Author Topic: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'  (Read 32149 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Bob C.

QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« on: Aug 05, 2009, 07:38 PM »
I just found this very interesting article on the Queen Mary Story Website (http://www.queenmarystory.com/search/label/QE2).  Contained in the article is the account of the desire to replace QM in 1961.  Six companies bid on the project but two, Vickers-Armstrongs and Swan and Hunter were going to combine efforts to build the ship at Swan and Hunter Shipyard and fit her out at the Walker Navy Yard a little over a mile up the Tyne.

The article goes on to say that due to lagging passenger revenues on the Atalantic, the ship was never built BUT by 1965 when this new ship would have been putting to sea on her maiden voyage, Cunard changed their minds and rebid the contract for a QM and QE replacement.

Had Cunard not changed their minds and followed through in 1961...would the name still be Queen Elizabeth 2?

Would she look like she did/does?

Would she have lasted into the 21st centrury?

Very intriguing to ponder...
« Last Edit: Aug 06, 2009, 11:19 AM by Rob Lightbody »

Offline Heather

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start
« Reply #1 on: Aug 05, 2009, 07:49 PM »
Who knows!  We may not have joined this great forum if things had been different - what would we have done with our lives if we didn't have this?

I remember the stunned silence at the launch when the name was announced (I was of course quite young at the time!!!). I think it added to the excitement when we didn't know what the name of the liner was going to be.  Why did they start telling us what the names were going to be?

 ???

Online Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 12287
  • Total likes: 15726
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start
« Reply #2 on: Aug 05, 2009, 08:02 PM »
I presume this is referring to 'Q3' which is shown in various QE2 books?  Or is it even earlier than that?

Regardless, it would have been a disaster.  

An utter disaster.  

QE2 was revolutionary, and it was only that, which saved her, when all other "similar" ships had to end their lives (e.g. France and SSUS).  

Twice they changed direction - in the right direction - once when ditching Q3 and commissioning Q4, and then again during Q4's construction when they altered the design even more.  Q4 (QE2) was always designed to cruise, and was not simply a direct successor to the first two Queens - because that was simply no longer needed or wanted.  If they'd built Q3 instead of Q4, Cunard would have gone under in the 60s or very early 70s and would only be a memory now.  Q3 would have been laid up and/or scrapped.

One more thing saved QE2 - in a bizarre twist.  They deleted her fourth boiler to save some money, but this made her unreliable in service, because there was no redundancy when things went wrong, and it meant the other boilers were over-used, especially as QE2 had a MUCH more demanding turnaround cycle time than the old Queens.  So, by the 80s they had to do something to fix her, or scrap her, and she was too good to scrap, so they re-engined her.  Had she had the 4th boiler, in my view, she'd have made it in the early to mid 90s I think, but then been too old to re-engine.
« Last Edit: Aug 05, 2009, 08:16 PM by Rob Lightbody »
Passionate about QE2's service life for 40 years and creator of this website.  I have worked in IT for 28 years and created my personal QE2 website in 1994.

Online Bob C.

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start
« Reply #3 on: Aug 05, 2009, 08:17 PM »
Rob I agree that the 1961 liner would most likley have been a disaster but I don't think this was Q3.  My understanding is that Q3 was an early concept of the 1965 contract that eventually led to Q4.  If you look closely at the model of Q3, it has, at least on the exterior, some QE2-esque characteristics.  I don't think the 1961 model would have looked as modern.

I may be wrong and will have to refer to Potter and Frost then next time I get my hands on a copy.   

Online Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 12287
  • Total likes: 15726
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start
« Reply #4 on: Aug 05, 2009, 08:20 PM »
Oooh!  Interesting indeed... if its not Q3, I'd really love to see what it was meant to look like!

Mind you, would that not make QE2 'Q5' ? :)
Passionate about QE2's service life for 40 years and creator of this website.  I have worked in IT for 28 years and created my personal QE2 website in 1994.

Online Bob C.

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start
« Reply #5 on: Aug 05, 2009, 08:46 PM »
I remember reading about a concept of two smaller ships to replace the QM and QE in reference to Q3 but, again, I definitely need to go get Potter and Frost.  Definitely an interesting history to research and sort out.  Can't wait to get started!

Online Bob C.

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start
« Reply #6 on: Aug 05, 2009, 09:03 PM »
I love the internet, I hate the internet.  Right now I hate it because it made my initial research too easy.   Two web pages I found so far, one of them here (http://raflucgr.ra.funpic.de/queen_elizabeth_21.htm), both refer to the Q3 as the ship that was to replace the QM and Q4 as the ship to replace the QM and QE.   

Q3 was to be a traditional 3-class ship used for trans-atlantic crossings only.  It was not until after the Q3 concept was abandoned and rethought in 1964 that the aspect of part-time cruising was introduced shaping the ship we all know and love.

I'm not done because I want to find out more and I feel cheated out of hours of researching the QE2!

 

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start
« Reply #7 on: Aug 06, 2009, 08:16 AM »
Cunard bagan to plan for the replacements of Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth in the mid 1950s and their original scheme was for a pair of identical three-class 75,000-tonners.The Government's Chandos Committee (set up to see if Cunard should receive a loan to build these two) concluded that only one should be built - Q3. Thankfully Cunard saw sense and cancelled Q3 in 1961. As Rob said it would have been a "disaster". A word even used by Cunard Chairman John Brocklebank. She would have probably ended up like the United States and France and laid up while very young. As to a possible name - well, that's anyones guess.

What is more interesting is that Trafalgar House / Cunard did plan Q5 in the late 1980s. She would have entered service in 1991 and perhaps would have shortened the life of our beloved Queen by 5 - 10 years!! Q5 would have been very revolutionary - the plans show a twin-funnelled, 90,000-ton ship capable of 40 knots! (gas turbines) to make the crossing in 3.5 - 4 days. She would have been three-class roo with a Super Deluxe, First and Tourist. The Tourist passengers would have had buffet food - for which they would pay extra (way ahead of the Aida and Ocean Village concept). QE2 would hve been assigned to Pacific cruises leaving Q5 on the Atlantic. So, things could have been very different.... Q5 was eventually cancelled because Trafalgar House couldn't agree on the final design and costs were spiralling.

But they did develop the SWIFT Concept in the mid-1990s which would have been unlike any other ship!


