Possible Sister Ship for the QM2

Not open for further replies.
I found this link which is www.completecruisesolution.com/files/775.pdf This link is to a report from Carnival UK that is about the forecast for the British cruise industry in the year 2020.In this report there is mention of the possibility of by the year 2020 there might be a second Transatlantic Liner sailing the New York to Southampton run along with the QM2 and also of 2 QM2-style Liners sailing between Europe to the U.S.A.,Australia,India and China.And that since the arrival of the QM2 in 2004 triggered the first resurgence of ocean liner travel since jet aircraft sent it into what seemed like terminal decline from the mid-1960s.When I did the back2back transatlantic crossing aboard the QM2 last October the QM2's enviromental officer told us passengers assigned to the officers table in the Brittania Restaurant of his prediction that several years down the road Cunard will build another Transatlantic Liner to have a 2 ship service doing the Southampton to New York run which would be the QM2 and Queen whatever her name will be.This report from Carnival UK may give credibility to this QM2's officer's prediction.I would LOVE to see another Transatlantic Liner built.Anyone have an opinion on this?
>>Anyone have an opinion on this?<<

Well, they're not about to displace aircraft as the principle means of trans-oceanic travel but if they can make this work, then more power to them. There may be a large enough niche market to justify a second ship.

Of course, if the price of oil keeps going the way it is, they might find themselves hoping that somebody can find a way to build a practical fusion reactor to drive the ship.

Joe Russo

if the price of oil keeps going the way it is, they might find themselves hoping that somebody can find a way to build a practical fusion reactor to drive the ship.

For horsepower to drive something the size of the QM2, wouldn't the reactor have to be HUGE? This would also require the ship to run on steam correct? I see a radioactive Titanic in the making!
>>For horsepower to drive something the size of the QM2, wouldn't the reactor have to be HUGE?<<

Not as large as you might think. Even with a Nimitz class aircraft carrier, the reactors are reletively small. It's all the shielding they have to build around it that starts to become space intensive.

>>This would also require the ship to run on steam correct?<<

To a point, yes. However, the plant could be made turbo-electric if they want. If the ship used Azipods, they would have to.

At the present time, it's all academic. A nuclear plant requires the attention of well trained specialists and there aren't all that many of them around which means that they would be very expensive to recruit and retain. Further, a watch would have to be maintained even when the ship is cold iron for as long as there was a core in the reactor.

A fusion plant...which is a very different animal from a fission plant...would solve a few of those problems. The trouble is that nobody has found a way to make it self-sustaining.
I was fumbling around this site last week and found a thread to the latest inter-active Cunard web-site featuring the QM2, QE2, and Queen Victoria. I believe they mentioned that in a few short years a Queen Elizabeth (wouldn't such be the QE3?) of some 92,000 tons is being designed as another running mate. I think a lot of effort was put into QM2 to try to mix a classic liner with a modern liner, but such could leave nobody happy. I'm glad to see the effort, the outcome, I'm up in the air about, but fairly I'd have to set sail on her to really feel her out! I wonder what of these plans for the new ship, will they go the way of the QV or try to take us back in time further still, keeping in check with modern day ocean going rules. I'll try to look into the matter more. In the 70's as mentioned in an earlier post it was said that trans-alantic ocean travel was dead, I'm glad to see it back in some form. I'm amazed of the cost of the rooms the QM2 charges and how they must be making profits to build more ships; or so it would seem. The future could be bright for this line or others to build something modern but more classically styled, but as with the S.S. United States or Titanic 2 talk . . . how much one can go in that direction is really up in the air in my mind. Maybe they should shoot for an Olympic 2, she was more successful!
Well sometimes you find information sooner than you think. I found the below at Cunard home page, guess a new ship is on the way. It appears the below is a press release of some kind so I hope it is ok to share, did cite where I found it. If I have made a mistake sharing the below as is, I'm only trying to spread the word to interested parties, not rip off the site which is pretty interesting for those who want to take a cruise or know more about the new ships from Cunard.

Continuing Our Traditions

A new 92,000-ton liner, to be named ‘Queen Elizabeth’ has been ordered and is scheduled to enter service in the autumn of 2010. We have signed an agreement with Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri for the contruction of the new 2092-passenger ocean liner, which will be built at their Monfalcone yard at an all-in cost of approximately $993 million. The vessel will be the second largest Cunarder ever built.

