8 day crossings

[capnpugwash]

On the scheduled 8 day westbound crossings where the first port of call is Halifax NS, will passengers have to go through Canadian immigration and then later that week go through the same process in Brooklyn? I suspect that the answer is that they will have to do both, hardly an attractive prospect as far as I'm concerned.

 

Similarly will the Canadians want to process passengers a couple of days after QM2 sails from NYC, I'm sure that they will.

[Cruise Liner Fan]

On the scheduled 8 day westbound crossings where the first port of call is Halifax NS, will passengers have to go through Canadian immigration and then later that week go through the same process in Brooklyn? I suspect that the answer is that they will have to do both, hardly an attractive prospect as far as I'm concerned.

 

Similarly will the Canadians want to process passengers a couple of days after QM2 sails from NYC, I'm sure that they will.

Cap'n, Do you or anyone else here on this messageboard think that maybe possibly Cunard will have the QM2 go back to 6 day crossings once the price of fuel goes down? Regards,Jerry Edited November 3, 2013 by Cruise Liner Fan

[Salacia]

I've been to Port Halifax several times, most recently when QM2 docked there last September and July. On both occasions, we were give a short form to fill out for Canadian authorities prior to boarding in Red Hook. We had no other contact with Canadian immigration officials. I don't know if the procedure is any different for passengers on trans-Atlantic crossings. -S.

[capnpugwash]

Cap'n, Do you or anyone else here on this messageboard think that maybe possibly Cunard will have the QM2 go back to 6 day crossings once the price of fuel goes down? Regards,Jerry

 

Jerry, I think that it is unlikely as they have become used to the extra revenue from 7 day trips with the annual savings in port charges. I would like them to as I really miss the feeling of power as QM2 cut through the waves at 28 knots, now it feels more like the Staten Island Ferry than an ocean liner!

[Cruise Liner Fan]

Jerry, I think that it is unlikely as they have become used to the extra revenue from 7 day trips with the annual savings in port charges. I would like them to as I really miss the feeling of power as QM2 cut through the waves at 28 knots, now it feels more like the Staten Island Ferry than an ocean liner!

Cap'n, Well let's hope that Cunard does keep most of the QM2 crossings at 7 days, Though I have noticed that Cunard is offering a few 8 day QM2 crossings next year as well as this year. Regards,Jerry

Edited November 3, 2013 by Cruise Liner Fan

[Cruise Liner Fan]

I've been to Port Halifax several times, most recently when QM2 docked there last September and July. On both occasions, we were give a short form to fill out for Canadian authorities prior to boarding in Red Hook. We had no other contact with Canadian immigration officials. I don't know if the procedure is any different for passengers on trans-Atlantic crossings. -S.

Salacia, a few weeks ago on October 15th us passengers boarding the QM2 that day in Red Hook also had to fill out the same Canadian immigration forms. It was the same exact itinerary and New England/Canada cruise that you took the previous month. Regards,Jerry Edited November 3, 2013 by Cruise Liner Fan

[BlueRiband]

Somebody in another thread estimates that QM2 is only 2/3 full on this most recent 8-day crossing. If the 8-day crossing sell poorly perhaps Cunard will get the message that longer and longer crossings will meet with passenger resistance.

[Underwatr]

I recently received a survey from Cunard in which various transatlantic crossing options were presented - 7 days with no stops, 8 days with no stops, and 8 days with a stop in either Halifax or Boston. My response made it clear that an 8-day no-stop crossing was significantly less attractive than any other option.

[pmb1]

Cunard continues to stumble along without ever sending me a survey by which to benefit from my opinions and prejudices. So, I am obliged to ask them a question of my own:

 

Have you ever considered running a five-day crossing? Call it the RMS Queen Mary memorial crossing on the occasion of the whatever anniversary of whatever it was. Add a surcharge to the fares, of course, and require formal dress after 6 PM on all sea days.

 

I'd go. Would you?

[bobby1119]

now it feels more like the Staten Island Ferry than an ocean liner!

 

Spot-on Capn. Staten Island ferry actually goes faster.

[BlueRiband]

Cunard continues to stumble along without ever sending me a survey by which to benefit from my opinions and prejudices. So, I am obliged to ask them a question of my own:

 

Have you ever considered running a five-day crossing? Call it the RMS Queen Mary memorial crossing on the occasion of the whatever anniversary of whatever it was. Add a surcharge to the fares, of course, and require formal dress after 6 PM on all sea days.

 

I'd go. Would you?

 

In a heartbeat. But I think we're more likely to see Titanic II sail under the Verrazano Narrows Bridge.

[Classiccruiser777]

Not Cunard, but we have taken a couple of Alaska cruises r/t from Seattle. The evening before returning to Seattle we stopped in Victoria, BC for a quick port call. Aside from filling out a very short form that we dropped off at the Purser's Office we had no contact with Canadian immigration. I suspect the same process will be in effect next year when we stop in Halifax on QM2.

[Whitemarsh]

Cunard continues to stumble along without ever sending me a survey by which to benefit from my opinions and prejudices. So, I am obliged to ask them a question of my own:

 

Have you ever considered running a five-day crossing? Call it the RMS Queen Mary memorial crossing on the occasion of the whatever anniversary of whatever it was. Add a surcharge to the fares, of course, and require formal dress after 6 PM on all sea days.

 

I'd go. Would you?

 

Depends who's going.

[david,Mississauga]

Jerry, I think that it is unlikely as they have become used to the extra revenue from 7 day trips with the annual savings in port charges. I would like them to as I really miss the feeling of power as QM2 cut through the waves at 28 knots, now it feels more like the Staten Island Ferry than an ocean liner!

 

The five-day crossings on the QE2 were exciting. On one crossing about 40 years ago we left Southampton a half-day late and arrived in New York on time - a crossing of four and a half days. The fuel consumption must have caused palpitations in head office.

