QM2 to miss Flaam

[Chart Room Princess]

The September Flaam call has been cancelled. I am on this cruise and received the notice of itinerary change last night. Also today I received a credit for our booked shore excursion. Cunard is replacing Flaam with Skoljden.

[Bell Boy]

Just to add; 

I'll shortly be stepping out of my Cunard comfort zone as I've a Silversea cruise booked for 9th September to the Norwegian Fjords.

We are due to visit Flam on the 18th September, and so far it appears our visit is on schedule ?  The 'Flam railway tour'  is one of the 'complimentary tours' that is on offer. I've just received e mail confirmation that I'm booked for the half day Railway Tour , apparently it also includes a stop off somewhere for morning coffee 🤔

I shall have to wait and see . 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Bell Boy

[sogne]

40 minutes ago, bluemarble said:

I'm reviving this thread to mention QM2 is no longer listed on the Flam port schedule for 9 September 2022. Flam is still listed on the itinerary on the Cunard website for the "The Norwegian Fjords, 7 Nights" cruise (M227) departing 4 September 2022. But since QM2's call has been removed from the Flam port schedule found at "www.flamport.no/ship-arrivals2021", I suspect that September call at Flam has been canceled now as well.

Flam cancelled going 2 Skjolden instead according to FB postings

[bluemarble]

20 minutes ago, Bell Boy said:

Just to add; 

I'll shortly be stepping out of my Cunard comfort zone as I've a Silversea cruise booked for 9th September to the Norwegian Fjords.

We are due to visit Flam on the 18th September, and so far it appears our visit is on schedule ?  The 'Flam railway tour'  is one of the 'complimentary tours' that is on offer. I've just received e mail confirmation that I'm booked for the half day Railway Tour , apparently it also includes a stop off somewhere for morning coffee 🤔

I shall have to wait and see . 

 

Silver Moon is still listed for 18 September of the Flam port schedule found at https://www.flamport.no/ship-arrivals2021. Based on that, it is looking good for the call at Flam on your Silversea cruise.

[ace2542]

33 minutes ago, bluemarble said:

 

Silver Moon is still listed for 18 September of the Flam port schedule found at https://www.flamport.no/ship-arrivals2021. Based on that, it is looking good for the call at Flam on your Silversea cruise.

Because the Sliversea ship emits less CO2 or whatever than the QM2 does? How can they tell that? I mean how can they measure the emissions of the QM2 short of putting in dry dock an running and emissons test or put some type of pipe into the ships exhaust? Neither of which have done or could do? And haven't larger ships than QM2 been there and older ships?

 

FWIW I work in garage in sales and our MOT tester - MOT is uk test for car safety and function including exhaust emissions americans have similar test - our tester reckons there is no way they could do it without doing either of the thing I have described?

Edited August 16, 2022 by ace2542

[ballroom-cruisers]

There are lots of details about the Norwegian requirements if you have plenty of time to read the technical small print at https://www.sdir.no/en/shipping/legislation/directives/amendments-to-the-regulations-on-environmental-safety-for-ships-and-mobile-offshore-units/

[Maarwolf]

I received the itinerary change this morning. The replacement port is Skjolden.

[bluemarble]

59 minutes ago, ballroom-cruisers said:

There are lots of details about the Norwegian requirements if you have plenty of time to read the technical small print at https://www.sdir.no/en/shipping/legislation/directives/amendments-to-the-regulations-on-environmental-safety-for-ships-and-mobile-offshore-units/

 

I took a look at that document when this thread began back in June when the QM2 call at Flam was canceled back then on short notice. The section of that document specific to emission standards for UNESCO world heritage fjords mentions the standards for nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. Tighter "Tier II" requirements for NOx emissions apparently went into effect on 1 January 2022 for world heritage fjords.

 

I am only speculating here, but since it was stated earlier that QM2 had to miss the June call at Flam because of emissions restrictions Norway has placed on UNESCO world heritage sites, it seems plausible at least QM2 might not have been able to meet those tighter NOx emission requirements. It will take someone a lot more knowledgeable than I am about the situation to confirm that though. And it is a bit puzzling that QM2 had to cancel the June call on very short notice if that's the reason.

 

And just for the record, I mistyped the date of the September call that has been removed from the Flam port schedule in my earlier post. It is of course the call at Flam on 7 September that has been canceled.

