Repositioning, Size of Ships, and Rough Seas

[chanterd]

In a recent e-mail to the editor of Cruise Critic I "complained" that her review of repositioning cruises failed to mention Oceania Cruise lines and how, with its 'free air offers" the single biggest obstacle to repositioning cruises - cost of airfare, was overcome. In her reply she stated "The only reason I'd hesitate on Oceania (a line I love by the way) is that the ships are not built at all for rough water...and can be pretty dicey on high seas. "

My question for others who have experienced "rough water" is how true is this statement as it applies to Oceania's ships. I have done a trans-atlantic on the Millenium but the seas were are flat as a pane of glass all the way across. I wouldn't expect a perfectly smooth "ride" in rough water, but I wouldn't want to be literally tossed around either nor to have plates and bowls flying off the tables in the dining room.

My wife and I are booked btw on the Rio to Barcelona voyage in March 2007.

Thanks,

David

[Darrell6t]

Last November we had a day of high winds and some waves on the Med. The Insignia had a difficult time. It bounced around a lot. It was not weather I would have expected such a rough ride with most cruise ships. I would not even consider Oceania for a trans-Atlantic. But friends have done it and even though they spent a day or two in bed with seasickness, are planning to do it again.

[Druke I]

We've been on two of the R class ships, Regatta and Pacific Princess (new), but primarily in fairly calm waters. Baltic and North Sea on former, Pacific Ocean and Tasman Sea on latter.

Being on a large ship doesn't necessarily mean it will ride better in heavy seas! Case in point, Golden Princess, a post-Panamamax ship at 116,000GRT, wallows and bounces in heavy seas. On a trans-Atlantic, 8-02, we had bow-slap spray raining DOWN onto our balcony on Caribe Deck (#10),and several windows along Prom Deck shattered while the ship was fighting for seaway.

Ride qualities much more dependent upon hull form (length/beam ratio, etc) than size.

The late great Royal Princess (now Artemis), at 45,000GRT took to heavy seas very well - a good rider!

[marilynfaye]

We have enjoyed two T/A cruises (Miami to Barcelona and Barbados to Marseilles) in the spring of '05 & '06. We had one slightly rocky couple of hours in '05 the evening just prior to entering the Med. Otherwise, smooth as glass. My only really rocky experience was sailing through the Bay of Biscay, along the coast of France, on Orient's Crown Odyssy.

I seem to recall that people have said the waters are rougher in the fall, but I can't speak to that.

You're going to really love your cruise. When people have asked me what we did on a non port-intensive cruise, I told them I was not sure what we did, but it took us all day to do it.

Marilyn

[Jancruz]

Thanks for the report Marilyn, Stu and I will be going Lisbon to Miami 11/15 on Regatta and looking forward to doing so much nothing!!See you 4 weeks!!
Jan
*************..

[hondorner]

...When people have asked me what we did on a non port-intensive cruise, I told them I was not sure what we did, but it took us all day to do it.
That's a great line! I've got to remember it. Our T-A is over a year away, but we're already thinking about it.

As for the editor of the CC article, I'm just as happy she left Oceania out of it; keeps the demand lower and thus the fares more attractive...:)

[ClaudiaF]

We had some pretty rough seas in Caribbean one cruise,on R-ship- my husband told me the next morning he thought that the ship would break apart ..
I ofcourse slept like a baby that night:rolleyes: .

[spindrift]

We did a T-A on the Prinsendam last year, and she isn't much larger than the R ships. It was a beautiful trip.

We did a T-A on the Silver Cloud, and altho we hit a terrible storm one night when the ship listed 15 deg., it occurred at 3:30 a.m. and everyone was in bed. No injuries.

We are booked on the Royal Princess T-A for the Fall of 2007 (a former R).

I love these itineraries. The only reason we didn't do Oceania (which is my favorite) is we were coordinating other activities, and their schedule didn't coincide. I also didn't care for the ports they chose. We did those on the Prinsendam.

I think the transit with the possibility of high seas is a personal issue. Some don't care for any kind of movement--we like it. We even take forward staterooms for that purpose. On the Insignia around the horn we heard some complain that the seas were rough--we didn't even notice it.

Anyway, if you prepare for seasickness, if you are inclined that way, just prepare and enjoy a T-A. They are wonderful.

[peggyann]

Last nov we did the Lisbon - Miami on the Regatta. Yes indeed, there were a few days early on where the dishes in the dining rooms and the piano in the Horizon's Lounge went flying. Well actually the piano did not fly, but did fall off its raised platform.
Pretty rough in the whole on the smallish ship. But, we enjoyed the cruise and eventually things calmed down for the last few days. It is a concern if you are prone to sea sickness. This year we are going across the pond in Oct on the Century. Not the same experience for sure as Oceania, but we hope to enjoy it.

