Cruise Talk: QE2 Question

Cruise Talk

Cruise News

Welcome to Cruise Talk the Internet's most popular discussion forum dedicated to cruising. Stop by Cruise Talk anytime to post a message or find out what your fellow passengers and industry insiders are saying about a particular ship, cruise line or destination.

>>> Reader Reviews
>>> CruisePage.com Photo Gallery
>>> Join Our Cruise Club.

Latest News...Disney Cruise Line announced today that the honorary role of "godparent" for its new ship, the Disney Treasure, will be held by The Walt Disney Company cast, crew, Imagineers and employees around the world. The profound declaration is a heartfelt tribute to the more than 200,000 dreamers and doers who make every Disney entertainment, vacation and at-home experience possible. Disney Cruise Line is proud to celebrate...

Latest News...Carnival Cruise Line is adding to its line-up of 2026/27 deployment with sailings from New York City on Carnival Venezia, and more Long Beach sailings on Carnival Firenze and Carnival Radiance. “Our two Carnival Fun Italian Style ships offer great options from the east and west coasts, conveniently connecting New York and Long Beach to popular destinations, while delivering unique experiences on board...

Latest News...Vacationers are in for more ways to make memories across Royal Caribbean’s latest combination of tropical and Northeast 2026-27 getaways. The lineup of 12 Royal Caribbean ships rounds out a variety of adventures across Florida, Texas, Puerto Rico and the Northeast for every type of family and vacationer to get away any time of year. Crown & Anchor Society loyalty members...

More Cruise News...

my profile | register | search | faq | forum home

»	Cruise Talk » Ocean Liners and Classic Cruise Ships » QE2 Question

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

Author

Topic: QE2 Question

Malcolm @ cruisepage
Cruise Director
Member # 301

posted 05-18-1999 03:00 PM

The QE2 takes six nights to sail from Southampton to New York. Does anybody know what is her average speed to achieve this?

The QE2 used to do the same trip in five nights, what was her average speed then?

What is her record for the trip?

Posts: 19210 | From: Essex (Just Outside London) | Registered: A Long Time Ago!

Barryboat
First Class Passenger
Member # 33

posted 05-18-1999 08:37 PM

I once asked Captain Robyn Woodall what
QE-2's top speed would be. He said she could do 35 knots but that would be pushing it hard, with all of lights shut off, the airconditioning or heat, and with no other power being used.(she's driven by electric motors now which is why she could go faster with more electricity directed to her motors) She could potentially challenge the SS United States record of three days ten hours and forty minutes, especially with her new powerful diesel-electric motors and her fancy new variable-pitched propellers. Her average speed was 29 knots when she was doing NYC - Southampton in five days, Now with six days to cross the Atlantic, she can putz at 25-26 knots. I don't know what her fastest Atlantic crossing has been. Here's a tid-bit for you....Did you know that the QE-2 does not have Expansion joints built into her superstructure? I ask the Captain why this was the case and he said it was a mistake made by the shipyard (John Brown). Without these expansion joints built into her decks, the ship's superstructure cracks in heavy seas.

Posts: 1851 | From: Bloomington, Minnesota (Home to the Mall of America) | Registered: Mar 99

Vaccaro
First Class Passenger
Member # 465

posted 05-19-1999 01:39 AM

Hello!
I must add: to produce a average speed of 35.39 kts during 3 days 10 hours and 40 minutes, UNITED STATES reached the maximum and incredible speed of 43 kts during trials.
We can say too: to maintain a such average speed, UNITED STATES certainly produced a top speed higher than 36-37 kts sometimes during this same trip when she won the Blue Ribbon (and with all electric facilities!). So we can say QE2 is not able to challenge
UNITED STATES for a such record.
The power of UNITED STATES was DOUBLE (240000hp vs 119565hp for QE2 nowaday with electric power and QE2 is heavier).
The propulsion of QE2: Diesel-electric.
9 MAN 9l58/64 GEC-Alsthom Diesel-alternator sets of 10.500 kw each. 2GEC synchronous electrical propulsion engines featuring 2 constant speeds (72 rpm when manoeuvring, 144 rpm at sea; speed variation through synchroconverters), each driving directly a 5-bladed Lipp CPP.
Malcom: welcome to our Trivia!! Comentaries from a such liner's lover are greatly appreciated.
I have not the exact answer concerning your question (maybe after some search in my documentation).
Bye.

