What is the difference?

Many modern cruise ships do a couple of repositioning Transatlantic cruises each year, early and late season.

Believe you me, the old straight stemmed liners used to cut through the seas alright, and then they walked right over the top of the foc'sle and did a lot of damage on deck. Every trip in the winter the repair gangs would be on the dock on arrival to fix the 'heavy weather damage' and the Master or one of the officers would go with the Agent to 'make protest' as it was called.. for insurance purposes.

I agree that the 'flat bottom boxes' are not anywhere near as bad as they were made out to be. I was on Voyager of the Seas in a storm with winds only a few knots short of hurricane-force, and she was quite well-behaved.

Enhanced Speed
Enhanced Endurance
Enhanced Seakeeping characteristics
Enhanced Strength
Enhanced passenger facilities

The last one contradicts what Britanis said but in fact the facilities must be better as far more time is spent at sea and pepole must be entertained.

As far as open deck space is concerned, There is more on a traditionally designed Ocean Liner than a cruise ship when you consider that an open fantail does not normally feature on a cruise ship and the passenger / space ratio is higher on a Liner as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gohaze:
Today, ships are designed for the service which they are going to do, and cruise ships are not designed for the Western Ocean in winter.
...peter

---

Peter,

The Canberra is the largest Ocean Liner built for a non-transatlantic route, yet had no problem with the North Atlantic storms. The Rotterdam V designed for the Atlantic run normally crossed the Pacific on her World cruises w/o incident.

How would a North Atlantic ship be designed differently than a Trans-Pacific ship other than cruising range before refueling?

Internally, yes there were differences in the amount of space required for fuel and stores which could be quite appreciable. The way the spaces were laid out as well, with the hot weather ships having lots of openings onto the decks and the others being easy to batten down.
A big difference I think you'd find would be in the scantlings, the size and spacing of the frames, especially for'd and in the strengh of hatches and other fittings.

Whilst the Canberra could handle poor weather on an occasional basis...let's face it every ship has to be able to do that...she wasn't designed for the Western Ocean 12 months a year and would I suggest, not have been suitable.

And though I respect your opinion, coming from someone w/such an esteemed background, I do strongly disagree w/much of your post [everything after 'ocean liners have enhanced amentities']. Since its inception in the 1970's, cruising has been based around amentities. Cruise ships have a much wider clientele than ocean liners, and cater to them accordingly. Ocean liners are typically frequented by a crowd that enjoys the simpler pleasures of being on an ocean, and therefore doesn't demand a lot of amentities. Let the deck plans speak for themselves. Their boxy, efficient design alone allows for much greater amounts of passenger amentities.
Additionally, many ocean liners do in fact visit many ports [world cruises, etc.]. Entertainment is typically provided by lecturers who use the same public rooms over and over, something that is avoided on newer ships b/c of the plethora of public facilities aboard. And on these trans-Atlantic voyages, look at the themes that usually accompany. Why these themes? To make up for the fact that passenger amentities aren't plentiful enough to keep people entertained for a week.
Finally, where deck space is concerned... deck space = area of teak on top of the ship. If it's tiered on an ocean liner or all on the same deck as on a cruise ship, it's still deck space. But, cruise ships are more square (and generally larger), and flat on top, which means that more efficient use of the deck space can be made (it's more efficient to have one square deck than 4 or 5 decks that are tiered... between stairs, railings, and a little bit of waste on each deck, you lose a lot of room with the fantail theory). Furthermore, the fantail area is an irrelevant comment entirely, since that's only what's behind the funnel, and I tend to notice that ocean liners have more centrally located funnels than do cruise ships. Cruise ships have massive deck space areas forward from the funnel too, all the way up to the bow. Through and through, cruise ships, WITHOUT A DOUBT have more deck space.

I very much respect the opinion of someone who's director of shipbuilding at a cruise line, but I do have a hard time agreeing w/your comments. After all, Cunard had "Getting There's [ONLY] Half the Fun," whereas Carnival has the, "Fun Ship's." Yeah, exploiting marketing slogans is cheap, but it worked here ;-).

[ 06-24-2002: Message edited by: FunShipPete ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by titanicsteve:
...did airplanes not do away with the need for transatlantic liners???? So are Cunard not really going to have very low occupancy? Like why pay 3 times as much for getting to the same place instead of taking a plane?

---

Steve, you are right, the jet aircraft became the popular choice for mass global travel. They are cheap and fast. Nearly all of the regular Ocean Liner services across the pond died as a result.

The QE2 is the only ship left that regularly does the transatlantic run. Although, she spends part of the year cruising, so she is not a full-time Ocean Liner, as such.

There used to be many liners crossing the pond and going further to the Far East and Australia etc. Most major nations had their own liners. Passengers could choose British, American, Italian or French ships, to name a few.

The QE2 does still does not appeal to the mass market, Mr.Average. She appeals to a particular type of person. A person who may be interested in ships and maritime history, a person that may not like flying, a person is not on a tight budget.

After all nobody books the QE2 for speed or cheapness. They book the QE2 because they prefer her method of travel.

Did you know that a few years back the QE2 used to do the trip across the pond in five nights, not six, as now? They have slowed her down a little since. I understand that this saves fuel and nobody is in a hurry, so they get an extra night onboard.

Obviously Cunard/Carnival are confident that they can fill the QM2 for her transatlantic runs. I personally am not convinced of this, as she will have a lot of cabins. Mind you what do I know? Of course she can be used for cruising with all those nice balcony cabins.

