Author Topic: QE2's Bow Thrusters  (Read 29520 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 12365
  • Total likes: 15936
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
QE2's Bow Thrusters
« on: Aug 12, 2009, 06:19 AM »

Unlike the common Cruise Ship, QE2's bow thrusters had doors that closed (when the thrusters were not in use) in order to keep the hull streamlined and thus increase speed and efficiency. It appears to me as if they're closed in these photos - most likely as they've finished being serviced for this DD.

I was informed last year that one of the thrusters was decommissioned due to it being broken. As the ship was nearing retirement, Cunard did not have it repaired. I wonder if this has been fixed during the latest DD to assist in manoeuvring the ship?


I've taken this from the Dry dock 2009 topic, so that we can discuss further.

QE2's bow thrusters were rather 'wimpy' by comparison to other ships of her size, and I got the impression when on board in 2007 and 08 that they were reluctant to use them, preferring to leave the work to the tugs... maybe one being broken would explain this, as I'd think they'd not be much use with one out of action.  Having said that, compared to the earlier Queens, it was impressive that she had them at all, and the doors were an ingenious solution to the problems of drag that would be crucial in her express transatlantic service.

The doors have been copied by QM2 (and caused problems on initial trials), but have they been used on any other ships?
« Last Edit: Apr 27, 2014, 08:06 PM by Rob Lightbody »
Passionate about QE2's service life for 40 years and creator of this website.  I have worked in IT for 28 years and created my personal QE2 website in 1994.

Offline Bob C.

Re: Bow Thrusters
« Reply #1 on: Aug 12, 2009, 06:12 PM »
Rob, great topic!

I'm glad you agree that QE2's thrusters are whimpy by today's standards.  I'm thinking the perceived need for them on QE2 was underestimated and thus designed relatively underpowered.  The two she has are Stone Kamewa thrusters rated at 1000 hp a piece.  In comparison, QM2 has three 3200 kW thrusters which equates to just under 4300 hp per thruster - a wee bit more power...

If anyone has Nartional Geographic's 1980 video of "Superliner: Twighlight of an Era" you'll see a scene where QE2 is pulling into NY with tugboat crews on strike.  She attempts to dock at pier 87 or 88 on her own and gets swept down river and comes dangerously close to hitting the dock.  You can see the thrusters working as hard as they can and the port anchor straining to keep the ship's starboard bow from slamming into the pier.  They eventually get her backed out into the Hudson without incident and make it in on the 2nd attempt.

My point is the thrusters could not/cannot handle much more than moving the bow in slack (calm) water.   

Online Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 12365
  • Total likes: 15936
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: Bow Thrusters
« Reply #2 on: Aug 12, 2009, 06:34 PM »
My point is the thrusters could not/cannot handle much more than moving the bow in slack (calm) water.  

Could they have been upgraded, without significantly adapting the hull, do you think? 

Its not fair to compare her to QM2 - she's hugely bigger - but what about Canberra or France or such like?
Passionate about QE2's service life for 40 years and creator of this website.  I have worked in IT for 28 years and created my personal QE2 website in 1994.

Online Isabelle Prondzynski

Re: Bow Thrusters
« Reply #3 on: Aug 12, 2009, 06:36 PM »
My ignorance on bow thrusters is profound. Some time back, I picked this lovely "flower" design off the side of QE2 as my icon for Flickr, and only afterwards asked Rob what it meant. He was patient enough to explain, and the words "bow thruster" have become part of my vocabulary.

That is probably still as far as my general knowledge goes. But unless my memory deceives me, there are four of these flower designs on each side of QE2 -- I take that to mean that she has two bow thrusters and two stern thrusters? Are these identical? Do they work very differently?

The ignoramus is thoroughly outed...  :D

Online Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 12365
  • Total likes: 15936
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: Bow Thrusters
« Reply #4 on: Aug 12, 2009, 06:41 PM »
Is, she only has 2, at the front.  And its the same 2 that you see on either side, they work through a tunnel from one side to the other.

If you ever see the NEW poseidon film, you find out all about them at the end!

There's a good image of one here - http://www.boatnerd.com/news/newpictures03/Algobay-bow-thruster-2-Dec-.jpg
« Last Edit: Aug 12, 2009, 06:47 PM by Rob Lightbody »
Passionate about QE2's service life for 40 years and creator of this website.  I have worked in IT for 28 years and created my personal QE2 website in 1994.

