QM2's slow crusing speed

[Jim Avery]

I'm surprised they haven't had one good run to get the trophy back from the old American ship. I would think it would be good publicity.

 

Not remotely possible for QM2 to beat the record set by the United States. Though her Blue Ribband crossing record was "only" 35.5 knots (40.9 mph) she hit a then classified 45 knots (51.8 mph) on her trials. QM2 very briefly hit 30 knots on her trials with light load and maximum power. SS United States exceeded 25 knots going astern! :D

[DWhit]

Not remotely possible for QM2 to beat the record set by the United States. Though her Blue Ribband crossing record was "only" 35.5 knots (40.9 mph) she hit a then classified 45 knots (51.8 mph) on her trials. QM2 very briefly hit 30 knots on her trials with light load and maximum power. SS United States exceeded 25 knots going astern! :D

 

Wow, didn't know that. I was raised to think of newer things being bigger, faster, better, etc. In this case, just bigger but not faster. Maybe still better, though.

[BlueRiband]

Not remotely possible for QM2 to beat the record set by the United States. Though her Blue Ribband crossing record was "only" 35.5 knots (40.9 mph) she hit a then classified 45 knots (51.8 mph) on her trials. QM2 very briefly hit 30 knots on her trials with light load and maximum power. SS United States exceeded 25 knots going astern! :D

 

I had a

last year. (In reality the SSUS won't sail under her own power ever again.)

 

I'm not retired and slower crossings mean that it's difficult to get that much more continuous vacation time. My last voyage was two 7-day TAs with a 7-day Norway voyage in between or 21 days total. Lengthening the crossing to 8 or even 9 days means the voyage will exceed my vacation time. If I have to fly one way I'm not doing it.

[Jim Avery]

I had a

last year. (In reality the SSUS won't sail under her own power ever again.)

 

I'm not retired and slower crossings mean that it's difficult to get that much more continuous vacation time. My last voyage was two 7-day TAs with a 7-day Norway voyage in between or 21 days total. Lengthening the crossing to 8 or even 9 days means the voyage will exceed my vacation time. If I have to fly one way I'm not doing it.

 

Thanks for the fun link. Queen Elizabeth was a beautiful ship as well.

[glojo]

Ships certainly use less fuel at slower speeds but also involved is the recurring wear problems on the pods when used at or near full speed. Not just on QM2 but all pod drives seem to be less durable at speed than the traditional engine/shaft/propeller set up. But I agree, speed is not the reason any more. No ship will cross as fast as a plane so why bother? Head for the Commodore Club and order a martini.:D:D

Hi Jim,

You hit that nail right on the head in so many ways. I sat down with our captain and asked what was the downside of azipods? The INSTANT answer was the wear and tear. This is a major issue on all these ships and according to he who must be obeyed the shipo requires to go into drydock to have these bearings replaced.

 

Something most people might not have noticed on our first leg crossing the Atlantic was that for a day the Queen Elizabeth steamed at just over 25knots (she showed 25.3) but was that through the water??? Certainly faster than her reported top speed.

 

The reason for this high speed dash was for a few days we had to slow down because of rough weather and we were going to be late getting into New York.

 

The captain also confirmed the Queen Mary would only use her gas turbines in an emergency situation and again as others have said here... Times have changed and I would not be surprised to possibly see those gas guzzlers being removed and maybe her main engines upgraded, but one is not connected to the other.

 

Finally once any ship gets above its economical cruising speed the fuel costs go up exponentially. I was told the exact figures for the turbines but I have forgotten them but I believe it is something like the extra speed they give uses as much fuel as the diesels alone if they were travelling at her top diesel engine powered speed.

 

Nice speaking with you again Jim

 

glojo

[Jim Avery]

Welcome back Glojo. Many here (including me) missed your postings. Hope your voyage was everything you wanted.

[BlueRiband]

Hi Jim,

You hit that nail right on the head in so many ways. I sat down with our captain and asked what was the downside of azipods? The INSTANT answer was the wear and tear. This is a major issue on all these ships and according to he who must be obeyed the shipo requires to go into drydock to have these bearings replaced.

