Rumor: NORWAY Sold for Scrap

[futaba951]

The Norway is not at a dock in Malaysia it has anchored in Port Klang since leaving Bremerhaven months ago. That article is from 10/30/05 and is not accurate.

 

This is off the maritime Matters website.

 

NORWAY's Fate Sealed?

December 28: Various industry sources in the U.S. and India have indicated that a firm sale of SS NORWAY (ex FRANCE) to either Indian or Bangladeshi breakers has occurred this week. The vessel has reportedly been withdrawn from the sales lists following this development. In the interim, the ship is still at anchor off Port Klang, Malaysia.More specifics are forthcoming.

 

Time for a geography brush up and a little reading comprehension?

[Colo Cruiser]

Time for a geography brush up and a little reading comprehension?

 

 

Must be the reading comprehension for you. :D

[electricron]

I found another photo of the Chittagong ship-breaking yards.

Although I've shrunk and compressed it significantly, it's still a fairly large file.

 

 

It sort of looks like a huge auto savaging yard, except this is for ships.

[BeachBumMama]

I feel so lucky to have such knowledgable and informative people on this site. Thanks for all the info, very nice to read.

[ts01854]

I agree. If NCL decides to build a one of a kind mega ship bringing back the Norway name would be fine. Naming another Star clone Norway would be a slap in the face.

 

Isn't the Dawn and Jewel mega ships?

[electricron]

It appears definitions change as progress and time marches forward.

 

At one time, the SS US, the Queens, and the Norway were considered mega ships at over 50,000 tons.

 

Today they would be considered medium sized ships by some.

 

One thing for certain, Panamax sized ships will always be around 90,000 tons. That is, until Panama decides to build larger locks.

 

I prefer super sized for ships larger than Panamax, as in super Panamax. But I have little to no influence on definitions.

[shoreguy]

Isn't the Dawn and Jewel mega ships?

 

At 90,000 tons they are midsized in todays cruise market. I believe the QM2 is 150,000+ tons.

[waltd]

Any idea if there are any ocean liners in the photograph? Looks like one might be something other then a cargo ship. Just wanted to know which one it is. I find the photo extremely interesting to say the least. Thanks

 

Joe

[futaba951]

Must be the reading comprehension for you. :D

 

No. No problem comprehending your post. It's your circular logic that threw me.

 

Your statement:

The Norway is not at a dock in Malaysia it has anchored in Port Klang

 

The article from Maritime Matters that you quoted:

the ship is still at anchor off Port Klang, Malaysia

[shoreguy]

No. No problem comprehending your post. It's your circular logic that threw me.

 

Your statement:

The Norway is not at a dock in Malaysia it has anchored in Port Klang

 

The article from Maritime Matters that you quoted:

the ship is still at anchor off Port Klang, Malaysia

 

Is this all about anchored vs. docked:rolleyes:

[Colo Cruiser]

That's what I was trying to say. :o

[futaba951]

That's what I was trying to say. :o

 

OK, my bad. I took it that you were saying that Port Klang was not in Malaysia. Guess I did not have very good reading comprehension. Didn't realize we were in a p*****g match over docked vs. anchored. :D

[passaporta]

What a shame!!!

[dougnewmanatsea]

Isn't the Dawn and Jewel mega ships?

It really depends on one's definiton of "mega". Today I think most people consider a "mega-ship" to be a post-Panamax ship (too large to fit through the Panama Canal - usually over 100,000 gross tons) so by that defintion, STAR, DAWN, and JEWEL are not "mega-ships", nor are any other NCL ships. But the definiton is not set in stone.

 

JEWEL is actually the largest passenger ship that can (if she wishes to) transit the Panama Canal. I believe STAR is the largest to have actually made the transit.

 

At one time, the SS US, the Queens, and the Norway were considered mega ships at over 50,000 tons.

Well, not to be pedantic, but they really wouldn't have been (except NORWAY) as the term didn't exist at the time that these ships were built.

 

It is true that, in general, passenger ships have gotten progressively larger over time, but this has come in fits and starts and the story is a lot more complicated than one might imagine.

