TA - If it was just 4 days ?

For me, the perfect crossing is 6 or 7 days. We are doing an 8-day crossing in August and are wondering if the extra day will be a blessing or curse.

I prefer a 7 day crossing but I honestly think the weather plays a huge part in whether I want to stay on the ship or not. Four days would go by very quickly but then again, if it was stormy and a rough crossing, I'd be more than happy to get off;)

Interesting, most of you seem to be opting for the 8 day crossing.

As for me I'm sailing over to visit family (I'm sick of flying) so a 4 day crossing would give me an extra 4 days with them and still give me the pleasure of a relaxed time at sea.

I would love to have sailed on the SS America when she was sprinting across at 35 knots, that must have been a sight to behold - I believe she actually did one crossing in 3 and a half days - so she was in port when today's QM2 wasn't yet half way across - absolutely amazing.

If anyone gets that time machine working please let me know :)

Interesting, most of you seem to be opting for the 8 day crossing.

 

As for me I'm sailing over to visit family (I'm sick of flying) so a 4 day crossing would give me an extra 4 days with them and still give me the pleasure of a relaxed time at sea.

 

I would love to have sailed on the SS America when she was sprinting across at 35 knots, that must have been a sight to behold - I believe she actually did one crossing in 3 and a half days - so she was in port when today's QM2 wasn't yet half way across - absolutely amazing.

 

If anyone gets that time machine working please let me know :)

Not to be too picky but it was the United States, not the America, that set those speed records on the Atlantic.:D

SS America was rated at 22.5 knots.

Not to be too picky but it was the United States, not the America, that set those speed records on the Atlantic.:D

SS America was rated at 22.5 knots.

Oops, quite correct - SS United States was the speedboat - Eastbound in 3 days, 10 hours and 40 minutes. Wikipedia is now my friend :)

Apparently she could make 20 knots - backwards.

Oops, quite correct - SS United States was the speedboat - Eastbound in 3 days, 10 hours and 40 minutes. Wikipedia is now my friend :)

 

Apparently she could make 20 knots - backwards.

Yes, but not for long. The astern turbines on these steamships would gobble steam, and astern bells always required the engineers to watch the steam pressure and boiler water level if it went on too long.

I believe the Sea Land SL-7 container ships held the Transatlantic record of 3d 7h few minutes, but then again they are not passenger ships, but almost as big.

I was part of the logistics support for Branson's attempt at the Blue Riband in 1986. One of the offshore supply vessels supporting our drilling operations off Newfoundland (Flemish Cap) refueled his boat as part of a 3 refueling crossing. He was denied the trophy despite taking Sir Edmund Hilary along as a paying passenger.

 

I was part of the logistics support for Branson's attempt at the Blue Riband in 1986. One of the offshore supply vessels supporting our drilling operations off Newfoundland (Flemish Cap) refueled his boat as part of a 3 refueling crossing. He was denied the trophy despite taking Sir Edmund Hilary along as a paying passenger.

I admired the effort, but I had to agree with the decision not to class it as a true Blue Riband crossing.

As I recall wasn't there some problem with water contaminating the fuel ?

I admired the effort, but I had to agree with the decision not to class it as a true Blue Riband crossing.

 

As I recall wasn't there some problem with water contaminating the fuel ?

Funny you should mention that. I was there for it. The boat had water compensated fuel tanks, like an old diesel submarine, where as you burn fuel from the tank, you take in water to the tank, so that the ship's displacement, trim, and stability are unaffected. The problem is, that when you go to load fuel, you must vent out the water, and you must have an operator who is familiar with compensated fuel systems. Anyway, they started loading fuel, and within a couple of minutes shouted on the radio to stop, as the tank was full (guess what with?). Then they decided to fill up the "service" tank, which is the tank where the engines actually draw fuel from, without checking the bottom drain on the fuel tank to see what was in the tank. Since the suction from the fuel storage tank is at the bottom, and since water is heavier than diesel fuel, I'll give you two guesses what they pumped into the fuel day tanks. Then, since the engine suctions are at the bottom of the tank, and repeating that water is heavier than diesel, I'll award a gold star if you can guess what was sucked into the fuel injectors on the diesels. Straight sea water. Now, to save on weight, cost, etc., they decided to not have a separate generator, but use the main engines for generating electricity as well. So, with both diesels full of water, they only had their batteries to power off of. They started to drain the water off the service tank, thinking they only got a "slug" of water. When it continued, and was really filling the bilges, where the bilge pump would not keep up without draining the batteries, they panicked. We got a frantic call to see if we could supply a diesel powered "trash" pump (small portable engine driven pump about the size of a Honda portable generator). We sent down two, and they spent a couple of hours draining fuel tanks and pumping bilge water right over the side (bet they had to explain that as an "emergency" when they reached the UK and their CG). Then they refueled again, and were on their way.

