Queen Victoria slow ship

I am a loyal Cunard cruiser. I am confused. Is the Queen Victoria a slow moving liner? Why would she be slower than the 1969 QE2? It's taking 7 nights to cross the pond and she is arriving late? I don't understand this.

QE2 use to do it in 5 nights and they changed it to 6 because of late arrivals only. Why wouldn't the QV take only 5 nights? Is he going to be 7 nights to do the crossings? Why is she also running late? I was planning on watching them come in and go out since I live right on the Hudson River facing the piers but not sure of the times now. Can any one help as always with these questions.

Next cruise: Queen Mary 2 4 nights to the Bahamas 2/15/08

Dave

I am a loyal Cunard cruiser. I am confused. Is the Queen Victoria a slow moving liner? Why would she be slower than the 1969 QE2? It's taking 7 nights to cross the pond and she is arriving late? I don't understand this.

QE2 use to do it in 5 nights and they changed it to 6 because of late arrivals only. Why wouldn't the QV take only 5 nights? Is he going to be 7 nights to do the crossings? Why is she also running late? I was planning on watching them come in and go out since I live right on the Hudson River facing the piers but not sure of the times now. Can any one help as always with these questions.

 

Next cruise: Queen Mary 2 4 nights to the Bahamas 2/15/08

 

Dave

Queen Victoria is a cruise ship, not a liner.

She wasn't designed for the speed that QE2 can do. I think QV's max speed is somthing like 22 knots. I noticed on the schedule that she's taking two days to get from NY to Ft Lauderdale. I believe QE2 used to have only one sea day between NY and Ft Lauderdale.

QV is doing the best she can, given the heavy seas she's gone through. It's too bad that Cunard settled for a ship whose best was so slow.

Kathy

Queen Victoria is a cruise ship, not a liner.

 

She wasn't designed for the speed that QE2 can do. I think QV's max speed is somthing like 22 knots. I noticed on the schedule that she's taking two days to get from NY to Ft Lauderdale. I believe QE2 used to have only one sea day between NY and Ft Lauderdale.

 

QV is doing the best she can, given the heavy seas she's gone through. It's too bad that Cunard settled for a ship whose best was so slow.

 

Kathy

Actually it's three days to get to Fort Lauderdale. We won't be arriving there until Wednesday morning. The QE2 and QM2 can make it in two days.

Is the Queen Victoria a slow moving liner? Why would she be slower than the 1969 QE2?

David21,

Compared to QE2,anything is a slow moving ship:D

If you do happen to take some photos of the Queens in New York you could always post them on here, There is an army of fans frantic for more pictures :D

cheers

Myles

Actually it's three days to get to Fort Lauderdale. We won't be arriving there until Wednesday morning. The QE2 and QM2 can make it in two days.

You're right. I was just counting sea days.

Kathy

Why would she be slower than the 1969 QE2?

Why should she be as fast? While Cunard (today) is largely to blame - people seem to think that all Cunard ever had was Express liners (like the original Queen Mary/Queen Elizabeth). Not true. Even in their heyday express liners were only a small proportion of their fleet - they have never had more than three in service at any one time - they are simply too expensive to run. Today's QV is still one of the fastest ships in Cunard's fleet, ever. The only faster ships in Cunard's history are:

• QE2
  
• QM2
  
• QE
  
• QM
  
• Lusitania
  
• Mauretania

Notably there have never been more than two of these in service at any one time.

Ships with ~ the same speed:

• Aquitania
  
• Berengaria - both 'Express' liner service in their day

Ships that were slower:

• Caronia (I, II and III)
  
• Mauretania (II)
  
• Saxonia class ('cookie cutter' - 4 ships)
  
• Media class
  
• Andania class (6 ships)
  
• Lancastria
  
• Scythia class (3 ships - includes Laconia - first World cruiser - did it at 16 knots)
  
• All other Cunarders, ever.

So that makes the QV the 7th fastest ship out of several hundred.

In the 1960s the Cunard board when faced with replacing the original Queens decided that the North Atlantic could only support one express liner - the QE2 - which has now been replaced in that role by the QM2. Count your blessings that we have one express liner - which is all the North Atlantic needs.

Even in their heyday, when many ships crossed the Atlantic, express liners were not universally the most popular - Mauretania (II) for example was preferred by some (Lana Turner, for example) for her more leisurely crossing - as some today prefer the QV to the QE2.

So, no more nonsense about how 'QV is replacing QE2'. She isn't. Nothing is. However, we do still have an express liner in the QM2. And from many reports onboard a very fine ship in the QV, the 7th fastest Cunarder, ever.

Peter

As has been said, Queen Victoria is a cruise ship, not an express liner. I am sure she will be very good at cruising, which is what she is designed for.

I am sure she will be very good at cruising, which is what she is designed for.

She will also be their fastest purpose built cruise ship........

Why not even things up and have QE2 go astern?

David

The confusion is caused by Cunard calling their new ship a Queen. A short-sighted marketing mistake which is already diluting and confusing the legend of the mighty Cunard Queens. No wonder people are confused. They'd better watch out or nobody will listen to them or realise how special QM2 is.

