-
Hi Guest!
You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Rule Britannia...
- Thread starter Boink
- Start date
Share this page
Online
and yet here there is no clown....
https://ca.yahoo.com/news/pair-rele...ed-on-cruise-ship-095750184.html?guccounter=1
the plot thins
https://ca.yahoo.com/news/pair-rele...ed-on-cruise-ship-095750184.html?guccounter=1
the plot thins
OP
Offline
I've often wondered this myself (though they do have many many stabilizers). Ugly too.
mikephillips
Yoda
Offline
The difference between sailing to eat and drink too much for a week, and cruising to go from point A to point B in style.
YakkoWarner
Jedi Warrior
Offline
I think the change from steam to diesel-electric has a lot to do with the visual design of the ships. There is no need to have multiple huge exhaust vents directly above the boiler banks, so they can build the superstructure higher and create more cabin space (thus more revenue). Ships now are basically floating resorts - you visit for a week or 2 but almost every cruise ticket sold ends at the same dock it left from. Ships used to be the primary the mode of international travel, now they are just giant party barges.
Even on the new ships, most of the really heavy stuff is down in the botttom, which gives a safety margin for roll over. Older ships didn't have stabilization which limited how high the superstructure could be, not just from a safety standpoint but comfort as well. When the Triumph lost power out in the gulf a few years ago, it was still safe from a rollover perspective but people reported that the rolling motion on the upper decks was far worse than down closer to the water line.
I took a cruise in the early 1990s on a non stabilized ship. It had originally been built for transatlantic service (I think late 1950s-early 1960s vintage) and was an actual steam driven vessel. It was quite comfortable even 5-6 levels above the waterline but I couldn't imagine what it would have been like 16-20 floors higher. It had been reworked multiple times as it changed owners, but it still had a lot of that classic steam liner look to it. I was in a lesser-priced cabin only 1 level above the waterline and the motion there was very faint. That ship also had a 30 foot draft, amost like a 700 foot long deep-V hull.
A few years ago I went on a cruise (on the then refurbished Triumph about a year after the infamous "poop cruise") - the stabilizers worked remarkabiy well - you would feel the ship start to roll and then it would just stop, then a few seconds later you would just start to notice it going the other way and just stop. It was solid enough that the onboard minigolf at the top deck was perfectly playable. But the modern ships are basically giant Jon boats - very flat hull with much less draft. Without stabilizers they bounce around a lot.
One of the reasons the SS United States has such a long lean and low appearance is because it was also meant to be freaking fast - fast enough to keep up with a cold-war era carrier battle group as a troop transport should the need arise. And probably fast enough to have at least a reasonable chance to get away from hostile nuclear subs of the era as well.
Even on the new ships, most of the really heavy stuff is down in the botttom, which gives a safety margin for roll over. Older ships didn't have stabilization which limited how high the superstructure could be, not just from a safety standpoint but comfort as well. When the Triumph lost power out in the gulf a few years ago, it was still safe from a rollover perspective but people reported that the rolling motion on the upper decks was far worse than down closer to the water line.
I took a cruise in the early 1990s on a non stabilized ship. It had originally been built for transatlantic service (I think late 1950s-early 1960s vintage) and was an actual steam driven vessel. It was quite comfortable even 5-6 levels above the waterline but I couldn't imagine what it would have been like 16-20 floors higher. It had been reworked multiple times as it changed owners, but it still had a lot of that classic steam liner look to it. I was in a lesser-priced cabin only 1 level above the waterline and the motion there was very faint. That ship also had a 30 foot draft, amost like a 700 foot long deep-V hull.
A few years ago I went on a cruise (on the then refurbished Triumph about a year after the infamous "poop cruise") - the stabilizers worked remarkabiy well - you would feel the ship start to roll and then it would just stop, then a few seconds later you would just start to notice it going the other way and just stop. It was solid enough that the onboard minigolf at the top deck was perfectly playable. But the modern ships are basically giant Jon boats - very flat hull with much less draft. Without stabilizers they bounce around a lot.
One of the reasons the SS United States has such a long lean and low appearance is because it was also meant to be freaking fast - fast enough to keep up with a cold-war era carrier battle group as a troop transport should the need arise. And probably fast enough to have at least a reasonable chance to get away from hostile nuclear subs of the era as well.
Online
"I took a cruise in the early 1990s on a non stabilized ship. It had originally been built for transatlantic service (I think late 1950s-early 1960s vintage) and was an actual steam driven vessel. It was quite comfortable even 5-6 levels above the waterline but I couldn't imagine what it would have been like 16-20 floors higher. It had been reworked multiple times as it changed owners, but it still had a lot of that classic steam liner look to it. I was in a lesser-priced cabin only 1 level above the waterline and the motion there was very faint. That ship also had a 30 foot draft, amost like a 700 foot long deep-V hull.
A few years ago I went on a cruise (on the then refurbished Triumph about a year after the infamous "poop cruise") - the stabilizers worked remarkabiy well - you would feel the ship start to roll and then it would just stop, then a few seconds later you would just start to notice it going the other way and just stop. It was solid enough that the onboard minigolf at the top deck was perfectly playable. But the modern ships are basically giant Jon boats - very flat hull with much less draft. Without stabilizers they bounce around a lot."
