Jason Schleisman
Member
Yes, I think they would have been re-fitted, but NOT retired early unless shipbuilding technology had advanced soooo far that speed (or lack thereof) became an issue.
SS Aquitania
- Thread starter Matt Smith
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aquitania
Grant Carman
Member
Jason
My thought is that yes, they would have re-fitted, but not retired the ships, but only up to a point. A ship reaches an age where a major refit simply isn't worth it. Companies either scrap them, or sell them on to second tier companies.
Then, as now, ships have to pay off their cost, and return a profit. When you look at the average age of ships from launch to retirement, you tend to find it at approx 25 - 30 years. Olympic you can count out, due to the merger, but a lot of other ships were scrapped in the 30's when they reached the 25 - 30 age. Even ships built later, such as the Caronia II, lasted only 25 years, (1948 - 1973). Granted, most of them went in the early 1970's due to the cost of fuel, but every ship has a finite life.
Refitting a ship is an expensive job. Refitting an older ship to a completely new style is even more expensive. If as you suggest, they might have taken the Aquitania, or the Mauretania, and changed them from the Edwardian theme to an Art Deco theme for example, would have meant that they were going to strip a 20 year old liner (assuming mid 1920's) to the bare bulkheads and start over.
It would have been more likely that they would have done what White Star did to the Olympic in the 1932 - 1933 refit when they painted out the oak in green to try and make her look more up to date.
The Aquitania is my favorite liner, as it was the one my mother came to Canada on in 1944. That aside, I feel she lasted about 10 years longer than she should have. As the records show, by the time she was retired, she was in terrible shape. Had it not been for WW2, she would have been retired in late 39 or early 49 when the QE went into service, as was the plan.
My thought is that yes, they would have re-fitted, but not retired the ships, but only up to a point. A ship reaches an age where a major refit simply isn't worth it. Companies either scrap them, or sell them on to second tier companies.
Then, as now, ships have to pay off their cost, and return a profit. When you look at the average age of ships from launch to retirement, you tend to find it at approx 25 - 30 years. Olympic you can count out, due to the merger, but a lot of other ships were scrapped in the 30's when they reached the 25 - 30 age. Even ships built later, such as the Caronia II, lasted only 25 years, (1948 - 1973). Granted, most of them went in the early 1970's due to the cost of fuel, but every ship has a finite life.
Refitting a ship is an expensive job. Refitting an older ship to a completely new style is even more expensive. If as you suggest, they might have taken the Aquitania, or the Mauretania, and changed them from the Edwardian theme to an Art Deco theme for example, would have meant that they were going to strip a 20 year old liner (assuming mid 1920's) to the bare bulkheads and start over.
It would have been more likely that they would have done what White Star did to the Olympic in the 1932 - 1933 refit when they painted out the oak in green to try and make her look more up to date.
The Aquitania is my favorite liner, as it was the one my mother came to Canada on in 1944. That aside, I feel she lasted about 10 years longer than she should have. As the records show, by the time she was retired, she was in terrible shape. Had it not been for WW2, she would have been retired in late 39 or early 49 when the QE went into service, as was the plan.
Jason Schleisman
Member
If it makes financial sense (as it sometimes did, or at least, the company thought it would), the ships were 'modernized' a bit and refurbished to reflect current decorating trends. I don't think this would have been any different had WWI not intervened. But to have scrapped all the 1911-1914 superliners in, say, the late-teens or early 1920's and then suddenly replacing them with new Nouveau or Deco superliners just doesn't seem reasonable to me unless there was some huge financial incentive to do so.
Had WWI and the US cap on immigration not occurred, I don't think there would have been too many more superliners built after 1911-1914. At least, not for a while, and they would have been intended as replacements or consolidations, not concurrently running liners. By the late 1920's the Mauretania and Lusitania would have been getting longer in the tooth, and might have been considered for replacement, with the Olympic, Britannic, Aquitania, and German liners following suit shortly thereafter. Not too different that what actually happened in real life give or take 5-8 years and a war or two.
