Cruising Speed: Are the Vista Class Faster?

[OldCodger73]

Does anyone know if the Vista class ships have a higher average cruising speed than the R and S class? The reason I ask is if one wants to do a Hubbard Glacier Alaska cruise, your choices are either a north or south bound on and R or S ship or a roundtrip from Seattle on the Oosterdam.

 

Seattle's my homeport and driving to the pier sure beats flying. HAL runs roundtrips from Seattle to Glacier Bay or R and S class ships but to the further north Hubbard Glacier your only choice is a Vista.

 

Thus my question-- do the Vistas have a higher cruising speed or is it simply a marketing decision of doing fewer cruises to Hubbard but on a larger ship?

[CDRMark]

My sources say that Rotterdam and Amsterdam are the fastest ships in the fleet @ 24 KTS. That said, a dirty old hull may be slower than a clean new hull, regardless of propulsion system.

Doug or Walt?

Cheers

Mark

[RevNeal]

Well ... now ... it depends upon several factors. Officially,

 

The Vistas are all rated at 24 knots.

The Rotterdam is rated at 25 knots, but the Volendam/Zaandam is only rated at 23 knots.

The Statendam, and all the S class, is rated at 22 knots.

 

And, yet, on multiple occasions I've noticed that the ship's status display has shown the vessel to be making more than her rated speed; likewise, I've noted the "report from the bridge" has occasionally confirmed that the ship was making a knot or two above the rated speed. For example:

 

While running from Hurricane Beta in November 2005 the Westerdam was making an average of 25.5 knots (according to the cabin display) and, when we diverted to perform a rescue-at-sea just outside of Cuban waters, we were making 27 knots.

 

On our cruise to Hawaii in 2006 aboard the Zaandam the ship was making between 17 knots to upwards of 25 knots with the wind. That highest speed is faster than she's rated for, but for more than a day that was what the cabin display was saying.

 

The Ryndam was averaging between 22 and 24 knots during the sea days this past March, and when we left Topolombampo (after midnight) we were making 24 knots across the Sea of Cortez, pushing to make Cabo by morning.

 

So ... each ship can actually make a velocity somewhat above their official ratings, and particularly so in exceptional conditions.

 

So, officially and -- probably -- actually, the Vistas are the fastest ships in the fleet.

The R class, however, has a longer range between refueling, making them superior candidates for long-duration cruises.

[CDRMark]

My sources say that Rotterdam and Amsterdam are the fastest ships in the fleet @ 24 KTS. That said, a dirty old hull may be slower than a clean new hull, regardless of propulsion system.

Doug or Walt?

Cheers

Mark

Rotterdam is rated at 25 KTS, Sorry.

 

Rev: Like planes, ships may make different speeds through the water versus over the ground. Currents and winds may affect either. Ratings are for a non-wind assisted track.

Mark

[RevNeal]

Rotterdam is rated at 25 KTS, Sorry.

 

Rev: Like planes, ships may make different speeds through the water versus over the ground. Currents and winds may affect either. Ratings are for a non-wind assisted track.

 

I was also told while aboard the Westerdam that, during the rescue, they were burning the turbo-fan engine as well, which can drive the ship higher than her rated 24 knots but at a horrendous cost in fuel.

 

Do you know anything about this?

[fcorey]

RevNeal, good explanation, have you sailed with the Grey fleet or just too much time on DAM ships? All ships have two ratings to keep in mind, service speed (think cruising speed) and maximum. The cruising speed on a Vista is about 22knots (about 25MPH). Maximum is 24+ the reason I say 24 is that their spec when built was to be able to sprint up to 24 knots. However there are many factors, speed of current, sea state, hull condition. load in the vessel etc. Overall 24knots is pretty good. To put it into perspective though, a current US carrier can exceed 31 knots (and she outweighs a vista by 20000 tons ) and an attack sub can do that or better submerged :cool:

[CDRMark]

I was also told while aboard the Westerdam that, during the rescue, they were burning the turbo-fan engine as well, which can drive the ship higher than her rated 24 knots but at a horrendous cost in fuel.

 

Do you know anything about this?

While I am not familiar with this specific propulsion system, I do know one can "over-clock" anything. ("I'm giving it all I kin Cap'n!"). Adding in the "emergency/stand-by" gas turbine engine up in the stack would definitely help.

Max speed ratings are usually able to be exceeded by a couple knots (some USN vessels still have 'classified' top ends), as you allude, at a significant fuel cost.

Cheers

Mark

[jtl513]

I just got out my pocket Deck Plans for the Noordam and Westerdam, and there the W is rated at 23 knots max, while the N is 24.

 

There are other differences on the ship specs that make me wonder why:

Gross Tonnage W 82000, N 81769, Length W 950, N 935

I'll chalk those differences up to "rounding", but the one difference that puzzles me most is: Crew W 800, N 620! On the ship with about 30 more cabins and 60 more pax, how were they able to eliminate 180 of the crew?

[CDRMark]

Snip...

To put it into perspective though, a current US carrier can exceed 31 knots (and she outweighs a vista by 20000 tons ) and an attack sub can do that or better submerged :cool:

I was a snipe on JFK and we laughed at 31 knots! The nukes (CVNs) laughed at us! We do not discuss subs.

Cheers

Mark

[fcorey]

I was also told while aboard the Westerdam that, during the rescue, they were burning the turbo-fan engine as well, which can drive the ship higher than her rated 24 knots but at a horrendous cost in fuel.

 

Do you know anything about this?

 

Greg the vistas carry 5 Wartsila gensets that burn heavy fuel oil rather than diesel and one GE gas turbine genset. I looked it up, its called an LM2500 all by itself it generates 34000 horsepower.....so you can imagine how much fuel it burns, it produces more power than 2 of the Wartsila Gensets. the QM2 has a pair of them in addition to 4 conventional gensets. So the Vista class is pretty well equipped. I believe that they could actually run the ship on only 3-4 of the gensets so there is a good amount of engineering for safety and performance when needed.