Greg78uk

  • Guest
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #8 on: Sep 02, 2010, 07:05 PM »
Hi Everyone, I have just joined the site and was very interested in your discussion about the Q3. I have two archive boxes full of papers related to the Q3 and I can explain what really happened in 1961 and why the planned ship was abandoned.
As you know, Cunard were looking to replace the Queen Mary with a new 'Express Liner' designed for the Transatlantic Run. It was to be part funded by Cunard and part by a large loan from the British Government. There was large objection to it due to the fact the days of the Transatlantic Run were fast disapearing due to the advent of air travel, but the Board of Cunard were adamant.
My late grandfather Raymond Gregory was a shareholder of Cunard at the time and at the 1960 AGM raised the point very strongly that Cunard should be investing in a ship that could be used for pleasure cruising as well as the Transatlantic Passage. The Board refused to listen. Following the AGM, he was approached by several other major shareholders, all concerned that the building of the Q3 would destroy Cunard and they would all loose their investment.
Grandfather then began preparations for a Shareholder Revolt against the board. At this point in time there had never been a sucessful shareholder revolt in Britain and it was new territory. He wrote to every single shareholder of the company, sending a ballot slip, asking if they would support him.
The approaching revolt gained national coverage in every newspaper and TV station at the time. There was a lot of bad feeling against him particularly on Clydebank at John Browns who were expecting to win the contract for the new ship and he was invited to go up and meet with the Unions there, he did so, and they threatened to throw him in the docks, unless he backed down.
By this point he had gained sufficient backing from the shareholders in order to force the Board to call an Extraordinary Meeting of the shareholders, Brocklebank summoned him to the Cunard Building at Liverpool where they met for a discussion that would last for hours. Grandfather issued Brocklebank with an ultimatum that the Q3 be shelved in favour of Cunard investigating his plan for a smaller ship, useable for pleasure cruising, to be called the Q4. Brocklebank eventually agreed and they released a joint press statement that same day.
Grandfather then worked with Brocklebank and Cunard on the Q4 (QE2). I have mountains of paperwork, correspondence etc related to all this, its fascinating including a letter from the Union Leaders at Clydebank after work had started on the Q4, apologising for threatening to throw Grandfather in the dock and calling the Q4 “His ship”.

Offline Twynkle

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #9 on: Sep 02, 2010, 07:45 PM »
Hello and Welcome
It's really good to meet you here!

Thank you very much for this.
Well Done to your Grandfather.
We mightn't be here at all had he not been so creative in his thinking!
It's a very good account - and although I wasn't at John Browns,
from the 'Liverpool/Cunard/Brocklebank' angle it all sounds familiar,
although it was a fairly long time ago - for various reasons, I haven't forgotten it either!
I can't help wondering - how did he and Sir John got on after the meeting...
You say that he worked on Q4 - are you able to tell us what he did?

Many thanks again - it will be really good to hear more of your experience  too - did he take you on board QE2?



Online Bob C.

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #10 on: Sep 02, 2010, 08:39 PM »
An amazing snippet.  Can't wait to see more!

Greg78uk

  • Guest
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #11 on: Sep 02, 2010, 10:05 PM »
Interestingly, Grandfather and Brocklebank became good friends after the revolt. Grandfather always said that in his opinion Sir John had never wanted the Q3 and it was a problem he had inherited from his immediate predecessor as Chairman and was trapped into the continuation of the plans and for him the Shareholder Revolt was in the end a welcome opportunity to cancel the disasterous scheme, as if he hadn't I expect the Q3 would have gone the same way as the SS United States and the SS France and destroyed the company.

His role in the Q4 was interestingly enough around shareholder relations, ensuring that the shareholders who had grouped behind him in 61 were behind Cunard over the new ship.

The events on Clydeside are very interesting, he was invited up there by the Scottish Daily Express to meet his critics at the shipyard and I have a fantastic set of photos of him at John Browns with the Union Leaders and other local figures.

He had been writing a book on the whole affair at the time of his death and I have a 50 page transcript detailing the revolt day by day, which I am working on developing and finishing, with more details about the history and events surrounding it. As I said I have mountains of his papers regarding it and have been researching with the Cunard archives at Liverpool. For the final area of research, I will need to go to the National Archives at Kew as there is the only copy of the Parliamentary Report into the Q3 affair there, but once thats done, I should be able to proceed, so if anybody has anything that could be of use, I would be grateful to hear from you.



Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #12 on: Sep 03, 2010, 12:33 PM »
Your grandfather certainly did play a role in the cancellation of the Q3 Project and we do have him to thank. But others such as some directors of the company should also be credited. Cunard actually awarded the contract to Vickers Armstrong and Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson. It was this group and not John Brown who would have built Q3.

Here are my research notes into why Q3 was cancelled:

Many of the young Directors were still unhappy about the type of ship that was being selected and found an ally in Sir John Brocklebank who was also concluding that Q3 was the wrong ship.

Two senior executives who felt that the whole Q3 concept was ‘crazy’ drew up proposals for a twin-screw liner which could go cruising in the winter and operate on the North Atlantic in the profitable summer months. They believed Q3 would be a ‘write-off’ if she did not go cruising. The management rejected this paper. The executives persisted and, eventually, met Sir John who explained that no such paper had ever been submitted to him by the management and he was in full sympathy with their views. Eventually the paper went to the Board but it was put on ice - tradition had triumphed again.

One shareholder, Raymond Gregory, mounted a six-month struggle to persuade Cunard to scrap plans to replace Queen Mary, claiming that Q3 would be a “gigantic waste ands ruin Cunard”. After a motion of his to scrap the project was dismissed in June, he wrote to 20,000 shareholders in July 1961 telling them what was at stake and asking them to vote against Q3. More than 16% replied to the letter – 4,227 in support of Gregory and 297 wanting Q3. Those against represented £1.5 million worth of Cunard shares.

Sir John Brocklebank met with Ernest Marples (Minister of Transport) on 17 October 1961 to discuss the future of Q3.

The Cunard Board met to discuss the situation on 18 October 1961. Sir John reappraised the whole situation - dwindling passenger numbers, increasing losses and the potential actual cost of Q3 by the time of build.

On 19 October 1961, Sir John reluctantly announced that Cunard could not see its way clear to order the Q3 - rising labour and material costs had increased the price of the ship by several million pounds and the Government loan was not sufficient to cover the escalator clauses in the shipbuilding tenders. The plans were therefore postponed indefinitely as trading conditions could not justify replacing the Queens by similar tonnage and it was back to the drawing boards. (He would later describe the decision to build Q3 would have been a 'disaster'. History would prove him right - Cunard had narrowly averted creating perhaps the greatest floating white elephant since Brunel's Great Eastern).

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #13 on: Sep 03, 2010, 01:00 PM »
I also have a copy of the Q3 Parliamentary Report.

Online Lynda Bradford

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #14 on: Sep 03, 2010, 05:37 PM »
Thank-you L Gregory for posting such an interesting story. I am sure you will find lots of interest in the book you are writing from members of the forum and you will find information that may be of use to your research.

You mentioned a set of photos of your grandfather at John Brown's. Is this something you could post on the forum?

Looking forward to hearing more on this topic. 
I was proud to be involved with planning QE2's 50 year conference in September 2017 in Clydebank
www.qe2event.com

Online Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 12287
  • Total likes: 15726
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #15 on: Sep 03, 2010, 07:31 PM »
Amazing stuff, thank you!!

