A Marine Engineering Question for guernseyguy and Prinsendam

[Transatlantic Tom]

Peter and Stephen:

 

Based on your knowledge and experience of ships, as passengers and mariners, what would you guess (or know) to be the state of QE2 physically ???

 

She is now 36 years old, and aside from all the cruising, has crossed the Atlantic -what is it, some 900+ times- and presumably has taken quite a pounding doing so for 36 years.

 

I'm quite curious about this.

 

Many thanks !!!

 

Tom:)

[guernseyguy]

Peter and Stephen:

 

Based on your knowledge and experience of ships, as passengers and mariners, what would you guess (or know) to be the state of QE2 physically ???

 

She is now 36 years old, and aside from all the cruising, has crossed the Atlantic -what is it, some 900+ times- and presumably has taken quite a pounding doing so for 36 years.

 

I'm quite curious about this.

 

Many thanks !!!

 

Tom:)

 

Tom,

 

A Little knowledge is a dangerous thing....so here's my little knowledge!

 

From what I have heard, the QE2's steel hull is in relatively good condition, albeit not as robust (thick) as France/Norway's. A few years back corrosion caused a serious leak that could have turned very nasty had the crew not responded expeditiously. The weakness is in the aluminium superstructure, which has grown brittle with age (and the hammering on Trans-Atlantics), in particular in the cantilevered bridge structure. Hence the QE2's move to calmer waters in her dotage. For a North Atlantic Express Liner she has done remarkably well - in some areas the Aquitania was more paint than steel towards her end - the QE2 is in much better shape. In the end what will do for her will be the SOLAS fire regulations - far too much real wood in there.

 

Doug may also have further info, as I'm sure will others.

 

Peter

[Transatlantic Tom]

Thanks, Peter !!!

 

I do appreciate this information, and find it to be very interesting.

 

Tom

[dougnewmanatsea]

What I've heard is just about the same as what Peter said, so I don't have much to add. (Maybe Stephen will!)

 

I've never been able to get a clear answer on whether QE2 would be OK with the future SOLAS fire regs or not. I suspect not, but have never found hard proof nor anyone who knows for sure.

[QueensFan]

I'd heard that the wood could be fireproofed to pass. If so, couldn't they just spray all her woods with that fireproofing spray, and not lose her or her character?

 

I would think that that would be feasable...of course, I can't even find any info on the 2010 amendment (and it's an amendment to SOLAS 74, not a whole new convention) on the SOLAS site.

[dougnewmanatsea]

I'd heard that the wood could be fireproofed to pass. If so, couldn't they just spray all her woods with that fireproofing spray, and not lose her or her character?

It is definitely not that easy.

 

As I understand it, it goes well beyond wood. In a ship built to SOLAS 74 (or SOLAS 60 Method I), all of the materials used needed to be approved for noncombustibility.

 

In a ship built to an earlier standard (or SOLAS 60 Method II), there were no restrictions at all on combustibility. Thus, there could be many things beyond wood in QE2 that is combustible - or even is noncombustible, but was never tested and approved (which from the legal standpoint is just as bad).

 

The real issue is whether she was built to Method I or Method II. If she was built to Method II, she is basically doomed, and nothing short of completely gutting her interiors would save her.

 

At least this is how it has been explained to me.

 

I can't even find any info on the 2010 amendment (and it's an amendment to SOLAS 74, not a whole new convention) on the SOLAS site.

Last I checked, this amendment was, as you say, missing from the SOLAS site.

 

Officially, as I recall, it is called the 1992 Amendment, not 2010. SOLAS amendments and convention are named for the year in which they were ratified, e.g. SOLAS 1974 was ratified in 1974 and took effect in 1980.

[2moose]

Peter and Stephen:

 

Based on your knowledge and experience of ships, as passengers and mariners, what would you guess (or know) to be the state of QE2 physically ???

 

She is now 36 years old, and aside from all the cruising, has crossed the Atlantic -what is it, some 900+ times- and presumably has taken quite a pounding doing so for 36 years.

 

I'm quite curious about this.

 

Many thanks !!!

 

Tom:)

THE QE2 HAD ITS 1,000th TRANS ATLANTIC CROSSING ON ARRIVAL IN NYC JULY 3, 1995. BY MOST IF NOT ALL STANDARDS THE GRANDE LADY IS OBSOLETE.

