# Can QE2 Be Replaced?



## Mark Chirnside (Feb 19, 2006)

Can QE2 Be Replaced?

Interesting article.

Best wishes,

Mark.


----------



## Jeff Taylor (Oct 13, 2006)

Interesting article, but they're dreaming. QE will be a close derivative of the standard-issue Carnival Vista class ship, and except for the funnel shape and color will closely mimic the latest Holland American "Dam" sisters, albeit with an ice-strengthened hull and a few more cabins to pay for the cost. She will have pre-fab "apartment block" cabins, no shear, a flush back with no tumblehome, and I'm strongly guessing two azipods for a "low '20's" cruising speed--about what QE2 can do in reverse. Cunard's formula has been to lengthen the crossing to 6 days, so even though QM2 can do 30 kts she isn't called on to do so very often, and QV and QE will be largely leisurely cruisers. On the other hand, she won't have QE2's confusing interior circulation issues stemming from her debut as a multi-class liner, her worst cabins won't be as bad as QE2's worst cabins, and her public rooms will be grander, if you count plastic laminate wood and gilded fiberglass as grand. Life is full of trade-offs, and Cunard really doesn't exist anymore. The name sure does, but more and more the senior officers are P&O, and the ships and formula are pure Carnival. Still, I'm planning my next voyage, so go figure!


----------



## jaguar06 (Dec 10, 2006)

I agree with the author about single cabins.

But I can't get onboard with the "clocks that tick". I stopped all my many chiming and ticking pendulum clocks 6 years ago on the day I retired simply because I got tired of listening to that "tick".

The point about the history is the most compelling. It was the greatest attraction to me to Queen Mary, so I might look at the same views and walk the same corridors as Churchill and others. It may seem a silly consideration to some, but that sense of some things not changing in this fast-changing world makes one fond of an "old reliable" (which, sadly is an illusion for all things as we age).

When I look at QE2, though, I can't help but think she still looks altogether too good to be retired, even if she's already hit 40.


----------



## tacho (Oct 13, 2007)

I liked this bit from the comments section of the article.



> QE2 is the furthest travelled ship of any kind in the world.
> She is the fastest liner in the world.
> She is the most famous ship in the world.
> She is the most succesful ocean liner of all time.
> ...


----------



## Chouan (Apr 20, 2006)

I'm afraid that I can't help think, who cares?
She is/was hardly representative of the Merchant Navy in any sense, so why all the attention?


----------



## fred henderson (Jun 13, 2005)

This entire piece is the personal opinions of a journalist, not some expert: 

QE2 is the furthest travelled ship of any kind in the world.
Oh yes? How does she know? Can she provide the source of this information? 

She is the fastest liner in the world.
She is no longer employed as a liner; her liner role was taken over by QM2. She is the fastest cruise ship in the world, but that distinction is of little value in cruising and most of her time is spent at more modest speeds these days.

She is the most famous ship in the world.
She is most certainly famous, but most famous is merely an opinion.

She is the most succesful ocean liner of all time.
Really? How is success to be measured and by whom?

She is the last British-built liner.
Not true. Vistafjord was the last liner built in Britain.

QE2 was replaced as a liner by QM2. Since then she has been a full-time cruise ship. Unfortunately her standards of accommodation are not sufficiently high for Cunard to be classified as being in the highest luxury category. Cunard are hopeful that her retirement will result in the company being elevated to the top level. 

Fred(Thumb)


----------



## tacho (Oct 13, 2007)

In fact these points were not part of the article they were a comment from a reader.

I posted them because they made me laugh - particularly the bit about retro Titanic cruise boxes.


----------



## fred henderson (Jun 13, 2005)

tacho said:


> In fact these points were not part of the article they were a comment from a reader.
> 
> I posted them because they made me laugh - particularly the bit about retro Titanic cruise boxes.


I am sorry, Tacho I misread your post. Nevertheless, my observations apply to the person making the comment. Cunard has a joint American-British parent that has carefully rebuilt the company, after decades of neglect by its previous Norwegian and British owners.

Fred(Thumb)


----------



## Pompeyfan (Aug 9, 2005)

Fred

Even though you misread Tacho's comment, your post is spot on!.

The person who made that comment would be one of the 99% of the public who have no idea of the difference between a cruise ship and a liner?!.

Like QM2 if the new ship plys the trans-atlantic she will in effect be a liner. But it is clutching at straws by even referring to the QM2 as a liner in my opinion. She was designed for the trans-Atlantic, but that is about it.

Their main job now is cruising, not transporting passengers from A to B. The only true liners around today are cargo ships, container ships, car carriers and others plying regular 'line voyages'. That is all they do, transport cargo around the world. It used to be cargo and passengers. Now it is just cargo.

No, unless people get fed up with aircraft, and want to back to getting from A to B by sea, QE2 can never be replaced. The trade she was built for, and those before her has gone. It is as simple as that.

