclopedia.

 

Cruise&Ferry 2005:

QUEEN MARY 2 SEAKEEPING ASSESSMENT: THE OWNER’S REQUIREMENTS, THE DESIGN VERIFICATION AND OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE

Payne, S., Carnival Corporate Shipbuilding Southampton

Dallinga, R.P. , Gaillarde G., Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN), Wageningen, The Netherlands

 

* The liner generally is higher powered and in consequence generally has a higher speed potential compared to the cruise ship

 

* The liner generally has a deeper draught compared to the cruise ship

 

* The liner generally has a higher deadweight capacity compared to the cruise ship

 

* The liner generally has greater strength compared to the cruise ship

 

* The liner generally has a finer form compared to the cruise ship

 

There is no ocean going cargo ship which meets those criteria. Marco Polo, built 1965 for transatlantic service between Leningrad and Montreal, currently shows a maximum speed of 19.5 knots. Among passenger ships currently in service only QM2 (and possibly Marco Polo) meets the requirements of speed, draft, capacity, strength, and form to be called an ocean liner.

[Classiccruiser777]

Can you please show me where Mr Payne has stated the Queen Mary 2 is the only ocean going liner????

I can't show you but I can tell you I had a conversation with Mr. Payne while in QM2's library and he referred to the QM2 as the only, active ocean liner.

 

I can also say that having experienced lengthy cruises on the QE, QV and QM2, QM2 stands far above the Vistas in managing rough seas. I attribute that ability to the ship, the 'point to point' voyages being irrelevant to the ship itself. This point was reiterated by Bernard Warner in the video "Inside Queen Mary 2."

 

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYQ3TaF1r64

[Whitemarsh]

One person says the market won't support two ships doing regular transatlantics, another says it will. Both are just guesses as nobody here has the data from Carnival to back up an opinion either way.

 

I hope Palmer does build his ship, I would like to see Titanic in the flesh (or as similar to the original as we're going to get) and I daresay many others would as well.

 

Prior to the Titanic movie being released the consensus was that the movie would bomb big time as "everyone knows how the story ends". Seriously - I remember seemingly intelligent people making that observation.

 

There will always be naysayers, but thankfully there are people who have a vision and the wherewithal to make their ideas a reality. The world would be a much less interesting place if every plan and idea was quashed because "it can't be done" or "the market won't support it".

 

Interesting to see that the "is QM2 an ocean liner" debate is still going on.

[balf]

 

There will always be naysayers, but thankfully there are people who have a vision and the wherewithal to make their ideas a reality.

 

Like Vantage and Getaways possibly.

 

David.

[BlueRiband]

...Interesting to see that the "is QM2 an ocean liner" debate is still going on.

 

No doubt in my conclusion regarding the body of evidence that QM2 is indeed a true ocean liner. It's just one member who seems to have a continuing problem with that statement.

[Underwatr]

It really only becomes an issue when Cunard uses the L-word in describing Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth.

[Chunky2219]

It always tickles me when we see such a heated debate about what is a liner.

 

If the original Titanic was a liner, then it was no faster than QV/QE, considerably smaller in terms of displacement than many a cruise ship and it is self evident that having been put together with sub-standard, brittle rivets it didn't fit the criteria for being more study than modern vessels. I'm willing to bet that one of the RCCL behemoths complete with stabilisers would handle rough seas better than little Titanic, either original or the replacement.

 

I confess to only having crossed the Atlantic by mere cruise ship. On the way back there was a hurricane moving up the US east coast so our captain had the common sense to take QV on a a more northerly route and we enjoyed a serene journey. QM2 was three days behind us leaving Canada and had to go back to New York so ploughed straight into it while lesser cruise ships were sensibly hiding in port. The forum was full of stories of people being thrown around and printers falling off shelves. Call me a wuss, but if that's how it works I'd rather travel on a storm dodging cruise ship than on an ocean liner any day.

 

Forget Titanic II on the transatlantic route. Once the initial publicity has died down and a few people have given it a go once, you can expect to see it trapped in a litoral role - hopping in and out of Far Eastern or Carribean ports for the enjoyment for the casino crowd. There's more chance of QE2 returning to regular TA service.

