| Author |
Message |
    
Grant Hauswirth
Member
Username: grant_hauswirth
Post Number: 3
Registered: 8-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - 3:25 pm: | 
|
I've seen a poster which you can buy on a cruise ship website called "Evolution of the Ocean Liner". It has pictures and facts about 11 ships that were vital in the evolution of the ocean liner. The poster can be found here:
http://www.cruiseserver.net/images/other/ocean_liner_poster_1000.jpg
You can enlarge it to read the facts better.
The 11 ships that were vital to the evolution of the ocean liner listed on this poster are the:
1. Great Britain
2. Mauretania
3. Titanic
4. Ile De France
5. Normandie
6. Queen Mary
7. United States
8. Canberra
9. France
10. Queen Elizabeth 2 (QE2)
11. Queen Mary 2 (QM2) |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 29970
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 2, 2009 - 2:44 am: |
|
I'm not so sure I'd give marks to an Olympic class liner for being vital to the evolution of the ocean liner. What these ships did was move in the direction that everybody was going at the time. For the time, they weren't even the most technically advanced. They were the largest but they were already being eclipsed by the ships being built in Germany such as the Imperator.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Baber
Moderator
Username: mab
Post Number: 3634
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 2, 2009 - 3:39 am: |
|
1. It's certainly 20th century oriented; from that poster one would think there had been no major developments between 1843 and 1907, a period during which any number of ships represented a distinct step beyond what had gone before, both in technology and style.
2. One wonders why it shows Mauretania, and not Lusitania, the first of the duo, except the fact that Mauretania held the record for so long. But the technology was the same, the speed difference wasn't significant and Lucy was first.
3. Mike, I think Olympic (not Titanic) deserves a spot there. Yes, larger ships were in the works, but the Imperator class was Ballin's response to the Olympics. Just as the Cunarders were a significant step in terms of speed, the Olympic class set new standards for size.
3. For me, the evolution of the ocean liner probably ends with France/Norway, and certainly doesn't extend past QE2. QM2, to my thinking, may be a step in the evolution of the cruise ship, but not the evolution of the ocean liner.
MAB
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OceanicSteamNavigationCo/
http://www.greatships.net/
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 29984
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 2, 2009 - 3:57 am: |
|
>>Mike, I think Olympic (not Titanic) deserves a spot there.<<
You may be right about that. They weren't any great technical advance but they did point the way in which ships involved in the immigrant trade were heading.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Stanley C Jenkins
Member
Username: stanley_c_jenkins
Post Number: 614
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 2, 2009 - 12:19 pm: |
|
The list should surely begin with the PS Great Western, "the first Atlantic liner", and include other vessels to fill the long gap between the Great Britain and the Mauretania - what about the Great Eastern, or the earlier Oceanic? |
Bob Godfrey
Member
Username: bobgod1
Post Number: 4865
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 2, 2009 - 12:58 pm: |
|
The Canberra is a good illustration of the new standard profile of liners with the engines and funnels located at the rear, but the pioneer of that new style was surely the beautiful Southern Cross, launched by Harland & Wolff several years earlier for the Shaw Savill Line. I daresay the poster is intended to feature ships which were well-known and representative of their time, not necessarily the most innovative. |
Grant Hauswirth
Member
Username: grant_hauswirth
Post Number: 5
Registered: 8-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 2, 2009 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Thanks for the comments, guys! I really appreciate it after I posted the thread!
What are your favorite ships on the poster? |
Stanley C Jenkins
Member
Username: stanley_c_jenkins
Post Number: 615
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 2, 2009 - 2:59 pm: |
|
The designers of the Canberra also initiated the positioning of lifeboats lower down the side of the ship, to prevent some of the difficulties and potential dangers that had attended the launching of the Titanic's boats. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 29993
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 2, 2009 - 3:52 pm: |
|
>>what about the Great Eastern<<
I suspect that the Great Eastern would qualify as one of those grand ideas which turned out to be a mistake of literally grand preportions. The size of the ship was dictated in no small part to the fact that it was designed for the UK to Australia run and needed to be that large to carry the coal required for the engines while still carrying enough passengers and cargo to make a profit.
