QE2 No Longer "British"

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

[Shipaddict]

With respect, it is a long time since it was really a liner (then along came Boeing with their 'nasty' 707 then 'nastier' 747 and liners were finished). It has done a lot more cruising than its limited Transatlantic crossings for most of its 'life'.

QM2 is a cruise ship as well- look at cunard website for details. I know they CALL it a liner, but you could CALL it a sausage roll, but that wouldn't make it so.

I know how easy it is to get sentimental about a ship (that most people here probably haven't even seen, let alone travelled on) but why THIS one? Where was everyone when they scrapped Canberra (look at their comparative histories... both were 1982 troop carriers, but only one was allowed into action zone. Then look at the engineering differences in design- Canberra was built to be adaptable to changing uses, QE2 wasn't. Look at the overall design- the marine architecture was heavily influenced by Canberra- recessed life boats, raked stern decks- a far more efficient steam turbine set)
I remember when they talked of getting rid of the London Routemaster bus... "noooo they all wailed. It's sooo British" etc... But no one bothered to actually ask those who used them.

Whilst I *DO* agree with you to an extent, do you think RC/PO/CL etc would spend millions building extra facilities if passengers didn't want them.  Remember that apart from being of interest to you they DO need to carry passengers to earn money...

With respect, not many ships could carry on through big storms in the middle of the Atlantic like QM2 can, most would have to slow right down, she however can carry on heading through it.

And of course it needs some cruise ship qualities or features people want that however look at documentaries etc on the ship instead of perhaps basing it JUST off the Cunard website.

QE2 was built for liner service aswell as doubling up as a cruise ship. I'm sure you understand that the cruise industry has changed since the 1960s...

[Stuart2007]

With (some) respect 

ALL ships will have to slow down for storms- even QM2/QE2 etc etc

The cruise industry has not really changed- it's still a means for people to meander from place to place as a holiday (although there is more emphasis now on the ship than the ports). Liners are point-to-point means of transporting people on scheduled runs.

It was called a liner so it can (or because of) its RMS prefix. I don't know if it will carry any cargo at all, but if so it will be minimal, but would you REALLY call it a Royal Mail Steamer? (Royal Mail Diesel???)

[Shipaddict]

With... we won't go there...

I'm sure you'll agree that QM2 would ride a storm much better than this:

http://www.cruiseweb.nl/images/dwarsdoorsnede/Ventura.jpg

However I do not wish to take this further and get into a petty flame war over different opinions...

Kind Regards,
Mike

[Stuart2007]

However I do not wish to take this further and get into a petty flame war over different opinions...

Mike, not at all... I don't even remotely consider this a flame war at all (and I hope no one else has the intent on turning it into one). Just a mere difference of opinions, which is being discussed in a mature and adult way.

Besides: I'M right and YOU'RE wrong! 

[Shipaddict]

Besides: I'M right and YOU'RE wrong! 

Hehe, still on the subject of opinions.

[Stuart2007]

Hehe, still on the subject of opinions.

If I'm being honest, and this is my opinion but I'm NOT trying to antagonise anyone, I think it would have been better to scrap QE2 or sink it in the Atlantic as an artificial reef for fish.

Instead of what Dubai had planned for it- chopping in half, adding bits here, losing bits there. Removing anything remotely ship like (engines etc) and then letting it sit in port for years...

It would have been better if it had been kept in Britain (Or USA- NY port) where it was seen before.

<b>EDIT:</b> I've just measured my trailer and QE2 won't fit behind my car. So I'm stuck with my sailing boat 

[Shipaddict]

In many respects I agree with you there, it would have been much nicer to keep her in the UK or US. However I guess thing don't always turn out as people want.

<b>EDIT:</b> I've just measured my trailer and QE2 won't fit behind my car. So I'm stuck with my sailing boat  

You'll have to make do for now

[IRI5HJ4CK]

My opinion on this, is that, QE2 has a sentimental value that other ships may not have. She represents the last of her kind, both, for UK Engineering, and for Ocean Liners.

Some people would maybe look at QE2 as being just another ship - But, the difference is, QE2 Was one of the only ships left that could represent the United Kingdom. Most other ships are built abroad now, on the cheap. Because of this, Britain has no Ship Building industry anymore - Britain, Is broke.

Personally, I believe that QE2, for some, was the last real representation of when the times were good in Britain. Alas, no longer.

QE2 should have stayed in Britain...I think....Sending it off to another country angered quite a few people....

Jack.

[Stuart2007]

There is the moral that it was a British company that ordered a British yard (sorry to any Scots offended by that notion) to make the British ship.

Then it became an American company that would buy from wherever was cheapest.

Surely British people can't be the only people in the world to sell off all the family china and then wonder why there's no cups to drink from!

[Nathan|C]

Then it became an American company that would buy from wherever was cheapest.

Do you mean they ordered ships from the cheapest yards? If so, I dont think so, for QM2 at least, the shipbuilders had to bid to build the QM2, or so I think 

[Stuart2007]

BID to build... You mean bid to build with the LOWEST prices!

[The Ferry Man]

But by the time the QM2 was ordered, there were no more British Sjipyards, especially for something as large as the QM2.

Also the St Nazaire Shipyards is one of the best.

[Stuart2007]

errr... yes.  But all the British shipping companies were sold out LONG before QM2 was ordered, so what, TFM, is your point?

Had British fleets looked after the British ship yards before, then maybe there would still be some now that COULD bolt together a boat like QM2.

I don't doubt St. Nazaire is one of the finest; the French have a long tradition of building good ships- but so did Britain once.

[The Ferry Man]

There is the moral that it was a British company that ordered a British yard (sorry to any Scots offended by that notion) to make the British ship.

Then it became an American company that would buy from wherever was cheapest.

Surely British people can't be the only people in the world to sell off all the family china and then wonder why there's no cups to drink from!

Answering this Post Stu.

there wasn't a British Yard. So they chose one of the best yards

[Stuart2007]

I'm sorry, TFM. I didn't make my point very clear... What I mean is that the rot in British manufacturing happened a LONG time before QM2.

British companies embraced the free market and it has cost the Country dearly in the longer term. Other Countries use protectionism (don't believe the denials- there are plenty of examples).

You are right that Britain can not make big ships (or even smaller (non-Naval, anyway) vessels) now. The problem was the lack of support of other companies in the Country- this can be traced back to the end of WW2, but mostly in the 1970s onwards.

Although one has to admit that the British employee unions had their hand in destroying industry, but that IS a topic likely to end in flames

[Kevinmcg_ships]

I'm sorry, TFM. I didn't make my point very clear... What I mean is that the rot in British manufacturing happened a LONG time before QM2.

British companies embraced the free market and it has cost the Country dearly in the longer term. Other Countries use protectionism (don't believe the denials- there are plenty of examples).

You are right that Britain can not make big ships (or even smaller (non-Naval, anyway) vessels) now. The problem was the lack of support of other companies in the Country- this can be traced back to the end of WW2, but mostly in the 1970s onwards.

Although one has to admit that the British employee unions had their hand in destroying industry, but that IS a topic likely to end in flames

Another factor is the European Union's free market directive, which insist that any tender work over a certain amount (EUR 250,000 I believe) must go out on competitive bidders, plus the spineless, pathetic British politicans who don't have the guts to tell the EU where to shove off. It has really harmed our shipbuilding industry badly.

In the last 5 years the commercial shipyard at Port Glasgow (who built RED EAGLE and her 2 other sisters) has lost out on several Caledonian MacBrayne ferry orders to Poland, because they were able to significantly undercut the British bid, despite complaints that Polish shipyards were allegedly receiving State aid. (the British shipyard receives no State aid at all; in doing so would have breached the EU anti-competition laws!!!)

The Port Glasgow shipyard even lost out on an order (again to Poland) to build a fishery protection vessel for the Scottish Government.   You just couldn't make that up!

To rub in our wounds, the Caledonian MacBrayne ferries are also owned by the Scottish Government (i.e. WE paid for the ferries with our taxes!) and these orders would have kept the local shipyard workers off the dole. It would seem that our politicans prefer to have our highly-skilled workforce working in a call centre or in a supermarket, stacking the shelves.

Just my opinion on the sorry state that we call the (not so) Great Britain.  

[Traddles]

It is not only British shipbuilders who have suffered because of the lack of political support. British shipping companies suffered many years ago in the same way. As far back as 1978 I was on a British general cago ship loading in East African ports for Avonmouth, Dublin, Liverpool and Manchester. We actually were able to collect just over 1000 tonnes of cargo, wheras a Russian ship loading for exactly the same ports had a full cargo and sailed for UK loaded down to her marks. The Russian government (USSR at that time) subsidised the freight rates such that they could undercut British ships by a vast amount. Naturally the shippers went for the lower prices. Liverpool shipping companies were once the pride of our Country, almost too many of them to list by name, but now there are virtually none of them left.
Sadly though, the main reason for the demise of the vast British merchant navy was the end of the British Empire. Once all those countries which were part of the Empire became self governing many of them built up their own fleets. Countries which had never had their own ships, such as the countries of the Middle East, also built large fleets using their oil revenues to finance them.  Now the British merchant fleet is tiny and virtually defunct. Flags of convenience, such as Panama and Liberia also eroded things with their lower standards of safety and equipment.

[Stuart2007]

Traddles is- as usual- quite right and has put a lot more detail into it. I suppose if one takes his point that a shipping company is trying to survive against foreign operators, it will buy the cheapest ships.

It rather reminds me of a local farmer once complaining about supermarkets buying foreign meat and crops 'forcing his prices down' and preventing him from making a living... right just before he drove off in his Mitsubishi Shogun. How do I explain to him that the British workers who worked in factories making cars can no longer afford to buy his British farm produce as they are all out of work thanks to foreign car imports.

The above is over-simplified but when one takes out all the superflouos detail, that is what you are left with, chaps.

*** Sorry that this has gone a bit off topic. I don't fancy suggesting a new topic about 'protectionism' or 'appaling government management of Britain:' (or many other former 1st world countries)


EDIT:

Sadly though, the main reason for the demise of the vast British merchant navy was the end of the British Empire.

I have a solution to the above, Traddles, but I doubt many people around the world would like it... 

[alexalan2]

The QE2  was a bench mark of what britan could do in the more powerful days when money grew on trees and coins were in the grass. many people would rather go on hte QE2 than some other cheap rubbish made in the same rubbish as some 4 year olds bath toys. if you asked mre the QE2 could have lasted 50 years in serivce.to us british folk the QE2 was more than some cruise liner it was a pride to the nation. if you ask me when ship sim 2010 comes out it should be a special ship. it was the classyest ship ever (maybe not next to the QM2) but still beats most ships for class nowadays

[Stuart2007]

Alex,

I disagree with you. I say this not to provoke an arguement or anything of the sort. I agree that more people have something for the QE2 than who do not.

OK, so it is an old ship, built at the sunset of an old era... But as the ship was old in terms of its features, it lacked the onboard facilities of modern 'bath toys' as you call them .

It is like a Routemaster bus or a steam train. People like to look at them and think back to a time when... But in reality, its time had come. I am not a maritime expert (others here are) but there are issues with the age there too.

Personally though, if it was not to be moored in Britain, I'd have preferred a a visit to alang, or a diving reef than leave it moored to rust, like the QM1, SS US et al... chopping it in half to stick a new section in? Now THAT is sacrilige.