There seem to have been several sub-classes in this overall class of ships. The information I've got is drawn from the Mayes 'Cruise Ships' which gives good facts & figures but not much of the background.

As far as I can make it out, the first three ships were:
Grand Princess, 1998, 108806 tons, 2592/3100 passengers;
Golden Princess, 2001, 108865 tons, 2600/3100 passengers; and
Star Princess, 2002, 108977 tons, 2600/3300 passengers.

Obviously there are some really detailed differences there but they look to be very close to identical.

Then came:
Caribbean Princess, 2004, 112894 tons, 3114/3796 passengers!
They certainly pack 'em in on that one... and interestingly this is the one that was apparently due for P&O but reassigned (after the Carnival takeover?) I'm struck, though, by the much greater passenger figures. The second figure I can understand - that represents a greater number of cabins having additional capacity, which is a management decision rather than an architectural one. But the jump from around 2600 passengers at normal capacity to over 3000 is significant. How was this achieved? Does Caribbean Princess have an extra deck somewhere?

Next were the two Japanese-built ships:
Diamond Princess, 2004, 115875 tons, 2674/3290 passengers;
Sapphire Princess, 2004, 115875 tons, 2674/3290 passengers.
So these two are identical, and represent a reversion to the original passenger capacity, even though slightly higher tonnage.....

Next came:
Crown Princess, 2006, 113651 tons, 2592/3599 passengers;
Emerald Princess, 2007, 113651 tons, 2592/3599 passengers.
Again an identical pair, with interesting passenger numbers: back to the original number for normal load, but obviously a high proportion of cabins with 'additional capacity'.

I ought to consider a few more ships:
Ventura, 2008, 113651 tons, 2592/3599 passengers - the same as the last two Princess ships;
Princess newbuilding 1, 2008, c112500 tons, 2598/3599 passengers - pretty similar.

And finally:
P&O Newbuilding 2, 2010, 116000 tons, 3076/3600 passengers - more like Caribbean Princess than anything more recent.

The original and very distinctive 'Skywalker Disco' perched up high on the stern (supported by two columns) was dropped to the deck on later designs.

I understand that the motion of the ship had caused stress-cracks in the columns. Although the high level disco looked very exciting externally, internally it was rather small and a bit cramped in my opinion.

This certainly explains one major change in the external appearance.

[ 02-03-2008: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

It's not only the Grand Class that has gone through these changes, but the Vista and Destiny Class as well. Each has been modified time and time again.

"Original" Golden Princess

Carribean Princess with one more deck of cabins

Newer Emerald Princess also with the extra deck.

[ 02-03-2008: Message edited by: Thad ]

as you can see the extra deck accounts for most differences in numbers
the facts of Emerald and Crown are not correct though, they are similar to Caribbean Princess

and apart from the extra deck change the re-location from the skywalker disco is another major
change

both Sapphire and Diamond do in a certain
way not belong to the Grand class, although there are similarities, they were build in Japan by Mitsubishi

I can see now that the first three (Grand, Golden & Star) and the Japanese pair (Sapphire & Diamond) have 13 decks: Sky, Sports, Sun, Ldo, Aloha, Baja, Caribe, Dolphin, Emerald, Promenade, Fiesta, Plaza & Gala. The others (Caribbean, Crown, Emerald, the forthcoming Ruby and P&O's Ventura) have 15 decks: there's a new deck right at the top of the ship called 'Star' (Cirque in Ventura's case) and an accomodation deck, the Riviera deck, between Lido and Aloha. This would certainly explain the increase in capacity.

In addition, of course, there are also 'topsides' differences: the first three (only) have the 'handle', all the others have some different arrangement of that topmost entertainment space.

Thank once again for the hints.

This was cleverly achieved by having smaller public rooms, especially three main dining rooms, rather than just having one big (although impressive) one, like many modern ships.

I must admit that I found the decor to be a bit unimaginative, almost like bits of every cruise ship I'd ever seen mixed with a good helping of 'bland'. I can't comment on the cruise experience.

I wonder if they all have the same interior layout - probably?

[ 02-03-2008: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Burke:

Has anyone been on one or more of these ships? The inference I draw from the capacities is that Grand, Golden & Star ought to feel more spacious than the later ships.

