What if....

[Rob Lightbody]

What if QM2 had been designed without the gas turbines, and without the high speed ability.

What would we have thought and said back then?

Would we still have adopted her into the 'real liner' category?

What if there had been the same economic situation then, and Cunard said then that that was why they were not making her more powerful - would we have accepted it?

How many of her passengers over the past years would have cared?

And a thought that just came to me while typing this - it seems unlikely to me that fuel prices will ever go down significantly, does that not mean that QM2's turbines are therefore an expensive (needing maintenance and certification etc) waste of space?

[highlander0108]

The whole "liner" debate would have been intensified and there would have been intense debate whether she would have been a worthy successor to QE2.  (that debate happened anyway)  Many QE2 loyalists would have been absolutely put off by the new ship, which many would say was nothing more than a glorified cruise ship with a strengthened hull, which then would have spun the conversation into why bother with a strenghtened hull in the first place, which would have then spiraled into why does Cunard even exist in the first place.  I think it would have been all downhill for Cunard.  For me, the entire reason to cruise on Cunard is for the unique liner experience, even if it is diluted down today.

Now did they make an incredibly stupid decision to go with the turbines in the first place is another topic that seems to be heating up, with all of the associated problems that have been reported.  It seemed like an elegant solution at the time and you have to know that they knew that marine gas was more expensive that bunker grade fuel so there had to have been numerous studies and discussions on this very subject.

If QM2 does not have "liner-like" speed abilities, she looses some of her appeal to me, but would the non-liner enthusiast know or care?

[Jeff Taylor]

Obviously the gas turbines use more fuel per kw, and more expensive fuel, than the Wartsila diesels, but the turbines produce 70,000 hp, and that would have called for 3 more diesels and upset the whole layout of the engineering spaces, not to mention that 3 more 25,000 hp diesels would also have required more fuel.  I honestly think the bottom line is that for peaking power the turbines are an "elegant" solution which maximizes space within the hull, and apart from comparisons with QE2 and her predecessors, most TA travelers these days are booked for a nostalgic vacation rather than transportation.  I can see Carnival's logic.  Let's be glad we have QM2, whatever the trade-offs and compromises.

[Bob C.]

Regardless of powerplant, would there still be a need for a reinforced trans-Atalantic hull, like QM2's, if there was no high speed specification?  I think they go part in parcel.  And for that reason, without a high speed capability, she would have just been another big "cruise" ship rather than a liner.

Having said that, there are still a few things that do not make QM2 a true decendant of Queens Mary, Elizabeth and Elizabeth 2 but this is discussed in another thread.

[cunardqueen]

For me, the entire reason to cruise on Cunard is for the unique liner experience, even if it is diluted down today.

   

My only reason for sailing Cunard was to travel on QE2....

[usqe2fan]

I was aboard QM2 on a cruise from New York to the Carribean in 2008, and we made 29+ knots in rough seas for over a day, much faster than she does on transats, and she handled it magnificantly.  This was likely with Diesels and Gas turbines at close to full boil, seeing her quad screw wake at the speed was extrordinary.  Cunard have since slowed her down to reduce costs, but QM2 is every bit a liner unlike, anything else in today's cruise fleet. 

I was aboard for her last 2011 crossing this past December in the three days of the roughest seas I have encountered in years, and she again handled it magnificantly.  I have some incredible video shot from the library and Commodore club of those seas.

World economic conditions, including oil prices, were dramatically different back when QM2 was built, but they built her and she is all we have in terms of a true liner.  I'm going to continue to sail on her. 

+1. Let's be glad we have QM2, whatever the trade-offs and compromises.

[Rob Lightbody]

It sounds like you're answering my question with "Luckily she was built at a time when 29+ knots seemed like a good idea, and that high speed makes her a true liner".  And if I continue the logic, that means you'd be less sure, if she didn't have that unique high speed capability.

I want to be aboard QM2 when she travels at speed.  But I don't know how to achieve this.  They recently announced that passengers love the slower 7 day crossings, and that the response to the 8 day crossings has been tremendous.  A friend told me they could barely tell she was moving on a calm crossing last year...

[Peter Mugridge]

Possibly the only way might be to persuade one of the big travel companies ( or a consortium of several of them ) to charter her for a speed run cruise?  That would also provide a way for Cunard of testing the market for the occasional advertised speed run as per recent discussions on this forum without taking the financial risk themselves.

It would need at least a 2½ year lead time because of the way schedules have to be planned ahead, but it should be do-able...

[Jeff Taylor]

I wonder how much of a factor the seemingly fragile nature of the Rolls Royce Mermaid pods is in the speed equation.  Obviously the fuel is the major factor, but perhaps Cunard is also "babying" the pods to avoid more frequent bearing replacement.

[Andy F]

An interesting thought Rob but for those of us who care (and let's be honest, many passengers will not give it a second thought), then I believe we would still consider her a liner. 

With regard to longer, slower crossings as a cost saving measure, let us not forget the same would have applied to QE2 were she still sailing - I guess we should be grateful the global recession came as late as it did otherwise the 30kt bursts of high speed shown at times during the last few years likely would not have happened.

[usqe2fan]

Rob, to better reply to your original thread IMO I don't know if Carnival/Cunard would build QM2 today.  The criteria for the business case would be quite different, just considering today's price of oil, let alone many other factors within the cruise industry.

I believe QM2 is commercially very successful, but she has a passenger space ratio of over 57, and as example  the RCCL ships of comparable size all have roughly 1000 additional passenger capacity which equates to much greater potential revenues.  I would venture that her Vista sisters, Victoria and (cough) Elizabeth are more economical to operate and are more profitable.  Cunard have in effect reduced QM2 operationally to the speeds of a Vista over the past 2 years, undoubtedly to contain costs.

She is very different from QE2, and will never replace QE2 in my heart, but as per my prior post, happy we have her as she is the closest thing to a liner we are likely to see anytime soon.