They are built with a tapered bow, camber, sheer, and tumblehome, and a spoon stern. Her bow is long with a cargo hatch. The dining room is low down mid-ship. Interior planning is pure cruiseship and a basis for modern cruiseship design.

It can be argued since they were designed for the NYC-Bermuda trade they are liners. However are used as cruiseships.

I actually think that both observations are correct in this case.

By today's standards these ships clearly lean toward the ocean liner end of the spectrum. However, I think that is because of how the newer ships have evolved in comparison. The design features you noted are almost purely of an ocean liner. Not to mention the Magrodomes, which were originally designed to keep out lousy weather on crossings. So, yes, they have very distinct liner qualities.

However, that being said, look at the big picture relative to when they were built. Compared to the ships in service at the time, these sisters tend to look more like cruise ships. For one, they are fairly small. This leads me to think that draft (i.e. for Caribbean ports) was a consideration. Another point that you didn't mention was speed. If memory serves, they have a fairly humble service speed. One would think it would be a little higher for any sort of scheduled, fixed route. The best part about these ships is that they aren't part of a series of "cookie cutter" ships with 8 or 10 in their class. This gives them character, especially compared to some of the floating hotels and shopping malls meandering through the Caribbean now.

To put a spin on your points, consider the Oceanic of 1965. Ocean liner or cruise ship? In 40 years, she's only served as a cruise ship, but by specs and design, she's a textbook liner. What's even more peculiar is how wildly successful she became!

Again Desirod, excellent post. I love the ones that make us think!

I still do not understand this 'long bow' business. Why is that supposed to be better? (aesthetically yes - a question of taste - I only see a point if you expect to have water on the forecastle, but one tries to avoid that (which is not always possible - rare exceptions are a proof for the 'rule' - this is neverthless NOT the case for the here discussed vessels! ))

Not to talk about this 'riding the waves myth' etc. As AleksNorway posted a long roll period would indicate a low uprighting torque (at least for low angles - the ship might still have a 'big' stability range) - nevertheless, those very subjective obeservations under not comparable conditions (!) do not allow any conclusions or a comparison between different ships.

Actually the former Pacific Princess and her sister are much, much closer and to nowadays cruise ships and that to the ships built decades ago for e.g. the North Atlantic service.
They are nevertheless nice vessels, and therefore it is not necessary to 'invent' features or 'myths' which are just not there.

[ 11-30-2005: Message edited by: Ernst ]

[ 11-30-2005: Message edited by: Ernst ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:
I still do not understand this 'long bow' business. Why is that supposed to be better?

---

A longer bow provides a greater level of safety for the bridge in the event of larger waves breaking over the bow.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:
BTW: Where is the mentioned sheer? Also, a lot of ships are still built with tumble home. (e.g. most (all?) ships built at Fincantieri)

I still do not understand this 'long bow' business.

Not to talk about this 'riding the waves myth' etc. As AleksNorway posted a long roll period would indicate a low uprighting torque (at least for low angles - the ship might still have a 'big' stability range) - nevertheless, those very subjective obeservations under not comparable conditions (!) do not allow any conclusions or a comparison between different ships.

Actually the former Pacific Princess and her sister are much, much closer and to nowadays cruise ships and that to the ships built decades ago for e.g. the North Atlantic service.

[ 11-30-2005: Message edited by: Ernst ]

---

The Love Boats sea trial at 21.5 knots and cruise 19. They burn 70 tons of fuel a day and can go 12,000 miles on a tank of gas. The design intent was NYC to Bermuda which requires crossing the year round rough Gulf Stream.

The Love Boat major standout is superb interior and exterior space planning and flow.

Ernst and Aleks, Don't the stabilizers damp the motions in both speed and range?

[ 11-30-2005: Message edited by: desirod7 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeBarryboat:

A longer bow provides a greater level of safety for the bridge in the event of larger waves breaking over the bow.

---

Well, this is what I said. Still, it is better to avoid having water on deck. Also, a 'long bow' or better forecastle is not generally preventing water from making it to the bridge. (Michelangelo)
On the vessel under discussion I would say it is more (the world is not black and white ) a design feature for a better exterior appearance than a technical reason. At this time ships with much shorter forecastles (e.g. ferries) were already built.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeBarryboat:

Today's cruise ships are built as #1 a resort at sea, whereas the Pacific & Island Princess were built as #1 a SHIP, and #2 a comfortable passenger vessel...a little more old-school way of thinking.

---

Certainly these two ships are a bit more 'old-school' but finally they already have a lot in common with these floating resorts - which is what they already tried to be.

Again: I do not see ANY techical or even other design feature which makes them essentially different. Of course they were built at a a time during which 'a lot' (not by nowadays standards ) of nice, a bit more 'old school' ships have been built - but they all were already 'modern' cruise ships.

