Bring back the 5 day crossings!!!

I see now that the QM2 is doing some crossings at 7&8 days(which some include stops in S'hampton & Germany). Having done crossings in the past on QE2(and other classic OCEAN LINERS) in 5 days and found it to be the perfect amount of time onboard when there are no ports. Certainly the 7 & 8 day sailings are too long even with all there is to do onboard & the size of the ship.

The 5 day crossing allowed us to enjoy weekends in Paris & London all in a weeks time and we were never bored while onboard any of those ships. On longer holidays after a few weeks in Europe a westbound crossing provided a good rest before reentering the real world. I only regret never being able to sail to Italy on the old liners...nobody did it like the ITALIANS!!!

Of course Cunard is now Carnival and life changes & the longer crossing cuts fuel costs & also provides longer periods of time for the passenger to spend $$$ onboard.

Anyone else like the idea of a 5 day crossing - and even bring back the ship to LaHarve once in a while?????

I see now that the QM2 is doing some crossings at 7&8 days(which some include stops in S'hampton & Germany). Having done crossings in the past on QE2(and other classic OCEAN LINERS) in 5 days and found it to be the perfect amount of time onboard when there are no ports. Certainly the 7 & 8 day sailings are too long even with all there is to do onboard & the size of the ship.

 

The 5 day crossing allowed us to enjoy weekends in Paris & London all in a weeks time and we were never bored while onboard any of those ships. On longer holidays after a few weeks in Europe a westbound crossing provided a good rest before reentering the real world. I only regret never being able to sail to Italy on the old liners...nobody did it like the ITALIANS!!!

 

Of course Cunard is now Carnival and life changes & the longer crossing cuts fuel costs & also provides longer periods of time for the passenger to spend $$$ onboard.

 

Anyone else like the idea of a 5 day crossing - and even bring back the ship to LaHarve once in a while?????

I have posted these same sentiments here in the past. I also enjoyed the 5 day crossings and a weekend in London but now it seems your entire holiday needs to be aboard ship. Carnival has it all figured out. :eek: The thing to remember is that the various lines are no longer in the transport business, they are in the entertainment business. I am glad to have been able to do it both ways.:D

I'll second that motion. Being time-poor (I'm not retired) a five day crossing would allow me to sail both ways and enjoy some time in London. The only way I got to do that this year was to pick one of the dates when the ship was making a four day run up to Hamburg.

Sadly though we're in the minority. Too many members here want lower fares that have to be paid for with fuel economies. And I've been admonished, "If you enjoy being on QM2 why would you want to shorten your experience?" :mad:

We enjoy every minute on Queen Mary 2 and would love to book a 10-days immediately over a 5/7 days trip. For us from Hamburg - arriving back home without traveling further is perfect so we hope that she arrives here as often as possible.

I see now that the QM2 is doing some crossings at 7&8 days(which some include stops in S'hampton & Germany). Having done crossings in the past on QE2(and other classic OCEAN LINERS) in 5 days and found it to be the perfect amount of time onboard when there are no ports. Certainly the 7 & 8 day sailings are too long even with all there is to do onboard & the size of the ship.

 

The 5 day crossing allowed us to enjoy weekends in Paris & London all in a weeks time and we were never bored while onboard any of those ships. On longer holidays after a few weeks in Europe a westbound crossing provided a good rest before reentering the real world. I only regret never being able to sail to Italy on the old liners...nobody did it like the ITALIANS!!!

 

Of course Cunard is now Carnival and life changes & the longer crossing cuts fuel costs & also provides longer periods of time for the passenger to spend $$$ onboard.

 

Anyone else like the idea of a 5 day crossing - and even bring back the ship to LaHarve once in a while?????

I totally agree. Loved the 5 day crossing on the QE2.

Problem is manyof those who demand five day crossings aren't prepared to pay extra given the extra fuel that would be required.

Also, for a true Golden Age liner experience, QM2 would need to be running 3 days services. 5 days is really not that different to 7 - besides, who really wants to get off that wonderful ship?!

I enjoyed the 5 day crossings and would love to have them back on QM2 BUT they ain’t going to happen. The old Queens, the United States and the France were built to provide quick and reliable transportation when transatlantic air travel was in its infancy or unacceptable.Most of the other ships were 6 day boats. After 1958 the world changed. Remember the oil embargo and mass travel were part of that change. QM2 was designed with speed and power to stay on schedule, AND so folks would have lots of spending options while on board- I think transportation was way down the list.

I love TAs on QM2, and as long as she’s crossing, I’ll be crossing; but barring very special circumstances it won’t be like the old days.