 

 

.

[glojo]

If Concise Encyclopedia is your authority on the subject of what makes an ocean liner a liner then quotes from Stephen Payne or anyone else won't supersede the encyclopedia.

 

Cruise&Ferry 2005:

QUEEN MARY 2 SEAKEEPING ASSESSMENT: THE OWNER’S REQUIREMENTS, THE DESIGN VERIFICATION AND OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE

Payne, S., Carnival Corporate Shipbuilding Southampton

Dallinga, R.P. , Gaillarde G., Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN), Wageningen, The Netherlands

 

* The liner generally is higher powered and in consequence generally has a higher speed potential compared to the cruise ship

 

* The liner generally has a deeper draught compared to the cruise ship

 

* The liner generally has a higher deadweight capacity compared to the cruise ship

 

* The liner generally has greater strength compared to the cruise ship

 

* The liner generally has a finer form compared to the cruise ship

 

There is no ocean going cargo ship which meets those criteria. Marco Polo, built 1965 for transatlantic service between Leningrad and Montreal, currently shows a maximum speed of 19.5 knots. Among passenger ships currently in service only QM2 (and possibly Marco Polo) meets the requirements of speed, draft, capacity, strength, and form to be called an ocean liner.

Hi Blue Riband

I am most definitely not looking to argue with anyone but that list you have kindly posted sounds more like an advertising stance for the Queen Mary 2

 

First off and most important

 

I have never, ever, not once suggested Queen Mary 2 is NOT an ocean liner.

 

Those that enjoy nit picking and arguing will try to twist my comments or failing that try to put words into my mouth and try to distort what I have said but for clarity I have never intentionally stated this ship was not a liner.

 

What I am guilty of is trying to get clarification regarding the claim that the Queen Mary 2 was the only operational\serving ocean going liner!

 

I have always queried that stance and no doubt always will.

 

Next point

 

My thoughts are the type or registration class of 'Ocean Liner' might be a thing of the past? Is this class of ship today's battleship of a by-gone era?

 

The Queen Mary 2 is a Royal Mail Ship although today this is an honorary title, is the term ocean liner also becoming something of an honorary title?

 

I have NO issues with this ship being called a liner... She was designed as a liner, built as a liner, commissioned as a liner... She is a liner

 

But are we really saying she is a ship that operates full time doing cross ocean, point to point journeys, or are we saying she is a liner because of her construction?

 

I have absolutely no idea where you got the idea that Marco Polo was the only other ship still sailing the high seas that started life as an ocean liner, I certainly never said this was the case and neither did Mr Payne.

 

If we accept a class of ship should be designated at the time of build, then can we say 'once an ocean liner, always an ocean liner?

 

If we decide this is not the case then is it the regular work performed by the ship?

 

If this is the case then what do we term as regular and why have your definition? (Is that your definition, or something highlighting the plus points of the QM2 when she was ordered?)

 

Unfortunately, no matter whose definition it is.. It would have seen dozens of liners reclassified and told they were not liners at all!! Your definition may well suit your Blue Riband type liners, but what about all the other liners that plied their trade on all the oceans across the World?

 

The Blue Riband contenders were always looking to break records, but these other ships were in the business of maximising profits and if speed were to inflict on that basic requirement, then would the owners care?

 

This type of small ocean going liner was operating up to the early 1960's when they need for liners started to wane and I'm sorry but it would not tick any of your boxes?

 

With her gas turbines the Queen Mary 2 is without doubt the fastest ocean going liner, without her gas turbines she is also the fastest ocean going liner, but Mr Payne has stated those fuel guzzling beasts are no longer used for general cruising so without them, is she the fastest cruise ship?

 

Not a silly trick question and I respect she is the fastest ship, I am just curious as to whether without them, she is still the fastest passenger ship?

 

My cargo ship has a deep draught and I will have to check about beam but they can plod along at 25 knots which is not to be scorned at. These ships are designed as merchant ships or cargo ships, bought as cargo ships and used as cargo ships but I still suggest that under any unreasonable definition they fit the criteria of the liner.