[Talisman]

Hi there,

I recently posted a similar thread. I and my better half have booked the crossing from Lisbon to Miami this November. I have travelled on liners, ferries and other vessels since I was a wee boy. The worst I have ever experienced was crossing from Dover to Calais on a car ferry, not pleasant and quite smelly!

I enjoy rough seas, but the fun fades after the first day of a storm... I was in the RNR for 4 years and have great experience of green water. However, I dislike destination intensive cruises and prefer to enjoy the detachment from Blackberries and mobile phones that only a proper liner voyage can provide.

As I work in the marine insurance sector, I am able to choose which lines I travel on according to their safety and maintenance records. Rather than listen to an opinion, I check out www.lloydsmiu.com (http://www.lloydsmiu.com), or Seasearcher as it is better known. This details the owership, management, safety inspections, movements and detentions of ALL vessels. If you want to check out your favourite cruise line, this provides you with a "warts and all" record.

Although it is aimed at the maritime sector, it does have a free two week period. After viewing your favourite vessel, you may think twice!!

I am looking forward to November and have NO worries about Regatta, apart from the baby grand pianos, which appear to have a mind of their own!

See you onboard! :)

Talisman

[timbo89]

Ship stability is a function of many factors. I spent some of my summers on 70' fishing boats in the North Sea between Scotland and Norway, where treacherous seas could toss vessels around like toys. These were very seaworthy vessels, but not very stable ones.

There are two basic ways a ship moves to make people feel "unstable" - "pitch" and "roll". "Pitch" is the movement that feels up and down - the bow and stern moving vertically up and down, while "roll" is the side to side movement.

Cruise ships are built as a basic compromise - Minimizing "draft" - how deep the hull sits in the water - is great for getting into shallow water ports, but compromises stability. This is best understood when you consider the keel of a yacht, where the heavier and deeper it is, the less the yacht "keels over". Cruise ships compensate for this by installing stabilizers, which are wings that can be deployed under water to minimize roll. However, when deployed, stabilizers compromise ship's speed and fuel efficiency.

Cruise ships tend to be flat sided, rising many stories above the sea. This makes them very susceptible to broadside winds, which can also contribute to the roll characteristics.

Cruise ships also have a higher center of gravity, because ship builders want to pack in as much above the water line as they can. This contributes to both pitch and roll. People can compensate for this by going as low as possible and toward the center, getting close to the center of gravity. This is where most medical facilities are placed on cruise ships.

Cruise ship bow shapes are also compromised, mainly due to the draft issues noted earlier. The bow design is extremely important in how the ship "cuts" through the waves. if it rides on top of the waves, a lot of pitch occurs.

There are several other factors in ship design, but these are some of the compromises that affect the stability of the ship.

The wave and swell size, direction, and pattern, and the wind velocity and direction ultimately dictate most toward a ship feeling unstable. These are very unpredictable, and different ship designs are affected differently.

Having said all that, the "R" class ships have a shallow draft, and a compromised hull design. This can cause them to feel a little unstable when seas get a little rough. The Atlantic Ocean can boil up seas that can toss around any ship of any size of any design, however.

Just be prepared.

[Saga Ruby]

That is riveting information that you have each been kind enough to pass along. I love to sail, fair weather or foul, and regret the newbuild behemoths which have all the grace and lines of a shopping cart. I'll always be a "small ship" gal.

I have a question about ship wakes. After decades of standing at various ship's railings and watching our wake, I've decided that the uglier the wake, the poorer the design of the hull. I was on Saga Ruby recently (the Vistafjord) and she cut thru the water like a knife. The Stella Solaris left a wake that stretched out and back for what seems like miles.

Are wakes an indication of stability or the lack thereof?

Ruby

[timbo89]

Saga Ruby:

If you are referring to the wake at the stern of the ship (the trailing wake), this is mostly caused by the propellers. The size of the wake (and its turbulence) are more an indication of how fast the ship is really going.

If you are referring to the broad swath wake caused by the ship as it sails, this is more a function of the prevailing swells and waves (swells and waves are NOT the same thing)

If you are referring to how "clean" the bow of the ship appears to "cut" through the water, this CAN be a function of good bow design, but there are a lot of other factors. A wide barge, for example cuts a turbulent path infront of her.

In short, hull design might affect how a ship appears to cause a wake, but there are many other factors, ship speed, weather conditions, etc.

As an aside, the "behemoth" Queen Mary 2 was designed to be a smooth rider for trans Atlantic crossings, and was designed more from the outside in (rather than designing what was desired in a cruise ship, then "wrapping" it in a hull.)

Hope this helps.

[NAS-KARR]

TANKS GUYS.