QM2 replaces QE2's original purpose.

QV replaces QE2 on her current role of cruising out of Southampton - makes it even more confusing.

The confusion is caused by Cunard calling their new ship a Queen. A short-sighted marketing mistake which is already diluting and confusing the legend of the mighty Cunard Queens. No wonder people are confused. They'd better watch out or nobody will listen to them or realise how special QM2 is.

I quite agree. As I said when she was first announced; Cunard should have used the -ia suffices and retained the Queen names for true transatlantic liners. Now, with the Queen Elizabeth, it seems that Cunard has decided to have all queens regardless and to my mind the practice devalues the brand.

David

Why not even things up and have QE2 go astern?

Then the QV would be about 5 knots faster:

QE2 full astern: 19 knots

QV full ahead: 23.7 knots.......

:rolleyes:

Then the QV would be about 5 knots faster:

 

QE2 full astern: 19 knots

QV full ahead: 23.7 knots.......

 

:rolleyes:

almost embarrassing :D

Cunard should have used the -ia suffices and retained the Queen names for true transatlantic liners.

They only need one express liner - and they have her in the QM2.

While I agree that 'historical consistency' might suggest use of '-ia' for other ships (up to a point - both Mauretania and Lusitania were express liners, while Mauretania (II) was not) I think given the size of the fleet it would be foolish to dilute the brand image between 'Queen-this' and 'Roman province-that'.

While the historian in me regrets what they have done, the marketer agrees - and they are there to make money, not please historians.

Peter

She will also be their fastest purpose built cruise ship........

strange- NCL ships are built to go routinely 25-27 knots....

strange- NCL ships are built to go routinely 25-27 knots....

The only NCL ship listed as having a speed greater than 25 knots is the SS UNITED STATES (source: Cruise Ships, 2nd ed. William Mayes).

They do have 7 ships with a listed top speed of 24 knots (Dawn, Jem, Jade, Jewel, Pearl, Spirit and Star) while the others are 21.0 - 22.5 knots.

• Carnival lines' ships range between 19.0-22.5 knots,
  
• Royal Caribbean between 21-24 knots,
  
• Princess between 18.0-24.0 knots.
  
• Seabourn 19.0 knots
  
• Crystal 22.0 knots

So I'd say the QV was in the middle to top end of cruise ship speeds - but why this fetishisation of speed - when you are cruising you don't need it.

The first world cruise was completed by a ship with a top speed of 16 knots.....

Hmm..... the new girl has done okay keeping up with us. Yesterday afternoon our speed was varying between 22.7 knots and 23.7. She was keeping right along side.

Keep in mind she was NOT built for express ta service. She just has to cross as part of her world cruise.

.but why this fetishisation of speed - when you are cruising you don't need it.

Well, that is only true if you are satiesfied with the ever same cruises every other line does, too.

Maybe the low speed is one reason for the itineraries of the Queen Victoria in the Mediterranean - like NCL, Carnival, RCL, you name it.

Many itineraries of the Queen Elizabeth 2 are not possible with the QV:

- two week roundtrip cruises from Southampton to the Eastern Mediterranean

- e.g. in three days from Rome to Southampton

- cruises to Newengland and Canada

- the christmas cruise to the Caribbean Islands

.QV replaces QE2 on her current role of cruising out of Southampton

She does not. See above. Much of the time she follows the path of lesser ships from Rome to Venice, from Venice to Barceona ...

I think Peter is right.

QM2 replaces QE2's role as an express liner.

QV will be a fine cruise ship. More elegant than most, I understand her interiors are very good - unless you want to have socks stored, of course!;)

Nothing can replace QE2. That's a sad fact. Equally, whilst if Cunard had decided to run her as long as they could, she might have had another year, her days are certainly numbered. She's just going slightly earlier, because of the Dubai deal.

On the other hand, the truth as set out above doesn't detract from the huge sadness that I feel sitting here on the last Winter Crossing. And I just don't want to think about disembarking in September......

Matthew

QM2 replaces QE2's original purpose.

 

QV replaces QE2 on her current role of cruising out of Southampton - makes it even more confusing.

:rolleyes: It takes two ships to replace one, enough said.

The only NCL ship listed as having a speed greater than 25 knots is the SS UNITED STATES (source: Cruise Ships, 2nd ed. William Mayes)

It's been a very very long time since she moved anywhere. :(

:rolleyes: It takes two ships to replace one, enough said.

I almost agreee with you. But I'd say it takes two ships to TRY TO replace one. Nothing will ever replace QE2 for me.

I hadn't thought about the idea of the new ship being a non-queen -ia name. But I like the idea. It would have kept the distinction of liner vs cruiser.

For a long time, Cunard had QE2 as the flag ship, the liner, the big deal. And from time to time they had some other ships. Countess, Princess were small cruise ships. Not queens, not with the capabilities of QE2. When one of the -fjords (sorry, can never remember if she was saga or vista) became Caronia, she got the dark hull and red funnel of a Cunarder, but still wasn't a Queen (although she was a fine ship to sail on). There was one and only one Queen.

