Just thinking - Small ship vs Large

[toberman]

I've read all of the reviews about small ships vs large ships... small is more personal, large has more of everything - small can go places the others can't, large can entertain you better etc.

But I'm wondering, from a safety standpoint - which is better??

I'm thinking - the bigger the ship the more likely they'll have back-ups for the back-ups etc (like airplanes).

I know the odds of anything going wrong is minute, but... ??

Guess this latest Costa (small ship) problem has got me thinking.

[paul929207]

I've read all of the reviews about small ships vs large ships... small is more personal, large has more of everything - small can go places the others can't, large can entertain you better etc.

But I'm wondering, from a safety standpoint - which is better??

I'm thinking - the bigger the ship the more likely they'll have back-ups for the back-ups etc (like airplanes).

I know the odds of anything going wrong is minute, but... ??

Guess this latest Costa (small ship) problem has got me thinking.

The Costa Allegro was a fire. It was quickly extinguished. Yes they have no power and are being or were towed to port. But think how long it would take to tow the Oasis or Alure anywhere.

[toberman]

The Costa Allegro was a fire. It was quickly extinguished. Yes they have no power and are being or were towed to port. But think how long it would take to tow the Oasis or Alure anywhere.

 

I understand that Paul.. the question was - wouldn't lager ships have back-up systems (hopefully segregated from each other) that would have prevented this total electrical failure from occurring?? Just a thought.

[paul929207]

How fig was the Carnival ship that lost power off Mexico a year or two ago? I thought that had 3000 or so passengers

[CruiserBruce]

Big doesn't mean more backups, as many things are proportionally sized on cruise ships, just like aircraft. 747s aren't really that much safer than, say 737s. DC10s were pretty big airplanes (for their day) but had a number of "issues", leading to a number of crashes.

 

"Newer" may mean more or better quality backups as technology improves.

[caa]

How fig was the Carnival ship that lost power off Mexico a year or two ago? I thought that had 3000 or so passengers

 

I believe you're thinking of the Carnival Splendor which had a fire in November 2010. She carried over 3000 passengers and over 1000 crew. The Splendor is a sister ship of the Costa Concordia.

[cruisemom42]

Being big didn't keep the Concordia from sinking.....

 

Also, I've been cruising long enough to have read stories here of ships from small to medium to large losing power for considerable amounts of time.

[loubetti]

As to safety size does not generally matter. They all have the necessary equipment, back-ups, etc. just like airplanes (I'm also a pilot).

 

Otherwise, the better ships are long gone. These were the old ocean liners that became cruise ships in their later years. Today we have what I call "tin ships". Low draft, thin hulled, high superstructure behemoths. Calm weather is best for them, and the captain knows when to run away from the bad stuff. The newest SOLAS regulations aside, these ships may comply, unlike the older ones, but many of those older ones could handle far rougher seas than these newer ones can.

 

If you want a huge ship (150,000+ GRT) that can handle most of what mother nature can dish out, it's Queen Mary 2, a true ocean liner. Most of the rest are jokes, despite their features. I was on QE2 when she hit an uncharted rock in August of 1992, we certainly did not end up like Costa Concordia! I was on QE2 a few months after she was struck by a 100' wave on the Atlantic ocean. Cunard waited almost a year before they replaced the dented plating on the foc'sle. It just wasn't an issue. A similar wave hitting most of the mega cruise ships today would have been disastrous.

 

Not trying to scare you, but just putting things into perspective.

[paul929207]

I believe you're thinking of the Carnival Splendor which had a fire in November 2010. She carried over 3000 passengers and over 1000 crew. The Splendor is a sister ship of the Costa Concordia.

Yes, it was the Splendor. Thanks. I was thinking that was it, but wasn't certain enought to give the name.

[Hlitner]

The two biggest disasters in the cruise industry were the Titanic and the Costa Concordia. They were both very large ships.

 

Hank

[Taxguy77]

The two biggest disasters in the cruise industry were the Titanic and the Costa Concordia. They were both very large ships.

 

Hank

 

The Andrea Doria was the pride of Italy and an almost new ship when she sunk.

 

I would guess that they could evacuate 1,000 pax faster than 3,000.

[bbwex]

An interesting thought.

