Distributing QE2 News

[Whitemarsh]

I think we all accept the Queen Mary 2 is designed to navigate rougher waters at higher speeds than the other two ships, she will be able to do this at a faster speed than the two smaller ships but internally is she better? Is she more comfortable, does she have a better lay-out. I totally, 100% accept you will say she is superior in every way but I also accept that others will disagree with your personal opinion.

 

Oh, do you "accept" that do you? Through gritted teeth may I ask? :)

 

Internally is she better? If you're asking if the construction and fit-out costs for QM2 were a lot more than the Fincantieri 'off-the-shelf' vista sistas - then yes they were.

 

More comfortable? Yes, QM2 is an ocean liner. The vista sistas are 'off-the-shelf' cruise ships. Ocean liners handle better in the waves than do cruise ships.

 

Comparing a vista with QM2 is like comparing a Ford with a Rolls Royce. You think anyone will care what happens to the vistas in years to come? Like they do with QE2, like they did with the Norway (ex-France) and the United States. There will be no web-sites for the vistas, no legion of fans eager for any scrap of news. MV Cunard Ambassador anyone? Thought not.

 

When the vistas are eventually sold off by Cunard to a down market cruise line within the Carnival family (most likely P&O Australia) there will be a brief blip on the news radar but that's it.

 

Having the extra speed is fine but how often is it used?

 

I don't know. Who here would know that? What is undeniable - and yes, something else for you to "accept" :) is that QM2 is faster than the Vistas.

 

This year Queen Mary departs Southampton on the 2nd September, arriving New York on the 10th. No quicker than the Vista class and YES the QM2 will possibly offer a more comfortable ride and yes she can if required or authorised, travel quicker than her smaller sisters but internally is she the better ship?

 

Yes, QM2 is a superior ship. Externally and internally.

 

Is she as profitable as her smaller sisters and what does she offer that the others fail to give (apart from the planetarium that has an awful reliability issue)

 

Who, of us on here, is going to know that or have access to the figures? What information do you have that suggests the vistas are more profitable?

 

You can't seriously be asking the question "what does she (QM2) offer that the others fail to give?". How about the ocean liner experience - for starters.

 

What do the vistas offer that other run-of-the-mill cruise ships built by those notorious cost cutters Fincantieri (who by the way are routinely referred to as Tincantieri) don't offer. How are the vistas substantially different to any other cruise ship class? And I don't mean "oh there's a room here that's unique" or "the window is round here and square in others" or "this one has a flat stern and this one doesn't".

 

Since you enjoy posing questions Glojo, here's some for you to answer:

 

Are the vistas more comfortable than other cruise ships?

Are the vistas better internally than other cruise ships?

Is it easier to waddle between feeding stations on a vista? God forbid someone might have to walk more than five steps to shovel more food in their face. :)

 

If she is indeed more profitable,will we see a second of that class?

 

Because she is so unique, they will probably not build another QM2. Just like they didn't build a sister for QE2. Interested in hearing your opinion on whether that makes QE2 a loser and unprofitable - as they didn't build a second of her class.

 

As it happens, Cunard clearly couldn't/or didn't want to spend that kind of money on another Queen class ship - possibly because they only need one ocean liner - and therefore bought two run-of-the-mill cruise ships off the Fincantieri shelf. I heard Cunard bought them online. :D

 

I am NOT defending the Vista class nor am I anti Queen Mary 2, I feel that each has their very own fan base and no doubt opinions will not be swayed or altered. I am doing my usual asking questions as eventually all going well... I intend sailing the high seas on the Queen Mary 2 (but NOT a world cruise on her)

 

Oh please, you are clearly predisposed to the vistas over Queen Mary 2. And it doesn't matter that you express your preference via 'questions', the inferences are clear.