Then they built QM2. A ship worthy of being a Queen, crossing the Atlantic with style and speed. Both Queens could function as liners not cruisers, but there aren't enough pax wanting to do transatlantics to support two liners. So ships built with liner capabilities do cruises. They're still Queens.

Talked to my TA the other day. We still say The Queen and understand that we mean QE2. We say The Mary for QM2. And we say Vickie for the new ship. I suspect we won't change our references after Nov.

Kathy

S

• Scythia class (3 ships - includes Laconia - first World cruiser - did it at 16 knots)

Even in their heyday, when many ships crossed the Atlantic, express liners were not universally the most popular - Mauretania (II) for example was preferred by some (Lana Turner, for example) for her more leisurely crossing - as some today prefer the QV to the QE2.

 

Peter

Peter,

I am constantly amazed at the knowledge of some people on this board, or at least, their ability to quickly get their hands on information, and know where to look.

Thank you, as always.

So just curious (if you know) How long (days) did that first world cruise take? I am sure I can look it up somewhere. So call me lazy. But then, everyone else wouldn't also share in the answer. I am sure there are others who would be curious to know.

And I agree with Lana Turner. I am in no hurry! The trip, in great part, IS the destination! Certainly on my upcoming crossing on the QE2, then return on the QM2! It's why we are going. Not to get somewhere!

While I agree that 'historical consistency' might suggest use of '-ia' for other ships (up to a point - both Mauretania and Lusitania were express liners, while Mauretania (II) was not) I think given the size of the fleet it would be foolish to dilute the brand image between 'Queen-this' and 'Roman province-that'.

 

Peter

I suspect that the general public has no clue about the names of past Cunarders, and would not make the distinction anyway! I'm not sure I make the distinction. I think (at least in the US) most people vaguely know Cunard had some famous ships. They may equate Cunard (wrongly, sort of) with Titanic. They may have heard the term "Luxury Liner" and think that describes the Cunard ships. But they probably have no clue the Berengaria, Mauretania, Aquitania, Sylvania (a light bulb, to most) etc, ever existed. they have no idea what an RMS is or that the original purpose was transatlantic mail service, or who Samuel Cunard was. British citizens may be more knowledgeable, since they were British ships, and many built in the British Isles. There may be more pride in the fleet, therefore more knowledge. I don't know. But over here, I think even the cruising public would not know the difference.

Just my thoughts.

Karie

How long (days) did that first world cruise take? Karie

According to Cunard a rather imprecise 'four months':

http://www.cunard.co.uk/AboutCunard/default.asp?Active=Heritage&Sub=GetShip&ShipID=90

Wikipedia and the NY Times 130 days:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=950CE2D91E3EEE3ABC4951DFB7678389639EDE

She's also sadly famous for the notorious 'Laconia Order' - that U Boats not pick up survivors from sinkings - as explained in the Cunard article.

I agree - most people this side of the pond will have heard of QE2, QM2 and Titanic - and some may remember Queen Elizabeth & Queen Mary - but the 'Roman province' -ia ships are long forgotten - Cunard are right to focus their marketing on 'Queen' ships - unless they bring out a very different product - like smaller expedition type ships - but I'm not sure if the 'Grills + Mass' economics will work for that - but if they do I'm sure Carnival will figure it out. Then 'big Queens' 'small -ias' would make sense.

Peter

I agree - most people this side of the pond will have heard of QE2, QM2 and Titanic - and some may remember Queen Elizabeth & Queen Mary - but the 'Roman province' -ia ships are long forgotten - Cunard are right to focus their marketing on 'Queen' ships - unless they bring out a very different product - like smaller expedition type ships - but I'm not sure if the 'Grills + Mass' economics will work for that - but if they do I'm sure Carnival will figure it out. Then 'big Queens' 'small -ias' would make sense.

 

Peter

 

I suspect that the general public has no clue about the names of past Cunarders, and would not make the distinction anyway! I'm not sure I make the distinction. I think (at least in the US) most people vaguely know Cunard had some famous ships. They may equate Cunard (wrongly, sort of) with Titanic. They may have heard the term "Luxury Liner" and think that describes the Cunard ships. But they probably have no clue the Berengaria, Mauretania, Aquitania, Sylvania (a light bulb, to most) etc, ever existed. they have no idea what an RMS is or that the original purpose was transatlantic mail service, or who Samuel Cunard was. British citizens may be more knowledgeable, since they were British ships, and many built in the British Isles. There may be more pride in the fleet, therefore more knowledge. I don't know. But over here, I think even the cruising public would not know the difference.

 

Just my thoughts.

Karie

Is that not the point?

If Carnival wanted to market the Cunard "heritage" then they had an excellent opportunity to do so. However, they seem not to understand the true history. Cunard and White Star had their own separate histories and identities for Carnival to profit from and yet in true Hollywood tradition, Carnival obfuscate to create an unrealistic profile that is neither one nor the other.

There are options for Queens, -ia or -ic.

If we dispense with -ic, then let's have Queens for the North Atlantic and -ia as cruisers and muddy the waters with Victoria and Berengaria to cater for both tastes!

David