 

Something most people might not have noticed on our first leg crossing the Atlantic was that for a day the Queen Elizabeth steamed at just over 25knots (she showed 25.3) but was that through the water??? Certainly faster than her reported top speed.

 

The reason for this high speed dash was for a few days we had to slow down because of rough weather and we were going to be late getting into New York.

 

The captain also confirmed the Queen Mary would only use her gas turbines in an emergency situation and again as others have said here... Times have changed and I would not be surprised to possibly see those gas guzzlers being removed and maybe her main engines upgraded, but one is not connected to the other.

 

Finally once any ship gets above its economical cruising speed the fuel costs go up exponentially. I was told the exact figures for the turbines but I have forgotten them but I believe it is something like the extra speed they give uses as much fuel as the diesels alone if they were travelling at her top diesel engine powered speed. Nice speaking with you again Jim glojo

 

I wonder if the four years between dry docking, as opposed to three years previously, are the result of improved design, slower crossing speeds, or both? The foremost authority on this says that Carnival stipulates pods on all new builds.

 

As for her turbines, I was told once that they are used in New York harbor or "any other situation calling for reserve power". Upon arrival at Southampton from a Norway voyage, QM2 was being fed by lines marked "Fuel Oil" and "Gas Oil". The later I'll presume is the marine gas used by her turbines. She would not have needed it if she had not used them. At our docking in Stavanger where there was the sound of high vibrations coming from her aft end - probably a case where her turbines were needed to push her ass out of harm's way. We had some pretty tight spaces up there.

[glojo]

I wonder if the four years between dry docking, as opposed to three years previously, are the result of improved design, slower crossing speeds, or both? The foremost authority on this says that Carnival stipulates pods on all new builds.

 

As for her turbines, I was told once that they are used in New York harbor or "any other situation calling for reserve power". Upon arrival at Southampton from a Norway voyage, QM2 was being fed by lines marked "Fuel Oil" and "Gas Oil". The later I'll presume is the marine gas used by her turbines. She would not have needed it if she had not used them. At our docking in Stavanger where there was the sound of high vibrations coming from her aft end - probably a case where her turbines were needed to push her ass out of harm's way. We had some pretty tight spaces up there.

Hi Blue Riband

 

You and I have been here before and I honestly cannot see what is so special about New York but obviously cannot comment about whether she uses her turbines in that one specific occasion.. I only spoke with a serving captain of Cunard and as you know they rotate from one ship to the other he has been in command of the Queen Mary 2.

 

When you talk about gently nudging her stern this way or that, then there would be no need for the gas turbines as they are designed to give extra power when needed and fine tuning a berthing or docking is all about finesse, not lots of power.

 

Regarding the gas type fuel...Could that have been used for the tenders as they most definitely do not use the heavier oil that the main engines use? It could also be that she used her gas turbines just to run them up as I can imagine that if they leave them shut down for long periods they are going to have all sorts of horrible corrosion issues???

 

Having said that I am guessing they would run them up at night as when they start after being left for long periods... They will throw out an awful lot of muck when they spin up :) (apologies for waffling on so much)

 

When we entered Lisbon and she did some tight manoeuvring she definitely did not have her turbines running. when we left Lisbon she DEFINITELY did NOT have her turbines running and when she sailed close to us in Southampton she did not have them running.

 

What you say does not make logical sense as she generates enough power to get her quickly up to her top diesel speed and that extra oomphh would only cavitate her propellers if she tried to accelerate too quickly from a crawl.....

 

Just had to take a time out to watch the space station go by... The Moon is so bright it was reflecting off the solar panels which made them visible to the human eye!!! (Just a very thin bright line)

 

I digress.. Jim will know far better than myself the cause and effects of trying to accelerate too quickly and I asked the captain this question because of the 'stick' I got here when we discussed this previously.

 

Jim

I fear I would take this specific thread wayyy off topic if I were to give you a debrief but...