[fcorey]

I was a snipe on JFK and we laughed at 31 knots! The nukes (CVNs) laughed at us! We do not discuss subs.

Cheers

Mark

 

I am thinking of the Mel Brooks movie...forget the name, .... they had "Ludicrous speed", I guess thats a bit past flank :)

 

As for us sewer pipe boys, lets just say we could keep up and leave it at that :)

[bepsf]

Greg the vistas carry 5 Wartsila gensets that burn heavy fuel oil rather than diesel and one GE gas turbine genset. I looked it up, its called an LM2500 all by itself it generates 34000 horsepower.....so you can imagine how much fuel it burns, it produces more power than 2 of the Wartsila Gensets. the QM2 has a pair of them in addition to 4 conventional gensets. So the Vista class is pretty well equipped. I believe that they could actually run the ship on only 3-4 of the gensets so there is a good amount of engineering for safety and performance when needed.

 

The Vistas are notorious within the fleet as fuel hogs (Noordam is the fastest of the quartet, according to Capt. Scott), and the gas-turbines (GT's) are rarely fired up as they are also major fuel-burners. This is a big reason that a Vista has not been sent to Asia, as the Trans-Pacific run isn't possible without refueling along the way, whereas the R-Class can make it across on "one tank".

 

...and is primarly why Eurodam will have no GT's, but 6 Sulzer Diesels.

 

(Even X will be adding Diesels to their all-GT M-Class ships to save on fuel costs)

[fcorey]

The Vistas are notorious within the fleet as fuel hogs (Noordam is the fastest of the quartet, according to Capt. Scott), and the gas-turbines (GT's) are rarely fired up as they are also major fuel-burners. This is a big reason that a Vista has not been sent to Asia, as the Trans-Pacific run isn't possible without refueling along the way, whereas the R-Class can make it across on "one tank".

 

...and is primarly why Eurodam will have no GT's, but 6 Sulzer Diesels.

 

(Even X will be adding Diesels to their all-GT M-Class ships to save on fuel costs)

 

Brian seems i mispoke, they are using diesel gensets and not heavy fuel oil. I seem to remember readin someplace that they use HFO and not diesel but I found a really good document about cruise ship propulsion over on the Wartsila site. I saw a picture of the gensets sitting in the drydock area they looked like Wartsila model gensets, but it says Sulzer in the document I found. However I am seeing alot of stuff listed like this, wartsila/sulzer so I wonder if either they merged or one bought the other. If you are interested in the doc file its here:

http://www.wartsila.com/Wartsila/global/docs/en/ship_power/media_publications/marine_news/2001_2/diesel_electric_cruise_ships.pdf

[OldCodger73]

Thanks everyone, there was a lot of interesting information. Reading through all the post it seems pretty clear that the use of a Vista on the Hubbard Glacier roundtrip is a marketing decision-- less cruises, larger ship-- than a speed issue.

[Engineer_Mark]

Brian seems i mispoke, they are using diesel gensets and not heavy fuel oil. I seem to remember readin someplace that they use HFO and not diesel but I found a really good document about cruise ship propulsion over on the Wartsila site. I saw a picture of the gensets sitting in the drydock area they looked like Wartsila model gensets, but it says Sulzer in the document I found. However I am seeing alot of stuff listed like this, wartsila/sulzer so I wonder if either they merged or one bought the other. If you are interested in the doc file its here:

http://www.wartsila.com/Wartsila/global/docs/en/ship_power/media_publications/marine_news/2001_2/diesel_electric_cruise_ships.pdf

 

sorry about the long quote, it seems that there seems to be a misconception about diesel engines and the fuel they burn,

 

we do use diesel generating sets, but we burn heavy fuel oil (HFO), the term 'diesel engine' inaccuately refers to the method of combustion, compression ignition (as opposed to petrol, or 'gas' for our US friends, engines which are spark ignition.) We refer to compression ignition engines as 'diesel' engines as the compression ignition engine was designed by Ruldolph Diesel. A diesel engine does not neccessarily run on diesel fuel. In fact Diesel's first compression ignition engine ran on coal dust.

 

also, Sulzer is owned by Wartsila, so hope that clers up any confusion!

 

Mark

[Grumpy1]

Thanks everyone, there was a lot of interesting information. Reading through all the post it seems pretty clear that the use of a Vista on the Hubbard Glacier roundtrip is a marketing decision-- less cruises, larger ship-- than a speed issue.

I think I recall another thread that mentioned that there are a limited number of sailings allowed into Hubbard on a given day. If that's true, it would make sense to maximize your slots with larger ships.

[jtl513]

I think I recall another thread that mentioned that there are a limited number of sailings allowed into Hubbard on a given day. If that's true, it would make sense to maximize your slots with larger ships.

But I believe the same is true for Glacier Bay ...

[cands]

sorry about the long quote, it seems that there seems to be a misconception about diesel engines and the fuel they burn,

 

we do use diesel generating sets, but we burn heavy fuel oil (HFO), the term 'diesel engine' inaccuately refers to the method of combustion, compression ignition (as opposed to petrol, or 'gas' for our US friends, engines which are spark ignition.) We refer to compression ignition engines as 'diesel' engines as the compression ignition engine was designed by Ruldolph Diesel. A diesel engine does not neccessarily run on diesel fuel. In fact Diesel's first compression ignition engine ran on coal dust.

 

also, Sulzer is owned by Wartsila, so hope that clers up any confusion!

 

Mark

 

That's a great explanation Mark. Thanks.