What's the difference between a regular cruise ship and an ocean liner?

[thermal]

I sometimes hear Cunard's Queen Mary 2 referred to as an Ocean Liner instead of a cruise ship. 

 

Is there a significant difference between the two? 

 

Thank you. 

[BklynBoy8]

7 minutes ago, thermal said:

I sometimes hear Cunard's Queen Mary 2 referred to as an Ocean Liner instead of a cruise ship. 

 

Is there a significant difference between the two? 

 

Thank you. 

 

You Bet !

 

Same as the Original Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, SS United States, SS America and many the Won the Blue Ribbon racing across the Atlantic Ocean for Speed. Also style which is very, very noticeable.

 

Once you are on her you will know the difference.

Edited Saturday at 09:26 PM by BklynBoy8

[GeezerCouple]

Here is one explanation:

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/articles/what-is-the-difference-between-an-ocean-liner-and-cruise-ship

 

GC

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, GeezerCouple said:

Here is one explanation:

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/articles/what-is-the-difference-between-an-ocean-liner-and-cruise-ship

 

GC

I have to laugh at the author's description of an ocean liner having a "deep-v hull".  QM2 does not have any more of a "deep-v" hull than any other cruise ship (or any ocean-going ship) these days.  QM2's bottom is just as flat as any cruise ship's hull.  A "deep-v" hull is designed to get the hull up and planing on the water, something a ship the size of QM2 just isn't capable of doing.  She does have a "finer entry" and a lower "block coefficient", meaning the taper of the hull from the full beam to the bow is over a longer portion of the hull, allowing for "easier" entry into seas, but not a deep-v hull.

[Heidi13]

To expand on the Chief's reply.

 

Many of the old liners also had holds for storing passenger belongings, mail and even cargo. When converted to cruising, many of these areas were converted to additional areas for ship's stores.

 

To answer the OP's question, is their is much difference. Yes, the hull design and scantlings (hull strength) of a liner are different to permit maintaining a significantly higher speed in heavy seas. Having completed multiple drydocking on old liners, the hull tapers from the bow to about 1/3 length of the ship before reaching full beam. The hull plating is thicker and the frames are more substantial.

 

Having crossed the Atlantic and Pacific, and operated in the Meddy, we routinely maintained 20 - 25 kts through heavy weather, where modern cruise ships would be down to about 10 - 12 kts. Few cruise ships can steam at 25 kts and none that I know can achieve 30 kts. The SS Oriana was rated just over 30 kts and SS Canberra about 28 kts. I recall attaining between 31 and 32 kts on SS Oriana with favourable winds and tide when steaming for Sydney, to arrive prior to a port strike.

 

While QE2 was rated at 32.5 kts, they rarely achieved that speed, as we routinely outran them on SS Oriana.

[chengkp75]

33 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

Few cruise ships can steam at 25 kts and none that I know can achieve 30 kts. The SS Oriana was rated just over 30 kts and SS Canberra about 28 kts.

Another feature of ocean liners that amplifies Andy's point is that the liners were tremendously overpowered.  You look at the Oriana, at 42,000 GRT and 80,000 hp.  Compare that to the Oasis of the Seas at 225,000 GT (I know that GT is not weight, but the volume of the ship also determines its weight) and 81,000 hp.  Likewise, the SSUS comes in at 53,000 GT, but a whopping 240,000 hp.  Another close comparison is between two Cunard ships.  Queen Mary 2 is 80,000 GT and 115,000 hp, while Queen Victoria is 90,000 GT and only 45,000 hp.  The massive amount of propulsion power is needed to push the ship faster than her designed "hull speed", where going faster than hull speed makes the power required increase exponentially.  This also means the liners burn way more fuel than a cruise ship, which is why there aren't any more than one around these days, and that one does not push anywhere near full speed.

[navybankerteacher]

The advent of the jet made the ocean liner (the way for passengers to cross oceans) essentially obsolete.  Why spend four or so days on a ship from the US to the UK when a plane can do it in seven or so hours?  There are those who have asked why QM2 spends a week doing what she could in five or so days:  the fact is that there is no real market for fast surface crossings.  If someone is in a hurry they fly;  if they want a sea voyage, they want time at sea - so a week makes sense - rather than trying the much more expensive (in fuel costs) top speed compromise.

[donaldsc]

13 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

The advent of the jet made the ocean liner (the way for passengers to cross oceans) essentially obsolete.  Why spend four or so days on a ship from the US to the UK when a plane can do it in seven or so hours?  There are those who have asked why QM2 spends a week doing what she could in five or so days:  the fact is that there is no real market for fast surface crossings.  If someone is in a hurry they fly;  if they want a sea voyage, they want time at sea - so a week makes sense - rather than trying the much more expensive (in fuel costs) top speed compromise.

 

To extend your comments - look at the SS United States.  She was built very successfully for speed.  She was fast.  Very fast.  She was put into service in 1952 and taken out of service in 1969 because of the advent of jets.

 

DON

[Son of a son of a ...]

I would rather have my dog cruise with me on Cunard than fly her in a crate.  

