As many of you seem to know so well, I have not been here long... And it has been discussed several times, just since I'm arrived. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be dozens of time Cruise Talk history.

I suggest that perhaps we could come up with a definitive, consolidated answer to this question, and put it in the new "Maritime Q&A" as it is too often repeated and I don't even know what the consensus is here on this board.

To me an ocean liner is used, at least in part, on a regularly scheduled service line service - that is, a trip that transports passengers from one point to another. This voyage is not made strictly for pleasure.

The QE2 is the only major one right now. The only thing keeping the Hurtigruten ships in Norway from being ocean liners in my opinion is that they are on a coastal service which does not count. To be an ocean liner in my book, it must be a transoceanic service.

I suppose it could be argued that the Scandinavian overnight ferries like those of the Viking Line, DFDS, Silja etc. are in a way liners? They don't exactly conjure up the romanticized images we generally associate with the words "ocean liner" though.

A cruise ship is operated full-time on services that are exclusively for pleasure.

That's just the way I classify them - there are many different criteria proposed by many different people.

There is more of a difference between ocean liners and cruise ships than what you explained.

A Liner is indeed a ship with a purpose that transports people from point A to B, but a liner also has distinguished features structurally.

A liner usually has sheer for one. They are designed a bit more sturdy, for the worst the Atlantic or Pacific can throw at them. A liner is designed for deep sea ocean travel whereas cruise ships are designed for the calmer waters of the Caribbean. Liners usually have a deeper draft for better stability for comfort.

Barryboat, I'm well aware of all of the factors in your criteria. I don't count them in for my purpose.

Thus I maintain that the first Astor (now Astoria) was the last ocean liner built. Her intention was to be used for a UK-South Africa liner service for Safmarine.

Similarly, I consider Caronia to have been built as a liner - but she has never been one because she never was on a regular liner service.

So, you are more concerned with the design of the ship, I am more concerned with the technical definiton.

I agree with your definition if we are talking about ship design. I viewed Eric's question from a more straightforward standpoint.

I think most of the big passenger ships built after the late 1920's did both crossings and cruising with a few exceptions (did Queen Mary ever do a cruise before the war?). Cruising was usually during the winter and crossings for the rest of the year. Normandie, Rex, Bremen, Aquitania and Empress of Britain all ran some very publisized cruises during the 1930's along with smaller ships like Britannic, America, Manhattan ect. The Normandie, Rex and Conte di Savoia all had outdoor swimming pools which were probably a popular feature when they were on cruises. So yes, they cruised but the majority of the large passenger ships of that time were designed mainly for ocean transportation from point A to point B. Therfore, I'd still call these ships "Ocean Liners".

The popularity of cruising on these ships and others in the 1930's let to slightly different designs on many of the large postwar ships. Most were designed with the possiblity of cruising in mind with fearures such as air conditioning, interchangeble class divisions, outdoor pools and so forth. The SS Rotterdam of the late 1950's is a perfect example of that type of ship. I would call these type of ships "Cruise Liners" as they were clearly designed with both crossing and cruising in mind.

The majority of the next generation of passenger ships built in the late 1960's - 1980's were mainly designed as pure "Cruise Ships" that would sail in warm waters. Ocean crossings were not considered for these type of ships. The NCL "white ships" and the early RCCL trio come to mind as good examples.

Ok, here is a question:
Could a trend toward building "Cruise Liners" be coming back? With the growth in the European market, ships that can fit into the shallow ports in the Caribbean/South Pacific/Med. as well as being able to cross the Atlantic or Pacific for repositioning and longer cruises are growing in numbers. For sure the emphasis on the design is on cruising, but several of the large new ships could provide pleasant summertime crossings. Speeds on the new, large ships is inching upwards and some are nearly as fast as the Ocean Liners of days gone by. MS Rotterdam, Amsterdam,
Oriana and Aurora come to my mind as two good examples.

Whoops, my mistake. I mean the second Astor... But said the first!

The first one indeed wasn't originally intended for Safmarine... She was supposed to be "Hammonia" for Hadag, but they ended up calling her "Astor" for some reason. She operated for them for about two years, but was sold to Safmarine in 1984. Then after being unsuccessful, she was sold again, to VEB Deutfracht/Seereedeirei of Rostock (via the Hamburg-based Deutsche West Afrika Linie to avoid embarrassment of dealing directly with South Africa) as a replacement for Volkerfreundschaft. She was renamed Arkona at the time... I can't figure out exactly how she ended up being owned by Seetours who were then bought by P&O... But after P&O decided to retire here she was sold to SOVCOMFLOT and placed under charter to Transocean Tours as Astor.

The second ship, on the other hand, was built for Safmarine liner service. She was ordered in 1985 but Safmarine decided to abandon the liner service altogether and sold her to a company in Panama and she was chartered to a tour company related to Safmarine. Then she was sold to BLASCO in Ukraine, but was subsequently transferred to SOVCOMFLOT just before the fall of the USSR - this is lucky as BLASCO later went bust. However she remains under SOVCOMFLOT ownership to this day, later having been renamed with her original name Astor and chartered to an AquaMarin Cruises, that company having folded and the charter taken up by Transocean tours a few years back...

Anyhow, sorry that I confused the two!

The Pre-WWII, and the brief pre-jet transatlantic liners operated on essentially three "tracks"
One, the northernmost, went from NYC to Scandinavia and Germany.

The Second went to the UK and France.

The third went through the Med to Italy and Greece.

OK, on the southern track, the voyages were longer with a probability of warm-weather cruise-like passages. Ergo outdoor swimming pools and other such amenities existed, more akin to the current cruise ships.

But those vessels which traveled the northern tracks faced the North Atlantic, often unpleasant even in the summer. They had minimal weather decks and enclosed decks were more common. Major portions of the promenade decks were enclosed, and weather deck space was generally limited to the stern. Outdoor swimming pools?...you must be kidding!

And, based on reports (many here) the Queens, and the CGT ships, HAL, and the German vessels were more stable, and more "deep-ocean capable" so to speak, than were those of the Italian Line.

Ceretainly I have heard horror stories of the stability of even the legendary Italian Line ships, from the attempts at gyrostabilizing the "Conte di Savoia," to the behavior of the "Raffello" and her sistership in storms.

Call this a working hypothesis presented to stimulate discussion by those present and voting.

[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: Cambodge ]