Posts: 1193 | From: France ...where the greatest liners ever are born, ...by far! | Registered: Feb 99

Barryboat
First Class Passenger
Member # 33

posted 05-19-1999 12:17 PM

Actually, in 1979, I spoke to one of the original designers of the Big U Nik Bacho, who has since past away, and he told me the ship did 48 knots during her trials and her HP was 245,000. He said that the speed published on the log was 43 knots but William Frances Gibbs instructed the officers not to print or tell anyone the actual speed. United States was steam turbine driven and had a separate generator for electricity. United States never really went over 40 knots on her maiden voyage. Average speed was 35.53 knots. She cruised 833nautical miles at an average speed of 36.21 knots on July 7th during her famous maiden voyage from New York to Southampton. Regarding the QE-2, she has nine MAN -B7W 9L58/64 four-stroke, trunk piston diesel engines. Each engine can generate 8,400 - 16,200 bhp connected to an alternator with an output of 10,000volts and 60 hertz. By tweeking the GEC synchrodrive converters, these thyristor units can be adjusted to produce a faster rpm. Domestic power only requires 3,300 volts, so turning the lights off throughout the ship wouldn't do much, the Captain I spoke to was joking about that. QE-2 may be a "heavier" ship, but she has a sleek design below the water-line which is more advanced than the ss United States. I spent some time in the engine room of QE-2 and quizzed the engineers to learn as much as I could about the engines. While I was working on the QE-2 in 1992, one of her Diesels blew an engine rod, and the entire assembly was taken apart and stored in the crew hall-ways one deck above the Control room. There were big engine parts everywhere. Did you know that each propeller was fitted with a 7 bladed Grim Vane wheel downstream of each of the two propellers? These were suppose to provide a little bit more thrust and efficiency, some of them broke off during trials. I had hoped they would perfect these Grimm wheels and reinstall them to QE-2, but it never happened. These wheels could have given QE-2 a 2-3 knot advantage. I also spend a considerable amount of time in the engine rooms of the ss United States - I took many photos of her engine compartment and studied the layout. United States was definetly a faster ship, but now with QE-2's new powerplant, she does have the "potential" to average 35 - 36 knots. Her variable-pitched propellers would have to be finely tuned to cut the water with the maximum thrust and with all her engines running hot and tweeking her thyristors to increase her rpm- Maybe, just maybe she could do it.

Posts: 1851 | From: Bloomington, Minnesota (Home to the Mall of America) | Registered: Mar 99

Malcolm @ cruisepage
Cruise Director
Member # 301

posted 05-19-1999 02:57 PM

Hmmm..thanks for the excellent information guys. It looks like a we are having an Anglo 'V' USA disagrement here: the QE2 'V' the SS United States!

I'm not very technical, but all I can say as a British Man, is that the SS United States can't achieve ANY knots at the moment!

I think you need to put your national treasure back in order! ;-)

Posts: 19210 | From: Essex (Just Outside London) | Registered: A Long Time Ago!

Joe at PwC
First Class Passenger
Member # 225

posted 05-19-1999 03:17 PM

Wow, it's pretty frightening to hear that the QE2's superstructure could potentially crack in heavy seas!

And Malcolm, quite true. As much as I love her, the Big U is going nowhere fast, although there may be some significant developments forthcoming from the Foundation as to her situation. I'll keep you all posted as they come in.

Posts: 385 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!