Are you going to publish the book and if so, how?  what angle are you going for?
Passionate about QE2's service life for 40 years and creator of this website.  I have worked in IT for 28 years and created my personal QE2 website in 1994.

Online Peter Mugridge

  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3590
  • Total likes: 3416
  • At Mach 2 three days after being on QE2...
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #16 on: Sep 03, 2010, 11:26 PM »
I think I would be very interested in buying a copy of this book. :)
"It is a capital mistake to allow any mechanical object to realise that you are in a hurry!"

Online Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 12287
  • Total likes: 15726
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #17 on: Sep 04, 2010, 04:35 PM »
I would like to know, in fairly simple terms...

(1) What advances would Q3 have had over Q1 ?
(2) What advances did Q4 have over Q3 ?
Passionate about QE2's service life for 40 years and creator of this website.  I have worked in IT for 28 years and created my personal QE2 website in 1994.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #18 on: Sep 04, 2010, 06:03 PM »
I think advances between Q3 and Q1 would have mainly been advances in technology / machinery.

And Q4 was more advanced because she ended up as a two-class, dual purpose, smaller ship.

Although Q3 was rejected on the whole for being the wrong ship for the jet age, her design embodied a number of progressive elements which survived. Indeed the Q4 design owed an important part of its origin to Q3. The most progressive ideas in Q3's layout and planning were brought forward and descaled to the reduced overall dimensions of Q4:

• Much of the work done by Cunard's design department in reducing structural complexity and weight in Q3 would ultimately prove vital in Q4.

• The final funnel shape of Q4 was based on initial work undertaken on that for Q3 which is somewhat resembled.

• A number of new ideas which appeared on Q4 had originally been developed for Q3: the relocation of dining rooms and crew messing facilities etc.

Q3 propulsion machinery designs were resurrected and modified until the machinery for Q4 was finally chosen. Reliability, simplicity and efficiency were the watchwords.

As a result of the experience gained in planning the machinery for Q3, it was decided to specify turbines of Pametrada design, driving two propellers and maintain an average speed of 28.5 knots.

Online Bob C.

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #19 on: Sep 04, 2010, 11:38 PM »
    I agree with Flagship that technology was the main difference between Q1, 2, 3 and 4 but with the decline of the ocean liner  and the rise of the jet airplane as the primary source of transportation between Europe and the USA, the entire "ocean liner" concept was diminishing quickly.  I believe it was fading even more quickly than Cunard surmized in the early 60's. 
   
    Reading Potter and Frost and comparing the Cunard liner with today's ships, there are many obvious carryovers from Q1 and 2 into QE2.  Even though Q3 was eventually rejected, Potter and Frost's QE2 book shows that the "old school" trans-Atlantic liner mentality played heavily into QE2's design with much of it flying in the face of the modernizing "jet-age"world. 
     
    It was a time of global transition, technologically, but by today's business standards, Cunard was behind the power curve in developing QE2 to keep up with the changing times.  In my opinion there was far too much what I'll call "traditional liner" momentum.  In other words, Cunard either lacked the ability to read the future effectively or accept the need to change to stay competitive in the market or perhaps a bit of both.  About the only that saved QE2 was her cruising ability.  There was a brief period in the early 70's where Cunard made a true profit but QE2 and Cunard faced hard financial times in the latter part of the 70's and 80's.  National Geographic's "Superliner: Twilight of an Era" stated that QE2 was facing hard financial times with the lack of trans-Atlantic passengers and the skyrocketing price of oil and that her future was uncertain.
   
    But thanks to the 86/87 tranformational refit, QE2 became more of a cruise ship and less of a liner enabling her to sail into the 21st century and become the icon of the sea that she is.  Don't get me wrong, I love our old girl but she was essentially behind the times the day she slid down the ways. 
« Last Edit: Sep 05, 2010, 01:55 AM by Bob C. »

Greg78uk

  • Guest
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #20 on: Sep 04, 2010, 11:52 PM »
Thanks for all the great information, I was not aware that Cunard had awarded the Q3 contract, Grandfather mentions in his memoir that the rumours were that the contract was going to Tyneside rather than Clydeside, but when he voiced these rumours to his ‘critics’ at John Browns they reacted angrily and said that a Cunard Queen would never be built anywhere else but at Browns. He certainly pays homage to the common sense of the board and especially Brocklebank when they do abandon Q3 and move towards Q4. Grandfather never made a big deal about his involvement and in fact the only book I have ever found that mentions him is a large hardback volume on the Queen Mary which was a reprint of the original specifications alongside her history, published after she was decommissioned.

The book is mainly centred round Grandfathers memoir, which he wrote before his death, which describes in the first person, what happened, why it happened and how it happened. What I am trying to do is to pad it out with factual evidence that I am researching at the moment. Summaries of the North Atlantic Shipping Bill and Viscount Chandos’ report on the Q3, the latter which was not released until relatively recently.

Other things I am looking at are details of the history of the Cunard transatlantic run (The Mauritania/Lusitania and the Queen Mary/ Queen Elizabeth) as well as the new competition that developed in the 1950s, with the new foreign Atlantic liners the SS France, SS United States and SS Norway, which now with the benefit of hindsight we know within about ten years caused the bankruptcy of their owners and ended up either being sold or mothballed (I believe the SS United States is still in dry-dock, 40 years later!!!).

The question I don’t know is if I will be able to find a publisher willing to do anything with it all????   

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #21 on: Sep 05, 2010, 09:13 AM »
A preliminary meeting between Cunard and six contending shipyards was held in the Cunard Building on 15 December 1960 to discuss the preparation of the specification for the new ship. It was expected that the tender specification would be complete by the end of March 1961.

Only a few British yards were capable of handling a contract of this size and six firms were expected to tender:

   John Brown and Company, Clydebank

   Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited, Glasgow

   Vickers-Armstrongs (Shipbuilders), Tyne

   Swan, Hunter and Wigham Richardson Limited, Wellsend

   Harland and Wolff Limited, Belfast

                Cammell Laird & Company (Shipbuilders and Engineers) Limited, Merseyside

In January 1961, it was announced by the north-eastern yards that for this venture, Messrs. Vickers and Messrs. Swan Hunter proposed to join forces in order to win. The plan was to construct the hull at the Wellsend yard, birthplace of the Mauretania, and to fit it out 1.5 miles upstream at Vickers’ Walkers Naval Yard. It was a powerful combination. Both firms were at the forefront of ship construction and were arguably the most technically advanced shipbuilders in Britain. Additionally, Vicker's’ Barrow-in-Furness yard had produced the 45,000-ton Oriana for P&O in 1960, a revolutionary ship embodying many new design concepts valuable to the builders of Q3 and to the eventual owners.

In March 1961, invitations to tender for the new ship together with the detailed specifications were sent to the yards.