She could very well have thrived in that market, but those ambitions died when the original owners were driven into bankruptcy by the project. On the Atlantic trade, the ship was simply too large and never made a profit save when she was chartered to lay the trans-Atlantic telegraph cable.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Stanley C Jenkins
Member
Username: stanley_c_jenkins
Post Number: 617
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 2, 2009 - 8:28 pm: |
|
Any meaningful discussion about the most significant ship designs in terms of the development of ocean liners should consider issues such as size, luxury, speed and propulsion systems. The Great Eastern deserves a place because her capacious hull was far larger than anything that had gone before, allowing spacious and luxurious passenger accommodation of a type that would not become common until much later in the 19th century.
Other notable vessels that might have been mentioned include the White Star liner Cufic of 1888, which was perhaps the first Atlantic liner to have triple-expansion engines, and the Oceanic of 1899, which (it could be argued) was the true progenitor of the ‘Olympic’ classic. And what about the Servia (1881) – the first Cunarder to be equipped with electric light. On a footnote, it is interesting to note that, in the early 1880s, Atlantic liners were still fitted with yards (and, presumably, sails). Did they, however, ever use their sails? |
Mark Baber
Moderator
Username: mab
Post Number: 3637
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 2, 2009 - 9:17 pm: |
|
Any meaningful discussion ... should consider issues such as size, luxury, speed and propulsion systems.
I quite agree.
The Great Eastern deserves a place ...
That I'm not sure about, Stanley. Although a remarkable ship with a singular history, Great Eastern wasn't a step in any evolutionary process; as you note, it was decades before anything like her in any sense came along again. The evolutionary chain that includes GE pretty much ends with her, while other chains led to the other developments you mentioned.
Cufic of 1888, which was perhaps the first Atlantic liner to have triple-expansion engines...
She was certainly the first White Star triple-expansion ship, but I don't know offhand if she was THE first. I'll check and see if I can find out tonight.
Other technical advances worthy of inclusion might be iron (and later, steel) hulls and twin screws, the latter of which eliminated the need for steamers to also carry sails. (To return to White Star again, Teutonic was the line's first twin-screw ship and, not coincidentally, its first with masts not rigged for sails.)
Did they, however, ever use their sails?
In the days before twin screws appeared on the scene in the 1880's, there are numerous examples of single-screw steamers using sails because of engine failure. After that I'm only aware of one instance of a multi-screw ship becoming completely disabled because of simultaneous failure of both engines.
MAB
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OceanicSteamNavigationCo/
http://www.greatships.net/
|
Russell Friesen
Member
Username: rustyf85
Post Number: 50
Registered: 8-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 3, 2009 - 12:01 am: |
|
>> Cufic of 1888, which was perhaps the first Atlantic liner to have triple-expansion engines...
She was certainly the first White Star triple-expansion ship, but I don't know offhand if she was THE first. I'll check and see if I can find out tonight. <<
According to Bonsor's "North Atlantic Seaway", pg 171, 1955 edition:
"Three further express steamers, the 5000 ton Aller, Trave and Saale, were completed [for Norddeutscher Lloyd] in 1885. ... The Aller was the first North Atlantic express liner to be fitted with triple expansion engines, which gave her a speed of nearly 18 knots."
It appears that NDL's Aller deserves a place in this list, but it also appears, as has been already pointed out, that the list includes mostly well-known 20th Century ships, whether innovative or not. I have been searching for information on the Aller for some time, as she was the ship on which my grandfather crossed to New York in 1890. Next to nothing about her is mentioned in any modern books on liners, and even the books published around the turn of the century scarcely mention her. Photos of her are next to impossible to find; I have located only one. Her sister Saale is mentioned a bit more frequently only due to her involvement in the 1900 New York Pier fire.
>> The designers of the Canberra also initiated the positioning of lifeboats lower down the side of the ship, to prevent some of the difficulties and potential dangers that had attended the launching of the Titanic's boats. <<
Actually, the HAPAG Imperator class had lifeboats positioned lower down the sides of the ships, almost 50 years prior to the Canberra. Due to the "lifeboats for all" rule that came into play after the sinking of the Titanic, there wasn't enough room on the upper deck for all the boats required, so there was no other place to put them other than the sides of the ship. |
Mark Baber
Moderator
Username: mab
Post Number: 3640
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, September 3, 2009 - 6:08 am: |
|
Hello, Russell---
According to Bonsor's "North Atlantic Seaway", pg 171, 1955 edition ..."
