Shipyard Numbers allocated to ships

[Thomas Hypher]

Yes around the same time.  QE2 left the fitting out basin in November 1968 a year before Kyoto Forest was launched.

736 QE2
737 Orion Jack up Rig
738 Queen Elizabeth (refit)
739 Guftide Jack up Rig
740 Volnay
741 Vancouver Forest
742 Kyoto Forest

Is Yard Number 738 for the original Queen Elizabeth (Yard Number 552 from memory?), for any work during her time in Florida by John Brown's employees? I don't think she'd been sold to C.Y. Tung by that point, and I think her last Cunard crew under Geoffrey Marr had left her in the static role by then, having kept her running for some months before turning her over to a local US crew. Perhaps John Brown's employees served in an advisory capacity too? Having said that, by the time C.Y. Tung acquired her she was in bad mechanical shape which I'd imagine John Brown's wouldn't have let happen if they were indeed involved with her in some way beforehand but after her service with Cunard.

[Lynda Bradford]

Is Yard Number 738 for the original Queen Elizabeth (Yard Number 552 from memory?) ......

You are right Thomas the Yard number 738 was for conversion work on the original RMS Queen Elizabeth (552).  However the conversion work, by John Brown's workforce that was completed in March 1966,  was carried out at Inchgreen Drydock and you can read more on the Queen Elizabeth Inchgreen Drydock topic

[Peter Mugridge]

The discussion about 738 / 552 may need a new topic; was it standard practice to issue a new yard number for a major refit, or was there sufficient conversion work taking place that she was effectively a different ship, in which case I imagine the issuing of 738 was to ensure the relevant drawings etc were not muddled up with the originals?

[Lynda Bradford]

The discussion about 738 / 552 may need a new topic; was it standard practice to issue a new yard number for a major refit, or was there sufficient conversion work taking place that she was effectively a different ship, in which case I imagine the issuing of 738 was to ensure the relevant drawings etc were not muddled up with the originals?

A very interesting question, I don't know the answer, but I have written to Ian Johnston, the author of Building Ships for a nation to ask if he can answer your question.  I have also asked about the work done on RMS Queen Elizabeth after WWII as I cannot find a refit number, but as she was incomplete when she left the shipyard at the start of the war, the original number may have been used. 

Thanks for your question and yes I will keep an eye on discussion and split the topic as necessary.

[Peter Mugridge]

I will await the answer with interest; it would be even more intriguing if it turns out that was the only time a new number was issued as well.

[Lynda Bradford]

I will await the answer with interest; it would be even more intriguing if it turns out that was the only time a new number was issued as well.

Thanks Peter, I have received the following response from Ian Johnston:

"I think that ship numbers were more like job numbers. Major refits attracted a new number. If you look back to the period immediately before QE2 you will see that 724 and 725 were also conversions which might also be termed refits.

You are correct about QE, she was not given a new number for her refit after WW2 as she was never completed in the first instance but pressed into service as a trooper in 1940.

738 was given to QE in 1966 because it was a major refit. JB had all the original drawings and know-how so were obvious candidates for the work but it was out to competitive tender and they had to bid for it."

PS I have created a new topic so as to continue discussion on shipyard numbers.

[Peter Mugridge]

Extremely interesting; so if a refit is substantially physically different from the original then it would get a new hull number?  Is this a worldwide practice?

One obvious example springs to mind: A number of ships have been stretched with new hull sections inserted.

[Lynda Bradford]

Extremely interesting; so if a refit is substantially physically different from the original then it would get a new hull number?  Is this a worldwide practice?

One obvious example springs to mind: A number of ships have been stretched with new hull sections inserted.

What I have quoted is from John Brown's list of shipyard number from Ian Johnston's book. But certainly interested to learn more and to find out what "job numbers" were given to QE2 when she had the re-engining refit or other major refits.

In Ian's response to my email, he mentions the conversion of these two Cunard ships for cruising:

"I think that ship numbers were more like job numbers. Major refits attracted a new number. If you look back to the period immediately before QE2 you will see that 724 and 725 were also conversions which might also be termed refits.

724 conversion of Carmania (ex Saxonia 692) trials were completed 30/3/1963
725 conversion of Franconia (ex Ivernia 693) trials completed 25/5/1963
Source: Ships for a Nation, Ian Johnston