Vaccaro
First Class Passenger
Member # 465

posted 05-20-1999 06:57 AM

Hello everybody!
I must tell i don't match this liner against that over one. In fact i love all liners (of course i prefer someones rather than some others like everyone here). QE2 and UNITED STATES are both splendid and very great true liners, each with a different era and philosophy. But numbers are numbers!

Barryboat: Of course i don't search the "fight" and your replies, your experience, your explanations are gratly appreciated from me. I like this forum because we (and i) can learn a lot. So here's my explanation:
I never wrote UNITED STATES went over 40 knots during her maiden voyage but over 36-37 knots only. I persit: QE2 is not powerful enouth to maintain a average speed of 35 knots during a whole tansatlantic trip. She should be very more powerful to maitain a such speed because necessary power isn't proportional with the speed but vary like the power 3.5, or with the same power (and same tonnage and same other parameters of course, so unworkable with the same materials, the same draught, the same stability...) the lenght of QE2 should be upper than 1056 ft to allow QE2 to produce 6 additional kts (the difference beetwen the two speed service of QE2 and US, 29 against 35 even if US didn't reached this speed very often during her service), because speed vary like the sqare root of the lenght.

Here's some documentation about QE2's propultion:
The nine engines, MAN-B&W L58/64 (ie, the cylinders were 580 millimetres in diameter and the pistons moved through a 640 millimetre stroke) were named Alpha, Bravo, Charlie etc. Up to number 9 which was India.
Part of the contract stipulated that the liner should achieve 28.5 kilots on 85% of the engine power and that there should be no increase in vibration over that induced by the now displaced machinery.
To overcome any vibration problem the engines were mounted on layered rubber resilient mounts, placed at an angle to the engine seats, which would keep vibration to an absolute minimum.
With her old, smooth-running steam turbines the QE2, at 28.5 lalots, had used six hundred tons of oil fuel a day, thus burning Up 120,000 tons per year (at £100 per ton). With her new engines consumption would hopefully be reduced to 270 tons a day.
The waste heat from the machinery would also be put to good use. It would be utilised to heat accommodation, to pre-heat the thick oil fuel, provide steam to the various hotel services and help to produce one thousand tons of fresh water a day from the sea via four Serck vacuum evaporators. Another 450 tons per day would be produced from the sea by Reverse Osmosis Plant equipment that had also provided additional frech water on the Falklands 'cruise'.
The ability to produce more than enough fresh water would enable the liner to reduce her frech water tankage by 40%.
At the 'business end' of all the propulsion macninery were the two propellers which had to absorb the enormous power produced by the nine diesels.
The QE2 bas always remained the largest, most powerful twin screw vessel in the world. Stone Manganese Marine, the manufacturers of ber original six (fixed) bladed, 5791 millîmetre diameter propellers had insisted that 110000 shp was tbe max-imum that two propellers could absorb.
Now 130,000 shp was required to be absorbed and the Dutch firm 0f LIPS, of Drunen, had designed propellers with five blades each. But these blades were controllable, they could be turned remotely on their bosses. This meant that the special astern machinery that was required with fixed blade propellers could be dispensed with as, by turning the controlled blades sufficiently, the liner could be halted and then sent astern whilst tht propellers still rotated in tht same direction.
The propellers would also be operated at only two speeds
-144 revolutions per minute for speeds above 18 knots and 72 revolutions for those below. The controlled pitch of the blades would do the rest, enabling the liner to go from 34 knots ahead to 19 knots astern.
The propeller blades were also 'skewed' - scimitar shaped
-to cut down the effects of cavitation and to reduce the propeller induced vibration on the hull.
Tht new 5,800 millimetre diameter propellers were to be augmented by recently developed (but long theorised) pseudo-propellers called Grirm wheels (named after their professor inventor). At 6.7 metres diameter they were larger than than propellers, had seven slender uniquely shaped blades (or vanes) amd freely rotated at about one third of the CPPs' speed. (I have a picture of these seven blades broken. If you want i could send it to you, but i think your documentation is maybe bigger than mine).
Their purpose was to absorb the waste thrust lost from the propellers. This was absorbed by the turbine like inner part of the vane and converted into thrust by the vane tip which thus acted like a second propeller A worthwhile increase in efficiency of almost 4% was expected by the use of these wheels.(so only 1.3-1.5 knots and no 2-3 because max speed during trials with new engines was 34.60 knots).
The old 32 ton, manganese bronze propellers were sold off. One would be retained as a dockland exhibit in England but its partner was scheduled to become the basis of two and a haîf thousand sets of high quality golf clubs!

