latebuyer Posted July 22 Author #576 Share Posted July 22 If they can sail from tampa would they be able to sail through vancouver in terms of height? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillB48 Posted July 22 #577 Share Posted July 22 17 minutes ago, latebuyer said: If they can sail from tampa would they be able to sail through vancouver in terms of height? Yes, the Sunshine Skyway is lower than Lions Gate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scamper Posted July 22 #578 Share Posted July 22 Frankly, I remain grateful that Tampa can't accommodate Icon and Voyager class sized ships. Considering the location of the piers and the fact that there are so many mid-week arrivals and departures, traffic in that area can be bad enough for a couple of hours with what they have right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeRick Posted July 22 #579 Share Posted July 22 21 hours ago, cruiselvr04 said: We haven’t seen that happen in a few years. If I remember right, the last one didn’t sell too well although I’d go now. We did Miami to San Diego on a Celebrity M-Class (Infinity) a few years ago. It went through the old Locks which I loved. And fit under the Bridge of the Americas. We also went Around the Horn on Celebrity Eclipse (S-Class). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeRick Posted July 22 #580 Share Posted July 22 11 hours ago, PhillyFan33579 said: At the top tier event on Enchantment today the Captain said he was confirming the rumors that RCI was building a new ship class called Discovery. He said he didn’t know the details of the ship, but that it would be bigger than Radiance class ships and smaller than Voyager class ships. He also said the ship would be able to sail from Tampa. That part makes sense considering how many RCI ships are currently sailing and will be sailing in the near future from Tampa. Or technology might work too. I seem to recall a ship or two (Oasis, Quantum) with retractable funnels to fit under bridges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latebuyer Posted July 22 Author #581 Share Posted July 22 So looks like they can accommodate Vancouver (200) and Baltimore (185) if accommodate Tampa (180) if earlier post is correct and what Bill48 said. My concern is that they stuff to many cabins in these ships to make up for smaller size but its early days yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcuchio24 Posted July 22 #582 Share Posted July 22 No interest in smaller ships, but if there is market segment where they can make $$ off smaller ships, be interesting to see what they roll out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillB48 Posted July 22 #583 Share Posted July 22 3 hours ago, TeeRick said: Or technology might work too. I seem to recall a ship or two (Oasis, Quantum) with retractable funnels to fit under bridges. The Oasis and the Allure were both fitted with retractable funnels to clear the Great Belt Bridge in Denmark for their delivery from the yard where they were built in Finland. The Great Belt Bridge has a published clearance of 213', I don't know if that is the permitted navigational clearance. All the other Oasis class ships were built in France and did not have to clear the GBB, so I don't believe they were similarly equipped. I don't if the original lowering systems were kept operational, however the Oasis does now retract the funnels for passage under the Verrazano Narrows Bridge. The Verrazano has a permitted clearance of 215'. The Quantum is the only ship in this class I have seen lower the funnels, I don't know if that ability extends to the sisters in the fleet. Cruise Critic poster Hoopster95 has of picture of the Quantum's specifications which shows her air draft as 62.5 meters (205') which is the Bridge of the Americas case by case max air draft. I am fairly certain the 62.5 figure is with the funnels retracted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker19 Posted July 22 #584 Share Posted July 22 25 minutes ago, BillB48 said: All the other Oasis class ships were built in France and did not have to clear the GBB, so I don't believe they were similarly equipped. The Quantum is the only ship in this class I have seen lower the funnels, I don't know if that ability extends to the sisters in the fleet. Symphony sails from NJ and needs to clear Verrazano weekly. Pretty sure all three regular Q class (Quantum, Anthem and Ovation) were built the same way for their funnels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare twangster Posted July 22 #585 Share Posted July 22 40 minutes ago, BillB48 said: The Quantum is the only ship in this class I have seen lower the funnels, I don't know if that ability extends to the sisters in the fleet. Ovation was the first Q class to visit Vancouver (with funnels lowered). I've also seen Odyssey lower her funnels while I was riding North Star on her at CocoCay. It seems they were exercising them for routine maintenance. I haven't personally seen Anthem, Quantum or Spectrum lower their funnels but if you say Quantum does that's good enough for me. I assume the others do as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumping Cruiser Posted July 22 #586 Share Posted July 22 2 minutes ago, twangster said: I haven't personally seen Anthem, Quantum or Spectrum lower their funnels but if you say Quantum does that's good enough for me. I assume the others do as well. I can confirm that Anthem does have retractable funnels. