[fred henderson]

The publication of a photo of a modern cruise ship often provokes outrage from the more traditionally minded members. I feel that ships are working ladies and the job they are required to perform changes over time and as a result the appearance of the ships also changes. In the past liners were designed to carry (by order of volume) express freight and mail, emigrants and premium fare passengers. Today they only carry leisure trade passengers, who will not tolerate the primitive on board living conditions of the past. This inevitably changes the external appearance of the ships.
The critical comparative between passenger ships is net tonnage. Gross registered tonnage (GRT) is the measurement of the internal volume of a ship on the basis of 100 cubic feet being equal to 1 ton. Net tonnage is GRT less the space occupied by machinery, bunkers, crew accommodation and store rooms.
The Cunard Line Aquitania was 45,647 GRT, 21,998 tons net. She could carry a maximum of 3,263 passengers, two thirds of them emigrants. These figures provide an average of only 6.74 tons per passenger. As a result she had a low and sleek profile. Most of her passengers were crammed into lower deck dormitories.
When the Queen Mary was built her GRT was 81,235 tons and her net tonnage was 34,120. Her initial passenger capacity was 2139, producing 15.95 tons per passenger. After WW II her passenger capacity was reduced to 1,995, improving her net tonnage per passenger figure to 17.10 tons.
When Queen Elizabeth 2 was introduced her GRT was 65,863 and her net tonnage 38,244. She could carry 2005 passengers, giving 19.07 tons per passenger. After many rebuilds and reduction in passenger numbers, this figure is now 20.63 tons per passenger.
The Queen Mary 2 is 148,258 GRT and 98,720 net. Her maximum passenger load is 3,090, giving 31.95 tons per passenger. That is twice as much space per passenger than was provided in Queen Mary when she entered service and almost five times that available in Aquitania.
Of the original 2,139 passengers on Queen Mary, 711 were in the highest grade accommodation and she set new standards by providing 90% of them with a porthole. After the last major rebuild of Queen Elizabeth 2, 69% of all passengers have an outside cabin and a handful in the penthouse suites have balconies. The Queen Mary 2 provides 78% of its passengers with outside cabins and 73% with balconies. The modern demand is for balconies.
I have a greatest admiration for the classic liners of the early 20th Century but I suggest that their modern day sisters are equally worth our admiration.

Fred

 

[sea_dog]

I must agree with you Fred, just like a lady each of the different designs of ships through the ages have had their appeal. I guess if you wanted to be a total purist you would have to discount all the steamers (and MV's). I have read the statements of sailing masters when these new, smelly, noisy abominations first hit the sea lanes, yet we now look back and can appreciate the beauty of many of the early vessels. Given a little time (to get used to them) I am sure even the critics will look back on these modern vessels with a warm glow in their hearts.
Ron

PS: My only Gripe is with warships, How can you call it a warship unless it is bristling with guns !! lol (nothing Quite like the smell of cordite in the morning )

 

[Jan Hendrik]

Very interesting Fred how you came about calculating the NRT as a basis for the number of passengers.

Passenger ships are always measured in GRT for some reason whilst cargo ships and especially tankers/bulkers are measured in DWT.
I can understand the reason as otherwise there is no correlation of figuring out the size and capacity of a ship.
Interesting topic.
Jan

 

[Piero43]

I only partially agree with Fred and Sea Dog. The market reasons and the need to accomodate as more passengers is possible have led to a less sleek line in modern cruise ships.
Nevertheless, I'm convinced that there is no need they look like floating shoe boxes (this is what many new cruise ships look like): one hundred years could pass, but they will look hugly as well.
There is always an intermediate way: see for instance the Disney's cruise ships; they have a quite traditional line, without any sacrifice in passenger's accomodations.
As for the comparaison with early steamers, only romantic people lookimg at ships passing by from the shore, and maybe some master, would like more a journey in a windjammer from Europe to America or Australia (expecially in winter) to one in a packet, surely not a passenger or a crew hand!
Piero

 

[R58484956]

A new 3006 passenger ship of 112000tons being built by Fincantieri will enter
service in spring 2008 for Carnival Cruise lines, she is as yet unnamed, she is one of 5 ships being built.