Online Isabelle Prondzynski

Re: Bow Thrusters
« Reply #5 on: Aug 12, 2009, 06:48 PM »
Is, she only has 2, at the front.  And its the same 2 that you see on either side, they work through a tunnel from one side to the other.

If you ever see the NEW poseidon film, you find out all about them at the end!

None at the rear? Oh dear... Mind you, I shall never forget that now.

Yes, the tunnel... I have seen! TV report about the QM2 sea trials, when one of the doors fell off. Or am I mixing that up too?

Not sure about wanting to see the new Poseidon... I can imagine what happens    :o  ...

Online Louis De Sousa

  • QE2 Crew member
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3845
  • Total likes: 3849
  • QE2 The Greatest Ship Ever

Offline Lenkinap

Re: Bow Thrusters
« Reply #7 on: Aug 12, 2009, 07:21 PM »
Hello,

Bow thruster has been a nightmare between 2007 and her last trip to Dubai. Here is a report from Llyods:

387    25-11-2007    10-2008 SOU0730963 12-2008 SOU0830626    
Forward bow thruster seal leaking. To be kept under observation by ships staff. In the mean time the bilge alarm in the compartment to be active at all times.If any deterioration in the condition class to be advised.

So it could explain the moderate using of the thrusters and the impression when you were on board in 2007 and 08 that they were reluctant to use them, preferring to leave the work to the tugs... maybe one being broken would explain this.

This is the right explanation ;)

The last trips were technical miracles because a very long list of things to do were differed by Cunard and not only the dry-docking. I have never seen a ship with so many red dots in the Llyod's survey.As she was expected to be only a static vessel, Cunard had no interest at all to do expensive maintenance. Just the minimal ...

http://www.cdlive.lr.org/vesselstatus.asp?LRNO=6725418

As she will sail without passengers for her next destination, she will be exempted for many points that will stay in red (overdue). The dry-dock is only done for an insurance and to keep her a better protection for his newly static role. Nothing else ...

Offline Bob C.

Re: Bow Thrusters
« Reply #8 on: Aug 12, 2009, 08:21 PM »
Could they have been upgraded, without significantly adapting the hull, do you think? 

It's possible but I don't know enough about thrust to weight/size ratios to know if the space alotted to QE2's thrusters could accomodate a more powerful thruster.

Its not fair to compare her to QM2 - she's hugely bigger - but what about Canberra or France or such like?

But even if you took just one of QM2's three, it's over twice as powerful as QE2's thrusters combined!

Online Michael Gallagher

Re: Bow Thrusters
« Reply #9 on: Aug 12, 2009, 09:12 PM »
Note from the Forum Administrator - this text below may not be used outwith this forum without permission.


The original specification called for stern thrusters too - which would have helped. However, Cunard were shocked when the three tenders were in at the price the yards were quoting. The cheapest, John Browns, was still more than Cunard could afford so in a period of three weeks from tender receipt to contract signing Dan Wallace and Tom Kameen (the men who effectively gave us QE2) deleted and altered a great many things and shaved £1.5 million from the build price. Some of the key things (and the £ savings) were:

•   Stern anchor.
•   The sliding roof on the Sports Deck. £27,300
•   A set of stabilizers (four fins instead of six). £43,420
•   One auto tensioning winch. £8,000   
•   Cathodic Protection. £6,600
•   Two aft cranes. £32,000
•   The aft MacGregor hatch and trunk. £27,000
•   The aft thrust units. £46,000
•   Mental Ward and Mortuary. £1,600
•   Verandah Grill from funnel base. £35,000
•   Fur Store. £2,000
•   Breakwater. £1,000
•   Six lifts. £40,500
•   Two gangway handling winches. £   1,700
•   Special cruising gangways. £500
•   Twin boiler casings. £3,500
•   Insulation in the way of the steam pipe passage.

Major Alterations:

•   The cruise launches were modified.
•   The forward cranes to be Stothert & Pitt.
•   The boat davits to be steel in lieu of aluminium. £69,000
•   Omit the painting of aluminium behind the Linings. £12,000
•   Enamel beds for crew instead of aluminium. £10,000
•   The relocation of insulated cargo from aft to forward. £1,000
•   The Boiler Seatings were reduced in number.

The stern anchor and morturary would be put back into the ship.

The reduction of the boilers would effectively cripple the ship until her re-engining as the system lost its redundancy.