 

Face it Glojo, you're a Vista fan-boy. :cool:

[Cruachan]

...God forbid someone might have to walk more than five steps to shovel more food in their face. :)

 

Well, you've got my 100% agreement on that statement! :D:D:D

 

J

[glojo]

She has what's known as a "Constanzi" stern. In design terms this is something of a compromise and, as is often the case with compromises, it's probably the least aesthetically pleasing feature of her external appearance. The most efficient type of stern for use with an azipod propulsion system is the flat transom type of the Vistas. However, in terms of sea-keeping properties, the traditional "spoon" stern is better. The Constanzi stern is an attempt to combine both types and, frankly, it looks a little odd. Mind you, it's not quite as bad as the ducktail type that you see on Veendam and Mein Schiff 2, inter alia.

 

J

I can honestly say the rear end of the Queen Mary is indeed very easily identifiable and I have read some interesting articles regarding its design :) I just think it just looks wrong. It is neither fox nor hound!!

 

Well, I honestly don't know if it's a point of view that would gain me any great approval from the ship spotting community but, as someone who regular travels on the new ships, I believe that the infinitely higher standard of their interior appointments and general comfort, trumps elegance of exterior appearance any day of the week. Give me a standard balcony cabin on a Vista over a Caronia class cabin on QE2 any time. And as far as I'm concerned the nerdy anoraks with their little notebooks, their packed lunches, their flasks of coffee, their binoculars and their marine band scanners can go take a collective running jump of the end of any pier of their choice.

Totally agree although am I speaking to someone that takes pictures of ships (in a train spotty nerdy manner) whilst cruising the high seas? ;);)

 

J

[Cruachan]

...Totally agree although am I speaking to someone that takes pictures of ships (in a train spotty nerdy manner) whilst cruising the high seas?...

 

The particular species of Anorak.vulgaris to which I refer is the type that sees fit to wax lyrical about the external appearance of ships while never actually having set foot on one. They constantly refer to modern ships as "blocks of flats on barges", "livestock carriers" etc etc. In extreme cases they also transfer their hatred of the ships to the people who travel on them - "rich toffee nosed snobs" is about the kindest remark I've seen. They point blank refuse to accept the old maxim that form follows function and that the modern ships are designed to provide a comfortable and entertaining holiday experience for their passenger.

 

J

[3rdGenCunarder]

Having the extra speed is fine but how often is it used? This year Queen Mary departs Southampton on the 2nd September, arriving New York on the 10th. No quicker than the Vista class

 

 

and yes, something else for you to "accept" :) is that QM2 is faster than the Vistas.

 

Note that quotes above are partial.

 

Yes, QM2 IS faster than the Vistas. She can go a lot faster. QM2 can go almost as fast as QE2 did. QE2 did 5-day crossings for years. Then Cunard went to 6 days in order to use a slightly longer more southerly route and give themselves a bit of breathing room in the schedule. When QM2 arrived, she did crossings in 6-days. These two ships did 6-day tandem crossings with no stress to either ship's capabilities. Truly magnificent machines, I would have loved to see them really race!

 

When QV arrived, tandem crossings had to be done in 7 days. A Vista just does not have the speed to do it any faster. I think QE2 started her last world cruise with a tandem WB with QV. They had to do it in 7 days, not 6. Then the run from NYC to Florida was done with 2 sea days, not the usual 1 sea day. Poor QE2 was like a greyhound being forced to adapt her pace to staying in step with a toy poodle. When QM2 did a tandem with a Vista, she had to slow down and do it in 7 days, too. Sure, QM2 could have gone faster, but it would have been rude to leave her little sister in her wake.

 

To return to Glojo's question about why the speed isn't used. (I think it was a question. There was no caveat about it, but I'll take the "?" as implying a question)

 

MONEY.

 

Like a car, a ship gets better "mpg" or whatever the maritime equivalent is, when it goes more slowly than when it races along. We did the behind-the-scenes tour on QM2 last fall, and it was made quite clear that fuel cost and fuel consumption are major factors in many of Cunard's decisions. The crossing was NOT going back to 6 days, no way, no how. There had even been a suggestion that an 8-day crossing would give them better fuel economy. I recall something about adding two days (not sure if it's comparing 5 to 7 days or 6 to 8 days) could cut fuel use nearly in half. With fuel costs being such a big chunk of the cost to run a ship, they have to take that seriously.