In the later 5 volume edition of the same work, Bonsor credits the first triple-expansion engines to the Wilson Line's Martello, a freighter with a limited number of passenger berths (1884), with Aller listed as the first passenger liner so equipped and the Beaver Line's Lake Ontario (1887) as the first British triple-expansion passenger ship. In a footnote, though, he adds that the Wilson liners Yeddo, Bassano and Rosario all preceded Martello, but were not built for the North Atlantic trade.
Finally (at least for tonight), The Times reported on 4 November 1884 that Shaw Savill & Albion's Arawa, which was to leave on her MV to New Zealand the next day, was powered by triple-expansion engines.
MAB
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OceanicSteamNavigationCo/
http://www.greatships.net/
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 30001
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, September 3, 2009 - 6:19 am: |
|
>>After that I'm only aware of one instance of a multi-screw ship becoming completely disabled because of simultaneous failure of both engines.<<
Would that be the City of Paris MAB? If so, it was more then just a failure. One engine literally came apart in a freak accident and the flying debris was enough to take out the other engine.
As to the Great Eastern, I think the ship ultimately became an object lesson in what not to do if you wanted a ship that would give a return on the investment put into her. Aside from the propulsion system being a clumsy hybrid of screw and paddlewheels, she was simply too large for the Atlantic trade in the 1860's.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Baber
Moderator
Username: mab
Post Number: 3641
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, September 3, 2009 - 7:14 am: |
|
Would that be the City of Paris MAB?
Yep. Quite an incident, described on GreatShips; I'm not aware of anything comparable happening to any other ship, ever.
MAB
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OceanicSteamNavigationCo/
http://www.greatships.net/
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 30020
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, September 3, 2009 - 7:33 am: |
|
That's what I thought. I've seen a lithograph of the damage done and it was spectacular. It's a wonder they didn't lose the ship.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mark Baber
Moderator
Username: mab
Post Number: 3643
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, September 3, 2009 - 10:58 pm: |
|
Interestingly enough, several articles in The Times about the City of New York incident, including a letter to the editor by Samuel Plimsoll, extoll the ship's bulkhead arrangement as having made her "practically unsinkable."
Hmmm...where have I heard THAT before (or in this case, should it be "after")?
MAB
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OceanicSteamNavigationCo/
http://www.greatships.net/
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 30031
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, September 4, 2009 - 2:31 am: |
|
>>Hmmm...where have I heard THAT before <<
I couldn't even begin to imagine!
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jim Kalafus
Member
Username: jak
Post Number: 5560
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, September 4, 2009 - 3:17 am: |
|
Could also mention the original Collins Line vessels, which originated the floating hotel concept, and eliminated bowsprits. Normandie can be replaced by l'Atlantique, which was essentially the same ship but 5 years earlier. Monarch and Queen of Bermuda were revolutionary in that they were the first liners in which every cabin was outside and had its own bathroom... literally every liner and cruise ship currently afloat owes them a debt of gratitude. Nieuw Amsterdam deserves a nod, for introducing a system by which private bathrooms were alloted by deck and not by class (making it possible to rent third class cabins as first class on one class only cruises) prefiguring the post-1965 layouts of all crossers and cruisers.
Rafaello and Michelangelo deserve SOME mention, for managing to be the ships of 2000 and 1900 simultaneously. Quite a feat in 1965. My god, those ships had beautiful public rooms in all three classes... bright, cheerful, open, and friendly but elegantly formal at the same time. In that sense, they could re-enter service today and require very little reworking.
HOWEVER, and this is a big however, only a select number of first class cabins had windows. The hull was utterly unbroken, so in cabin and tourist class even outside cabins were inside. Tourist class was a warren, and I'm not sure if all cabins there had private facilities. In that sense, the ships were similar to, and WORSE, than a run of the mill vessel of 1900.
NOW APPEARING:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JZ4aLBjzFI
|
Grant Carman
Member
Username: lksimcoe
Post Number: 337
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 4, 2009 - 6:27 pm: |
|
Jim
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the make up of the tourist class rooms were one of the main reasons why Arison didn't purchase them when he started Carnival, and went with the old CP liners instead.
How truthful is that? |
Jim Kalafus
Member
Username: jak
Post Number: 5561
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, September 4, 2009 - 11:37 pm: |
|
Probably true. The public rooms were beautiful, but the lack of portholes was a fatal flaw, either on the Sunny Southern Route or on a cruise.