Cunard encouraged the yards to put forward their own ideas on her overall design concept too.

Tenders were to be received by the end of July 1961.
« Last Edit: Jul 22, 2014, 10:17 AM by Lynda Bradford »

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #22 on: Sep 05, 2010, 09:15 AM »
The joint bid from Vickers Armstrong and Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson soon became the favourite tender. Reports prior to the contract placement indicated that their bid was the lowest (£28 million) and that they could offer (by several months) an earlier completion date which would allow Cunard to take advantage of the 1965 summer season. This meant to Cunard a year’s earnings on the transatlantic trade and 1965 would see Queen Mary celebrate her 30th Birthday.

Cunard awarded the contract to Vickers Armstrong and Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson. It was this group which offered the most progressive ideas on the ship's construction and offered the lowest tender of £28 million. In fact, the consortium had submitted two designs to Cunard: one was the all-steel four-shaft ship Cunard had asked for; the other was a smaller two-shaft alloy / steel design.

The disturbing news for the John Brown yard was that the consortium’s four shaft all-steel design was preferred on cost and design to their own. It was later found that Clydebank’s price was £1.8 million higher than the consortium’s. John Brown’s hull would have cost £2.15 million more to build although it’s machinery was £0.35 million lower. John Brown’s hull was a much heavier and stiffer structure than the consortium’s and required more power and therefore more expense to propel it.

However, it was the consortium’s smaller two-shaft design which caused Cunard to pause. Many of the features it embraced were based on the Oriana – a fact that placed an entirely different perspective on Q3.

Compared with John brown’s specification for Q3, the Swan Hunter/ Vickers design variant had a shorter hull by 70-feet (21.3 metres), at 920-feet (280.4 metres) overall. The accommodation, for 2,270 passengers, was spread over 12 decks. Four Pametrada steam turbines would have given her the required service speed if 30 knots when rated at 112,500-shp, but it was calculated that the powerplant had sufficient reserve for her to challenge the United States’ grasp on the Atlantic Blue Riband, if so desired, for she had the potential for an astonishing 40 knots at the maximum output of 140,000-shp! Doubtless the performance of the John Brown design would have been comparable, but it has to be remembered that this is pure conjecture.

Assuming the order had been received before the end of 1961, the keel would have been laid in May 1962, the launch would have taken place in December 1963, and the new ‘Queen’ would have been delivered to Cunard in April 1965 – during the company’s 165th Anniversary year.

Online Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 12287
  • Total likes: 15726
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #23 on: Sep 05, 2010, 11:44 AM »
Bob,

Your comments don't really tally with anything else I've read.  Q4 was really quite advanced - and a lot of Cunard regulars were upset that she was so different.

Stephen Payne, QM2's designer and lifelong QE2 fan, was absolutely clear last year when I heard him talk - QE2 always made money - lots of money.  Thats what he says.

And... I don't really see how the 86/7 made her more fit for cruising specifically - it just made her more "fit" in general! - it really made her more fit for the transatlantic, with more power and redundancy, and the fuel-saving meaning that her high speed for 5 nights wasn't as big an issue.

The Clive Harvey book has an interesting piece about QE going cruising.  She was more successful than people realise - more successful than Mary.  When I get home I'll dig it out.  He says that she could have cruised for many years (at a profit), and that was indeed the intention with her big refit in the late 60s in Greenock.
Passionate about QE2's service life for 40 years and creator of this website.  I have worked in IT for 28 years and created my personal QE2 website in 1994.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #24 on: Sep 05, 2010, 12:14 PM »
Rob - I don't want to burst a bubble but QE2 did not make money every year. That's not to say she wasn't fantastically profitable over her lifetime but Bob is right by the late 1970s and early 1980s  she was struggling. Struggling in terms of profits, struggling mechanically and struggling in terms of reputation. I would say the Falklands did a lot to save her - in terms of the money Cunard got for the charter and the prestige going to war did for her. Like with Canberra both ships never really looked back after their war service but both ships had a helluva time in the 1970s.

On what basis does Clive Harvey say the original QE could have gone on and made profits? Does he have knowledge of the inner workings of Cunard at the time and does he pocess a crystal ball in an alternative reality. By the mid 1960s the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were grand old ships and that was there problem - too grand and too old for the markets they found themselves in. By 1968 the new dawn of the modern cruise ship from the likes of Norwegian Caribbean and Royal Caribbean was about to start. And there is no way Cunard could have kept two Elizabeths on the Atlantic run. The only chance QE2 had was to break free from the past so the Mary and Elizabeth had to have gone by the time she entered service and with it that style, service and 'Cunardness' of that era had to go.

Online Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 12287
  • Total likes: 15726
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #25 on: Sep 05, 2010, 12:21 PM »
Ok thanks for the correction Michael - taken on board (and I'll need to re-write that bit of my talks!) - but i'm sure thats not what Mr. P said!  Maybe i'm remembering it wrong... maybe someone said she "never made money" and he corrected them.  I wish I'd recorded his talk somehow, it was excellent.

So if Cunard were on its knees when it BUILT QE2, and needed a loan to do so, how did they pay the loan back so quickly?  How did they survive at all if she wasn't making money?

I will dig the bit out of Clive's book when I get home... I won't trust my memory again!
Passionate about QE2's service life for 40 years and creator of this website.  I have worked in IT for 28 years and created my personal QE2 website in 1994.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #26 on: Sep 05, 2010, 12:32 PM »
She did make money initially and the loan was repaid back quicker than expected. By the end of her first year Cunard had repaid £2.5 million - one eighth - of the loan. I'm talking about the late 1970s and early 1980s. The ship was in a mess in terms of profits, mechanically and onboard in terms of decor.

I think the withdrawl of the France in 1974 - a ship which even Cunard internal reports state was far superior in terms of service, quality etc - helped QE2 over the mid 1970s as that left her as the only big ship on the Atlantic and gave her the cachet of largest passenger ship in te world (until the return of France as Norway in 1980).

One of the reasons Cunard outlived all its competitors was the fact that it alone was never subsidised by a Government. Cunard instead took loans out to build their prestige ships (Mauretania /Lusitania, Queen Mary / Queen Elizabeth, QE2) and all of those loans were repaid. If the company had been subsidised I suspect the Government would have pulled the plug at some point prior to Trafalgar House taking over and things would have turned out a LOT differently.

Online cunardqueen

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #27 on: Sep 05, 2010, 05:50 PM »
What about an online publisher? Is that an option?
From the moment you first glimpsed the Queen,
 you just knew you were in for a very special time ahead.!

Online cunardqueen

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #28 on: Sep 05, 2010, 06:24 PM »
Quote
   I don't want to burst a bubble but QE2 did not make money every year.   