But if the above was not done, perhaps the ship would not have been built!
« Last Edit: Apr 13, 2010, 12:42 AM by Rob Lightbody »

Offline Bob C.

Re: Bow Thrusters
« Reply #10 on: Aug 12, 2009, 10:01 PM »
Looking at the stern boss, I alwys wondered if a set of thrusters was intended to be installed.  It's perfect for it.

The rest of the list is very intriguing. 
I could very much see how a sliding roof could have been installed on the Sports Deck. 
The Mental Ward is amusing.
There were/are two small cranes aft; were they to be bigger? 
I wonder how much of a difference the 3rd pair of stabilizers would have made.
Do you know if any of the 6 lifts would have gone into B and H stairways?

Online Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 12365
  • Total likes: 15936
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: Bow Thrusters
« Reply #11 on: Aug 12, 2009, 10:42 PM »
For further discussion about the last minute cost-cutting design changes, other than the bow thrusters, please head over to this topic - https://www.theqe2story.com/forum/index.php/topic,887.0.html - which is in 'design, concept & build'.  Thanks.
Passionate about QE2's service life for 40 years and creator of this website.  I have worked in IT for 28 years and created my personal QE2 website in 1994.

Offline highlander0108

Re: Bow Thrusters
« Reply #12 on: Aug 13, 2009, 12:26 AM »
Hello,

Bow thruster has been a nightmare between 2007 and her last trip to Dubai. Here is a report from Llyods:

387    25-11-2007    10-2008 SOU0730963 12-2008 SOU0830626    
Forward bow thruster seal leaking. To be kept under observation by ships staff. In the mean time the bilge alarm in the compartment to be active at all times.If any deterioration in the condition class to be advised.

So it could explain the moderate using of the thrusters and the impression when you were on board in 2007 and 08 that they were reluctant to use them, preferring to leave the work to the tugs... maybe one being broken would explain this.

This is the right explanation ;)

The last trips were technical miracles because a very long list of things to do were differed by Cunard and not only the dry-docking. I have never seen a ship with so many red dots in the Llyod's survey.As she was expected to be only a static vessel, Cunard had no interest at all to do expensive maintenance. Just the minimal ...

http://www.cdlive.lr.org/vesselstatus.asp?LRNO=6725418

As she will sail without passengers for her next destination, she will be exempted for many points that will stay in red (overdue). The dry-dock is only done for an insurance and to keep her a better protection for his newly static role. Nothing else ...

I did not see the bow thrusters in use on my last trip and reading the report now makes sense.  It was quite amazing to watch the tugs spin the ship around in Cobh with so many small craft milling about and anchored so close to the ship.

Regarding the report, the way I look at it, I see everyone of the red dots expiring after Cunard transferred ownership to Nakheel and would have been addressed in a normal drydocking.  I just can't fault Cunard here.  Do you honestly think they were compromising safety to save a few dollars? 

I still an looking though for a better explanation why the ship went dead in the water so many times in her last year, including at Greenock.  I do see propshaft on the list and that there was an issue with the grounding on the shafts for the generators.
"There will never be another one like her" QE2's last Master Ian McNaught
My Blog:  http://qe2-prideoftheclyde.blogspot.com/

Online Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 12365
  • Total likes: 15936
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: Bow Thrusters
« Reply #13 on: Aug 13, 2009, 12:28 AM »
The last trips were technical miracles

Well this - https://www.flickr.com/photos/lightbody/2469249030/ - was definitely a technical miracle!  ;D
Passionate about QE2's service life for 40 years and creator of this website.  I have worked in IT for 28 years and created my personal QE2 website in 1994.

Offline Lenkinap

Re: Bow Thrusters
« Reply #14 on: Aug 13, 2009, 07:38 AM »
Regarding the report, the way I look at it, I see everyone of the red dots expiring after Cunard transferred ownership to Nakheel and would have been addressed in a normal drydocking.  I just can't fault Cunard here.  Do you honestly think they were compromising safety to save a few dollars? 

It was logical, not a fault. The situation was under control but the ship was in need for an heavy and important maintenance, differed by Cunard with Llyod's acceptance. If the last dry-docking was postponed in 2006, it was a cleaver (economical) decision. But the QE2 was not at her best structurally, not only one bow thruster. If you do have an access to Equasis database, the number of deficiencies in port inspection was growing, including one very important in New-York in 2007-01-08.