Will Cunard ever launch another ocean liner again?

[Germancruiser]

There would be a market for such a new Ocean Liner- I am quite sure! As for the NAME, well, Queen Alexandera would be just the thing! Then we have all Queens of England of the last Century covered!

NOT a TWIN to QM2 - something different perhaps..!

[Loveboat1995]

I don't think Carnival and Cunard would be crazy enough to attempt to build a cruise ship to take a liner's place (I hope). If it isn't a true liner, then I don't know what I'll do with Cunard. I suspect that if they want to do regular crossings of the North Atlantic on a schedule, they will build a liner.

 

I'm not sure if the number of days should be regarded as the cutoff for whether or not it is a cruise or a crossing. I think that if it is done on a regular prompt schedule, regardless of whether it's six days or seven, that makes it as a crossing. Now when the number of days reaches 11, then we might have an argument. However the Queen Mary 2 has never done five day crossings, but only six and now seven. The ship still serves a purpose for those who can't fly or hate flying. The eight day crossings that the QM2 does with the stop in Canada every now and again are nice in that they give people from four different countries an airplane alternative. I can understand however why people are upset over the length, however. I would be thrilled to do a five day or six day crossing. I could be wrong here, but I think the seventh day is mostly a consequence of the LNG engines as opposed to those who prefer a longer crossing. LNG is expensive and it just became ridiculous. They should have just built the ship with another diesel generator, but nobody foresaw the market ten years down the road.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Loveboat1995
Changing tone/grammar

[canoncruiser]

Hi all,

The turbines on QM2 make it possible for her to exceed 23-24 knots; and they are Gas Oil Turbines not LNG(Liquified Natural Gas). According to Stephen Payne and various officers, they are ferociously expensive to operate all the time;and Stephen has said that she cannot exceed 23-24 knots w/out them. He says that there is now certain equipment available that would leave room for a fifth diesel engine-not possible in 2003. Had that been possible during initial construction we might be enjoying regular 5 or 6 day crossings now;AND Cunard would be able to schedule a few more crossings. As I am of Riper Years I hope to cross regularly for the rest of my life-on QM2!:D

But I do have a question - how is it that the old Queens(with 2-3 day NY turnarounds); and other great liners got annual 1 month overhauls and QM2, QE and QV-among others do not? Lord knows they are in constant operation with 10-12 hour turnarounds. Don’t understand it. Anyone out there who does?:confused:

[chengkp75]

Hi all,

The turbines on QM2 make it possible for her to exceed 23-24 knots; and they are Gas Oil Turbines not LNG(Liquified Natural Gas). According to Stephen Payne and various officers, they are ferociously expensive to operate all the time;and Stephen has said that she cannot exceed 23-24 knots w/out them. He says that there is now certain equipment available that would leave room for a fifth diesel engine-not possible in 2003. Had that been possible during initial construction we might be enjoying regular 5 or 6 day crossings now;AND Cunard would be able to schedule a few more crossings. As I am of Riper Years I hope to cross regularly for the rest of my life-on QM2!:D

But I do have a question - how is it that the old Queens(with 2-3 day NY turnarounds); and other great liners got annual 1 month overhauls and QM2, QE and QV-among others do not? Lord knows they are in constant operation with 10-12 hour turnarounds. Don’t understand it. Anyone out there who does?:confused:

 

Well, mainly because they charged so much that they could afford to take the ships out of service for a month. Also, newer technology allowed even steam plants to last longer between maintenance/repair intervals. And by going to redundant diesel engines in the diesel electric plant, they can do more maintenance while underway than ever before. Cruise ships frequently operate without one diesel, which is down for a 12,000 hour overhaul (which takes 2-3 weeks), and the passengers never know anything about it. Cargo ships, which have as much power in their single engine (80Mw, compared to 117Mw on QM2), rarely are out of service, have short port stays, and only get 2 weeks in shipyard every 2.5 years, as mandated by regulation.

 

For those hoping for LNG to save fuel costs, remember that for the same calorific value (the energy given to the diesel engine to power everything) as residual fuel oil, you need 6 times the volume, so where does this extra storage space come from? Also, there are serious design concerns regarding LNG tanks on ships that would completely affect the way cruise ships are designed.

 

For those looking for nuclear power, the one point you all miss is today's culture of suing for anything that happens. Regardless of the safety regulations that would need to be implemented in order to have a nuclear passenger ship, anyone who ever sailed on it and subsequently developed cancer would be suing Cunard. And how many years of following up on passengers, years after their cruise, would it take for Cunard to protect itself with clinical evidence? Sorry, nuclear power is not going to happen for cruise ships in the next 30 years, if ever.