If we remember the excerpt from Whickers world with Sir Nigel Broackes commented on the income was around 50 million and the outlay was 45 milliion which left a profit of 5 million.A figure he seemed happy with.
And lets face it in later years QE2 wasnt for eveyone. Who hasnt met a passenger on a cruise that felt QE2 didnt live upto the hype
When you look at the booking process when l booked in 1986 we had no travel agents discount or onboard credit you actually paid the brochure fare and were quite happy with that
Would Cunard back then have been in the position of discounting fares to fill up the ship, or were they quite happy for the ship to sell itself and if she sailed with empty berths so be it?

It would be interesting to know when the price of building the QM2 can be expected to be paid back, lm guessing such information might be classed as commercially sensitive. still no harm in asking, One imagines a ship that size sailing full most of the time must be for want of a better phrase raking it in... :-X
From the moment you first glimpsed the Queen,
 you just knew you were in for a very special time ahead.!

Cruise_Princess

  • Guest
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #29 on: Sep 05, 2010, 06:46 PM »
I suppose the 21st century can be said to be the best time ever for building passenger cruise ships and of course the  easier access to bank borrowing necessary to build them in the first place, is perhaps more  available than ever ( taking out the recession right now...though it doesn't LOOK like it!).,,.,.with the cheap pricing that  didn't happen till Carnival days it will look very good indeed on cashflow forecasts etc done for the purpose of borrowing the funds.....better to sell 100 cabins at a knock down price than not sell them at all...

(which brings to mind...whilst on a Capetown Cruise many of us decided we would like to sail home to Soton rather than fly back...the majority of us were in the same cabin grade yet when we enquired at the onboard sales office were all given very different astronomical prices for the return sail home....therefore those cabins remained empty all the way back to Southampton....as the ship was half empty....
( and they wouldn't allow us to go ashore in Capetwon to a travel agent to ook it on a bargain deal as when a passenger you are a captive audience......so they told us,.)
.
CHANGED DAYS!

Offline CAP

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #30 on: Sep 09, 2010, 08:22 AM »

So if Cunard were on its knees when it BUILT QE2, and needed a loan to do so, how did they pay the loan back so quickly?  How did they survive at all if she wasn't making money?

There were a number of factors that enabled Cunard to pay the loan back.   In fact whilst there was one overall loan, it was made up in two stages due to the increased costs of the ships.  The original loan was for £17.6million and increased to £24million in 1967.  Significantly, the loan would not come into force until the company took delivery of the ship.  As such Cunard had to use the loan as a means of persuading a consortium of banks into providing the funding during the build.  Once achieved this then allowed Cunard to pay for the ship at contract signing (at the original tendered value) which triggered a government investment bonus of £5million.

Add to that the disposal of Cunard's 30% share in BOAC which realised a further cash injection off £11.5milliion (Cunard had paid £8.5million when the new company was created some two or so years earlier).

Disposal of the majority of the existing passenger fleet also added considerable sums to the company coffers, Carinthia & Sylvania for £2.5million, Caronia for £1.25million, Queen Elizabeth £3.25million and Queen Mary for £1.25 million.

Within the organisation itself there were many changes, the company’s operating efficiency was increasing through radical changes in its cost base and structure.

When QE2 was finally accepted by Cunard the compnay had put itself in a position of not requiring £4million of the final loan amount.
« Last Edit: Sep 09, 2010, 07:32 PM by cap0557 »

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #31 on: Sep 09, 2010, 07:44 PM »
L Gregory: this all got me delving into my Q3 boxes and I have found transcripts (which I never knew I had) of TV and Radio interviews your grandfather gave after his Victory. If you would like me to send copies - please let me know. Fascinating stuff and he put is case very well. Did not realise he was in PR!
« Last Edit: Sep 09, 2010, 07:46 PM by flagship »

Offline Lachlan

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #32 on: Sep 10, 2010, 05:59 AM »
At the risk of taking the discussion in a slightly different direction, the experts who contribute to this forum might be able to help me with a question. I am doing some research into QE 2 with a view to making a detailed model of this great ship. I am in the throes of completing a 1:96 scale model of Oriana (1) and am now looking at my next project.

I have obtained copies of detailed line drawings of QE2 from the University of Glasgow archives which will be of enormous assistance in modelling the ship.  If, that is, they are actually the plans of QE2.

As we are all aware QE2 was design number 736 of John Brown Shipbuilders, but the plans I have show design number 1736 and are dated 1961 –  before QE2 (ie Q4) was designed. I suspect that what has been supplied to me are (unbeknown to the institution that suppled them) actually plans of Q3. The notations on the plans show line drawings of ship number 1736 and are date- stamped 11 August 1961. According to Potter and Frost, the decision to make a new start with Q4 was taken in January 1963. Moreover, the details on the plans show a ship with a length between perpendiculars of 942’ and a waterline length of 974’. This would have given an overall length of over 1,000 feet.  QE2 which was ship number 736 of course has a length between perpendiculars of 885’ and an overall length of 936’.

The plans sent by University of Glasgow (and which weren't cheap) were catalogued as QE2 so they must have a link to QE2. But what are they? Can anybody help?

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #33 on: Sep 10, 2010, 07:27 AM »
Lachlan - you do have Q3 plans. My Q3 plans are stamped the same.

Online Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 12287
  • Total likes: 15726
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #34 on: Sep 10, 2010, 11:54 AM »
Seeing as we have such experts with us about this subject, is it possible to have a couple of images of Q3 to illustrate the story?
Passionate about QE2's service life for 40 years and creator of this website.  I have worked in IT for 28 years and created my personal QE2 website in 1994.

Online Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 12287
  • Total likes: 15726
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start
« Reply #35 on: Sep 10, 2010, 01:05 PM »
What is more interesting is that Trafalgar House / Cunard did plan Q5 in the late 1980s. She would have entered service in 1991 and perhaps would have shortened the life of our beloved Queen by 5 - 10 years!! Q5 would have been very revolutionary - the plans show a twin-funnelled, 90,000-ton ship capable of 40 knots! (gas turbines) to make the crossing in 3.5 - 4 days. She would have been three-class roo with a Super Deluxe, First and Tourist. The Tourist passengers would have had buffet food - for which they would pay extra (way ahead of the Aida and Ocean Village concept). QE2 would hve been assigned to Pacific cruises leaving Q5 on the Atlantic. So, things could have been very different.... Q5 was eventually cancelled because Trafalgar House couldn't agree on the final design and costs were spiralling.

But they did develop the SWIFT Concept in the mid-1990s which would have been unlike any other ship!

For the ensuing discussion about Q5 & SWIFT - Please go to this topic - https://www.theqe2story.com/forum/index.php/topic,2404
« Last Edit: Sep 10, 2010, 01:10 PM by Rob Lightbody »
Passionate about QE2's service life for 40 years and creator of this website.  I have worked in IT for 28 years and created my personal QE2 website in 1994.

