But it look as if P&O Australia always have something. Much more thene other lines even mother P&O have not much problems recent years.
Correct me if i'm wrong.

The P & O ss Oriana cruised these waters year round for about ten years and we never had any delays or problems with the weather.

They do not build ships like her these days !

Neil ( Bob )

[ 07-31-2008: Message edited by: Neil Whitmore ( Bob ) ]

So if you had a wish list, of today's crop of modern cruise liners, which ones would be best qualified to operate comfortably in the South Pacific (besides QM2!)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linerrich:
[...] Of course in previous decades, most all passenger ships were built to handle such seas, but almost none these days.[...]

---

It was only in July 2007 that the Pacific Star got battered and damaged in a storm off of Vila and had her cruise terminated.

She returned empty from Vila to the dry docks at Brisbane for repairs.

Twelve months later you get a repeat of a P & O Australia cruises ship getting battered by bad weather in much the same area.

It seems P & O Australia need to re-think their winter schedules for ships cruising from Australia and New Zealand.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Whitmore ( Bob ):
Hi

It was only in July 2007 that the Pacific Star got battered and damaged in a storm off of Vila and had her cruise terminated.

She returned empty from Vila to the dry docks at Brisbane for repairs.

Twelve months later you get a repeat of a P & O Australia cruises ship getting battered by bad weather in much the same area.

It seems P & O Australia need to re-think their winter schedules for ships cruising from Australia and New Zealand.

Neil ( Bob )

---

I'm sure P&O will be very well aware of the weather conditions in the area. It is the sea-keeping qualities of the specific ship which makes all the difference. As JUBILEE, PACIFIC SUN was built for gentle Caribbean cruising!

With the same thing happening two years running I can not see this will encourage passengers on to the P & O Australia cruise ships during their winter months.

I am inclinded to agree with Mike SA that they need to think about cruising to Bali around July and August where the weather should be better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linerrich:
Of course in previous decades, most all passenger ships were built to handle such seas, but almost none these days.

---

Makes me wonder how often the tss Fairstar (which cruised those waters for years) was damaged in bad weather. Of course she was designed and built to handle rough weather on her original transoceanic schedule. Interesting how we had'nt heard of any storm damage to Oriana (1960) during her years in those waters-unless they simply were'nt reported.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linerrich:
Of course in previous decades, most all passenger ships were built to handle such seas, but almost none these days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ahrpd:

[...] It is the sea-keeping qualities of the specific ship which makes all the difference. As JUBILEE, PACIFIC SUN was built for gentle Caribbean cruising!

Tony

---

I have known Fairstar to have problems when she was on Australian cruises.

On one trip she sailed out from Brisbane and due to the rough seas had to return to port.

When she was converted from a British troopship it was said that she was inclined to be top heavy and rolled a lot !

The ss Oriana was fitted with a satallite weather plotter and with this in use it was not often we had a bumpy ride when she was based in Sydney for nearly ten years.

Her schedules were such that if we slowed down for inclement weather she could soon make the time up again to arrive in port on schedule.

Being a well built British ship she substained no storm damage while based in Australia and went on to last for nearly another 20 years before being torn off her berth during a typhoon and damaged when at Dalain in China.

Neil ( Bob )

[ 07-31-2008: Message edited by: Neil Whitmore ( Bob ) ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:

Also ship with better sea-keeping abilities can encounter such severe events like suddenly rolling to an extreme angle when hit by a very large wave coming from an unfavorable direction.
Also - to make this clear - even ships built for the Caribbean are able to and actually have to be able to sustain rough conditions like any other modern cruise ship. (there are of course more and less comfortable ships but the ships 'themselves' can take very, very bad weather)

---

My own unsceintific take is that ocean liners or ships with banana shaped hulls have more gentle movements like a waterbed. Modern boxboats tend to kick and jiggle like riding in a motorcoach.

Ernst, can the Pacific Dawn take a 90' tidal wave like the SS Rotterdam did in 1986?

Grand Dame swung 45^ in one direction, 90^ opposite then righted.

[ 07-31-2008: Message edited by: Ernst ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:
I do not know what happened in 1986 when Rotterdam was hit by a large wave (probably not a tidal wave ) and a detailed comparison of these two ships would require A LOT of efforts and certainly is beyond my scope.
Nevertheless, in general modern passenger ships are 'more stable' than older ships. (which indeed can also be a problem) Therefore I tend to say that it is very, very likely that she would have survived the same incident that Rotterdam survived.