To answer to Malcolm's question, i can only say that normal speed for a five night trip is about 28.5 kts, 24 kts for a six night trip but i don't know the maximum average speed during that trip. (max speed during trials with new engines was 34.60kts, as i wrote above).
Bye!

Posts: 1193 | From: France ...where the greatest liners ever are born, ...by far! | Registered: Feb 99

Barryboat
First Class Passenger
Member # 33

posted 05-20-1999 09:58 AM

Vaccaro, Hey, let's agree to disagree. I value your imput, you sure have done your research. You may be correct, however it's fun to speculate. Let me through out this question to my ship friends out there; Does anyone know of any photos of the damage to the hull of QE-2 when she ran aground in August of 1992 just off of Martha's Vinyard? I was working on the ship at the time, so I was there when it happened. Several months later after she had been repaired, I tried to get photos of her damage but was unsuccessful. The damage was pretty bad from what I had heard. QE-2 had 400 feet of scapes and tears in the hull, in addition to width-wise crack in the hull that was about an inch wide. The assistant cruise director had a chunk of the torn steel plates sitting on his desk in his office. I did see a photo in a magazine that belonged to an officer who was on the bridge of QE-2, but the photo was not very good. I do know that there were many crew members who did get some photos of her damage, but I have had no luck in getting any copies. I would like copies from negatives of the damage or if someone has a magazine with a photo in it and they can send it to me I would be greatful. I'll have to share with my ship friends sometime an article I wrote about this QE-2 accident.

Posts: 1851 | From: Bloomington, Minnesota (Home to the Mall of America) | Registered: Mar 99

Vaccaro
First Class Passenger
Member # 465

posted 05-20-1999 11:58 AM

(re)-Hello.
Barryboat: be reassured, there wasn't any animosity in my last reply. It's just an harmless discussion beetween liner's afficionados and "disagreements" are not serious of course. Like any discussion, it's just to share several points of vue even if they are different. (it would be boring if everybody is always agree with everybody no?)
In fact, my dream would be to have a good lunch (why not at Long Beach on your favorite QUEEN MARY) together and whith all the others ship buff of this forum like Robygen, Malcom, Joe, Jack14, Patrick, Renegade4...and everyone else who loves liners and cruise ships like us!
I don't have any picture about the run aground of August 92 (the 7 exactly) you told but maybe searching on the web...
I've got a question for you: wich day the maiden voyage of SS UNITE STATES started?
It's written on july 3 1952 on one of my book but regarding one of your reply above (833 nautical miles at 36.21kts the 7) i think it's rather the 4 or 5. I don't know.

Malcolm: you did a great work to ask a question wich led a such discussion...and we're all waiting for the right answer. Thanks.
Bye.

Posts: 1193 | From: France ...where the greatest liners ever are born, ...by far! | Registered: Feb 99

Joe at PwC
First Class Passenger
Member # 225

posted 05-20-1999 04:04 PM

Hey Vaccaro.

According to Mike Alexander's website, ss-united-states.com, the Big U did in fact depart New York on July 3, 1952 for her maiden voyage.

Posts: 385 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!

Vaccaro
First Class Passenger
Member # 465

posted 05-20-1999 04:23 PM

Thank you Joe.
In fact i've often visited Mike Alexander's website (great site!) but i did'nt do it for a rather long time and i forgot this information.
Bye.