Greg78uk

  • Guest
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #36 on: Sep 10, 2010, 07:00 PM »
The only place I have seen an actual image of the intended Q3 is in Carol Thatchers book on the QE2, I'm sure there must be more, does anybody know where one might find one?

'Flagship' I would be fascenated to see copies of the interviews Grandfather gave over Q3, I didn't even know such things existed!!!!

Offline Twynkle

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #37 on: Sep 11, 2010, 10:02 AM »
Hello!

Athough there are no images of Q3 in Potter and Frost's book, (QE2 - Queen Elizabeth 2: The Authorised Story 1969. London : Harrap SBN 245 5944 2)  on page 26 there's a paragraph:

    'At this meeting...Sir John said, "...Any ship is a gamble....We are confident that the new ship [Q4] will make a substantial profit, if we  get the terms we want."
Mr Raymond Gregory, a shareholder and the Manchester advertising man who had led the shareholders revolt against Q3 as being unsuitable and uneconomic, now declared, "Either Cunard must build this ship, or it must die".

L. Gregory - this book is becoming rare - if you haven't got it, you might find it useful for reference as well as other photographs.
There are 6 second-hand copies at Amazon UK at the moment - (via The QE2 Story Shop, on the home page!)
(Will keep an eye open for photos of Q3...)

There will be others too who know more about publishing 'small volumes', have you thought of contacting private publishers?
It could be worth you looking at the back of monthly Shipping journals - Sea Breezes comes to mind! For more info -just send me a personal message for message via the Forum!

Just for 'interest', here's another link
http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/archives/exhibitions/qe2/anewcunardliner/
When you are in Liverpool, it might be worth asking the Curators office at the Maritime Museum whether they have information too. Have you thought of contacting any of the stockbrokers ?!

Rosie

Greg78uk

  • Guest
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #38 on: Sep 13, 2010, 08:43 PM »
Thanks Twynkle, I have ordered a copy of the book. It is strange they called Grandfather "An advertising man" he was Public relations and training manager for British Carborundum.... I am presently in the middle of reading Carol Thatcher's book on the QE2 which has some information on the Q3 false start, it is very good, although it doesn't mention him, just briefly states that the Shareholders pleaded with Cunard to scrap Q3 in 1961. But she does have a print of a painting done of the planned ship.

I was at the Liverpool Maritime Museum about two weeks ago looking through the Q3 archives they have there, it's mainly the tenders from the different ship yards and a few large plans, the next plan is to go to Liverpool University to look at the company admin papers and Brocklebanks papers. I very nearly have all the information together, then I need to construct it into something usuable!!!!

Online Bob C.

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #39 on: Sep 13, 2010, 08:49 PM »
Athough there are no images of Q3 in Potter and Frost's book, (QE2 - Queen Elizabeth 2: The Authorised Story 1969. London : Harrap SBN 245 5944 2)  on page 26 there's a paragraph:

Rosie,
    There is a photo of a Q3 model in the Potter and Frost book.  See posts 5 and 6 on this thread: https://www.theqe2story.com/forum/index.php/topic,525.0.html
« Last Edit: Sep 13, 2010, 08:53 PM by Bob C. »

Offline Twynkle

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #40 on: Sep 13, 2010, 09:58 PM »
Rosie,
    There is a photo of a Q3 model in the Potter and Frost book.  See posts 5 and 6 on this thread: https://www.theqe2story.com/forum/index.php/topic,525.0.html


Thank you Bob - and sincere apologies, too.

L. Gregory - When it arrives, you will find Models of Q 3 and Q4  - opposite p17 in Potter and Frost!

Online Bob C.

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #41 on: Sep 14, 2010, 01:52 AM »
No apology necessary Rosie!  That's what the forum is all about - keeping the legend alive!

Offline Lachlan

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #42 on: Sep 14, 2010, 04:15 AM »
Thanks, Flagship, I am relieved but disappointed to have my suspicion confirmed. I thought it was too good to be true to get the body line drawings of QE2. I searched everywhere for the line drawings of Oriana (1) and in the end had to draft them by superimposing deck plans using a very detailed GA I was given by a former P&O executive for elevations.

We are all aware that Oriana is part of the QE2 story because she turned out to be a sort of test bed for some of the key parameters that QE2 adopted, such as demonstrating that a large, fast twin screw design was feasible as well as confirming the benefits of aluminium construction of the superstructure. I could provide a picture of my model if anyone is interested, but this forum is pretty one-eyed QE2 so I won't go there unless there is some interest.

Does anyone know where the line drawings of QE2 might be available from?

Online Lynda Bradford

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #43 on: Sep 14, 2010, 09:29 AM »
. I could provide a picture of my model if anyone is interested, but this forum is pretty one-eyed QE2 so I won't go there unless there is some interest.

Have a look at the Sea Shanties section on the forum.  This would be an appropriate area to post a photo and more information about your Oriana model.  The main focus for the forum is the QE2 but members like to hear about other ships as well and it is always interesting to learn more about maritime history. 
I was proud to be involved with planning QE2's 50 year conference in September 2017 in Clydebank
www.qe2event.com

Online Bob C.

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #44 on: Sep 14, 2010, 04:41 PM »
Does anyone know where the line drawings of QE2 might be available from?

About 10 years ago I inquired via email at the University of Glasgow.  The archives librarian stated he had them and that they were available for copying for a nominal fee.  I never followed through but plan to reengage at some point.  Hope that helps.

Offline Twynkle

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #45 on: Oct 26, 2010, 08:03 AM »
'Shipping today and yesterday': November 2010

There's a detailed account of the 'The Q3 Project' by Ian Rae.

http://www.shippingtandy.com/


Offline Adam Hodson

  • Ocean Liner Enthusiast
  • Princess Grill Diner
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
  • Total likes: 82
  • A young photographer, and a QE2 & Concorde lover!
    • Flickr Photostream
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #46 on: Apr 25, 2014, 03:05 PM »
Whilst browsing the web today, I found a picture on the following page showing one of the Q3 designs. What I thought was very interesting, were the two funnels. They look similar to the Rotterdam's, and one was at the front acting as a mast aswell, whilst the other was midships. Just something I found interesting. :)

http://crociereuk.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/cunards-uncrowned-queen-the-q3-project/
« Last Edit: Apr 25, 2014, 05:09 PM by Adam Hodson »
"The QE2 is one of the last great transatlantic liners, and arguably the most famous liner in the world"

"QE2 and Concorde, a partnership that lasted almost 30 years... two stunning pieces of engineering, never to be forgotten!"

Offline June Ingram

  • Global Moderator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 9465
  • Total likes: 6393
  • Beautiful, elegant QE2 - forever Queen of the Seas
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #47 on: Apr 25, 2014, 06:58 PM »
Hi Adam -

Thanks for bringing this picture to our attention again. 

If QE2 had come out with this design, she would have looked similar to many other ships.