 

[fred henderson]

I only partially agree with Fred and Sea Dog. The market reasons and the need to accomodate as more passengers is possible have led to a less sleek line in modern cruise ships.
Nevertheless, I'm convinced that there is no need they look like floating shoe boxes (this is what many new cruise ships look like): one hundred years could pass, but they will look hugly as well.
There is always an intermediate way: see for instance the Disney's cruise ships; they have a quite traditional line, without any sacrifice in passenger's accomodations.
As for the comparaison with early steamers, only romantic people lookimg at ships passing by from the shore, and maybe some master, would like more a journey in a windjammer from Europe to America or Australia (expecially in winter) to one in a packet, surely not a passenger or a crew hand!
Piero

As you probably know Piero, Disney asked their designers to produce two ships that looked like something out of a child's storybook. The contract caused Fincantieri a lot of grief, because Disney are not shipowners and did not understand that great ships are not built by lawyers issuing threatening letters every week, but by co-operation and partnership between the owner and the yard. They were eventually delivered in 1998/9. They are employed on short duration cruises (3 or 4 days) with 24.78 net tons per passenger. Disney has not ordered any more ships and unlike the major cruise operators their ships carried fewer passengers in 2004 than in 2003

Fred

 

[Piero43]

Hi Fred!
I don't know what was requested in the Disney specifications, but, except for some too fancy hull decorations they don't look as "Donald Duck's ships"!
My remarks aimed just to point out that maybe is possible to build something of aesthetically acceptable without excessive sacrifice of the tons/passenger ratio (24,78 is between 20,63 of QE2 and 31,28 of QM2; not so bad!).
I worked for Fincantieri for almost 30 years, though in another Yard (Riva Trigoso, Naval ships); also in my memories are difficult relationships with too demanding owners and superintendents (one for all the Iraqi Navy!), but I don't see how this problem could affect the aesthetics of the ship: after all the final design is done by the builder, and the aspect of the ship depends mainly from the good taste of the designer.
Well, maybe I'm too much romantic, after all, and the market rules!

Piero

 

[R58484956]

Any photos of the Disney ships on site (Ruud over to you )

 

[ruud]

Ahoy,

You ask, we serve!
You mean those things?
2 for the price of 1

 

[R58484956]

Many thanks Ruud, well at least they look like ships.

 

[Harry C]

Here an old type. Picture taken near Gibraltar were she's being prepared for a pernament location in Rotterdam. For those who are interested I got lots of photo's from the Rotterdam (Rembrandt)



Harry

 

[R58484956]

Not being a mate I thought that ships at anchor were supposed to show a black ball up front somewhere, cannot see one on her.

 

[fred henderson]

Many thanks Ruud, well at least they look like ships.

Disney is very skilled at creating illusions. The sheer line is entirely paintwork and of course the forward funnel is a dummy. Cruises are normally sold as three or four days within a seven day Disneyworld package. In 2003 Disney carried 391,378 passengers, in 2004 the figure was 378,283. By way of comparison, Carnival Cruise Lines alone (not the group as a whole) carried 2,850,000 passenger in 2003 and 3,087,930 in 2004.

Fred

 

[Jan Hendrik]

To Harry,
Nice picture of the Rotterdam, except for the paintwork, but we won't blame you for that........
Best is you place photos under the appropriate threads.
You find Holland America Line on the main page with a special thread for the Rotterdam (5),, any more photos you have, then please place these over there.