Jim Kalafus
Member
>>It seems that you’re relating the intervention of war to the discussion in the general sense that it slowed construction of additional competitors in the years ahead?
>Had the natural progress of things not been altered by the war, the Olympic would have been the Chrysler Building to the Empire State Building of the German ships.
Yes.
>I really don’t get your argument regarding the relative popularity of Olympic, Aquitania and the German vessels. They would have suffered, but it's by no means a given that their relative standing would have changed.
That does not make any sense. Of course their relative standings would have changed once newer, larger vessels came on the scene....just as the standings of the Celtic and the Campania, for instance changed after their respective companies introduced new flagships.
>If newer tonnage had come into service, then I think it is entirely plausible that these ships would all have suffered — just as they did when newer vessels entered service from the late 1920s onward. The difference, however, is merely that the competitive process would have been accelerated compared to what actually happened following the war. They were all, essentially, of the same age, 1911-14.
Then you do get my point, since you just restated it. Given the competitive corporate nature of the early 20th century, and the ten-or-so year gaps between waves of flagship building I don't think it too farfetched to believe that, just as the 1901 Celtic was surpassed by the 1911 Olympic, the next generation replacements for the Olympic class would not have been in the works by 1918. The Mauretania and Lusitania might have held on longer, because of the speed issue...but all the Olympic had going for her was newness and largeness and so would have been 'demotable' more quickly. (Such is the nature of style over substance. The Campania and Lucania, by nature of their 21 knot service speed, remained viable into the age of the new record breakers, in a way that the Big 4 could not have) The Olympic would have ended up "Celtic" to some newer ship~ still a first class liner, but decidedly second tier.
>As regards Paris, perhaps you can refresh my memory as to her schedule,
Sure...she operated on a rotating basis, with the France, on the leHavre/Plymouth/NYC circuit, after June 1921, and with the Ile de France and France after 1927. During her first 8 years, she carried 563 in first; 460 in second and 1092 in third. When she returned to service in 1930, after the fire, the figures were- respectively- 560, 530 and 844. Service speed 21 knots. Construction started 1913.
>My thought is that yes, they would have re-fitted, but not retired the ships...
I never brought the concept of retirement up. The 1911-1914 ships would have been demoted from flagship status considerably more quickly because, again, all they had to offer was newness and size, both of which are mercurial assets at best.
> see no financial reasons why these floating museums (even by 19-teens standards) wouldn't have kept sailing as-is until their natural retirements ~ providing of course that passenger numbers remained consistent. After all, they were grand old-style hotels, and no one really expected them to be anything otherwise, right?
My point is/was that their status as flagships would have been extremely short lived. Not that their LIVES would have been shorter, but that their...shall we say....times at the top of the food chain would have been.
Massive t-storm here. Do not want to fry hard drive. Will continue tomorrow A.M.
>Had the natural progress of things not been altered by the war, the Olympic would have been the Chrysler Building to the Empire State Building of the German ships.
Yes.
>I really don’t get your argument regarding the relative popularity of Olympic, Aquitania and the German vessels. They would have suffered, but it's by no means a given that their relative standing would have changed.
That does not make any sense. Of course their relative standings would have changed once newer, larger vessels came on the scene....just as the standings of the Celtic and the Campania, for instance changed after their respective companies introduced new flagships.
>If newer tonnage had come into service, then I think it is entirely plausible that these ships would all have suffered — just as they did when newer vessels entered service from the late 1920s onward. The difference, however, is merely that the competitive process would have been accelerated compared to what actually happened following the war. They were all, essentially, of the same age, 1911-14.