Posts: 1193 | From: France ...where the greatest liners ever are born, ...by far! | Registered: Feb 99

Barryboat
First Class Passenger
Member # 33

posted 05-22-1999 12:12 AM

Vaccaro, no I never felt animosity -simply fun and challenging conversation - I value your conversation, and yes it would be great for the few of us to have lunch on the Queen Mary someday, we should plan a meeting sometime - it would be a big event! Having spent so much time on the Queen Mary, and knowing every nook and crany, I could give an excellent tour! I was honored one time to bring the First Officer of the QE-2 on a tour of the Queen Mary, while QE-2 was docked near by. He was thrilled. I got a nice picture of him on the Bridge. Ivan McNaught was his name - Nice guy - he use to let me up onto the Bridge of QE-2 while we were at sea. I got to steer the QE-2 one time in the Fjords of Norway for a short time. QE-2 has such a little wheel. But I was thrilled when I had a chance to make a slight turn, and to see the bow respond as it moved across the horizon; this was a very intense experience! Captain said, just don't hit anything. I said ok.

Posts: 1851 | From: Bloomington, Minnesota (Home to the Mall of America) | Registered: Mar 99

fluctuant nec mergitur
First Class Passenger
Member # 577

posted 06-01-1999 03:33 PM

Barryboat,
I couldn't find any photos on file for the incident, but calling the phone number following this published report may be able to tell you more conclusively if there are any public photos available.

fluctuant nec mergitur

BRIDGE COMMUNICATION FAILURES LEAD TO QE2 GROUNDING: Failures by the pilot and master of the Queen Elizabeth 2 to exchange critical information have been cited as the probable cause of the ship's 1992 grounding off the coast of Massachusetts, according to the NTSB. The vessel sustained $13.2 million in damages as a result of the incident.

The QE2 ran aground 2.5 miles south of Cuttyhunk Island the evening of August 7 after the ship's pilot and master failed to agree in advance on a navigation plan for departing Vineyard Sound, according to the NTSB. It said the crew also failed to maintain situational awareness after an unplanned course change. A lack of information available to the crew about how speed and water depth would affect the QE2's underkeel clearance contributed to the accident, the Safety Board added.

The 963-foot long QE2, with 2,827 passengers and crew on board, was leaving Vineyard Sound off the northwest coast of Martha's Vineyard when it struck a rocky shoal.

The Safety Board concluded that the grounding would probably not have occurred had a conference been held between the QE2's master and the state pilot. Such a discussion would have made the master aware of the pilot's intentions and would have permitted the two to agree on an appropriate route to the pilot's disembarkation point.

The Safety Board said passengers who boarded the QE2 at Halifax had not received a comprehensive safety briefing, nor did they participate in an emergency drill. It said disabled passengers who travel by ship may require additional precautions to prepare them to act in an emergency.

As a result of the accident, the NTSB issued 10 recommendations to the U.S. Coast Guard concerning bridge resource management training, vessel maneuvering information and procedures, safety briefings and emergency drills for passengers, and toxicological testing following accidents. Related recommendations were issued to Cunard Lines Ltd., operator of the QE2, and the Massachusetts Pilots Commission.

The Safety Board recommended that NOAA include depth survey information, such as descriptions of survey methodology and the dates of surveys, in the "U.S. Coast Pilot" and on coastal charts.

Contact NTSB in Washington at Tel: 202-382-0660 or Fax: 202-382-6779 for additional information.

Posts: 42 | Registered: May 99

Elizabeth
First Class Passenger
Member # 142

posted 06-06-1999 08:18 AM

Did you hear about the bad series of storms that hit the QE2 during her transatlantic crossing last December? They hit typhoon after typhoon and Captain Warwick said in all his time at sea he had never encountered storms of this severity for so long. A couple of days out of New York the big one hit from a couple of angles. The force of the water punched a hole in the foc door. One crew member spent several days in hospital and a number of crew cabins were waterlogged. The grand lady took the severe battering in her stride. According to the crew most other ships would not have been able to withstand these seas.

