QM2's slow crusing speed

[ren0312]

According to wiki QM2 has a top speed of 29.6 knots, and has a service speed of 26 knots, so why is it always sailing in the teens or the lower 20s? When in contrast the QE2 often sailed at nearly 30 knots. Are the higher ups in Cunard trying to save fuel? Otherwise what is teh use of having a ship capable of 29 knots when you limit it to the low 20s. which is not that much faster than a normal cruise ship.

[bluemarble]

According to wiki QM2 has a top speed of 29.6 knots, and has a service speed of 26 knots, so why is it always sailing in the teens or the lower 20s? When in contrast the QE2 often sailed at nearly 30 knots. Are the higher ups in Cunard trying to save fuel? Otherwise what is teh use of having a ship capable of 29 knots when you limit it to the low 20s. which is not that much faster than a normal cruise ship.

 

The short answer is yes, QM2 sails at the slower speeds to save fuel. Those more knowledgeable than I can probably provide the details as to how much is saved in fuel costs at those slower speeds, but that is the primary reason for those slower speeds.

 

Regards,

John.

[Keith1010]

Yes, it is due to the fuel costs. It can sail faster than it normally does but this is all about balance. Keep in mind that with each passing year newer technology is more efficient whether that is the engine systems or even the weight of the ship. We had the architect of the QM2 on our recent 10 year anniversary of the QM2's crossing mention this at one of his talks when he said what would he do differently in designing the ship today and that is one of the issues he spoke about which would be some changes to have made it more fuel efficient and be able to cruise at faster speeds and not be a fuel guzzler.

 

Keith

Edited June 13, 2014 by Keith1010

[balf]

We could ask the same question of cars. Why buy a Ferrari capable of 200 mph where the national speed limit is 70.

 

The old idea was that liners needed to be able to keep to tight schedules. QE2 was rarely late arriving in Southampton or NY whatever the sea conditions.

 

Now crossings are little different from cruises and fuel saving and longer crossing times are the order of the day.

 

Fares would be much higher if QM2 sailed flat out, but then fewer people would book.

 

David.

[pepperrn]

According to wiki QM2 has a top speed of 29.6 knots, and has a service speed of 26 knots, so why is it always sailing in the teens or the lower 20s? When in contrast the QE2 often sailed at nearly 30 knots. Are the higher ups in Cunard trying to save fuel? Otherwise what is teh use of having a ship capable of 29 knots when you limit it to the low 20s. which is not that much faster than a normal cruise ship.

I've been on QM2 several times in the last three years when she has hit 25 knots or more. Indeed in December 2013 I was on the bridge when I noted the main display showing 27 knots.

 

One difference between "a normal cruise ship" and QM2 you've not mentioned is that QM2 has a tremendous reserve of speed that cruise ships do not have. So if she is diverted/has to slow for poor weather (which has happened occasionally on my crossings on her) she has the ability to make up lost time.

 

Hope this helps.

[KirkNC]

Best way to save fuel is to sail slower.

[balf]

Best way to save fuel is to sail slower.

 

Or rig up a sail!!

 

David.

[Austcruiser84]

I love the fact QM2 sails slower. It means I get to stay on board longer :-)

[Pushka]

Definitely because of fuel. We asked the Chief Engineer, and provisions Engineer at dinner one night.

[rolfecms]

If crossing the Atlantic by ship were the only choice, speed would trump cost for many people so there would be ships that catered to that demand.

 

However, people choose now to cross by ship for the experience so the speed at which the ship travels is not a primary part of that equation, within the expectations and limits set by the passenger. Since vacations are normally a week, then a 6 or 7 day trip by ship dovetails nicely.

Edited June 13, 2014 by rolfecms

[Jim Avery]

Ships certainly use less fuel at slower speeds but also involved is the recurring wear problems on the pods when used at or near full speed. Not just on QM2 but all pod drives seem to be less durable at speed than the traditional engine/shaft/propeller set up. But I agree, speed is not the reason any more. No ship will cross as fast as a plane so why bother? Head for the Commodore Club and order a martini.:D:D

[loubetti]

Indeed, it is all about saving fuel, but I have been fortunate enough to have sailed on both QE2 and QM2 at 29 kts! The first to keep on normal schedule, and the second due to an engine problem and to get back on schedule. It's amazing, especially when QE2 did it in dense fog!

 

Why do you think the typical TA has gone from 5 to 6 and then to 7 nights? Aside from fuel savings, it just provides better value. No one is in a rush to get there, so enjoy being on the ship. The good part is, if there is some delay, the ship has enough reserve power/speed to make it up.

[lannp]

I love the fact QM2 sails slower. It means I get to stay on board longer :-)

 

Exactly! My early crossings were 6 days. Now they are seven - yeah!