 

suffice it to say we lived the dream..

 

We all talk about a 'Holiday of a Lifetime'

 

We all might go on that 'Holiday of a Lifetime' sometimes we come down to earth with a bump and perhaps rarely we are lucky enough to fulfil the dream.

 

we got three bells and hit that jackpot.. It was that holiday of our dreams and then some :)

 

Nuff said :)

 

Going back to pods.. I have NEVER seen a large ship be so manoeuvrable and the savings regarding tug fees must be a tidy sum and is that why they are stipulating these amazing devices be fitted to all their ships as I was told the bearing issue was not expected and has designers working full time trying to upgrade\redesign these vulnerable parts

[Underwatr]

Upon arrival at Southampton from a Norway voyage, QM2 was being fed by lines marked "Fuel Oil" and "Gas Oil". The later I'll presume is the marine gas used by her turbines.

Gas Oil is roughly equivalent to Number 2 Diesel (a higher grade than Fuel Oil), which is suitable for turbine use.

[pmb1]

...

The captain also confirmed the Queen Mary would only use her gas turbines in an emergency situation and again as others have said here... Times have changed and I would not be surprised to possibly see those gas guzzlers being removed and maybe her main engines upgraded, but one is not connected to the other. ...

I, for one, hope that Queen Mary 2 will always be powered by gas turbines and diesel engines. I know that the turbines are more expensive to operate than the diesels, and I heard Stephen Payne say that if he were doing QM2 again he would replace them with additional diesels. But he's wrong about that because those turbines give QM2 a fail-safe power generation capability that is unique among ships.

 

The four diesels located as low as you can go in the ship burn 3.1 tonnes/hour each of Heavy Fuel Oil to generate a total of 67.2MW; the two turbines on the top deck burn 6.0 tonnes/hour each of Marine Gas Oil to generate a total of 50MW. In other words, QM2 has two physically independent and fuel independent power supplies. Barring a catastrophic failure of her electric power distribution system, QM2 will never be dead in the water.

 

P.S. Stephen Payne also said that engineers at Chantiers de l'Atlantique, QM2's builder, suggested adding the top-deck turbines a way of adding power without requiring added interior space for diesel air intakes and exhausts. At the time he though it was a great idea, but that was long before fuel prices took off.

[pepperrn]

... The captain also confirmed the Queen Mary would only use her gas turbines in an emergency situation ...

How exciting, I've been on QM2 in an "emergency situation" on several occasions mid-Atlantic!

 

Most recently, and most thrillingly, I was actually on the bridge in December '13 during an "emergency situation" when, in a flat calm, in broad daylight, with amazing visibility from the bridge, the Commodore told me that "we are using the turbines at the moment".

 

My god the Commodore and crew were calm considering it was an "emergency situation", and my bridge tour continued as if nothing was wrong, something I wouldn't have expected in an "emergency situation". And QM2 was doing 27 knots at the time! (I was looking at the main display). All in an "emergency situation"! Gosh!

 

I shall certainly dine out on that story, I wonder why none of these frequent "emergency situations" has ever made the press?

Edited June 15, 2014 by pepperrn

[pepperrn]

I, for one, hope that Queen Mary 2 will always be powered by gas turbines and diesel engines...

Ho pmb1,

 

I agree with you totally.

 

... In other words, QM2 has two physically independent and fuel independent power supplies. Barring a catastrophic failure of her electric power distribution system, QM2 will never be dead in the water.

On a QM2 crossing one of the four diesels was "down for planned maintenance" (I was personally told by the master during conversation), therefore, rather than slow down, they were "using the turbines to maintain speed". Not an option on a cruise ship like QE or QV (which, as you know, doesn't have them).

 

Best wishes to you :)

Edited June 15, 2014 by pepperrn

[glojo]

I, for one, hope that Queen Mary 2 will always be powered by gas turbines and diesel engines. I know that the turbines are more expensive to operate than the diesels, and I heard Stephen Payne say that if he were doing QM2 again he would replace them with additional diesels. But he's wrong about that because those turbines give QM2 a fail-safe power generation capability that is unique among ships.

