QM2 no longer a TransAtlantic LINER

[bazzaw]

As we saw when she left New York prior to that storm, she quite wisely, quite understandably went around it!

No ship can take on the full force of nature.

 

 

I think that most probably this was primarily for the comfort of the passengers.

 

Barry

[bazzaw]

HEAD ON?? you mean bow first? if so, this is what Ocean liners do in heavy seas...

 

But Vista class ships are NOT ocean liners :D

 

Barry

[turquoise 6]

But Vista class ships are NOT ocean liners :D

 

Barry

Including vista ships, fishing trollers,

Container ships, tug boats

Bow into waves or the vessel could tip:rolleyes:

[vjmatty]

That's sad. The Qm2 has lost it's legacy to be a True TransAtlantic liner, as was the QE2 and those Cunard ships before. The QM2 has given up or lost

the NEW YORK port base , and the regular Liner schedule.

 

I don't understand.... if you want to tour Europe or Noth America in addition to crossing the Atlantic, isn't it easier to stay on the same ship for the cruise portion rather than change to a cruise ship then back to a liner for the trip home? Why lament the dual use of the QM2 that gives you the best of both worlds?

[turquoise 6]

I don't understand.... if you want to tour Europe or Noth America in addition to crossing the Atlantic, isn't it easier to stay on the same ship for the cruise portion rather than change to a cruise ship then back to a liner for the trip home? Why lament the dual use of the QM2 that gives you the best of both worlds?

Not for me. I always enjoyed the back to back from NY

And sometimes

I don't enjoy the extended cruises nor do I have the min of 21days

The Qm2 is not a cruise ship, but an Ocean liner

You can pick up the Qv or Qm for cruises in Europe

& you can a change of ships.

[vjmatty]

Not for me. I always enjoyed the back to back from NY

And sometimes

I don't enjoy the extended cruises nor do I have the min of 21days

The Qm2 is not a cruise ship, but an Ocean liner

You can pick up the Qv or Qm for cruises in Europe

& you can a change of ships.

 

Seriously? You would rather change ships twice just to limit the QM2 to crossings?

 

Like I said in another thread, if you are interested in just being on a ship without actually traveling or seeing other cities or countries, why not just spend two weeks on the Queen Mary? Now THAT is a liner :)

[turquoise 6]

Seriously? You would rather change ships twice just to limit the QM2 to crossings?

 

Like I said in another thread, if you are interested in just being on a ship without actually traveling or seeing other cities or countries, why not just spend two weeks on the Queen Mary? Now THAT is a liner :)

I like transatlantic crossing. I like the rt from new york. 14 days. I like sailing across the Ocean. Have NO INTEREST in going to california and staying

in the Queen Mary Hotel. (which sailed on , when I was a child) I am not Interested on a European cruise on the QM2.

I am Not Interested

Edited March 9, 2013 by turquoise 6

[glojo]

Naval architecture is a VERY specialised subject which is way, way above my pay grade and I do not pretend to know anything about this topic.

 

I have read posts on this thread that must surely come from some very knowledgeable folk as they are talking about a ship's draft as being connected to a ship's stability. Much respect to them for their knowledge and it did make me smile as there has always been the debate of 'short and wide verses long and thin' traditionally warships have conformed to the latter whereas some naval architects have tried to suggest a more stable platform would be shorter and wider.

 

Does draft mean more stability?

 

I love the lines of the old ocean going liners, they just exhume both style and elegance, BUT... Were they more stable, were they better sea going ships capable of better sea keeping? My heart says you bet but my brain says I doubt it! All I know is that any LARGE cruise ship or liner would steam through seas a much SMALLER warship could not possibly dream of doing. We would stand in awe as these huge vessels would glide serenely by as we were riding out conditions they dismissed with utter contempt but...

 

The old Queen Mary had a length of 1019ft the new one 1354

Old had a beam of 118ft (36m) new one 135Ft (41m)

DRAFT.... 39ft (11.9m) new Queen Mary 2 33ft (10.1m)

 

The old Queen Mary used to roll like a pig and eventually had to have stabilisers fitted to give her some degree of comfort but note the draft of this ship!

