Topic: The New Queen Victoria - Have they made a mess or not (Read 20489 times)

cos918 · « **on:** November 19, 2007, 08:02:56 pm »

Well now the new Queen Victoria is all most ready for her maiden voyage. What are you thoughts on her compared to here sisters QM2 QE2 , have Cunard mad a glorified ferry or a classy liner. john PS can beat QE2 for looks.

Topic name updated - Admin.

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #1 on:** November 19, 2007, 08:08:40 pm »

Unlike Queen Mary 2 which is a genuine transatlantic liner, Queen Victoria is just a standard cut off by the quarter mile cruise ship with a fancy paint job. Basically she is a marketing exercise.

Mind you, I don't much like the look of QM2 either.

I believe that Cunard/Carnival are now ordering another cruise ship to be called Queen Elizabeth 2, effectively to replace QE2 when she retires next year.

cos918 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 19, 2007, 08:16:13 pm »

quite agree with you Colin.
Cunard have said the new boat similar in shape to queen Victoria will be called Queen Elizabeth not QE3 :-\.

meechingman · « **Reply #3 on:** November 20, 2007, 01:19:29 pm »

QM2? Imposing. ??? QE2? Stunning!

QV? Butt Ugly! :'(

Bryan Young · « **Reply #4 on:** November 22, 2007, 05:32:41 pm »

Quote from: meechingman on November 20, 2007, 01:19:29 pm

QM2? Imposing. ??? QE2? Stunning! QV? Butt Ugly! :'(

Perhaps it all happens because ship designers nowadays are incapable of drawing anything other than straight lines. All went pear-shaped when they all got the same computer programme. Like cars etc. etc. etc.

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #5 on:** November 22, 2007, 06:03:35 pm »

I think it's just because it's a lot cheaper to build things which are all straight lines. Even with the QE2 a lot of the "curviness" is actually an optical illusion due to the paint job. The rise of the bow is actually at an angle from around under the bridge front, it's the paint which imparts the swooping sheerline.

In "traditional" ships all the cabins had to be virtually handbuilt to match the sheer and camber of the part of the ship in which they were situated. Now they just build them off site with all the plumbing etc. and drop 'em in. That's why that big cruise ship that suffered the bad fire a while back (forget the name) could be put back into service so quickly.

Bunkerbarge · « **Reply #6 on:** November 22, 2007, 06:40:42 pm »

Colin if you stand on one end of deck three of the QE2 you can see the tremendous sheer of her deck the full length of the vessel.

Nowadays ships, as well as cars, are all striving for efficiency of design and maximising fuel economy. Ships of earlier generations such as the QE2 were made in a time when fuel was not the major issue it is today, when she could do 32 knots on a steam plant and use 700 tons of fuel a day and no one lost any sleep over it. Nowadays a ship considerably larger than her would be designed to do a slower speed and use maybe 100-150 tons per day.

No-one builds ships nowadays without paying attention to her ability to perform in todays cut throat markets so not only do they have to be as cheap as possible to build but they also have to be as cheap as possible to run. Not only could we never afford to build the QE2 again but no-one could afford to run her. When she was converted to Diesel Electric she was fitted with 9 Diesel engines to maintain her performance. In the last few years her itinery, including Trans Atlantics, require no more than six of them to be on line at any time.

The Queen Victoria is a typical example of a new ship, she is beautifully fitted out internally and has a very efficient Diesel Electric plant designed to meet modern emmission and waste water regulations. As with most of these things we have to move on in an ever changing world and although the overall look might not be to our accepted norm she is a nice ship.

Modular ship construction techniques such as Colin is describing above is only following similar practises in every area of our lives nowadays from building cars to putting up houses or supermarkets.

Lets not forget that when the QE2 was introduced to the world in 1969 she was universally slagged off as being far too modern and not in the mould of the traditional liner. Now we see her as the beautifull old lady, you have to smile.

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #7 on:** November 22, 2007, 07:02:42 pm »

Bunkerbarge,

You have served on QE2 so you should know, but my comments were based on Philip Dawson's book "British Superliners of the Sixties". I've scanned the relevant bit but don't know if it will be legible.

Edit - yes it is, especially if you increase the magnification!

