Bring back the 5 day crossings!!!

[Underwatr]

Regardless of the higher cost of turbine fuel vs. diesel fuel, the required power to move a ship varies by the square of the speed. If the ship could move that fast tickets would cost moremthan a business class plane ticket.

[Mid-Atlantic Ridge]

Hi Mid Atlantic Ridge,

 

My understanding is no, she is not.

She was designed with six-day crossings in mind.

 

Of course QM2 is much larger than QM or QE, and twice the size of QE2. So QM2's power plant (four diesels & two turbines) has to push (or in her case pull) a much larger ship through the water.

Furthermore I would imagine that the "hotel" uses far more of the available power on QM2 than on the previous three Queens.

 

Her power plant output is roughly equal to that of the original two Queens, and much more powerful than QE2's (esp compared to the original steam powerplant).

But given the larger hull, with similar total power available, she was never going to attain the previous Queens top speeds, nor was she designed to match them.

 

(On a similar subject, I was told that the modern QE and QV's power plant output is not far short of what QE2's steam power plant was capable of producing. However, the top speed of QE2 (under steam) of 32.66 knots far exceeds the current sisters top speed of 23.7 knots. This is not only a reflection of the greater power requirement of the "hotel", but also indicates the inefficiency of their blunt/box-like hulls compared with the graceful, stunning and wonderfully efficient hull of QE2 (and of the hull of QM2, which looked to QE2 for inspiration in many ways for the design of sections of the hull, esp the bows)).

 

(If I have any of the above wrong, I am very willing to be corrected)

 

Best wishes,

 

Thank you I appreciate your detailed reply. The one off five night crossing appears a non starter even if there was a will to do it, the best we could ever have would be six. By extension, the forthcoming reconfiguration may also have a consequence for speed in respect of increased weight and extra power usage for hotel services in addition to the obvious change in aesthetics of the vessel.

 

M-AR

[sfbearcat]

As in almost all things-cash is the issue. Stephen Payne stated that QM2 could not make more than 23 knots without her gas turbines; with them she can make 29-30, Gas Oil is much more expensive than bunker fuel. I heard somewhere that HQ has to approve use of the turbines-so I suppose it’s when she has to make up time such consent is given-that’s part of her being a liner. Stephen has also said in lectures that knowing what is now known, he would have built in another diesel rather than the turbines given their present cost of operation. If I recall, other lines has gotten rid of their gas turbines due to cost.

But QM2 is special and I love her!:D

 

We would have a better chance of still enjoying the faster crossings had Stephen Payne not been convinced by alstom to build in gas turbines instead of the all diesel power he had first proposed...I am just hoping that cunard never switches to an 8 day standard..which hopefully is not planned..a few 8day crossings were cut back to 7 and the remaining 2 out of NYC are 8 days only because of the stop in Halifax..

[sfbearcat]

Hi Mid Atlantic Ridge,

 

My understanding is no, she is not.

She was designed with six-day crossings in mind.

 

Of course QM2 is much larger than QM or QE, and twice the size of QE2. So QM2's power plant (four diesels & two turbines) has to push (or in her case pull) a much larger ship through the water.

Furthermore I would imagine that the "hotel" uses far more of the available power on QM2 than on the previous three Queens.

 

Her power plant output is roughly equal to that of the original two Queens, and much more powerful than QE2's (esp compared to the original steam powerplant).

But given the larger hull, with similar total power available, she was never going to attain the previous Queens top speeds, nor was she designed to match them.

 

(On a similar subject, I was told that the modern QE and QV's power plant output is not far short of what QE2's steam power plant was capable of producing. However, the top speed of QE2 (under steam) of 32.66 knots far exceeds the current sisters top speed of 23.7 knots. This is not only a reflection of the greater power requirement of the "hotel", but also indicates the inefficiency of their blunt/box-like hulls compared with the graceful, stunning and wonderfully efficient hull of QE2 (and of the hull of QM2, which looked to QE2 for inspiration in many ways for the design of sections of the hull, esp the bows)).