 

To glibly suggest that draft is the be all and end all of a ship's stability might not be as black and white as some will try to pretend.

 

We talk about an ocean liner and state that the modern cruise ship is never going go compare to these fine ships but in reality are we perhaps romanticising and living in the past?

 

For those of a delicate disposition I suggest you look away now but for those that believe draft is the answer then how would you fare if the ship rolled to this type of angle

Prior to her refit the old Queen Mary had occassionally reached this amount of roll and sopmetimes slightly more... For a frigate this would be nothiong unusual and would simply get the chefs cursing the bridgestaff.

 

I would respectfully suggest that most of you folks have NEVER experienced this type of movement (I accept some might have)

 

Once the old Queen Mary had those magic stabilisers fitted she never again rolled as much BUT her movement was still way, way more severe than these modern cruise ships.

 

A trifle gaudy but it caters for a certain market, however the lines of this hull are to me the lines that Cunard should look at?? The superstructure needs a whole new rethink and perhaps the Queen Elzabeth superstructure could be super glued in place of what it has at this moment in time? ;):(

 

 

As I said right at the biginning of this post... I know NOTHING about Naval Architecture and this post is wrote to stimulate debate and perhaps denounce what has been stated about 'draft' :)

[vjmatty]

I like transatlantic crossing. I like the rt from new york. 14 days. I like sailing across the Ocean. Have NO INTEREST in going to california and staying

in the Queen Mary Hotel. (which sailed on , when I was a child) I am not Interested on a European cruise on the QM2.

I am Not Interested

 

I suppose I could do a RT transatlantic if I did a land vacation in Europe in between.....like this year we are crossing on QE and spending a week in France, but we have to fly back because I have other commitments that would prevent me from waiting for the next crossing.

 

In fact, I would say the best vacation I ever had was in April 2008.... when we crossed NY to Southampton on QE2, spent 4 days in Paris and then crossed back on QM2. It was our fifth anniversary, our first sailing on a Cunard ship and my first time in Paris. Unfortunately being down to one liner, it is now rare to have such perfect timing that allows a short stay on land between crossings.

[Whitemarsh]

Not for me. I always enjoyed the back to back from NY

And sometimes

I don't enjoy the extended cruises nor do I have the min of 21days

The Qm2 is not a cruise ship, but an Ocean liner

You can pick up the Qv or Qm for cruises in Europe

& you can a change of ships.

 

Oh okay. But that's not what you said back in post number 31 on this thread.

 

You said:

The QM2 is NOT a ferry,It is a cruise ship. It was intended to be an Ocean Liner,but didn't live up to that role.

 

So which is it? A cruise ship or an ocean liner?

Edited March 9, 2013 by Whitemarsh

[Whitemarsh]

For those of a delicate disposition I suggest you look away now but for those that believe draft is the answer then how would you fare if the ship rolled to this type of angle

Prior to her refit the old Queen Mary had occassionally reached this amount of roll and sopmetimes slightly more... For a frigate this would be nothiong unusual and would simply get the chefs cursing the bridgestaff.

 

I would respectfully suggest that most of you folks have NEVER experienced this type of movement (I accept some might have)

 

Hi Glojo,

 

I experienced that type of movement routinely during my latest QM2 voyage. The cumulative effect of pre-dinner drinks in the Chart Room and the free-flowing wine at dinner (courtesy of the hosted table) meant that exiting the Britannia restaurant was a real struggle. What made it all the more difficult was that on some nights there were four staircases! ;)

[Cruachan]

Hi Glojo,

 

I experienced that type of movement routinely during my latest QM2 voyage. The cumulative effect of pre-dinner drinks in the Chart Room and the free-flowing wine at dinner (courtesy of the hosted table) meant that exiting the Britannia restaurant was a real struggle. What made it all the more difficult was that on some nights there were four staircases! ;)

 

If you had drunk well but not too wisely, I would have thought you would have welcomed the extra choice! :D

 

J

[glojo]

Hi Glojo,

 

I experienced that type of movement routinely during my latest QM2 voyage. The cumulative effect of pre-dinner drinks in the Chart Room and the free-flowing wine at dinner (courtesy of the hosted table) meant that exiting the Britannia restaurant was a real struggle. What made it all the more difficult was that on some nights there were four staircases! ;)

And that was when this 'ferry' was in harbour, tied up alongside the wall ;):)

 

A wonderful, wonderful ship be it a cruise ship or liner and are there any mainstream cruise companies that can boast a similar style ship?

