Ocean liner vs Cruise ship

[Magic Pipe]

'Queens' are liner status.....the other pair are merely cruise ships........

There is NO comparison...

I would NEVER cross the Atlantic in anything other than a liner......

Do you realize that there is no difference between a "liner" and a "cruise ship"?  Alot of people seem to have the impression that "cruise ships" are built to a lower standard than "liners", but that is not true.  There is no additional standard for ships intended to cross the North Atlantic.  All ships with an unrestricted ocean certificate are able to cross the North Atlantic as much as their owners want, and they are perfectly capable of doing just that.

[Chris]

An Ocean Liner is by lose definition a passenger vessel designed with a direct line (usually over deep ocean) voyage in mind.

This is not restricted to the transatlantic passage. Because a liner is intended to make these voyages, they are usually built with certain aspects that assist them in their job. In that respect there is a notable difference between a liner such as QE2 and a cruise ship. QV was built with *some* of these features such as a thickened stronger hull, to assist her when undertaking line voyages.

Line voyages are any direct place to place voyage where the transport of passengers from point A to point B is intended. Examples are UK to Cape Town which was the domain of Union Castle, UK to Australia which was P&O and Orient Line, transatlantic that Cunard was famous for, but there are Lots of other line routes that are less romantic and thus forgotten.

Sure, any ship can attempt the direct passage but I dare say a cruise ship, not built with that route in mind, would find it harder, for longer, than QE2 did or QM2 does.

[Twynkle]

Isn't it the term 'Ocean', that's important from both a historical perspective and a contemporary one, too?!
Also - isn't this a case as well, where something of historical importance is needing to co-exist with new technological advances?
Isn't the design of a vessel still needing to be much more about function - rather than form /  beauty?
A ship that ferries passengers, might it - or might it not be an ocean-going Liner?!

Please feel free to correct me if this isn't still 'valid' thinking!

PS - Just a thought - apart from size, capacity etc of the engine - would there need to be any difference in the design / type and position of ships engine, if the ship is being built for ocean-going purposes??  
Hoping that you'll excuse this naive sounding question!

[Cruise_Princess]

Do you realize that there is no difference between a "liner" and a "cruise ship"?  Alot of people seem to have the impression that "cruise ships" are built to a lower standard than "liners", but that is not true.  There is no additional standard for ships intended to cross the North Atlantic.  All ships with an unrestricted ocean certificate are able to cross the North Atlantic as much as their owners want, and they are perfectly capable of doing just that.

SURELY an Ocean Liner has a strengthened hull and a  much deeper draft to enable her to cope with the atlantic etc?   As you say any ship  can  cross the atlantic if they so want..they are merely  certificated ..but LINERS  are built specifically for that purpose are they not?  I crossed the atlantic ONCE  in a cruise ship.....they are are just not built for that purpose.....hence all the slowing down etc of ugly beasts such as Oasis of the Seas etc....even QE2 had to slow down to enable QV to keep up .Her pitch and roll  on the atlantic compared to QE2 was something to watch.  And surely thats why the cruise ship repositionings are advertised fairly cheap due to no port calls and the possibilty of a rather uncomfortable voyage,several passengers I know would never want to repeat that....( some may be lucky and get a fairly good crossing but in April and Oct/Nov ..i(t can be iffy as any time of year is but perhaps more so at that time). I know which ship I would want to sail the atlantic on., and she is stuck in Dubai!

[Magic Pipe]

By definition, a "liner" is a ship engaged in a regularly scheduled, repeating voyage.  by this definition, a container ship sailing between the far east and Europe is a "liner", a car carrier crossing the Atlantic on a regular schedule is a "liner", and a cruise ship sailing out of Miami every week is a "liner".  A bulk carrier that is chartered out voyage-by-voyage is not a "liner".

Besides the QE2 and QM2 being faster than other cruise ships, there is no technical difference between these two ships and other cruise ships.  The idea that these two ships have thicker steel than normal cruise ships is a myth (the Queen Victoria contains about 2,500 tons more structural steel than the QE2, for example).  A modern cruise ship will also have been subject to a much more comprehensive seakeeping analysis than a ship built in the 1960's.  By most accounts, the Queen Victoria performed every bit as good on the 2008 January transatlantic as the QE2.