[3rdGenCunarder]

Well, I honestly don't know if it's a point of view that would gain me any great approval from the ship spotting community but, as someone who regular travels on the new ships, I believe that the infinitely higher standard of their interior appointments and general comfort, trumps elegance of exterior appearance any day of the week. Give me a standard balcony cabin on a Vista over a Caronia class cabin on QE2 any time. And as far as I'm concerned the nerdy anoraks with their little notebooks, their packed lunches, their flasks of coffee, their binoculars and their marine band scanners can go take a collective running jump of the end of any pier of their choice.

 

J

 

Not me! Give me my good old 1107 on QE2, and I'm a happy sailor!

 

Sigh, not gonna happen, I know. It's more likely that you'll get that Q1 upgrade you've been hinting at.

 

I accept that the accommodations on the newer ships are better. Yes, cabins are bigger. Yes, it's nice to have a balcony. But I "learned" to cruise on very traditional ships. No balcony, just small cabin--our first cabins were upper/lower bunks, not much larger than a sleeper compartment on a train. That's what it was, unless you had a lot of money for a posh stateroom. People didn't sit in their cabins or on their balconies. We sat on deck or in public spaces. That's what cruising was, and we accepted it as part of the experience.

 

When we were in port, all the ships looked like ships. One looked better than all the others--that red funnel made my heart skip a beat ever time I saw it. But nothing looked like an apartment building on a barge.

 

Over time, ships got larger and less traditional-looking. (Sorry, but ugly is the word that comes to my mind when I think of some of them) The upside of the nontraditional look was nontraditional insides--larger cabins, lots of balconies, more pools and large gym/spa facilities, extra restaurants, climbing walls, skating rinks, flow-riders, etc.

 

Whitemarsh makes a good point about some ships having a following, even after they cease to sail (or even exist). United States, Norway (France) and QE2 were special. Each was unique and sailing on any of these ships was something special. Each has/had her own mystique. Almost five years after she stopped sailing for Cunard, QE2 is still recognized. Not long ago, I mentioned to someone that I really missed QE2. The response was "Wow! You sailed on QE2?!?" If I'd said Zuiderdam (yes, a Vista), do you think I'd have had the same response?

 

So, to drag this rambling to some kind of a point--while I can't speak for everyone who disses the new designs, I admit that for me it's about longing for something that was very special to me. Seeing the "floating block of flats" is a visual reminder that an experience I loved that isn't there any more.

 

So I don't consider myself Anorak vulgaris, as I have sailed on both old and new ships. Not sure what term I would use, maybe Oldus nostalgicus?

[PennyAgain]

I guess I qualify as an Oldus nostalgicus as my first voyage on the QE2 was for transportation to get from the UK to North America.

 

It was not expensive and we dressed for dinner!

 

The crossing was in early spring and the weather was cold. Just about impossible to go out on deck.

 

But we were so happy! It was wonderful!

 

Would I do it again? Sure.

 

Those were the Good Old Days for Cunard.

[glojo]

:o:o (genuine feeling of embarrassment) I get the impression that some folks are taking points or questions as attacks on them and I just know this is not the case.. I am either a Vista groupie or a hater of floating blocks of flats :)

 

There are excellent points being made and questions are indeed being answered but no one and I mean no one has to justify their stance over any issues that are being raised. If we prefer to sail on the Queen Mary 2 or the Queen Elizabeth 2 then that is what life should be all about... Personal choice.

 

3rdGenCunarder has kindly answered questions being asked of me and yes my thoughts are indeed that it is money that stops those gas turbines from being used

 

Some interesting questions but I feel a nerve has accidentally been touched?