[guernseyguy]

THE QE2 HAD ITS 1,000th TRANS ATLANTIC CROSSING ON ARRIVAL IN NYC JULY 3, 1995. BY MOST IF NOT ALL STANDARDS THE GRANDE LADY IS OBSOLETE.

 

2moose - you meanie! There's life in the old girl yet! (well, as long as there's profit...but if something major goes.....) And yes, by modern standards she's very old hat - all those funny shaped cabins, stair cases to no where and lifts that don't descend as far as the proles....and thats her charm;)

 

Peter

[KenC]

........ yes, by modern standards she's very old hat - all those funny shaped cabins, stair cases to no where and lifts that don't descend as far as the proles....and thats her charm;)

 

Peter

 

Sorry Peter - charm to some maybe, but downright irritating to many. Circulation is tortuous, often crowded and signage frustratingly inadequate - I found it easier to find my way around the QM in Long Beach!!! On the last day of our weekend trip there was a distinct list to starboard which one of the officers put down to wind!!! This combined with being used to balcony cabins (and how easy that becomes) made it feel somewhat claustrophobic in our 3 Deck cabin with its sealed portholes. I for one would not like to be aboard this particular ship if (God forbid) there were a serious 'emergency'.

 

As I heard it too, the aluminium superstructure is worn out and constantly buckling so the high cost of 'fixing' it means her days are numbered.

[MollyBrown]

Sorry Peter - charm to some maybe, but downright irritating to many. Circulation is tortuous, often crowded and signage frustratingly inadequate - I found it easier to find my way around the QM in Long Beach!!! On the last day of our weekend trip there was a distinct list to starboard which one of the officers put down to wind!!! This combined with being used to balcony cabins (and how easy that becomes) made it feel somewhat claustrophobic in our 3 Deck cabin with its sealed portholes. I for one would not like to be aboard this particular ship if (God forbid) there were a serious 'emergency'.

 

As I heard it too, the aluminium superstructure is worn out and constantly buckling so the high cost of 'fixing' it means her days are numbered.

 

QE2 is a true ship, the real thing. There's a very romantic element to being on a real ship (especially when the weather is rough). The others, including QM2, are more like hotels at sea. It depends what you like.

[guernseyguy]

QE2 is a true ship, the real thing. There's a very romantic element to being on a real ship (especially when the weather is rough). The others, including QM2, are more like hotels at sea. It depends what you like.

 

MollyBrown,

 

Nary a truer word was said! I think responses to the QE2 fall into two categories - those, like you and I who love her for all the history she represents and find the left overs of the class structure intriquing, rather than irritating. Then there are others, like Ken (or Ernie) who view her objectively as a functional cruise ship - and find her seriously lacking. I can understand that point of view too. Waiting to tender off some port, while her younger cousins tie up in the dock I can imagine would be very frustrating. But in a gale in the North Atlantic, I can think of no finer ship to be on. Perhaps her younger sister is as good ( I don't know yet), but I suspect she moves less - so for me, not as 'good'. Let us enjoy her while we still may!

 

Peter

[KenC]

QE2 is a true ship, the real thing. There's a very romantic element to being on a real ship (especially when the weather is rough). The others, including QM2, are more like hotels at sea. It depends what you like.

 

 

MollyBrown .... what an earth is a true ship - one that floats??? Well, the one real thing QE2 has about her is being old, but how does that alone make her any 'better' than any other ship? She supposedly handles well in Atlantic Gales (though is unlikely to see many more of those) but modern technology has enabled QM2 to be the better sea boat in rough weather (by a factor of 2). In the 1960's QE2 was built with a welded steel section hull, a lightweight aluminium superstructure and twin screws but was replacing liners with rivetted all steel plate hulls and quadruple screws - did that make her any less a real ship?? As far as hotels at sea are concerned, by their very nature all passenger ships are hotels at sea - some are just better at it than others!!

 

Romance happens in one's head but in my opinion it shouldn't be a catchall excuse for poor amenities on an old ship.

 

Peter ... I love a rough sea but can think of nothing more disturbing than being onboard QE2 in the middle of one.