Look at Eugenio Costa in comparison. She entered service a year after Oceanic, and to me always resembled a near copy. The only big differences were the twin funnels and the fact that her forward superstricture wasn't tiered like Oceanic's. But their hulls especially were quite similar. This leads me to think that the Eugenio Costa's original owners were trying to closely mimic the then-radical new design of Oceanic. They just didn't know what a tough act she was to follow.

Originally posted by Rego007:

"Look at Eugenio Costa in comparison. She entered service a year after Oceanic, and to me always resembled a near copy. The only big differences were the twin funnels and the fact that her forward superstricture wasn't tiered like Oceanic's. But their hulls especially were quite similar. This leads me to think that the Eugenio Costa's original owners were trying to closely mimic the then-radical new design of Oceanic. They just didn't know what a tough act she was to follow."

Rego007 is right. I remenber that i read in a Costa book that Eugenio C was designed based in Oceanic and Canberra (twin funnels). They're pretty similar, but i still think that Eugenio C is more sleek and balanced.

I still do not really understand why the Sea Venture / Island Venture should be 'liners' or different to other cruise ships buit at that time. A magrodome is a rather ridiculouse justification for putting them in this category - actually I would see a magrodome more as a cruise ship than a 'liner' feature.

As said before 'liner' is actually no technical term. Strictly speaking the definition of a 'liner' is a ship which is in a regular service between (two?) ports - someting which nearly all nowadays cruise ships could do. (are all ships which repeat the same itinerary every week liners?)

Another definition for a 'liner' might be the kind of ship built for such a service MANY DECADES AGO. These ships were not only different as techology was different back then. They also had other features like 'class separation' which are not found on nowadays cruise ships. Also, these ships were predominantly built for transport purposes and not for leisure travelling.

I do not see any reason how the 'Love Boat' (& the sister ) should fit in this category. THE ISLAND VENTURE / SEA VENTURE WERE BUILT AS CRUISE SHIPS. As said, they actually have a lot of things in common not only with cruise ships built at that time but also with nowadays cruise ships. THERE IS NOT ANY FEATURE IN THEIR DESING INDICATING THAT THEY WERE BUILT FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE THAN CRUISE VACATIONS. THEY ARE VERY TYPICAL FOR THE TYPE OF CRUISE SHIP BUILT AT THAT TIME.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:

I still do not really understand why the Sea Venture / Island Venture should be 'liners' or different to other cruise ships buit at that time. A magrodome is a rather ridiculouse justification for putting them in this category - actually I would see a magrodome more as a cruise ship than a 'liner' feature.

---

I agree 100%. SEA/ISLAND VENTURE are strictly cruise ships, and mediocre ones at that IMO. They are slightly better than the NCL "White Ships" of the time, but in the same league as SONG OF NORWAY and her sisters. These are high density cruise ships, very pre-fab, low ceilings, etc. Nothing more. Typical of what the 70's era spit out. Sure these ships may look "classic" compared to what is around today, but SEA/ISLAND VENTURE are no more of a "liner" than GRAND PRINCESS.

However I disagree with the statement that Eugenio C. did not mimic Oceanic. With the exception of the features I mentioned earlier in the thread, I can't imagine anyone not thinking these ships look like fraternal twins separated at birth. It almost seems as though Eugenio C. was designed to be "just different enough". As the old addage goes, "If it looks like an Oceanic and walks like and walks like an Oceanic..." Well...you know. Don't get me wrong; she was a terrific and beautiful ship, especially until she started to fall into disrepair (mechanically). That's not her fault, but the fault of those who owned and ran her. But I do stand by the opinion that she was designed and built as an unabashed near-copy.

But back on the original topic, it sounds (by reading some of the replies) as though this matter has some people's blood pressure skyrocketing. I'm not saying that the "LoveBoats" were liners in the Normandie and Queen Mary sense. That's clearly not the case. Consider this: Do I think that Sovereign of the Seas is trying to be a transatlantic liner because her stern plating looks like that of the Normandie? Not in the least. I'm just pointing out a similar design cue. One that, in my opinion, gives Sovereign and Normandie a single, interesting visual similarity. And I think that's all Desirod was trying to suggest in his original post. I also think that, whether you like them or not, these sisters have probably done more to promote the cruise industry more than any other ship(s) out there.

Rego007
Daytona Beach, FL

[ 12-03-2005: Message edited by: Rego007 ]

The 70’s were experimental times for liner/cruise companies, the cruise product as we know it today came forward from the work don in the 70’s. The Atlantic liner age was over and the companies that could not make that leap of faith into cruising stopped existing, the ones that did survived (and some grew into the big companies ruling the cruise market today)

Passenger ships design wise (the hardware) and the onboard experience/product (the software) had to be reinvented. So to speak the passenger ship came at a fork in the road and it had to chose a direction. By looking at today’s cruise ships we know which direction was successful The 70’s was just an special time where both worlds (the old and the new) came together.

