Did crossings used to be shorter?

[jsmeeker]

I occasionally lurk in the Cunard board because I am intrigued about crossing the Atlantic on QM2. In my recent checks, i see that a crossing is 7 days. Am I nuts, or did it used to be 6 days? (or even 5???)

[pepperrn]

I occasionally lurk in the Cunard board because I am intrigued about crossing the Atlantic on QM2. In my recent checks, i see that a crossing is 7 days. Am I nuts, or did it used to be 6 days? (or even 5???)

You are correct. They used to be six. And five.

But... if you see how much fuel is used to get a five or six day crossing :eek: .

At 29 knots QM2 uses 291 tonnes of heavy fuel oil for the four diesel engines and 237 tonnes of marine gas oil for the two turbines per day.

And people aren't in a hurry to cross.

I've been on QM2 when she has been doing in excess of 26 knots, it is wonderful :) .

Happy days...

[Jim Avery]

I occasionally lurk in the Cunard board because I am intrigued about crossing the Atlantic on QM2. In my recent checks, i see that a crossing is 7 days. Am I nuts, or did it used to be 6 days? (or even 5???)

 

It was both.:D For years, the Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, and later QE2 crossed routinely (sometimes not so routinely) in 5 days. Then extended to 6 and now 7 or 8.:eek: The 5 day crossing necessitated an average 28.5 knots service speed. Typically there were 30 knot spells. Really exciting to be on a fine ship at that speed in the North Atlantic.:D

[mrb394ever]

You are correct. But I've heard (can't remember the source) that while a shorter crossing still is possible, going faster burns too much fuel to make it pay. PLUS (and this is my best reasoning) taking a ship across the ocean no longer is about GETTING THERE -- it's about the VOYAGE. So an extra two days is just that much more enjoyable . . . and it's two more days of revenue for Cunard.

[Jim Avery]

3 days 10 hours and 40 minutes, set by the United States, is still the record crossing by a passenger liner. Now that's moving!:D

[jsmeeker]

Thanks.. Glad to know my memory isn't totally going by the wayside!

 

Yes, I see how it can be more about the voyage now. If people really want to get across the pond quick, you just hop on a plane. But it's interesting to see how Cunard has adapted here. Also, it seems that a 7 day crossing makes scheduling easier when the ship just goes back and forth for a stretch. It always arrives and departs on the same day of the week when doing a 7 night crossing.

 

I was just thinking a 6 night crossing might cost me a little bit less money while also giving me an extra day in the destination (UK). But if they gotta burn extra fuel to go faster, then maybe the fare goes up to compensate for that?

[Lynnewob]

We started our Cunard trips with a Transatlantic of 6 days. This worked really well for us as you could get away with only taking a week off work now due to the additional day, it tends to roll into the next working week which poses a problem at times.

 

I can see why they've extended it due to the fuel situation and for the prices of some of the transatlantics I've seen lately, it makes sense to use as little fuel as possible as the prices seem to have really gone down.

[wripro]

Jim,

 

Nowadays with all the hassle at the airport it almost takes 3 days 10 hours to fly to Europe!

[Jim Avery]

Jim,

 

Nowadays with all the hassle at the airport it almost takes 3 days 10 hours to fly to Europe!

 

LOL! That's the truth.

[pepperrn]

The original Queen Mary was said to do "6 feet to the gallon"... :eek: .

 

(QE2 moved 11 feet on 1 litre of fuel with her diesel engines. With her steam turbines she moved 8 feet on 1 litre)

[balf]

3 days 10 hours and 40 minutes, set by the United States, is still the record crossing by a passenger liner. Now that's moving!:D

 

And probably a very unpleasant experience .

 

David.

[rgaudet]

And probably a very unpleasant experience .

 

David.

 

I would have loved to have experienced it! Those ships, Queen Mary, SS United States etc were amazing creations.

[jsmeeker]

If the seas were good, I think it would have been cool to be down low and close to the water, getting a real sense of speed.

[3rdGenCunarder]

You are correct. They used to be six. And five.

But... if you see how much fuel is used to get a five or six day crossing :eek: .

At 29 knots QM2 uses 291 tonnes of heavy fuel oil for the four diesel engines and 237 tonnes of marine gas oil for the two turbines per day.

And people aren't in a hurry to cross.

I've been on QM2 when she has been doing in excess of 26 knots, it is wonderful :) .

Happy days...

 

The change from 5 to 6 was in QE2's later days, possibly before QM2. I don't know if QM2 ever crossed in 5 days. At the time of the change, I recall being told it was partly for fuel efficiency, partly to give themselves some scheduling slack (the 5-day crossing was sometimes late, making turnaround difficult), and partly so that they could go a slightly longer, slightly more southerly route for better sea/weather.

[jsmeeker]

The change from 5 to 6 was in QE2's later days, possibly before QM2. I don't know if QM2 ever crossed in 5 days. At the time of the change, I recall being told it was partly for fuel efficiency, partly to give themselves some scheduling slack (the 5-day crossing was sometimes late, making turnaround difficult), and partly so that they could go a slightly longer, slightly more southerly route for better sea/weather.

 

interesting.

 

 

Thanks!!

[pepperrn]

The change from 5 to 6 was in QE2's later days, possibly before QM2. I don't know if QM2 ever crossed in 5 days. At the time of the change, I recall being told it was partly for fuel efficiency, partly to give themselves some scheduling slack (the 5-day crossing was sometimes late, making turnaround difficult), and partly so that they could go a slightly longer, slightly more southerly route for better sea/weather.

No, QM2 didn't cross in five days; as you suggest, the change to six days was done with QE2. The reasons you list all make sense to me, thank you. :)

[Jim Avery]

And probably a very unpleasant experience .