Exactly - I agree the 'original' ones look way prettier (I feel the same way about 'traditional' cabin cruisers/ trawlers vs modern floating shaggin' wagons.
"One of the reasons the SS United States has such a long lean and low appearance is because it was also meant to be freaking fast - fast enough to keep up with a cold-war era carrier battle group as a troop transport should the need arise. And probably fast enough to have at least a reasonable chance to get away from hostile nuclear subs of the era as well."
As I understand it, any of the great ocean liners - United States/ QE/ Queen Mary/ Normandie etc, were all Ships of State - subsidized to win the Blue Riband AND to be available in times of war, except it was more about the Blue Riband. In fact they were too fast for convoys and most used far too much fuel to be practical for military use.
Some did see service as troop carriers but, typically went on their own - making a break for it.
A few years ago I went on a cruise (on the then refurbished Triumph about a year after the infamous "poop cruise") - the stabilizers worked remarkabiy well - you would feel the ship start to roll and then it would just stop, then a few seconds later you would just start to notice it going the other way and just stop. It was solid enough that the onboard minigolf at the top deck was perfectly playable. But the modern ships are basically giant Jon boats - very flat hull with much less draft. Without stabilizers they bounce around a lot."
Exactly - I agree the 'original' ones look way prettier (I feel the same way about 'traditional' cabin cruisers/ trawlers vs modern floating shaggin' wagons.
"One of the reasons the SS United States has such a long lean and low appearance is because it was also meant to be freaking fast - fast enough to keep up with a cold-war era carrier battle group as a troop transport should the need arise. And probably fast enough to have at least a reasonable chance to get away from hostile nuclear subs of the era as well."
As I understand it, any of the great ocean liners - United States/ QE/ Queen Mary/ Normandie etc, were all Ships of State - subsidized to win the Blue Riband AND to be available in times of war, except it was more about the Blue Riband. In fact they were too fast for convoys and most used far too much fuel to be practical for military use.
Some did see service as troop carriers but, typically went on their own - making a break for it.
mikephillips
Yoda
Offline
United States was intended to be a wartime troopship, government as I recall covered some of the expenses building it. No days they keep talking restoring it. Pictures I've see show the passenger decks completely gutted with even partition walls removed where non load bearing. Would take a mint to rebuild, even as a static attraction, which would fade in popularity I suspect as the Queen Mary has, as a revenue generator.
PC
Obi Wan
Offline
So, they reported geometry.
YakkoWarner
Jedi Warrior
Offline
I know NCL had floated the last restoration proposal a few years ago, but between the changing fiscal outlook of cruise lines and the fantastic costs associated not only with reconstructing pretty much the entire interior of the ship but then RUNNING the thing, they opted not to proceed as the numbers just didn't add up. Rebuilding it into a revenue-producing ship would have completely destroyed the character of the ship, and cost more than building new. Also, operating a live steam plant has costs and overheads which the modern diesel-electric systems can largely avoid (no boiler inspections, no superheated steam lines to maintain (and insulate), higher plant operations staff costs, fuel efficiency, etc). The railroads and shipping industry largely left steam because it cost more to maintain and run than the newer systems. And there just isn't much demand for a cruise ship that can clock close to 50 knots - the deck chairs would need to be bolted down and require seatbelts.
mikephillips
Yoda
Offline
All that, plus the skills to run and maintain high pressure steam just don't exist anymore. Navy's don't use it, or commercial fleets. And maritime schools don't teach it. So even getting a black gang to run it would be near impossible. Much as I'd like to see something from that age of ocean travel be preserved and perhaps sails in nice weather like the couple of Liberty ships they've done that with, I just don't see it as possible. Best that might happen is if they can find a port city like Long Beach that really wants to have a floating hotel or casino with a vintage feel.
But, not holding my breath since times change and the younger generations have no memories of trans Atlantic travel. Shoot, it was dying out when I was a kid in the 60s.
But, not holding my breath since times change and the younger generations have no memories of trans Atlantic travel. Shoot, it was dying out when I was a kid in the 60s.
twas_brillig
Jedi Knight
Offline
Aesthetics vs practicality and comfort: I've had some wondrous views from outhouses in the Canadian Rockies, sitting there, with the door propped open by a rock or a boot... However, I also came down with the trots at an honest -40C/F at one point in the backcountry. Thanks goodness there was an out-house; thank goodness that there was no upward draft. I want my old British and other vehicles; I also want all the comforts and convenience of indoor plumbing and powered mirrors. Plus I'd like to be taller... Doug
Online
True but if you were taller you wouldn't fit the car - just sayin'
Roger
Luke Skywalker
Offline
As an ex-Merchant Navy officer, I hate the look of many of these cruise ships. I'd make an exception for QM2, she looks like a ship, and besides we did a trip on her a few year s ago.
For me, the best-looking ship ever was the first Queen Mary, but all the "Atlantic greyhounds" looked the part.
For me, the best-looking ship ever was the first Queen Mary, but all the "Atlantic greyhounds" looked the part.