So, they managed to maintain an average of 35+ knots and beat the SS United States by 2 hours, despite three refueling stops and one loss of several hours due to stupidity.

I'm pretty sure it was 5 days when I started on QE2 unless my memory is playing me tricks, and I would prefer to go back to quicker voyages to allow for more time in the States and travel by sea both ways. Obviously its not going to happen, given the pressure to keep fares and fuel costs low and maximise additional spending at sea. That said, 8 days is a real disincentive to me - much as I love TA's, 16 days there and back is my whole holiday and I want to spend time in New York too.

I'm pretty sure it was 5 days when I started on QE2 unless my memory is playing me tricks, and I would prefer to go back to quicker voyages to allow for more time in the States and travel by sea both ways. Obviously its not going to happen, given the pressure to keep fares and fuel costs low and maximise additional spending at sea. That said, 8 days is a real disincentive to me - much as I love TA's, 16 days there and back is my whole holiday and I want to spend time in New York too.

Yes, we did a 5 day on QE2 back in '77, with a stop in Le Havre.

Yes, we did a 5 day on QE2 back in '77, with a stop in Le Havre.

Those were great trips Chief. Stops in Le Havre or Cherbourg all in 5 days. Some a bit less than 5 for direct Southampton. That Girl could move!:D

Those were great trips Chief. Stops in Le Havre or Cherbourg all in 5 days. Some a bit less than 5 for direct Southampton. That Girl could move!:D

Plus my wife and I were moving back from Scotland to the US, so we took advantage of the luggage in the cabin, 2 steamer trunks per person in the baggage room, and 20 cubic feet per person in the hold, to transport a lot of household goods home before the furniture came by container ship.

In case the impression is given that the SS United States regularly crossed at 35.59 kn (or 3d 10h 40m) I am right in thinking that; after proving she could achieve such an amazing speed... in regular service she matched the speed of the two Cunard Queens?

Of course, without an equally fast consort vessel as running mate (as would happen again with SS France) SS United States offered a rather lopsided service compared with the weekly regularity of the two Cunard Queens (what foresight to build a pair!).

Both SS United States and SS France* were instantly withdrawn the moment that vast government subsidies ($12m a year to the SS US), that had kept them both sailing, were stopped (SS US '69, SS France '74).

In the case of SS US this was half-way through a refit that saw the port sides of the giant funnels repainted, but so fast was the "stop work" order, they never started to repaint the starboard halves.

My question is... how did Cunard survive without huge annual government subsidies to keep the company running, when all the others needed vast amounts of money every year? Surely it couldn't have been purely the Royal Mail Contract? :confused:

(I know Cunard was eventually bought out (after introducing QE2 in 1969)).

(*I think I read; in the final 1974 season SS France slowed from a five-day ship to a six-day one (25-26 kn approx.), and saved 20% in fuel in the process! (for those who wish to see a return to four days :eek: !!!))

In case the impression is given that the SS United States regularly crossed at 35.59 kn (or 3d 10h 40m) I am right in thinking that; after proving she could achieve such an amazing speed... in regular service she matched the speed of the two Cunard Queens?

 

Of course, without an equally fast consort vessel as running mate (as would happen again with SS France) SS United States offered a rather lopsided service compared with the weekly regularity of the two Cunard Queens (what foresight to build a pair!).

 

Both SS United States and SS France* were instantly withdrawn the moment that vast government subsidies ($12m a year to the SS US), that had kept them both sailing, were stopped (SS US '69, SS France '74).

In the case of SS US this was half-way through a refit that saw the port sides of the giant funnels repainted, but so fast was the "stop work" order, they never started to repaint the starboard halves.

 

My question is... how did Cunard survive without huge annual government subsidies to keep the company running, when all the others needed vast amounts of money every year? Surely it couldn't have been purely the Royal Mail Contract? :confused:

(I know Cunard was eventually bought out (after introducing QE2 in 1969)).

 

(*I think I read; in the final 1974 season SS France slowed from a five-day ship to a six-day one (25-26 kn approx.), and saved 20% in fuel in the process! (for those who wish to see a return to four days :eek: !!!))

I believe the US maintained about a half day speed advantage over the Queens. I used to have an advert poster claiming such. The Queens, of course, touted "Getting There is half the Fun". Maybe more than half imho.:D

Except for her maiden crossings, SSUS maintained a service speed of 35 knots. She made 5-day crossings until being pulled from service, with a 6th day if she went into Bremerhaven.