Edited August 16, 2022 by bluemarble

[ballroom-cruisers]

I suppose it is hard to get at the full decisions/reasons why QM2 can't go into Flam, but in addition does she meet the sulphur emission requirements, with the various options presented for entry? Perhaps the ship's engines and exhaust handing, and its systems for reducing emissions is now too old to be able to have any changes implemented that could lead to satisfying the new stricter requirements?  Certainly the ship is smokey as any passenger can see looking back along the ship when the wind is along the direction the ship is heading the yellow haze from the smoke plume is easy  to see, relative to the sky colour in any other direction, and that is likely NOx in the smoke, but also we all know about the soot emissions too if we have had the tell tale spots when standing in the wrong place on deck.

[sogne]

25 minutes ago, bluemarble said:

 

I took a look at that document when this thread began back in June when the QM2 call at Flam was canceled back then on short notice. The section of that document specific to emission standards for UNESCO world heritage fjords mentions the standards for nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. Tighter "Tier II" requirements for NOx emissions apparently went into effect on 1 January 2022 for world heritage fjords.

 

I am only speculating here, but since it was stated earlier that QM2 had to miss the June call at Flam because of emissions restrictions Norway has placed on UNESCO world heritage sites, it seems plausible at least QM2 might not have been able to meet those tighter NOx emission requirements. It will take someone a lot more knowledgeable than I am about the situation to confirm that though. And it is a bit puzzling that QM2 had to cancel the June call on very short notice if that's the reason.

 

And just for the record, I mistyped the date of the September call that has been removed from the Flam port schedule in my earlier post. It is of course the call at Flam on 7 September that has been canceled.

In June the captain said in his broadcast that Cunard and the Norwegian authorities had been in discussion for sometime and the final decision had been made after ship left Southampton.  Skjolden is not a poor substitute still sail length of Sogne fjord.

[ace2542]

14 hours ago, ballroom-cruisers said:

I suppose it is hard to get at the full decisions/reasons why QM2 can't go into Flam, but in addition does she meet the sulphur emission requirements, with the various options presented for entry? Perhaps the ship's engines and exhaust handing, and its systems for reducing emissions is now too old to be able to have any changes implemented that could lead to satisfying the new stricter requirements?  Certainly the ship is smokey as any passenger can see looking back along the ship when the wind is along the direction the ship is heading the yellow haze from the smoke plume is easy  to see, relative to the sky colour in any other direction, and that is likely NOx in the smoke, but also we all know about the soot emissions too if we have had the tell tale spots when standing in the wrong place on deck.

I want to know how you can detect it WITHOUT sticking it in dry dock or putting something into the funnel? Neither of which they have done correct?

[sogne]

3 hours ago, ace2542 said:

I want to know how you can detect it WITHOUT sticking it in dry dock or putting something into the funnel? Neither of which they have done correct?

The grade of fuel used is known as are its compoments and emissions.

[ace2542]

40 minutes ago, sogne said:

The grade of fuel used is known as are its compoments and emissions.

Then they need to change the grade of fuel used if that is doable without dry dock work?

[ExArkie]

6 hours ago, ace2542 said:

I want to know how you can detect it WITHOUT sticking it in dry dock or putting something into the funnel? Neither of which they have done correct?

Simplest method would be ambient air monitoring along the ship’s pathway, particularly in a directed channel environment like a fjord. Compare concentrations before and after the ship passes, correlate to weather and dispersion conditions, and you could get a reasonably statistically valid emission rate. Not saying they did this, but it could be done that way.

 

[ballroom-cruisers]

I suspect that the management, and captains, of the Cunard ships all know what they can, and cannot, do, and what they will, or will not, do, regarding whether, or not, they can or cannot meet the stricter emissions rules for Norway (and any other country where the rules will change). So it will be a question of physical possible options, as well as commercially viable options and finance/management planning. Whether they will make that knowledge public is a different question!

[D&N]

The main engines fitted to QM2 are 4 x Wärtsilä Vasa 46C.

I found what appears to be a rather large manual for that engine online.

It includes manufacturers data on emissions and a diagram that shows a NOx Analyser built into the exhaust system, so they probably know what is being spewed out most of the time.

Like many cars, it probably complied with all standards when built but as they change it might be difficult to modify.

The auxiliary engines are GE LM2500s and probably emit less as I think they run on LNG rather than heavy oil.

[TheOldBear]

8 minutes ago, D&N said:

The main engines fitted to QM2 are 4 x Wärtsilä Vasa 46C.

I found what appears to be a rather large manual for that engine online.

It includes manufacturers data on emissions and a diagram that shows a NOx Analyser built into the exhaust system, so they probably know what is being spewed out most of the time.

Like many cars, it probably complied with all standards when built but as they change it might be difficult to modify.

