QE2 rebuild!

[cunardqueen]

Came across this earlier today, food for thought !!!

Interestingly enough this view is shared by an ex engineer who always maintains the hull is in great shape, its just the inside that gives cause for trouble....

 

From Bill Miller's Ocean and Cruise Newsletter:

 

CUNARD: There’s a rumor about that Carnival, rich parent of Cunard, is studying the possibility of thoroughly rebuilding and refitting the 38-year-old Queen Elizabeth 2 for further service, especially beyond the strict 2010 passenger ship standards that the 70,000-ton QE2 cannot pass in her present state.

[Kindlychap]

Came across this earlier today, food for thought !!!

Interestingly enough this view is shared by an ex engineer who always maintains the hull is in great shape, its just the inside that gives cause for trouble....

 

From Bill Miller's Ocean and Cruise Newsletter:

 

CUNARD: There’s a rumor about that Carnival, rich parent of Cunard, is studying the possibility of thoroughly rebuilding and refitting the 38-year-old Queen Elizabeth 2 for further service, especially beyond the strict 2010 passenger ship standards that the 70,000-ton QE2 cannot pass in her present state.

 

 

The view from officers on board in January was that SOLAS did not prove a great problem.

 

How will you manage to set out QE2 so that you maintain loadings without exceeding the current outline? I can't see that it possible.

 

How would it succeed in keeping the ship we love the way we love her?

 

I can't see this as anything other than overly optimistic. You could build a new ship more cheaply I'd guess.

 

Matthew

[cunardqueen]

The view from officers on board in January was that SOLAS did not prove a great problem.

Nick was also of the view that solas wasnt a problem QE2 is so old solas came in after she came into service!

 

How will you manage to set out QE2 so that you maintain loadings without exceeding the current outline? I can't see that it possible.

Well....... if she was to heavy afterwards they could chop off the very top cabins.. sorry suites:eek:

 

 

I can't see this as anything other than overly optimistic. You could build a new ship more cheaply I'd guess.

Yes but it it does give us fans a glimpse of hope for her future and besides any new ship wouldnt be QE2 would it! and with all the changes that have been made to her inside and out, who knows it might improve some things....

 

Of course with the views of a certain Cunard/Carnival top man in the uk he cant wait to get rid of the rust bucket... his words not mine then maybe it is being overly optimistic. But l would put more faith in Bill Miller than anybody else.

[KenC]

..... Yes but it it does give us fans a glimpse of hope for her future and besides any new ship wouldnt be QE2 would it! and with all the changes that have been made to her inside and out, who knows it might improve some things.....

 

Rip it out and start again??? - don't think the officianados would approve :eek:

 

..... Of course with the views of a certain Cunard/Carnival top man in the uk he cant wait to get rid of the rust bucket... his words not mine then maybe it is being overly optimistic. .....

 

Who would say such a thing???? - at least someone else can take the rap for the 'rust bucket' label now. ;)

 

 

 

Ken

[Kindlychap]

Who would say such a thing???? - at least someone else can take the rap for the 'rust bucket' label now. ;)

 

Ken

 

No false modesty Ken. Everyone knows Myles was quoting you.

 

Matthew

[KenC]

No false modesty Ken. Everyone knows Myles was quoting you.

 

Matthew

 

Matthew I have never been accused of modesty - false or not ... wish I was Cunard/Carnival top man in the UK :D

 

I think we all know who Myles is referring to! ;)

 

Actually, I have always supported the idea of a major fix for QE2 - there was a long thread about it a year or so ago. It would have to be a MAJOR rebuild though, and that would probably sweep away much that 'officianados' find 'quirky' and greatly reduce capacity, a must for any major rebuild in my opinion!!

 

Ken

[guernseyguy]

greatly reduce capacity

 

Ah, but what capacity? You can take out two M1s and replace them with one Q4 to break even on cabin revenue.......I would think it would be 4 & 5 deck and the forward ends of 3 & 2 deck that would need to go to remove the Bibby corridors. And if pax/tonnage was equalised with the QV, capacity would fall by around 200 to 1570. Of course, if you matched QM2 then it would fall further to 1220......