I enjoyed the 5 day crossings and would love to have them back on QM2 BUT they ain’t going to happen. The old Queens, the United States and the France were built to provide quick and reliable transportation when transatlantic air travel was in its infancy or unacceptable.Most of the other ships were 6 day boats. After 1958 the world changed. Remember the oil embargo and mass travel were part of that change. QM2 was designed with speed and power to stay on schedule, AND so folks would have lots of spending options while on board- I think transportation was way down the list.

I love TAs on QM2, and as long as she’s crossing, I’ll be crossing; but barring very special circumstances it won’t be like the old days.

Right you are. Those who like the 7/8 day crossings, for the most part, have never had the opportunity to cross in 4/5 days and are happy with that. Good for them because that's the way it is now. I really enjoyed the "need for speed" in the olden days so now, since the crossing has morphed into a cruise, I choose to cruise in nicer locations than the North Atlantic. :D

If this is a Christmas Wish List... :D

Dear Santa,

This Christmas I'd like the following please:

Every time I book an inside, I get upgraded to a Q1.

A giant lottery win (even if I forget to buy a ticket).

My wallet is returned to me (the one I lost in a taxi in 1997).

World peace.

Television to stop showing repeats.

Television to stop showing repeats.

Railways in the UK to have silver-service restaurant cars on all trains.

Zero traffic on the roads when I am running late.

Cunard shoreside/call centres to actually know something/anything about Cunard ships.

Macdonalds, Disney and RyanAir to go bust.

Someone to discover diet fish and chips.

Queen Mary 2 to do five day crossings.

I think that about covers it, thank you Santa :).

If this is a Christmas Wish List... :D

 

Dear Santa,

This Christmas I'd like the following please:

 

Every time I book an inside, I get upgraded to a Q1.

A giant lottery win (even if I forget to buy a ticket).

My wallet is returned to me (the one I lost in a taxi in 1997).

World peace.

Television to stop showing repeats.

Television to stop showing repeats.

Railways in the UK to have silver-service restaurant cars on all trains.

Zero traffic on the roads when I am running late.

Cunard shoreside/call centres to actually know something/anything about Cunard ships.

Macdonalds, Disney and RyanAir to go bust.

Someone to discover diet fish and chips.

Queen Mary 2 to do five day crossings.

 

I think that about covers it, thank you Santa :).

I like it. Can I borrow your list for Santa? Especially the diet fish & chips!:D

I like them as they are. :)

I like them as they are. :)

Yes, that's the problem......I like them as they are as well. I want to have my fish & chips and eat them too.....:eek::D:D

If this is a Christmas Wish List... :D

 

Dear Santa,

This Christmas I'd like the following please:

 

Every time I book an inside, I get upgraded to a Q1.

A giant lottery win (even if I forget to buy a ticket).

My wallet is returned to me (the one I lost in a taxi in 1997).

World peace.

Television to stop showing repeats.

Television to stop showing repeats.

Railways in the UK to have silver-service restaurant cars on all trains.

Zero traffic on the roads when I am running late.

Cunard shoreside/call centres to actually know something/anything about Cunard ships.

Macdonalds, Disney and RyanAir to go bust.

Someone to discover diet fish and chips.

Queen Mary 2 to do five day crossings.

 

I think that about covers it, thank you Santa :).

Great list! (Nice of you to toss in world peace)

I loved the 5-day crossings on QE2. I loved that we were on this wonderful, powerful machine. She wasn't a cruise ship, dogging it at 18 kt. She could pour on the speed. But then one day, someone posted "If you love her so much why do you want your time on her to be so short?" It got me thinking--it is a contradiction. I loved sailing on her, but I loved her speed.

However, Santa or no Santa, the 5-day crossing isn't coming back. When we did the behind-the-scenes tour a few years ago, they said that fuel consumption was driving these decisions. QM2 would use double the fuel to cross in 5 days instead of 7. As someone posted earlier, how much more will you pay to cover that fuel cost?

My personal conspiracy theory is that QM2 has to do the crossing in7 days so that she doesn't make the Vista Sistas look wimpy by comparison.

I see no reason why Cunard could not have 2 or 3 five day crossings a year, priced appropriately, to appeal to those who yearn for this. If they proved not to be popular then of course they would be dropped...

... However, Santa or no Santa, the 5-day crossing isn't coming back. ...

My thoughts exactly, but wishing to Santa, or the tooth-fairy, or the old-lady-who-lived-in-a-shoe does no harm :) .

Besides the fuel costs, I understand that such sustained high speeds (five-days) seriously shorten the life of any ship (even one designed to be able to do six-day crossings; QM2).