 

I haven't seen fuel vs speed charts for Cunard ships, but I remember the comparison on P&O's Canberra. It showed the fuel required at 27, 21 and 16 knots. On one cruise in the late 1980s the first leg, Southampton-Madeira, took three nights and a few years later on a similar cruise it was four nights.

[glojo]

If you look at the fuel used by the gas turbines just to move that huge ship a few knots quicker. It gets close to doubling the fuel consumption just to save a day on sailing times and even if 200 or maybe 500 folks were to sign a petition to have just one high speed crossing, would Cunard offer that one off trip?

 

As a youngster I really enjoyed standing on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier travelling at high speed. You would jump up off the deck and land yards away from where you 'took off'

 

On a small ship travelling at high speed... I once prayed we would SLOW DOWN just so I could get some sleep!!!

 

I would love to have been aboard the United States when she crossed the Atlantic in just three days!!!!

 

Would the Queen Mary on an eight day crossing make more profit being two thirds full, compared to a full ship doing a five day crossing? Fuel must be an eye watering expense and is this cost dictating scheduling on these crossings?

 

I was chatting to a friend just yesterday about visas and by coincidence we were talking about Canada. This is one of the few countries where UK citizens do not need one to visit that location as a tourist on a short stay holiday.

Edited November 4, 2013 by glojo

[turquoise 6]

On the East bound transatlantic sailings , there is Uk immigration on board .

West bound , the US immigration is in the port of Brooklyn

A stop over , in Halifax, from The US is filling a form

And proof of citizenship with a valid passport or US drivers license .

It may be the same for UK citizens .

Cunard makes the immigration process very smooth

And easy

[retafcruiser]

If you look at the fuel used by the gas turbines just to move that huge ship a few knots quicker. It gets close to doubling the fuel consumption just to save a day on sailing times.....

 

Poor engine design? QE2 didn't need a turbine to cruise at any speed because she had enough diesel power to handle it. I understand that now, with some ports having tight emission standards, a turbine is cleaner than a diesel - so the turbine is necessary for that. But not for cruising on the open sea.

[Underwatr]

Note that in general the friction force of the water against the ship varies as the square of the ship's speed. So there is more than twice the friction at 22 knots than at 15 knots, for example. But in addition, other resistance forces are a higher portion of total force at higher speed, including wave resistance, which varies as the square of speed at low speeds but increases much faster at high speeds. At high speeds wave resistance plus eddy resistance can be as much as 40 to 60% of total resistance.

 

And power required to propel a ship at speed V is equal to V * Total resistance, so the power required varies as the cube of speed.

 

More info at "Basic Principles of Ship Propulsion"

http://www.mandieselturbo.com/files/news/filesof17236/5510_004_02%20low[1].pdf

Edited November 4, 2013 by Underwatr

[glojo]

Poor engine design? QE2 didn't need a turbine to cruise at any speed because she had enough diesel power to handle it. I understand that now, with some ports having tight emission standards, a turbine is cleaner than a diesel - so the turbine is necessary for that. But not for cruising on the open sea.

I have never heard of gas turbine power being a requirement to comply with emission controls. Mr Payne has stated that the only time the gas turbines are used is to top up the power as and when the diesel engines cannot move the ship fast enough.

 

No doubt when this flagshp was planned, it was a viable option to steam at those higher speeds but as Underwatr has kindly pointed out.. It is now becoming extremely expensive to get the thing up on the plane :eek::D

[RJChatsworth]

In case anyone had any thoughts of going even slower, like a 9-day non-stop QM-2 TA crossing, a senior engineer told me that going slower than 8 days resulted in negative returns i.e. the engine efficiency is such that more oil is used on an 9-day crossing than on an 8-day crossing.

[Kiltboys]

I have never heard of gas turbine power being a requirement to comply with emission controls. Mr Payne has stated that the only time the gas turbines are used is to top up the power as and when the diesel engines cannot move the ship fast enough.

 

No doubt when this flagshp was planned, it was a viable option to steam at those higher speeds but as Underwatr has kindly pointed out.. It is now becoming extremely expensive to get the thing up on the plane :eek::D

 

During his talks onboard Stephen Payne listed a couple of things that he would design differently with the power of hindsight. The engine/ fuel situation ranked #1.

[fantasy51]

I had a quick look at voyages for next year and noticed some 14-day voyages on QV that were 12-day voyages this year. I don't know how common this is. I wonder if this is also part of the trend to go more slowly. Of course, this will make shareholders eligible for $250 shareholders benefit instead of the $100 for 12-day cruises.

[DDBINK1]

I have never heard of gas turbine power being a requirement to comply with emission controls. Mr Payne has stated that the only time the gas turbines are used is to top up the power as and when the diesel engines cannot move the ship fast enough.

 

No doubt when this flagshp was planned, it was a viable option to steam at those higher speeds but as Underwatr has kindly pointed out.. It is now becoming extremely expensive to get the thing up on the plane :eek::D

 

There are some new emission control guidelines now taking effect or soon to take effect in the US that have changed some of the cruise lines use of diesel. The levels of sulfur emission has to meet a new standard if I remember right. ??

[capnpugwash]

There are some new emission control guidelines now taking effect or soon to take effect in the US that have changed some of the cruise lines use of diesel. The levels of sulfur emission has to meet a new standard if I remember right. ??

 

Yes it's the grade of fuel that is burned that is being legislated, not the type of engine that burns it.

[glojo]

Yes it's the grade of fuel that is burned that is being legislated, not the type of engine that burns it.

That is what I always thought as these huge diesel engines do not burn the fuel that trucks or cars use. The diesel engine is more to do with how the engine operates rather than the fuel it burns.