Posts: 177 | From: New England Region N.S.W. Australia | Registered: A Long Time Ago!

Malcolm @ cruisepage
Cruise Director
Member # 301

posted 05-29-2000 02:38 PM

So I suppose the QM2 will also take six nights to cross the Atlantic, as does the QE2. She definately will not be challenging the big 'U's record!

[This message has been edited by Malcolm (edited 05-29-2000).]

Posts: 19210 | From: Essex (Just Outside London) | Registered: A Long Time Ago! | IP: Logged

NAL
First Class Passenger
Member # 1102

posted 05-30-2000 10:01 PM

With all this interesting talk of speed on
the Atlantic......let's not forget FRANCE's
great speed. She could easily hold 30-31
knots in heavy seas and could effortlessly
get up to 34 knots at night.....and what
a magnificent wake she left with those four
screws!!!!
Thanks guys for all the good info.

Posts: 2243 | From: Watsontown, PA | Registered: Feb 2000 | IP: Logged

Gerry
First Class Passenger
Member # 168

posted 05-31-2000 03:18 PM

I spent a number of years on board QE2 as First Officer.
QE2 used to do the crossing in 4.5 days (4 nights) needing an average speed in the region of 28.5 knots. The crossings were changed to 5 nights to guarantee the arrival times as the 4 night crossings left no spare time and if she had heavy weather, she could be late. She still needs anywhere between 23 and 26 to make the 5 nights, depending on the ice field position and hence the distance.
I was on board for a crossing when we were racing along to get an ill passenger ashore and had been hitting 33 kts at times. (She is a unique ship to drive - all other radar targets appear to be stationary due to the speed and we have to be careful not to use too much helm as she heels over like a Destroyer if more than 10 degrees are applied.) On approaching the western approaches, the ill passenger had recovered quite considerably and Captain Warwick decided we were simply going to be too early if we carried on, so we slowed down. It wasn't until later that someone noticed that had we not slowed down we would have broken Queen Mary's record of 31.69 knots average for a crossing ! She did that in 1938.
I was also on board for the grounding off Nantucket and although I was not on the Bridge at the time, I was the Damage control officer and was therefore heavily involved and quite busy... The photograph Barryboat refers to that was in the magazine was of my arm sticking in through one of the holes in the bottom plates. The American findings mentioned above were disputed by the British authorities at the time as there was little mention of the fact that we hit a rock that was uncharted and that had it been shown on the chart, we would also not have gone aground. The other bone of contention was the claim that there had been no drill for embarking passengers at Halifax. What they did not mention was that it was merely a handful of passengers and according to the law, they were advised individually of the emergency procedures including a written copy. There is no requirement to hold a full drill every day a couple of new passengers join. I'm sorry if I sound bitter about this topic but I am. We went through inquiry after inquiry on both sides of the Atlantic and I get very annoyed when I hear fanciful stories of what people thought actually happened, such as appeared in this forum by one of the most prolific writers.
Incidentally, Barryboat, it is Ian McNaught and not Ivan. He is now Staff Captain on board QE2.

Posts: 315 | From: Miami, Florida, (originally from UK) | Registered: Jun 99 | IP: Logged

Malcolm @ cruisepage
Cruise Director
Member # 301

posted 06-01-2000 01:46 PM

Gerry, very interesting. I thought that the QE2 changed from a a four night crossing to a five, purely to save fuel?

It's a pity that she does not do a couple of 'fast ones' each year, for the enthusiasts!

Posts: 19210 | From: Essex (Just Outside London) | Registered: A Long Time Ago! | IP: Logged

Malcolm @ cruisepage
Cruise Director
Member # 301

posted 08-30-2000 06:46 PM

I wonder if the new 'Queen Mary'will also cross in six nights. (If they ever build her!)