 

(If I have any of the above wrong, I am very willing to be corrected)

 

Best wishes,

 

Lets see what happens to her profile and top speed when this extra deck is added..I hope it does not ruin her looks and ride quality

Edited November 7, 2015 by sfbearcat

[Rotterdam]

My wish for 5 days crossings is just that.....the longer crossings are a result of ships that built primarily as a cruise ships & not ocean liners as QE2 & FRANCE. QM2 is basically an oversized cruise ship. The financial end of it is just market driven...the experience is totally different today from what I experienced back in the 1960's & 1970's.understandably so. But the quality of the experience has been reduced to a point where 3+ extra days on NYC-S'Hampton is just not attractive - no matter the cost. It's unbelievable to know that some 7 day crossings can be had for $600 pp. Yes the true luxury experience is a thing of the past - even in Princess & Queens Grill - which is more akin to a Sheraton hotel. People dress as if they are going to the supermarket/ mall rather than having a luxury experience as marketed by Carnivore Corp. This is just another business that has changed and the products quality reduced to meet financial goals dictated by the bean counters. Certainly a business is run for profit - but perhaps the management should develop a product that entices a consumer to return based on quality & not how cheap they can make w/reductions in staff, cost cutting & additional cabins.

[pepperrn]

My wish for 5 days crossings is just that.....the longer crossings are a result of ships that built primarily as a cruise ships & not ocean liners as QE2 & FRANCE. QM2 is basically an oversized cruise ship.... .

Hi Rotterdam

 

I'm afraid that you've gotten your ships rather confused.

 

SS France was the last "pure" major liner constructed, and she turned out to be a financial white elephant for the French Line and the French Government.

 

However, QE2 and QM2 are either BOTH liners than can cruise, or BOTH cruise ships that can do line voyages on a regular basis. They were BOTH built with the same end in mind; to serve equally well as liners on the north Atlantic, and as cruise ships in the winter months. That is the genius of their design. You cannot separate one from the other.

 

Had QE2 not been constructed as a dual-purpose liner/cruise ship, but built as a pure liner, she would have gone the same way as the France after twelve years; she didn't 'cus she wasn't.

The proof of this is almost 40 years of service. QM2 was designed the same way, dual-purpose liner/cruise ship.

 

And don't forget, Cunard came very close to copying the huge mistake made by the French Line by ordering a "pure liner" themselves in the early 60s. Thankfully they saw sense and ordered a dual-purpose liner/cruise ship instead; QE2.

 

For example, France didn't have a single outside pool (not needed on a pure traditional transatlantic liner), QE2 had two outside pools (very much needed on a cruise ship destined for warm waters).

 

In fact, if you want to take one ship out of the three you mention as being the exception, you should remove QE2. The other two being all-steel, four propeller vessels. Not a half-aluminum, two-propeller ship.

Both SS France and RMS Queen Mary 2 were, of course, the longest passenger ships in the world when they entered service.

 

I realise that nostalgia is a lovely thing, but you seem to have overlooked the negative press and poor passenger reaction that accompanied both France and QE2 when they entered service from people who could remember the Normandie, or who were regulars on "the Queens". The poor interior design and finish of France, and the space-age interiors of QE2 upset a lot of people. Cunard spent a great deal of money over the next 40 years toning down those interiors.

 

I say again, QE2 and QM2 are both liners AND cruise ships. That is why they were/are successful. A "pure liner" wouldn't last five minutes today (there not being enough ship-nuts like me out there to fill an Isle of Wight Ferry on a regular basis).

 

Best wishes to you, and many happy sailings :)

Edited November 10, 2015 by pepperrn

[BlueRiband]

.... But the quality of the experience has been reduced to a point where 3+ extra days on NYC-S'Hampton is just not attractive - no matter the cost. It's unbelievable to know that some 7 day crossings can be had for $600 pp. Yes the true luxury experience is a thing of the past - even in Princess & Queens Grill - which is more akin to a Sheraton hotel. People dress as if they are going to the supermarket/ mall rather than having a luxury experience as marketed by Carnivore Corp. This is just another business that has changed and the products quality reduced to meet financial goals dictated by the bean counters. ...

 

You make some valid points but the blame is to be shifted onto the demands of the traveling public rather than "Carnivore" corporation. (There would be no QM2 had "Carnivore" not bought Cunard.)

 

Everything has its cost. When 7-day crossings go for $600pp there are going to be cutbacks. Yet not too long ago somebody started a thread that celebrated this "great news". Another person boasted of sailing only on "smoking hot deals". So I'm aware that even 7-day crossings are an endangered species if the now-typical Cunard passenger is oriented toward lowest price - a price that cannot be sustained without fuel and other economies.