Bunkerbarge · « **Reply #8 on:** November 22, 2007, 08:23:00 pm »

Without getting too deep in why's and wherefore's of the QE2's shape, and where the comment came from, I can quite clearly say from my own experience that some the decks of the QE2 are not flat and Deck 3 in particular makes this very obvious as it is a deck the full length of the ship.

Maybe the upper decks are, I'm not sure but I'll try to find out a bit more.

Bunkerbarge · « **Reply #9 on:** November 22, 2007, 08:32:20 pm »

Colin, it may well be that the decks in the hull have sheer but the upper decks do not. These obviously having more relevence to the external appearance would require the optical illusions described in the book.

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #10 on:** November 22, 2007, 09:07:56 pm »

I can't see the sense in doing that as it's inside the ship that you want the "squareness" to simplify construction. What Philip Dawson is saying is that the middle sections of the decks were flat and that there was an angled turn up at each end. I don't know whether that would give the effect you have seen. Maybe the ship has just bent a bit in service ::)

The drawing below is taken from Dawson's book and the caption draws attention to the way in which the decks amidships are flat with the bow and stern sections angled up.

The photo is one I took on board the old Queen Mary. Although not all that apparent in the picture, the corridor has a gentle curve all the way along up to the bow. The picture was taken from about midships looking forward.

Peter Fitness · « **Reply #11 on:** November 22, 2007, 10:13:42 pm »

The expression "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" surely applies here. My own opinion, for what it's worth, is that QE2 is a beautiful example of the marine architect's art, but as Bunkerbarge pointed out, when she was launched, she was regarded as being too "modern". The squared off stern of the 2 new Queens does not appeal to me, it is reminiscent of a Ro-Ro ferry.
Cos818, you are quite correct about the name of the new Queen Elizabeth, according to the Cunard web-site there will be no number attached to the name. It will be built by Fincantieri, as was QV.
As far as the sheer of the decks goes, I will let you know next year, as my wife and I are booked on the return leg of her final World Cruise, from Sydney to Southampton. We booked in January, and at the time had no idea that she would be sold, so it will be that little bit "extra special" to be leaving Sydney for the last time aboard "The most famous ship in the world".

Peter.

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #12 on:** November 22, 2007, 10:24:44 pm »

I certainly agree that QE2 is a beautiful looking ship but a clever paint job helps too. Even the old Normandie benefited from that. In earlier days the black hull paint on Mauretania and Lusitania was raised by one deck after completion to make the ships look lower and more rakish like the ocean greyhounds they were.

While basically just a standard Fincantieri design, the paint scheme of the new Queen Victoria does make her look more attractive than the standard all white model. Probably puts an increased load on the air conditioning though!

Lucky you, booked on QE2 from Sydney. Definitely something to tell your grandchildren.

cos918 · « **Reply #13 on:** November 22, 2007, 10:45:31 pm »

hi there . peterfitness i am on the same cruise as you. I am doing the Southampton to New York on the QE2 , she the escort to the new QV and at new York we meet QM2. Mmm 3 queens together for one time should be nice

.
bunkerbarge i read you thread on fuel figers and how modern ships run slower. If i remember rightly the QM2 is about 150 000 tons and can do 29 knots , so she not that far behind QE2. As for QV performance figers cant find any thing out yet put i doughty they will match QM2 or QE2.
john

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #14 on:** November 22, 2007, 10:55:22 pm »

Wikpedia quotes Queen Vic details as follows - probably accurate:

Tonnage: 90,000 gross tons
Displacement: N/A
Length: 294 m (964.5 ft)
Beam: 41 m (135 ft) waterline, 36.6 m (120 ft) extreme (bridge wings)
Draft: 8 m (26 ft 3 in}
Height: 62.5 m (205 ft) keel to funnel (includes 12 passenger decks)
Power: 63.4 MW Sulzer ZA40 diesel plant
Propulsion: Two 16.7 MW pods: independently azimuthing
Speed: approximately 24 knots (44 km/h)
Complement: 2,014 passengers, 900 officers and crew
Cost: UK£270 million (approx.)

cos918 · « **Reply #15 on:** November 22, 2007, 11:06:18 pm »

intresting . Not a true north Atlantic grey hound then with a top speed of 24 knots

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #16 on:** November 22, 2007, 11:37:32 pm »

No, but that's a respectable speed for a 90,000 ton cruise ship. Although a lot of the time they travel rather more slowly.