The auxiliary engines are GE LM2500s and probably emit less as I think they run on LNG rather than heavy oil.

The LM2500 engines run on 'marine gas oil' - also called 'number 2 diesel' in the US.

There are grades of this fuel that also have different sulfur content.

[richard_london]

It could be water quality?  I know she has scrubbers, but I understand to operate in the fjords they need to be closed loop.  But what about other discharges?

 

When on a previous QM2, whilst docked in Stavanger (the last stop on the cruise, previous ones included Olden, Flamm and Bergen), a rather unpleasant smelling, oily discharge was released from the ship for a considerable period.  It was right under the two shell doors just aft of the rear stabiliser on the port side of the ship. 

 

Does anyone know the source?  See photos.  It made me heave on first smelling it.  I then went ashore and it was still "fizzing" to the surface, and still smelling awful. I was quite surprised about how blatantly it was being discharged.

[Saab4444]

On 8/17/2022 at 9:14 AM, ace2542 said:

I want to know how you can detect it WITHOUT sticking it in dry dock or putting something into the funnel? Neither of which they have done correct?

You have no clue how cruise  ships operate, correct? Emission and use of fuel is all monitored and reported by the ship on a daily basis. All this information must be available to all kind of authorities. Older ships have a much worse environmental footprint and older engines like on QM2 are not able to burn cleaner fuel. It also depends if e.g. a ships has scrubbers installed to clean the exhaust or if the engine can use cleaner diesel or LNG instad of heavy oil in the fjords. No ship needs a dry dock to check this data and the crew will not hide this information.

[RICHARD@SEA]

One reason for teh ban maybe due to the age of the ship & its engineering...QM2 is older than the Silver Moon, etc & w current Environmental awareness & restrictions Norway is clamping down anyway it can - Thankfully.

 

Also note  - several corporations have been fine by gov'ts due to illegal discharge from ships.....

[bluemarble]

I'm seeing a report that QM2's scheduled call at Flaam on May 13th has been cancelled as well. Here is the quote from a Cunard email posted on social media.

 

"Due to the latest guidance provided for sailing in World Heritage Fjord areas, we have been made aware that Queen Mary 2's call to Flaam on 13 May, and therefore the transits through Aurlandsfjord and Sognefjord can unfortunately no longer go ahead. To ensure that you are able to enjoy your time ashore we have replaced our call to Flaam with a call to Skjolden with transits through Lustrafjorden and Sognefjord. All pre-booked excursions for Flaam will automatically be cancelled and refunded to you. A revised shore excursions programme for Skjolden will be available to book on My Cunard. We apologise that it has been necessary to make this change and we look forward to welcoming you on board Queen Mary 2."

[BrisbaneR]

I'm wondering if the same veto will apply to the Queen Anne? I've booked a Fjords cruise on QA for June 2024 where Flam is definitely on the itinerary.  I lack the technical knowledge to make the distinction, but is QA sufficiently different from QM2 to make it more likely to be acceptable?   

[sogne]

10 minutes ago, BrisbaneR said:

I'm wondering if the same veto will apply to the Queen Anne? I've booked a Fjords cruise on QA for June 2024 where Flam is definitely on the itinerary.  I lack the technical knowledge to make the distinction, but is QA sufficiently different from QM2 to make it more likely to be acceptable?   

We r on that cruise. U would hope that engineering and emissions technology have advanced since QM2  was built.

[richard_london]

29 minutes ago, BrisbaneR said:

'm wondering if the same veto will apply to the Queen Anne? I've booked a Fjords cruise on QA for June 2024 where Flam is definitely on the itinerary.  I lack the technical knowledge to make the distinction, but is QA sufficiently different from QM2 to make it more likely to be acceptable?

From looking at the 2024 itineraries it seems that Cunard is just using the Queen Anne for visiting Flaam (your cruise) and Geirangerfjord (e.g. H419).  With the Victoria in the med, the QM2 is visiting Norway but just keeping to the bigger coastal ports rather than heading into the fjords. 

 

The last cruise I was on the QM2 in the summer, she was emitting black smoke on start up and that is one of the things that is being targeted in the fjords (see https://dieselnet.com/standards/no/marine.php).

 

So I would definitely expect the Queen Anne to be a cleaner ship emissions-wise compared to the QM2, otherwise Cunard would not be scheduling her to visit the fjords.

 

 

 

[BrisbaneR]

Thanks for these encouraging comments. I'm more optimistic now that the QA will be fit for purpose in 2024, and will look forward to revisiting Flam, where  I last ventured in 1976!.