 

I am certainly NOT a Vista fan, a Signature class fan or any other type of fan and I cannot help but wonder just how many members of the public that enjoy this type of holiday do actually know there are various classes of cruise ship? I certainly never knew about this topic. A cruise ship is a cruise ship some different colours, others different sizes (tonnage), but a cruise ship is a cruise ship.

 

I enjoy reading up on various topics and now realise the two smaller Queens are not what some folks claim. Yes the Queen Victoria might be described as an Enlarged Vista class but is the Queen Elizabeth a Vista class or is she a Signature class ship and yes I accept this still does not make her unique but so what?

 

Are the two smaller Queens fitted out to a specification laid down by Cunard and will they therefore internally be different to any other ship of that class, or are they identical internally to all the other Vista type ships?

 

Who seriously cares though what the ship is as long as it looks nice? I have only recently realised there is such a thing as a Vista class ship and since then I have asked numerous friends who have cruised on both P&O and Cunard if they realised the Queen Victoria and the Arcadia are the same type of ship.

 

So far they all look at me wide eyed and think I am bonkers. They have never considered them to be the same. They have also stated that when inside these ships they have not for one instance thought they were the same but no doubt to the experts they are but who really cares?

 

Are they mass produced ships that look identical both internally and externally? I personally think not but I am no anorak and if we have members of this forum that believe they are identical then much respect to them and please do not think I am out for an argument. Much respect to those that do believe that all Vista class ships are identical.

 

I am definitely not out to argue with anyone and if folks believe the Queen Mary 2 is always going from A to B at a faster speed than her two sisters then so be it but on this recent World Cruise they were not always in company and at no stage did I see the Queen Mary travelling at any speed that was significantly higher than that of her two sisters. One day one ship might be cruising at ONE knot faster than the other two and other days they might all be steaming at approximately the same speed, but they were hundreds if not thousands of miles apart. They were on a separate World Cruises but from memory they were mostly cruising at approximately 18 knots.

 

Can I prove this, of course not and why should I? As I type this I have just checked on the speed of the Queen Mary as she crosses the Atlantic unaccompanied and it is 21 knots, nothing startling and nothing to write home about BUT YES... I can imagine conditions where the Queen Mary might have to slow down and the two smaller ships would probably have to slow down even more. Incidentally the Queen Elizabeth is on a more sedate cruise heading back to Southamptin at 19knts. The Queen Mary 2 can steam faster, can maintain higher speeds in rough conditions and will cross the Atlantic quicker than most, if not all other cruise ships and is this where she does sometimes use that available speed but when I pay for a holiday, the last thing I am interested in is how fast a ship can travel.

 

To answer the question about the gas turbines and how often they are used is best left to the senior engineering officer of that ship.

 

The gas turbines are very expensive. The fuel that they require is very high quality and it is actually much more expensive than the fuel for the diesels and they burn a lot more fuel per hour." Consequently, the practice is to rely primarily on the diesel engines and only use the gas turbines to "top that power off." Thus, on a six-day westbound transatlantic crossing, the ship needs to maintain a speed of 23 and a half knots. If there is no wind or inclement weather, this is about the maximum speed that the four diesel engines can produce and so the ship has been able to do some westbound crossings without using the gas turbines on occasion. If the weather is bad or the ship is delayed leaving Southampton, however, "often we will put one on but just for two or three days and then we go on just the four diesels."

This quote was given before these crossings were extended to a 7 day duration. We have had the CEO telling us this was down to the cost of fuel and here are some startling figures

 

Anorak comment

On a six day Atlantic crossing the QE2 would burn approximately 18 tonnes of fuel per hour compared to the Queen Mary 2 that would burn 30 tonnes per hour and a significant proportion of that would be the more expensive diesel. I think we can appreciate why the Queen Mary has slowed down to the seven day crossing where the gas guzzlers are not required.

 

I have just recalled that my comment regarding authorisation to use those fuel guzzling gas turbines is founded on the words of a forum member who had a conversation with the wife of the commodore.

