Modified Queen Victoria

I am hoping that the latest set of modifications and slight enlargement of the Queen Victoria will make the ship more of a true Cunard Queen and less of a Vista-class ship. It will be interesting to see the deck plans for this ship. Because it will be able to transit the Panama Canal, it will probably replace the QE2 on the world cruises.

When will Cunard announce Victoria's launch and sailing calendar? How far in advance. A friend and I sailed on the QM2 this spring and hope to sail on the Victoria the spring of her maiden year.

Because it will be able to transit the Panama Canal, it will probably replace the QE2 on the world cruises.

Hmm... We don't actually know that she can transit the Panama Canal.

 

With the 11 metre lengthening, she should be roughly 988 ft long - which is too long to transit the Canal as the maximum length is 965 ft. (It used to be 990; I don't know when it changed.)

 

Now, ENCHANTMENT OF THE SEAS will be 990 ft long after her stretch and rumor has it that she will be fitted with a bow which can swing away to "shorten" her (like the bow visor of a ferry) in order to transit the Canal - so I suppose it's possible that QUEEN VICTORIA could be fitted with one as well...

 

At any rate, I do expect her to be QE2's replacement as a cruise ship (and always have).

The Queen Victoria is currently scheduled to enter service during the summer of 2007. I am guessing that it will be over a year from now before they start accepting reservations. I know that Cunard started accepting reservations for the QM2 about 18 months before the ship entered service.

 

I am a big Cunard fan and have sailed aboard the QM2 and the QE2 (many times). Of course, I will want to try the new QV as soon as she enters service.

Hi Doug,

 

An electronic cruise newsletter that I received yesterday stated that the lengthened QV will be able to transit the canal (of course, I don't know for certain that this is correct). It seems that Cunard would want the QV to be able to transit the canal for the world cruise.

 

I don't understand why the maximum length of ship that can pass through the canal has decreased. The length of the SS United States was limited to 990 feet so that it could transit the canal. Of course, this ship was built over 50 years ago. Apparently, some structural modifications have been made to the locks since then.

Reservations were being taken on board QM2 last April, and my partner and I put down a deposit. It believe what we actually have is a "reservation to make a reservation" when they actually begin selling.

It seems that Cunard would want the QV to be able to transit the canal for the world cruise.

I would imagine that they would - though as I recall, P&O do (or used to do) two world cruises a year (on two different ships) - one going through Suez and one going round Africa - so I suppose Cunard could do a world cruise going round South America... At which point they'd probably throw in Antarctica and make it a "seven continents" voyage (I'm pretty sure another line has actually done that already).

 

I don't understand why the maximum length of ship that can pass through the canal has decreased. The length of the SS United States was limited to 990 feet so that it could transit the canal.

Yes, until very recently I was sure that the maximum length was 990 feet for just that reason, until someone hit on the bright idea that it had changed ;) . Which solves the mystery of all those 965 ft long ships out there.

 

As QE2 is 965 ft long, I have to wonder how long ago the rules changed? That is, is QE2's length a fortunate coincidence or did this change decades ago and I've just been way, way out of the loop?

Hi Doug,

 

Yes, a world cruise could go around South America. The SS France did two world cruises (1972 and 1974) and went around South America. Obviously, this adds a lot of miles to the voyage. Because of its great speed, the France was able to do this in a timely fashion.

 

I don't think that Cunard would plan a ship that is slightly too long to pass through the Panama Canal. If they don't care about the ship being able to transit the canal, they would probably be adding more than 11 meters to the ship's length. Cruise ships that are too big for the canal are usually much too big (frequently, much too wide).

 

It is interesting that the QE2, which was designed nearly 40 years ago, is the new maximum length allowed through the canal.

 

If NCL actually returns the SS United States to service, will it no longer be able to transit the canal?

I don't think that Cunard would plan a ship that is slightly too long to pass through the Panama Canal.

Indeed, it doesn't make much sense. If you're going to go bigger than the Panama Canal, you might as well go all out and do something really big - which was what RCI did with the VOYAGER-class.

 

A Panamax ship could be almost as large (in GT and capacity) as something like a GRAND- or DESTINY-class ship, which almost makes me wonder why Carnival are building so many of those. Despite their popularity, it seems like an odd size to me - just barely too big to go through the Canal. But obviously it works because Fincantieri and Carnival are churning those ships out as fast as possible.

 

Cruise ships that are too big for the canal are usually much too big (frequently, much too wide).

See above about GRAND, DESTINY, etc. - but you're right of course, it's the width. I think in the past 30+ years the only passenger ships built that are too long for the Canal have been VOYAGER-class ships and QM2, both of which are of course far, far too wide. But the GRAND- and DESTINY-class ships are not too long and only a bit too wide - and in tonnage and capacity not far off from, say, NORWEGIAN DAWN (which I visited this past Sunday).

 

It is interesting that the QE2, which was designed nearly 40 years ago, is the new maximum length allowed through the canal.

It seems to me that it's a strange coincidence - makes me wonder if the size restriction changed when QE2 was being designed, and I've just been using very, very old information?

 

If NCL actually returns the SS United States to service, will it no longer be able to transit the canal?

Your guess is as good as mine. A question to ask NCL I guess :) .

Hi Doug,

 

Here is a little more information to add to the Panama Canal mystery. According to Bill Miller's book on the SS United States (published in 1991), the SS United States was scheduled to do a 55-day Grand Pacific cruise that was to begin in January 1970. This cruise was scheduled to include two transits of the Panama Canal. Page 178 of this book includes a photo of the brochure cover for this cruise (the cover of the brochure lists the Panama Canal). Of course, the ship was withdrawn from service in 1969 and this cruise never took place.

 

This is interesting because the 990 foot SS United States apparently was able to transit the canal in 1970, several years after the QE2 was designed. Thus, at the time the QE2 was designed, it looks like there was no reason to limit the ship's length to 963 feet to enable it to pass through the canal.

The Panama Canal site: http://www.pancanal.com/eng/index.html says the locks are 1,000' x 110', and max dimensions for ships are 965' x 106', I haven't' been able to find any information on when ship clearance sizes altered, but there are several documents on the site 'notice to mariners' that the more nautically minded may understand.

I live in Philadelphia, and the S.S. United States is docked here. About a month or so ago the Philadelphia Inquirer had an article about how NCL wants to use the ship especially for trips through the Panama Canal; it could make the trip in less time, and therefore would be cheaper. They are currently making a feasibility study. If the United States is now too long, wouldn't they have realized this?

Is it possible that the maximum length generally is limited to 965 feet so that there is a safe amount of clearance (17.5 feet) at each end of the ship? Perhaps a special exception is made for longer ships such as the SS United States.

Perhaps the key is the "length at the waterline"?

I could be wrong, but don't newer ships have flared clipper bows.

Compare the bow of a ______ of the Seas versus the SS United States.