 

I'll start with a simple list of all the passenger ships to be the largest ever built since the Isambard Kingdom Brunel's landmark GREAT EASTERN of 1860:

 

GREAT EASTERN, Great Ship Company 1860 (18,915 GRT)

CELTIC, White Star Line 1901 (20,904 GRT)

CEDRIC, White Star Line 1903 (21,035 GRT)

BALTIC, White Star Line 1904 (23,884 GRT)

KAISERIN AUGUSTE VICTORIA, HAPAG 1906 (24,581 GRT)

LUSITANIA, Cunard Line 1907 (31,550 GRT)

MAURETANIA, Cunard Line 1907 (31,938 GRT)

OLYMPIC, White Star Line 1911 (45,324 GRT)

TITANIC, White Star Line 1912 (46,329 GRT)

IMPERATOR, HAPAG 1913 (51,680 GRT)

VATERLAND, HAPAG 1914 (54,282 GRT)

MAJESTIC, White Star Line 1922 (56,551 GRT)

NORMANDIE, Compagnie Générale Transatlantique 1935 (79,280 GRT, later 83,423 GRT)

QUEEN ELIZABETH, Cunard White Star 1940 (83,673 GRT)

CARNIVAL DESTINY, Carnival Cruise Lines 1996 (101,353 GT)

GRAND PRINCESS, Princess Cruises 1998 (108,806 GT)

VOYAGER OF THE SEAS, Royal Caribbean International 1999 (137,276 GT)

EXPLORER OF THE SEAS, Royal Caribbean International 2000 (137,308 GT)

NAVIGATOR OF THE SEAS, Royal Caribbean International 2003 (138,279 GT)

QUEEN MARY 2, Cunard Line 2003 (148,528 GT)

 

The era of the modern passenger ship really begins in 1840, but I don't have data for the first 20 years. At any rate, GREAT EASTERN was vastly larger than anything else ever built in 1860 - and as you can see, her record stood for 41 years, much longer than the actual lifespan of the ship herself! She was a commercial flop, and after her completion, the standard size for a "very large" passenger ship dropped well below 10,000 GT. Over the next four decades, ships gradually got bigger and bigger until 1901 when White Star's CELTIC, the second of their "Big Four" (the first, OCEANIC, was slightly smaller than GREAT EASTERN), finally broke Brunel's record.

 

This began a period of rapid increases in the size of liners, roughly spanning the period from the death of Queen Victoria to the beginning of the First World War. Records were broken every few years and by 1914, the second of three huge ships for the Hamburg-America Line (HAPAG), VATERLAND, had reached 54,282 GT, nearly three times the size of GREAT EASTERN.

 

Then war intervened and shipbuilding stopped. VATERLAND's record was finally broken in 1922 by her own sister, which was supposed to be delivered as BISMARCK to HAPAG in 1915, but instead was delivered seven years later to White Star as MAJESTIC; the supposed German flagship was taken over instead by the British as a de facto replacement for BRITANNIC (the third OLYMPIC-class ship), lost in the war before ever entering passenger service. (IMPERATOR became Cunard's BERENGARIA, replacing the war-lost LUSITANIA, while the US took over VATERLAND as LEVIATHAN.) And then the building of huge passenger ships stopped: oddly, while the 1920s were boom years for the ocean liner trade, the biggest and most prestigious ships were virtually all pre-war Edwardian leftovers.

 

This finally changed with NORMANDIE in 1935. At 79,280 GT, she shattered MAJESTIC's 56,551 GT record in grand style - and the French gained the title of world's largest for the first time. She would have been surpassed by QUEEN MARY the next year, but the French added additional enclosed space bringing NORMANDIE to 83,423 GT and pre-empting QUEEN MARY's ascension to the throne. (QUEEN MARY did, however, claim NORMANDIE's crown as fastest ocean liner on the Atlantic.) Unsurprisingly, QUEEN MARY's running-mate, QUEEN ELIZABETH, emerged in 1940 at 83,673 GT, bringing the title of world's largest back to the British once again. And then war intervened once again - the French would otherwise have probably built a NORMANDIE companion called BRETAGNE, which would have likely beaten ELIZABETH's record, but alas it was not to be. And so ELIZABETH remained the largest passenger ship ever built for 56 years, well past her own death in 1972.

 

This isn't to say that very large ships weren't built after World War II - but none on the same scale as the three pre-war superliners. Be it because of projected wartime trooping services (in the case of UNITED STATES), or the need to be able to cruise in winter months (in the case of QE2), designers after the war were mindful of the Panama Canal, which restricted the size of the post-war superliners. FRANCE was the sole exception, being both to wide and too long to fit through the Canal, with her patron Charles de Gaulle opining that it was not the ship which was too large, but rather the canal which was too small. Still, FRANCE came in at a mere 66,343 GT, nowhere near the size of the pre-war superliners (all three of which were also both too long and too wide to transit the canal - something which was of no concern at all for ships that were never meant to leave the North Atlantic). And thus QUEEN ELIZABETH's record remained until 1996 when CARNIVAL DESTINY finally blew through it at an astonishing 101,353 GT. Ships have again been getting bigger ever since and nobody seems to have looked back.