---

I've sailed on GOLDEN PRINCESS and the new CROWN PRINCESS. Yes, the CROWN PRINCESS felt more crowded, essentially because 500 more passengers are sharing the same public space. This being said, it still wasn't too bad and still more spacious than the Destiny Class.

This being said, the Grand Class is not a favorite design of mine, but from an interior perspective the changes done to CROWN PRINCESS were an improvement.

[ 02-04-2008: Message edited by: BigUFan ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Burke:
Then came:
Caribbean Princess, 2004, 112894 tons, 3114/3796 passengers!

Next came:
Crown Princess, 2006, 113651 tons, 2592/3599 passengers;
Emerald Princess, 2007, 113651 tons, 2592/3599 passengers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Waynaro:
Seeing both "sub-classes" had an extra deck, how did they squeeze more cabins in CARIBBEAN PRINCESS? I would assume there is less crew cabins.

---

quote:

---

The information Tom posted is not correct (though I have seen it a number of times).

---

Yes, I agree that the figures in my first post are wrong. But my excuse is that I copied them out of the William Mayes 'Cruise Ships' book (and the new edition at that), so they're wrong there.

Now for the 'look and feel' of the ships:

quote:

---

It's not just the first three that have the 'handle'; CARIBBEAN PRINCESS has got one also.

---

Yes, agreed, thank you for the correction.

Malcolm said:

quote:

---

The original and very distinctive 'Skywalker Disco' perched up high on the stern (supported by two columns) was dropped to the deck on later designs.

I understand that the motion of the ship had caused stress-cracks in the columns. Although the high level disco looked very exciting externally, internally it was rather small and a bit cramped in my opinion.

This certainly explains one major change in the external appearance.

---

quote:

---

Malcolm said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original and very distinctive 'Skywalker Disco' perched up high on the stern (supported by two columns) was dropped to the deck on later designs.
I understand that the motion of the ship had caused stress-cracks in the columns. Although the high level disco looked very exciting externally, internally it was rather small and a bit cramped in my opinion.

This certainly explains one major change in the external appearance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:
Thise figures are everywhere Tom and quoted by Princess, so maybe they don't even know themselve.

---

The handlebar is definitely distinctive but I have seen photos of the area in shade and it doesn't look that great.

quote:

---

Originally posted by reeves35:
I understood the removal of the handle-bar related to shade issues over the rear pool with many pax believing the area to be cold and uninviting when in shade.

The handlebar is definitely distinctive but I have seen photos of the area in shade and it doesn't look that great. Brad

---

Like this:

First there was the basic Grand class consisting of Grand Princess, Golden Princess and Star Princess, introduced between 1998 and 2002. These ships each had 6 passenger decks (Aloha, Baja, Caribe, Dolphin, Emerald, and part of Plaza). Basic passenger capacity was around 2600, and they all had a 'trolley handle' right at the stern.

Then came Caribbean Princess, which had an extra passenger deck (Fiesta, just under the Lido deck) and thus had a basic capacity of around 3100 passengers. This ship also had a trolley handle. This ship was introduced in 2004.

Also in 2004 came a different revision to the class, with the arrival of the Japanese-built Diamond & Sapphire Princesses. These had the same deck configuration as the original three ships, but did not have the trolly handle; instead, the top-most levels was more conventionally-mounted and was forward of the stern. Among other benefits, this certainly opened up the aft swimming pool to the sun and air. Passenger capacity is between 2600 and 2700.

Further ships were delivered (Crown and Emerald Princess so far, with Ruby Princess in late 2008) that combine features of both previous variants: these ships have the extra deck similar to that on Caribbean Princess, but (like Sapphire & Diamond) do not have the trolley handle. Unlike Sapphire & Diamond, however, they do not have the 'jet engine' alongside the funnel. Their normal capacity is just over 3000 passengers.

And finally, Ventura will be a very close sister to Crown/Emerald/Ruby, with the extra deck, no trolley handle or jets! She will, however, have detailed differences in her public rooms to accommodate British tastes. Her normal capacity will also be just over 3000 passengers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:
...I was very surprises when Princess took the lead with the ‘Grand Princess’ in the world’s ‘biggest cruise ship’ competition. I think ‘Carnival Destiny’ held it up until then?

