Passengers per square foot


Unregistered, just back from your Cunard cruise? Get published on Cruise Critic; Write a Review!
Cunard Line

Read hundreds of Cunard Cruise Reviews from cruisers like you.

See posts about:
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
All times are GMT -4.
The time now is 03:40 PM.
#21
56 Posts
Joined Sep 2017
Originally posted by princeton12321
We agree most of it- the only thing I would say is that from QE2 on the old ways of doing things we're over. Cunard ships like QE2, Countess, Princess, Ambassador, Saga sisters etc had to fit in the canal to be viable. The transatlantic run, and with it ships like the Mary and Elizabeth, was over and cruises were the only way to carry on. The difference today is how cheap cruises are compared to what they used to be. You could have smaller ships then because cruises were relatively expensive compared to now. The only way to make money when you're charging $500-800 a week per person is to have a 5000 passenger ship.

Even QM2 is at heart a cruise ship and functions well as one. Compare that to the Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth who were most certainly true liners- they made abominable cruise ships the few times when they tried to make them. They even put aircon and a swimming pool on Elizabeth towards the end to try and extend her life- didn't work. QM2 has unique capabilities for today but has much more in common with the hybrid QE2 than she does any true Atlantic liner.
It’s true that QE2 was a radical departure In terms of design and having more outdoor space to enjoy on the aft terraces, but I think most of the changes made were more to do with organisational convenience - such as arranging the dining rooms around a central kitchen on the decks reserved for each class, and I believe were carried over from Q3 which was to be a traditional liner. With QM2 they had the lessons and experience with what worked and what didn’t from decades of cruise ships to guide the design, and weren’t working to a 3 (later hastily retconned to 2) class system.

The biggest concessions QE2 made to being a cruiser was the smaller, lighter ally-topped and thus more (fuel) efficient 2 prop design - with QM2 the larger all steel quad prop design is actually a return to the more orthodox path of liners in the past - but then QM2 didn’t need to make the concessions QE2 did because the role was already defined, largely by QE2 and they knew better what the ship was going to need to do. This combined with modern technology like the azipods allowed the ship to be larger without compromising her cruising ability.

Originally posted by Underwatr
I will admit to a preference for Queen Victoria's Golden Lion over QM2's as being more of a pub atmosphere.
I would agree to that as well.
#22
154 Posts
Joined Nov 2006
[quote=SilverHengroen;54661867]It’s true that QE2 was a radical departure In terms of design and having more outdoor space to enjoy on the aft terraces, but I think most of the changes made were more to do with organisational convenience - such as arranging the dining rooms around a central kitchen on the decks reserved for each class, and I believe were carried over from Q3 which was to be a traditional liner. With QM2 they had the lessons and experience with what worked and what didn’t from decades of cruise ships to guide the design, and weren’t working to a 3 (later hastily retconned to 2) class system.



The biggest concessions QE2 made to being a cruiser was the smaller, lighter ally-topped and thus more (fuel) efficient 2 prop design - with QM2 the larger all steel quad prop design is actually a return to the more orthodox path of liners in the past - but then QM2 didn’t need to make the concessions QE2 did because the role was already defined, largely by QE2 and they knew better what the ship was going to need to do. This combined with modern technology like the azipods allowed the ship to be larger without compromising her cruising ability.



I think going from Q3 to Q4 there was also a lot of lessons and insight carried over from Rotterdam V which made the successful leap from liner to cruise ship nearly a decade before by design rather than retrofit.

QM2 doesn't truly have a class system like QE2 did when she was new and that was only when QE2 was doing a transat. QM2 has dedicated dining rooms and a single lounge much like many other cruise ships today- it was much more comprehensive in the early days of QE2- the elevators (and where certain ones stop and don't stop) are some of the remnants of that. Nothing like that to compare on QM2.

And Cunard was never going to repeat the mistake of the aluminum superstructure on a steel hull- it was a source of constant headaches as it fatigued. Her biggest flaw was that she wasn't built with expansion joints which would have eased the problem. Ultimately this is most likely the reason she couldn't have carried on another few years and why Cunardival was happy to get rid of her when they did- looked at her as a ticking time bomb because of this. QM2s all steel construction Id say is a lesson learned than a nod to the past. The azipods themselves are a big nod to the future- a lot more revenue space onboard when you stick the engines outside the hull (although I'm sure a few bean counters in Miami wish she had been a twin screw ship in the beginning with all the issues the pods initially posed).
#23
Maine
11,814 Posts
Joined Feb 2013
There's not that much space saving in reality. With internal motors and shafts, the lower hull is carried further aft, but with pods, the lower hull is stopped further forward and the pods are attached to a flat portion of the aft hull. The major advantage of pods is that you replace motors, shafts, propellers, thrusters, rudders and steering motors with a pod and its azimuthing gear. Capital costs go down. There is also an efficiency advantage since the propeller is in front of the motor, clearing the hydrodynamic flow to the prop.
#24
56 Posts
Joined Sep 2017
Originally posted by princeton12321
I think going from Q3 to Q4 there was also a lot of lessons and insight carried over from Rotterdam V which made the successful leap from liner to cruise ship nearly a decade before by design rather than retrofit.

QM2 doesn't truly have a class system like QE2 did when she was new and that was only when QE2 was doing a transat. QM2 has dedicated dining rooms and a single lounge much like many other cruise ships today- it was much more comprehensive in the early days of QE2- the elevators (and where certain ones stop and don't stop) are some of the remnants of that. Nothing like that to compare on QM2.