 

Respectfully

 

Ken

[carlmm]

I just pick one point:

 

As far as hotels at sea are concerned, by their very nature all passenger ships are hotels at sea - some are just better at it than others!!

 

 

One might disagree.

 

If you define a passenger ship as hotel at sea, it is consequent to prefer standardized shoe box rooms that could be found in any Holiday Inn on shore.

 

If one, like me, enjoys the constant reminder of being onboard of a liner, one prefers the individually shaped cabins with a lot of real wood, some special solutions and even some cranks.

It does not have to be a balcony, a porthole is just fine as long as there a lovey public rooms with a lot of comfortable seats along the windows.

[guernseyguy]

Peter ... I love a rough sea but can think of nothing more disturbing than being onboard QE2 in the middle of one.

Respectfully

Ken

 

Ken,

 

Really, why? I felt comfortable and secure on the old girl on the December 2002, (severe gale 9) crossing. Much more comfortable than on the Golden Princess thudding through a mild swell. And the creaking of the wood soothes one gently to sleep....that & the sound of things falling off shelves and wardrobe doors slamming!

 

Peter

[KenC]

.....If you define a passenger ship as hotel at sea, it is consequent to prefer standardized shoe box rooms that could be found in any Holiday Inn on shore.

 

If one, like me, enjoys the constant reminder of being onboard of a liner, one prefers the individually shaped cabins with a lot of real wood, some special solutions and even some cranks.

It does not have to be a balcony, a porthole is just fine as long as there a lovey public rooms with a lot of comfortable seats along the windows.

 

Not so, not so .... there are many wonderful landbased hotels - who said anything about prefering standardized shoeboxes as in Holiday Inns ???? Shoebox is more of a description I would use for QE2 cabins !!!!

 

I would have thought that there were more clues to being onboard a liner than quirky shaped spaces with 'real' chipped timber veneer ???? Like being surrounded by water and moving all the time !!!!

 

Lovely public rooms with a lot of comfortable seats?? I thought we were talking about the QE2 !!!!

[Transatlantic Tom]

 

Peter ... I love a rough sea but can think of nothing more disturbing than being onboard QE2 in the middle of one.

 

 

Ken:

 

Come on now...we've all been nice, and have tried to be respectful of how you feel about QE2...a little reciprocity, please.

 

I completely accept the fact that you've never liked the style, decor, atmosphere, look of QE2. That's fine, nobody can and will change your mind about something that is so clearly a personal and subjective view. It's matter of taste. However, when you implicitly challenge her power and seakeeping abilities, that's where I stand up and defend the lady's honor !!!

 

I think you're being gratuitous.

 

In my experience, being aboard QE2 in a North Atlantic gale is an amazing experience. I've had the pleasure, yes the pleasure, of being aboard her through Force 8-9, and Force 11 winds/rough seas during my last two crossings...and all the while maintaining speed. Something to experience. Other than QM2, how many other currently active passenger ships can do that ???

 

I give you the benefit of the doubt, Ken, and assume you're a gentleman; I'm sure a gentleman did not intend to slander a lady nor the great Scottish workers who built her.

 

Regards.

 

Tom

[KenC]

... charm to some maybe, but downright irritating to many. Circulation is tortuous, often crowded and signage frustratingly inadequate - I found it easier to find my way around the QM in Long Beach!!! On the last day of our weekend trip there was a distinct list to starboard which one of the officers put down to wind!!! This combined with being used to balcony cabins (and how easy that becomes) made it feel somewhat claustrophobic in our 3 Deck cabin with its sealed portholes. I for one would not like to be aboard this particular ship if (God forbid) there were a serious 'emergency'..

 

Tom

 

Sorry if not all people agree that QE2 is the best thing since sliced bread. I didn't question her power or sea keeping capabilities (see above) - I felt claustraphobic and wouldn't want to translate that to mid Atlantic conditions.

 

By the way she is a ship not a lady so slander is a bit over the top don't you think?

 

Ken

[guernseyguy]

I felt claustraphobic and wouldn't want to translate that to mid Atlantic conditions.

 

Ken,

 

It doesn't work like that....half the ships on the great white telephone to god, so the decks are quite quiet & rooms quite empty....but you'll never know...so lets just leave it.