Bunkerbarge · « **Reply #17 on:** November 22, 2007, 11:43:55 pm »

Colin, you actually make a very interesting point there regarding the A/C.

We had a survey done a couple of years ago and estimated that the dark hull puts approximately 12% additional load on the A/C plant. When you consider that 60% of our fuel bill goes on A/C you realise we are talking big bucks here for having the dark hull. That was one of the reasons for the QE2 going for the Pebble Grey colour scheme in 1983. They went back to Royal Blue because it looked so awfull in light grey!

The specification of the Queen Vic is actually quite similar to us (and built in the same yard!) so depending on her itinery I would estimate her fuel consumption to be in the region of 100 to 150 tons per day. At $500.00 per ton she will be looking at an annual fuel bill in the region of round about 20 Million dollars.

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #18 on:** November 23, 2007, 12:02:23 am »

I can't remember the actual figures but when P&O went over to white hulls in the late 1930s, before air conditioning, it made a very significant difference to the internal temperature of the hull so I would think that the decision to give the Queen Vic a traditional Cunard colour scheme could be quite expensive on tropical cruises although on North Atlantic trips it would be less of a problem.

Peter Fitness · « **Reply #19 on:** November 24, 2007, 01:19:31 am »

Colin, I have already told my grandchildren, many times, I think they are sick of the name QE2

The local paper has been in touch with us and wants to run a story on our trip. Amazingly, there are at least 2 other couples from our area booked on the same cruise as us, but on different segments. One couple from the same village as us is travelling from Southampton to Sydney, and another couple from the next town is joining in Valparaiso, Chile, and leaving in Sydney. We will be a part of history as the QE2 sails through Sydney Heads for the last time - it has made a number of visits to Sydney, and I remember going down to the Overseas Passenger Terminal in Circular Quay to see her, whilst I was on a visit to Sydney in 1988, never dreaming I would be on board myself one day. We just have to stay healthy :)
Peter.

roycv · « **Reply #20 on:** November 24, 2007, 01:44:41 pm »

Hi all, I have been following this thread with interest. I see from the stats that she has a cruising speed of just 18 knots. Maximum speed 23.7 knots.
But also see that she has been strengthened for crossing the north atlantic. She is the 12th of the Vista Class from the Fincantieri yard

A piece of luck came my way and I have an invitation to visit the QV on the Sunday before she is officially named by Camilla. I have an invite for the morning which includes lunch but have to be off by 2 o/clock.

Regards to all Roy

Bunkerbarge · « **Reply #21 on:** November 24, 2007, 05:45:04 pm »

...and I'm doing a cruise on her in May so I hope all is well by then. The Fincantieri Vista Class are mostly Holland America ships although they have actually developed quite a bit since the first ones.

Perter, enjoy your cruise. The QE2 has been considered, ever since I was a boy, the Flagship of the British Merchant Navy and she now retires a wonderfull old lady, steeped in history.

She has certainly had her ups and downs, from fires and bomb scares to technical issues and groundings but she is still a superb piece of engineering that nothing before or since has been able to match. She has main motors twice the size of many ships considerably bigger and is currently the fastest liner by a long way.

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #22 on:** December 01, 2007, 07:01:26 pm »

Here's the original Queen Mary. She was renamed Queen Mary II when Cunard's QM was built but has since reverted to her previous name. Now a floating restaurant and nightclub on the Thames. She was originally a Clyde turbine steamer.

Mr Andy · « **Reply #23 on:** December 01, 2007, 09:50:18 pm »

Can I just add to this I just think it's just a massive shame that Cunard are building new ships for the travelling British public, yet they can't even be bothered to have their ships built in British yards. >:(

DickyD · « **Reply #24 on:** December 01, 2007, 09:57:22 pm »

We haven't any yards left that could build a ship this size plus Cunard is now an American company. >:(

News:

Author Topic: The New Queen Victoria - Have they made a mess or not (Read 20489 times)

Mr Andy