And Cunard was never going to repeat the mistake of the aluminum superstructure on a steel hull- it was a source of constant headaches as it fatigued. Her biggest flaw was that she wasn't built with expansion joints which would have eased the problem. Ultimately this is most likely the reason she couldn't have carried on another few years and why Cunardival was happy to get rid of her when they did- looked at her as a ticking time bomb because of this. QM2s all steel construction Id say is a lesson learned than a nod to the past. The azipods themselves are a big nod to the future- a lot more revenue space onboard when you stick the engines outside the hull (although I'm sure a few bean counters in Miami wish she had been a twin screw ship in the beginning with all the issues the pods initially posed).
Yes I think QE2 drew on lessons from many postwar ships, Canberra too.

No, that’s what I was saying, the QE2’s design was constrained by the class system meaning duplicate rooms were required for transatlantic service for each class, QM2 is free of such considerations so has a far bigger diversity of venues.

It wouldn’t have been a case of just designing it with expansion joints, the aluminium was an integral structural part of the ship which took up stress from the hull’s flexing (this is why it cracks). If they had expansion joints, they would have had to have a traditional very heavily plated ‘strength deck’ like on QE(1) and before - this would have cancelled out much of the topweight savings of using the aluminium in the first place and being able to thin the steel of the hull slightly higher above the water line. That would have meant you couldn’t have both upper and quarter deck as built, you could only have had one of them (and the knock ons to the rest of the design from this would likely have made the ship infeasible). I think that, if nothing else, goes to show what a massive compromise Panamax dimensions are for such a ship, and why QM2 was never going to be able to be built to that specification.
#25
154 Posts
Joined Nov 2006
Agree- although I've been told by several naval architects that the expansion joints could have been integrated with very little changes and it would have dramatically reduced the fatigue that plagued her towards the middle to end of her career.

The biggest irony is that we have been back and forth about Panamax vs non Panamax in regards to QM2 and she's pretty close to fitting into the damn thing with the widening.
#26
Pennsylvania
5,835 Posts
Joined Jul 2010
AFAIK QM2 fits in the new locks, just not under the Bridge of the Americas (most days).
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature


Past:
Queen Mary 2: 7 cruises
Queen Victoria: 2 cruises

ms Amsterdam: 1 cruise
Caribbean Princess: 1 cruise
Carnival Pride: 1 cruise
#28
146 Posts
Joined Oct 2014
Originally posted by alc13
All very interesting. I scanned the cruisemapper stats and the ships they listed seemed to fall into 2 groups of guest-to-space ratios - ~30-40, and ~50-60. In other words, cruise ships tend to be one or the other. Cunard and apparently Viking are in the more spacious category.
This is one of the good looking but misleading articles.

I see two "red flags" in the article.
#1. " the average cruise ship passenger capacity is around 3,000 guests for ocean liners and around 150 guests for bigger river cruise ships."

My comment.
Inaccurate statement. If they mean mass market mega ships - yes. But they must add this note.
"Ocean liners" (instead of "cruise ships") - thi term does not sound good for a professional resource.

#2. "The ship's "space ratio" (by definition) is the enclosed space (measured in ft3/cubic feet) per passenger. A ship of 45,000 GT (gross tonnage) with capacity 1,000 passengers will have a space ratio 45 (or 45ft3=45000/1000). So if your ship has generally smaller cabins but very large public spaces, she will have a higher space ratio, and the higher the space ratio number, the more guests will enjoy a sense of spaciousness on board."

My comment.
This statement looks good at the beginning. The author is explaining how "space ratio" is calculated. But the end of the statement is wrong, and tells us that the author himself is confused with definitions. It appears that the author excludes cabins from the ship's enclosed space that is totally wrong.

Given these two items (#1 and #2), it's not surprising that the information in the table, that follows the introduction, is screwed up.
In the table, the "max" capacity is mixed up with the full capacity (double occupancy), so the calculation and ratings are wrong.

And the item #3 about this article.
Even if their calculations were correct, they would be misleading anyway as the article says no word about the major "problem" of the so-called "passenger space ratio".
The problem is: open spaces on a cruise ships (sun decks, promenades, observation decks, most of pool decks) are not "enclosed" by definition, so they are not included in the calculation. All these critically important areas on cruise ships are non-existent for the term of "space ratio" (!)
So...
How to get the real information about cruise ships spaciousness and bring it to the readers?
O-o-o-o... hey!
This is a work!
To do this a reviewer has to know the ships, not just do lazy math without looking into the important details.

CruiseMapper is an excellent cruise ship tracker, but they don't seem to be experts in cruise ships.
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
Top Best Cruise Ships 2018 - 2019
#29
146 Posts
Joined Oct 2014
Originally posted by Sekhmet
If you can get hold of a copy of the Berlitz Guide to Cruising and Cruise Sips, it lists the Space ratio for all the ships it includes, and broadly splits them into four groups:

51 and above Outstanding
31 to 50 Very spacious
21 to 30 Not very spacious
20 and under Very cramped

Based on two beds per cabin (plus any singles), this year QM2 is shown at 56.6, the Viking ships at 51.5 i.e. both in the top category.

Hope this helps.
About the Berlitz Cruise Guide in general.
One should be very careful with it. There is a lot of information in the reviews, but unfortunately the book is intoxicated with a number of fake reviews and false ship facts. So you have no garantee that the facts you source from there are correct. The ratings are fake as they are messed with fake reviews.
Just watch this video to know what kind of reviews can be allowed in Berlitz Cruise Guide.

31 to 50 Very spacious
IMO this is misleading and leaves a reader with no meaningful information.
All major cruise ships, from the most tightly packed like Aida ships and NCL Epic to QE that is about 43 GT/PP, fall within 31 and 50.
This is very far from reality.
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
Top Best Cruise Ships 2018 - 2019