 

[Pompeyfan]

Oddly enough, when ships with funnels at the aft like Southern Cross, Northern Star, Canberra and Rotterdam came out tradionalists moaned then, but we love them now. Whether or not we will love the modern day cruise ship in years to come is another matter. Yes, most look like a block of flats with the private balcony being the in thing causing this horrible design I assume?. But as I have said so many times, cruising is a different trade. Ships of yesteryear were built for the trade they plied such as winter in the north atlantic. Apart from Qheen Elizabeth, Queen Mary, United States and ships the French passengers liners, most trans-Atalatic liners and those who plied the line voayges to Australia were all small compared with the giant cruise ships of today. The old Arcadia that I served on despite being about three times smaller than the present Arcadia would have a better sea going ship due entirely to her design than the present block of flats. When on Oriana recently, she rolled in next to nothing of a sea where the old Arcadia or indeed Canberra would have sliced through without hardly any movement at all. And when we turned on Oriana off Cowes to head up to Calshot, she listed right over due to her height. I once steered Canberra on the same route and she was as steady as a rock, even when turning. These modern cruise ships may be big, but they will never be as steady as those of yeateryear even when far smaller. And they will not be as good looking either?!. David

 

[billyboy]

I agree with your comments David. in our day there were no such thing as stabilisers. The Shhips were designed to ride it out. modern ships, even with the hydraulic stabilisers still tend to roll aboutlike the preverbial "stool in a chamber pot" LOL

 

[Pompeyfan]

I was in a force 12 on Arcadia between Vancouver and Honolulu and we caught the tail end of the Cyclone that destroyed Darwin. The old girl ploughed through it no trouble. We were busy in the medical department of course, but I would hate to be in a modern day cruise ship in storms like that. My only gripe with the force twelve was that I lost my breakfast having to go back for more. The only way to get to my hospital was on the outer deck either side. I had no patients in, so decided to go down to the Galley for my own brakfast eating it in my cabin as I often did. I managed to get back to the heavy door separating my hospital from passenger accomodation. I could'nt come up via D Deck as it was under water so came through a public room to C deck with my hospital on the after end. As I rested the tray on the railing to open the door with one hand, the ship lurched to port and I lost the bloody lot having to go back for more!. The Galley was not very busy that day for some reason?!. But the sharks may have liked a double helping of full English breakfast?!. David

 

[fred henderson]

I agree with your comments David. in our day there were no such thing as stabilisers. The Shhips were designed to ride it out. modern ships, even with the hydraulic stabilisers still tend to roll aboutlike the preverbial "stool in a chamber pot" LOL

QE2, delivered 1969, has Denny Brown, fin stabilisers. Vosper stabilisers were fitted in the 1950s Ton class minesweepers. How old are you guys?

Fred (*))

 

[fred henderson]

Oddly enough, when ships with funnels at the aft like Southern Cross, Northern Star, Canberra and Rotterdam came out tradionalists moaned then, but we love them now. Whether or not we will love the modern day cruise ship in years to come is another matter. Yes, most look like a block of flats with the private balcony being the in thing causing this horrible design I assume?. But as I have said so many times, cruising is a different trade. Ships of yesteryear were built for the trade they plied such as winter in the north atlantic. Apart from Qheen Elizabeth, Queen Mary, United States and ships the French passengers liners, most trans-Atalatic liners and those who plied the line voayges to Australia were all small compared with the giant cruise ships of today. The old Arcadia that I served on despite being about three times smaller than the present Arcadia would have a better sea going ship due entirely to her design than the present block of flats. When on Oriana recently, she rolled in next to nothing of a sea where the old Arcadia or indeed Canberra would have sliced through without hardly any movement at all. And when we turned on Oriana off Cowes to head up to Calshot, she listed right over due to her height. I once steered Canberra on the same route and she was as steady as a rock, even when turning. These modern cruise ships may be big, but they will never be as steady as those of yeateryear even when far smaller. And they will not be as good looking either?!. David

Gadgee has posted a photo of British Seafarer rolling her way across the Atlantic in a calm sea. No top-hamper on a loaded tanker David.

 

[Pompeyfan]

Never served on a tanker. And no top hamper either. Always had my own cabin with nice bed!. David