 

We all accept the Queen Mary 2 is the better sea keeping vessel that is a given but does that make her smaller sisters bad sea keeping vessels?

 

Am I a Vista fan boy?? I would like to think not, I booked this long cruise solely on itinerary and a close second was a Fred Olsen ship, I had not really heard of the different classes and to be perfectly honest I don’t care what the class of ship is or the cruise line. I look at the itinerary and then at the cruise line and what it has to offer. The class of ship was never and would never be a consideration (although the bigger ships might not go to the locations I want to visit)

 

I do feel that Cunard have done a great PR job on the ‘liner’ m’larky as are these ships all built with the same thickness of hull plating although YES the Queen Mary 2 might have thicker ribbing but so what? Are we suggesting she will go where the smaller ships fear to tread? She will sail into seas that are not suitable for her smaller sisters? If that is the suggestion then I do not believe it. Is it fair to suggest that without the gas turbines there is little or no difference in top speeds between these ships?

 

Look at any modern warship and you will see how the steel sheets ripple as they lay against the ribs of the ship. These vessels are no doubt the Vista class ships of the military.

 

 

Since you enjoy posing questions Glojo, here's some for you to answer:

 

Are the vistas more comfortable than other cruise ships? Maybe, maybe not.

 

Are the vistas better internally than other cruise ships? Maybe, maybe not.

 

 

Is it easier to waddle between feeding stations on a vista? God forbid someone might have to walk more than five steps to shovel more food in their face. OUCH!!! Definitely not going to answer that one.

 

I am not in the corner that wants to preserve retired merchant ships, they have served their purpose and life moves on (for me)

 

But if we look at what the Americans do with some of their warships then they certainly preserve ships that are the same class and I suppose that someone, somewhere might want to eventually preserve the Queen Elizabeth (or Victoria) would they care what type of ship it was... It was the Queen Elizabeth with her beautiful Cunard colour scheme :)

[pmb1]

...

Anorak comment

On a six day Atlantic crossing the QE2 would burn approximately 18 tonnes of fuel per hour compared to the Queen Mary 2 that would burn 30 tonnes per hour and a significant proportion of that would be the more expensive diesel. I think we can appreciate why the Queen Mary has slowed down to the seven day crossing where the gas guzzlers are not required.

The "RMS Queen Mary 2 Technical Specification" handout that's available in that Deck 12 observation hall behind the bridge states:

 

"Daily consumption at a speed of 29 knots, depending on the sea state and wind, is approx 261 tonnes of HFO for the diesel engines and 237 tonnes of MGO for the gas turbines."

 

That's 10.875 tonnes/hr for the diesels and 9.875 tonnes/hr for the turbines, or 20.75 tonnes/hr total. My guess is that QM2 burns no more than 6 tonnes/hr at 21 knots on diesels only.

[3rdGenCunarder]

(partial quotes)

 

Who seriously cares though what the ship is as long as it looks nice? I have only recently realised there is such a thing as a Vista class ship and since then I have asked numerous friends who have cruised on both P&O and Cunard if they realised the Queen Victoria and the Arcadia are the same type of ship.

 

So far they all look at me wide eyed and think I am bonkers. They have never considered them to be the same. They have also stated that when inside these ships they have not for one instance thought they were the same but no doubt to the experts they are but who really cares?

 

As long as the carpets are different, nobody can tell. Camouflage is an amazing thing!

 

I am definitely not out to argue with anyone and if folks believe the Queen Mary 2 is always going from A to B at a faster speed than her two sisters then so be it but on this recent World Cruise they were not always in company and at no stage did I see the Queen Mary travelling at any speed that was significantly higher than that of her two sisters.

 

This difference is not that she DOES go faster, it's that she can. Fuel costs and a desire to have schedules be similar for the fleet influence what Cunard CHOOSES to do, not what the ships CAN DO.

