Queen Victoriathe planned sister for Queen Mary 2

Joe Russo

Member
Apr 10, 2006
810
0
86
I see on the Italian shipbuilder's website that there are a few pictures. It doesn't look like they had much imagination on this ship which is a shame. Cunard really blew it and even had a chance to do the right thing when it released the Arcadia to P&O. It looks like the only thing that they changed on this new hull might be interior because this thing looks like it could be any cruise ship. Paint the thing white and it would be indistinguishable from any of the other ugly cruise barges. Notice the low hull and top-heavy superstructure which makes it look like an apartment building. The stern also looks like it has been chopped off with a cleaver and drops right off without any graceful shape or elegance.
111647.gif
 

Joe Russo

Member
Apr 10, 2006
810
0
86
I also saw this picture on the shipbuilder's website of the underneath of the QV. I see only two pods. Does anyone know if this ship will only have two? Doesn't the QE2 only have two screws? I also see that the QV will only get to about 24 knots and cruise at 22. This would take it about a week to cross the Atlantic at full speed. Every other real Cunard Queen in history has cruised around or near 30 knots. It doesn't really seem to me that Cunard is serious about this thing being a transatlantic liner and looks like the whole thing is a marketing campaign by Carnivalcorp.
111650.jpg
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,590
380
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Every other real Cunard Queen in history has cruised around or near 30 knots.<<

Just about. The thing is that these days cruising is more important then warp speed, and speed tends to be very costly in any event. Once upon a time, it had a certain utility, but these days, anyone in a rush takes Mr. Boeing from one side of the pond to the other. Anyone going across by liner these days isn't in much of a hurry.
 

Jerry Nuovo

Member
Jan 22, 2010
700
0
46
New Jersey,USA
Hi Joe, The Queen Victoria will have only 2 pods while the QE2 does have 2 propellers.Since Queen Victoria will not be a true ocean liner I will not book a cruise on this ship and only cruise and do transatlantic crossings aboard the QE2 and QM2.I was hoping that Queen Victoria would be a panamax sized version of the QM2.Panamax is a word that refers to the largest ships that can sail through the Panama Canal locks which are 110 feet wide and 1,000 feet long.The QE2 which is 963 feet long and 105 feet wide is a Panamax Ship.The QM2 which is 1,132 feet long and 135 feet is too large for the Panama Canal locks so she can not sail through the Panama Canal.And because of the fact that the QM2 can not sail through the Panama Canal she is a Post Panamax Ship which are ships that can not fit into the Panama Canal locks.Any way you are right Joe that Cunard blew it concerning Queen Victoria that they built her as a cruise ship and not as a true ocean liner.But to be fair to Cunard,since Cunard is owned by the Carnival Corporation it is really the Carnival Corporation calling the shots on the operation of the Cunard Line and not the Cunard Line itself.
 
K

Kyle Johnstone

Guest
Don't forget that without Carnival there would be no QM2, possibly no QE2 as we know her, and even maybe no Cunard Line in any way shape or form.

What is a "true" ocean liner?
Certainly not QE2 or QM2 especially, as they were built as cruise ships in addition to being liners. Does a "true" liner do cruises half the year?

Just playing Devil's Advocate here...
 

Joe Russo

Member
Apr 10, 2006
810
0
86
I'm with you on that one about the speed of air travel, but it just seems that Carnival has thrown all tradition out of the window/porthole on this one. I just thought that something that carries the name "Queen" would be a real ocean greyhound like the other four, instead they're getting this one "off the rack."
They should have just called her Carnivalia. Kathy Lee will probably be on deck singing, "In the morning! In the evening!"
 
B

Brent Holt

Guest
In my humble opinion, this is why they should call her the Mauretania or Aquitania. (or even Berengaria) The Queen name is not appropriate for this ship.

Brent
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,109
12
198
Kyle, my friend!

>What is a "true" ocean liner?

Perpetually, a "true" ocean liner has always been what was in vogue 40 years before the date that the question was asked
happy.gif
From the days of the bowsprit- deficient Collins ships, through the funnel-deficient Italia twins of 1965, and on to the present a constant refrain among ship commentators has been a nostalgia for the time when "ships still looked like ships and not floating hotels." Come to think of it, since the advent of the Collins Line, there HASN'T been liner built that wasn't a floating hotel, but it's just such a facile analogy that people are loathe to abandon it.

So, I guess that a true ocean liner would be any introduced before 1851, when ships were still ships.

