How similar were they? How different were they?

According me there was one major reason why the fame of the QUEEN ELIZABETH was "eaten" by the one of QUEEN MARY: the war. One was born before, in the 30s, in a legendary era for liners and the height for transatlantic voyages. Nothing was big, large, fast, beautiful and luxuous enough in these days. Since the end of the 19th century, when a company built a liner, no matter the country, you could almost every times said "this one will be better for this, better for that, plus this, plus that, etc, than its previous one". This was generally not the case after the war when recession, economy and efficiency were more important. Too much dificulties, pains, a break, the heart wasn't in it anymore. (excepted few ones which were built for the prestige too, the UNITED STATES -and even if it paid with lot of deaths, this country didn't know the war on its territory too- and far later in the late 50s or in the 60s when economy was better and the war more far in the minds in Europe, the FRANCE, CANBERRA, ORIANA and RAFFAELLO duo). All the other liners built after the war were not built to exceed the previous ones, at least basing on the criterium I listed above. This was different. We began to see liners built with pleasure, aesthetic, prestige, beauty, luxury considerations, only about 15 years after the war...when it was too late, the plane arrived.
QUEEN ELIZABETH, although appreciated by lot of passengers after the war, especially British ones, didn't benefit from this wave of legendary of the past era, the one before the war. She arrived (commercially) after the height of the transtlantic voyages. Later liners only existed not to meet this wave towards the height but because planes were not ready yet to support all economic exchanges. Of course, few rare exceptions exist, the "ships of state".
That is, according me, the main reason explaining the difference of fame and affection (so the subjective part of the personality you give to the ship too) between QUEEN MARY and QUEEN ELIZABETH.
But, as I still think this ship was among the more beautiful liners, here are few pictures from an advertising of the 50s/60s. (of course, there will be some comparisons with QM.)

Bye.

Malcolm, I have a wonderful paperback book called "RMS Queen Elizabeth - From Victory to Valhalla" by David F. Hutchings, and published by Kingfisher Publications. I don't know whether it's out of print, but online sources for such things are springing up like mushrooms.

Anyway, the book is packed with information, deck plans, and photos. I wish there were more images of furnished passenger spaces, but there are enough to get a feel for her.

Two aerial photos show an interesting historical tidbit. For QE's final departure from Southampton, the starboard side was given a clean up and paint job because the visiting Queen Mother would see the liner from that angle. The port side was left in its weathered state from declining maintenance.

Queen Elizabeth - 1940 - 1972
* Gross Tonnage - 83,673 tons
* Dimensions - 300.94 x 36.14m (987.4 x 118.6ft)
* Number of funnels - 2
* Number of masts - 2
* Construction - Steel
* Propulsion - Quadruple screw
* Engines - Single reduction steam turbines
* Service speed - 29 knots
* Builder - John Brown & Co Ltd, Glasgow
* Launch date - 27 September 1938
* Passenger accommodation - 823 1st class, 662 cabin class, 798 tourist class

AJL

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barryboat:
Queen Elizabeth did not win the hearts of her passengers like the Queen Mary did. It's a mystery...that's all I can say.

Wouldn't it be great if the new Queen Mary 2 could have that unique chemistry? that "special chemistry" for the new QM2? This would make for interesting discussion.

---

If the Normandie, QE 1, and QM 1 were given design awards, Normandie 1st place, QE 1 2nd place, QM 1 honorable mention.

Industrial Design awards are given out for new products. www.idsa.org For the owner a 2nd place or honorable mention is better. Reason is they sell well. 1st place winners are usually too radical for laymen and general public and often bomb in the market, where 2nd place and honorable mention are more familiar forms, yet contain excellent design solutions.

The profitability of the 3 greats proves my point. Normandie always sailed 1/2 full. QM was the most profitable.

Quirks and individual expression of the designer are what give chemistry and character to a ship. The lowly and idiosyncratic Regal Empress has tons of charm. The Sea Breeze although more practical in layout does not.

A Lexus LS 430 pales in character and personality to a Jaguar XJ8 albiet using the same fine materials and craftsmanship.

QUEEN ELIZABETH - a proud ship indeed!!!

QUEEN ELIZABETH engine room

Regards

Thad