Then you do get my point, since you just restated it. Given the competitive corporate nature of the early 20th century, and the ten-or-so year gaps between waves of flagship building I don't think it too farfetched to believe that, just as the 1901 Celtic was surpassed by the 1911 Olympic, the next generation replacements for the Olympic class would not have been in the works by 1918. The Mauretania and Lusitania might have held on longer, because of the speed issue...but all the Olympic had going for her was newness and largeness and so would have been 'demotable' more quickly. (Such is the nature of style over substance. The Campania and Lucania, by nature of their 21 knot service speed, remained viable into the age of the new record breakers, in a way that the Big 4 could not have) The Olympic would have ended up "Celtic" to some newer ship~ still a first class liner, but decidedly second tier.
>As regards Paris, perhaps you can refresh my memory as to her schedule,
Sure...she operated on a rotating basis, with the France, on the leHavre/Plymouth/NYC circuit, after June 1921, and with the Ile de France and France after 1927. During her first 8 years, she carried 563 in first; 460 in second and 1092 in third. When she returned to service in 1930, after the fire, the figures were- respectively- 560, 530 and 844. Service speed 21 knots. Construction started 1913.
>My thought is that yes, they would have re-fitted, but not retired the ships...
I never brought the concept of retirement up. The 1911-1914 ships would have been demoted from flagship status considerably more quickly because, again, all they had to offer was newness and size, both of which are mercurial assets at best.
> see no financial reasons why these floating museums (even by 19-teens standards) wouldn't have kept sailing as-is until their natural retirements ~ providing of course that passenger numbers remained consistent. After all, they were grand old-style hotels, and no one really expected them to be anything otherwise, right?
My point is/was that their status as flagships would have been extremely short lived. Not that their LIVES would have been shorter, but that their...shall we say....times at the top of the food chain would have been.
Massive t-storm here. Do not want to fry hard drive. Will continue tomorrow A.M.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>A ship reaches an age where a major refit simply isn't worth it.<<
Don't underestimate the issue of any margin for growth. The ship has only so much available befor stability becomes a serious issue. When that happens, the question becomes one of exactly what's going to be traded off and even if it can be traded off. This is a lot easier with a commercial vessel then it is with a warship, the latter of which has to carry a full fit of weapons and sensors needed to carry out it's mission and which can't be handily be disposed of. (This, By the way, is the reason a lot of World War Two vessels were retired...they had no margin left for growth and some had serious stability issues.)
Still, even with a cruise ship or liner, it's possible to reach a point of deminishing returns where it's just more cost effective to scrap the old in favour of the new which has better accomadations, is faster, more fuel efficient, and a better seaboat.
Don't underestimate the issue of any margin for growth. The ship has only so much available befor stability becomes a serious issue. When that happens, the question becomes one of exactly what's going to be traded off and even if it can be traded off. This is a lot easier with a commercial vessel then it is with a warship, the latter of which has to carry a full fit of weapons and sensors needed to carry out it's mission and which can't be handily be disposed of. (This, By the way, is the reason a lot of World War Two vessels were retired...they had no margin left for growth and some had serious stability issues.)
Still, even with a cruise ship or liner, it's possible to reach a point of deminishing returns where it's just more cost effective to scrap the old in favour of the new which has better accomadations, is faster, more fuel efficient, and a better seaboat.
Mark Chirnside
Member
Grant:
I think I am right in saying that the last peacetime sailing schedule showed her up to March 1940. As regards age, I am not sure I would go quite that far, but certainly by 1949 she was in need of a major refit and extensive survey work which would have been expensive and uneconomic. There were some specific defects, but the general impression I recall is one of general, extensive wear-and-tear. Had she been retired in 1940, after twenty-six years, she would have served a productive life; her final decade of arduous service is remarkable!
I don’t know what the plan was as regards décor, but Cunard were certainly giving serious consideration in 1929-30 to re-engining and reconditioning Aquitania.
