Prinsendam compared to Rotterdam V

[St Pete Cruiser]

I would like to hear from my knowledgable veteran Holland America cruisers a basic comparison of the Prinsendam and the Rotterdam V. Particularly as to the hull designs and their sea abilities. We know the Rotterdam V (1959 ship) was built for transatlantic crossings and at 38,000 tons appears to be nearly the same as our "little" Prinsendam (1988 ship) that Holland now uses for some of the more exotic and longer cruises.

 

Do you think the Prinsendam can handle heavy seas as well as the Rotterdam V could?

 

My stats show the Prinsendam at 38,800 tons, 674 feet long and 92' beam with a draft of 23.5'

The Rotterdam V at 38,600 tons, 748' long, 94' beam, BUT with a 29.6' draft.

My limited nautical mind thinks the deeper draft ship of roughly the same size would be more sea worthy.

[Dave in NJ]

Interesting question! I've sailed rather extensively on both yet can't really offer anything other than just speculation - for a definitive answer you'd have to have been in both in similar conditions. Certainly Rotterdam V was built for far more rigorous service than Prinsendam and survived at least one incident where she was nearly lost - the rogue wave off Casablanca. Certainly Prinsendam has the advantage over current cruise ships but I'd guess that Rotterdam V had the edge.

 

Had a crossing on Rotterdam V from Lisbon to NYC in the 90s, huge seas and a day late arriving at NYC with lots of broken china and glass, and perhaps a few broken bones as well. I'll see if I can attach a photo from that crossing.

 

It will be interesting to see what others have to say who sailed extensively in deep blue water routes on both.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Dave in NJ

[OlsSalt]

Spent over a month on each of them and had no problems with their "seaworthiness" or stability that I can recall, but then hard to assess what sea worthy challenges we faced that would have made a difference.

 

One trip was Mediterranean and Black Sea (Prinsendam -who was mechanically limping at the time) and the others on the Rotterdam -North Sea and Baltic, and Bay of Biscay, Mediterranean, Suez, Indian Ocean, Malacca and Indonesia.

 

I think cruising can be like childbirth- you forget any "bad sea days" and just remember the good stuff. Plus the "bad sea" spells are over in a few hours at most ....so far on all our own many HAL trips.

 

However, on another much older, smaller ship (sister ship of the original "Love Boat - the Island Princess) we had an unrelenting rough passage through the Madagascar Straights to Capetown that put me in bed for days. But now with nearly 200 days on HAL ships up and down their classes and varieties, I have only fleeting memories of a few rough spots. And only after you asked!

Edited August 5, 2015 by OlsSalt

[RuthC]

I cruised extensively on Rotterdam V, and have done two long cruises on Prinsendam.

I found the Prinsendam, because of the design of her hull, to take heavy seas well. She seems to cut through the waves, more than ride them.

She was built for world cruising, and does the job well.

 

It isn't so much the size of the ship as the design of the hull that makes a difference in how the ship rides.

I wouldn't want to be in very heavy seas, especially with strong winds, on some of those high "condos" that sail today. They aren't built to ride smoothly, and the high sides tend to catch the wind.

[Dave in NJ]

Just a few 2nd thoughts - Rotterdam V was certainly built for far more rigorous service than Prinsendam, for routine and regular year-round transatlantic crossings - Prinsendam was never built with that type of service in mind. That said I've always admired how Prinsendam manages heavy seas. I don't know if Stephen Card has sailed on Prinsendam but if so it will be interesting to hear his comments because, as I recall he had something like 900 days Rotterdam V and surely must have had some memorable experiences.

[rafinmd]

It's hard for me to really judge. I have 7 days (Alaska) on the Grand Dame and 7 weeks on the Elegant Explorer. I think the Royal Viking Sun was built with the intention of worldwide ocean travel and has a hull to match. Probably just a small step below Rotterdam V in hull design but would also guess Prinsendam has more modern stabilizers that somewhat more than make up the difference.