 

By the way she is a ship not a lady so slander is a bit over the top don't you think?

 

Gentlemen, Mr Nitpicker would point out that it would be libel (written).....;)

 

Peter

[Louise D]

A few years back I was on QE2 on the Southern Ocean and Great Australian Bight, in conditions far worse than is encountered on the Atlantic. Many of the crew were seasick, and few could sleep as the motion of the ship was such that it was almost as if one was about to be flung from the beds.

 

At that time we were tracking along with the Aurora which was on its maiden voyage around the world. The Aurora was having to hug the coastline to try to get some shelter from the conditions. Nevertheless, the QE2 stayed proudly out at sea and took the full force. When we met up with the Aurora in Fremantle we heard dreadful tales of their journey, and severe sickness of most of the passengers and crew. From that day I vowed I would not travel on any of these modern cruise ships but would remain loyal to QE2 until it was removed from service. Another time QE2 perfectly handled being caught in a typhoon off Taiwan; I continued to walk around the ship without trouble and felt perfectly safe, although again there were many suffering from seasickness.

[Transatlantic Tom]

Tom

 

Sorry if not all people agree that QE2 is the best thing since sliced bread. I didn't question her power or sea keeping capabilities (see above) - I felt claustraphobic and wouldn't want to translate that to mid Atlantic conditions.

 

By the way she is a ship not a lady so slander is a bit over the top don't you think?

 

Ken

 

Ken:

 

(a) You don't have the advantage of hearing me say what I write, so therefore you didn't pick up on the "joshing/teasing/taking the mick" nature of what I put on to my message...so "over the top" you ask me - Yes, I suppose, but it's all in fun, isn't it ????.....just like people debating sports, music, the arts, or life !!

 

(b) I will never try to convince you, in particular, that the QE2 is anything at all - I already know what you think of the ship...not much, to put it it mildly.

 

© I did, however, get the strong impression that you were seriously questioning the ship in the sense of how she handles the sea. I thouht that, itself, was over the top, to coin an expression.

 

(d) Out of curosity (and I'm not being a wiseguy about this) which ships of the 1950s through 1960s era did you like ??? Rotterdam, the Italian Line ships, France, Oriana, Union Castle ships ???

 

Thanks

 

Tom

 

PS Thanks for the correction, Peter - I should know better than to post something on this board without editing myself !!

[KenC]

Hi Tom

 

Phew ... that's a relief! I had visions of you going blue under the collar because I was still daring to criticise QE2 - and you know there are some out there who are probably going purple as I write!!! It's nothing personal as I hoped you would realise, but there is an a fan base that treats this ship like some sacred cow beyond all criticism, valid or not - and that bugs me because it leads others (like Jimsgirl) to try the ship with huge expectations that cannot be met (especially when Cunard are still pushing her 'cosmopolitan chic .. and .. ambiance of relaxed sophistication').

 

Don't get me wrong, I UNDERSTAND why you 'transatlantic guys' all enjoy her so much and good luck to you, but she doesn't do it enough for me to be satisfied with the overall product. Believe me I have never had a doubt that she is an excellent piece of marine engineering (even when she kept breaking down!) - shamefully she is one of the last examples of what British shipbuilders could produce.

 

I grew up in the 50's and 60's fascinated by passenger ships but despondent because of their ongoing decline. For me the new builds of the time were often shadows of the famous liners of the pre-war era. However, I did drool over the Italia Line ships (favourite Leonardo da Vinci - but disappointed with the funnels on Michaelangelo and Raffaello), Lloyd Triestino's G Galilei and G Marconi (still hate the names though), P&O Orient Canberra and Oriana (great workhorses - seen both in Southampton), French Line's France (seen many times as Norway) and my favourite, Swedish America's elegant Kungsholm of 1965 (which preceded QE2 on the same slipway and which I was lucky enough to take my first cruise on back in 1989 when she was Sea Princess.). Rotterdam didn't appeal much - never did like her profile. And - of course I have followed QE2's career and changing appearance with great interest and I still love her yacht-like exterior. Sadly, but inevitably, all these ships are gone or will be gone soon, but for me their successors however different in construction and appearance still largely excite and delight. We are in a new age of the mega cruiseship and I appreciate that enormously. If you ask me whether I would prefer any of the favourites of the 50's and 60's to the new ships today, then I would probably have to say that they were fabulous in their day and its wonderful to appreciate them, but times and standards move on. Not that I believe everything new is necessarily better, but then neither is anything old beyond improvement.