 

Peter

[bobby1119]

Came across this earlier today, food for thought !!!

Interestingly enough this view is shared by an ex engineer who always maintains the hull is in great shape, its just the inside that gives cause for trouble....

 

From Bill Miller's Ocean and Cruise Newsletter:

 

CUNARD: There’s a rumor about that Carnival, rich parent of Cunard, is studying the possibility of thoroughly rebuilding and refitting the 38-year-old Queen Elizabeth 2 for further service, especially beyond the strict 2010 passenger ship standards that the 70,000-ton QE2 cannot pass in her present state.

 

Myles,

 

That same rumor, and even some details, persisted during the world cruise. It was rumored that ways of making the elevators comply with requirements had already been considered and rejected. I think that all elevators must go from the top to the bottom of the passenger decks. As we know, not all elevators would meet that requirement if, indeed, it is a requirement.

What was rumored to have been considered was extending elevator shafts either upwards or downwards through existing decks or cabins.

 

Rumor or wish-list item, it made for interesting small talk during those long stretches of sea days on the most famous, if not quirkiest, ship in the world:rolleyes:

 

bobby

[KenC]

Ah, but what capacity? You can take out two M1s and replace them with one Q4 to break even on cabin revenue.......I would think it would be 4 & 5 deck and the forward ends of 3 & 2 deck that would need to go to remove the Bibby corridors. And if pax/tonnage was equalised with the QV, capacity would fall by around 200 to 1570. Of course, if you matched QM2 then it would fall further to 1220......

 

Peter

 

Exactly ... she needs to reduce pax capacity to feel less crowded in my opinion (not to mention to improve cabin size) ;)

 

Ken

[Kindlychap]

I think that all elevators must go from the top to the bottom of the passenger decks.

 

bobby

 

Why would that be?

 

Surely one doesn't use lifts in an emergency?

 

Matthew

[guernseyguy]

Exactly ... she needs to reduce pax capacity to feel less crowded in my opinion (not to mention to improve cabin size)

 

Wonder how the QV is going to feel.....if she had the same pax/tonnage as the QM2 she'd carry 1560.....not the 2014 she'll have onboard.......;) - and at QE2's level 2275.....so she's much nearer the QE2 in terms of density than the QM2:D

[guernseyguy]

to feel less crowded

 

Surely not! She can't be popular - surely!:rolleyes:

 

Peter

[KenC]

Wonder how the QV is going to feel.....if she had the same pax/tonnage as the QM2 she'd carry 1560.....not the 2014 she'll have onboard....... - and at QE2's level 2275.....so she's much nearer the QE2 in terms of density than the QM2

 

I make it 2,432 at QE2 capacity instead of normal 1,990 (Cunard figure) that's a difference of over 22% which is quite significant in my book. Reduce QE2's pax by 22% and the feeling of extra space would be tangible.

 

Surely not! She can't be popular - surely!:rolleyes:

 

Peter

 

you know very well that she wouldn't still be around unless they were packing them in.

 

Ken

[dougnewmanatsea]

I think that all elevators must go from the top to the bottom of the passenger decks.

This makes no sense to me.

 

Even brand new ships don't all have this type of arrangement. How will they comply?

 

I have heard the same thing before so I don't doubt it, but I must be missing something.

 

It would be a big problem on QE2 for stairways B, C, F and H since they have public rooms above them. Extending D and G does not look difficult at first glance.

 

But why has she got to have so many anyway? Even QM2 only has four.

 

It would be interesting to see what plans they'd come up with for a QE2 rebuild. IMHO the only reason to do this would be the name recognition of "QE2" - let's face it that is really the only way she has survived so long to begin with.

 

you know very well that she wouldn't still be around unless they were packing them in.

Afraid I have to disagree - my guess is they make a lot more money on the higher grade cabins than the "packing them in" Four and Five Deck ones.

 

I could be wrong, but when you think about it there are very, very few ships today that have as high a percentage of their accommodations in "premium" grades (i.e. Grill Class) as QE2 has.

[KenC]

....Afraid I have to disagree - my guess is they make a lot more money on the higher grade cabins than the "packing them in" Four and Five Deck ones.

