QM2 no longer a TransAtlantic LINER

Well Bon Voyage!! I'm talking about the Sea sickness factor. Pitching and rolling,rolling and pitching. It must be felt more on those cruise ships?

Bon Voyage:)

Thanks :)

I actually don't get seasick for the most part... which is strange because I can't ride in the back seat of a car without getting car sick. On the Pacific Princess we had an aft balcony cabin and the waves kind of rocked me to sleep. At one point we hit a storm, where people had more issues with being able to walk across the room than being seasick. Some people had been complaining earlier in the cruise about being bored, so when the sea got rough I was tempted to say "Well, at least now you aren't bored....." :rolleyes:

Interestingly, the only time I have ever felt queasy at sea was on the QM2. I kind of brought it on myself though, trying to do NY Times Sunday crosswords while lying in bed during quite a bit of pitching and rolling. On that same sailing, we had a former Concorde pilot who was doing very badly with seasickness, to the point where he had to cancel one of his lectures. Poor man was wearing wrist bands which didn't seem to be working, though I thought it strange that someone who could fly at supersonic speeds would get queasy over a little motion on the ocean. Go figure....

Well Bon Voyage!! I'm talking about the Sea sickness factor. Pitching and rolling,rolling and pitching. It must be felt more on those cruise ships?

Bon Voyage:)

Speed and stabilisers are not conducive to each other and without stabilisers those old liners would regularly roll in excess of 20 degrees. A modern LARGE cruise ship will rarely if ever exceed five degrees.

Ah, so this is what you are all looking for then - a true transatlantic liner. Not the fastest I'll admit, but she can still manage her crossing from Halifax to Liverpool (and vice versa) in 7 nights. Oh, and she can handle the Atlantic year round and she doesn't do cruises.

 

J

 

No big deal, it's only 61.7 miles. You'd need a very shallow draft though.

Gab.

cruisetrail -- Great posts! Informative and interesting and explained cruiser vs. ocean liner perfectly.

No big deal, it's only 61.7 miles. You'd need a very shallow draft though.

Gab.

The Leeds-Liverpool canal's pretty deep in parts! :cool:

J

cruisetrail -- Great posts! Informative and interesting and explained cruiser vs. ocean liner perfectly.

Except for the fact that some liners were as small as 5000 tons and plodded across the Atlantic bouncing about like a cork. They were liners under every definition that is applicable and clearly sea worthy vessels but by crikey, one off passengers would certainly remember the experience.

I am looking forward to going aboard an 80,000 ton plus vessel as most of my experience has been in lean, mean fighting machines :rolleyes:;) under 400ft in length and just 40ft wide with a draft of 15ft! The other small ship was 360ft in length 35ft beam and just a 10ft draft but a greyhound of the sea with a publicided top speed of 36knts (we could allegedly go faster) I have travelled most of the world, visited most seas in just about every condition known to the weatherman and I look forward to travelling in luxury I could never have previously imagined. A fact of life is that sea sickness can effect anyone and everyone but given the choice of an older liner or a new cruise ship crossing the Atlantic.... to me it is a no brainer and give me the luxury, the comfort, the stability every day of the week compared to speed.

Crossing the Atlantic in UNDER four days must have been exhililarating but unless it was mill pond smooth it would have been an 'interesting' ride with root canal fillings being rattled out of folks teeth by the dozen. I would loved to have experienced it but it would probably have been something that once experienced would be enough. (speaking from experiences of only travelling in a small ship at very high speeds)

Just found this link and this is MY painting that I commissioned from this excellent artist :o:o

There has been speculation(on Board) that the next Cunard ship will be built

as Ocean Liner(as the QM2) and used for TransAtlantic sailings.

Anyone else heard or read about another ,maybe smaller,Ocean Liner?

There has been speculation(on Board) that the next Cunard ship will be built

as Ocean Liner(as the QM2) and used for TransAtlantic sailings.

Anyone else heard or read about another ,maybe smaller,Ocean Liner?

Mr Shanks says no.

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1783526

Mr Shanks says no.

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1783526

Mr.Shanks looks for the future . he doesn't say NO to another ship

:D

If history is any predictor, Mr. Shanks will not be at Cunard in another year or so. Someone else will be making their own changes on Cunard.:eek:

If history is any predictor, Mr. Shanks will not be at Cunard in another year or so. Someone else will be making their own changes on Cunard.:eek:

True Cunard has 3 ships , a small fleet compared

With NAL, HAL, Carnival , Princess

A new Ocean Liner for Cunard may be in the future?

Except for the fact that some liners were as small as 5000 tons and plodded across the Atlantic bouncing about like a cork. They were liners under every definition that is applicable and clearly sea worthy vessels but by crikey, one off passengers would certainly remember the experience.