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare twangster Posted July 22 #587 Share Posted July 22 (edited) @BillB48 While beside Indy at the pier in CocoCay I once used the measuring tool on my phone to estimate the platform around the dining room at around 38 feet to the water line. I don't put a lot of faith into a smartphone measuring guestimator but even with a 20% margin of error that still isn't very high. Was it you that mentioned that the PC requires 55 feet of clearance? I've often thought it was Royal's tendency to stow lifeboats slightly outside the side profile of the ship that contributed to challenges fitting into the canal. Royal does this to maximize interior volume and create more internal space to put things but it has implications such as platforms and structure that sticks out beyond the side profile of the ship. NCL's Escape also does not have flush lifeboats (they stick out) while the later ships in this class stow the lifeboats within the side profile of the ship i.e. Joy, Bliss and Encore. As near as I can tell Escape is the only ship in this class that hasn't used the new canal. That got me thinking perhaps having platforms, lifeboats or other structure protruding from the sides of the ship may be a factor in the ability to use the PC. Edited July 22 by twangster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBE4 Posted July 22 #588 Share Posted July 22 4 hours ago, elcuchio24 said: No interest in smaller ships, but if there is market segment where they can make $$ off smaller ships, be interesting to see what they roll out. I think you've hit on the key phrase. Royal likes to make money and if the 8 smaller ships that comprises a quarter of their fleet are making a profit, why abandon the ships, ports, itineraries and more importantly, the approximately 20,000 passengers that sail on them? I know some people will argue that a Oasis ship is more profitable per person based on lower operating cost, etc, etc, blah, blah so just build 3 or 4 more Oasis class ships to serve those 20,000 people. But if those people prefer a smaller ship or certain port, they will not be persuaded to cruise a mega-ship. I guess they could go to Celebrity if the price is right. Or they could go to the competition. 20,000 per week is over 1 million passengers per year. That's a lot to concede to the competition. B 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillB48 Posted July 22 #589 Share Posted July 22 1 hour ago, twangster said: Was it you that mentioned that the PC requires 55 feet of clearance? It could have been me. I stumbled into that requirement when I was digging around for air draft clearances for the Voyager/Freedom ships which 208' seems to be the accepted figure. There had been quite a discussion as to whether or not Voy/Free ships could squeeze under the BoA. Here are the actual requirements for protrusions at the new locks from a Canal publication. ) In the Neopanamax Locks protrusions, cargo or extensions beyond the ship’s side located 16.85 meters (55.268 feet) or less above the waterline are not acceptable; however, OP Notice to Shipping N-1-2022 Vessel Requirements extensions up to 4 meters (13.12 feet) beyond the hull and higher than 16.85 meters (55.268 feet) from the waterline will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to verify the minimum clearance of 1000 mm (3.33 feet) from all equipment above the lock walls (such as valve stems, bitts, etc.). Protrusions of up to 5 meters located higher than 22.87 meters (75.01 feet) or up to 6.5 meters (21.32 feet) and located higher than 25.44 meters (83.44 feet) over the waterline, will also be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to verify the minimum clearance is provided from all equipment (such as light posts, valve stems). I mentioned in another post that HAL's pinnacle class ship Koningsdam did not officially meet the protrusion requirements but they did lock it through anyway. I have attached a short video which does show how close the lifeboats are in relation to the lock wall. What you don't see is where the valve actuators extend above the wall. The valve actuators are hydraulic cylinders that extend around 10' above the surface of the lock wall. If the vessel would happen to come into contact with the wall there could be involvement with the valve actuators. As long as the vessels remains some what centered in the chamber, no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rackham Posted July 23 #590 Share Posted July 23 I posted this on another forum recently, but might be interesting with the current discussion. I hadn't heard the width comment before, but that got me curious. Assuming Neopanamax sizing, so Royal can use the canal to reposition, this would mean a width up to 51.25 meters (168.14 feet). Current RCCL ship class widths from Wikipedia... Vision ..... 