Jim:
I am beginning to think we are at cross purposes. To judge from a lot of your remarks, they are points that I can agree with, but I find it very difficult to see why you are claiming my remark above ‘does not make any sense.’ It stands to reason that when new competitors came on the scene, they would have attracted passengers, including many who would — in former years — have chosen the ‘Big Six.’ However, there seems no reason why Olympic, Aquitania and the German ships’ relative standing would have altered. Granted, it might have been the case that one ship (maybe Aquitania) had more money spent on it than another (Majestic or Olympic), and held her own a little better against the newer competition, but all these ships would have equally suffered. Aquitania would have suffered, Majestic would have suffered, and so on; there is no reason why one of these ships would have escaped unscathed and somehow leapfrogged her longstanding competitors. Their relative standing would not have changed. I am unable to understand your point.
Similarly, I have no doubt Celtic and Campania were relegated to the ‘second division’ if you will, once newer ships came on the scene — i.e. Adriatic and Lusitania as two examples. However, Celtic’s relative standing compared to Campania surely remained the same as it had been before. They were built for different purposes: Celtic was slow, but a good, comfortable and reliable sea boat, staunchly constructed at a reasonable price, and unburdened by the overdone German-style of interior. The basic recipe proved sound, for she retained a popular following for years to come. Campania was constructed with an eye on speed, and I remember one passenger who was comparing her very unfavourably with Celtic’s seakeeping qualities.
If I am restating your point, then it baffles me as to why you were disagreeing with me earlier. What I said above is not what I understood you to say earlier.
Thanks for the additional info. I do not have anything to hand, but I do remember that Paris was no more popular than Olympic in 1933; similarly, Ile de France does not seem to have been doing any better than Aquitania or the Ballin trio in 1927-29, if we measure her average passenger carryings.
Best wishes,
Mark.
I think I am right in saying that the last peacetime sailing schedule showed her up to March 1940. As regards age, I am not sure I would go quite that far, but certainly by 1949 she was in need of a major refit and extensive survey work which would have been expensive and uneconomic. There were some specific defects, but the general impression I recall is one of general, extensive wear-and-tear. Had she been retired in 1940, after twenty-six years, she would have served a productive life; her final decade of arduous service is remarkable!
I don’t know what the plan was as regards décor, but Cunard were certainly giving serious consideration in 1929-30 to re-engining and reconditioning Aquitania.
Jim:
I am beginning to think we are at cross purposes. To judge from a lot of your remarks, they are points that I can agree with, but I find it very difficult to see why you are claiming my remark above ‘does not make any sense.’ It stands to reason that when new competitors came on the scene, they would have attracted passengers, including many who would — in former years — have chosen the ‘Big Six.’ However, there seems no reason why Olympic, Aquitania and the German ships’ relative standing would have altered. Granted, it might have been the case that one ship (maybe Aquitania) had more money spent on it than another (Majestic or Olympic), and held her own a little better against the newer competition, but all these ships would have equally suffered. Aquitania would have suffered, Majestic would have suffered, and so on; there is no reason why one of these ships would have escaped unscathed and somehow leapfrogged her longstanding competitors. Their relative standing would not have changed. I am unable to understand your point.
Similarly, I have no doubt Celtic and Campania were relegated to the ‘second division’ if you will, once newer ships came on the scene — i.e. Adriatic and Lusitania as two examples. However, Celtic’s relative standing compared to Campania surely remained the same as it had been before. They were built for different purposes: Celtic was slow, but a good, comfortable and reliable sea boat, staunchly constructed at a reasonable price, and unburdened by the overdone German-style of interior. The basic recipe proved sound, for she retained a popular following for years to come. Campania was constructed with an eye on speed, and I remember one passenger who was comparing her very unfavourably with Celtic’s seakeeping qualities.
If I am restating your point, then it baffles me as to why you were disagreeing with me earlier. What I said above is not what I understood you to say earlier.
Thanks for the additional info. I do not have anything to hand, but I do remember that Paris was no more popular than Olympic in 1933; similarly, Ile de France does not seem to have been doing any better than Aquitania or the Ballin trio in 1927-29, if we measure her average passenger carryings.