Posts: 19210 | From: Essex (Just Outside London) | Registered: A Long Time Ago! | IP: Logged

Barryboat
First Class Passenger
Member # 33

posted 09-04-2002 07:29 PM

Gerry...you were onboard during the grounding?? for some reason I thought that we had missed each other when working on the ship. Were you wearing a white jumper suit the night of the accident? or was it an orange suit? I recall a number of engineers coming off the forward elevators and scrambling aft on deck five...perhaps you were one of those men and we passed each other...I was wearing my tux.

I had talked with an officer about the details of what happened, and we concluded that the pilot and the captain agreed on course..the captain informed the officer on watch to call him if there were any changes in the course. After the captain retired to his cabin, the pilot made a course change and there was a shift change with the officers, so the captain was not informed about the course correction. The pilot may have wanted to cut some time off by taking a slight short-cut. The charts for that area were old and the depth was not accurate.

Also, I was under the impression that the ship actually "grounded" and was stuck, but the "official" report says that they were never stuck, rather the ship simply ran over the object and continued on. I went aft to see what was happening and I distinctly saw that the propellers were churning and the rudder was moving back and forth as if they (those on the bridge) were trying to fishtail their way off of their grounded situation...I saw thrust from the propellers...and yet we were NOT moving..we WERE stuck. I was then told that throughout the night at some point the tide lifted the ship enough to break her free.

Posts: 1851 | From: Bloomington, Minnesota (Home to the Mall of America) | Registered: Mar 99 | IP: Logged

Gerry
First Class Passenger
Member # 168

posted 09-06-2002 03:47 PM

Barry,
Yes I was on board. I was the Senior Second Officer and as such was also responsible for stability and damage control type stuff. The ship was travelling at over 20 knots, thats about 25mph.If we had stopped dead on a rock, everyone would have been thrown against the opposite walls. There were 2 short period of heavy vibration covering about 10 seconds in total, no more. Power was taken off instantly but no astern power was applied. The ship drifted to a stop about a mile further on. I don't know what you thought you were looking at at the stern but you can't see the rudder and if the ship does go astern, the wash is none existent at the stern. Certainly not any type of 'fishtailing' like you suggest. After we figured out what had happened. (and that took us a while) we moved to an anchorage off Newport. At that time we moved astern as we always do to anchor a ship. Thatmay have been what you saw and came to all sorts of wrong conclusions. Wewere anchored late evening /early morning and were there when it got light in the morning.
As for the other part of your story, the master never left the bridge and was there throughout the time when we left the anchorage at Marthas Vineyard until we anchored for the night at Newport.
I'm aware you left the ship at this time in Boston and I believe was partly due to an interview you gave to a TV crew despite being instructed not to do so. False stories such as the one you have recounted here did incredible harm to a lot of people during the enquiries later on.

Posts: 315 | From: Miami, Florida, (originally from UK) | Registered: Jun 99 | IP: Logged

Barryboat
First Class Passenger
Member # 33

posted 09-06-2002 04:54 PM

I did indeed sign off in Boston. As for the TV appearance...first..I was not told not to speak to the press, and second, the press nearly knocked me over and insisted on a statement. I just said that the the passenegers were calm throughout the evening and described the effect of hitting bottom...it was quick and short...and did not interfere with my duties. It was an unfortunate situation....I did my job and then a handfull of us Cruise Staff had hours and hours to wait around before the next boatload of passengers would arrive in lifeboats. While I was very intrumental in coordinating the loading of passengers into buses, during the offtime while waiting for the next boat, nearly all the other cruise staff got drunk, and in their drunken stoop, they saw that I was not drinking and just minding my own business...so I was looked at as being NOT a team player during the whole event, which was NOT true. I did not seek out opportunity to be interviewed by the press as the other cruise staff said. It was because I was the first staff member off the boat to lead the passengers to the buses...that I was nearly tackled for a statement and the press wouldn't leave me alone. There were a number of other reasons why I signed off in Boston some of which include some unfortunate politics within the entertainment department, overall, I was thrilled to work on the QE2 and did my very best as Stage Manager and Cruise Staff. I had actually been a Cruise Director on another line and it was my goal to be Deputy Cruise Director on QE2, but I was the new guy working with a staff that had worked on the QE2 for many years...so my chances were slim.

