Archive through October 15 2008


Status
Not open for further replies.
I wouldn't make a deal about a 1 day difference. Enjoy it, unless they make you pay for it.
happy.gif


Current position of RMS Queen Mary 2:
Under way from New York to Southampton
2620 Passengers

Departure was 23 hrs 48 min ago. (at 17:00 h local time)

Arrival will be in 4 d 8 hrs 12 min. (at 06:00 h local time)

Traveled distance since New York: 579.06 nm (1,072.43 km)

Remaining distance to Southampton: 2,533.52 nm (4,692.08 km)

Course: 62°

Numbers for contacting the RMS Queen Mary 2 via satellite:
Phone: +870-323576210
Fax: +870-323576211


Bridge Cam:
080508.jpg


proud.gif
 

Joe Russo

Member
I'm not making a deal out of the day itself, I am curious if Cunard is changing the speed of the standard 6 day crossing.
 
It would make sense to reduce speed a bit to save fuel consumption.

The diesel engines burn approximately 3 tonnes per hour each (4 diesel engines)

The gas turbines burn approximately 6 tonnes per hour each ( 2 gas turbines)
 

Joe Russo

Member
I know the airlines are doing it now and are slowing the planes to add I believe an average of about 10 minutes to each flight which is supposed to save a great deal of money. Apparently just slowing a little bit saves a lot.
This is what sparked my curiosity when I saw that all of the new crossings have added an extra day to get across the Atlantic.


On a side note, I believe that the QM's final voyage to Long Beach was a slow one and only the two inside props were used to conserve fuel.
 
>>Michael what do you make of that? Will slowing down a ship her size really make a difference in fuel consumption?<<

Yes it can, but it can be a bit of a balancing act. A ship will tend to be optimized for a certain speed after which you get to the point of deminishing returns in terms of efficiecy. If you're only running on two engines, you're not going to use as much fuel as you would with all of them. On the other hand, if you go faster, you run into the problem of water resistance where the energy it takes to get to a certain speed increases geometrically. Eventually, you'll get to that point where the resistance of the water is so great that even with double the horsepower, you'll only get an extra knot of speed.

Of course, if you double the horsepower being used, the fuel consumption rises dramatically.
 
I've heard container ships are being run at reduced speed to save fuel. Unlike QM2, these ships have small crews, so additional wage costs are small and savings on overall costs can be made. I can't see that QM2 would have much to gain by slowing.
 
I think a longer voyage would thrill people. It's not like back in the old days when it was the only way to travel across the ocean, especially for business transactions.

Also, I don't think, by going slower, they have to worry too much about being sunk by enemy subs. But then again, you never know...
 
>>Can I get a translation of your explanation? <<

I think he means there are no hostile submarines out there ready to turn your ship into an encore performance of "Lusitania."

I don't know if a slightly longer voyage would thrill a lot of people but compare what's available on any passenger vessel today (Casinos, theatres, shows, gymnasiums worthy of the name, shopping malls) as opposed to what was available in 1912, which was next to nothing. Back then, beyond a few diversions available in the 1st and sometimes 2cnd class, passengers were left to their own devices and had to provide their own entertainment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top