Best wishes,
Mark.
Mark Chirnside
Member
Grant,
It occurs to me you may be interested in some of my (unedited, i.e. poorly written!) Aquitania notes, although bear in mind that the following does not include any mention of the defects she suffered towards the bow.
Best wishes,
Mark.
It occurs to me you may be interested in some of my (unedited, i.e. poorly written!) Aquitania notes, although bear in mind that the following does not include any mention of the defects she suffered towards the bow.
Best wishes,
Mark.
Grant Carman
Member
Thanks Mark.
Your article does bring one question to mind. Would it have been worth it to refit her in 49, or did Cunard do the right thing and retire her.
I seem to remember reading somewhere, (one of the folly's of getting older is I can't remember where), that the Mauretania and Olympic, when retired, were in better condition than the Berengaria and Majestic, which continued to sail. Do you have an opinion on that?
Your article does bring one question to mind. Would it have been worth it to refit her in 49, or did Cunard do the right thing and retire her.
I seem to remember reading somewhere, (one of the folly's of getting older is I can't remember where), that the Mauretania and Olympic, when retired, were in better condition than the Berengaria and Majestic, which continued to sail. Do you have an opinion on that?
Mark Chirnside
Member
Hi Grant,
Well, as you indicated, in commercial terms her life really came to an end in 1939. The decade after that was war service, and then her austerity service where the expenditure was concentrated on the mechanical side rather than bringing her accommodation up to pre-war standards.
Certainly Aquitania, subjected to a number of refits, did fairly well after the depression began to recede: in 1937, she was averaging 733 passengers per crossing. The distinction, of course, is that Queen Mary was carrying about double that; Normandie, some 950 I think. After the war, however, Queen Elizabeth was often sailing full, and Queen Mary did almost as well. I really don’t see what trade Aquitania could have been put to use for.
I have quite a few opinions.
I would tend to agree in a general sense, but it depends on which specific aspects we’re dealing with. I tend to consider areas such as structural condition, mechanical condition, and then the standard of accommodation and such like.
As far as I am aware, Mauretania’s boilers, engines and machinery remained sound, as did her hull. Her retirement was really a matter of surplus tonnage, the depression, and the fact that she could not be employed profitably on the express service.
In Olympic’s case, her boilers were very well looked after, while her engines had seen extensive work during the 1932-33 overhaul — from the ship’s engineers to the regular surveyors, they agreed the engines were performing better than ever before. The work was not merely an overhaul, but also saw mechanical improvements to improve the balance and running of the engines, overseen by H&W’s C. C. Pounder. Structurally, she remained fit for further service and her general condition was ‘good,’ despite the necessary repairs to defects in 1931. As with Mauretania, she was surplus to requirements. Although her running costs were lower than Aquitania, Berengaria and Majestic, her passenger receipts were also lower: so, although she was not as deeply in the red by as much as some of her running mates, her lower earnings were a key issue.
Berengaria’s retirement in 1938 was forced on Cunard, as her deteriorating wiring and increasing number of fires prevented her sailing with commercial passengers. Similarly, quite a number of repairs to fatigue cracks needed completing after the winter of 1937-38 — inevitable on a large liner, twenty-five years old. However, given that it was her deteriorating condition (specifically her wiring) that actually caused her retirement there and then, I would say Berengaria was in a worse condition.
Majestic, of course, was originally going to be retained beyond 1936, but Berengaria was reprieved instead. Although she was a newer ship, of course, unburdened by strenuous war service as Olympic (and Mauretania) were, her structural problems are rather infamous. There is no doubt that the particular structural arrangement of the split funnel uptakes, combined with a number of other unfortunate issues, was a serious design flaw; but, equally, the repairs of 1925 were very extensive and strengthened the hull considerably. Unfortunately, by the 1930s she was showing some signs of age as the older liners were. My general impression — and it’s only that, rather than a statistical analysis — is that she did not suffer from electrical fires to the same extent Berengaria did.