32m (106 ft) Radiance ..... 32.2 m (105.6 ft) Voyager ..... 48.01 m (157.50 ft) Freedom ..... 38.6 m (126 ft 8 in) waterline; 56.0 m (183 ft 8 in) bridge wings Quantum ..... 41.2 m (135 ft 2) waterline; 48.9 m (160 ft 5 in) maximum Quantum Ultra ..... 41.39 m (135 ft 10 in) waterline; 49.39 m (162 ft 0 in) maximum Icon ..... 48.47 m (159.0 ft) Oasis ..... 47 m (154 ft 2 in) waterline; 64.9 m (213 ft) maximum A series of quick searches yields the following max heights out of water for passing under select bridges... Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Tampa Bay ..... 180 ft Francis Scott Key Bridge, Baltimore ..... 185 ft Lions Gate Bridge, Vancouver ..... 188 ft at high tide Bridge of the Americas, Panama ..... 190 ft Radiance class's air draft (height above the waterline) is apparently 172.3 ft. So Discovery class could be as wide as Icon with the air draft of Radiance. Interesting. Edit: I did a very quick edit of Brilliance next to Wonder from CoCo Cay to illustrate what a Radiance class ship would look like with extra girth [of Oasis class]. Brilliance's width has been scaled to match Wonder's at the waterline. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker19 Posted July 23 #591 Share Posted July 23 7 hours ago, Rackham said: Francis Scott Key Bridge, Baltimore ..... 185 ft The limiting factor for Baltimore is now the Bay Bridge (186ft) -the replacement to the Key bridge will likely be higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovesthebeach2 Posted July 23 #592 Share Posted July 23 On 7/22/2024 at 12:28 AM, PhillyFan33579 said: At the top tier event on Enchantment today the Captain said he was confirming the rumors that RCI was building a new ship class called Discovery. He said he didn’t know the details of the ship, but that it would be bigger than Radiance class ships and smaller than Voyager class ships. He also said the ship would be able to sail from Tampa. That part makes sense considering how many RCI ships are currently sailing and will be sailing in the near future from Tampa. I’m sure not many would agree with me, but the Tampa port just may be my favorite. It's small so not jam packed with lines of cars coming and going like in port Canaveral. It’s so much easier cruising from there for us. We live almost the same distance from either of those ports, slightly closer to Tampa, and I’m so happy to hear that Royal isn’t abandoning it for the future. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Researcher Posted July 23 #593 Share Posted July 23 16 minutes ago, lovesthebeach2 said: I’m sure not many would agree with me, but the Tampa port just may be my favorite. It's small so not jam packed with lines of cars coming and going like in port Canaveral. It’s so much easier cruising from there for us. We live almost the same distance from either of those ports, slightly closer to Tampa, and I’m so happy to hear that Royal isn’t abandoning it for the future. If they sailed newer Royal ships from that port I would love to depart from there. We can typically get good flight prices to the Tampa area, and the lower crowds around the port are a plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare twangster Posted July 23 #594 Share Posted July 23 33 minutes ago, lovesthebeach2 said: I’m sure not many would agree with me, but the Tampa port just may be my favorite. It's small so not jam packed with lines of cars coming and going like in port Canaveral. It’s so much easier cruising from there for us. We live almost the same distance from either of those ports, slightly closer to Tampa, and I’m so happy to hear that Royal isn’t abandoning it for the future. From the East coast of Florida just south of Port Canaveral Tampa is the hardedest port to drive to for me with the longest drive (time wise) largely due to the disaster called I4. While closer in distance than Miami, Miami is a shorter (time wise) and easier drive. That's saying a lot because driving in South Florida is a PITA. I do have two Tampa cruises coming up but I also have many more Fort Lauderdale and Miami cruises booked because I hate driving to Tampa. Naturally I have many Port Canaveral cruises because those are the easiest of all for me but if they stopped cruising from Tampa it would not be a loss for me at all. The limited ports of call especially on shorter itineraries doesn't help Tampa's cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcuchio24 Posted July 23 #595 Share Posted July 23 16 hours ago, HBE4 said: I think you've hit on the key phrase. Royal likes to make money and if the 8 smaller ships that comprises a quarter of their fleet are making a profit, why abandon the ships, ports, itineraries and more importantly, the approximately 20,000 passengers that sail on them? I know some people will argue that a Oasis ship is more profitable per person based on lower operating cost, etc, etc, blah, blah so just build 3 or 4 more Oasis class ships to serve those 20,000 people. But if those people prefer a smaller ship or certain port, they will not be persuaded to cruise a mega-ship. I guess they could go to Celebrity if the price is right. Or they could go to the competition. 