SSUS was built with a huge US government subsidy as she would have been requisitioned as a troop ship if needed and could be converted within 48hours. (Somewhere, there must have been a warehouse full of military bunk beds ready for such a need.) US Lines also had a contract to transport US military and their families to postings in Germany.

I recall one of Stephen Payne's presentations where he specifically asked if any provision had been made for QM2 to be used as a troop ship. He said no, because there was no UK subsidy for such a need.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD0QFjACahUKEwjD87r-uO_GAhWGig0KHY3YDZg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theqe2story.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D1763.0&ei=R-uvVYO0CoaVNo2xt8AJ&usg=AFQjCNHi9zxOQ5EkhlwaYuMPxlUpiPfU-w&bvm=bv.98197061,d.eXY

Link to interesting speed info.

Except for her maiden crossings, SSUS maintained a service speed of 35 knots. She made 5-day crossings until being pulled from service, with a 6th day if she went into Bremerhaven.

 

SSUS was built with a huge US government subsidy as she would have been requisitioned as a troop ship if needed and could be converted within 48hours. (Somewhere, there must have been a warehouse full of military bunk beds ready for such a need.) US Lines also had a contract to transport US military and their families to postings in Germany.

 

I recall one of Stephen Payne's presentations where he specifically asked if any provision had been made for QM2 to be used as a troop ship. He said no, because there was no UK subsidy for such a need.

Because of modern weaponry, and the availability of airlift, troopships are a thing of the past. The Falklands War and Exocet missiles showed how vulnerable large, unarmed ships can be.

The QE2, however, had a warehouse in Southampton where pre-cut plywood was stored to cover all the carpeting.

I only sailed the 5 day crossings on QE2 & France. The time went quickly but also provided a different holiday. with as little as 2 weeks one could go to Paris or London spend a week / 9 days touring & then sail one way. We even did a weekend in London and a TA for a one week holiday. I miss the FRANCE stopping in Cherbourg so we could go to the continent...a lot less hassle than having to disembark in S'hampton and then travel to France, Italy etc. I wish the Italian Line was still in operation so we could take a ship to & from Italy.

I did a TA NYC to Barcelona, 13 days on Prinsendam several years ago. It was a different holiday in that I wanted to rest & then toured Spain. Ideally is taking a round trip 5 day sailing. But in the future I hope to do Westbound crossings so as to rest up after touring Europe.

Living here in NYC gives us lots of options but the 7/8 day crossings on QM2 are too long for the most part. Now it seems Carnivore/Cunard is just filling the ship any way they can at any price...and so the experience is diminished quality wise. We are a long way away from the days of QE2 & FRance & the Italian LIne.

We are a long way away from the days of QE2 & FRance & the Italian LIne.

Amen.:D

The additional fuel to go from the 16 knots of an 8 day crossing to the 33 knots of a 4 day crossing is incredible. SeaLand used to have container ships that would do the crossing in under 4 days, and transpacific in under 7 days. However, there is a reason these ships are no longer running (except by the US governement, who doesn't show a profit), fuel cost.

How fast does fuel consumption/nm go up with speed? And how much is that per passenger?

While visiting a port I can almost "feel" the imaginary circle around the ship that indicates where passengers are still allowed. It gets smaller really fast during the day, until it's a tiny net around the gangway to catch us before 5 PM.

Let's say the next port is 100nm away. When sailing away at 6 PM, arriving at 7 AM, that's about 8 knots. When the circle is relaxed and let us board till midnight, there's only 7 hours left; almost twice the speed at 14 knots.

This site http://www.cruisemarketwatch.com/home/financial-breakdown-of-typical-cruiser/ says fuel is about 11% of operating costs. If going at twice the speed means that instead of 9 hours in port, it would be 16 and the price attached would be 15% higher I'd really love that.

(of course, less casino/drinking on the ship; but also less food and making a mess of the ship)

How fast does fuel consumption/nm go up with speed? And how much is that per passenger?

 

While visiting a port I can almost "feel" the imaginary circle around the ship that indicates where passengers are still allowed. It gets smaller really fast during the day, until it's a tiny net around the gangway to catch us before 5 PM.

 

Let's say the next port is 100nm away. When sailing away at 6 PM, arriving at 7 AM, that's about 8 knots. When the circle is relaxed and let us board till midnight, there's only 7 hours left; almost twice the speed at 14 knots.