[vjmatty]

Oh okay. But that's not what you said back in post number 31 on this thread.

 

You said:

 

 

So which is it? A cruise ship or an ocean liner?

 

I think the OP is simply suffering from Golden Age Syndrome... much as I hate to cite fiction, this phenomenon something well illustrated in a movie who's name is escaping me but the main character thought the 1920's were the golden age, and in the movie he goes back to the 1920's and his love interest in that era thinks the Belle Epoch was the golden age, so they are both transported to that era, then they met Gauguin and Lautrec, who wish they lived in the Renaissance... it is all a matter of perspective.

 

The judge I practice in front of often complains about how we did just fine before cell phones and laptops, wishing for when things were simpler.... I said "well your honor, do you really want to go back to smoking at counsel tables and relying on mail for emergency relief?"

 

Interestingly, the "14-day back to back" the OP refers to is a relatively new thing, crossings were traditionally 6 days each way up until a couple of years ago. Like his honor, it's funny how we pick and choose the things we want from the old days and forget how things really were. Does the OP want to go back to the class system as well?

[Cruachan]

...it's funny how we pick and choose the things we want from the old days and forget how things really were. Does the OP want to go back to the class system as well?

 

Excellent point - some people also seem to base their perception of their chosen "golden age of sea travel" entirely on the conditions enjoyed by First Class passengers. I can't afford the Grills now and I couldn't have afforded first class then - indeed, I couldn't have afforded to set foot on the deck of a Cunard ship then! Either way, I have no wish whatsoever to return to any golden age if it involves hiking along the corridor to go to the lavatory or eating boring, stone cold food that was congealing on the plate by the time it had made the long jurney from the galley to the table. Nor do I wish to be confined within a restricted area of the ship - even if I can dance on the table and hammer away on a bodhrán.

 

I am also not in any way whatever obsessed with the idea that I must, at all costs, travel on a transatlantic liner. I'm quite happy with a cruise ship - I wouldn't consider buying a Lamborghini Aventador just to do the weekly grocery shop, so why should Cunard build transatlantic liners for pottering around the Mediterranean?

 

J

[Whitemarsh]

I think the OP is simply suffering from Golden Age Syndrome... much as I hate to cite fiction, this phenomenon something well illustrated in a movie who's name is escaping me but the main character thought the 1920's were the golden age, and in the movie he goes back to the 1920's and his love interest in that era thinks the Belle Epoch was the golden age, so they are both transported to that era, then they met Gauguin and Lautrec, who wish they lived in the Renaissance... it is all a matter of perspective.

 

The judge I practice in front of often complains about how we did just fine before cell phones and laptops, wishing for when things were simpler.... I said "well your honor, do you really want to go back to smoking at counsel tables and relying on mail for emergency relief?"

 

Interestingly, the "14-day back to back" the OP refers to is a relatively new thing, crossings were traditionally 6 days each way up until a couple of years ago. Like his honor, it's funny how we pick and choose the things we want from the old days and forget how things really were. Does the OP want to go back to the class system as well?

 

I think you're hit the nail on the head. We often see statements to the effect of "it's not as good as the QE2" on the Cunard boards and I've always thought that there must have been someone on board the QE2 who thought it wasn't as good as the Queen Mary. Travelling on the Queen Mary would have been someone who thought it wasn't as good as the Mauritania. Counting down the days till the end of their "worst crossing ever" on the Mauritania would have been someone who thought it wasn't as good as the Great Eastern - and so on etc etc.