[Host Kat]

For those like me that need help with knots versus MPH, here is a Cruise Critic article last updated January 24,2023:

 

Knots to MPH: How Fast Is a Knot And More

 

[CPT Trips]

It appears that a dog will spend much less time crated on a trans-Atlantic flight that on a cruise. https://www.cruisecritic.com/articles/cunards-queen-mary-2-kennels-and-how-to-book-them-for-your-next-cruise?source=133828&suppressTabs=1&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwhIS0BhBqEiwADAUhc4vAHH5g7uy1KuOhW4Tg6UqrATYpetL7XYpWV7CPUogJ-gPw_Ze_XBoC-koQAvD_BwE

[wcook]

5 hours ago, Son of a son of a ... said:

I would rather have my dog cruise with me on Cunard than fly her in a crate.  

When I was thinking of moving to Europe I looked into this. Sounds like the crossing experience for animals on a ship is kinda miserable. Better, IMO, to just fly and get it over with quickly. 

[GeezerCouple]

On 6/29/2024 at 7:57 PM, chengkp75 said:

I have to laugh at the author's description of an ocean liner having a "deep-v hull".  QM2 does not have any more of a "deep-v" hull than any other cruise ship (or any ocean-going ship) these days.  QM2's bottom is just as flat as any cruise ship's hull.  A "deep-v" hull is designed to get the hull up and planing on the water, something a ship the size of QM2 just isn't capable of doing.  She does have a "finer entry" and a lower "block coefficient", meaning the taper of the hull from the full beam to the bow is over a longer portion of the hull, allowing for "easier" entry into seas, but not a deep-v hull.

 

Thanks so much for this information... and for all of the other information and background, etc., that you share with those of us who are mere civilians. 😉 

It's all very interesting.

 

GC

[Heidi13]

10 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Another feature of ocean liners that amplifies Andy's point is that the liners were tremendously overpowered.  You look at the Oriana, at 42,000 GRT and 80,000 hp.  Compare that to the Oasis of the Seas at 225,000 GT (I know that GT is not weight, but the volume of the ship also determines its weight) and 81,000 hp.  Likewise, the SSUS comes in at 53,000 GT, but a whopping 240,000 hp.  Another close comparison is between two Cunard ships.  Queen Mary 2 is 80,000 GT and 115,000 hp, while Queen Victoria is 90,000 GT and only 45,000 hp.  The massive amount of propulsion power is needed to push the ship faster than her designed "hull speed", where going faster than hull speed makes the power required increase exponentially.  This also means the liners burn way more fuel than a cruise ship, which is why there aren't any more than one around these days, and that one does not push anywhere near full speed.

 

Affirmative, SS Oriana had 2 triple reduction turbines rated at 40,000 HP each. The super-heated steam was produced by 4 boilers and if memory is correct, they had 10 fires on each boiler. With all boilers running max, we used over 500 tons of bunkers per day.

[Heidi13]

8 hours ago, Host Kat said:

For those like me that need help with knots versus MPH, here is a Cruise Critic article last updated January 24,2023:

 

Knots to MPH: How Fast Is a Knot And More

 

 

A very simplified answer to a fairly complex question.

 

A nautical mile is not the distance between 2 points, but is an angular measurement along a Meridian, or N/S line. A Nautical Mile represents one (1) minute of Latitude, which is 1/60 of a degree. As an example, Vancouver BC has a Latitude of 49 degrees 14 minutes North. Since each minute of Latitude equates to one nautical mile, Vancouver is 14 nautical miles north of the US Border.

 

However, since the Earth is an oblate spheroid/ellipsoid (it isn't a sphere), the length of a minute of Latitude varies between the Equator and Poles, so the actual length of a nautical mile varies depending on Latitude. When plotting positions, etc, you always measured distance at the latitude scale commensurate with the ship's position.

 

I recall the first International Convention about the 1920's accepted the length of a nautical mile as 6,076 feet, but in UK, when I went to sea, we used 6,080 feet, as the accepted length of a nautical mile. Sorry, don't know what the accepted distance is in the USA.

 

A knot is one nautical mile per hour. Since an Imperial statute mile is 1,760 yards or 5,280 feet, the conversion factor from knots to mph is multiplying knots by 1.1515.

[chengkp75]

5 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

However, since the Earth is an oblate spheroid/ellipsoid (it isn't a sphere), the length of a minute of Latitude varies between the Equator and Poles, so the actual length of a nautical mile varies depending on Latitude. When plotting positions, etc, you always measured distance at the latitude scale commensurate with the ship's position.

Hate to disagree with you Andy, me being a snipe and all, but I was taught that a nautical mile was "one degree of latitude at the equator", and this didn't vary.  What did vary was that when using a Mercator projection chart (mapping a spheroid to a flat surface, for those other than Andy 🙂), latitude "stretches" out on the chart, so while the length of a nautical mile does not vary, the representation of a nautical mile will vary between charts due to this "stretching" of latitude on the chart.

[ldubs]

9 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

 

However, since the Earth is an oblate spheroid/ellipsoid (it isn't a sphere), the length of a minute of Latitude varies between the Equator and Poles, so the actual length of a nautical mile varies depending on Latitude. When plotting positions, etc, you always measured distance at the latitude scale commensurate with the ship's position.

