California coastal - where does the ship go?

[Faircliff]

Well I know where it goes as far as the ITNERARY is concerned.... but I am wondering when we leave Catalina and head to Los Angeles for the next day, where does the ship go? I understand it only takes about 20 minutes to get from one port to the next. So, does the ship go out into international waters, or does it go very slowly in circles between the two ports? The same would apply between Santa Barbara and Catalina. It doesn't take all that long to get from one to the other. Okay, it's a silly question but I really would like to know. :-)

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Cruise Critic Forums mobile app

[MsSoCalCruiser]

Well I know where it goes as far as the ITNERARY is concerned.... but I am wondering when we leave Catalina and head to Los Angeles for the next day, where does the ship go? I understand it only takes about 20 minutes to get from one port to the next. So, does the ship go out into international waters, or does it go very slowly in circles between the two ports? The same would apply between Santa Barbara and Catalina. It doesn't take all that long to get from one to the other. Okay, it's a silly question but I really would like to know. :-)

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Cruise Critic Forums mobile app

 

The ship goes out into international waters so they can open the casino in the shops.

[drisinger]

Okay, it's a silly question but I really would like to know. :-)

 

I don't think it's a silly question at all.

 

I just learned something! ;)

[Colo Cruiser]

20 minutes? Maybe on the fast ferry.

Approx 22 miles from Catalina to LA, ship would have to travel at full speed to reach LA in 1 hour but that would never happen.

It always adjusts speed/course to reach each place at the designated time.

[Faircliff]

The ship goes out into international waters so they can open the casino in the shops.

 

 

Thanks. I appreciate the response. Just as I thought. The ship making money in the shops and casino makes sense. Gives us more time to eat too!!. ;-)

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Cruise Critic Forums mobile app

[4x4bob]

Faircliff

Thanks for posting. I am on a 4 day on the 24th and I was wondering the same thing.

 

I could picture the ship running around in circles for 12 hours. Or, if as was suggested the speed was adjusted it would be 2.1 mph.

 

The information that the ship head out into international waters answered my question about what was going to happen.

 

Bob

[shredie]

I like the look on the faces of my non-cruising friends when I tell them I'm taking a cruise to San Diego. :) (Driving from LA to San Diego is about two hours, give or take.)

[MsSoCalCruiser]

Thanks. I appreciate the response. Just as I thought. The ship making money in the shops and casino makes sense. Gives us more time to eat too!!. ;-)

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Cruise Critic Forums mobile app

 

You're welcome. There's always time to eat! :D

[MsSoCalCruiser]

I like the look on the faces of my non-cruising friends when I tell them I'm taking a cruise to San Diego. :) (Driving from LA to San Diego is about two hours, give or take.)

 

Lol, me too :)

[cr8tiv1]

On a couple of short cruises, a friend brought his GPS. One cruise, we went in circles. The other one made rectangles. At very slow rates. Most often in Mexican waters because California requires more expensive (grade) fuel.

[O2Bcrusin]

My husband always points out how we are going in circles and very slowly at that.

[beg3yrs]

On a couple of short cruises, a friend brought his GPS. One cruise, we went in circles. The other one made rectangles. At very slow rates. Most often in Mexican waters because California requires more expensive (grade) fuel.

 

Really? They're going to change their fuel in the middle of the ocean? How's that going to work? Please explain.

[BillB48]

Really? They're going to change their fuel in the middle of the ocean? How's that going to work? Please explain.

 

They do it all the time. The US to include Hawaii and Puerto Rico and Canada have an area that spans 200 miles from shore called the Emission Control Area (ECA) where vessels must burn a low sulfur fuel instead of the normal bunker fuel which are heavier oils. The low sulfur fuel is the lighter distillates such as some variant of diesel fuel. As you can imagine burning diesel oil is a lot more expensive than regular marine bunkers. They do this by carrying multiple varieties of fuel and change fuels depending on the location of the ship.

[beg3yrs]

They do it all the time. The US to include Hawaii and Puerto Rico and Canada have an area that spans 200 miles from shore called the Emission Control Area (ECA) where vessels must burn a low sulfur fuel instead of the normal bunker fuel which are heavier oils. The low sulfur fuel is the lighter distillates such as some variant of diesel fuel. As you can imagine burning diesel oil is a lot more expensive than regular marine bunkers. They do this by carrying multiple varieties of fuel and change fuels depending on the location of the ship.

 

Fascinating! Thank you for the well written response. I suppose on these short coastal runs, switching is easier. When we went to Antarctica on the Star Princess, all the fuel was replaced (in Port Stanley) with the cleaner burning fuel. I suppose that was required because they were going to pretty much burn it all on the run down and back.

[flip side of fifty]

My husband has never been on a cruise and gets dramatic motion sickness in a car and plane. He has agreed to go to Alaska with me next year, inland passage.

 

My question is this: would a slow traveled itinerary like the 4 day LA - Catalina Island be a good "test" of his cruise motion sickness meds without a great deal of costs (we live in Las Vegas) - or - would going out into the International Waters provide for just as turbulent example as any other and might deter him from trying the Alaska cruise?

