How safe are 50 year old cruise ships?

I just noticed on the internet that there are still quite a few cruise ships being used in Europe that are in the 50 year old range or so, how safe are these compared to those being used by RC, Princess, Celebrity etc?

I just noticed on the internet that there are still quite a few cruise ships being used in Europe that are in the 50 year old range or so, how safe are these compared to those being used by RC, Princess, Celebrity etc?

All ships have to follow certain safety standards. Probably these 50 yr old ships aren't used for cruises to the mass media . They probably do short cruises for the local market. These ships don't have the amenities that would want a ship (no air , balconies and purchases at the bar in cash).

I've never considered safety an issue - they have to follow the same SOLAS safety regs as all cruise ships, as intimated by Kamloops.

And not quite as bleak a picture as Kamloops paints.

They have aircon (became pretty standard in the late 1950's), they have the same cashless regime as on modern ships, and we've sailed long voyages on them - SE Asia, South America, Black Sea.

But cabins are generally pretty basic - all with their own bathrooms, but generally not up to modern standards or fittings and they have nil or very few balconies. Surprisingly good food but not the choices of restaurants, small pools & mostly pretty limited entertainment, though that's all more to do with their size. Sea days are spent mainly on deck, or in lounges or at port or other lectures. If reading or chatting or board games are not your scene, these ships aren't for you.

Not all bad news. Being small they tend to be very friendly. And on at least two of them, passengers are separated from the open flying bridges by only a small waist-high gate. Not many ships where you can talk to the crew on the bridge. Or hear the captain cussing under his breath as he watches the efforts of the pilot boat steersman.

The biggest issue is age & reliability.

An unscheduled day in port, waiting for a generator part to be flown out. Or a leaky superstructure, with strategically placed buckets to catch the rain-water. Or a whirlpool that decides whether it wants to work or not.

These are not resort ships, they have neither the toys nor the glitz..

They're a laid-back way of visiting both popular & unusual ports and they're very much an acquired taste.

JB :)

How safe?

Very!

They have the same safety standards as a new ship, amenities however may not be as good.

Safety comes down to not only the physical plant but also safety practices so always keep that in mind.

There are some old ships that still sail the high seas that I would be concerned about.

Keith

Still floating after 50 years suggests to me that they must be safe! :)

I was on an old cruise ship in 1978 , the SS Ithaca. It didn't have air conditioning . The excursions ,bar , slots and casino was cash only . The rooms where locked with actual keys not key cards. This ship built in 1972 and sailed on her in 1978.

How safe was the Costa Concordia?

Did the action or inaction by the officers and crew hurt, hinder or help the rescue process? Did it impact the number of fatalities?

.

I just noticed on the internet that there are still quite a few cruise ships being used in Europe that are in the 50 year old range or so, how safe are these compared to those being used by RC, Princess, Celebrity etc?

.

.

The Titanic was brand spanking new and state of the art at the time, how did that work out? :eek:

.

What about the Marco Polo? She's 50, and has quite a fan club.

I was on an old cruise ship in 1978 , the SS Ithaca. It didn't have air conditioning . The excursions ,bar , slots and casino was cash only . The rooms where locked with actual keys not key cards. This ship built in 1972 and sailed on her in 1978.

Hi Kamloops,

ss Ithica went to meet her maker in 2003.

And at this very moment one of the ships I'm thinking of, mv Discovery (twin-sister of the original Love Boat), is also on her way to a scrapyard in India.

But yes, the ships I'm thinking of also had turn-keys to the cabins rather than the swipe cards.

JB :)

I am not in the camp that just because a 50 year old ship has to meet certain SOLAS as do more recently built ships it is equally as safe as a newer ship. One issue can be the 50yo ship only has to comply with safety requirements at the time of construction. A newer ship on the other had will have more recent safety standards to which they must comply with... so it isn't an apple to apple comparison. While this is not meant to be a blanket condemnation of older vessels and their crews, but often times ships are sold off to other operators because they will operate the vessel with a lower overhead. They can skimp on maintenance, crew wages, training and ultimately safety all while meeting SOLAS requirements, at least superficially. The fact that a vessel can operate safely for over 50 years can't always all be attributed to good maintenance, the skill and safety awareness of its crew. Sometimes that is all owed to lots of redundancy and good luck.

As pointed out earlier... we had a modern ship with the latest safety features commanded by someone with dubious skills... the Costa Concordia. New doesn't necessarily mean good and old doesn't necessarily mean bad.

I LOVED the late, great Regal Empress. At least she never hit a rock as QE2 did!

She served about 56 years until SOLAS killed her off and she went to Alang for scrapping.

I fly an airplane that's 34 years old.

You maintain them, operate them properly and they are safe and they last a long time.

My first cruise was in 1988 on the Carnivale, which made it 33 years old at the time. It seemed old and dated compared to the newer Carnival ships docked next to ours. That was the time when Carnival first started putting the dolphin tale exhaust stacks on its ships.

Nevertheless, we had a great cruise. I would not worry about safety on an older ship any more than I would on a newer one.