 

 

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Hate to disagree with you Andy, me being a snipe and all, but I was taught that a nautical mile was "one degree of latitude at the equator", and this didn't vary.  What did vary was that when using a Mercator projection chart (mapping a spheroid to a flat surface, for those other than Andy 🙂), latitude "stretches" out on the chart, so while the length of a nautical mile does not vary, the representation of a nautical mile will vary between charts due to this "stretching" of latitude on the chart.

 

Being sort of oblate myself, I think we should give some latitude on this one.  (OMG, too early for bad Dad jokes).  

[Heidi13]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Hate to disagree with you Andy, me being a snipe and all, but I was taught that a nautical mile was "one degree of latitude at the equator", and this didn't vary.  What did vary was that when using a Mercator projection chart (mapping a spheroid to a flat surface, for those other than Andy 🙂), latitude "stretches" out on the chart, so while the length of a nautical mile does not vary, the representation of a nautical mile will vary between charts due to this "stretching" of latitude on the chart.

 

In UK, during Principles of Navigation, this is what we were taught.

 

The length of a nautical mile is actually a "Minute" of Latitude, which is 1/60th of a degree. Each degree of Latitude is split into 60 Minutes. Due to the earth's shape being an oblate spheroid (flatter at the poles), the actual length of one minute arc of a Meridian varies slightly, from the Equator to the Poles.

 

If memory is correct, they resolved the issue at a 1920's convention, when the length of a nautical mile, was assumed as being an arc of one minute of Latitude at the Equator. The convention used 6,076 feet, but when I went to sea, in UK it was accepted to be 6,080 feet. I don't know what the US uses,

 

Affirmative, the projection of Mercator charts with increased elongation further from the Equator, is another reason we always used the Latitude scale applicable to our position.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Heidi13 said:

In UK, during Principles of Navigation, this is what we were taught.

 

LOL.  And I was taught celestial navigation using HO 214 (HD 486 for the UK) for sight reductions, now it's HO 229 (HD 605 in UK) (way easier) for the exams only, and then computer programs if anyone actually still does celestial sights.  Things have come a long way since our cadet days. Even a nautical mile has changed, as you say, when you started it was 6080 feet in the UK and 6080.2 in the US (we just had to be different), but both countries now recognize the international nautical mile of 6076.12 feet.

[lenquixote66]

My father sailed from Liverpool to NYC in 1913 on a ship that was an ocean liner.There were people as well as cargo transported.It was his initial plan to sail in 1912 but for some reason that I cannot recall he had to wait a year.

[MBP&O2/O]

Yup ...we were taught 6080 feet. Can't remember the books now, but

Elements of Navigation was one

Principals of Navigation for Second Mates? Was another. Little green book with hand drawn diagrams ...very good book.

Kelvin Hughes had a few small paperbacks

and of course the inevitable Nories ! 😄

[jcl410]

 When I learned to plot a course on a chart; measuing distance was easy.... Just put the calipers/straight edge on the latitude marks on the chart and THAT was a nautical mile... I never really had to worry about a precise conversion.

 

Well, I just went down a rabbit hole 🙂     I just found out that the current (USA since 1954/UK since 1970) is exactly 1852 meters. Or 6076.1155 feet. 

 

This reminds me of a youtube video that described that the standard of length for a shot/shackle/cable of anchor chain is 27.4 meters. 

 

Aloha,

 

John

 

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, jcl410 said:

This reminds me of a youtube video that described that the standard of length for a shot/shackle/cable of anchor chain is 27.4 meters.

Which is as close to 90 feet (1.25") as I care to come, since my "fathom" may be different than yours.  😉

[Heidi13]

23 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

LOL.  And I was taught celestial navigation using HO 214 (HD 486 for the UK) for sight reductions, now it's HO 229 (HD 605 in UK) (way easier) for the exams only, and then computer programs if anyone actually still does celestial sights.  Things have come a long way since our cadet days. Even a nautical mile has changed, as you say, when you started it was 6080 feet in the UK and 6080.2 in the US (we just had to be different), but both countries now recognize the international nautical mile of 6076.12 feet.

 

When I did my Masters, I still remember the coastal guys arguing over the best way to calculate sights, while I used the tried and true Nories Tables and the Almanac. Generally my sights template was faster than any of them.

 

Mind you that was probably due to having completed 4 or 5 sun sights a morning on the 8-12 watch on cruise ships, where we took a sight every 1/2 hr from 08:30. When in higher Latitudes we also got stars on the 8-12, while most days the 4-8 got AM & PM stars, when we took 5 or 6 stars.

[MBP&O2/O]

We had sights at 0900 ...2 for 3/O and 2 for self. Like you a self designed template which reduced the calculations time to 3 mins. Tried to make it quick as getting up and being semi conscious for 9am after a 12x4 etc ...

Noon at when ever o'clock and AM / PM stars for the 4 to 8, which I used to love.

Given a good moon and good conditions I used to do stars at 0200 ... mainly to use an alternative method, ie morning ones Long by Chron and 0200 one Marq St. Hilaire.

Good for keeping your hand in so to speak.