 

Roy

[kazu]

I cruised extensively on Rotterdam V, and have done two long cruises on Prinsendam.

I found the Prinsendam, because of the design of her hull, to take heavy seas well. She seems to cut through the waves, more than ride them.

She was built for world cruising, and does the job well.

 

It isn't so much the size of the ship as the design of the hull that makes a difference in how the ship rides.

I wouldn't want to be in very heavy seas, especially with strong winds, on some of those high "condos" that sail today. They aren't built to ride smoothly, and the high sides tend to catch the wind.

 

Totally agree RuthC. I love the description of "cuts through the waves" and have used it myself as I think it describes how the Prinsendam rides so beautifully. Have been on her in what were supposedly moving seas. I did do a live thread at the time. I couldn't believe the waves were as high as we were told as it certainly didn't feel like it.

 

I've done several TA's on the Prinsendam and have had a cabin that was very forward at the top level and there was no noticeable difference in motion than mid ship.

 

Oh, and for the person that asked, Stephen Card has been on the P'dam. He was on one of our cruises, but I believe he got off before the TA portion.

 

Was only on the Rotterdam once and the motion of the ocean was more noticeable, but not a serious issue.

 

One of the reasons we are fans of the Prinsendam aside from her crew, service and the ship itself is how she does ride the waves. :)

[ShipsAreTheBest]

One of the other features besides draft and hull form in deciding how much punishing a ship can take is the length of the bow to the superstructure. And here, Rotterdam (V) clearly has the advantage.

 

Having never sailed Prinsendam, and only Rotterdam for 7 days as a 13-year old some 35 odd years ago, I can't offer a first hand comparison, but my gut tells me Rotterdam is the sturdier of the two. Having said that, I also suspect Prinsendam is well-built.

[Topsham]

ROTTERDAM is an Ocean Liner. Heavy scantlings. Long, deep draught, displacement hull, fast... 26 knots.

 

PRINSENDAM? Like a Tin Can! (OK, I'm just rattling the cage.) Lighter scantlings, short, beamer hull, shallow draught, light displacement, slow hull... 21 knots.

 

Compared? For sure, ROTTERDAM was built for North Atlantic continuous crossings. PRINSENDAM is a fine ship too but if she was put on North Atlantic service she would not stand up to it.

 

Compare.... ROTTERDAM, QUEEN ELIZABETH 2 and compare PRINSENDAM with the new QUEEN ELIZABETH..... easy to see the differences. Remember that stability is most important. The best hull but badly laden.... stability will be terrible and give you a bad ride!

 

It takes years and years to live with a ship and learn how she handles. One or two voyages.... I you have a good voyage... fine. It does not you tell what the ship is and what she can do.... in any weather.

 

Here a photos.. to tell the difference.

 

Oh... I did not sail in ROTTERDAM in 900 days. I was thankful to sail in her for only 340 days. The other HAL days were just 700. Also must remember ROTTERDAM VI and AMSTERDAM are more like design of a fast deep hull... and fast... they were the FASTDAMS. Talk to Captain Albert... he would probably say the ROTTERDAM has better seakeeping qualities than PRINSENDAM>

[OlsSalt]

Assuming both are equally or nearly equally sea-worthy - depending upon itinerary chosen, the next question might be what other characteristics would factor into a decision between the two.

 

I'll add if I were in a Neptune suite I would pick the Prinsendam, but if in a regular cabin I would chose the Rotterdam. There seemed to be more public spaces and better people flow on the Rotterdam which becomes important if you spend more time outside your cabin. But if you have a Neptune Suite on the Prinsendam you have chosen just about the ultimate HAL ships can offer.

 

Bottomline for us though is not the ship, nor the cabin but always the itinerary. HAL keeps tempting us even when we think we have "seen just about everything". If they could only figure out how to do Central Asia and the Five Stans by cruise ship, we would be able to finish our own bucket list.