 

I am looking forward to going aboard an 80,000 ton plus vessel as most of my experience has been in lean, mean fighting machines :rolleyes:;) under 400ft in length and just 40ft wide with a draft of 15ft! The other small ship was 360ft in length 35ft beam and just a 10ft draft but a greyhound of the sea with a publicided top speed of 36knts (we could allegedly go faster) I have travelled most of the world, visited most seas in just about every condition known to the weatherman and I look forward to travelling in luxury I could never have previously imagined. A fact of life is that sea sickness can effect anyone and everyone but given the choice of an older liner or a new cruise ship crossing the Atlantic.... to me it is a no brainer and give me the luxury, the comfort, the stability every day of the week compared to speed.

 

Crossing the Atlantic in UNDER four days must have been exhililarating but unless it was mill pond smooth it would have been an 'interesting' ride with root canal fillings being rattled out of folks teeth by the dozen. I would loved to have experienced it but it would probably have been something that once experienced would be enough. (speaking from experiences of only travelling in a small ship at very high speeds)

 

Just found this link and this is MY painting that I commissioned from this excellent artist :o:o

So how was a ride on the SS United States like in those days?

So how was a ride on the SS United States like in those days?

I'm surprised so see my old post pop up . It still holds

The s/s United States is a true Ocean liner. As was the France,

Rotterdam, . They went through the storms and they were fast.

The Transatlantic market , I think, still prefer to fly . When the Qm2 came out

In 2004 the plan was to replace the QE2 in the transatlantic , but it didn't go that way .

In September 2013 QM2's designer was here to answer questions, including those which asked if his ship is a true ocean liner. The archive can be found Stephen Payne Q&A.

Intentional deletion

We did the QV in 2012. It had a nice understated elegance(nicer than the QM2, though a little somber)The QE is supposed to be a little more "bright" than the QV. That all being said, the QV(as all Vista ships) doesn't like rough(or even a hint at rough)seas. It really pitched up & down a lot. The QM2 goes up & down, but not side to side,(on QV) which threw a lot of pax around.

I too noticed the difference on QV when we took a Christmas cruise to Hawai'i a couple of years ago. We had no rough seas to speak of but she was definitely a sensitive roller. I was quite surprised.

I've been in quite stormy seas on QM2 on the crossing but I've never experienced her rolling. Clearly she can do so in the right circumstances, however, based on passengers' experience.

In September 2013 QM2's designer was here to answer questions, including those which asked if his ship is a true ocean liner. The archive can be found Stephen Payne Q&A.

Yes we all know this , ( Cunarders). There were lectures on board the Qm2 by

Officers about this fact

The point is about the Qm2 becoming a cruise oriented ship given the popularity of cruising, not not mention new mega cruise ships being made.

Yes we all know this , ( Cunarders). There were lectures on board the Qm2 by Officers about this fact The point is about the Qm2 becoming a cruise oriented ship given the popularity of cruising, not not mention new mega cruise ships being made.

Yes, most of us here know that. At the moment I'm on QM2 and she's only doing about 12 knots.

I do understand that many posters here have happy memories of the old QE2 and dearly prefer the old girl over her successor. What I don't get is the obstance of a few to insist that QM2 is not a transatlantic liner. By hull form and reserve power she's a thoroughbred liner even if and when she is used on more leisurly itineraries.

Yes, most of us here know that. At the moment I'm on QM2 and she's only doing about 12 knots.

 

I do understand that many posters here have happy memories of the old QE2 and dearly prefer the old girl over her successor. What I don't get is the obstance of a few to insist that QM2 is not a transatlantic liner. By hull form and reserve power she's a thoroughbred liner even if and when she is used on more leisurly itineraries.

How true. She is the only ship presently capable of Grand Transatlantic Liner speeds.:D Even if she is mostly being driven like a little ole Granny taking a Z06 Corvette to brunch.:eek::D

Yes, most of us here know that. At the moment I'm on QM2 and she's only doing about 12 knots.

 

I do understand that many posters here have happy memories of the old QE2 and dearly prefer the old girl over her successor. What I don't get is the obstance of a few to insist that QM2 is not a transatlantic liner. By hull form and reserve power she's a thoroughbred liner even if and when she is used on more leisurly itineraries.

Who said its not an ocean liner????

As we said over and over that it's an Ocean liner being used as a cruise ship

But any way. Enjoying your posts on board . Looking forward for more:)

I'm surprised so see my old post pop up . It still holds

The s/s United States is a true Ocean liner. As was the France,

Rotterdam, . They went through the storms and they were fast.