 

This site http://www.cruisemarketwatch.com/home/financial-breakdown-of-typical-cruiser/ says fuel is about 11% of operating costs. If going at twice the speed means that instead of 9 hours in port, it would be 16 and the price attached would be 15% higher I'd really love that.

 

(of course, less casino/drinking on the ship; but also less food and making a mess of the ship)

To me, whether you have a passenger load on board for 10 days or 2 passenger loads on board for 5 days each, the onboard spend/food consumption/etc. should be about the same. What they get for slower speeds is of course less fuel consumption as well as less wear on engines/pods and fewer turnaround days. All about the bottom line. Just like the airlines, make it "cheap" and fill the seats.:eek:

To me, whether you have a passenger load on board for 10 days or 2 passenger loads on board for 5 days each, the onboard spend/food consumption/etc. should be about the same. What they get for slower speeds is of course less fuel consumption as well as less wear on engines/pods and fewer turnaround days. All about the bottom line. Just like the airlines, make it "cheap" and fill the seats.:eek:

I was going a bit off topic, not meaning a shorter cruise, but more time in ports which would make a cruise (even) more attractive to me.

How fast does fuel consumption/nm go up with speed? And how much is that per passenger?

 

While visiting a port I can almost "feel" the imaginary circle around the ship that indicates where passengers are still allowed. It gets smaller really fast during the day, until it's a tiny net around the gangway to catch us before 5 PM.

 

Let's say the next port is 100nm away. When sailing away at 6 PM, arriving at 7 AM, that's about 8 knots. When the circle is relaxed and let us board till midnight, there's only 7 hours left; almost twice the speed at 14 knots.

 

This site http://www.cruisemarketwatch.com/home/financial-breakdown-of-typical-cruiser/ says fuel is about 11% of operating costs. If going at twice the speed means that instead of 9 hours in port, it would be 16 and the price attached would be 15% higher I'd really love that.

 

(of course, less casino/drinking on the ship; but also less food and making a mess of the ship)

Fuel consumption goes up exponentially with speed. Whether it is a squared, cubed, or higher function depends on hull design, displacement, propeller speed, propeller diameter, and a few other parameters. Lets just say that the last 2 knots of a ship's speed up to maximum requires a 50% increase in fuel. Doubling the speed, even below maximum speeds would increase fuel consumption by 40-60%. And, in typical cruise ship power plants, doubling the speed from 7 to 14 knots would mean adding one or two more generators running (depending on their size), therefore increasing the maintenance cost on the engines, as this is based on running hours.

Fuel consumption goes up exponentially with speed. Whether it is a squared, cubed, or higher function depends on hull design, displacement, propeller speed, propeller diameter, and a few other parameters. Lets just say that the last 2 knots of a ship's speed up to maximum requires a 50% increase in fuel. Doubling the speed, even below maximum speeds would increase fuel consumption by 40-60%. And, in typical cruise ship power plants, doubling the speed from 7 to 14 knots would mean adding one or two more generators running (depending on their size), therefore increasing the maintenance cost on the engines, as this is based on running hours.

If fuel costs are 11% of total costs and that would become 16%, and maintenance would go up a few percent as well, the total cost of the cruise (including the crew, shows, food, TA, pools, head office, etc) would be at most 10% higher? In return for 75% more time in port, that's a bargain!

(I'm disregarding possible higher port fees, less spending on the ship, but also less cleaning, less food, more or longer ship excursions, etc)

To me, whether you have a passenger load on board for 10 days or 2 passenger loads on board for 5 days each, the onboard spend/food consumption/etc. should be about the same. What they get for slower speeds is of course less fuel consumption as well as less wear on engines/pods and fewer turnaround days. All about the bottom line. Just like the airlines, make it "cheap" and fill the seats.:eek:

It has always been about the bottom line - on both sides. The passengers want the biggest bang for their buck: if the bang they want is a fast crossing, they will fly. The lines are intelligent enough to know that they could not sell enough berths at high enough prices to fill a ship large enough to operate profitably on three or four day crossings.

BA and Air France learned (slower than the U.S., who opted out of developing the equipment) that offering supersonic trans-Atlantic flights did not represent a profitable enterprise.

Cunard knows that there is not a sufficient market for week-long crossings to operate a year-round "shuttle", so they alternate itineraries.

But it is over-simplistic to say they they "make it 'cheap' and fill the seats" - they offer multi-tiered accomodations, including suites, the "Grills", etc. - which are hardly efforts to make it "cheap"; rather,mother are offering what we, the customer base want - and, more important, are willing to pay for.

If we were willing to pay for four day crossings, there would be four day crossings--- end of story.