Another problem was that the ships were extremely fast twin screw liners. Unlike the France, the option of eliminating two of the four screws and sailing along economically at 18 knots was not possible.
NOW APPEARING:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JZ4aLBjzFI
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 30058
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, September 5, 2009 - 2:15 am: |
|
>>Another problem was that the ships were extremely fast twin screw liners.<<
Sounds like a great quality for an express liner but a big time drawback for cruising. Didn't the Italian line attempt this with these two ships? I seem to recall that this was tried with a number of the crack liners when the 707 jet tanked the market.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jim Kalafus
Member
Username: jak
Post Number: 5562
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, September 5, 2009 - 2:29 am: |
|
I dont know what Italia was thinking of. Twin, 900 foot, three class, twin screw ships were not the ticket to success in the mid-1960s. That said, they DID pull decent numbers for the first half of their ten year life spans.
Speaking of mechanical failures, the maiden voyage of the Rex, and the even more botched maiden voyage of the Flandre were perhaps the two worst liner debuts that did not result in a James Cameron movie. The Flandre incident was on par with the City of Paris in terms of massive physical damage.
NOW APPEARING:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JZ4aLBjzFI
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 30077
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, September 5, 2009 - 3:36 am: |
|
>>The Flandre incident was on par with the City of Paris in terms of massive physical damage.<<
First I've heard of that one. What happened?
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jim Kalafus
Member
Username: jak
Post Number: 5563
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, September 5, 2009 - 4:06 am: |
|
She was the first new vessel the French Line built for the North Atlantic, postwar. A day or so into her 1952 maiden voyage, a fuel line filter got clogged by bad oil. She came to a full stop, in bad weather, and remained adrift for some hours as repairs were attempted. A few days later, the same thing happened again. After that, she crept along at reduced speed, and celebrated her first entrance into New York harbor by shorting out her main electrical switchboard. With power all but gone, it took three hours to raise one anchor, and three more hours to raise the other. With one propeller sort-of-working, she was towed upriver trailing a cloud of oily black smoke. Her whistle failed and, somewhat appropriately, she had to answer the salutes of other vessels by sounding her emergency sirens. The rest of the 1952 season was immediately cancelled, and six months of repairs ensued. Her second maiden voyage, in 1953, went better but.... well... she never lived down her debut. The final humiliation? In 1962, with the France overbooked and passage all but impossible to obtain, CGT ran a "You can always try the Flandre if you can't get on board the France" ad in time and Newsweek.
NOW APPEARING:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JZ4aLBjzFI
|
Jim Kalafus
Member
Username: jak
Post Number: 5564
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, September 5, 2009 - 4:18 am: |
|
My favorite seagoing Dodo, however, was the Kaiser Friedrich. This 1898 liner was rejected by Nord. Lloyd after failing to make her contract speed. HAPAG chartered her for a year, but she was only slightly more swift than, oh, the 1851 Collins Line vessels. So, when the charter expired, in 1900, she was returned to the builder's yard and sat until 1912. She was then sold to the French, and ended up sinking in the same mine field as the Britannic, in 1916.
NOW APPEARING:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JZ4aLBjzFI
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 30083
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, September 6, 2009 - 2:10 am: |
|
>>In 1962, with the France overbooked and passage all but impossible to obtain, CGT ran a "You can always try the Flandre if you can't get on board the France" ad in time and Newsweek.<<
(Groan) I hope the adman who came up with that pitch was sterilized to protect the integrity of the human gene pool.
I take it the Flandre had a very short career.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jim Kalafus
Member
Username: jak
Post Number: 5565
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, September 7, 2009 - 2:59 am: |
|
She had a medium-length career for CGT. I think she lasted 1953-1968. She spent much of her post-French life with Costa, as the Carla C. I can attest to the fact that well into her 30s, she was a very well maintained, clean, ship, with decent food and a lot of spirit. A few name changes later, she burned in the 1990s. Not a bad lifespan for a ship that began so inauspiciously.
NOW APPEARING:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JZ4aLBjzFI
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 30117
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Monday, September 7, 2009 - 5:14 am: |
|
>>She had a medium-length career for CGT. I think she lasted 1953-1968.<<
Considering the way the market was changing, that's not bad. Not such a nice ending however. Seems quite a few Italian liners went out that way.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