 

I'll not start a dress code rant as all regular posters here know where I stand on this one. It will be interesting to see if the "Blue Note Jazz" sailings have enough popularity for Cunard to continue or even expand them. (I hope they fail.) The only formal night on a crossing is going to have seriously compromised dress standards since many will decide it not to be worthwhile to pack formal wear for just one night.:mad:

 

In the end, it all depends on what passengers are willing to pay for. We would still have service, standards, and schedules like QE2 if people were still willing to pay QE2 pricing. They're voting with their wallets that they are not willing to do so.

[tv24]

Pepper: Your Christmas wish list is too cute. And Rotterdam, sign me up for the 5-day crossing, not that it's going to happen. Also sign me up for Le Havre arrivals/departures. Whatever happened to those?

[pepperrn]

Using a 1982 Cunard brochure (UK) I've just done some very quick and very approximate calculations regarding sailing on QE2 transatlantic back then, and introduce inflation over the last thirty-three years. The £-$ conversion rate is today's (not the £-$ rate in 1982, which I couldn't find).

Someone else may get different figures of course, this is all very unscientific!

 

(The fares below are one-way sail only (ie no return flight incl), Summer Peak fares, and are per-person. To make the similarities fairer I've ignored QE2 cabins with bunks, and have used an outside cabin with porthole as similar to a current Britannia sheltered-balcony cabin. The 1st Class cabin would, I think, be equivalent to a Q5 on QM2, and lastly the top suite shown would equate to a Q1 today).

 

Inside cabin.

1982 £755 or $1,145. With inflation £2,588 or $3,924

 

Outside cabin.

1982 £800 or $1,213. With inflation £2,743 or $4,159

 

Ist Class cabin.

1982 £1,630 or $2,741. With inflation £5,589 or $8,476

 

Top suite.

1982 £2,860 or $4,337. With inflation £9,806 or $14,871

 

(Any mistakes are not mine of course ;), they are completely the fault of my calculator and an "inflation" website I used ;) , and nothing to do with the fact that I can't add up! :D )

 

Happy sailings to all :)

Edited November 11, 2015 by pepperrn

[BlueRiband]

Thank you for the research. It's hard to make stateroom equivalents since the accommodation standards have changed so much. (Other then crew spaces, I don't think "bunks" exist today except in 3 or 4 person cabins with pull down berths.)

 

The pricing equivalents explain most clearly why we don't have five day crossings or service "like QE2".

 

In a world where almost everything we buy increases in price year to year, sailing fares are the one thing that can often be had at a cheaper price than the previous year. And we're experiencing the consequences. :(

[pepperrn]

Thank you for the research. It's hard to make stateroom equivalents since the accommodation standards have changed so much ...

Hi BlueRiband,

 

I agree with you, I was trying hard to find closest equivalents, cabins "in steerage" are larger now than they were then, and with more/different amenities.

The pricing equivalents explain most clearly why we don't have five day crossings or service "like QE2"

Well if I had to pay £2,588 ($3,924) just to get an inside QM2 cabin (x 2 passengers)... then my next trip would also be my last. I think, to most people used to staying in resort hotels with luxury spacious bedrooms with private balconies, that figure would not represent value-for-money to many.

(In the past I've booked QM2 WB TA sheltered balconies as a single passenger paying the supplement. Based on these QE2 1982 fares+inflation, that could be a fare next time of £4,800 ($7278)! :eek: ).

In a world where almost everything we buy increases in price year to year, sailing fares are the one thing that can often be had at a cheaper price than the previous year. And we're experiencing the consequences.

And therein lies the problem. I don't like it when I see people promoting "smokin deals", and yet if I had to pay some of the "fares" I mention above, I either wouldn't book, or would do so once, and never again. It truly would be a "one-off" "holiday of a lifetime" instead of a couple of voyages a year, as I enjoy now. I don't want "stupid" cheap prices leading to terrible service and rubbish quality food; but equally would hate to see a crossing priced where I couldn't justify spending the amount of money involved. I hope there is a compromise, but have no easy answer, sorry.

 

Sincere best wishes and many happy sailings.

Edited November 11, 2015 by pepperrn

[canoncruiser]

Thanks Pepper,

 

I sailed on the France in 1969,1970,1972 and 1973,I missed my crossing on the France because of the mutiny on the sailing before; my first crossing on QE2 was in 1971.

I and I think most folks returned to the France because of the style, service and cuisine-not the decor-it was a superb experience of ocean travel. John Maxtone-Graham correctly pointed out that the chairs in the Chambord restaurant were a threat to expensive clothing.