[Jim Avery]

Exactly! My early crossings were 6 days. Now they are seven - yeah!

 

I also think more is better but there was something very special about 5 day crossings on QE2 with her making 28 to 30 knots the entire way.:D

[seacruise9]

Hi,

 

I did a five-day crossing on the QE2 back in 1984 and six-day crossings on the QE2 in 2001 and 2003. I am doing a seven-day crossing on the QM2 later this year. For a seven-day crossing, do you know how fast the QM2 generally travels? Is it around 20 knots or even less?

 

Thanks,

 

Chuck

[Jim Avery]

Hi,

 

I did a five-day crossing on the QE2 back in 1984 and six-day crossings on the QE2 in 2001 and 2003. I am doing a seven-day crossing on the QM2 later this year. For a seven-day crossing, do you know how fast the QM2 generally travels? Is it around 20 knots or even less?

 

Thanks,

 

Chuck

Around 19 knots or so. About what liners did in the 1890s.:eek::D

[seacruise9]

Around 19 knots or so. About what liners did in the 1890s.:eek::D

 

Hi,

 

Thanks. I understand the need to conserve fuel and certainly enjoy spending time aboard the ship, but I think traveling at a higher speed is more exciting and more reminiscent of the glory days of transatlantic crossings. Traveling at 19 knots seems more like a cruise ship rather ocean liner experience.

 

Chuck

Edited June 13, 2014 by seacruise9

[Jim Avery]

Hi,

 

Thanks. I understand the need to conserve fuel and certainly enjoy spending time aboard the ship, but I think traveling at a higher speed is more exciting and more reminiscent of the glory days of transatlantic crossings. Traveling at 19 knots seems more like a cruise ship rather ocean liner experience.

 

Chuck

 

You are right on the mark about it being more exciting. It was my habit on QE2 to take a turn around the open decks at night before turning in. Whipping along around 30 knots dressed in a Tux always made me feel like Mr. Bond, James Bond.:eek::D

[jimmybean]

Exactly! My early crossings were 6 days. Now they are seven - yeah!

 

Ditto.

 

We have never minded the "extra day" onboard the QM2.

 

During a Sept '12 westbound, the weather was beautiful---warm and sunny. Captain slowed the ship to even less than the typical crossing speed. The deck was almost wind-free and unbelievably pleasant.

 

Sometimes, slower is better.

[sarafinadh]

I love the fact QM2 sails slower. It means I get to stay on board longer :-)

I wonder if possibly the extra time aboard, when they calculate the increased overhead of food and services, is balanced into the positive by the additional income from passengers in the casino and bars? Migth be one other reason to take that slow boat...

[BlueRiband]

At the risk of being the contrarian I'd vote for a six day crossing. An ocean liner is supposed to take people someplace in a reasonable amount of time. Now that some crossings are eight days (or nine if there is a call at Halifax) QM2 is a mustang with her legs tied.

 

I wonder if passengers would spend a premium for a six day crossing? From the chatter I read here - about waiting out for deals - probably not too many.

[ren0312]

i remember superstar virgo travelling at 25.5 kts in the straits of malacca in early 2000.

[foster269]

Hello,when we were coming back form the fjords last year I overheard a fellow passnger complaing that we could get back to Southampton a lot quicker if the captain speeded up.Am I miising something,are you not on a cruise not in a race.

Rodger.

[jimmybean]

At the risk of being the contrarian I'd vote for a six day crossing. An ocean liner is supposed to take people someplace in a reasonable amount of time. Now that some crossings are eight days (or nine if there is a call at Halifax) QM2 is a mustang with her legs tied.

 

I wonder if passengers would spend a premium for a six day crossing? From the chatter I read here - about waiting out for deals - probably not too many.

 

We did pay less for our last '14 crossing than we paid for our first in '07, which was a six-day voyage.

 

When the ship crossed in 6 days, talk on CC was about how balconies (except the sheltered in hull ones) made no sense, because it was too windy on the QM2 to go out on them. DH and I ventured out on deck once, briefly, on the 6 day '07 crossing and the wind was extremely unpleasant (and my hair-do "ruined").

 

In comparison, in '10 (two autumn crossings) and '12 (two autumn crossings), we walked the deck enjoying sun and warm weather every single day.

 

I wouldn't disagree with a short burst of speed, for the sake of enjoying the speed, during a voyage, but going at full-clip the entire time is not conducive to enjoying time on deck or most balconies. In my opinion.

 

Plus, DH and I appreciate the cost saving. We are happy with slower and less expense. But, we are retired and not in any hurry when we travel. I'm sure there are people for whom a one day shorter voyage would be a positive.

[DWhit]

I'm surprised they haven't had one good run to get the trophy back from the old American ship. I would think it would be good publicity.