CIAO,

[Saga Ruby]

Saga Ruby:

If you are referring to the wake at the stern of the ship (the trailing wake), this is mostly caused by the propellers. The size of the wake (and its turbulence) are more an indication of how fast the ship is really going.

If you are referring to the broad swath wake caused by the ship as it sails, this is more a function of the prevailing swells and waves (swells and waves are NOT the same thing)

If you are referring to how "clean" the bow of the ship appears to "cut" through the water, this CAN be a function of good bow design, but there are a lot of other factors. A wide barge, for example cuts a turbulent path infront of her.

In short, hull design might affect how a ship appears to cause a wake, but there are many other factors, ship speed, weather conditions, etc.

As an aside, the "behemoth" Queen Mary 2 was designed to be a smooth rider for trans Atlantic crossings, and was designed more from the outside in (rather than designing what was desired in a cruise ship, then "wrapping" it in a hull.)

Hope this helps.

It helps a lot. What I would appreciate is a laying on of hands from you to me so I don't have to study and spend years learning what you know so well. I have to think over excellent information like this so it'll be awhile before I get any kind of handle on your input.

Can you speculate on these facts? The Stelle Solaris sailed roundtrip in 1979 from Galveston, double transited the Panama Canal. I spent 16 days watching the stern wake which I have already described. The Saga Ruby sailed last year from Dover to Dover, up to Svalbard (the edge of the North Pole icepack).

The three times I have transited the Panama Canal, we have hit Atlantic waters and bounced around in slightly heavy seas. I was sitting on a stern deck chair and could easily see the bow slicing into the grey waves ahead of us. On Saga Ruby, past the Arctic Circle, we were being thrown around so hard in the North Sea that I was bracing myself with elbows on wall and dresser to stay in bed. Can you divine which elements of weather versus hull design came into play on a percentage basis?

I consider all this fun. Most people don't. But would I, as a layman, be able to tell which percentage of "bounce" was due to hull design versus weather? One of my most favorite books was "The Ship and The Storm" which vividly describes Hurricane Mitch in 1998, a Force 5, which destroyed the Fantome, a tall ship and all the banana plantations in Central America. There was one sentence that stuck in my mind, "Each pound of water vapor contains enough heat to boil a pint of water." A minuscule way of describing the physics of weather.

Thanks for taking the time to educate us. If I've run off the rails here, please correct me. I like learning about "thou deep and dark blue ocean."

Ruby

[digby]

We went to Antarctica on Insignia a couple of years ago through some pretty rough seas and had no problem. I don't seem to get sea sick, but I didn't hear of any mass sea sickness in others either.

[timbo89]

Saga Ruby,

If you wish, you can e-mail me at timbog89 at hotmail dot com

I will try to answer your questions as best I can

[timbo89]

Saga Ruby,

If you wish, you can e-mail me at timbog89 at hotmail dot com

I will try to answer your questions as best I can

[drwong]

Can you divine which elements of weather versus hull design came into play on a percentage basis?

I consider all this fun. Most people don't. But would I, as a layman, be able to tell which percentage of "bounce" was due to hull design versus weather? One of my most favorite books was "The Ship and The Storm" which vividly describes Hurricane Mitch in 1998, a Force 5, which destroyed the Fantome, a tall ship and all the banana plantations in Central America. There was one sentence that stuck in my mind, "Each pound of water vapor contains enough heat to boil a pint of water." A minuscule way of describing the physics of weather.

Thanks for taking the time to educate us. If I've run off the rails here, please correct me. I like learning about "thou deep and dark blue ocean."

Ruby

Weather is a far stronger determinant of a ship's ride than hull design. Hull design can mitigate the effects of weather, but even the best-designed ship is going to wallow in adverse seas, and cruise ships even more than commercial ships due to their high freeboard and shallow hulls.

Generally, the more ship you have in the water (below the waterline), the stabler the ride will be. A submarine or a full-laden oil tanker gives the best ride, slicing through waves like a hot knife through butter. A shallow-draft cruiseship, on the other hand, rides the top of the waves, and depending on the distance from crest-to-crest and the height from crest-to-trough, the ship would counce from wave to wave like a bucking bronco. Combine that with wind that is pushing the ship a few degrees off from the direction of the waves (usually, the waves move in the direction of the wind but not always) and you've got the makings of a Margo Channing quip ("Fasten your seatbelts - it's going to be a bumpy night."). :)

A larger ship may not necessarily guarantee a stable ride. We were aboard the Star Princess (before that fire) and we corkscrewed across the Gulf of Alaska. Admittedly, I chose a forward cabin to see any otters and killer whales ahead of us, but the lower your cabin is to the center of the ship, the stabler your ride should be.