Fortunately, she did not, and hence, she is as "one of a kind" and "one of a kind" can be.  Her design is ageless and is the ultimate in grace and beauty.

June  :)
QE2 - the ship for all of time, a ship of timeless beauty !

Offline Twynkle

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #48 on: Apr 25, 2014, 07:07 PM »
Bob,

Your comments don't really tally with anything else I've read.  Q4 was really quite advanced - and a lot of Cunard regulars were upset that she was so different.

Stephen Payne, QM2's designer and lifelong QE2 fan, was absolutely clear last year when I heard him talk - QE2 always made money - lots of money.  Thats what he says.
........


Hi Rob,
No time to listen beyond 29' mins at the moment, but so far this seems to be very similar to the Lecture Dr SP gave on the crossing on board QM2 in 2012
The video belongs to the QM2 topic, however if in time I can find his comments directly relating to QE2, then they could also stay here, couldn't they?!
Cheers
Rosie

The Genesis of a Queen: Queen Mary 2

alfredop

  • Guest
a successful Q3
« Reply #49 on: Dec 07, 2014, 06:21 AM »
I know how we talk about how building Q3 would have been a disaster, maybe not, even if she wasn't designed for cruising, maybe she would have been popular, enough that if she had been built, she maybe would have been modified later on, who knows what could have been, one questions about her design, from the renderings of her, she looked like a 13 deck ship like the QE2, am I right? have her blue prints ever been released or are they tucked away somewhere never to be seen again, I thought she looked beautiful from the renderings

Offline pete cain

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #50 on: Dec 07, 2014, 07:50 PM »
Alfredo, Welcome,     It's the old story,what might've been......... we'll never know, but 40 odd years down the line we are all witness to , well you know what I mean

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #51 on: Dec 07, 2014, 08:41 PM »
I have a full set of Q3 plans but they are huge (full size).

Plans dated 30 March 1961 detail the following:

Wheelhouse Top
Navigating Bridge
Sun Deck
Boat Deck
Verandah Deck
Promenade Deck
Upper Deck
Main Deck
Foyer Deck
A Deck
B Deck
C Deck
E Deck
F Deck
G Deck and Tank Top
Double Bottom

PUBLIC ROOMS

   Sun Deck (First and Tourist)

      Tourist Sun Deck Lounge
      Tourist Deck Space
      Dog Kennels
      First and Tourist Deck Space

   Boat Deck (First and Tourist)

      Tourist Deck Space and Promenades
      Tourist Lounge (with dome)
      First Deck Space and Promenades
      Verandah Grill (180 seats)

   Verandah Deck (First, Cabin and Tourist)

      Tourist Open Deck
      Tourist Cocktail Lounge
      Tourist Synagogue
      Tourist Shops (x 2)
      Tourist Barber Shop
      Tourist Beauty Parlour
      Tourist Club Room
      Tourist Promenades
      Tourist Nursery and Crèche
      Tourist Library
      Cabin and Tourist Lecture Room
      Tourist Teenage Club
      Cabin Cocktail Lounge
      First Balcony Theatre
      Cabin and Tourist Theatre Entrance
      Cabin Hall Lounge
      Cabin Library
      Cabin Teenage Club
      Cabin Lounge
      Cabin Promenades and Deck Space

   Promenade Deck (First, Cabin and Tourist)

      First Promenades and Deck Space
      First Nursery
      First Shops (x 5)
      First News Room
First Lounge (with dome)
First Lounge Bar
Cabin and Tourist Theatre
First Private Function Room
First Library
First Writing Room
First Smoking Room
First Cocktail Lounge / Nightclub

   Upper Deck (First, Cabin and Tourist)

      First Travel Bureau
      First Pursers Office
      First Barbers Shop
      First Beauty Parlour
      First Bank
      Cabin Shops (x 2)
Cabin Nursery and Crèche
Cabin Pursers Office
Cabin Travel Bureau
Cabin Bank
Cabin Barbers Shop
Cabin Beauty Parlour
Cabin Lido Lounge
Cabin Deck Space

   Main Deck (First, Cabin and Tourist)

      First (indoor) Swimming Pool
      First Gymnasium and Female and Male Changing Rooms
      Cabin (indoor) Swimming Pool
      Cabin Gymnasium and Changing Rooms
      Cabin Launderette
      Cabin Deck Space

Foyer Deck (First, Cabin and Tourist)

   Tourist Entrance
   Tourist Pursers Office
   Tourist Travel Bureau
   Tourist Bank
   First Class Entrance
   First Dining Room Entrance
   First Health Facilities
   Cabin Entrance


A Deck (First, Cabin and Tourist)

   First Restaurant

B Deck (Cabin and Tourist)

   Tourist Entrance
   Tourist Restaurant

C Deck (Cabin and Tourist)

   Hospital
   Cabin Restaurant

D Deck

E Deck (Tourist)

   Tourist Gymnasium
   Tourist Swimming Pool
   Tourist Launderette

Public Room Notes

•   No windows in Restaurants. Each Restaurant was placed in the centre of the ship with either passenger cabins (First and Tourist) along each side or passenger cabins and crew areas (Cabin) along the sides. This was subsequently rectified as the layout for Q3 was amended during the following months. The restaurants were – for the first time – placed high in the ship; this became a major ‘first’ in the QE2 design.

•   The First Restaurant had an entrance on the deck above (Foyer) with a grand horseshow style staircase leading down into the room.

•   There was a spiral staircase on the port side forward connecting the Tourist Lounge on Boat Deck with the Tourist Club Room on Verandah Deck below.

•   No outdoor Swimming Pool – but then neither did either of the Queens until Queen Elizabeth was refitted in 1965 when she was given an extensive lido.

•   Cabin and Tourist Restaurants would share a galley with the galley being located aft of the Tourist Restaurant and above the Cabin Restaurant – escalators between the two being provided.

PASSENGER ACCOMMODATION

   First Class      750 passengers   393 cabins
   Cabin Class      644 passengers   333 cabins
   Tourist Class      904 passengers   421 cabins

2298 passengers in 1147 cabins

652 outside cabins (around 56%)
495 inside cabins (around 43%)

158 single cabins (158 passengers)
249 cabins with upper and lower berths (498 passengers)
611 two-bedded cabins (1222 passengers)
71 two bedded with Pullman berth cabins (213 passengers)
58 two bedded with ‘ex’ cabins (207 passengers)

First Class
      
DECK   OUTSIDE CABINS   INSIDE CABINS   TOTAL
Upper   99   14   113
Main   105   13   118
Foyer   72   7   79
A   64   19   83
   340   53   393

•   Deluxe Suite and Semi-Suite Rooms on Upper Deck.

•   Suite Rooms on Main Deck.