 

Your definition

 

Here we have a popular sized ocean going liner popular throughout the height of the period when liners were used..

 

11000 tons and 18 knots flat out with the wind behind her

 

 

Castle Line ships were anything from 7000 ton upwards and were not just ocean liners but also Royal Mail Ships and definitely, most definitely not something you could water ski behind!!! I fear I will most respectfully disregard your definition :o

 

Please a thousand times please.... I am not looking to argue with you or anyone else. I just query this obsession about the Queen Mary being the only ship that is an ocean liner and of course the reasons behind it....

 

I am not saying bthat definition you have posted is wrong.. I am clearly saying it would have precluded a significant number of ocean liners from being exactly that, namely ocean liners. It most certainly ticks the right boxes for the elite few ships that plied their trade between North America and Europe biut contrary to the obsessive believe of the noisey few, as you are no doubt aware, the North Atlantic was only one area where ocean going liners operated. Some members however get obsessed with that area ands it is the be all and end all of any ocean liner that sailed the high seas.

 

How many cruise ships ply their trade betweeen Australia and the Far East? If we look at point to point steaming then how many, if any ships operate on these routes and how often are those crossings.

 

Incidentally here are images of that cabins available on my cargo ships :)

 

 

 

No TV channels or theatre and more to the point... No private balcony, but compared to ocean liners of yesteryear, those berths are quite impressive.

 

Again PLEASE accept I am NOT suggesting the Queen Mary is not a liner, I clearly do NOT accept your posted definition (obviously it is not 'your' definition) and I am NOT saying a cargo ship is an ocean liner. I am however guilty of saying these cargo ships meet any reasonable definition of what defines an ocean going liner of the era when they plyed their trade across the seven seas :)

[Jim Avery]

Hi Glojo. How about this? (Hope the link works):D

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fnid%3D2507%26dat%3D19390906%26id%3D4pFDAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DF4sMAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D3207%2C642322&ei=NXSKUoXDCqPi2QW79oCwBw&usg=AFQjCNFe6N6-Fxk0zgzc3fALFuHkY0xxqA&bvm=bv.56643336,d.b2I&cad=rja

[Jim Avery]

Or this??:D

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fnid%3D1946%26dat%3D19500116%26id%3DcTIrAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DSpkFAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D4934%2C2511991&ei=v3SKUopqxtHZBae4gNAB&usg=AFQjCNEvxWJQR2ul-jmFCzacpGjGG9hgcg&bvm=bv.56643336,d.b2I&cad=rja

[glojo]

Or this??:D

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fnid%3D1946%26dat%3D19500116%26id%3DcTIrAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DSpkFAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D4934%2C2511991&ei=v3SKUopqxtHZBae4gNAB&usg=AFQjCNEvxWJQR2ul-jmFCzacpGjGG9hgcg&bvm=bv.56643336,d.b2I&cad=rja

 

Hi Jim,

Thank you very much indeed for supplying thise links and I confess that it gave me pause for thought....

 

My father joined the Royal Navy as soon as he could shortly after the outbreak of the Second World War and for the duration he served on what we called Defensively Equipped Merchant Ships. In other words he was a Royal Navy gunner on a merchant ship.

 

He never ever really talked about his time afloat apart from the time he shot down an observation balloon in New York harbour!!

 

Reading ALL of those posts really bought it across just how dangerous a life it was during that period...

 

Please be careful however regarding these posts as at the moment I am allegedly the only person that does not believe that ocean liners are not all super type ships ;)

 

I was ttrying to put oil on troubled waters when I tactfully suggested I accepted a cargo ship is a cargo ship, liners are liners, BUt then Cunard comes along and spikes my guns:eek::eek:;)

 

How dare they have Cargo liners of just 1076 tons!! Don't they know they are talking rubbish!! I see that the second ship was a much bigger vessel at 11000 tons.

 

I wonder if it was our forum members that sunk the thing!!