Twynkle - All ships are built for "ocean-going purposes".  There is no one design that is preferable when it comes to engine type or placement.

[Rob Lightbody]

Besides the QE2 and QM2 being faster than other cruise ships, there is no technical difference between these two ships and other cruise ships.  The idea that these two ships have thicker steel than normal cruise ships is a myth

I don't mean to be blunt/rude, but that is simply not true.  I will back it up with facts and references later when I have a moment. 

QM2 cost a whopping 40% more than a cruise ship of the same size for a reason. 

QE2's hull is extremely thick and strong.  If I remember correctly she is an inch thick all over, and 1.5inches at the bottom/where she needs to be.  This is far greater than a cruise ship.  Her hull has withstood 40 years of constant Atlantic pounding essentially unscathed - various experts say that her hull is essentially as good as new - including Stephen Payne, QM2's designer.

Extra steel was built into QV's bow, midships and stern to strengthen her (I'm not sure why though??) but this does not by any means make her comparable to QE2 or QM2.

[Cruise_Princess]

Yes Rob....I heard this over and over and over........from my Uncles in the yards...whilst prob at the time I wasnt too interested in ships of any kind but their words ring in my ears constantly when we meet folks on board who do not think there there is any difference between cruise ship and liner.

It brings me back to an earlier posting I wrote a few weeks ago when many ships were hurricane bound in NY en route to Bermuda...QE2 included, but then we received 'clearance to sail' as we were big n strong... one other celebrity pretender decided to follow on a few hours later.....it was proved at Hamilton Bermuda when looking at the 'state' of Celebrity's Horizon which was fairly new to the game at that time and innovative with glass and balconies...all Sparkly and American..glitz..just what everyone wants.......

she was bashed to bits...her hull was totally concave., many passengers had been badly injured with flying shards of glass from the inside public rooms.

guess who had the last laugh here? (  and I don't  mean literally ...it was terrible)

So why did I choose to sail on a liner instead of a cruise ship...


Elementary My Dear Watson!!


Were we glad we sailed on QE2?   You bet we were!!!!

[Magic Pipe]

I don't mean to be blunt/rude, but that is simply not true.  I will back it up with facts and references later when I have a moment. 

QM2 cost a whopping 40% more than a cruise ship of the same size for a reason. 

QE2's hull is extremely thick and strong.  If I remember correctly she is an inch thick all over, and 1.5inches at the bottom/where she needs to be.  This is far greater than a cruise ship.  Her hull has withstood 40 years of constant Atlantic pounding essentially unscathed - various experts say that her hull is essentially as good as new - including Stephen Payne, QM2's designer.

Extra steel was built into QV's bow, midships and stern to strengthen her (I'm not sure why though??) but this does not by any means make her comparable to QE2 or QM2.

Rob, No offense taken.  But about those "facts":

The QM2 cost about $780 million.  The Freedom of the Seas cost $824 million.  The 40% premium for the QM2 is the cost per cabin.  It simply means that the QM2 has less cabins than other cruise ships of her size.

The fact also is that the Queen Mary 2 does not displace significantly more than a ship like the Freedom of the Seas.  If you subtract the weight of fuel, water and provisions (i.e. deadweight), the QM2 actually weighs a good bit less than Freedom of the Seas.  Both ships contain a comparable amount of steel.  In fact, modern cruise ships with highly flared bows, by calassification society rules, require the steel in that location to be very thick.  It is not uncommon to find steel beyond 40 mm in thickness in the bow of a cruise ship.  Some ships have steel a good bit thicker than that.  If you have the time, you can look up the required shell plating thickness for a hypothetical cruise ship from various class rules.  ABS and BV have rules that are free to access.

It is also a fact that the QE2 contains 17,600 tons of steel.  Queen Victoria contains a hair over 20,000 tons.  There are other panamax cruise ships that contain up to 22,000 tons of steel.  How can the QE2's hull be "far thicker" than that of a newer cruise ship?.  I'm not bashing the QE2, just pointing out that there is no reason for anyone to bash other ships.

[Cruise_Princess]

I'm no engineer,...but isn't part of QE2s upper structure aluminium?  I'm sure I remember hearing and reading about this.....as it was all something to do with total weight and placement....or something along those lines.....maybe Rob can describe this in better detail than I can...but I know what I'm talking about....too much steel would have made her too top heavy? Particularly in the rough North Atlantic. I must look out those famous pics taken on QVs tandem with QE2...QV was almost under water as she pounded her way  whilst QE2 just got on with it as usual.

