QM2 no longer a TransAtlantic LINER

so what do you think?

So, reading all that have been written since your statement, and knowing that you experienced Queens Grill on your last portion of the "worlds cruise", how would you compare that to a 1st class ticket on an airline?

I don't think you can compare them as airline travel involves lengthy periods sitting in a chair. It wouldn't matter if the chair was made of solid gold, you're still just sitting in a chair for a long period of time - so boring and uncomfortable.

For my flight to Singapore I did 'Pearl Business Class' with Etihad. It was pretty nice, but I enjoyed the Britannia sector of my voyage more than the flight, let alone Queens Grill.

so what do you think?

If I were to take your question seriously I would VERY respectfully suggest your stance regarding the draft of a ship being relevant to its being a cruise ship or liner, stable or unstable, suitable for crossing the North Atlantic or not suitable, MIGHT not be correct but PLEASE look on this as a question.

Why do you take that stance regarding draft and what is a liner? My thoughts are that shipping companies that had prestigious routes that they regularly plied wanted a new word that did not make their ships sound like a ferry plying its trade across the English channel so the likes of the Cunard Line simply called their ships 'liners' This was in an age before passenger aircraft so these 'liners' were indeed ferries that were operating to a schedule ferrying folks plus cargo across an expanse of water from Port A to Port B and returning possibly with just cargo.

Now the aircraft has taken over the major role of long distance passenger carrying these 'liners' started to become cruise ships that made their money entertaining guests to a wonderful holidaying experience. Same ships performing a different role.

I do not understand this heavier plating you talk about and need a Naval Architect to explain that to me. A modern warship has quite thin plating, so thin you can look down the length of the ship and see just how distorted this is as it moulds itself to the ribs.

I am NOT a Naval Architect and these are really questions being asked to stimulate this topic.

I would suggest we could have whatever draft you want but if you have a tall superstructure then it could see the ship 'misbehaving' :rolleyes:;) or becoming quite unstable. Would the material being used to construct the superstructure effect the ship's stability, a tallish superstructure made of aluminium might be lighter than steel but again we need the experts to discuss this as to me there are risks using lightweight and relatively weak materials?

As I have said in previous posts experts have debated for decades if not centuries the choices regarding the design of ships namely length as opposed to breadth.. and I am guessing the answer will not be found on this forum.

Just like Whitemarsh has said, I also pointed out when we first started discussing this issue, we are talking to folks that are wearing rose tinted glasses, or folks that are reading and believing posts wrote by folks wearing those rose tinted glasses.

The Vista class ship is a beautiful vessel that could easily perform the role of a trans Atlantic ferry and just like the Queen Mary 2 it will have to respect mother nature, the bigger ship will obviously have a greater ability to take on the elements but common sense will dictate it will not run the risk of causing unnecessary damage or injury. Bottom line is that these ships will have different routes to cross this expanse, plus they have state of the art weather information technology that offers amazingly accurate assessments, plus of course they have the satellite imagery that tracks weather movements.

I have posted that picture of the Disney ship just because I believe that bow MIGHT make the Vista class more comfortable in adverse sea conditions but again this is a question and not a statement. My personal thoughts are the Queen Elizabeth and the Queen Victoria do not want to be any bigger.. The Queen Mary 2 in my opinion is too large for the type of cruising I want, clearly it suits the needs of Cunard and I am but one person. All I would ask though is quite simply:

Would the two smaller Cunard ships handle better with the bow design of the Disney ships?

The Qm2 is a stable ship,but i have been in a few big storms on the transatlantic ,and the ship "rocked" . I remember hitting a storm and I could

not walk in my stateroom.

Is it possible for you to look in your diary or other documentation and perhaps post the date of this trip please as I have NEVER seen any footage of ANY Cunard ship struggling in heavy seas!

If we were chatting over a pint of beer I would jokingly suggest you might have enjoyed an extra night cap... :eek: but the written word does not convey the humour behind this remark so I will not say it!! ;);)

Was it the slamming or vibration of the ship that caused this discomfort?

Please note I am NOT in any shape or form having a dig at you, trying to score points, argue or disagree... I am asking questions and offering explanations

If I were to take your question seriously I would VERY respectfully suggest your stance regarding the draft of a ship being relevant to its being a cruise ship or liner, stable or unstable, suitable for crossing the North Atlantic or not suitable, MIGHT not be correct but PLEASE look on this as a question.

