exlondoner Posted July 25 #26 Share Posted July 25 11 minutes ago, chengkp75 said: I don't know why there is the "K" factor involved in calculating GT, but prior to the introduction of Gross Tonnage and Net Tonnage in 1982, there were several methods of calculating tonnage for vessels, used variously around the world, and the IMO's decision to go to GT and NT was to make it all uniform. A lot of it dates to the change from sail to steam, as steamships had to have more space that could not carry cargo, so using the total volume of the ship was not fair (also why Net Tonnage came into being, being the volume of cargo carrying space only). Comprehensible. Many thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aoumd Posted July 26 Author #27 Share Posted July 26 (edited) On 7/23/2024 at 8:03 PM, Jim_P said: True, but a lot of those were cargo ships. It would be interesting to compare Cunard's passenger capacity then to now. I think 1958 would be in front, though Queen Anne with her 3000 capacity may have tipped the scale. On 7/24/2024 at 4:14 PM, 57eric said: Who's up to the comparison task? Come on, CCers! You can't all be as lazy as me. I had a little time tonight so I perused Wikipedia some more to fill out the table with passenger counts. Some of the counts are ambiguous as to whether they are for double occupancy or maximum passenger capacity, so anyone who has more reliable information please chime in! I also calculated "Tons per Pax" to gauge how much space each passenger has on the ships now. The impact of Queen Anne's higher passenger count seems noticeable, but is about where the original Queens (and the Green Goddess Caronia of the 1950s) were. Cunard Line in 2024 TONNAGE PASSENGERS TONS/PAX Entire Fleet 443,165 9,763 45 Queen Mary 2 149,215 2,695 55 Queen Anne 113,000 2,996 38 Queen Elizabeth 90,901 2,058 44 Queen Victoria 90,049 2,014 45 Cunard Line in 1958 TONNAGE PASSENGERS TONS/PAX* Entire Fleet 429,572 11,956 31 Queen Elizabeth 83,673 2,283 37 Queen Mary 81,237 2,140 38 Mauretania 35,738 1,360 26 Caronia 34,183 932 37 Britannic 27,666 1,093 25 Ivernia 21,800 929 23 Carinthia 21,800 868 25 Sylvania 21,800 925 24 Saxonia 21,637 925 23 Parthia 13,350 251 53 Media 13,350 250 53 Asia 8,723 Cargo Ship N/A Assyria 8,663 Cargo Ship N/A Andria 7,228 Cargo Ship N/A Alsatia 7,226 Cargo Ship N/A Vardulia 7,176 Cargo Ship N/A Brescia 3,834 Cargo Ship N/A Lycia 3,543 Cargo Ship N/A Phrygia 3,534 Cargo Ship N/A Pavia 3,411 Cargo Ship N/A * Only tonnage of ships which carry passengers was used for 1958 tons/pax calculation. Edited July 26 by Aoumd Fixed Tables 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare WantedOnVoyage Posted July 26 #28 Share Posted July 26 I like it! We QM2 fans like the fact she is, by this table, the single (and by a good margin) most spacious Cunard ever! But already knew that. QUEEN ANNE isn't comparing too well.... she's c. 1936 QUEEN MARY! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aoumd Posted July 26 Author #29 Share Posted July 26 2 minutes ago, WantedOnVoyage said: I like it! We QM2 fans like the fact she is, by this table, the single (and by a good margin) most spacious Cunard ever! But already knew that. QUEEN ANNE isn't comparing too well.... she's c. 1936 QUEEN MARY! Queen Anne's 38 tons per pax is the same as the original Queen Mary, but also interestingly, similar to the Caronia, which was known for her lavish world cruises. Looking forward to my coming winter crossing on QM2 to see what she is like, an uncrowded ship during an uncrowded off-season! For an even larger contrast, my last cruise was a family cruise during school holiday on Carnival Venezia, when every third and fourth berth was filled, and the 135,225-ton ship was at or near its 5,260 passenger maximum capacity -- so approximately 25.7 tons per passenger. We had a great time, but that ship felt crowded! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare MylesS Posted July 26 #30 Share Posted July 26 57 minutes ago, WantedOnVoyage said: I like it! We QM2 fans like the fact she is, by this table, the single (and by a good margin) most spacious Cunard ever! But already knew that. QUEEN ANNE isn't comparing too well.... she's c. 1936 QUEEN MARY! I agree QM2 has a much larger space per passenger ratio, but after 7 weeks on Queen Anne I haven't at all felt like I needed more space, and I've never not been able to have a seat at events/venues other than 1 time at dinner which has also happened to me on QM2. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exlondoner Posted July 26 #31 Share Posted July 26 2 hours ago, MylesS said: I agree QM2 has a much larger space per passenger ratio, but after 7 weeks on Queen Anne I haven't at all felt like I needed more space, and I've never not been able to have a seat at events/venues other than 1 time at dinner which has also happened to me on QM2. It amazed me how spacious QA seemed, and how empty of passengers, even on sea days. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chengkp75 Posted July 26 #32 Share Posted July 26 As I've said before, a Gross Tonnage/Pax ratio is a somewhat distorted measure of "spaciousness". A more accurate measurement would be Net Tonnage/Pax, as this measures only the passenger spaces' volume, but Net Tonnage is not a figure that is readily available to the public, as it does not show "who's got the biggest". Then again, things like Oasis class ships having the open Boardwalk and Central Park areas provide passenger space without being included in even Gross Tonnage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aoumd Posted July 26 Author #33 Share Posted July 26 4 hours ago, chengkp75 said: As I've said before, a Gross Tonnage/Pax ratio is a somewhat distorted measure of "spaciousness". A more accurate measurement would be Net Tonnage/Pax, as this measures only the passenger spaces' volume, but Net Tonnage is not a figure that is readily available to the public, as it does not show "who's got the biggest". Then again, things like Oasis class ships having the open Boardwalk and Central Park areas provide passenger space without being included in even Gross Tonnage. Thank you for explaining the differences in tonnage definitions. As you note, net tonnage is not usually readily available, so I had to calculate off of the figures I could find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmazedByCruising Posted July 28 #34 Share Posted July 28 On 7/26/2024 at 11:17 AM, chengkp75 said: As I've said before, a Gross Tonnage/Pax ratio is a somewhat distorted measure of "spaciousness". A more accurate measurement would be Net Tonnage/Pax, as this measures only the passenger spaces' volume, but Net Tonnage is not a figure that is readily available to the public, as it does not show "who's got the biggest". Then again, things like Oasis class ships having the open Boardwalk and Central Park areas provide passenger space without being included in even Gross Tonnage. Square feet (public spaces)/pax would be a nice metric? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now