A second question that comes to mind is "if not a floating hotel, then what?"
 
K

Kyle Johnstone

Guest
It's all about branding and marketing and merchandising.
There is a product to be sold, and marketing has always played a huge part in ocean travel.
How else to explain dummy fourth funnels, phrases such as "unsinkable", and the "blue ribband"

Going back to the "golden years" of ocean liner travel, liner companies were commonly comparing their passenger accomodation to grand hotels, resorts, and country houses. Back then it was bragging, now it's become an insult.

Jim is right..."if not a floating hotel, then what?"

As told to me by a senior executive with Cunard Line, "Queen Victoria" has been named so simply as to continue the Cunard "brand" of "Queens" Whether a real or true ocean liner or not, Cunard is going with a brand that the public identifies with, and buys, and they can't be blamed for that.
Furthemore, as told to me directly by the Commodore of the Cunard Line, Commodore Warwick, the Queen Victoria will be steps up from just another cruise ship, and they can rightfully refer to her as an ocean liner as her hull has been designed and constructed to ocean liner standards.
Well, that's the official company line anyway, and only time will tell.

And as far as Carnival Corp. is concerned, the Commodore himself refered to them as "Cunard's white knight".
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,109
12
198
>Going back to the "golden years" of ocean liner travel, liner companies were commonly comparing their passenger accomodation to grand hotels, resorts, and country houses. Back then it was bragging, now it's become an insult.

And, the interiors of most of the 'classic era' liners were as schlocky and retrograde in their own day as most of the cruise liner interiors are today. There was some amazing stuff going on in the world of design ca 1912, and with the sole exception of a few first class rooms aboard the George Washington, there was not a visual clue aboard any of the liners before 1927 that we were, in fact, in the 20th century. In terms of stylistic coherence and relevance, the Titanic and the Carnival Victory are a lot closer than one would suspect or care to admit since the bottom line was, and is, giving the public what it wants, in the form of safe, 'familiar,' interiors, rather than sophisticated or even unified design.
 

Jerry Nuovo

Member
Jan 22, 2010
700
0
46
New Jersey,USA
The difference between an ocean liner and a cruise ship is that an ocean liner requires a longer bow,thicker steel plating and a deeper draft as compared to a cruise ship.Just compare the drafts of the QE2 and QM2 compared to the Queen Victoria.The QE2 and QM2 have a draft of 32 feet while the Queen Victoria will have only a draft of 26 feet.For those who don't know much about ships the draft of a ship is from the water line down to the bottom of the ship where the keel is located.I have heard that the steel plating of the Queen Victoria will be thicker than the steel plating of other average cruise ships.But just thicker steel plating alone does not make a ship an ocean liner and the Queen Victoria is not being built to ocean liner specifications of a longer bow and a deeper draft.But if you want to take a cruise aboard the Queen Victoria "Bon Voyage".I just would rather stick to the QE2 and QM2.
 

Jerry Nuovo

Member
Jan 22, 2010
700
0
46
New Jersey,USA
Hi Kyle,you are right that if Carnival Corporation did not buy Cunard there would not be no QM2 and who knows if the QE2 would still be sailing and I am glad that Carnival Corporation did buy the Cunard Line.I do admire Micky Arison who is the chairman of the Carnival Corporation,what he did to buy the Cunard Line,build the QM2 and renovate the QE2.Anyway Kyle,I have been able to extend the QE2 cruise I am going on next January to San Francisco and you wrote that you were thinking of extending your crossing/cruise aboard the QE2 next January to San Francisco also.Since I will be boarding the QE2 in New York next January I would like to meet you aboard the QE2 next January.And were you able to extend it to San Francisco?
 
Jul 23, 2008
175
0
86
Hi Kyle

With reference to your earlier posting. I agree that the term 'liner' is rather misleading these days. As someone who has an abhorrence of flying (regarding it as uncivilised and frankly terrifying) I YEARN for the days of liner travel. You're right too that we should be grateful to Carnival.

The 'classic' liner profile is I suppose a hark back to funnels, wood paneling and all that jazz from the twenties and thirties. Isn't it telling how that look is being pastiched on the QM2 and new QV? People seem to yearn for that nostalgia these days. I think JC's Titanic had an awful lot to do with this trend as well as the ever increasing revival of interest in Art Deco.

I don't care for the boxy profiles of either the QM2 or QV but I love their traditional livery so I'm glad Carnival have kept that tradition going.