[ 07-31-2008: Message edited by: Ernst ]

---

Gerry had mentioned that on top of stability, liners have more robust and redundant systems due to more ocean stresses and being far from land on a crossing. Her strong backbone prevented an open plaza Kings Court. This is why she is so broken up and leads me to believe that QM2's layout is complicated due to all of the structure and extra sub-divisions?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Whitmore ( Bob ):
Hi
It was only in July 2007 that the Pacific Star got battered and damaged in a storm off of Vila and had her cruise terminated.
She returned empty from Vila to the dry docks at Brisbane for repairs.
Twelve months later you get a repeat of a P & O Australia cruises ship getting battered by bad weather in much the same area.
It seems P & O Australia need to re-think their winter schedules for ships cruising from Australia and New Zealand.
Neil ( Bob )

---

Looks like they have thought about it.
Bookings are now open for next years winter cruising from Auckland on Pacific Sun.

quote:

---

What I don't understand is why they persist on cruising that far South in the winter, it simply is not pleasant for a good amount of the time. Whay don't they just relocate the ship to say Darwin and cruise North to Bali etc.

---

Whilst appearing an attractive option, this is highly unlikely. It is hard for those not familiar with Australia to understand just how far away and how isolated Darwin is from the main Australian cities. It is over 3.5 hours flying time from Melbourne and Sydney and there is no way P&O could offer competitive fares given the high cost of flights and minimal supply to Darwin from the major capital cities.

P&O have of course tried basing a ship in Singapore for Australian pax but this was only moderately successful and P&O was forced to significantly subsidise airfares making the whole thing marginal.

The most logical solution for NZ cruises would appear to be moving the AKL cruise season to late spring and keeping the Sun in BNE over winter but maybe the yield drop off means this is not a realistic option.

I am surprised P&O don't run more Qld coastal cruises during this time given this is out of stinger season so pax can actually swim in the water at the Whitsundays and Cairns during winter without having to wear stinger suits. From October to April, stinger suits are required and the whole thing loses its appeal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:

Gerry had mentioned that on top of stability, liners have more robust and redundant systems due to more ocean stresses and being far from land on a crossing. Her strong backbone prevented an open plaza Kings Court. This is why she is so broken up and leads me to believe that QM2's layout is complicated due to all of the structure and extra sub-divisions?

Stephen Payne mentioned QM2 has far thicker hull plating than a standard cruise ship.[...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by viking109:
Interestingly on a QM2 crossing last week at the Captains cocktail party, the captain pointed out that we were on a liner and not a cruise ship, mentioning that the hull plating is 1 inch thick and that the ship does not reach its full width until a third of its length from the bow. [...]

---

There is no technical term 'liner'. A liner is a ship serving on 'line voyages'. Both, cruise ships and liners are passenger ships - there are no technical nor engineering features that distinguish them nor are there any regulations that make a difference between a 'liner' and a cruise ship. Cunard uses this term for marketing (fair enough) and recently this term (as opposed to cruise ship) established itself in the ship enthusiasts community (there and only there) as a sort of distinction. To make it even more confusing, passenger ships were mainly used for transportation decades ago ('liners') whereas now passenger ships are predominantly used for cruises making the differentiation between cruise ships and 'liners' more a differentiation between old and new ships. (beside that, one often finds mixed terms like 'cruise liner')
I also have the impression that people forgot that there were liners beyond the fast ships serving on the Atlantic. It seems as if the term 'liner' became synonymous for 'fast ship'. There were however many 'liners' which were not faster than most cruise ships. (nor were their sea-keeping abilities any better - if not worse) In this respect, all cruise ships could certainly also server as liner. (whether they are good at that is another story)

What makes QM2 different to other cruise ships is mostly the fact that she is a fast ship. (serving on the Atlantic) This makes it necessary that some parts of her hull have thicker plating or that her hull has finer lines. (=more pointy bow) Both is however not required for slower ships nor would it necessarily be of any an advantage for a slower ship.
Don't get me wrong: QM2 is for various reasons a very fine ship but she is not fundamentally different to any other passenger ship of her time. (being a good ship is not fundamentally different)

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:

PS: New standard for upcoming cruiseships is 3 compartment flotation requirement where the current allows 2 compartment flooding before sinking. The SS United States can float with 5 compartments flooded.

---

There is more to assessing the survivability of a ship than 'how many compartments can be flooded' and yes, changes to regulations are indeed discussed. I nevertheless guess that there is a misunderstanding concerning the United States. I very much doubt that she can stay afloat with five compartments flooded. (!) I guess what is meant is that her five foremost compartments can be flooded - which would be similar to what other passenger ships can sustain.

[ 07-31-2008: Message edited by: Ernst ]