 

I was having this very discussion with someone on board QM2 just the other week. We both thought that sentimentality played a big part in our perceptions and perhaps we all hold a candle for the first ship we sailed on regularly and this is why some people find it difficult to move on and embrace the 'replacements'.

 

Things do have to change - but I am very glad that Cunard has kept the best things from it's history (the formality & afternoon tea etc etc) whilst updating their ships and moving with the times in terms of the accommodation and all that.

[glojo]

I think you're hit the nail on the head. We often see statements to the effect of "it's not as good as the QE2" on the Cunard boards and I've always thought that there must have been someone on board the QE2 who thought it wasn't as good as the Queen Mary. Travelling on the Queen Mary would have been someone who thought it wasn't as good as the Mauritania. Counting down the days till the end of their "worst crossing ever" on the Mauritania would have been someone who thought it wasn't as good as the Great Eastern - and so on etc etc.

 

I was having this very discussion with someone on board QM2 just the other week. We both thought that sentimentality played a big part in our perceptions and perhaps we all hold a candle for the first ship we sailed on regularly and this is why some people find it difficult to move on and embrace the 'replacements'.

 

Things do have to change - but I am very glad that Cunard has kept the best things from it's history (the formality & afternoon tea etc etc) whilst updating their ships and moving with the times in terms of the accommodation and all that.

Wise words and I totally agree. Folks tend to look at these issues with very rose tinted glasses.

[Cruachan]

I think you're hit the nail on the head. We often see statements to the effect of "it's not as good as the QE2" on the Cunard boards and I've always thought that there must have been someone on board the QE2 who thought it wasn't as good as the Queen Mary. Travelling on the Queen Mary would have been someone who thought it wasn't as good as the Mauritania. Counting down the days till the end of their "worst crossing ever" on the Mauritania would have been someone who thought it wasn't as good as the Great Eastern - and so on etc etc.

 

I was having this very discussion with someone on board QM2 just the other week. We both thought that sentimentality played a big part in our perceptions and perhaps we all hold a candle for the first ship we sailed on regularly and this is why some people find it difficult to move on and embrace the 'replacements'.

 

Things do have to change - but I am very glad that Cunard has kept the best things from it's history (the formality & afternoon tea etc etc) whilst updating their ships and moving with the times in terms of the accommodation and all that.

 

Well, I guess I'm bucking the trend. My first cruise was on QE2 and I enjoyed it enormously - but having now experienced what's on offer on a modern cruise ship for significantly less than I paid for an inside cabin on QE2, I wouldn't willingly repeat the "QE2 experience".

 

J

[vjmatty]

I think you're hit the nail on the head. We often see statements to the effect of "it's not as good as the QE2" on the Cunard boards and I've always thought that there must have been someone on board the QE2 who thought it wasn't as good as the Queen Mary. Travelling on the Queen Mary would have been someone who thought it wasn't as good as the Mauritania. Counting down the days till the end of their "worst crossing ever" on the Mauritania would have been someone who thought it wasn't as good as the Great Eastern - and so on etc etc.

 

Well said.... in fact when QE2 came out with all of her 1960's trendy decor I am sure it was considered by many to be an abomination. If only they'd had message boards back then so we could read all of the pearl-clutchy horror people expressed :)

 

By the way, if you are ever in Rotterdam, take a few hours to explore the original SS Rotterdam which is now a hotel and museum just like the Queen Mary but obviously a few decades newer.... talk about stepping back in time into the 60's! Everything looks brand new and is in perfect condition, as if time stopped in 1969. It is really a treat!

Edited March 9, 2013 by vjmatty
Bad typos!

[3rdGenCunarder]

Well, I guess I'm bucking the trend. My first cruise was on QE2 and I enjoyed it enormously - but having now experienced what's on offer on a modern cruise ship for significantly less than I paid for an inside cabin on QE2, I wouldn't willingly repeat the "QE2 experience".