The Transatlantic market , I think, still prefer to fly . When the Qm2 came out

In 2004 the plan was to replace the QE2 in the transatlantic , but it didn't go that way .

I mean how bad was the rolling and pitching of the SS US relative to the 2 Queens? And for the 2 Queens, what degree of roll was considered normal before the stabilizers were installed in '57 in anything except exceptionally rough seas, about 30 degrees? I heard that the Queen Mary had a tendency to roll like a pig. One thing that is good is how smooth today's cruise ships are even in choppy seas.

Yes, most of us here know that. At the moment I'm on QM2 and she's only doing about 12 knots.

 

I do understand that many posters here have happy memories of the old QE2 and dearly prefer the old girl over her successor. What I don't get is the obstance of a few to insist that QM2 is not a transatlantic liner. By hull form and reserve power she's a thoroughbred liner even if and when she is used on more leisurly itineraries.

My question was whether it would have made more sense for Cunard to build 2 cruise ships instead of the QM2, if they had know where fuel prices will be now. And actually even at 29+ kts, she already is the slowest transatlantic ocean liner since the 30s.

I mean how was the rolling and pitching relative to the 2 Queens? And for the 2 Queens, what degree of roll was considered normal before the stabilizers were installed in '57 in anything except exceptionally rough seas, about 30 degrees? I heard that the Queen Mary had a tendency to roll like a pig. One thing is how smooth today's cruise ships are even in choppy seas.

Stabilizers were fitted to the Queen Elizabeth in 1955, and to the Queen Mary in 1958 (I only point this out as you've said in the past that you're "interested in the history of ships").

There is a world of a difference between a modern cruise ship slowly wandering about on "choppy seas" (and diverting away from severe weather), and the Queen Mary speeding across the north Atlantic at 28-30 knots (with a schedule to keep, but slowing in the worst of storms). Please don't confuse the two.

A rough crossing in October 1936 saw handrails installed in cabin corridors shortly afterwards. Around 25,000 pieces of glassware and crockery were lost each year to storms, until 1958.

This:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1265090

may be of interest.

Hope this helps :)

Hi ren0312,

 

Stabilizers were fitted to the Queen Elizabeth in 1955, and to the Queen Mary in 1958 (I only point this out as you've said in the past that you're "interested in the history of ships").

 

There is a world of a difference between a modern cruise ship slowly wandering about on "choppy seas" (and diverting away from severe weather), and the Queen Mary speeding across the north Atlantic at 28-30 knots (with a schedule to keep, but slowing in the worst of storms). Please don't confuse the two.

A rough crossing in October 1936 saw handrails installed in cabin corridors shortly afterwards. Around 25,000 pieces of glassware and crockery were lost each year to storms, until 1958.

This:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1265090

may be of interest.

 

Hope this helps :)

I remember Celebrity Century still being stable even in choppy seas of Alaska. From old videos in the 50s it seems like QM would roll as much as 30 degrees regularly during a transatlantic crossing, which is simply beyond the realm of imagination, imagine trying to have a meal in the dining room, or what your cabin will look like in that sort of situation, in fact it is difficult to imagine how anybody can have a normal life in that sort of situation.

My question was whether it would have made more sense for Cunard to build 2 cruise ships instead of the QM2...

They built two cruise ships in addition to QM2, not "instead of".

And actually even at 29+ kts, she already is the slowest transatlantic ocean liner since the 30s.

Also remember QM2 is far, far larger than ships like Lusitania, Mauretania, Queen Mary, Normandie, United States.

As QM2 has no regular competition on the north Atlantic unlike in the past (if you want speed, fly), there is no need to race across the ocean, much as some of us would love it! (I've been on the bridge of QM2 when she's been at 27 knots). Many passengers prefer seven day crossings.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see six day crossings again (as was my first on QM2). I’d hate to see routine eight day cruises across. Seven seems a good compromise.

At 28 knots, the Queen Mary consumed approx 1,000 tons of oil per day. At 30/31 knots this increased to 1,400 tons. Almost half as much again for an extra 2/3 knots increase :eek:

(QE2's figures were 433 tonnes per day at 28 knots. QM2 consumes 261 tonnes per day at 29 knots for the diesel engines (plus 237 tonnes for the turbines))

Only a handful of ships from the "golden age" were 28-30 knot ships. The vast majority plodded along at far more modest speeds, even the SS United States did not routinely cross in 3 days 10 hours and 40 minutes. She only had to do that once.

And what those high speeds from the "golden age" do not show are the complaints from hundreds of passengers regarding the bone-shaking vibration that made parts of those old liners (esp near the stern) almost uninhabitable. Lusitania, Mauretania and even Normandie were esp prone to this at first.

Hope this helps :) .