 

As far as backup systems are concerned, they are about the same, though it is remotely possible that one of the super-gargantuan ships has their generators separated from one another, but short of a set of plans, who knows.

 

One problem with cruise ships is that they are not really designed to have redundant systems, and a single clogged fuel line (QE2), generator fire (Costa Allegro, and many others) can disable a ship. Cruise ships differ from aircraft in that they cannot infinitely cross-connect different fuel tanks with different generators, cannot totally isolate one generator from the others, etc. This has caused several notable ships adrift and needing help of late.

 

One thing to be aware of, and most are not, is that the biggest danger afloat is not sinking but rather fire. With the notable exception of the Costa Concordia and the total incompetence of the captain or whoever was on the bridge as the ship steamed full speed at an island, most of the recent events were caused by fires. It is a fact of life, and the thing that crews train for the most.

 

I doubt that a larger ship offers much extra in the way of safety. So the issue becomes whether there is an advantage to larger or smaller. Crews train for their particular ship, and the ultimate calamity requiring an abandoning of the ship should be about equal. I suppose that there could be some minimal advantage to a ship with smaller lifeboats, as it likely takes a few moments longer to load the larger ones, but the difference in size is not that great. A larger ship might offer the opportunity to get further from the problem (a fire), but that too is a modest difference that might not be relevant in a given situation.

 

Would a larger ship like the Titanic take longer to founder than a smaller ship with a similar sized gash -- probably. Would a smaller ship have been better able to maneuver -- probably. Is one of today's behemoths ultimately less stable if the fertilizer hits the ventilator -- possibly but that is a question for a naval architect and the particular circumstances.

 

At the end of the day, I doubt it makes a major difference. As the OP said, the chances are minute, and the various circumstances too varied to make one all-encompassing decision.

[KirkNC]

While safety is in the back of everyone's mind, if I had any legit concerns about it, I would not cruise at all.

[loubetti]

The two biggest disasters in the cruise industry were the Titanic and the Costa Concordia. They were both very large ships.

 

Hank

 

Huh?????

 

Ever hear of Andrea Doria? Empress of Ireland? Morro Castle?

 

Most folks have no idea of how many have died on passenger vessels.

 

Ever hear of Estonia? Likely not! 852, YES, 852 died there in 1994.

 

Comparing Concordia to Titanic is about a ludicrous as it gets. It's beyond comprehension. Titanic was less than half the size of Concordia.

 

Learn history, then come back and talk. Also, what is most likely the greatest loss of life EVER at sea on a single ship. Granted, it was during war time (it was sunk by torpedos), but it was a passenger vessel with mostly civilians on board. Anyone, anyone?

[CruiserBruce]

loubetta- I think you missed the point. At the time of the Titanic sinking, she was one of the largest ships afloat. So largest doesn't imply safer.

[luddite]

Huh?????

 

Ever hear of Andrea Doria? Empress of Ireland? Morro Castle?

 

Most folks have no idea of how many have died on passenger vessels.

 

Ever hear of Estonia? Likely not! 852, YES, 852 died there in 1994.

 

Comparing Concordia to Titanic is about a ludicrous as it gets. It's beyond comprehension. Titanic was less than half the size of Concordia.

 

Learn history, then come back and talk. Also, what is most likely the greatest loss of life EVER at sea on a single ship. Granted, it was during war time (it was sunk by torpedos), but it was a passenger vessel with mostly civilians on board. Anyone, anyone?

 

Lusitania. If i remember correctly.

[snaebyllej]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Wilhelm_Gustloff

[luddite]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Wilhelm_Gustloff

 

Was it ever a passenger liner?

[On Sail]

I understand that Paul.. the question was - wouldn't lager ships have back-up systems (hopefully segregated from each other) that would have prevented this total electrical failure from occurring?? Just a thought.

I have actually asked this question of someone I know in the business. The answer is NO, even the mega ships do not have a huge back up system that would run all the systems. They would still have a breakdown of the water, air conditioning, refrigeration of foods, etc. Only a small amount of back up power is available on ships of any size. Large or small ship, this fire would have caused the same breakdown of systems and the necessity of being towed.

 

Now, as far as a large ship being safer than a small ship? The answer would be different with each and every emergency and situation. There is no finite answer.