 

J

 

I would do it in a heartbeat if it were possible! But that is definitely sentimentality talking, and not a conviction that EVERYTHING was better on QE2. Yes, some things were better, but other things were not. What was better was the intangible feeling of "home." I think that's because so many passengers were multi-trip repeat passengers and so many of the crew had worked on her for so long. There was a sort of continuity that's all gone now. So if someone with more money than brains could buy her and make her SOLAS compliant to sail her again, it wouldn't be the "QE2 experience" as I knew it. That's gone, and I'm glad I enjoyed it while I could.

 

 

Well said.... in fact when QE2 came out with all of her 1960's trendy decor I am sure it was considered by many to be an abomination. If only they'd had message boards back then so we could read all of the pearl-clutchy horror people expressed :)

 

Oh, yes, lots of people thought QE2 was an unaccaptable successor to QM and QE. One of our later voyages on QE2 was an author-themed crossing. We happened to walk into the Captain's party shortly after Dick Francis and his son and DIL. So I chatted with them a bit--how could I not take advantage of the chance to meet a favorite author!!! I said something about QE2's days being numbered and that QM2 was nice, but I'd never love her as I loved QE2. Felix Francis laughed and said his father had felt the same way about QE2 replacing QM and QE.

 

I never sailed on QE2 in her "plastic furniture" days, so I laugh shen I see the photos (Austin Powers at sea, baby!). Over the years we did sail on QE2, Cunard got more and more into "traditional" decor, and away from her original "mod" look.

[Cruachan]

I would do it in a heartbeat if it were possible! But that is definitely sentimentality talking, and not a conviction that EVERYTHING was better on QE2. Yes, some things were better, but other things were not. What was better was the intangible feeling of "home."

 

Well, I think that, because I only had one cruise on QE2, and have now had three on QV (with a fourth booked), I have managed easily to transfer that "home feeling" to Queen Victoria - especially as there are several waiters and other staff on board that we first met on QE2.

 

J

[vjmatty]

Well, I think that, because I only had one cruise on QE2, and have now had three on QV (with a fourth booked), I have managed easily to transfer that "home feeling" to Queen Victoria - especially as there are several waiters and other staff on board that we first met on QE2.

 

J

 

Same here.... in fact my last two QV sailings were in the same year, only 5 months apart, so on the second boarding it almost felt like I hadn't left. Even the too-chilly temperature walking through the Queens Room wings was the same, luckily I remembered to bring a comfy little crocheted sweater :)

[flag fan]

Excellent point - some people also seem to base their perception of their chosen "golden age of sea travel" entirely on the conditions enjoyed by First Class passengers. I can't afford the Grills now and I couldn't have afforded first class then - indeed, I couldn't have afforded to set foot on the deck of a Cunard ship then! Either way, I have no wish whatsoever to return to any golden age if it involves hiking along the corridor to go to the lavatory or eating boring, stone cold food that was congealing on the plate by the time it had made the long jurney from the galley to the table. Nor do I wish to be confined within a restricted area of the ship - even if I can dance on the table and hammer away on a bodhrán.

 

I am also not in any way whatever obsessed with the idea that I must, at all costs, travel on a transatlantic liner. I'm quite happy with a cruise ship - I wouldn't consider buying a Lamborghini Aventador just to do the weekly grocery shop, so why should Cunard build transatlantic liners for pottering around the Mediterranean?

 

J

 

I think you made an excellent point about how people tend to think of the golden age of sail in terms of travel by first class passengers, rather than second or third class--and it was those lower classes that made money for the ocean liners. When those waves of immigrants stopped sailing to America by ship the trans-Atlantic ocean liners were no longer economically viable. Even when thinking of travel by first class, people tend to focus on the best aspects of cruising in the old days--the personalized service, the elegant dress, the glamour--not the clouds of cigar smoke, the lack of alternative dining restaurants, the lack of balconies, limited entertainment (wi-hi anyone?), no balconies, and the sicksickness--no stabilizers back then.

 

I think the Queen Mary 2 is an ocean liner by being designed through its hull shape to sail a regular schedule in the North Atlantic--no matter the weather--without delays. That does not mean it is economically viable to use the ship for that purpose. If Cunard can fill the ship more easily by sailing to ports, rather than all-sea routes, the number of Transatlantics will decrease.