I was lucky, I did a six-day QM2 crossing in 2006. All the others have been seven.

Seven days doesn't mean QM2 will always be going slowly; on one such crossing, because of weather delays early on, she was making up time to reach New York on schedule. While I was on the bridge (tour), I noted 26, and then over 27 knots shown as I was leaving. Some seem to forget that great reserve of power and speed that QM2 has over mere cruise ships, even on "slower" crossings.

There have been other seven-day crossings where I noted she has really zipped along; we could tell simply by looking out of the window, even if we didn't know the actual speed at the time.

My personal conspiracy theory is that QM2 has to do the crossing in7 days so that she doesn't make the Vista Sistas look wimpy by comparison.

Personally, I prefer six or seven days; five would scarcely give me time to unpack ;) . I would avoid booking an eight day crossing.

As for QE2 and five-days... am I right that even she had slowed to six at the end to save fuel?

Best wishes to you :)

Hi 3rdGenCunarder,

 

As for QE2 and five-days... am I right that even she had slowed to six at the end to save fuel?

There were certainly 6 day crossings when I did my only QE2 transatlantic in July 2003 which was marketed as the last regular season before QM2 took over the schedule. The trip was combined with the last season of the Concorde flights as in those days Cunard and BA had a partnership program. 6 days Southampton/New York on QE2, 4 days in New York and 3 hours return on Concorde is a memory to treasure and even more oddly when we off New England on QE2 we heard the sonic boom of Concorde passing overhead.

QE2 averaged 24/25 knots as we travelled around 600 nautical miles per day a figure I remember as they still ran the daily noon mileage competition

yes, that's the problem......i like them as they are as well. I want to have my fish & chips and eat them too.....:eek::d:d

There were certainly 6 day crossings when I did my only QE2 transatlantic in July 2003 which was marketed as the last regular season before QM2 took over the schedule. The trip was combined with the last season of the Concorde flights as in those days Cunard and BA had a partnership program. 6 days Southampton/New York on QE2, 4 days in New York and 3 hours return on Concorde is a memory to treasure and even more oddly when we off New England on QE2 we heard the sonic boom of Concorde passing overhead.

QE2 averaged 24/25 knots as we travelled around 600 nautical miles per day a figure I remember as they still ran the daily noon mileage competition

Right you are. Those who like the 7/8 day crossings, for the most part, have never had the opportunity to cross in 4/5 days and are happy with that. Good for them because that's the way it is now. I really enjoyed the "need for speed" in the olden days so now, since the crossing has morphed into a cruise, I choose to cruise in nicer locations than the North Atlantic. :D

We made several five-day crossings on the QE2 and one on the France. The 30 knot speed was exciting, of course, but the crossings always seemed just a bit too short. A five-day crossing was really five nights but just four full days.

When the QE2 crossings were lengthened to six nights we were fine with that as with the earlier crossings of the QM2. Despite our earlier doubts, we have enjoyed the seven-night crossings and have no desire to go back to the shorter ones.

We have not made an eight-day crossing on Cunard, but have taken some eight and nine-day crossings on Polish Ocean Lines Stefan Batory from Montreal to England. Last year we made a six-day crossing on the QM2 from Southampton to Halifax (where we disembarked). Sadly that will not be possible next year.

No matter what the length of the crossing we have thoroughly enjoyed it.:)

I see no reason why Cunard could not have 2 or 3 five day crossings a year, priced appropriately, to appeal to those who yearn for this. If they proved not to be popular then of course they would be dropped...

Would you let Cunard use your money for that gamble? That is the problem, chicken and egg and all that. It may be very popular, it may not, especially if the price is double. I could introduce Concorde into the mix, but that may be going off topic :D

Hi 3rdGenCunarder,

 

My thoughts exactly, but wishing to Santa, or the tooth-fairy, or the old-lady-who-lived-in-a-shoe does no harm :) .

 

Besides the fuel costs, I understand that such sustained high speeds (five-days) seriously shorten the life of any ship (even one designed to be able to do six-day crossings; QM2).

 

I was lucky, I did a six-day QM2 crossing in 2006. All the others have been seven.

 

Seven days doesn't mean QM2 will always be going slowly; on one such crossing, because of weather delays early on, she was making up time to reach New York on schedule. While I was on the bridge (tour), I noted 26, and then over 27 knots shown as I was leaving. Some seem to forget that great reserve of power and speed that QM2 has over mere cruise ships, even on "slower" crossings.

 

There have been other seven-day crossings where I noted she has really zipped along; we could tell simply by looking out of the window, even if we didn't know the actual speed at the time.

I'm sure you're correct!