 

One thing that is often overlooked is that today's ships are, on paper, larger than yesterday's more because of their shape than anything. Gross tonnage is a measure of interior volume (one gross ton equals 100 cubic feet of enclosed space; GT has nothing at all to do with weight) and today's ships are much taller and boxier than their older counterparts, which makes them seem larger. For example, while NORWEGIAN JEWEL is much larger than NORWAY in terms of tonnage, NORWAY was much longer and wider and in that sense really a "bigger" ship. Were she the same shape as a modern ship, she would almost undoubtedly be well over 100,000 GT. The same goes for ships like QUEEN MARY, QUEEN ELIZABETH and NORMANDIE. We will soon have a less extreme example in our own time when FREEDOM OF THE SEAS becomes the largest passenger ship next year even though QM2 - slightly smaller in tonnage terms - is longer and wider and will probably look and feel bigger.

 

As for what very large ships are called as a group, I'm not sure they were called anything in particular in the Edwardian era when size was advancing so rapidly. In the '30s, the word "superliner" came about for NORMANDIE and QUEEN MARY; piers 88, 90, and 92 in Manhattan, built especially for these ships, were similarly known as the "superpiers". "Superliner" stuck after the war and was used even for somewhat smaller ships like UNITED STATES, QE2, FRANCE, MICHELANGELO and RAFFAELLO, becoming essentially a term for first-order Atlantic liners. This was supplanted in the cruise era by "mega-ship" in 1990 when Carnival called FANTASY a "megaliner". They'd already used "superliner" for the HOLIDAY-class ships (they were, in fact, quite small compared to real superliners, but we're talking about marketing hype here) and so had to come up with something even bigger-sounding for FANTASY, their answer to NORWAY and SOVEREIGN OF THE SEAS. The term "mega-ship" soon became universal jargon for anything over 70,000 GT. Later in the decade, the post-Panamax ships appeared, and nowadays "mega-ship" is used mainly to describe these 100,000+ GT vessels.

 

until Panama decides to build larger locks.

They already have - it's just a matter of when they get built.

 

Any idea if there are any ocean liners in the photograph?

There are none. Your "different" ship looks to me like a car carrier, or perhaps a livestock carrier.

[derf5585]

GREAT EASTERN, Great Ship Company 1860 (18,915 GRT)

 

The reason why the Great Eastern was so extremely large was that she was built for the run from Europe to Australia

from

http://www.greatoceanliners.net/greateastern.html

 

Isambard Kingdom Brunel's Great Eastern was the superlative ship of the nineteenth century.

from

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/ships/html/sh_040800_greateastern.htm

[smoothdancer]

Wow, I think it was 8 years ago when we were on the Norway. Ya know even back then people were posting on the board what a horrible ship she was and what bad condition she was in. Then new to the boards we seriously considered canceling the cruise. I was so glad we did not because I loved the Norway. Sure, she was old, but we loved her none the less. I for one will miss her.

[Colo Cruiser]

I traveled on it with my father as the France in the 60's, then on my honeymoon in 82 as the Norway, and then with my boys in the mid to late 80's. I have sailed on her 7 times. Pretty neat. If someone would have told me in the 60's that I would sail on this ship in the 80's with my children I would have thought they were nuts. :)

[Globaliser]

Wow, I think it was 8 years ago when we were on the Norway. Ya know even back then people were posting on the board what a horrible ship she was and what bad condition she was in. Then new to the boards we seriously considered canceling the cruise. I was so glad we did not because I loved the Norway. Sure, she was old, but we loved her none the less. I for one will miss her.

Seconded. Although she was old, her furnishings were dated, and nothing was simply logical in the way that today's apartment blocks are, virtually everything worked all the time and one wanted for very little. I would prefer to have all of those features and all their attendant character on every cruise instead of the antiseptic predictability delivered by the new monsters. She wasn't just a lovely old lady, she was usually crewed by lovely people as well, and I have the fondest memories of my three (separate) weeks on board her as much because of the people as because of the ship.

[jwitt2]

Some years ago, back in the 80's I believe, my husband gave me the choice of going to Disneyland or going on the Norway. No way I would pass up a cruise for Mickey. We sailed on her twice and were on her a third time in 2001, but she couldn't leave Miami because of a failed inspection, so we just stayed on board several days until they decided she couldn't make the trip. She was a lovely hotel. The poor bartenders had to serve us a lot of complimentary drinks to make up for not going anywhere, but they kept their cool and we tipped them to show our appreciation. We always had nice cabins, none of them were the same. Somehow when I think of the Norway, I am reminded of the old homes that are torn down to make way for the big new mansions. To some this is very sad, doing away with the old, but others wish to keep up to date with the biggest and the best.

[Cruising Ken]

As I said in my earlier post, I wasn't too fond of the Norway. We had booked an inside cabin but on seeing this dark and dindgy broom cupboard we upgraded immediately.

 

The highlight of the trip was being allowed to go up on the bridge MID-ATLANTIC and have a good look around. Everything was as you'd expect to see a ships bridge, unlike the QE2 which resembled more an office or computor centre.