---

It also had the biggest purpose-built cruise ship from November 1984 to June 1985 with ROYAL PRINCESS.

GRAND PRINCESS was, admittedly, a fairly slight size increase compared to CARNIVAL DESTINY, which was a major change from SUN PRINCESS.

It is interesting to note the way modern cruise ships have grown starting with the first modern purpose-built cruise ship:

18,416 GRT - SONG OF NORWAY - Oct 1970
19,903 GRT - SEA VENTURE - May 1971 (20,186 GT)
19,907 GRT - ISLAND VENTURE - Jan 1972 (20,216 GT)
21,847 GRT - ROYAL VIKING STAR - Jun 1972
24,292 GRT - VISTAFJORD - May 1973 (24,492 GT)
33,819 GRT - EUROPA - Dec 1981 (37,301 GT)
37,584 GRT - SONG OF AMERICA - Nov 1982 (37,773 GT)
38,876 GRT - FAIRSKY - Apr 1984 (46,087 GT)
44,348 GT - ROYAL PRINCESS - Nov 1984
46,052 GT - HOLIDAY - Jun 1985
47,262 GT - JUBILEE - Jun 1986
47,262 GT (tie) - CELEBRATION - Feb 1987
66,343 GRT - FRANCE/NORWAY - largest passenger ship from Jan 1972 to Dec 1987
73,192 GT - SOVEREIGN OF THE SEAS - Dec 1987
73,937 GT - MONARCH OF THE SEAS - Oct 1991
73,941 GT - MAJESTY OF THE SEAS - Mar 1992
76,049 GT - NORWAY - largest passenger ship from Oct 1990 to Dec 1995
77,441 GT - SUN PRINCESS - Dec 1995
83,673 GRT - QUEEN ELIZABETH/SEAWISE UNIVERSITY - largest passenger ship from Feb 1940 to Jan 1972, largest ever to Oct 1996
101,353 GT - CARNIVAL DESTINY - Oct 1996
108,806 GT - GRAND PRINCESS - May 1998
137,276 GT - VOYAGER OF THE SEAS - Nov 1999
137,308 GT - EXPLORER OF THE SEAS - Sep 2000
138,279 GT - NAVIGATOR OF THE SEAS - Nov 2002
138,279 GT (tie) - MARINER OF THE SEAS - Oct 2003
148,258 GT - QUEEN MARY 2 - largest passenger ship from Dec 2003 to Apr 2006
154,407 GT - FREEDOM OF THE SEAS - Apr 2006
154,407 GT (tie) LIBERTY OF THE SEAS - Apr 2007

Note that the ships before ROYAL PRINCESS - with tonnage in 'GRT' rather than 'GT' - are difficult to objectively compare since the measurement standards for GRT depended on where the ship was registered. This is why TROPICALE is not listed, as she was originally registered at 22,919 GRT, and hence was officially smaller than VISTAFJORD, when in fact she was really much larger - as PACIFIC STAR she is now 35,144 GT whereas SAGA RUBY (ex VISTAFJORD) is 24,492 GT. For the other ships listed in GRT, their current tonnage in GT is also listed (except SONG OF NORWAY and ROYAL VIKING STAR where it is pointless since they have been stretched). Note that none was remotely as far off as TROPICALE's!

On the other hand, ROYAL PRINCESS might not be on the list at all had FAIRSKY used the same measuring system as her. And - while nobody ever seems to say so - it is certainly possible that SOVEREIGN OF THE SEAS would never have been 'bigger than NORWAY' had NORWAY been remeasured before 1987. While the larger tonnage that put NORWAY back in the top spot does reflect extra decks, part (most?) of the huge difference is almost certainly attributable to the different measurement system.

Some will also quibble at the inclusion of VISTAFJORD on the list as 'not a purpose built cruise ship' but as far as I am aware, NAL had ended its passenger liner services before ordering VISTAFJORD, so she was effectively one. If she is not considered one, TROPICALE would make it to the list.

QUEEN ELIZABETH, FRANCE, NORWAY and QM2 are included for reference, even though not purpose-built cruise ships.