 

Thank you so very much fopr posting thise eye opening links and if you have anymore, I would genuinely love to see them and rather than inflame this situation..My email address is josh2450 at hotmail.co.uk

 

I am still going back and re-reading those cuttings... TV movies like to depict torpedoes being fired from a considerable distance away but that Captain got it correct when he talked about 800 - 1000 yards way!! What a terrifying sight.

 

I read also about passengers being killed after jumping in the water... sadly that once again confirms what I have tried to explain to these forum members regarding safety and drills. A good way of killing ourselves is to jump off the upper deck of a ship wearing a lifebelt!! :(

 

Thanks again

John

[Jim Avery]

Bet you like this one.:D

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CE0QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dieselduck.net%2Fhistorical%2F05%2520documents%2FCunard%2520Liners.pdf&ei=TH6KUt6XCqLV2AXW-4G4Bw&usg=AFQjCNHcorBkHUUxqeGSJPhddQH51t4FyA&bvm=bv.56643336,d.b2I

[glojo]

Or this??:D

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fnid%3D1946%26dat%3D19500116%26id%3DcTIrAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DSpkFAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D4934%2C2511991&ei=v3SKUopqxtHZBae4gNAB&usg=AFQjCNEvxWJQR2ul-jmFCzacpGjGG9hgcg&bvm=bv.56643336,d.b2I&cad=rja

What amazing pictures and I guess quite a few are from the first Titanic era.

 

What makes me smile about these images is the sterns of every single one of those liners, cargo liners and cargo ships... They are all what I call cruiser type sterns but no doubt they are not all the same type and may well have differing names but when I was getting stick for daring to suggest the Queen Mary 2 was not the only ocean going liner still in operation, I actually joined a forum frequented by a number of retired Naval Architects (some may still be working)

 

When I asked my question about how many liners other than the QM2 were still operational, I got as much stick from those folks as I did from a few members of this forum.

 

The joke this time however was it was me getting abuse for daring to suggest the Queen Mary 2 was a conventional, ocean going liner!!! :eek:

 

I was not swayed by their arguement hence my not mentioning it before and of course there is the possibility they were setting me up, I am however simply telling the story.

 

The consensus from some of the members was this ship was an overgrown Vista class ship on steroids! Not an exact quote apart from the 'on steriods' bit.

 

The reason for this outburst was the stern of our flagship!! They started discussing this ship and I got the impression that their major grievance was her awful derrière. They insisted on telling me that all true liners had a cruiser style posterior and by cruiser, they were NOT referring to a cruise ship type stern.

They talked about this ship as having a cardboard box transom rear end!! this was in reference to the modern designed cruise ship posterior. I simply thanked them for their observation and decided silence was the best option as these folks clearly knew their rear ends. It might have been them teasing me or it might have been they did not have any time for these modern day ships. They might also have been in the middle of an afternoon siesta!!!

 

I do however confess to not being a fan of the rear end of the QM2, but as Mr Payne has very eloquently stated on numerous occassions... Needs must and as much as he himself wanted a cruiser derrière, the azipod configuration prevented it.

I love that nice pointed front end he designed for the Queen Mary and to me you cannot beat a decent rounded rear end, a flat or square transom does nothing for me but could that be the sailor in me talking??

 

 

My very personal thoughts are that the folks I spoke to were very much old skoole architects and simply did not like the design.. and that to me is what freedom of speech is all about.

I love the tradition Cunard are attempting to maintain and long may it continue.

 

 

I now officially confess I was wrong to suggest my cargo ships were not ocean liners and I guess those Naval Architects may well be incorrect in what they said.. I only mentioned that conversation after looking at all those wonderful images and the very nice looking rear ends.

 

I have saved that 130 page document and will hopefully be taking it with me on our forthcoming World Cruise.

Wouldn't it have been nice to have seen some of these old ships plying their trade!! Smoke billowing out of the funnel, the officer of the watch on a bridge wing taking a midday reading, a quick one liner as the aldis lamps flashed merrily away and the dipping of ensigns as the ships past each other, happy days ;):o

 

Thanks again for blooming proving me wrong :eek: but how nice to read the history of this excellent Shipping come Cruise Line ;)

Kindest regards

John