[glojo]

The "RMS Queen Mary 2 Technical Specification" handout that's available in that Deck 12 observation hall behind the bridge states:

 

"Daily consumption at a speed of 29 knots, depending on the sea state and wind, is approx 261 tonnes of HFO for the diesel engines and 237 tonnes of MGO for the gas turbines."

 

That's 10.875 tonnes/hr for the diesels and 9.875 tonnes/hr for the turbines, or 20.75 tonnes/hr total. My guess is that QM2 burns no more than 6 tonnes/hr at 21 knots on diesels only.

I got those figures from an engineer that was talking about 6 day crossing and the ship using its gas turbines.

 

I have looked at the official literature for the Queen Mary 2 which only gives approximate figures and those are:

 

BUNKERING

Bunker Capacities

Heavy Fuel

5,350 tonnes

Marine Gas Oil

3,885 tonnes

Fuel Tanks

Heavy Fuel 9

Marine Gas Oil 13

 

Fuel Consumption

•

The diesel engines burn approximately 3 tonnes per hour each

•

The gas turbines burn approximately 6 tonnes per hour each

 

Queen Mary 2

uses grade IFO 380 and marine gas oil.

Those figures are per engine and the instant you slow down from your fastest speeds the savings in fuel will drop significantly. I do note how they say the fuel consumption figures are approximate but we pays our money and make our choices. Bottom line however is once the QM2 goes above 23.5knots she needs her gas turbines and for the additional few knots the costs for fuel is eye watering.

[Whitemarsh]

(genuine feeling of embarrassment) I get the impression that some folks are taking points or questions as attacks on them and I just know this is not the case.. I am either a Vista groupie or a hater of floating blocks of flats

 

There are excellent points being made and questions are indeed being answered...

 

Well not by you Glojo, your responses to the questions I posed previously were as follows:

 

• Maybe, maybe not.
  
• OUCH!!! Definitely not going to answer that one.
  

 

They're not answers!! Shame on you Glojo. ;)

 

but no one and I mean no one has to justify their stance over any issues that are being raised. If we prefer to sail on the Queen Mary 2 or the Queen Elizabeth 2 then that is what life should be all about... Personal choice.

 

Preferring to sail on one ship or another is one thing. Inferring or stating that there's no difference between QM2 and a bunch of vistas is another thing altogether. People can take an obviously incorrect stance if they wish, but they should expect others to query their stance if they do so.

 

3rdGenCunarder has kindly answered questions being asked of me and yes my thoughts are indeed that it is money that stops those gas turbines from being used.

 

Yes, we all knew that.

 

I am certainly NOT a Vista fan

 

Really? Come on, I think you may be the biggest Vista fan in the galaxy. :D

 

......a Signature class fan or any other type of fan and I cannot help but wonder just how many members of the public that enjoy this type of holiday do actually know there are various classes of cruise ship? I certainly never knew about this topic. A cruise ship is a cruise ship some different colours, others different sizes (tonnage), but a cruise ship is a cruise ship.

 

I enjoy reading up on various topics and now realise the two smaller Queens are not what some folks claim. Yes the Queen Victoria might be described as an Enlarged Vista class but is the Queen Elizabeth a Vista class or is she a Signature class ship and yes I accept this still does not make her unique but so what?

 

It gets worse, not only is Queen Elizabeth a Vista but she's a derivative Vista at that. Oh the shame....

 

Are the two smaller Queens fitted out to a specification laid down by Cunard and will they therefore internally be different to any other ship of that class, or are they identical internally to all the other Vista type ships?

 

You tell us. The question obviously interests you (as you're asking it) why don't you do some further research and come back here and provide us with an overview of your findings.

 

Who seriously cares though what the ship is as long as it looks nice? I have only recently realised there is such a thing as a Vista class ship and since then I have asked numerous friends who have cruised on both P&O and Cunard if they realised the Queen Victoria and the Arcadia are the same type of ship.

 

So far they all look at me wide eyed and think I am bonkers. They have never considered them to be the same. They have also stated that when inside these ships they have not for one instance thought they were the same but no doubt to the experts they are but who really cares?