In 1971 QE2 was still very new and her decor was very controversial-much plastic, chrome and suede.Those were also the years of British labor turmoil and it showed in the attitude of many of the younger crew. Many of the senior folks who had been on the old Queens were not happy at what they perceived as the lowering of the “ton” on the new ship. It took years for all to settle down.

As was pointed out earlier Cunard also modified her interiors, the Carnaby Street mod look did not wear well.

Also the QE2 was more expensive because there was no government operating subsidy as there was for the France; in hindsight probably a blessing in disguise.

Let us rejoice in Micky’s vision and that which is now Cunard!:D:D:D

No I own no Carnival shares nor am I employed by them-I just thrill at Crossing the Atlantic!:D

[Yoshikitty]

If (and I hope that it won't happen in my lifespan) Cunard/Carnival retires QM2 one day - probably without a proper replacement, people will be praising "the good days", when QM2 was in service with 7-days crossings like QE2 is glorified today.

 

So, people, instead of moaning - just be happy with everything which is available today - it's not too shabby ;)

Edited November 12, 2015 by Yoshikitty

[Winchester Ranger]

I would happily take any reduction - 8 days is too long.

[loubetti]

Apart from the fuel costs and the wear and tear, is QM2 actually capable of making a 5 night crossing? My assumption is that they would have to run at least 4 days solid on all engines at full power. Is she built to do that or do they as a matter of course need to swap engines in and out for maintenance purposes during a crossing?

 

I've done 5, 6, 7 and 8 night crossings and all have their merits and demerits. If I had to choose one I would probably go for a 6 night crossing. Five was great though, cast off from Southampton with a military band to see you off, quick way round the Isle of Wight then a sprint across the Atlantic and up into Manhattan. Great memories.

 

M-AR

 

My mother did a 5-night on QE2 in 1988 along with Concorde. The ones I did on QE2 and QM2 were 6-night. For a 5-night you will need an average speed of 28.5 kts. That's easy for QE2, which can do over 32 kts. It might be a stretch for QM2, which can hit 30 knots, but you never know.

 

Cunard actually authorized the fuel expenditure to have Mauretania defend her Blue Ribband against the more modern German Bremen in 1929. I think they got the old gal up to 29 knots or so, but the Bremen still won, but not by much. At times you just can't get an old ocean liner to compete with a modern one, and one with one of the first bulbous bows!

 

As for me, I have no interest in a 5-night TA. The days of the "express liners" are over.

[Jim Avery]

If they are going to continue 7 & 8 day crossings, why not do a few using the Southern Route? Much nicer weather. The only reason to hold to the Great Circle route from NYC to Soton is that it was the shortest distance when speed mattered. Even then, many took the Italian liners for their Southern Route great weather. Just a thought for discussion. I will not do an 8 day North Atlantic (what's the point) but an 8 day Barcelona to NYC might work. Or to FLL.

[Underwatr]

Because using the shortest route allows them to go slower. It's all (mostly) about fuel cost.

[Jim Avery]

Because using the shortest route allows them to go slower. It's all (mostly) about fuel cost.

 

How true. I can also go for a "cruise" on Queen Mary at Long Beach and burn no fuel.......Well, electricity from shore burns something.......:eek::D

[Underwatr]

Look at it this way. When the cost of a QM2 crossing exceeds the cost of business class air travel I'll be on the plane.

[navybankerteacher]

I see no reason why Cunard could not have 2 or 3 five day crossings a year, priced appropriately, to appeal to those who yearn for this. If they proved not to be popular then of course they would be dropped...

 

The reason they do not offer them is likely to be because their market research people have (knowledgeably) advised them not to: because, if "priced appropriately", they could not fill the ship.

 

A company does not need to prove to itself that an expensive service is a bad idea - they can usually figure it out. Cruise passengers are price-sensitive, and a high speed 5 day crossing would be very expensive on a per-day basis. People who want a fast crossing fly.

[Rotterdam]

from a wish for 5 day crossing came all these thoughts from far & wide.

 

No I do not have my ships mixed up - QE2 was built to handle the North Atlantic & do cruises - her design & draft allowed her to sail a TA beautifully in all sorts of weather the Atlantic Ocean threw at her. Anyone with Maritime design knowledge & had sailed in her know the difference between an OCEANLINER & cruise ships. Now there ae just cruise ships that do reposition cruises rather than a TA crossing.