One issue can be the 50yo ship only has to comply with safety requirements at the time of construction. A newer ship on the other had will have more recent safety standards to which they must comply with... so it isn't an apple to apple comparison. .

I won't be categorical, Bill, cos I'm no expert.

But I think that all ships, regardless of age, have to meet the same SOLAS standards. This pulled from the web seems to confirm, effective 2010.

http://www.circulonaval.com/marina_mercante/IMO/SOLAS%202010%20-%20NEW%20REGULATIONS%20CHALLENGES%20&%20IMPACT%20SCENARIOS%20FOR%20OLDER%20SHIPS.pdf

And I recall major concerns that the revised Regs, plus the major cruise lines' penchant for only building bigger & bigger ships, could result in fewer small and classic ships cruising in the years to come.

But I certainly agree with much of your post.

JB :)

I sailed on the Lewis R French -

http://schoonerfrench.com/nfhistory.htm

Note that she was build in 1871 (143 years ago). She is still floating and is perfectly safe.

DON

I won't be categorical, Bill, cos I'm no expert.

But I think that all ships, regardless of age, have to meet the same SOLAS standards.

 

JB :)

Non expert here as well, just an above average interest in ships and shipping in general and cruising in particular. What I was implying there is a huge difference meeting SOLAS standards and significantly surpassing the standards. I think there is a better chance of the older ships being retro fitted will just meet the standard which is the minimum, where a new build would more than likely be built to some degree that would exceed the standard. One thing I can think of off hand is on newer ships the lifeboats have to be as close to the water as practical. While they don't specify a precise height, it does preclude the lifeboats from being stowed on higher decks as where many were placed on some older ships. Safer deployment with less influence of a list with deployment closer to the water. You just never know when the sum total of the little improvements might just make the difference. Hopefully the closest any of us ever get to SOLAS is the muster drill!

Non expert here as well, just an above average interest in ships and shipping in general and cruising in particular. What I was implying there is a huge difference meeting SOLAS standards and significantly surpassing the standards. I think there is a better chance of the older ships being retro fitted will just meet the standard which is the minimum, where a new build would more than likely be built to some degree that would exceed the standard. One thing I can think of off hand is on newer ships the lifeboats have to be as close to the water as practical. While they don't specify a precise height, it does preclude the lifeboats from being stowed on higher decks as where many were placed on some older ships. Safer deployment with less influence of a list with deployment closer to the water. You just never know when the sum total of the little improvements might just make the difference. Hopefully the closest any of us ever get to SOLAS is the muster drill!

And what did those life boats being close to the water do for Costa Concordia? Half of them could not be launched. The same could be said for Andrea Doria decades before.

Do not be afraid of a 50 year old ship as long as it is well maintained, crewed and maintained.

Still floating after 50 years suggests to me that they must be safe! :)

Thinking the same!

They've certainly stood the "test of time". :)

LuLu

And what did those life boats being close to the water do for Costa Concordia? Half of them could not be launched. The same could be said for Andrea Doria decades before.

 

Do not be afraid of a 50 year old ship as long as it is well maintained, crewed and maintained.

Actually that's not true, the vast majority of lifeboats were able to be launched even on the high side and it looks like all boats were away on the starboard side. I don't believe that first boat in last picture is a lifeboat. Even with a few lifeboats not being able to launched there was sufficient capacity of lifeboats and the proximity to shore to evacuate all persons. Had timely abandon ship orders been given all boats should have been able to be launched.

I certainly agree with your statement about well crewed and well maintained. The Costa Concordia may have been well maintained but that is only half of the equation;)!

Those orange and black items are life rafts that can be manually released for extra carrying capacity.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Forums mobile app

Sorry for th OT but I just gotta say, Rabbitoh_777 that is one hot profile pic. :D

How safe was the Costa Concordia?

 

Did the action or inaction by the officers and crew hurt, hinder or help the rescue process? Did it impact the number of fatalities?

No. It impacted the rocks.

.

Sorry for th OT but I just gotta say, Rabbitoh_777 that is one hot profile pic. :D

.

G'day Joe

you mean the little Princess sea witch who looks uncannily like my dear wife. :)

cheers mate.

:cool:

.

I won't be categorical, Bill, cos I'm no expert.

But I think that all ships, regardless of age, have to meet the same SOLAS standards. This pulled from the web seems to confirm, effective 2010.

http://www.circulonaval.com/marina_mercante/IMO/SOLAS%202010%20-%20NEW%20REGULATIONS%20CHALLENGES%20&%20IMPACT%20SCENARIOS%20FOR%20OLDER%20SHIPS.pdf

And I recall major concerns that the revised Regs, plus the major cruise lines' penchant for only building bigger & bigger ships, could result in fewer small and classic ships cruising in the years to come.

 

But I certainly agree with much of your post.

 

JB :)

Actually, while SOLAS standards apply across the board, older ships are effectively "grandfathered" in some aspects which can apply to safety -- construction materials, for example, used on older ships -- such as wood - are more restricted today.

So it can be argued that some "safety" variations do exist due to age -- but the overwhelming determination of safety is not age - but maintenance and competent seamanship.