Best wishes,
Mark.
Well, as you indicated, in commercial terms her life really came to an end in 1939. The decade after that was war service, and then her austerity service where the expenditure was concentrated on the mechanical side rather than bringing her accommodation up to pre-war standards.
Certainly Aquitania, subjected to a number of refits, did fairly well after the depression began to recede: in 1937, she was averaging 733 passengers per crossing. The distinction, of course, is that Queen Mary was carrying about double that; Normandie, some 950 I think. After the war, however, Queen Elizabeth was often sailing full, and Queen Mary did almost as well. I really don’t see what trade Aquitania could have been put to use for.
I have quite a few opinions.
I would tend to agree in a general sense, but it depends on which specific aspects we’re dealing with. I tend to consider areas such as structural condition, mechanical condition, and then the standard of accommodation and such like.
As far as I am aware, Mauretania’s boilers, engines and machinery remained sound, as did her hull. Her retirement was really a matter of surplus tonnage, the depression, and the fact that she could not be employed profitably on the express service.
In Olympic’s case, her boilers were very well looked after, while her engines had seen extensive work during the 1932-33 overhaul — from the ship’s engineers to the regular surveyors, they agreed the engines were performing better than ever before. The work was not merely an overhaul, but also saw mechanical improvements to improve the balance and running of the engines, overseen by H&W’s C. C. Pounder. Structurally, she remained fit for further service and her general condition was ‘good,’ despite the necessary repairs to defects in 1931. As with Mauretania, she was surplus to requirements. Although her running costs were lower than Aquitania, Berengaria and Majestic, her passenger receipts were also lower: so, although she was not as deeply in the red by as much as some of her running mates, her lower earnings were a key issue.
Berengaria’s retirement in 1938 was forced on Cunard, as her deteriorating wiring and increasing number of fires prevented her sailing with commercial passengers. Similarly, quite a number of repairs to fatigue cracks needed completing after the winter of 1937-38 — inevitable on a large liner, twenty-five years old. However, given that it was her deteriorating condition (specifically her wiring) that actually caused her retirement there and then, I would say Berengaria was in a worse condition.
Majestic, of course, was originally going to be retained beyond 1936, but Berengaria was reprieved instead. Although she was a newer ship, of course, unburdened by strenuous war service as Olympic (and Mauretania) were, her structural problems are rather infamous. There is no doubt that the particular structural arrangement of the split funnel uptakes, combined with a number of other unfortunate issues, was a serious design flaw; but, equally, the repairs of 1925 were very extensive and strengthened the hull considerably. Unfortunately, by the 1930s she was showing some signs of age as the older liners were. My general impression — and it’s only that, rather than a statistical analysis — is that she did not suffer from electrical fires to the same extent Berengaria did.
Best wishes,
Mark.
Russell Smith
Member
Here's a few Aquitania pics I have. A few are postcards...
http://i3.photobucket.com,snip
http://i3.photobucket.com,snip
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/Queen%20Mary/Aquitania/AQUITANIA_1914.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/Queen%20Mary/Aquitania/AQUITANIA_LAUNCH.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/Queen%20Mary/Aquitania/RMS20Aquitania.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/Queen%20Mary/Aquitania/aquitania-pant.jpg
[Moderator's Note: Edited links due to width requirements. JDT]
http://i3.photobucket.com,snip
http://i3.photobucket.com,snip
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/Queen%20Mary/Aquitania/AQUITANIA_1914.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/Queen%20Mary/Aquitania/AQUITANIA_LAUNCH.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/Queen%20Mary/Aquitania/RMS20Aquitania.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/Queen%20Mary/Aquitania/aquitania-pant.jpg
[Moderator's Note: Edited links due to width requirements. JDT]
Grant Carman
Member
Mark
Thanks for the update. So it seems that Cunard would have been better suited, in the long run, to have made Majestic and Berengaria as surplus, and kept Olympic and Mauretania. But of course, it's a fine line they have to walk in terms of revenue as well.