It is not the first time in history that the passenger ship came to a fork in the road, during the mid 1800’s we came to the point were old sailing ships changed into “modern” steam ships. The ship yards could not let go of the past and still gave the first peddle wheel steamers mast’s and sails, even the hulls were constructed out of wood and designed according the old sailing ship hulls. Back then there were a lot of people who looked with angry eyes at those “ugly” looking steam ships. After that came the first steel hull and then the invention of the superstructure (just imagine if today’s cruise ships had no superstructure, but just a hull)
After a while there was no resemblance left with the old sail ships and the new steam driven passenger ships, but there certainly was a point in history when one could literally point out the similarities between the two.

It is human nature to build upon past knowledge and successes, ship building always has and still is a traditional business, settled construction techniques that prove to be solid seldom are changed just for the sake of changing. That is why many 70’s cruise ships show elements that came forward from the liner age.

In my opinion the 70’s was an exciting period and some lovely ships were designed. Cruising was in those days an exclusive business and that resulted in the logical decision to build small sized ships (especially compared to the Atlantic super liners) Small size meant an extra bonus of getting a connection with the ever changing surrounding, which I guess is the most important thing in sea travel (why else choose for a vacation on a moving object). Also the 70’s cruise companies had still felt the need to make a “good looking” and stylish ship (also a tradition that finds its origin in the liner world when ships/companies/nationalities needed to compete via design and looks)

For me the 70’s cruise ships showed the best of both worlds and I think often this area in passenger ship history is underrated and appreciated. Often the 70’s ships are abused by ship enthusiast as a “punch back” simply to blame something for the end of the doomed liner age. Being a younger generation who has not experienced the end of the liner age I often look with completely different eyes toward the 70’s era ships.

Best, Onno

The lower inwards laying lifeboat stations was one of those features that gradually evolved, just like the engines aft. Both these cruise ship like elements were first used on ships (mind you ocean liners) while the Atlantic liner service was still in business. The need for smaller ships was an economic decision in the 70’s (in the early days of cruising they could not fill big liner like ships) Just like today’s mega ships full of people are a result of economics as well. There was no need for speed anymore (if you wanted speed you simply took an air plane) the end destination became the ship itself. This had an impact on the engines of ships which in turn had an impact on the layout of the ship.

The dual purpose ships at the end of the Atlantic service (late 50’s and 60’s) also played a big role in the origin of the cruise ship. Also the idea that ships could be used for fun and vacation (in the 30’s) was an early step that lead to cruising as a product on it’s own.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:
The Eugenio C. did not 'mimic' the design of the Oceanic - their hull was actually designed by the same naval architect and is very similar to the hull of Guglielmo Marconi / Galileo Galilei. (which is actually a derivative of Leonardo da Vinci....and of course there are also similarites with other Italian built vessels).

---

Right, and despite both of these "future Big Red Boats" spending most/all of their careers in cruise service, both vessels are definitely liners.

We're all familiar with Oceanic being designed as a "liner to the sun" with Home Lines pulling out of the transatlantic trade just prior to taking delivery. In Eugenio C's case, however, she spent most of her first decade in constant, regular scheduled transatlantic service because she was designed and used for the Genoa-Buenos Aires run on which her cruise itineraries were based.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lubber:

Right, and despite both of these "future Big Red Boats" spending most/all of their careers in cruise service, both vessels are definitely liners.
[...]
A liner in cruise service is still a liner, only in cruise service. Did Aquitania, Rex and Normandie become "cruise ships" during cruise itineraries?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frosty 4:
In it's simplest form:
Ocean liner= meant for crossings -sleek looking and able to handle rough seas.
Cruise ship= boxy looking meant for smoother seas for passenger comfort.

---

'Liners' are indeed intended for another purpose than 'cruise ships'. However, in both cases passenger comfort is or was important. It is also true that the region where the ship is primarily operating plays a role in the design. Nevertheless, cruise ships are required and indeed capeable to handle rough seas, in fact most modern cruise ships are FAR superior than some historic 'liners' were.
Also, don't forget that not all liners were intended for express service on the North Atlantic (as often assumed these days). There were many slow liners operating in regions with 'nicer' weather than the North Atlanic -> that's why it is not possible to distinguish between 'liners' and 'cruise ships' based on that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frosty 4:

The ships look top heavy and not conducive for rough weather.
Just a very SIMPLE definition IMHO.
F4

---