 

David.

 

Not hardly!:D

[seacruise9]

Hi,

 

Back in 1984, I did a crossing on the QE2 that was five days. Because we encountered some rough seas and had to slow down, the ship traveled very quickly during the remainder of the crossing to maintain its schedule. In 2001 and 2003, I did crossings on the QE2 that were each six days. As noted above, I think the crossings were lengthened to save fuel and allow some extra time if there were rough seas. I think the shorter crossings at a higher speed were more exciting. The QM2's current seven-day crossings seem a little more like a cruise.

 

I would have loved to have done a crossing on the Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, France or SS United States, but they were before my time. At least I was able to experience the incredible QE2 (still my favorite ship). Also, I was fortunate to take cruises on the SS Norway, Rotterdam (of 1959), Sagafjord and Vistafjord. The new ships are incredible, but they do not have the personality or style of these wonderful ships.

 

Chuck

[Jim Avery]

Hi,

 

Back in 1984, I did a crossing on the QE2 that was five days. Because we encountered some rough seas and had to slow down, the ship traveled very quickly during the remainder of the crossing to maintain its schedule. In 2001 and 2003, I did crossings on the QE2 that were each six days. As noted above, I think the crossings were lengthened to save fuel and allow some extra time if there were rough seas. I think the shorter crossings at a higher speed were more exciting. The QM2's current seven-day crossings seem a little more like a cruise.

 

I would have loved to have done a crossing on the Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, France or SS United States, but they were before my time. At least I was able to experience the incredible QE2 (still my favorite ship). Also, I was fortunate to take cruises on the SS Norway, Rotterdam (of 1959), Sagafjord and Vistafjord. The new ships are incredible, but they do not have the personality or style of these wonderful ships.

 

Chuck

Or, with the exception of QM2, the sea keeping abilities of those earlier express liners.

[guernseyguy]

Apart from speed laurels the purpose of the QM/QE 5 night crossing was to maintain a weekly service - they had 2 day turnarounds to store/offload cargo - so QM2's 7 night crossing maintains that weekly service - as now she arrives and departs on the same day. At some point in QE2's career the turnaround was changed to same day - which was challenging on 5 night crossings and frequently led to delays. Apart from the fuel cost considerations (iirc the consumption increases with the square of the speed) QE2's aluminium superstructure could no longer take the battering of being driven hard and fast through North Atlantic storms - Cunard had little choice in the matter. I have sailed on the QE2 at over 30 knots - and the only way you could tell was from the in-cabin navigation display - she was built to go fast and was in her element doing so.

 

I think the most heroic entrant in the "weekly ferry" was Aquitania, pushed into service to run in tandem with Queen Mary before Queen Elizabeth arrived - some hard steaming (on an ageing lady) and tough turnarounds were involved.

[Rotterdam]

I too made a TA crossing on QE2 in 5 Days...fantastic speed across the atlantic, The France was equally impressive - these 2 were the last of true Transatlantic liners. For many years cruise ships have done TA's but they cannot compare to the QE2 & FRANCE.

 

Once on a world cruise somewhere off the coast of South America the captain announced that we would encounter very strong winds - at the same moment our drinks slid across the table but did not spill & everyone carried on at a slight angle - so smoothe only a liner could perform as such.

 

Even the QM2 was built for cruises....really only a step sister to QE2......

 

 

 

 

Hi,

 

Back in 1984, I did a crossing on the QE2 that was five days. Because we encountered some rough seas and had to slow down, the ship traveled very quickly during the remainder of the crossing to maintain its schedule. In 2001 and 2003, I did crossings on the QE2 that were each six days. As noted above, I think the crossings were lengthened to save fuel and allow some extra time if there were rough seas. I think the shorter crossings at a higher speed were more exciting. The QM2's current seven-day crossings seem a little more like a cruise.

 

I would have loved to have done a crossing on the Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, France or SS United States, but they were before my time. At least I was able to experience the incredible QE2 (still my favorite ship). Also, I was fortunate to take cruises on the SS Norway, Rotterdam (of 1959), Sagafjord and Vistafjord. The new ships are incredible, but they do not have the personality or style of these wonderful ships.

 

Chuck

[Louise D]

On World Cruises, the QE2 regularly took significant diversions from the planned route to deal with weather issues. But, she always seemed to keep on schedule through bursts of 30+ knot speed to get to the next destination on time. I remember once a wonderful 3+ days of average speeds around 31-32 knots travelling in the Indian Ocean.

[dave_k63]

Just curious - what ship was that? That is amazing.

[Louise D]

Just curious - what ship was that? That is amazing.

 

Queen Elizabeth 2 - and it was not so long ago. I am thinking particularly of a world cruise with Captain Warwick in 2002.

[3rdGenCunarder]

We went to Bermuda on QE2 during a hurricane. She was late into NYC, and when we arrived at the pier, the passengers from the arriving transatlantic were still getting off the ship. So we had to hang around the pier for several hours. When we finally boarded, we were told that we would leave at 11:59 instead of 5:00, our originally scheduled departure time. I think 11:59 was the latest they could stay without hitting overnight port fees or quintuple overtime on the tugs.

 

Leaving late allowed the hurricane (which was between US and Bermuda, but right in our path) to keep moving north, sparing us some of the worst of the storm. We went fast, and we were rockin' and rollin'! I could hear the engine "flare" as the props cleared the water when her bow was low. Deadlights on lower decks were ordered closed. Very exciting.

 

We got to Bermuda ON TIME, thanks to QE2's speed. She was the only ship that left NYC that weekend that went to its original destination and arrived on time. And the captain (can't remember who it was) missed no opportunity to remind us of that!