Small or Large Ship?

[TheNit]

In light of the comments made regarding rough seas when going from Valparaiso to Buenos Aires around Cape Horn, would a larger ship be better? What if going to Antartica? I know that in Alaska I prefer a smaller ship to be closer to any possible forms of life but I don't know if this is the case in SA. We're thinking of going in December or January and will likely travel with either Celebrity or Oceania. Both have a small ship (Journey and Insignia - 30,000 tons - 700 people) but now I'm contemplating a larger ship (Infinity - 91,000 tons - 1950 people). We do prefer smaller ships but it may not be a good idea in this case although we did sail across the North Sea on the old Song of Flower (180 people) without a problem. Does anybody have any advice?

[Aussie Gal]

We went to Antarctica last year on the Regal Princess which was around 70.000 tons. It had 1600 passengers on board. When going down the Drake Passage from the Falklands we struck a Force 11 gale for over 24 hours. It was extremely rough and a lot of the crew were very ill as well as passengers. The ship rode extremely well in these terrible conditions.

 

In January this year, we were on the Pacific Princess which is a twin to the Insignia of Oceania, and we were in Force 5 seas. The Pacific Princess moved around so much more than the Regal Princess and a lot of passengers were ill for 3 days. Yet the seas were nothing like we experienced on our way to Antarctica. I would not have like to have been on the Pacific Princess in our Force 11 gale.

 

I would choose a ship that has been built for heavy seas. A lot of the newer ships are really floating hotels and are not good "sailors". In fact I think I have heard mentioned somewhere that the old "R" ships which are the Tahitian and Pacific Princesses, Oceanias, Nautica, Insignia and Regatta and the two that Celebrity have now purchased have flat bottoms which means they are not as stable in rough seas.

 

If you are a good sailor, then you will be fine on the smaller ships but if you tend at all to sickness then go for a larger ship. As all of these ships mentioned have too many passengers on board to land, you will still see exactly the same scenery whether you choose the 30,000 ton or the 91,000 ton.

 

By the way, why not split the difference and go on a HAL ship, the Rotterdam is only 60,000 ton and carries 1200 passengers. That would be my choice as they have been going to Antarctica for quite a few years and they have wonderful lecturers on board.

 

It is a wonderful cruise and one of the best we have ever done.

 

Jennie

[Bookish Angel]

Bottom line, I'd choose the largest ship that allowed landings to the continent; a drive-by does not allow you to set foot on the continent and you'd miss the penguin chatter, seeing penguins and elephant seals close up, the smell of penguin poo. LOL

 

I took Orient's Marco Polo to Antarctica last month. ROUGH crossing of the Drake Passge on the way down but way worth it. I plan to take a smaller ship to go farther south in Antarctica

[2YNOZ]

We sailed on the NCL Crown, 34,000 tons, last year. We enjoyed the cruise so much that we're going back to SA again this year, but on Celebrity Infinity, 91,000 ton. We've been on 15 cruises, but my wife got sea sick on the Crown. We can only assume that the bigger ship will ride better than the small. The Crown does go into one smaller port, Puerto Chacabuco, and we'll have to tender more on the large ship, but we'll take the larger ship.