 

Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks!

[chengkp75]

Fascinating! Thank you for the well written response. I suppose on these short coastal runs, switching is easier. When we went to Antarctica on the Star Princess, all the fuel was replaced (in Port Stanley) with the cleaner burning fuel. I suppose that was required because they were going to pretty much burn it all on the run down and back.

 

 

I don't really think the fuel was "replaced" with diesel. The ships have several tanks to hold fuel in. Let's say the ship can hold 8000 metric tons of fuel. She would have most likely 4-6 fuel tanks, so an average of 1600 tons per tank. On the long trip down, they would burn maybe 2000-3000 tons, so 1 or 2 tanks would be empty of heavy fuel oil. They would then fill those tanks with diesel for the trip around Antarctica, and then switch back to the tanks with the heavy fuel oil when leaving Antarctica. Port Stanley would not have the facility or need to store the ship's heavy fuel oil, and pumping it off would take more than a day.

 

For those ships that cruise to the US, currently, they have to burn fuel oil with a sulfur content of 1%, but when outside the US ECA (200 nm offshore of the US, Canadian, Hawaiian coasts, and Puerto Rico and the USVI), they can switch back to 3.5% sulfur fuel. Both of these sulfur limits can be met by burning heavy fuel oil, but they have to have separate tanks of each. Within 40 nm of California, the ship must switch to fuel with a sulfur content of 0.1%, which means diesel fuel, unless the ship plugs in to shore power when docked (port of LA). As of 1 Jan, 2015, the US ECA will switch to a limit of 0.1% sulfur, so all ships (cargo and cruise) will have to switch to diesel fuel when within 200 nm.

 

Switching fuels is relatively easy, you just open one valve and shut another. (A little more complicated than that, but I won't go into it). While this is being done, the engines don't miss a beat, and really could care less what fuel they are burning.

[MauiLvrs]

Don't know if it would necessarily be a good test as it would be weather dependent.

 

However, it would be a good excuse:D

 

Most of the inside passage is rather flat.

Out of LA not necessarily so much.

[chengkp75]

My husband has never been on a cruise and gets dramatic motion sickness in a car and plane. He has agreed to go to Alaska with me next year, inland passage.

 

My question is this: would a slow traveled itinerary like the 4 day LA - Catalina Island be a good "test" of his cruise motion sickness meds without a great deal of costs (we live in Las Vegas) - or - would going out into the International Waters provide for just as turbulent example as any other and might deter him from trying the Alaska cruise?

 

Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks!

 

Well, that's a little complicated. Having worked the West Coast for many years, I can say that some of the worst rolling (fair enough, I'm on a cargo ship) experienced was along the West Coast. It's just the nature of the beast out there. Having said that, the cruise ship will have stabilizers to minimize rolling, but these require the ship to be moving at a fairly good clip to work, and they reduce fuel efficiency, so they will limit their use whenever possible, and when doing slow passages for timed arrivals they won't work either.

 

Have you cruised before? Do you know how you react to ship's motion? You might want to try a short Bahamas cruise or Caribbean to see how your husband reacts to ship's motion. Again, the weather anywhere cannot be predicted, and the ship's motion from one cruise to the next on the same ship may be worlds different.

 

Has he tried any medications for motion sickness? The strongest one out there is the scop patch, which I think still requires a prescription in the US. It is very potent medicine, and can have some wicked side effects, so it's best to try them out before travelling to see if you get the dizziness, dry mouth, blurry vision, and in extreme cases some hallucinations.

[beg3yrs]

I don't really think the fuel was "replaced" with diesel. The ships have several tanks to hold fuel in. Let's say the ship can hold 8000 metric tons of fuel. She would have most likely 4-6 fuel tanks, so an average of 1600 tons per tank. On the long trip down, they would burn maybe 2000-3000 tons, so 1 or 2 tanks would be empty of heavy fuel oil. They would then fill those tanks with diesel for the trip around Antarctica, and then switch back to the tanks with the heavy fuel oil when leaving Antarctica. Port Stanley would not have the facility or need to store the ship's heavy fuel oil, and pumping it off would take more than a day.

 

For those ships that cruise to the US, currently, they have to burn fuel oil with a sulfur content of 1%, but when outside the US ECA (200 nm offshore of the US, Canadian, Hawaiian coasts, and Puerto Rico and the USVI), they can switch back to 3.5% sulfur fuel. Both of these sulfur limits can be met by burning heavy fuel oil, but they have to have separate tanks of each. Within 40 nm of California, the ship must switch to fuel with a sulfur content of 0.1%, which means diesel fuel, unless the ship plugs in to shore power when docked (port of LA). As of 1 Jan, 2015, the US ECA will switch to a limit of 0.1% sulfur, so all ships (cargo and cruise) will have to switch to diesel fuel when within 200 nm.