 

The four diesels located as low as you can go in the ship burn 3.1 tonnes/hour each of Heavy Fuel Oil to generate a total of 67.2MW; the two turbines on the top deck burn 6.0 tonnes/hour each of Marine Gas Oil to generate a total of 50MW. In other words, QM2 has two physically independent and fuel independent power supplies. Barring a catastrophic failure of her electric power distribution system, QM2 will never be dead in the water.

 

P.S. Stephen Payne also said that engineers at Chantiers de l'Atlantique, QM2's builder, suggested adding the top-deck turbines a way of adding power without requiring added interior space for diesel air intakes and exhausts. At the time he though it was a great idea, but that was long before fuel prices took off.

Some interesting points are being made here some of which come from blind love, others are clearly, factually correct.

 

The QM2 just like the other ozipod powered vessels use their power generation to make\generate electricity. They are not connected to propeller shafts in any shape, form or fashion. 'X' revolutions of the propeller needs 'x' number of AA batteries. The faster that propeller spins the more batteries is uses. When manoeuvring in harbour the propellers are 'ticking over' only a minimal number of AA batteries are being used meaning there is COPIOUS amounts of reserve power.

 

Contrary to what is being said by passionate lovers of this ship... She fails to meet the latest legislation regarding safe return to port legislation and again contrary to what is being said here she HAS BEEN DEAD IN THE WATER.

 

Regarding that high speed passage then clearly she need the gas turbines to make up time and as per my interesting chat with the captain this would have been cleared shoreside...

 

Undrwtr has kindly described what gas oil is but can it, or would it be used for the tenders??

 

Gas Oil is roughly equivalent to Number 2 Diesel (a higher grade than Fuel Oil), which is suitable for turbine use.

 

The gas turbines will have to be run periodically purely to prevent corrosion\long term damage so it is possible\probable that she was taking on additional fuel for those engines.

 

The scary thing is that warships regularly only have gas turbines for their main power, I dread to think of how much fuel they guzzle.

 

Finally I also like the idea of two independent power trains as you cannot have enough safety but those engines on the QM2 are only there to give her those very few extra miles per hour\knots.

[balf]

I'm surprised they haven't had one good run to get the trophy back from the old American ship. I would think it would be good publicity.

 

The United States was designed for very high speed because of possible use as a troop carrier.

 

A one off that will never be built again. The record is safe.

 

David.

[balf]

[quote=glojo;

 

Regarding the gas type fuel...Could that have been used for the tenders as they most definitely do not use the heavier oil that the main engines use?

 

Welcome back Glojo.

 

Also, don't certain ports ban the use of heavy oil in port. Not sure what grade of oil they use then but it has to be lighter than used normally.

 

David.

[landre1020]

I've been on QM2 several times in the last three years when she has hit 25 knots or more. Indeed in December 2013 I was on the bridge when I noted the main display showing 27 knots.

 

One difference between "a normal cruise ship" and QM2 you've not mentioned is that QM2 has a tremendous reserve of speed that cruise ships do not have. So if she is diverted/has to slow for poor weather (which has happened occasionally on my crossings on her) she has the ability to make up lost time.

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

Was this when we were headed to NY and the big snowstorm was coming? We arrived the night before so as to be in port before the storm really hit...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[ren0312]

The QM2's maximum speed of 29.6 kts is not even that fast, it is much slower than the QM, QE, and the Normandie. The old QE2 was capable of 34 kts without turbines after her reengining, which was faster than the fast carriers from WW2, and also faster than the Nimitz class. The SS United States' sustained top speed was 35 kts according to some sources.

Edited June 15, 2014 by ren0312

[BlueRiband]

... honestly cannot see what is so special about New York but obviously cannot comment about whether she uses her turbines in that one specific occasion....