•   First Class breakdown:

85 single cabins (85 passengers)
1 cabin with upper and lower berth (2 passengers)
258 two bedded cabins (516 passengers)
24 two bedded with Pullman berth cabins (72 passengers)
25 two bedded with ‘ex’ cabins (75 passengers)

Cabin Class
      
DECK   OUTSIDE CABINS   INSIDE CABINS   TOTAL
Main   19   18   37
Foyer   25   44   69
A   26   43   69
B   91   34   125
C   21   12   33
   182   151   333

•   Cabin Class breakdown:

50 single cabins (50 passengers)
57 cabins with upper and lower berth (114 passengers)
205 two bedded cabins (410 passengers)
14 two bedded with Pullman berth cabins (42 passengers)
7 two bedded with ‘ex’ cabins (28 passengers)

Tourist Class
      
DECK   OUTSIDE CABINS   INSIDE CABINS   TOTAL
Upper   14   52   66
Main   20   78   98
Foyer   27   63   90
A   16   25   41
B   38   50   88
C   15   23   38
   130   291   421

•   Tourist cabins on C Deck without private toilet and shower.

•   Tourist Class breakdown:

23 single cabins (23 passengers)
191 cabins with upper and lower berth (382 passengers)
148 two bedded cabins (296 passengers)
33 two bedded with Pullman berth cabins (99 passengers)
26 two bedded with ‘ex’ cabins (104 passengers)

Cabin Notes

•   81 cabins (175 passengers) were interchangeable between First and Cabin on Upper, Main, Foyer and A Decks.

•   103 cabins (205 passengers) were interchangeable between Cabin and Tourist on B and C Decks.

CREW

1298 crew

      Deck Dept      111
      Engine      191
      Pursers      66
      Medical      13
                Catering      917

Crew Notes

•   Captain’s and Staff Captain’s cabins located directly below the Wheelhouse on Sun Deck.

•   Officer’s Lounge forward on Sun Deck.

•   Officer’s and Engineering Officer’s cabins located in blocks forward on Boat, Verandah and Promenade Decks.

•   Crew cabins on Foyer, A, B, C and D Decks.

•   Crew facilities on Foyer, A, B, C and D Decks.

Misc. Notes

•   Car Transporter facilities onto A Deck forward with cars stowed on E Deck forward.

TOTAL BERTHS (Passenger and Crew): 3596 (excluding cots)



Offline Isabelle Prondzynski

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #52 on: Dec 07, 2014, 09:01 PM »
Thank you so much for all these details, Michael!

Extraordinary that the ship was developed so far, and then let go... all those plans must have been quite an investment.

alfredop

  • Guest
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #53 on: Dec 08, 2014, 06:08 AM »
do we know anything about her power plant, boilers,power, so on?  were QE2's powerplant similar to Q3

Offline Greg Rudd

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #54 on: Aug 03, 2016, 06:35 AM »
More to the point I think that the inspiration for the QE2's power plant came from the Canberra and the Oriana. The Canberra got by with 3 Foster-Wheeler ESD-1 boilers abit scaled down While the Oriana had 2 Parmenda turbines whether they were significantly beefed up from those used in the Oriana I will defer to the experts.

Offline Trevor Harris

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #55 on: Oct 08, 2017, 03:32 AM »
I found this in Carol Thatchers book "QE2: 40 years famous"

How very similar yet so very different this looks compared to QE2.
« Last Edit: Jun 26, 2021, 02:12 AM by Trevor Casey »
Enjoyer of classic cinema, literature, and music.

Offline Brandon Sterkel

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #56 on: Oct 08, 2017, 07:49 AM »
Found this..
Saw a picture of this vessel a couple years ago. When I first saw it, the one thing that caught my attention the most was the funnel.
Queen Elizabeth 2: A 50 Year Legend!

Online Bob C.

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #57 on: Oct 08, 2017, 09:42 AM »
Found this..

Where did you find it?

Offline Trevor Harris

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #58 on: Oct 08, 2017, 03:02 PM »
Where did you find it?
QE2: 40 years famous, by Carol Thatcher.

This actually looks really looks like QE2!
Enjoyer of classic cinema, literature, and music.

Offline Trevor Harris

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #59 on: Nov 29, 2017, 07:37 PM »
Found this..
While inspecting further I noticed that it looks like there was some inspiration taken from Canberra’s bow, such as the bow badge.
« Last Edit: Jun 26, 2021, 02:11 AM by Trevor Casey »
Enjoyer of classic cinema, literature, and music.

Offline Michael Gallagher

Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #60 on: Nov 17, 2019, 12:20 PM »
An exclusive for the Forum - the General Arrangement plans for Q3!
« Last Edit: Feb 24, 2021, 11:22 AM by Rob Lightbody »

Offline Thomas Hypher

  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2870
  • Total likes: 5555
  • QE2 started a dream to go to sea - now a reality!
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #61 on: Nov 17, 2019, 01:54 PM »
Thank you for posting the general arrangement plans here, Michael! I saw these yesterday during Richard De Kerbrech's and David Williams's talk on liners and cruise ships that never were at the OLS Ship Show (an expanded version of the same talk they gave during the Liner's Study Day back in March at Seacity museum also in Southampton). You were mentioned several times during their talk and I think during Bruce Peter's talk too as the source of a lot of the Q3 information :) . It was good to see more variants of Q3, both before and after James Gardner was brought onboard with the project. The final variant, just before Cunard's rethink, looking a lot more like QE2, and dare I say even more of a departure from tradition even than QE2 in exterior styling. James Gardner's cartoons were great to see during Bruce Peter's talk, humorously illustrating the problem of smuts on the deck for example.
First sailed on QE2 in August 2003 aged 6 years old. Last sailed on QE2 in July 2008. Last saw the seagoing QE2 in person from the decks of QM2, on QE2's last Transatlantic crossing (Eastbound tandem) in October 2008. Visited QE2 in her new life, in Dubai, in January 2020 and August 2022.

Online Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 12287
  • Total likes: 15726
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: QE2's 1961 False Start - 'Q3'
« Reply #62 on: Nov 17, 2019, 04:13 PM »
Wow
Wow
Wow!

Thank you so much Michael.

I have taken the liberty of attaching the first 4 of your attachments in the more accessible PNG format.

Imagine if someone could take the plans, and generate 3D walkthroughs of them...

You can see how revolutionary Q4 was when you look at these, and how right they were.
« Last Edit: Nov 17, 2019, 04:24 PM by Rob Lightbody »
Passionate about QE2's service life for 40 years and creator of this website.  I have worked in IT for 28 years and created my personal QE2 website in 1994.

 

QE2s Captain Chair for sale...

Started by cunardqueenBoard Miscellaneous QE2

Replies: 1
Views: 1468
Last post Sep 24, 2016, 10:45 PM
by Pete Hamill
Were QE2s propellers the most powerful in the world?

Started by Rob LightbodyBoard Technical Matters

Replies: 8
Views: 2720
Last post Oct 13, 2018, 10:57 AM
by Rob Lightbody