Edited August 5, 2015 by OlsSalt

[Topsham]

One voyage in PRINSENDAM.... ready for Suite Cocktail in Captain Bos' cabin. My suite right next to Neptune Lounge. Cut right through the Captain's cabin... your know how to do it. DW and I had drinks. No one came from Suites. Just two of us! DW started look green so went back to suite. I managed to get a drink down decided... ENOUGH! I got back to found the cabin full of stewards and supervisors. DW was in the bed. The rest was a wreck! Both TV had been thrown off the of shelf and were smashed. They were then going out of of the suites to bring the TV and put on deck and then lash up. I went down for dinner. Got down to the dining room. Too one look and wen back to the cabin... and stayed there until 24 hours. My good old Bonine failed me this time! Those suite in PRDM are very far forward and far too high... too much for comfort. Heaven help us in those new cabins up to on KONINGSDAM. But it never gets like that in the Caribbean. Yeah right!:rolleyes:

[rkacruiser]

Topsham,

 

No LOL at the time, but thanks for the memory now.

 

Always, I have marveled that often the most expensive staterooms are positioned in the parts of the vessel that would be the most unpleasant when King Neptune decides to put "the ocean in motion".

[OlsSalt]

The old joke is the more you pay, the more you sway.

[Topsham]

St Pete Cruiser,

 

Nice that you have post two of my favourite ships as your Avatar.

 

First one is RMS QUEEN ELIZABETH. 1968. New York to So'ton and a month later.. back to NY. As passenger a 15 year old. Fantastic!

 

The second one.... more important in my seagoing career. The Red Funnel tug/tender GATCOMBE seen in the lower left in the Avatar. In 1969 I joined GATCOMBE as Deck Boy on the voyage from Southampton to Bermuda. Sold to the Bermuda Government and she was renamed BERMUDIAN. Years later 1983 I was Harbour Master and took her from Bermuda up to Norfolk Va for drydocking and later to Bermuda. 1987.... I was painting by then and still made an occasional run as a 'Delivery Master'. BERMUDIAN was sold to Havelet Marine, Devon. Renamed TOPSHAM. Here the reason of my screen name. Voyage was Bermuda to Dartmouth.

 

Comments on sea keeping qualities. I set off from Bermuda and gave an ETA to the owners... 16 days. The first sea day the weather went foul. Rolled and rolled and pitched and pitched with following seas. It was just as bad as it was in 1969 as it was again in 1987! Found later that QUEEN ELIZABETH2 was also coming over and arrived a whole late on arriving Southampton. Me? When I arrived off the Dart to pick up pilot.... 12 hours EARLY!!!! TOPSHAM was laid up and put up for sail. A year later the vessel was sold to Greek buyers and renamed ROYAL M. Back on board as Delivery Master for the voyage from UK to Gibraltar then Piraeus..... 21 days. Some good, some bad. On ROYAL M. I had a temporary Chief Officer.... Mate. He was not happy with the rolling and one night he fell out of his bunk and came up to the bridge swearing that he would never leave his normal ship again. Dan was Chief Officer on QUEEN ELIZABETH 2!!!! Back about 2000 the old GATCOMBE was scrapped.

[take us away]

Have sailed both ships with something like 200 days on the P'dam with several TAs, sailed across the Drake's Passage, into Antarctica, the Falklands and the crazy waters around Easter Island with waves crashing over the promenade deck. She was built for world cruises, as was the R'dam. She has a unique hull design (something about her aft area not being completely flat) that allows for much smoother sailing. Had a lecturer once who discussed ship building and its effects on sailing and he touted the P'dam design (we were on the Amsterdam at the time). I do get seasick and never had more issues on the P'dam than any other ship- even though I have sailed her is much rougher waters.

 

Not to say the R'dam does not provide a smooth cruise but if I had to choose 1 for expected rough seas sailing, I would take the P'dam.

[St Pete Cruiser]

Thanks for posting such great comments on this thread.

One of the joys of travel by ship is enjoying the vast oceans and all the variables they can give us. Another is sharing the highlights as well as some of the more challenging times at sea.

Stephen, thanks especially for your "on board" knowledge as well as the pics.