 

New York harbor has high traffic, especially during sail away when passenger ferries are operating at peak schedules for the evening commute. I'm not familiar with the harbor nautical charts but it would be pretty safe to say that she has one of the deepest drafts of any ship entering the harbor. How much of the harbor is deep enough for her is something that I don't know.

 

On arrival QM2 has a tight turning basin for Red Hook. Under some wind conditions she could be pushed broadside. I don't remember the exact wind knot figure but over that amount tugs are brought in as a precaution. She used two when departing NY right before hurricane Sandy. From passing under the bridge to dropping her first mooring line it takes about an hour to turn her and back into the pier.

 

And, at high tide, she has to go under the VN bridge at dead center span.

[keithm]

According to wiki QM2 has a top speed of 29.6 knots, and has a service speed of 26 knots, so why is it always sailing in the teens or the lower 20s? When in contrast the QE2 often sailed at nearly 30 knots. Are the higher ups in Cunard trying to save fuel? Otherwise what is teh use of having a ship capable of 29 knots when you limit it to the low 20s. which is not that much faster than a normal cruise ship.

When we fist did the QM2 from NY she'd make the Caribbean in 2 days. Now it's 3. The Caribbean Festival tip during the holidays from NY to the Caribbean & back used to take 15 days. You had many ports to visit. Now is only 12 days & you se 2-3 less ports due to the slower speed. Yup, it saves money going slower.

[godfreyb]

When we fist did the QM2 from NY she'd make the Caribbean in 2 days. Now it's 3. The Caribbean Festival tip during the holidays from NY to the Caribbean & back used to take 15 days. You had many ports to visit. Now is only 12 days & you se 2-3 less ports due to the slower speed. Yup, it saves money going slower.

 

Yup - that's why my wife and I no longer take the Holiday Cruise from New York. So, save money lose customers!

[balf]

 

Regarding the gas type fuel...Could that have been used for the tenders as they most definitely do not use the heavier oil that the main engines use? /QUOTE]

 

QM2 carries two types of fuel, heavy fuel and marine gas oil. I think marine gas oil is near to the diesel used in trucks, cars, tractors, excavators etc worldwide. So that will be the fuel used in the tenders because their engines need fuel that can be fed to the injectors un heated.

 

It's interesting that QM2 has capacity for 5350 tonnes of heavy and 3885 of marine. Don't know why they need to carry so much marine gas oil though.

 

David.

[ren0312]

How fast can the QM2 do the transatlantic run if it does so regardless of fuel usage?

[DWhit]

How fast can the QM2 do the transatlantic run if it does so regardless of fuel usage?

 

I would guess in a little over four days if it averaged close to its max speed.

[Austcruiser84]

Yup - that's why my wife and I no longer take the Holiday Cruise from New York. So, save money lose customers!

 

In Dec 2012 the QM2 was fully booked. The Christmas Carribean cruise is allegedly always popular.

 

Half the 2013 cruise was already booked out by the time the ship returned to NYC.

 

What they might lose in disgruntled passengers demanding Blue Ribband speeds they more than make up in revenue from passengers spending on those extra sea days (and the lower fuel bill).

[gentlemancruiser]

Ne

 

On arrival QM2 has a tight turning basin for Red Hook. Under some wind conditions she could be pushed broadside. I don't remember the exact wind knot figure but over that amount tugs are brought in as a precaution. She used two when departing NY right before hurricane Sandy. From passing under the bridge to dropping her first mooring line it takes about an hour to turn her and back into the pier.

 

And, at high tide, she has to go under the VN bridge at dead center span.

 

On the 2012 QM2 Christmas cruise she had to make 3 tries to get off the dock in Red Hook, even with 3 tugs helping. The high winds kept her pinned for 30 minutes.

 

The QE2 at full speed was incredible ride, but VERY tought to stand on deck or even being outdoor was a challenge. In 2001 QE2 did Acapulco to LA in 2 days, the first night there was a fire in her stack because of the build up on creosote on the funnel. It was fun to watch the flames leaping out of the stack. Several crew gathered around the aft pool to watch.