 

Personally, I prefer six or seven days; five would scarcely give me time to unpack ;) . I would avoid booking an eight day crossing.

 

As for QE2 and five-days... am I right that even she had slowed to six at the end to save fuel?

 

Best wishes to you :)

Our first crossing on QM2, in her first year, was 6 nights. By then we were used to 6-night crossings. They slowed QE2 to 6 nights because 5 was tight. Bad weather could make her late into port, making the turnaround difficult.

We did the 175th Anniversary crossing. Because we had port stops in Halifax and Boston before New York, we had an alternation of port days and sea days. We left these ports at night, so we couldn't get to the next port by the next morning. This left us with more time than we needed. She loafed along at 10-11 kt. We were passed by a freighter! I was mortified. A Cunard Queen passed by a freighter. :eek:

Apart from the fuel costs and the wear and tear, is QM2 actually capable of making a 5 night crossing? My assumption is that they would have to run at least 4 days solid on all engines at full power. Is she built to do that or do they as a matter of course need to swap engines in and out for maintenance purposes during a crossing?

I've done 5, 6, 7 and 8 night crossings and all have their merits and demerits. If I had to choose one I would probably go for a 6 night crossing. Five was great though, cast off from Southampton with a military band to see you off, quick way round the Isle of Wight then a sprint across the Atlantic and up into Manhattan. Great memories.

M-AR

As in almost all things-cash is the issue. Stephen Payne stated that QM2 could not make more than 23 knots without her gas turbines; with them she can make 29-30, Gas Oil is much more expensive than bunker fuel. I heard somewhere that HQ has to approve use of the turbines-so I suppose it’s when she has to make up time such consent is given-that’s part of her being a liner. Stephen has also said in lectures that knowing what is now known, he would have built in another diesel rather than the turbines given their present cost of operation. If I recall, other lines has gotten rid of their gas turbines due to cost.

But QM2 is special and I love her!:D

Apart from the fuel costs and the wear and tear, is QM2 actually capable of making a 5 night crossing? M-AR

My understanding is no, she is not.

She was designed with six-day crossings in mind.

Of course QM2 is much larger than QM or QE, and twice the size of QE2. So QM2's power plant (four diesels & two turbines) has to push (or in her case pull) a much larger ship through the water.

Furthermore I would imagine that the "hotel" uses far more of the available power on QM2 than on the previous three Queens.

Her power plant output is roughly equal to that of the original two Queens, and much more powerful than QE2's (esp compared to the original steam powerplant).

But given the larger hull, with similar total power available, she was never going to attain the previous Queens top speeds, nor was she designed to match them.

(On a similar subject, I was told that the modern QE and QV's power plant output is not far short of what QE2's steam power plant was capable of producing. However, the top speed of QE2 (under steam) of 32.66 knots far exceeds the current sisters top speed of 23.7 knots. This is not only a reflection of the greater power requirement of the "hotel", but also indicates the inefficiency of their blunt/box-like hulls compared with the graceful, stunning and wonderfully efficient hull of QE2 (and of the hull of QM2, which looked to QE2 for inspiration in many ways for the design of sections of the hull, esp the bows)).

(If I have any of the above wrong, I am very willing to be corrected)

Best wishes,

Hi Mid Atlantic Ridge,

 

My understanding is no, she is not.

She was designed with six-day crossings in mind.

 

Of course QM2 is much larger than QM or QE, and twice the size of QE2. So QM2's power plant (four diesels & two turbines) has to push (or in her case pull) a much larger ship through the water.

Furthermore I would imagine that the "hotel" uses far more of the available power on QM2 than on the previous three Queens.

 

Her power plant output is roughly equal to that of the original two Queens, and much more powerful than QE2's (esp compared to the original steam powerplant).

But given the larger hull, with similar total power available, she was never going to attain the previous Queens top speeds, nor was she designed to match them.

 

(On a similar subject, I was told that the modern QE and QV's power plant output is not far short of what QE2's steam power plant was capable of producing. However, the top speed of QE2 (under steam) of 32.66 knots far exceeds the current sisters top speed of 23.7 knots. This is not only a reflection of the greater power requirement of the "hotel", but also indicates the inefficiency of their blunt/box-like hulls compared with the graceful, stunning and wonderfully efficient hull of QE2 (and of the hull of QM2, which looked to QE2 for inspiration in many ways for the design of sections of the hull, esp the bows)).

 

(If I have any of the above wrong, I am very willing to be corrected)

 

Best wishes,

That all sounds correct to me. One thing I'd like to add is that the higher superstructure of the Vistas compared to QE2 works against their speed. QE2 was built for speed in every way.