Mark: Is your book Aquitania: The Ship Beautiful still available?
Thanks for the update. So it seems that Cunard would have been better suited, in the long run, to have made Majestic and Berengaria as surplus, and kept Olympic and Mauretania. But of course, it's a fine line they have to walk in terms of revenue as well.
Mark: Is your book Aquitania: The Ship Beautiful still available?
Russell Smith
Member
According to Mark Chirnside's website, Aquitania:The Ship Beautiful still hasn't been released.
You can subscibe to his mailing list there for updates.
You can subscibe to his mailing list there for updates.
Mark Chirnside
Member
Thanks for the 'plug,' Russell.
I appreciate your interest, and Grant's.
I was going to wait a few more days before I announced it, but the Aquitania book actually went to the printer's last week. As it is printed and then distributed, copies should begin to show up towards the end of August. On August 1st, I'm going to update my website and upload a very large number of new pages and articles, which will double the site's size. The most important addition, for those awaiting news of the Aquitania book, will be a preview page with interior page shots and other information about the book.
Grant:
I think the revenue aspect is very important. All in all, I'd say that it would have been better to retain Majestic over Berengaria, beyond 1936...because I don't think Majestic would have had to be withdrawn in 1938 as Berengaria had to be. Having said that, the problem was that Majestic's running costs were higher, even though she was about equally popular at that time.
In Olympic's case, matters were reversed, for it was her running costs that were the lowest of the express ships, but her revenues were only high enough to partially close the deficit.
Best wishes,
Mark.
I was going to wait a few more days before I announced it, but the Aquitania book actually went to the printer's last week. As it is printed and then distributed, copies should begin to show up towards the end of August. On August 1st, I'm going to update my website and upload a very large number of new pages and articles, which will double the site's size. The most important addition, for those awaiting news of the Aquitania book, will be a preview page with interior page shots and other information about the book.
Grant:
I think the revenue aspect is very important. All in all, I'd say that it would have been better to retain Majestic over Berengaria, beyond 1936...because I don't think Majestic would have had to be withdrawn in 1938 as Berengaria had to be. Having said that, the problem was that Majestic's running costs were higher, even though she was about equally popular at that time.
In Olympic's case, matters were reversed, for it was her running costs that were the lowest of the express ships, but her revenues were only high enough to partially close the deficit.
Best wishes,
Mark.
John DeLoache
Member
mark, since Aquitania is one of my favorites, I'm looking forward to ordering your new book. I know that she was in bad shape by 1949 but do you know if there were ever any photos taken of her interiors post-war? I would be interested in seeing how the first class smoking room and the lounge fared.
Mark Chirnside
Member
Hi John,
Good to hear from you. I really appreciate your very kind words, and if you order the book then I hope it lives up to expectations.
I gather that there were quite a few examples of graffiti or scratch marks left over from the war years, although in all fairness I think some £130,000 was spent on furnishings during the 1948 refit. I did find some quotes, such as one which described the first class smoke room as looking as grand as it did back in 1914.
As regards post-war photos, I am afraid that there are not any in the book, aside from external images. The majority of the post-war photos, however, are in colour.
Best wishes,
Mark.
Good to hear from you. I really appreciate your very kind words, and if you order the book then I hope it lives up to expectations.
I gather that there were quite a few examples of graffiti or scratch marks left over from the war years, although in all fairness I think some £130,000 was spent on furnishings during the 1948 refit. I did find some quotes, such as one which described the first class smoke room as looking as grand as it did back in 1914.
As regards post-war photos, I am afraid that there are not any in the book, aside from external images. The majority of the post-war photos, however, are in colour.
Best wishes,
Mark.