 

I could be wrong, but when you think about it there are very, very few ships today that have as high a percentage of their accommodations in "premium" grades (i.e. Grill Class) as QE2 has.

 

I agree ... of course they make more money out of the higher grades, but from what I hear and read the ship regularly sails full (hence packed in). Also don't forget that they upgrade and resell the lower grades a la Princess now.

 

If this was not the case then there would be nothing to be lost by reducing the steerage capacity immediately.

 

....It would be interesting to see what plans they'd come up with for a QE2 rebuild. IMHO the only reason to do this would be the name recognition of "QE2" - let's face it that is really the only way she has survived so long to begin with..

 

Really Doug? .. and there's me thinking it was because she was still the best thing since sliced bread :eek:

 

Ken ;)

[guernseyguy]

I make it 2,432 at QE2 capacity instead of normal 1,990 (Cunard figure) that's a difference of over 22% which is quite significant in my book.

 

Working from the figures in the latest Cunard brochure:

 

QE2: 1778 pax, 70,372 tonnes, 39.6 tonnes/pax

QM2: 2610 pax, 151,400 tonnes, 57.8 tonnes/pax

QV: 2014 pax, 90,000 tonnes, 44.7 tonnes/pax

 

So, the QM2 has 46% more space per pax....and the QV, with all those big cabins.....13%.....which to me sounds as though the public spaces on the QV may be a bit of a crush....considering all those small cabins on the QE2.....;)

 

Peter

[KenC]

Working from the figures in the latest Cunard brochure:

 

QE2: 1778 pax, 70,372 tonnes, 39.6 tonnes/pax

QM2: 2610 pax, 151,400 tonnes, 57.8 tonnes/pax

QV: 2014 pax, 90,000 tonnes, 44.7 tonnes/pax

 

So, the QM2 has 46% more space per pax....and the QV, with all those big cabins.....13%.....which to me sounds as though the public spaces on the QV may be a bit of a crush....considering all those small cabins on the QE2.....;)

 

Peter

 

I'll let you know next January :rolleyes:

[Kindlychap]

I'll let you know next January :rolleyes:

 

We'll check with people who have been on board during one of the two maidens for QV whilst on board QE2 during the WCC, so you'll be a tadge late....

 

Matthew

[judy&steve]

QE2 Rebuild!!

 

steve

[dak]

QE2 Rebuild!!

 

steve

 

Very clever, but there's still no forward observation lounge:D

 

David

[Kindlychap]

Very clever, but there's still no forward observation lounge:D

 

David

 

And someone has nicked our favourite cabin!

 

Matthew

[KenC]

We'll check with people who have been on board during one of the two maidens for QV whilst on board QE2 during the WCC, so you'll be a tadge late....

 

Matthew

 

what makes me think a lot of you out there just don't want this ship to be a success??? Strange.....

 

Ken

[Kindlychap]

what makes me think a lot of you out there just don't want this ship to be a success??? Strange.....

 

Ken

 

I'm not that sure it worries me any more.

 

I'll stay loyal to QE2 as long as we have her. I'm hoping that I will feel able to enjoy a transatlantic on Queen Mary 2 - whilst she can never have what Queen Elizabeth 2 has (at least for me) - I do like crossings and would like to think I've thirty-thirty five years of crossings available.

 

I'm not really sure, on the evidence that I have seen, that Queen Victoria has a place for me. The pricing is high for what is on offer. I don't like fly cruises, and her interesting itineraries involve flying or are done better elsewhere.

 

My mother wants to do the Baltic. It would cost about £20,000 for the two of us to do it basic Queens' Grill. We could achieve at least as good an itinerary (better in fact, as it would include the Kiel Canal) for less than half of that with Saga - even allowing a high value cabin for me.

 

Queen Victoria or Saga Ruby? It's a no brainer money aside. And at half the cost.....

 

Matthew

[pnhmrk]

Queen Victoria or Saga Ruby?

 

Unfortunately SAGA Ruby hasn't got that long left either:(

[guernseyguy]

what makes me think a lot of you out there just don't want this ship to be a success??? Strange.....

 

No, we just want all Cunard's ships to be successful.....I'm sure you agree....:rolleyes: