Hi!
I am here again quicker than I thought.
but perhaps the numbers might show that passenger interest (already shrunken because of the Depression) in the Olympic was waning. I am well and truly guessing here, but isn't it possible that the Olympic was perceived as being "too slow"... once the paying customer gets something stuck in his head and votes with his feet, that's that.
I have heard that passenger interest in the Olympic wained due to the depression and indeed John Maxtone-Graham cites in his epilogue to the Shipbuilder Special Reprint something to the effect that she was always chosen last. However, although this is a oft-cited opinion, possibly because it comes from such a good source, I personally have seen little evidence to back it up. Olympic did carry very low numbers at times and often in the early 1930s, such as 185 passengers in April 1930 or 158 in May 1934, but she also did carry reasonable complements, similar to all other ships of her size and age in the British 'Big Six.' Other ships, such as Berengaria carrying 134 in September 1932 (traditionally a good season time), or Leviathan 226 in 1932, also went right down at times.
There is much documentation as to Olympic's regularity and reputation as a reliable and excellent seaboat, but I've never seen any that says she was perceived as slow; certainly, no slower than the other vessels Berengariam etc. Thanks to Pat Winsip, I have one newspaper article from 1935 which talks of her excellent performance, something like 'up to the last she averaged over 22 knots.' (And more, actually.
)
She may have been the most economical to run, but that is worth nothing if you can't fill the cabins.
When I researched this aspect, mainly Olympic's passenger numbers, I also saw figures for the Majestic-Berengaria- Aquitania. My co-researcher observed that the figures were so similar that it was not worth recording them in comparison, sometimes only varying by ten or something. And so I do not have the *exact* figures for those three ships. But, I do have one for Aquitania when she carried 270 passengers on a cruise returning to Southampton in April 1935. As a cruise this may be lower than usual, and it was as she returned to Southampton, but it seems about right.
I won't give the exact figures for Olympic's last voyage that I have -- and I hope you'll accept my apologies for this -- for I am saving the detailed information I have for my Olympic work; however, on her final round trip of March-April 1935 she carried c.800 passengers. That's an average 400 each way, first class totals by far the highest; it's hardly good, compared to her new 1911-12 figures, but when considering the economic times, a slow recovery from 1935 generally, and the fact that March-April is by no means the high season, it hardly seems bad.
As I said, figures for her 'rival' three ships are very similar; but their running costs and repair costs are higher.
More information that I perhaps should have included for the sake of a more comprehensive argument is the figures of profit for each voyage. I will put these also in my Olympic work, but meanwhile I should say that while all these four big vessels were making losses at the time (as were other smaller vessels), Olympic's losses were lower. If I recall, Berengaria's were the worst.
I hope this helps. I am glad that you enjoyed the article and appreciate your points, for it enables the work to be improved. I hope we continue this debate and hope others will chime in.
Best regards,
Mark.