Im no mathematician either .,..but surely there has to be more steel in the ugly beasts anyway considering the majority of ships are now over 100,000 grt...whilst old QE2 was merely 73,000 tons.....

Does size matter???

Thats' one all the girls wanna know!! LOL

[Stowaway2k]

The QM2 cost about $780 million.  The Freedom of the Seas cost $824 million. 

Let's not overlook the many millions spent to equip FOS with all those amusement-park gizmos and gimicks... ice-skating rink, rock-climbing wall, water park, surfing...  

[Magic Pipe]

Let's not overlook the many millions spent to equip FOS with all those amusement-park gizmos and gimicks... ice-skating rink, rock-climbing wall, water park, surfing...  

...And the cost to equip the QM2 with a propulsion system twice as powerful as most other cruise ships.

[Rob Lightbody]

It is also a fact that the QE2 contains 17,600 tons of steel.  Queen Victoria contains a hair over 20,000 tons. 

LOL!!  QE2's entire superstructure is aluminium, not steel - everything above one deck!!  QV is also massively bigger than QE2 - she towers over her, and has superstructure running far furtehr forward and back  So this fact you've given proves what I'm saying!

[Magic Pipe]

I'm no engineer,...but isn't part of QE2s upper structure aluminium?  I'm sure I remember hearing and reading about this.....as it was all something to do with total weight and placement....or something along those lines.....maybe Rob can describe this in better detail than I can...but I know what I'm talking about....too much steel would have made her too top heavy? Particularly in the rough North Atlantic. I must look out those famous pics taken on QVs tandem with QE2...QV was almost under water as she pounded her way  whilst QE2 just got on with it as usual.

Im no mathematician either .,..but surely there has to be more steel in the ugly beasts anyway considering the majority of ships are now over 100,000 grt...whilst old QE2 was merely 73,000 tons.....

Does size matter???

Thats' one all the girls wanna know!! LOL

Yes, the QE2's superstructure is aluminum.  This was necessary because she has a hull form that is finer than that typical modern panamax cruise ship.  If the Queen Victoria's larger steel superstructure were placed on the QE2's hull, she would have stability problems.  The finer hull form, of course, is necessary for the QE2's higher speed.

When you look at the weight of steel per gross ton in the QE2 and Queen Victoria, they come out at pretty much the same.

And in those pictures, the Queen Victoria's bow isn't any closer to the waterline than the QE2's.  The Queen Victoria just produces larger amounts of spray owing to he bow having more flare.

[Rob Lightbody]

From Queen Mary 2, by John Maxtone Graham.  Page 129

Whereas the hull plating of conentional cruising hulls is comparatively lightweight.  QM2's hull plates vary in size, the thinnest (6mm - the same as Voyager of the Seas) is high up on deck 6, amidships," while the thickest, buttressing the bow, is a formidable 28mm - more than 1 1/8 inches thick, moreover, this is special high tensile steel with superior qualities to mild steel.  And beneath the plating the density and dimensions of the bows underlying ribbing and longitudinal strakes are proportionately greater.

[Magic Pipe]

From Queen Mary 2, by John Maxtone Graham.  Page 129

Whereas the hull plating of conentional cruising hulls is comparatively lightweight.  QM2's hull plates vary in size, the thinnest (6mm - the same as Voyager of the Seas) is high up on deck 6, amidships," while the thickest, buttressing the bow, is a formidable 28mm - more than 1 1/8 inches thick, moreover, this is special high tensile steel with superior qualities to mild steel.  And beneath the plating the density and dimensions of the bows underlying ribbing and longitudinal strakes are proportionately greater.

I have John Maxtone-Graham's book, and I always thought this part was especially deceiving.  This implies that the entire hull of the Voyager is of the same thickness as the sample that he has sitting on his mantle.  Rest assured, the Voyager has steel of comparable thickness in her hull as the Queen Mary 2.  Just look at any photos of her, her plating on the bow is not the least bit dented.  If she were made of 6mm plating (which would be far in violation of classification requirements), her hull would have been pounded to bits by now.