 

Why do you take that stance regarding draft and what is a liner? My thoughts are that shipping companies that had prestigious routes that they regularly plied wanted a new word that did not make their ships sound like a ferry plying its trade across the English channel so the likes of the Cunard Line simply called their ships 'liners' This was in an age before passenger aircraft so these 'liners' were indeed ferries that were operating to a schedule ferrying folks plus cargo across an expanse of water from Port A to Port B and returning possibly with just cargo.

 

Now the aircraft has taken over the major role of long distance passenger carrying these 'liners' started to become cruise ships that made their money entertaining guests to a wonderful holidaying experience. Same ships performing a different role.

 

I do not understand this heavier plating you talk about and need a Naval Architect to explain that to me. A modern warship has quite thin plating, so thin you can look down the length of the ship and see just how distorted this is as it moulds itself to the ribs.

 

I am NOT a Naval Architect and these are really questions being asked to stimulate this topic.

 

I would suggest we could have whatever draft you want but if you have a tall superstructure then it could see the ship 'misbehaving' :rolleyes:;) or becoming quite unstable. Would the material being used to construct the superstructure effect the ship's stability, a tallish superstructure made of aluminium might be lighter than steel but again we need the experts to discuss this as to me there are risks using lightweight and relatively weak materials?

 

As I have said in previous posts experts have debated for decades if not centuries the choices regarding the design of ships namely length as opposed to breadth.. and I am guessing the answer will not be found on this forum.

 

Just like Whitemarsh has said, I also pointed out when we first started discussing this issue, we are talking to folks that are wearing rose tinted glasses, or folks that are reading and believing posts wrote by folks wearing those rose tinted glasses.

 

The Vista class ship is a beautiful vessel that could easily perform the role of a trans Atlantic ferry and just like the Queen Mary 2 it will have to respect mother nature, the bigger ship will obviously have a greater ability to take on the elements but common sense will dictate it will not run the risk of causing unnecessary damage or injury. Bottom line is that these ships will have different routes to cross this expanse, plus they have state of the art weather information technology that offers amazingly accurate assessments, plus of course they have the satellite imagery that tracks weather movements.

 

I have posted that picture of the Disney ship just because I believe that bow MIGHT make the Vista class more comfortable in adverse sea conditions but again this is a question and not a statement. My personal thoughts are the Queen Elizabeth and the Queen Victoria do not want to be any bigger.. The Queen Mary 2 in my opinion is too large for the type of cruising I want, clearly it suits the needs of Cunard and I am but one person. All I would ask though is quite simply:

 

Would the two smaller Cunard ships handle better with the bow design of the Disney ships?

 

My highlighting :o

 

Is it possible for you to look in your diary or other documentation and perhaps post the date of this trip please as I have NEVER seen any footage of ANY Cunard ship struggling in heavy seas!

 

If we were chatting over a pint of beer I would jokingly suggest you might have enjoyed an extra night cap... :eek: but the written word does not convey the humour behind this remark so I will not say it!! ;);)

 

Was it the slamming or vibration of the ship that caused this discomfort?

 

Please note I am NOT in any shape or form having a dig at you, trying to score points, argue or disagree... I am asking questions and offering explanations

As a passenger who have sailed Transatlantic on may Ocean Liners ,I know

when I feel discomfort on a ship in rough seas.

The QM2 has been tossed up and down,to the point we couldn't walk in the stateroom or halls.

The FRANCE gave the best ride in a storm. A streamlined designed ship.

Perfection

I think the OP is simply suffering from Golden Age Syndrome... much as I hate to cite fiction, this phenomenon something well illustrated in a movie who's name is escaping me but the main character thought the 1920's were the golden age, and in the movie he goes back to the 1920's and his love interest in that era thinks the Belle Epoch was the golden age, so they are both transported to that era, then they met Gauguin and Lautrec, who wish they lived in the Renaissance... it is all a matter of perspective.

 

The judge I practice in front of often complains about how we did just fine before cell phones and laptops, wishing for when things were simpler.... I said "well your honor, do you really want to go back to smoking at counsel tables and relying on mail for emergency relief?"

 

Interestingly, the "14-day back to back" the OP refers to is a relatively new thing, crossings were traditionally 6 days each way up until a couple of years ago. Like his honor, it's funny how we pick and choose the things we want from the old days and forget how things really were. Does the OP want to go back to the class system as well?

NO NO NO . whining whining and distorting .:eek:

Class system??? what are you ranting about. LOL

As a passenger who have sailed Transatlantic on may Ocean Liners ,I know

when I feel discomfort on a ship in rough seas.

The QM2 has been tossed up and down,to the point we couldn't walk in the stateroom or halls.

The FRANCE gave the best ride in a storm. A streamlined designed ship.

