Author Topic: QM and QE speed  (Read 12057 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

kevinh

  • Guest
Re: QM's and QE's speed : Who Would've Won?
« Reply #15 on: Feb 07, 2018, 03:15 AM »
On what was the size exactly based, apart from running a two ship service? Did they also include in the calculations the amount of passengers they wanted to carry, ore was it just based on the speed that was required, what kind of ship design with hull and machinery combination could deliver that speed, and thus the design was born.

No, they mentioned none of that.

Offline Barumfox

Re: QM's and QE's speed : Who Would've Won?
« Reply #16 on: Apr 05, 2018, 12:29 AM »
Atlantic Highway by Warren Armstrong (published in 1961) stated that on QE's first eastbound crossing after the United States had taken the Blue Riband from QM in July 1952 she achieved an average of 31.09 knots - her previous best in 1947 being 29.45 knots.

This seems reasonable - checking on what she had now QM no longer held the record - however the four knot margin of the United States was obviously not bridgeable. Whether she improved on this I am not aware - no real reason to do so.

Gary Petersen

Offline Greg Rudd

Re: QM's and QE's speed : Who Would've Won?
« Reply #17 on: Apr 05, 2018, 03:31 AM »
Atlantic Highway by Warren Armstrong (published in 1961) stated that on QE's first eastbound crossing after the United States had taken the Blue Riband from QM in July 1952 she achieved an average of 31.09 knots - her previous best in 1947 being 29.45 knots.

This seems reasonable - checking on what she had now QM no longer held the record - however the four knot margin of the United States was obviously not bridgeable. Whether she improved on this I am not aware - no real reason to do so.

Gary Petersen

Had the rise of the Jet liner occurred 10-15 years later then I think Q3 would have came close to the SS United States. 

Offline Barumfox

Re: QM's and QE's speed : Who Would've Won?
« Reply #18 on: Apr 05, 2018, 05:17 PM »
I believe that Q3 would have been little or no faster than QM or QE as same Cunard requirement for weekly service - would have been both heavier ( steel not aluminium) and less powerful than SSUS.

SSUS was a freak / vanity project to fulfil the life long dream of her designer William Francis Gibbs and who conned / persuaded the US Government to fund it on the pretext it could reprise the role of the Queens as a troopship in any future war. This did not happen during the Korean War (ongoing at time of completion) or Vietnam ( by which time long distance trooping by ship was obsolete).  She was fully subsidised in operation and this caused her early withdrawal - never did a crossing near 35knots again - 29 to 31 knots was the norm I think.

Cunard have always been a commercial operation and any loans from UK Government have had to be paid back from profits with interest so extravagant costs beyond what was needed - like the engines necessary to compete with SSUS on speed - would have been out of the question.

Thankfully there was a rethink and we got the QE2 - Q3 would probably have bankrupted Cunard if built.

Even the France - with heavy government subsidy  not a commercial loan - was not intended to beat the SSUS.

One of the more  minor consequences of the world wars - particularly WW2 - was the accelerated development of aircraft - without this undoubtedly there would have been at least one more generation of traditional liners built (such as Q3) - for all routes.

Gary Petersen.


Offline Greg Rudd

Re: QM's and QE's speed : Who Would've Won?
« Reply #19 on: Apr 05, 2018, 11:23 PM »
The Q3 generation actually did come in the form of the Canberra/Oriana for Australia/Asia
How the Oriana would have stood up to the North Atlantic is something I ponder from time to time.

Offline Barumfox

Re: QM's and QE's speed : Who Would've Won?
« Reply #20 on: Apr 06, 2018, 12:57 AM »
Yes - although Oriana and Canberra were in service by the time Q3 was cancelled - and like other contemporaries such as France, Windsor & Transvaal Castle, Empress of Britain, Northern Star, Rotterdam, Leonardo Da Vinci amongst others- as well as the slightly later Sagafjord, Kungsholm, Michelangelo and Raffaello all had prematurely shortened careers as liners - as we know the fortunate found second careers after conversion to cruise ships, the not so fortunate as accommodation ships or suffered early scrapping.

Without the rapid advances in aircraft design and propulsion made in WW2 all these ships may well have spent their full careers in the liner services they were designed for up to say around 1990 - where the development of air travel would have been by then would have determined if a further generation would have become viable.

Interesting discussion though!

Offline mgmike

Re: QM's and QE's speed : Who Would've Won?
« Reply #21 on: Apr 06, 2018, 05:59 AM »
The biography of Sir James Bisset, Captain of QE during her early and wartime service, describes her speed in a fair amount of detail.  He seems in no doubt that she was faster than QM and refers to her maintaining a constant 35 knots for several hours on end on a number of occasions.  He does not reference whether or not the machinery was running at full power at this speed or not.

 

QE2's Speed !

Started by Isabelle ProndzynskiBoard The QE2 herself

Replies: 97
Views: 59882
Last post Aug 09, 2022, 04:59 PM
by Trevor Harris
Poll for the March Photo Competition "QE2 at Speed"

Started by Lynda BradfordBoard Archived Topics (older calendars)

Replies: 15
Views: 2864
Last post Oct 19, 2017, 01:55 PM
by June Ingram
QE2 Average speed to cross the Atlantic for 5 nights

Started by Rob LightbodyBoard Miscellaneous QE2

Replies: 6
Views: 3447
Last post Jan 28, 2015, 10:01 PM
by Lynda Bradford
Waverley's Main Engine at Full Speed

Started by Clydebuilt1971Board PS Waverley

Replies: 1
Views: 753
Last post Jul 16, 2018, 12:49 PM
by Thomas Hypher
QM2 speed vs QE2 speed

Started by Rob LightbodyBoard RMS Queen Mary 2

Replies: 36
Views: 24317
Last post Oct 06, 2010, 11:14 AM
by holynougat