As for my theories of what happened that night...I was nearly thrown off my feet from my deck five cabin...immediately after the incident, I went all the way forward then all the way aft to look over the stern of the ship....where I did see the wash from the screws and although I could not see the rudder, I could see where the wash was interupted by the rudder fishtailing back & forth. The screws would start up then stop then start up again with more thrust then stop. I also saw an officer peering over the stern with a flashlight. With the wash from the screws churning up the water violently and the wash moving far behind the ship...and yet the ship was obviously not moving, that is why I considered the idea that we were aground.

I went as low as I could go and did my own investigating around the ship that evening, before going up to the lounges to dance with passengers. From deck 5 and midship I looked down a crew stairwell and saw water flooding the deck below...someone told me it was an overflood valve.

From my cabin on deck 5 forward, during the incident, I was knocked off my feet onto my bed, I could hear gravel grinding far below it was an interesting sensation. I thought we grounded, but I'm probably wrong about that.

Posts: 1851 | From: Bloomington, Minnesota (Home to the Mall of America) | Registered: Mar 99 | IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)

Ultimate Bulletin Board^TM 6.1.0.3

VACATION & CRUISE SPECIALS

Check out these great deals from CruisePage.com

Royal Caribbean - Bahamas Getaway from $129 per person

Description: Experience the beautiful ports of Nassau and Royal Caribbean's private island - CocoCay on a 3-night Weekend Getaway to the Bahamas. Absorb everything island life has to offer as you snorkel with the stingrays, parasail above the serene blue waters and walk the endless white sand beaches. From Miami.

Carnival - 4-Day Bahamas from $229 per person

Description: Enjoy a wonderful 3 Day cruise to the fun-loving playground of Nassau, Bahamas. Discover Nassau, the capital city as well as the cultural, commercial and financial heart of the Bahamas. Meet the Atlantic Southern Stingrays, the guardians of Blackbeard's treasure.

NCL - Bermuda - 7 Day from $499 per person

Description: What a charming little chain of islands. Walk on pink sand beaches. Swim and snorkel in turquoise seas. Take in the historical sights. They're stoically British and very quaint. Or explore the coral reefs. You can get to them by boat or propelled by fins. You pick. Freestyle Cruising doesn't tell you where to go or what to do. Sure, you can plan ahead, or decide once onboard. After all, it's your vacation. There are no deadlines or must do's.

Holland America - Eastern Caribbean from From $599 per person

Description: White sand, black sand, talcum soft or shell strewn, the beaches of the Eastern Caribbean invite you to swim, snorkel or simply relax. For shoppers, there's duty-free St. Thomas, the Straw Market in Nassau, French perfume and Dutch chocolates on St. Maarten. For history buffs, the fascinating fusion of Caribbean, Latin and European cultures. For everyone, a day spent on HAL's award winning private island Half Moon Cay.

Celebrity - 7-Night Western Mediterranean from $549 per person

Description: For centuries people have traveled to Europe to see magnificent ruins, art treasures and natural wonders. And the best way to do so is by cruise ship. Think of it - you pack and unpack only once. No wasted time searching for hotels and negotiating train stations. Instead, you arrive at romantic ports of call relaxed, refreshed and ready to take on the world.

Holland America - Alaska from From $499 per person

Description: Sail between Vancouver and Seward, departing Sundays on the ms Statendam or ms Volendam and enjoy towering mountains, actively calving glaciers and pristine wildlife habitat. Glacier Bay and College Fjord offer two completely different glacier-viewing experiences.

More Vacation & Cruise Specials...