David


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

I must echo the sentiments expressed above by Chouan, who on earth cares? The author of the article is talking of an extremely select audience; viz those who cruise. I'd bet a dollar to a pinch of you know what that your average Joe in the street would not have a clue who or what the QE2 was or is and wouldn't give a tinker's cuss either. Ships are built for a commercial purpose to make a profit for their owners. When they cease to do so through age or obsolence, or both, they are razor blades, scrap metal, and that applies equally whether they are a passenger boat called the QE2, or some tramp called the Takoradi.
CBoots


----------



## Gulpers (Sep 8, 2005)

*Who cares?*

I imagine there are still many proud workers from John Brown's shipyard who had lumps in their throats when QE2 left Clydebank in November 1968.
They probably care! (Sad)


----------



## Chouan (Apr 20, 2006)

Good for them. I doubt if much ink has been expended on the end of ships built at Smith's Dock on the Tees, yet they built ships with as much skill and pride. Their yard was closed without a murmur from anybody, apart from themselves, of course. 
Just because it is a glamorous passenger ship we're all supposed to be concerned and tearful at its passing. Get over it.


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

I would imagine that any John Brown's workers still around would care a lot more about the loss of their jobs not to mention the irony that the new "pride of the British shipping industry" is being built in France is she not? I would suggest that her owners, who ever they might be these days, ought perhaps to name her the Louis x1v, or maybe the President De Gaulle.
CBoots


----------



## fred henderson (Jun 13, 2005)

David

I do not understand why you question the liner status of QM2. If you go to the Cunard website you will find that QM2 is making 26 transatlantic voyages in 2008 and you can book a passage on any of the voyages.
In 1972 QE2 and France both undertook 24 transatlantic voyages. In 1972 no one doubted that these ships were liners, so why doubt QM2 today?

Best regards

Fred(Thumb)


----------



## Pat McCardle (Jun 12, 2005)

cboots said:


> I would imagine that any John Brown's workers still around would care a lot more about the loss of their jobs not to mention the irony that the new "pride of the British shipping industry" is being built in France is she not? I would suggest that her owners, who ever they might be these days, ought perhaps to name her the Louis x1v, or maybe the President De Gaulle.
> CBoots


Agree with everything you say there, CBoots. As for QE2 being 'The Flagship of the British Merchant Navy' who came up with that one? I would have thought a coaster with a five man crew who were ALL British has more right to be a flagship of MN than QE2.

Await inbound
(Jester)


----------



## Pompeyfan (Aug 9, 2005)

Fred

Yes, QM2 is a liner. And yes I know exactly how many trans-Atlantic she makes. That is not the point I was making. 

I meant that in the past, passenger liners only plied line voyages. Their employment was entirely to transport passengers from A to B. When I worked for P&O, we were making the change from liners to full time cruise ships. Many companies did this when the airliner was taking over when the ship was not paying solely as a means of transport. And P&O still see the world cruise as liner sectors, hence my comment clutching at straws. It had a far wider meaning than picking on QM2 as it would appear. I did not mean it like that?!!. It would be interesting however just how many passengers use the Atlantic crossing today as a means of transport only?!.

Cboots is right as to how the general public would be thinking. Go across on a ferry where I live, see a cruise ship or even container ship go past, and few if any of the passengers look out the window. I have often said look at that ship, and some look up saying: "Oh Yes", then carry on talking or reading. They don't give a 4X?!.

It is only we shipping enthusiasts who are concerned about shipping. If we were not, sites like this would not even exist. So although we often disagree on many things nautical, it is the hobby of us all whether we used to work at sea, still do, or just enthusiasts. Lets at least agree on that?!.

David


----------



## tacho (Oct 13, 2007)

I do not think that aviation (in it's present form at least) can continue as the predominant mode of passenger transport for much longer (pollution and fuel costs).

So I hope that all these new cruise ships are capable of becoming liners. I have a feeling that they'll be needed - whatever they look like!


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Pat McCardle said:


> Agree with everything you say there, CBoots. As for QE2 being 'The Flagship of the British Merchant Navy' who came up with that one? I would have thought a coaster with a five man crew who were ALL British has more right to be a flagship of MN than QE2.
> 
> Await inbound
> (Jester)


Pat, 

Spot on - but me, I'd go for an example of a tug!

As for 'Flagship' Rollocks! They lost UK crews on her years ago and she is, in any case, a mode of transport that is nmot representative of the UK Merchant Navy. She's a plaything - hardly in the same leauge as what the MN stands for - which is goods!

Jonty


----------



## cboots (Aug 16, 2004)

Yup, that' right. The shopping baskets of the empire we used to be known as. 
CBoots


----------



## Pompeyfan (Aug 9, 2005)

I think you could be right Tacho. There were certainly a lot of Australians aboard Oriana preferring travelling home by sea than air. At the end of the day both pollution and demand may see a return of the passenger liner days which ships built for that purpose. If there is a market there, the companies will do it.

Despite my comments about QM2, she is a fine example of a liner and cruise ship all in one. 

David


----------



## Peter Eccleson (Jan 16, 2006)

*QE2 - 'Flagship of the british MN*

Guys,
An interesting thread.
Wouldn't care to comment on the difference between a liner and a cruise ship. However, on the subject of QE2 being the 'Flagship of the British MN' ..... she carried the Queen's name and Cunard used that for pure and simple marketing! Nothing more, nothing less. What's more.... it worked! Even politicians referred to QE2 as 'the flagship' - good old fashioned marketing. Its the old story of "say you're the best often enough and people will believe it!" Also, evidence from this thread.... some of you out there believe it, others remember it even if they don't agree with the claim. .... and we are discussing it! (Jester) 

May the thread continue!


----------



## tacho (Oct 13, 2007)

Silly question? 

Is the QM2 Red or Blue Ensign?


----------



## Chouan (Apr 20, 2006)

Depends upon the Master and a.n.other officer.


----------

