Why do people not like the Queen Elizabeth so much

James Smith

Member
Dec 5, 2001
490
1
146
Actually, David, I think there was a discussion on this very topic not too long ago on the Yahoo Queen Mary group, which included some engineers who served on the Mary in the sixties. If I remember right, the gist seemed to be that while the Elizabeth benefitted from better boiler technology, this only meant she needed fewer boilers than her sister to put out the same amount of steam. The engines themselves were substantially the same on both ships--and with the Elizabeth being the heavier ship, that made the Mary just a little bit faster.

--Jim
 
Jul 11, 2001
547
1
146
Hi James. I must have missed that post. But there must have been some rivalry between the two ship crews. The weight issue being used seems a likely explanation of the speed difference, yet the QM2 is quite the heavy weight and can hit 30 knots easily. It would be nice to find the results of the QE1s sea trials for comparison. Largest vs. fastest seems to have been a moot point. By the late fifties nobody took a ship to get there fast anyways.
 
Sep 2, 2009
334
0
46
From an earlier post in the Queen Elizabeth Madien Voyage topic:

Source page 51 "RMS Queen Elizabeth Victory to Valhalla.

On October 7, 1946 Sir James Bisset, took a test run over the measured mile course and determined that the ship could achieve "Over 30 knots with out straining"

On October 8, 1946 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, boarded the liner for the official measured mile speed trial. At 3:00 the speed trial began and on the northward run she covered the mile in 2 minutes, 1.3 seconds at a speed of 29.71 Knots, the next marker was reached in two minutes 1.0 seconds at 29.75knots. After the liner completed her turn for the second leg of the test it was reported that the sun was so bright on the marker that the test could not be measured correctly so it wasn't taken.

Source: Queen Elizabeth: Victory to Valhalla page 53

The Queen Elizabeth's Maiden voyage in October, 1946.

4 days 16 hours 18 minutes, or 27.99 knots

However, she crossed in stormy conditions, and slowed to only ten knots as she approached the New England Coast.
 

Bryan Ricks

Member
Oct 13, 2004
29
0
71
What I kick myself for is...
When I was a teen, Iactually received a course catalog for the Seawise University. It including sailing schedules with ports of call, classes offered, and deckplans.

But alas, careless packing and a leaky roof in my storage shed took care of that along with other sailing brochures from the early 70's, including the "France" (not Norway) and my favorite--Sitmar's Fairwind.

Bryan
 

Ryan Thompson

Member
Dec 6, 2005
261
0
86
I've heard (and seen in photos) that the Normandie had bad rolling/listing problems. Did the QM have these same problems? And the QE for that matter?


Also, the QM is in debt? Thats sad. I visited the QM in August of 1999. I took the tour and all, which raises another question: Is one of the funnels a dummy funnel? I seem to remember going *under* one of the funnels during the tour, or at least, it felt like that was about where I was in the ship.


The weight issue being used seems a likely explanation of the speed difference, yet the QM2 is quite the heavy weight and can hit 30 knots easily.

Doesn't the QM2 have quite a few props, at least four? They are in pod form, too.


On October 8, 1946 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, boarded the liner for the official measured mile speed trial. At 3:00 the speed trial began and on the northward run she covered the mile in 2 minutes, 1.3 seconds at a speed of 29.71 Knots, the next marker was reached in two minutes 1.0 seconds at 29.75knots. After the liner completed her turn for the second leg of the test it was reported that the sun was so bright on the marker that the test could not be measured correctly so it wasn't taken.

Was that measured from a standstill?

Thanks,
Ryan Thompson
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,109
12
198
>I've heard (and seen in photos) that the Normandie had bad rolling/listing problems.

Hello, Ryan: The Normandie rolled, but it was not a problem- it was designed in to her and, in fact, was a sign of her stability. She was constructed along the lines of a destroyer, so that she would roll and recover quickly and could pass through severe weather without wallowing or reducing speed. The Queen Mary, with her tendency to heel and then hang on the roll was a frightening experience for those who understood what was going on, during her first decade or so while that problem manifested itself, whereas the Normandie must have been perceived as frightening by those who did not understand why she rolled and recovered as dramatically as she did.
 

Marion Raiser

Member
Feb 27, 2009
1
0
31
My grandmother took slides of the original QE in Florida and I was just looking at them a few days ago! We had sailed together on her in 1968.
 

Ryan Thompson

Member
Dec 6, 2005
261
0
86
Jim -- I've read more information on the Normandie since then. I've read it would occasionally correct itself from a roll so quickly it would send objects toppling/flying.

Marion -- I'd love to see them :D :D That was right up at the end, shortly before Cunard sold the ship.