 

I bet that the President of the Galactic Vista (and its derivative designs) Fan Club probably would.

 

Are they mass produced ships that look identical both internally and externally? I personally think not but I am no anorak and if we have members of this forum that believe they are identical then much respect to them and please do not think I am out for an argument. Much respect to those that do believe that all Vista class ships are identical.

 

Respect received and duly noted. :cool:

 

I am definitely not out to argue with anyone and if folks believe the Queen Mary 2 is always going from A to B at a faster speed than her two sisters then so be it but on this recent World Cruise they were not always in company and at no stage did I see the Queen Mary travelling at any speed that was significantly higher than that of her two sisters.

 

No one ever said that. What I (and others) have said is that QM2 can go faster.

 

One day one ship might be cruising at ONE knot faster than the other two and other days they might all be steaming at approximately the same speed, but they were hundreds if not thousands of miles apart. They were on a separate World Cruises but from memory they were mostly cruising at approximately 18 knots.

 

What's this got to do with the price of eggs? The fact is that QM2 can, and does, go faster than the Vista sisters (including the special derivative one).

 

Hey, imagine meeting QE in real life....

 

"Hi, I'm QE, the derivative Vista sister."

 

Can I prove this, of course not and why should I? As I type this I have just checked on the speed of the Queen Mary as she crosses the Atlantic unaccompanied and it is 21 knots, nothing startling and nothing to write home about BUT YES... I can imagine conditions where the Queen Mary might have to slow down and the two smaller ships would probably have to slow down even more. Incidentally the Queen Elizabeth is on a more sedate cruise heading back to Southamptin at 19knts. The Queen Mary 2 can steam faster, can maintain higher speeds in rough conditions and will cross the Atlantic quicker than most, if not all other cruise ships and is this where she does sometimes use that available speed but when I pay for a holiday, the last thing I am interested in is how fast a ship can travel.

 

Yep, that's what comes to mind when people think of QM2..."nothing startling and nothing to write home about". :rolleyes:

 

But when a derivative Vista sista rolls into town (literally) the crowds go wild....not!

 

We all accept the Queen Mary 2 is the better sea keeping vessel that is a given but does that make her smaller sisters bad sea keeping vessels?

 

No one said they were. But until recently (as in this thread) no one was inferring that the the vistas and QM2 were much of a muchness or questioning what QM2 offers that a vista (and a derivative one at that) doesn't.

 

Am I a Vista fan boy?? I would like to think not, I booked this long cruise solely on itinerary and a close second was a Fred Olsen ship, I had not really heard of the different classes and to be perfectly honest I don’t care what the class of ship is or the cruise line. I look at the itinerary and then at the cruise line and what it has to offer. The class of ship was never and would never be a consideration (although the bigger ships might not go to the locations I want to visit)

 

I do feel that Cunard have done a great PR job on the ‘liner’ m’larky as are these ships all built with the same thickness of hull plating although YES the Queen Mary 2 might have thicker ribbing but so what?

 

Clearly, and obviously, there are more differences between QM2 and a bunch of vistas than some thicker ribbing.

 

Are we suggesting she will go where the smaller ships fear to tread?

 

Yes.

 

She will sail into seas that are not suitable for her smaller sisters?

 

Exactly.

 

If that is the suggestion then I do not believe it.

 

Whatever

 

Is it fair to suggest that without the gas turbines there is little or no difference in top speeds between these ships?

 

That's like suggesting that if we reduced the capacity and power of a Bentley Mulsanne's engine there would be little or no difference between it and a Volvo V40.

 

I don't see the point of your suggestion, other than just another grenade in your seemingly unending crusade to convince us all that there's not much difference between a Vista and QM2?

 

Look at any modern warship and you will see how the steel sheets ripple as they lay against the ribs of the ship. These vessels are no doubt the Vista class ships of the military.