Perfection

I've crossed on the QE2 during rough seas to the point where bottles slid across tables, I had trouble walking as well.... not to mention the loud creaking all hours of the night. The view of the horizon out the port and starboard windows would alternate between all sky and all sea every two seconds. Sharp yawing in the Yacht Club meant you kept your arm loose while holding your drink or it would end up in your lap.

In fact, between the QE2 and QM2 in that same month, the QM2 while also in rough seas gave the smoother ride between the two. I know that might be a sacrilege to admit, but it is what it is... or was.

That is often part of the transatlantic experience.

As a passenger who have sailed Transatlantic on may Ocean Liners ,I know

when I feel discomfort on a ship in rough seas.

The QM2 has been tossed up and down,to the point we couldn't walk in the stateroom or halls.

The FRANCE gave the best ride in a storm. A streamlined designed ship.

Perfection

Please do not think I am disagreeing with you and if you can supply the dates of your QM2 trips then if the conditions were as you describe.. There WILL BE footage on Youtube.

I have looked at DOZENS of clips that show this ship going through hurricane force winds and I have NEVER seen her roll to anything near four or five degrees.

I cannot believe the France could be as stable as the queen Mary 2 BUT you have travelled on both, YOU have experienced the conditions and I have not so it would be extremely rude for me to doubt what you have said and I am certainly NOT disagreeing with you, I just find it hard to accept ;)

The technology on the Queen Mary 2 is obviously the latest state of the art computer controlled stabilisation that would not have even been dreamt of when the France was plying her trade.

I note that in heavy weather conditions the SS France would put out extra ropes in her passageways to assist passengers in pulling themselves along these corridors during foul weather.

SS France

Someone else who cruised on this ship although by then it was the SS Norway but it still had those same stabilisers and is behaving how I would assume a ship of that era would

The Queen Mary 2 in my opinion is too large for the type of cruising I want, clearly it suits the needs of Cunard and I am but one person.

Don't discount Mary, she's a beautiful ship and one of a kind. As I said one evening, I don't care if we're docked an hour from the city - I'd rather be on this ship than any other.

Having said that I would like to try Elizabeth and then Victoria. In that order.

Would the two smaller Cunard ships handle better with the bow design of the Disney ships?

I don't know, but they would certainly look prettier. I've always liked the look of the Disney ships - the outside appearance I should say.

Is it possible for you to look in your diary or other documentation and perhaps post the date of this trip please as I have NEVER seen any footage of ANY Cunard ship struggling in heavy seas!

I wouldn't say she was struggling, but on the evening of the 4th March this year I felt the QM2 do something I don't recall her doing before, which is to roll. I mean, she probably has rolled before (when I've been on board) but not that I noticed.

The waves weren't even that rough but there must have been something unusual about them as the captain knew they were out there and told one of the passengers (who told me) that that afternoon (the 4th) he was holding a particular course for as long as he could (so as to prolong passenger comfort) before making the turn for Brisbane.

We dined in Todd English that night and one of the 'rolls' was pronounced enough to make me pause mid-conversation and remark on it. It was kind of fun actually.

Don't discount Mary, she's a beautiful ship and one of a kind. As I said one evening, I don't care if we're docked an hour from the city - I'd rather be on this ship than any other.

 

Having said that I would like to try Elizabeth and then Victoria. In that order.

 

 

 

I don't know, but they would certainly look prettier. I've always liked the look of the Disney ships - the outside appearance I should say.

 

 

 

I wouldn't say she was struggling, but on the evening of the 4th March this year I felt the QM2 do something I don't recall her doing before, which is to roll. I mean, she probably has rolled before (when I've been on board) but not that I noticed.

 

The waves weren't even that rough but there must have been something unusual about them as the captain knew they were out there and told one of the passengers (who told me) that that afternoon (the 4th) he was holding a particular course for as long as he could (so as to prolong passenger comfort) before making the turn for Brisbane.

 

We dined in Todd English that night and one of the 'rolls' was pronounced enough to make me pause mid-conversation and remark on it. It was kind of fun actually.

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.

Don't discount Mary, she's a beautiful ship and one of a kind. As I said one evening, I don't care if we're docked an hour from the city - I'd rather be on this ship than any other.

 

Having said that I would like to try Elizabeth and then Victoria. In that order.

 

 

 

I don't know, but they would certainly look prettier. I've always liked the look of the Disney ships - the outside appearance I should say.

 

 

 

I wouldn't say she was struggling, but on the evening of the 4th March this year I felt the QM2 do something I don't recall her doing before, which is to roll. I mean, she probably has rolled before (when I've been on board) but not that I noticed.