 

The other memorable part of the trip was when they actually stopped the ship directly over the wreck of the Titanic and a short memorial service was held on the rear decks. When I looked up at the terraced decks it seemed like all 1500 people on board had turned out for the occassion, a wreath was laid, before the ship sailed on. The following day we passed the QE2 at sea and the two ship saluted each other with several blasts on the horn.

 

It was a memorable trip, for many reasons.

[bh2359]

I am and always will be a fan of this great ship. I have a few comments pertaining to some of what has been said here.

 

First, we sailed on her numerous times, the last being the week before the explosion. We sailed on her for the class she still held, unlike the "white boxes" that were sailing at the time. Sure, those "white boxes" had more glitch then the Blue Lady did, and those "white boxes" (I call them hotels on a hull) had more bells and whistles than she did, but those "white boxes" did not and do not have the class she had.

 

There was nothing finer than sitting near the docks at St. Thomas and looking at those "white boxes" docked nearby, then gazing out to sea to see the Grand Blue Lady at anchor. Her majestic bow, twin funnels, striking blue color, et al, reflecting back the class of an era gone by.

 

Sitting in one of the dining rooms waiting for dinner and have a string trio or quartet stroll by while playing is class. Have we seen this on ANY of our cruises on contemporary ships? No.

 

Anyway...

 

I wrote to Colin V. (CEO of NCL) some time ago asking to purchase many items from the Norway, most of which were not part of or attached to the ship. I was interested in silverware, china, menus, flags, uniforms and so on. I did not even receive the courtesy of a reply.

 

I can only presume if and when the Norway goes to the scrappers, these items will be trashed. Truly a pity.

 

As for all the cabins being different, that was part of the class I was talking about. I've stayed in bottom cabins, old second class (cabin class) cabins, and old first class. Part of the fun, and there was always fun on the Norway, was being in a different part of the ship each trip.

 

My wife and I have cruised fifteen different times during the past five years, here and in Europe. I can assure you that we, and many others, could care less about skating rinks and rock climbing walls. We go on cruises so we can be on the water. If a white box on a hull is all that is available, than so be it. Sure, there are some of you that want that stuff, but I'm from the old school. I remember seeing the great ocean liners at their piers in New York City in the 1950s and 1960s.

 

I've been on (not sailed) the Queen Elizabeth, the United States, the Ile De France, and many others from that era. Back then, for a modest fee (50 cents, increased to $1.00), you could board on sailing day and walk around.

 

Those days are gone, as are most of the ships from that era.

 

I do not consider the QE2 to be a "classic" ocean liner (my opinion), thus, when the Norway is finally gone, that'll be it for the great ones from that era. Sure, they've made them larger, and a few longer, but none of today's "white boxes" have the styling, classic bow, funnels in the correct place, and so on, and as I said above, they also don't have the class.

 

We sailed to Nassau a year ago just to be on the Regal Empress (reviewed by me elsewhere). We hate Nassau and didn't take an excursion there. We simply wanted to be on a real ocean liner from the past.

 

Sorry to rant but I'm sad that an era seems to have come to an end. I guess my New Year's wish is that the S.S. United States will rise from the ashes as the Phoenix did. If not, then I have my memories and pictures to keep a smile on my face.

[Colo Cruiser]

bh2359, all those items that you mentioned had been stripped and auctioned off in Bremerhaven during her last layup there prior to towing to Port Klang where she currently is anchored. They (NCL) would not loose the opportunity to make their last buck from her. :(

[desirod]

The NTSB Report and the people I spoke to at Sea Trade noted that it was misuse that caused the boiler explosion. Go to their website for the full details.

 

Even if the boiler did not explode, her operating costs were 7x that of the recent builds. 400' of plumbing lines a month were replaced. The post 9-11 $399 a week for a suite on the 7 day Caribbean bus tour for Ma and Pa Kettle did her no favors.

 

I was glad to sail her the one time I did. Although not the beautiful France she once was, but enough was left to get the idea.

 

David

[shoreguy]

 

Even if the boiler did not explode, her operating costs were 7x that of the recent builds.

David

 

I still remember from my last cruise on the Norway the captain shared the fuel efficacy or lack of with us.

 

The Norway got 1 foot to the gallon. :eek:

[logcabin]

It's a shame that NCL didn't have a place to permitly dock the Norway in NYC. It would have been a great place for a pre and/or post cruise stay. Just like Princess, which offers pre and/or post cruise stays in hotels of theirs in Alaska, the Norway could have been a river front hotel. A great place for NCL cruisers to stay for a few days in NYC prior to or after a cruise. It could have been a nice "vacation package" for NCL. They could have also done this with the United States in Philly. A lot cheaper then trying to make them sea worthy for cruising the open ocean, but still using these great old ships in a profitable way.