 

LOL. You can't be serious? So these 'Vista' warships, were they built by Fincanteiri, and as such the navy had to finish off the job with extra coats of paint and other jobs after taking delivery of the ships?

 

But if we look at what the Americans do with some of their warships then they certainly preserve ships that are the same class and I suppose that someone, somewhere might want to eventually preserve the Queen Elizabeth (or Victoria) would they care what type of ship it was... It was the Queen Elizabeth with her beautiful Cunard colour scheme :)

 

Really? Faced with a choice of preserving QM2 or a derivative vista, I'm willing to bet that the ocean liner gets the nod, not the dime-a-dozen cruise ship.

 

By the way, I like the look of QE and can't wait to sail on her. I'm sure she's going to be great.

[Fifer]

By the way, I like the look of QE and can't wait to sail on her. I'm sure she's going to be great.

 

I'm sue you will love her. For me, somehow, the light touch in the Art Deco decor seems to create a matching lightness in the mood. She also seems to be a happy ship with a palpably positive, cheerful vibe amongst passengers and crew alike, each time we have sailed on her. Can't wait for our next trip in August!

[Whitemarsh]

I'm sue you will love her. For me, somehow, the light touch in the Art Deco decor seems to create a matching lightness in the mood. She also seems to be a happy ship with a palpably positive, cheerful vibe amongst passengers and crew alike, each time we have sailed on her. Can't wait for our next trip in August!

 

How exciting, your August voyage is very near. I'm good to hear such positive things about QE. Her interiors look lovely. I can't wait!

[retafcruiser]

I guess I qualify as an Oldus nostalgicus as my first voyage on the QE2 was for transportation to get from the UK to North America.

 

It was not expensive and we dressed for dinner!

 

The crossing was in early spring and the weather was cold. Just about impossible to go out on deck.

 

But we were so happy! It was wonderful!

 

Would I do it again? Sure.

 

Those were the Good Old Days for Cunard.

 

I, too, fit into the catagory. I have fond memories of my single cabin with porthole, braving the gale force winds on deck mostly due to her 30 knot speed, driving my car to the ship in Southampton and onward from New York City, labelling some of my luggage "Not Needed On Voyage", bouillon before lunch and tea mid-afternoon, and wondering what was beyond the ropes marked "First Class Only". Yes, I was Transatlantic class but surely felt first class when served from individual chafing dishes at dinner. Hear, hear and cheers!

[3rdGenCunarder]

I, too, fit into the catagory. I have fond memories of my single cabin with porthole, braving the gale force winds on deck mostly due to her 30 knot speed, driving my car to the ship in Southampton and onward from New York City, labelling some of my luggage "Not Needed On Voyage", bouillon before lunch and tea mid-afternoon, and wondering what was beyond the ropes marked "First Class Only". Yes, I was Transatlantic class but surely felt first class when served from individual chafing dishes at dinner. Hear, hear and cheers!

 

Your post brought back lots of memories! I remember bouillon at 11 on a chilly morning on deck.

 

And, yes, the winds due to the speed. I think we were on our 4th or 5th cruise, and the wind on deck was blowing my hair around. I asked my husband why it was always so windy at sea. He just shook his head and pointed out that we were moving. Duh. (and I drive a convertible, so I should have figured it out for myself!)

[Jim Avery]

Your post brought back lots of memories! I remember bouillon at 11 on a chilly morning on deck.

 

And, yes, the winds due to the speed. I think we were on our 4th or 5th cruise, and the wind on deck was blowing my hair around. I asked my husband why it was always so windy at sea. He just shook his head and pointed out that we were moving. Duh. (and I drive a convertible, so I should have figured it out for myself!)

 

Blonde??:eek::D Where is that "duck and cover" smilie??

[3rdGenCunarder]

Blonde??:eek::D Where is that "duck and cover" smilie??

 

Redhead. So WATCH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p

[Jim Avery]

Redhead. So WATCH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p

 

Yes Mam! Always got on well with Redheads.:eek::D PS: 3rd gen here too.:D