 

The waves weren't even that rough but there must have been something unusual about them as the captain knew they were out there and told one of the passengers (who told me) that that afternoon (the 4th) he was holding a particular course for as long as he could (so as to prolong passenger comfort) before making the turn for Brisbane.

 

We dined in Todd English that night and one of the 'rolls' was pronounced enough to make me pause mid-conversation and remark on it. It was kind of fun actually.

I just feel the Queen Mary 2 is just too big for my very personal tastes and please, please note this is my personal taste.

Half of me would much, much prefer cruising on a small ship but my brain instantly interrupts my rose tinted memories of life aboard a frigate and points out how small vessels get thrown about , they usually lack the creature comforts of what is the norm on much larger ships (a generalisation) and of course they are at the mercy of the elements and might not be able to enter a specific port because of the prevailing conditions??

When you talked about feeling the ship's movement then I wonder if there might have been a problem with the stabilisers?? I have NO idea if they are always deployed or if they only deploy in certain conditions laid down by the captain? I think we both accept passengers would not be told if there were any minor engineering problems as it is not good for the ship's reputation ;)

It is also Murphy's law that a ship would alter course at meal time or it would have a fight with some awkward waves that want to put your meal onto your lap. A basic indication of the amount of roll you will experience is by just looking at your glass of wine and seeing the angle at which the wine is at. Or by finding the soup, on your lap whilst the bowl is still on the table. One of the worse indication is watching the stewards flat out on the deck sliding across the floor as the ship leans over!! A sight that was quite funny as long as you were not a victim and of course that is the WORSE indication... Namely ourselves slipping onto the deck and then finding ourselves surfing the wave of all the spilt liquids sliding across the decks. (Am Ireminiscingg or what .

I would appreciate a copy of ANY photographs you might have taken during the rough weather as I can very quickly work out how much the ship is leaning. I see we both have a Nikon camera and I am still debating about what lens I will bring with me. :) (A topic for another thread)

We are definitely singing from that same hymn sheet regarding the Disney ships. It is just the lines of the bow that I like and when looking at that bow, I can see a similarity to that of the SS France front end!! (just the bow)

Enough of my recalling those past and distant memories of sailing the high seas... Have I mentioned I served with Able Seaman Horatio Nelson?

 

I would appreciate a copy of ANY photographs you might have taken during the rough weather as I can very quickly work out how much the ship is leaning. I see we both have a Nikon camera and I am still debating about what lens I will bring with me. :) (A topic for another thread)

 

I thougt he said he had a Cannon. What lenses do you have?

David.

I thougt he said he had a Cannon. What lenses do you have?

 

David.

:o:o

My bad

I have numerous lens but intend buying a decent wide angle

:o:o

 

My bad

 

I have numerous lens but intend buying a decent wide angle

I used to lug multiple lenses around, but with the Nikon zooms being so good nowadays I just tak a Nikkor 16/85 and find this covers all I need for cruising.

David.

I used to lug multiple lenses around, but with the Nikon zooms being so good nowadays I just tak a Nikkor 16/85 and find this covers all I need for cruising.

 

David.

The 16/85 sounds like it is worth looking at, my main photography is wildlife and I will DEFINITELY be taking my Nikon 70 200mm. I think I might start a new thread on this topic as opposed to drifting off on my usual way.

I'm afraid I am very critical of my photographs and tend to end up buying a lens and being critical of what it has produced and then going out and buying something better :o

 

The 16/85 sounds like it is worth looking at, my main photography is wildlife and I will DEFINITELY be taking my Nikon 70 200mm. I think I might start a new thread on this topic as opposed to drifting off on my usual way.

I am knocking out superb 16/12 prints from the 16/85, better than the 70/200 which I hardly use now. I think you would need a magnifying glass to see the difference from a fixed lens. And of course the smaller the print the less critical you need to be.

David.

I am knocking out superb 16/12 prints from the 16/85, better than the 70/200 which I hardly use now. I think you would need a magnifying glass to see the difference from a fixed lens. And of course the smaller the print the less critical you need to be.

 

David.

I have just posted a couple of pictures on this forum one of which was taken with the 70-200 Click

I think I will probably go for a faster lens than the 16-85 but I need to speak to folks before rushing into making a purchase.

I have just posted a couple of pictures on this forum one of which was taken with the 70-200

Wow! Can I get one of those 70200 things for my phone?

J

PARTIAL QUOTE

..I have just posted a couple of pictures on this forum one of which was taken with the 70-200 Click...