 

As far as conversions - the FRANCE was successfully converted to a cruise ship and was interesting in both of her lives. Today the Prinsendam was also built for to handle the oceans of the world and do cruises. She too sails differently than your average modern cruise ship.

 

As far as quality of the product - again there is no way you can compare what is sold today compared to sailing in QE2 /FRANCE. And there is a big difference between 1200 passenger load & 2500+ passengers.

 

Life evolves & how one handles change is up to them. Yes the décor & style of the 1960's was not to everyone's taste, but it was innovative, cutting edge(literally as noted about the First Class dining room chairs on FRANCE) but I find the decor of todays ships more offensive, bland & cookie cutter compared to the QE2 /FRANCE. I miss the ideal of being on a ship as being a special occasion & rising to that thought.

 

The one idea that we all may have in common is the appreciation & love of being at sea. I'll be back onboard and I won't be concerned with what others are wearing or how the food is....as long as there is deck chair & hopefully a Promenade Deck looking out to sea.

 

PS - yes a southern route crossing would be wonderful....NYC- Italy!

 

Topic closed.

[3rdGenCunarder]

I do find it funny that QE2's original modern style gradually was replaced by the more traditional look that her interior designers tried so hard to move away from. At least part of the blame for that goes to James Cameron. ;) I also find it funny that a movie about the sinking of ship got so many people interested in cruising.

[bobby1119]

I see now that the QM2 is doing some crossings at 7&8 days(which some include stops in S'hampton & Germany). Having done crossings in the past on QE2(and other classic OCEAN LINERS) in 5 days and found it to be the perfect amount of time onboard when there are no ports. Certainly the 7 & 8 day sailings are too long even with all there is to do onboard & the size of the ship.

 

The 5 day crossing allowed us to enjoy weekends in Paris & London all in a weeks time and we were never bored while onboard any of those ships. On longer holidays after a few weeks in Europe a westbound crossing provided a good rest before reentering the real world. I only regret never being able to sail to Italy on the old liners...nobody did it like the ITALIANS!!!

 

Of course Cunard is now Carnival and life changes & the longer crossing cuts fuel costs & also provides longer periods of time for the passenger to spend $$$ onboard.

 

Anyone else like the idea of a 5 day crossing - and even bring back the ship to LaHarve once in a while?????

 

During graduate school, I participated in a summer art, architecture and archaeology program in Italy, the highlight of which was the crossing to Genoa and the return from Naples aboard the Raffaello in First Class. The following year I sailed Michelangelo to the Caribbean. Within the same year, both ships were sadly withdrawn from service.

 

You are spot-on, for the onboard ambiance of the Italian liners was truly "La Doce Vita." At the end of the day, QE2 remains my favorite ship where I've racked up hundreds of happy days sailing. But those crossings on the Raffaello with their exuberant crews offered a level of service and cuisine matched by few ships today, including the much vaunted Cunard grills.

[jimmybean]

Our first crossing was in six-days. When Cunard increased this to seven, we rolled with it and didn't really mind. Another day on the QM2 vs more speed--both have their merits.

 

What I remember about our first crossing (besides the fact that all the evening "special meals" in King's Court were without additional charge) was French butter at the buffet. Lovely, individually wrapped, so sweet, made-in-France butter.

 

What happened to that? American butter (resplendent with those hormones) is no doubt less expensive and the dye was casted...

 

If a six-day crossing is ever offered, we would love to repeat the experience, although admittedly it would not be the same for me without the French butter… Speed is one thing. Niceties are something else. My memory of a six-day crossing have obviously been clouded by some of those...

[Jim Avery]

Our first crossing was in six-days. When Cunard increased this to seven, we rolled with it and didn't really mind. Another day on the QM2 vs more speed--both have their merits.

 

What I remember about our first crossing (besides the fact that all the evening "special meals" in King's Court were without additional charge) was French butter at the buffet. Lovely, individually wrapped, so sweet, made-in-France butter.

 

What happened to that? American butter (resplendent with those hormones) is no doubt less expensive and the dye was casted...

 

If a six-day crossing is ever offered, we would love to repeat the experience, although admittedly it would not be the same for me without the French butter… Speed is one thing. Niceties are something else. My memory of a six-day crossing have obviously been clouded by some of those...

 

I am with you on the butter. From my earliest travel on Queen Mary the bread and butter on board has been superb. I could have made a meal of the hard rolls and the fresh butter on board. Most recent was on QV and the bread and butter were virtually identical to bread and butter on Star Princess or the Veendam. Not horrible, just not memorable.:D