[rubrrick]

I think you're hit the nail on the head. We often see statements to the effect of "it's not as good as the QE2" on the Cunard boards and I've always thought that there must have been someone on board the QE2 who thought it wasn't as good as the Queen Mary. Travelling on the Queen Mary would have been someone who thought it wasn't as good as the Mauritania. Counting down the days till the end of their "worst crossing ever" on the Mauritania would have been someone who thought it wasn't as good as the Great Eastern - and so on etc etc.

 

I was having this very discussion with someone on board QM2 just the other week. We both thought that sentimentality played a big part in our perceptions and perhaps we all hold a candle for the first ship we sailed on regularly and this is why some people find it difficult to move on and embrace the 'replacements'.

 

Things do have to change - but I am very glad that Cunard has kept the best things from it's history (the formality & afternoon tea etc etc) whilst updating their ships and moving with the times in terms of the accommodation and all that.

 

So, reading all that have been written since your statement, and knowing that you experienced Queens Grill on your last portion of the "worlds cruise", how would you compare that to a 1st class ticket on an airline?

 

Now comes the real ticker...........what airline??

 

Singapore used to lead the way, until there was the Emirates Now that has gone by the wayside for another middle eastern airline that does not just give you a suite seat, but your own lounge.

 

So goes the cruise lines, which is still why I'm so enthralled in the voyage......er. crossing with the QM2.

 

Rick

[turquoise 6]

Naval architecture is a VERY specialised subject which is way, way above my pay grade and I do not pretend to know anything about this topic.

 

I have read posts on this thread that must surely come from some very knowledgeable folk as they are talking about a ship's draft as being connected to a ship's stability. Much respect to them for their knowledge and it did make me smile as there has always been the debate of 'short and wide verses long and thin' traditionally warships have conformed to the latter whereas some naval architects have tried to suggest a more stable platform would be shorter and wider.

 

Does draft mean more stability?

 

I love the lines of the old ocean going liners, they just exhume both style and elegance, BUT... Were they more stable, were they better sea going ships capable of better sea keeping? My heart says you bet but my brain says I doubt it! All I know is that any LARGE cruise ship or liner would steam through seas a much SMALLER warship could not possibly dream of doing. We would stand in awe as these huge vessels would glide serenely by as we were riding out conditions they dismissed with utter contempt but...

 

The old Queen Mary had a length of 1019ft the new one 1354

Old had a beam of 118ft (36m) new one 135Ft (41m)

DRAFT.... 39ft (11.9m) new Queen Mary 2 33ft (10.1m)

 

The old Queen Mary used to roll like a pig and eventually had to have stabilisers fitted to give her some degree of comfort but note the draft of this ship!

 

To glibly suggest that draft is the be all and end all of a ship's stability might not be as black and white as some will try to pretend.

 

We talk about an ocean liner and state that the modern cruise ship is never going go compare to these fine ships but in reality are we perhaps romanticising and living in the past?

 

For those of a delicate disposition I suggest you look away now but for those that believe draft is the answer then how would you fare if the ship rolled to this type of angle

Prior to her refit the old Queen Mary had occassionally reached this amount of roll and sopmetimes slightly more... For a frigate this would be nothiong unusual and would simply get the chefs cursing the bridgestaff.

 

I would respectfully suggest that most of you folks have NEVER experienced this type of movement (I accept some might have)

 

Once the old Queen Mary had those magic stabilisers fitted she never again rolled as much BUT her movement was still way, way more severe than these modern cruise ships.

 

A trifle gaudy but it caters for a certain market, however the lines of this hull are to me the lines that Cunard should look at?? The superstructure needs a whole new rethink and perhaps the Queen Elzabeth superstructure could be super glued in place of what it has at this moment in time? ;):(

 

 

As I said right at the biginning of this post... I know NOTHING about Naval Architecture and this post is wrote to stimulate debate and perhaps denounce what has been stated about 'draft' :)

so what do you think?