 

.

Nice shots, glojo and thanks for mentioning that forum! I was unaware of it before - very cool :) -S.

PARTIAL QUOTE

 

Nice shots, glojo and thanks for mentioning that forum! I was unaware of it before - very cool :) -S.

I feel like a stranger anywhere other than the Cunard section but I was after advice about albatross photography and ended up 'over there' :o

I do love my photography and hopefully will share some pictures with my fellow cruisers next year :)

:eek:

 

Hi turquoise. I think QM2 is a Liner no matter what routes she takes. I think it has to do with the way she was built. Because my vacation (holiday) time is limited, I haven't studied the r/t Crossing schedule, but I seem to remember reading there were a few, if you include the NY-Southampton-Hamburg-Southampon-NY routes?

 

BTW, because of time limitations, we fly US to Europe, and we're still alive to tell the tale :) But gawd, economy class is bloody miserable :eek: -S.

I agree with you about the flying. I just came back from Wales to Detroit via Amsterdam, return, and I didn't expect to say it so soon in life, but I am done! [with flying]. I did spend and extra $100 each way to go "economy comfort" for a bit more leg room and more backward tilt of the seat, but the taking off of shoes, belt, being patted down and given the third degree, having lipsticks and liquids in bags has done me in. OK, perhaps I am jetlagged, but I am looking for my next cruise with the minimum of flying and a back to back Southampton/NY sounds like heaven.

Viva Cunard.

I agree with you about the flying. I just came back from Wales to Detroit via Amsterdam, return, and I didn't expect to say it so soon in life, but I am done! [with flying]. I did spend and extra $100 each way to go "economy comfort" for a bit more leg room and more backward tilt of the seat, but the taking off of shoes, belt, being patted down and given the third degree, having lipsticks and liquids in bags has done me in. OK, perhaps I am jetlagged, but I am looking for my next cruise with the minimum of flying and a back to back Southampton/NY sounds like heaven.

Viva Cunard.

NO NO ,you missed by point!!! It has nothing to do with fear of flying????

MY post was about having regular TRANSATLANTIC SERVICE. The QM2 was designed for this and did this in 2005 ,but later did more cruises.:(

NO NO ,you missed by point!!! It has nothing to do with fear of flying????

MY post was about having regular TRANSATLANTIC SERVICE. The QM2 was designed for this and did this in 2005 ,but later did more cruises.:(

Fear of flying? I have no fear of flying, but have had enough of the inconvenience and was conveying that LINER travelling would be my choice if possible.

You may not have noticed but many of these posts do go off on a tangent and go on for years. What is your next very interesting thread going to challenge?

NO NO ,you missed by point!!! It has nothing to do with fear of flying????

MY post was about having regular TRANSATLANTIC SERVICE. The QM2 was designed for this and did this in 2005 ,but later did more cruises.:(

Now that I have read the whole thread I note that it went "off topic" about photography without these !!!! and capital letters, which indicate shouting,[ just in case you don't know] from yourself.

mmmm.

How nice to cross the Atlantic at a leisurely pace and to do it on such a beautiful ship is even more of a bonus. To me it is TOTALLY (capitals used to emphasis and not meant as me shouting..) irrelevant.

Fear, preference, choice.. Who cares and respect to anyone and everyone for their decision on how to cross the Atlantic.

Some folks think I dislike the Queen Mary 2 but that could not be further from the truth but yes she is BIG (emphasis not shouting) too big for my choice of ship to cruise on but for crossing the Atlantic then size is NOT an issue, in fact it is a bonus.

My question however is this..

Is the Queen Mary 2 a luxury liner, cruise ship or is she a ship that competes with the more main stream cruise companies that ply their trade?

My thoughts are she is a main stream cruise ship that caters for a specific section of society that prefers that style of Cunard as opposed to other companies that might not be so formal.

Why do I say this...

When booking my cruise a balcony cabin was no more expensive than the likes of Fred Olsen or P&O although there might have been a few pounds difference either way. if I were to have gone for a luxury type cruise line then the costs would have been for me 'eye watering'.

May this ship... 'Live Long and Prosper'

If folks want to fly across the Atlantic, then fly

If folks want to sail across this expanse of water.... then I am envious ;)

Now that I have read the whole thread I note that it went "off topic" about photography without these !!!! and capital letters, which indicate shouting,[ just in case you don't know] from yourself.

mmmm.

anyway this site is all whining and throwing out whatever one feels without

thinking. Even better when one can offend someone else .

Like you Sea tiger,: !!!!!! YES YES NO NO:rolleyes: