QM2 speed vs QE2 speed

[Rob Lightbody]

I've been talking to someone who knows about these things...  I had been thinking that QM2 was just a bit slower than QE2, but not too bad.  Nearly 30 knots vs 34 knots sounds OK.  But I think the reality is nearer an 7/8 knot difference in reality (maximum flat-out speed being rarely used).

QE2 could fairly effortlessly travel at 28-29 knots day-in, day-out and exceed 30 knots almost by accident, even without all engines online.  She was seen passing the IoW a year ago at over 30 knots, for instance.

With rising fuel prices, QM2's very thirsty gas turbines will be rarely pressed into service, and without them I think her speed is only in the mid 20s (can anyone confirm an exact figure)?  I think they may regret choosing them (even though they had good reason to). Her original design was for 2 diesel engine rooms, but they dropped the 2nd one to free up more room and imrpove the layout.

QE2 presumably used about double the fuel at 29 knots than at 23 knots (7/8 engines vs 3/4).  Whats the same figure for QM2, and am I right?

I think we've all been on board QE2 when she was well above 23 knots, even on my med cruise she was frequently travelling at over 28 knots - so it can't have cost so much as to have been disallowed.

The one good thing, looking to the future, is that presumably her turbines can be fairly easily replaced if more efficient ones come along that burn the heavy-fuel that the diesels do (these are being developed apparently).

I have a copy of "Genesis of a Queen : Cunard Line's Queen Mary 2" here, it was put together by/for Alstom's Chantiers De L'Atlantique by "The Naval Architect" when they completed her.  Its a gem of a book, and goes into huge detail.

[Jeff Taylor]

I think we've  all heard that QM2 did a fraction over 30 kts on  her trials,so she is a few kts slower than QE2.  My only firsthand observations would be that she routinely did 26-27 kts on the LA-Honolulu leg of her world cruise two years ago and that was on only 3 pods with the fourth nothing but add drag.  Now I have no idea what the fuel consumption was althugh I have to assume that one or both of the gt's were in use.  On the other hand, 22-24 kts was more typical shuttliing between closely spaced Caribbean ports.  My guess would be that she would probably be pressed and uneconomical to do a steady 30 kts, but she certainly can handle 28.

[Rob Lightbody]

I think we've all heard that QM2 did a fraction over 30 kts on  her trials,so she is a few kts slower than QE2.

First trials - 29.21 was her highest speed (corrected for light trials displacement and swell)
Second trials - 29.63, corrected for swell, wind, displacement and power - 0.3 knots above what was predicted.

Zero to 28 knots takes 7 minutes, by the way!

Source - "Genesis of a Queen, Alstom/Chantiers De L'atlantique/a Naval architect publication.

John Maxtone Graham's EXCELLENT book concurs, but states that there were times when she actually topped 30 knots.

What I want to know though is not her maximum flat-out speed, but her top realistic in-service speed... its this figure that i think is so substantially less than QE2's.

[Jeff Taylor]

One of the documentaries about her (QM2's) construction did emphasize that she was designed for a 5-day crossing, which seems to imply that she could maintain a 28 kt service speed, although we all know there's a dramatic trade off going to 6 days or more considering dramatically lower fuel consumption and the additional bar/casino revenue.  Doubtless QE2 has a bigger reserve of speed, but let's face it--both ships have fundamentally the same type power plant except for the all diesel vs diesel/GT mix.  Why would one set of diesels/alternators/electric motors be inherently more robust than another.  I guess we'll just have to leave it that QE2 is faster hands down, but even she wasn't all that economical to run flat out.

[Rob Lightbody]

Pedant Rob here again!

I would love to see an authoratitive reference that QM2 was designed for a 5 day crossing - if she was, she'd be substantially the slowest ship ever to attempt it at that speed, and would have to run at very close to her maximum trials speed the whole way across!  I will rummage in my books again to see if I can find anything...  She'd have no scope to make up lost time.  She'd have had to be able to exceed 30 knots in service.  The only reason QE2 can exceed 30 knots, with redundancy in reserve, is to maintain the 5 night crossing.

When did QE2 switch to 6 night crossings?  i.e. at what stage in QM2's planning did it occur?

I was told that the turbines make a big difference, and are essentially not used, and will not be even more as fuel prices continue to rise.  This is in addition to the difficulties of them using different fuel. 

[Jeff Taylor]

Rob: wish I could recall which program it was, but I do remember Stephen Payne making that statement.  I also would be interested in when they lengthened QE2's crossings--quite logical in view of the economics plus trying not to put excess strain on the aluminum superstructure.  Obviously they must use the GT's on QM2 to some extent as they blew one in Norway, I believe it was, during her first year, and they do constitute about 40% of her total power, and some of the RCI ships are predominantly GT.  In fact, I hear they're developing some that will run on heavy marine distillate, so that should change the equation.  We may not know the final answer, but as I said before QE2 is clearly faster--in fact faster than anyone would design a liner today based on pure economics, and Mickey is a man who knows economics.  Good discussion!!