History has a habit of turning full circle. Today modern cruise ships are not the enemy of the Aeroplane. In fact the cruiselines are in partnership with the Airlines. They buy millions of dollars of flights to fly the passengers to the big ports such as Miami, to their ships.

[ 06-25-2002: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gohaze:
Malcolm...All ships today, and since the day of the clipper ships, have flat bottoms and it doesn't matter if it's a liner or a cruiseship.

---

I'm confused now?

So will the bottemed Queen Mary 2 Hull, be less efficient that of the SS Norways, which is not flat bottemed?

With modern techology, such as computer aided design, should hulls not be nearly perfect?

[ 06-25-2002: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

Norway is flatbottomed.Just as QE2 is. QM2 will havea very similar hull design to QE2 but larger of course. The differences are the bulbous bow and the stern arrangement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Britanis:
I'm sure I'll be shouted down for this, but, I disagree with the notion that QE2 was the last ocean liner ever built. Vistafjord/Caronia may have been used as a full-time cruise ship for her entire career, but she was designed as a liner, and would have been used as such if NAL still felt there was any money to be made in that service. Furthermore, the second Astor (now with Transocean Tours) was originally designed for Britain to South Africa liner service and part-time cruising, but was sold to new owners before completion, and used as a full-time cruise ship. QE2 was the last ship built as a liner and used as a liner, but not technically the last liner.

---

A most valid point that I too have often advocated but that normally falls on deaf ears!

Also, I am not sure that Hamburg (now Maxim Gorkiy) is older than QE2? Certainly if she is only by a few months!

I personally consider Vistafjord as the last liner, and this is only because I have a hard time calling Astor which is a thoroughly modern ship a liner. Vistafjord was the last ship designed and built in the traditional method. She exhibits characteristics such as sheer, etc. that cannot be found on any of the ships built after her, or even a few before, notably those built at Wartsila in the early 1970s that were in my opinion the first entirely modern cruise ships. They introduced the endless blocks of identical prefabricated beige cabin-cubicles; low metal-strip ceilings; tinny staircases; tiny tinny boxes in cubbyholes, without tracks or rollers, falsely called 'drawers;' green Astroturf decking; vacum toilets; plastic bathrooms with tiny shower cubicles; and so on. That they are today called 'classic' is to me highly ironic because it was these very ships that introduced the aspects that we so dislike about modern ships!

Happy Cruising,
Cruiseny

[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: cruiseny ]

QM2 hull will be more efficient than Norway/France, in tonnage she is twice as big, much wider and longer, but needs only the same engine power,160 000 bhp! And the fuelconsumption will be lower...

QM2 has absolutley not the same hull design as the old oceanliners, but something between a cruiseship and a oceanliner with some new features. This alows her to have a more shallow draft, low fuel consumption and to maintain high speed.
The ship hulls today is better than the old ones, but not nearly perfect, lots of money is still being spent on research on ship hulls.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aleks:
QM2 hull will be more efficient than Norway/France, in tonnage she is twice as big, much wider and longer, but needs only the same engine power,160 000 bhp! And the fuelconsumption will be lower...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by titanicsteve:
Well for once something that I can help with! The name ocean liner derived from the fact that years ago ships that went from point to point in a straight line hence "liner" and well the ocean bit is self explanatory!! For instance look at the intended route of the Titanic, it was an almost straight line. This is also the reason why companies are called 'Lines' for instance Cunard White Star Line and Norwegian Cruise Line

One thing however that I was thinking, did airplanes not do away with the need for transatlantic liners???? So are Cunard not really going to have very low occupancy? Like why pay 3 times as much for getting to the same place instead of taking a plane? Any answers?

---

Steve,
You are exactly right in your definition of an ocean liner. An ocean liner was constructed for "line voyages". Basically, a mode of transportation (sometimes lavish) to get passengers from point A to point B on a regular and recurring schedule with overnight accommodations. NY to Southampton is a prime example of a "line voyage". Of course this is why many consider the QE2 to be the last *true* ocean liner afloat. She is the only ship to offer scheduled line voyages in existence today. All other ships are offering cruises, with leisurely stops in mostly sunny climates.

Of course you can get into the construction aspects of an ocean liner vs. a cruise ship.... but cruise ships per say (as we know them) were not really in existence when the famous ocean liners we all know and speak of were built. Most ships that offered cruises in the past were actually ocean liners taking a break from their scheduled crossings.... or assigned to cruises all together for profitability. I think many consider the OCEANIC to be the first purpose built cruise ship, although this point can be debated for certain. The QM2 will be offering regularly scheduled line voyages (NY/Southampton and return) when she debuts, therefore I do consider her to be an ocean liner. Her hull construction, stability, and speed have all been taken into account during her design, giving her many attributes of past ocean liners, but also many of our modern day cruise ships as well. She is a true hybrid, but most certainly could be classified an ocean liner by definition.

Why sail when you can fly cheaper and faster?.... well that is the question that eventually made ocean liners a thing of the past. Today, people still sail the QE2 to get from point A to point B, but they are not in a rush and speed is not really a concern. Six days on the QE2 sure beats 7-8 hours on a transatlantic flight any day. There is also the aspect of nostalgia........ many people still long to be a part of something wonderful from our past history. The QE2 offers this, just as many historic buildings on land can lend a somewhat similar experience.

Luckily for us, there are still more than a handful of ships today that can be classified as ocean liners. Although they are no longer sailing on line voyages, they were constructed as such and built to withstand the ravages of the ocean, while having a reserve to keep a schedule that liners were known for.