20,000 per week is over 1 million passengers per year. That's a lot to concede to the competition. B 100%. If there is money to be made, I'm sure they'll make a good business decision. And of course, doing a heck of alot more market research and trending than a bunch of us yacking about it here. We love the big ships, have no interest in booking smaller ships unless its a unique itinerary (doing a british isles cruise next summer on a midsize CCL ship) but we are fairly young and active and have kids. My take may be much different 15 years from now on what kind of ship my preference is... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillyFan33579 Posted July 23 #596 Share Posted July 23 9 hours ago, lovesthebeach2 said: I’m sure not many would agree with me, but the Tampa port just may be my favorite. It's small so not jam packed with lines of cars coming and going like in port Canaveral. It’s so much easier cruising from there for us. We live almost the same distance from either of those ports, slightly closer to Tampa, and I’m so happy to hear that Royal isn’t abandoning it for the future. I don’t cruise out of Tampa too often, although I have cruised out of there three times this year. I find the traffic is always bad around the port. For starters, it always appears like other drivers have never seen a roundabout before, which backs traffic up. Second, both terminals 2 and 3 have very little curb parking so it often takes awhile when dropping off luggage. On the other hand, the traffic always moves quickly when dropping off luggage at Port Miami (Terminal A) and Port Canaveral, the two ports I cruise from the most. Terminal G at Port Miami is my least favorite terminal to cruise from since traffic always backs up trying to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Another_Critic Posted July 23 #597 Share Posted July 23 1 hour ago, PhillyFan33579 said: On the other hand, the traffic always moves quickly when dropping off luggage at Port Miami (Terminal A) Took probably close to 30 minutes to drop our luggage at Terminal A for the Oasis TA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillyFan33579 Posted July 23 #598 Share Posted July 23 9 minutes ago, Another_Critic said: Took probably close to 30 minutes to drop our luggage at Terminal A for the Oasis TA. I have never waited more than a few minutes to drop off luggage at Terminal A. I always show up at the port between 11:30 AM - 12:00 PM (that may or may not be a factor). On the other hand, I waited over an hour to drop off luggage when I was cruising on Grandeur out of Terminal G last April (2023). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eel Posted July 24 #599 Share Posted July 24 On 7/22/2024 at 2:55 PM, HBE4 said: I think you've hit on the key phrase. Royal likes to make money and if the 8 smaller ships that comprises a quarter of their fleet are making a profit, why abandon the ships, ports, itineraries and more importantly, the approximately 20,000 passengers that sail on them? The Radiance Class ships are beginning to have serious mechanical issues that have caused cancelled and shortened cruises. IN March we had a cruise on Brilliance to Vanuatu and New Caledonia cut short due to an engine problem. Radiance in Alaska had a big propulsion issue that caused a cruise to be cancelled and everyone to be sent home. I am sure the bad publicity and expense are things they want to avoid in the future. The ships are not getting any younger and refurbishing them at this point is probably just throwing good money after bad. I suspect that the first Discovery won't sail until 2027 or 2028 and after that they may build at most one every year. This is going to play out over time and they will squeeze every penny out of their older ships between now and then. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles4515 Posted July 24 #600 Share Posted July 24 (edited) 1 hour ago, eel said: I suspect that the first Discovery won't sail until 2027 or 2028 and after that they may build at most one every year. This is going to play out over time and they will squeeze every penny out of their older ships between now and then. Your timeline is optimistic as they have not ordered any Discovery Class ships. If they ordered tomorrow then 2028 for the first Discovery class ship. Edited July 24 by Charles4515 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now