Queen Elizabeth will offer the very best of Cunard's values and traditions, blended with every conceivable modern luxury that you, our guests, expect. Through her opulent public rooms and impeccable service, the new ship will reflect the grandeur which has been associated with Cunard ships since the introduction of the Mauretania in 1907; and from the outside, her black hull, gleaming white superstructure and distinctive red funnel will echo the classic characteristics of the company's distinctive liner heritage. Queen Elizabeth will fly the Red Ensign with her home-port Southampton, as is the case with the other ships in the Cunard fleet.
Tom, The new Queen Elizabeth will just be a Vista Class Cruise Ship and a sister to the Queen Victoria and not a Transatlantic Liner.But hopefully the new Cunard Ship after the new Queen Elizabeth comes into service in 2010 will be a new Transatlantic Liner.And if Cunard does build the second Transatlantic Liner we may have to wait about several more years for her to be built.I know that Cunard does refer to new Queen Elizabeth as an Ocean Liner when that is not true.Cunard also refers to the Queen Victoria as an Ocean Liner when again that is not true.Cunard does though truthfully state that the Queen Victoria's Bow has been built stronger as compared to the other cruise ships so that she can do the occasional transatlantic crossing about 3 times a year,next year the Queen Victoria will do 3 transatlantic crossings.And the same thing will probably be built into the new Queen Elizabeth's Bow. Jerry
Thank you Jerry,

I'll have to take a better look at the Queen Victoria but after hearing she was more of a cruise ship, than her transatlantic sister QM2, I lost interest in her. But to be fair I should do more research on the current Cunard Fleet before I make further judgements. As I mentioned earlier, at least Cunard's efforts pave some type of way/hope of more Transatlantic liners to come, for Cunard or anyone else. I'd be thrilled and shocked if they will go back to the lines of the Olympic Class or other period ships that many of us long for. But time as always will tell.

Thanks again,


I'll have to take a better look at the Queen Victoria but after hearing she was more of a cruise ship, than her transatlantic sister QM2, I lost interest in her.

With all due respect to Cunard....the Victoria is...ummm...well let's just say she's not my favorite ship out there.

Thanks you Joe and Russell, as mentioned I will be taking a greater look into The QV and the links Joe has posted. Is it just Cunard, are there any other companies we know for sure are building transatlantic liners? Anything beyond the usual rumor of a return to the classic era of how liners once looked? I know the SOLAS rule dictate a lot of how what once was can't be again, but style wise, are there any other liners ready to be launched?
As far as I know, it's just Cunard which is doing this, and for a small but lucerative niche market at that.

Don't look for anybody to get too aggressive about a "classic liner" look since some of the features of classic liners are either of no use or even illegal.

Ellen Grace Butland

So, no more classic ships, just mobile blocks of flats. I wonder what a rogue wave would do, probably make any of these Vistas wish they never left port. Mr Standart, could you tell me what would be illegal and why, one day when you have a spare moment. I would like to see a newbuild which was NOT a oblong box with a point on its front.
>>So, no more classic ships, just mobile blocks of flats.<<

What is "classic?" As with anything else in the shipping industry, form follows function, and the "Classic" edwardian liner we're familier with was the end result of design concepts and requirements which only came into play during the latter part of the 19th Century. "Traditional designs" before that were in sailing vessels with masts, yards, sails, long bowsprits, figureheads and the like which were great for wind driven vessels which had dominated for thousands of years but which were of little value for a steamship. The long bows of the "classic" liner we're familier with existed in no small part due to the fact that these ships also carried cargo and the mails. The rapid increase in size came about because of the demand for not only more accomadation for the passengers but better and more roomy.

The same considerations for passenger vessels apply today. Passengers want more room, better and more comfortable accomadations, and external rooms with a view. They also want shopping arcades, theatres, casinos, swimming pools, rock climbing attractions and even putting greens for a game of mini-golf. What you don't see is a need for space to carry cargo and mail, and that's why you ssee the floating condos of today as opposed the combination cargo/passenger vessels from the days when it was literally the only way to cross.

On the matter of what's illegal, the sort of bow that the Titanic had would be a no-go because it would act much like a knife in a collision. A long sharply raked bow just doesn't penetrate that far. Flammables would also be an issue. You won't see bedsheets and blankets made of asbestos or nomex but all the heavy woods used for the panaling in the old liners would have the authorities screaming foul.

Beyond that, you may find that in basic form, there's not as much about the older ships which would be illegal in and of itself. If somebody wanted to design a hull with the same percentage of space set aside for cargo and passengers as the Olympic or the Queen Mary, they could. (Just don't count on seeing it happen since the cargo space would simply be unused and wasted.)

Hell, the Olympic class's watertight subdivsion and floodable length curves are way superior to what a modern cruise ship has. No problem being legal with that arrangement.

Show me any modern cruise ship which could remain afloat with up to four watertight compartments flooded. An Olympic class liner could. If you flood more then two on a modern cruise ship, I hope you're up on your swimming qualifications.
Not open for further replies.