 

Switching fuels is relatively easy, you just open one valve and shut another. (A little more complicated than that, but I won't go into it). While this is being done, the engines don't miss a beat, and really could care less what fuel they are burning.

 

Wow, another well-written and educational response. You certainly have the experience (chops) which backs up your information. Thanks! I'm thinking either I misunderstood the announcement made on the Star Princess in Port Stanley (which has happened before) or the announcement was poorly worded (which has also happened before) or both.

 

What I did see was a Russian-flagged refueling vessel alongside for the whole port stop in Stanley. It was also before Princess' full-time no-smoking policy and there were numerous announcements about smoking not being allowed on the balconies and open decks on that side of the ship while the Russian vessel was alongside..

[chengkp75]

Wow, another well-written and educational response. You certainly have the experience (chops) which backs up your information. Thanks! I'm thinking either I misunderstood the announcement made on the Star Princess in Port Stanley (which has happened before) or the announcement was poorly worded (which has also happened before) or both.

 

What I did see was a Russian-flagged refueling vessel alongside for the whole port stop in Stanley. It was also before Princess' full-time no-smoking policy and there were numerous announcements about smoking not being allowed on the balconies and open decks on that side of the ship while the Russian vessel was alongside..

 

Very often the non-technical crewmembers get some of the technical details wrong when explaining things to the guests. It happens. Any time the ship is taking on fuel, there will be no smoking allowed on the open decks on the side of the transfer. Fueling usually happens during turn-around day, so it is commonly done before the guests are allowed to embark, which is why you may not have experienced the no smoking announcements before. We also try to get it done before embarkation because there does tend to be a peculiar petroleum smell around the offshore decks, which isn't real pleasant.

[SoCal Cruiser78]

post deleted.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Ryndam2002

[Cruisin' Chick]

20 minutes? Maybe on the fast ferry.

Approx 22 miles from Catalina to LA, ship would have to travel at full speed to reach LA in 1 hour but that would never happen.

It always adjusts speed/course to reach each place at the designated time.

 

Per the website for the Catalina Express, it usually takes about an hour or an hour and 15 minutes (depending on which endpoint back on the mainland, and undoubtedly sea conditions). But for some of us on the trip while we were in college, it seemed a lot longer.:rolleyes:

 

My husband has never been on a cruise and gets dramatic motion sickness in a car and plane. He has agreed to go to Alaska with me next year, inland passage.

 

My question is this: would a slow traveled itinerary like the 4 day LA - Catalina Island be a good "test" of his cruise motion sickness meds without a great deal of costs (we live in Las Vegas) - or - would going out into the International Waters provide for just as turbulent example as any other and might deter him from trying the Alaska cruise?

 

Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks!

 

Actually our Alaskan cruise ten years ago (RT from Seattle) was the smoothest cruise I've been on, and we were far forward. Leaving LA or returning, you will be hitting a current, and I'm guessing you can't miss it if Catalina is involved.

 

Have your hubby try out various remedies before the cruise. Something that might work for you or your neighbor (or people here on CC) might not work for him. If he's on any medications, he should talk to his doctor's office to make sure he won't interfere with his prescription (eg. if on a blood thinner, he should avoid ginger).

[AE_Collector]

My husband has never been on a cruise and gets dramatic motion sickness in a car and planes. He has agreed to go to Alaska with me next year, inland passage.

 

-> INSIDE Passage. There are many descriptions of just WHAT the Inside Pasage is. Very few cruise ships bother to take what is really known as the Inside Passage located further north of Vancouver Island, British Columbia.

 

There is also the "Inside Pasage" beween Vancouver Island and the mainland of British Columbia. All Alaska cruises to/from Vancouver travel this protected and very scenic route where as cruises from/to Seattle Do Not. Cruises from Seattle travel around the outside of Vancouver Island in open sea.

 

These facts may or may not affect the smoothness of at least some of the days onboard.

 

Terry

Edited September 8, 2014 by AE_Collector

[dickinson]

My RT cruise from Seattle to Alaska was the smoothest cruise I was ever on! I could barely feel the ship moving. I read that the first day out from Seattle might be rough so I took Dramamine however I could tell it wasn't needed because the ship didn't rock. After that you are close in to Alaska and it was VERY smooth. I wouldn't bother with a test cruise. Just make sure he has whatever meds he thinks he might need.

[atdahop]

My husband has never been on a cruise and gets dramatic motion sickness in a car and plane. He has agreed to go to Alaska with me next year, inland passage.

 

My question is this: would a slow traveled itinerary like the 4 day LA - Catalina Island be a good "test" of his cruise motion sickness meds without a great deal of costs (we live in Las Vegas) - or - would going out into the International Waters provide for just as turbulent example as any other and might deter him from trying the Alaska cruise?

 

Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks!

 

I suffer from motion sickness and I always used the patch. They are strong and give you a dry mouth and may have other reactions. For the last 3 cruises all either to the Mexican Riviera or Costal or Alaska I took a bonine...not dramamine ...every morning and it worked great. I would highly recommend it. I also take a prescription for antivert with me just in case.