 

Regards

 

Ken

[Druke I]

KenC

 

I agree, Kungsholm, aka Sea Princess, aka Victoria, and now Mona Lisa was a lovely ship.

 

We sailed her, as Sea Princess, May 89, Kobe Japan to Vancouver BC, via Honolulu. Great ship and itinerary.

[Transatlantic Tom]

Ken:

 

Thanks for your views and opinions about those ships. I do think that we are lucky to have a love of ships !!

 

I grew up in Seattle, with a view of Puget Sound from my home, and the sound of ship's in the distance. During those years (1960s-1970s) I sailed aboard the passenger ships of the Matson Line, a fairly historic US west coast company based in San Francisco. Their flagship carried approx 700 passngers, and then two smaller ships carried 380 passengers. Because of this, I'm not too keen to sail on ships with any more passengers than the numbers on QM2 and QE2.

 

Like so much in life, one's taste in ships is so subjective.

 

You're right, there are alot of QE2 fans, devotees, fanatics, etc. I think in many ways she represents many things to people...again, it's all subjective.

 

Cheers

 

Tom

[Richard Schmidt]

MollyBrown,

 

Nary a truer word was said! I think responses to the QE2 fall into two categories - those, like you and I who love her for all the history she represents and find the left overs of the class structure intriquing, rather than irritating. Then there are others, like Ken (or Ernie) who view her objectively as a functional cruise ship - and find her seriously lacking. I can understand that point of view too. Waiting to tender off some port, while her younger cousins tie up in the dock I can imagine would be very frustrating. But in a gale in the North Atlantic, I can think of no finer ship to be on. Perhaps her younger sister is as good ( I don't know yet), but I suspect she moves less - so for me, not as 'good'. Let us enjoy her while we still may!

 

Peter

 

Agreed, Peter and Molly Brown. This is the ship I want to be on in a storm. I hope like hell QM2 has half her charm, but for now, as long as QE2 does a crossing once a year, she is where I will be.

 

Richard

[seaventurer]

I'd like to keep this thread going - for the love of ships...QE2 at 36 is not young - so face the facts. While she was built with crossings as her mainstay, and as an ocean liner, she has taken a beating not only from the conditions she was designed for but the reconstruction, additions, renovations, re-plumbing, engine changes, etc., etc. Let's not discount the fact that during her history, Cunard has not been the best at maintaining her.

 

Is she sound - IMO yes, but again, face the facts. She is old, worn out in many areas and best served to operate as she is - I still love her.

 

On the same topic - let's review for example the Rotterdam (1959) - my all time favorite - and still floating, but not without her own issues and problems. I know after sailing on her many times in the late '70's - She was designed by a naval architect and if you look at her closely, was top heavy (a flaw the architect admitted well after the ship was completed and almost killed himself). We all know she almost capsized in the MED not from a storm but from an undersea earthquake which took her to 40 degrees.

 

Let's face it - the QM2 is the only ship today that will be here in 2010 crossing the Atlantic as an ocean liner (unless we get a sister). Where's the QE2 foundation - cause if we want to protect her from being a candidate for Alang, best to think ahead. Like other posters have mentioned, too much imbedded wood...and the cost to continue to operate her by anyone will be enormous compared to today's ships.

 

Final topic: Today's Ships. Wake up - this is the era of an explosive industry - cruising. Ten years ago would you have ever imagined a 139,000 ton rock climbing, ice skating, floating paradise? Or FIVE OF THEM and a new round of even BIGGER monsters carrying 6,000 passengers and crew??? And now Carnival owns 40% + of the entire berths at sea - so who knows...I have managed to find peace and happiness at times on a Radisson ship; a few suites on the NCL SUN, and other ships that even though can be considered mainstream, can in fact deliver a premium product.

 

So for those whose love affair for ships of age including the QE2 - start looking at what's next - and the reality that as great and wonderful our favorite ship may be, the time is near...say your blessings and move on.