[Michael Gallagher]

QE2 switched to the six-night crossing in 1997.

[CAP]

Interestingly in 2010 QM2 will introduce 7 night crossings...

[andyh]

On my several trips on the QM2, during the mid-day reports, and the navagation infomation on the tv channel, she was often traveling at between 26-28 knots

[Cruisemarsh]

QE2 could outpace QM2 very easily as she has a few knots more speed.

The fastest QE2 travelled when I was on her was 31knots.

The fastest the QM2 travelled when I was on her was 24knots.

(but obviously these aren't the top speeds, but 24 knots for a cruising QM2 is very respectable as most cruise ships only reach 19/20 knots)

[MiamiCunarder]

  While on a visit to QE2's bridge on a Caribbean cruise in April '98, I recalled looking at a speed gauge that had her going at a steady 30 knots. I wonder if she was trying to catch up for lost time. I never asked.



Ron

[junglejames]

Everyting ive seen seems to suggest the QM2 can go about 24/25 knots powered just by her diesels. This increases to her top speed of 29/ 30 knots with her diesels and turbines.
Her service speed has been put down somewhere as 26 knots although with cruise ships service speed is really, the maximum speed. Whilst onboard QE2 for a run between Vigo and Bilbao, I worked out that she would need to go about 30 knots to get to Bilbao on time, even if leaving Vigo on time, and that is exactly what we were doing. So they were obviously happy for QE2 to go over her supposed service speed in normal operations.

Fuel efficiency wise, Stephen Payn told me that with both ships going 28knots, the QM2 used less fuel than the QE2, even with gas turbines running. However everything I have seen since, suggests that at 28 knots, QE2 uses less fuel.
So I think sayng both ships use about the same amount of fuel at 28 knots is fair. However get both ships down to about 24/ 25 knots, where the QM2 doesnt need her turbines, and the QM2 will be using less fuel due to the higher efficiency of pods, over traditional props.

James

[junglejames]

Oh, one question. Im sure I saw somewhere that in bad weather, the QM2 (despite being more comfortable) needs to slow down more than the QE2.
Anyone know if this is true?

James

[Clydebuilt1971]

Whilst on a return transatlantic on QM2 in June we experienced a Force 10 two days out of NY. The ship was travelling at 26knts and remained so for most of the two days that the weather was foul. We were told that the speed was reduced to 23knts during the night for comfort reasons.
When we eventually came out of the weather speed was increased to 30.5knts and remained thus until we were one day out of Southampton. QM2's seakeeping during those Force 10 days was excellent and afterwards looking over the side as this leviathan charged through the (now calm) waters of the atlantic at 30knts was a sight to behold.

Let us not forget one thing. QE2 was built to maintain the atlantic service in all weathers at any time of the year. Fast forward to QM2 and the business had changed. The 6 night crossings are this length to give people more time on the ship and the illusion of better value for money etc etc. Remember this is a holiday for most.

The 7 night crossings were to be introduced Eastbound as the bookings in that direction were weak compared to Westbound. Cunard apparently (we were told) thought that the additional night would perhaps attract more passengers. I suppose the loss of the hour most nights during the crossing can make you feel a bit groggy? 

Dont get me wrong, coming from Greenock, Scotland I am furiously proud of QE2 and all the other vessels that slid down the various building ways into the Clyde over the years but I personally am very fond of QM2 - she does what she was designed to do and does it well. She does have a link to the Clyde albeit tenuous in that the St Nazaire yard which built QM2 was originally developed all those years with assistance from Scotts of Greenock - at one time the oldest shipyard in the world.

QE2 was a flier in the old tradition but I think it is unfair to compare the two as they are very different animals and I admire and hold a glass to Cunard / Carnival for having the guts to build QM2 in the first place.

 

Gav

[Rob Lightbody]

Great posting Gav, thanks!  There's only one reason why Cunard are increasing the crossings to 6,7,8 nights, and thats to make more money !  People on board spend money, and the ship saves on fuel...

Very surprised (but delighted !) to hear that she exceeded 30 knots... can't imagine she will be doing that again though, given her new timetables. 

4 things are now putting me off doing a transatlantic on her - in order - (1) I have no money !, (2) she doesnt dock in Manhattan any more (3) she doesn't "rush" like QE2 used to and (4) I didn't like her all that much when i visited her (although she is very, very impressive).