"The latest news from the Carnival Pride is that she has sustained some damage from the rough seas encountered off the East Coast as she returns from her last cruise. Conditions were much rougher than anticipated, and the ship has slowed significantly as a result. According to a representative from Carnival, the ship sustained some damage to Circle C and the ship's arcade due to the heavy seas. The extent of the damage has not been disclosed, but Carnival has reported that the ship is safe and will proceed with her next sailing on Monday 11/7/11 after a one-day delay caused by the ship's late arrival to the Port of Baltimore."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EstC2glkVjA

[ 11-08-2011: Message edited by: dmwnc1 ]

Meanwhile look at this :

A day to repair the damage must mean quite a bit I expect. Grand Princess had a couple of windows smashed 2 weeks ago, but fixed while at sea.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeBarryboat:
Well they say Queen Elizabeth is an "ocean liner". Apparently the hull was strengthened somewhat from the usual Vista-class.

---

If all the Queens in service have been built with a stregthened hull would this mean that the hull of the present P & O Cruises mv Arcadia is also strengthened.

She did start off being built as a ship for Cunard Line but was then transfered to P & O Cruises !

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cunardcoll:
That shows that there really is a difference between a floating hotel and a real ship[...]

---

This IS a real ship!

Ships can be damaged in storms and even sink - that's how it is. It's rare but it happens. To say that 'those waves should not have been a problem for a ship that size' is simply an incredible impertinence.

First, it is not known when this video has been taken or how bad the weather was when the damage happened and second, yes, this IS bad weather and things can indeed go wrong - ships can be damaged in far less spectacular looking storms.

Of course, it's a fantastic opportunity to once more make stupid remark about how bad modern ships are and how fantastic everything must have been in the past. I know, many armchair experts prefer self-made conspiracy theories and out of context citations in brochures like 'we have thicker hull plates'. Like it or not those floating apartment blocks are certainly extremely ugly but they can take quite a lot - probably much more than many legendary ships of the past. However, like all man made objects they can still be damaged or destroyed!

And please, just try to get over this 'liner' vs 'cruise ship' categories: I know, for many these myths are important, but from a technical point of view the categories 'liner' vs. 'cruise ship' simply do not exist - they are all passenger ships - good and bad one's.

[ 11-08-2011: Message edited by: Ernst ]

but sometimes you read, X id designe for transatlantic service, or Y for caribbean service, or Z for world cruising, not to speak of (ant)arctic cruising.

These categories don't speak then about seaworthiness ? (not only safety but also comfort) but more about outfitting and equipment ?,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johan:
I agree, I think Ernst, though i don'thave much technilogical knowledge.

but sometimes you read, X id designe for transatlantic service, or Y for caribbean service, or Z for world cruising, not to speak of (ant)arctic cruising.

These categories don't speak then about seaworthiness ? (not only safety but also comfort) but more about outfitting and equipment ?,

J

---

Of course there are differences, and a ship built for 'warm weather' is indeed different to a ship built for operating in the Baltic 12 months per year. Nevertheless, even a ship meant for the oh so harmless Caribbean has to survive a sever storm since it's not always possible to avoid bad weather.

Do you really think that someone spending hundreds of millions on building a ship risks to loose it during a rather frequently occurring storm?

So don't underestimate what ships built for operating in 'nice weather' can withstand. Yes, it's more likely that e.g. some glass breaks and that indeed constitutes damage (Mind you, this can be serious - I am personally not too happy with how the interior aboard ships is decorated these days - most of that furniture (etc.) is not really suitable for a ship and can indeed cause problems during a storm).

However, the structure, the machinery, the nautical equipment is essentially of the same variety aboard all contemporary passenger ships. They all are built to essentially the same high standards.

If you compare Carnival Pride to QE, QV and even QM2 you will find more similarities than differences - certainly nothing fundamentally different.

[ 11-08-2011: Message edited by: Ernst ]

You can't tell me that ships like the first QM or QE, which didn't have the advantage of a bulbous bow, shorter freeboard or stabilizers (originally that is), could have provided any better ride than Carnival Pride or the new QE.

Just because a ship was built for transatlantic service doesn't mean that it was infallible...no matter how "legendary" it is/was.

I'm not saying that a ship's design doesn't matter; I'm saying that when it comes to battling the elements it's pretty much an equal playing field.

Carnival Pride, QE or any of the Monsters of the Seas are no less real ships than Aquitania, Normandie, Bremen, QM, etc......they are simply built for different purposes. If a ship is purpose built for transatlantic service, call it a liner if you want, and if it's built for cruising, call it a cruise ship; it doesn't matter either way...because both are undeniably real.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cunardcoll:
[....]
If the hull of other ships was just as good then why did they design a hull completely from sratch for QM2 ???

---

Bottom line is that the difference is a fact.

I've been on the lowly cruise ship QUEEN ELIZABETH in Force 11 conditions. See this video (I was standing within a few feet of the person who took it). Neither I nor the ship suffered any damage...

I always have to laugh when anyone talks about how calm the Caribbean is. One of the biggest storms I have ever been in on a ship was in the Caribbean, on a ship built for the Caribbean (VOYAGER OF THE SEAS). Again, we were fine. And it's not like it was the first or last time it has happened.

The idea that modern cruise ships can't take bad weather is an urban legend. Period.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dougnewman:
Oh dear, not this argument again.

I've been on the lowly cruise ship QUEEN ELIZABETH in Force 11 conditions. See this video (I was standing within a few feet of the person who took it). Neither I nor the ship suffered any damage...

I always have to laugh when anyone talks about how calm the Caribbean is. One of the biggest storms I have ever been in on a ship was in the Caribbean, on a ship built for the Caribbean (VOYAGER OF THE SEAS). Again, we were fine. And it's not like it was the first or last time it has happened.

The idea that modern cruise ships can't take bad weather is an urban legend. Period.

---

The old fashioned liners had a waterbed ride compared to the modern ships that kick and jiggle like an RV.

Most of the old ships were designed with hand calculations and tank testing. The QE2 used an IBM 360 to do the hand calculations, I believe was the first liner to have a computer at all in her design. IMO QE2 is the second best riding ship after QM2.

Modern ships are all done on 3d cad with virtual storm simulations; tank testing is still done, but most of the guesswork and wrong ideas are eliminated in the CAD stage. Fastship is the software. The much maligned Vista/Spirit class have very good sea-keeping and designed by the same man as QM2.

quote:

---

Originally posted by linerguy:

I'm not saying that a ship's design doesn't matter; I'm saying that when it comes to battling the elements it's pretty much an equal playing field.

Carnival Pride, QE or any of the Monsters of the Seas are no less real ships than Aquitania, Normandie, Bremen, QM, etc......they are simply built for different purposes. If a ship is purpose built for transatlantic service, call it a liner if you want, and if it's built for cruising, call it a cruise ship; it doesn't matter either way...because both are undeniably real.

-Russ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:

The old fashioned liners had a waterbed ride compared to the modern ships that kick and jiggle like an RV.

---

This is not entirely true. First, not all 'old' and not all 'modern' ships are the same and there are or were quite a lot really uncomfortable old ship - it's maybe counter-intuitive but 'more gentle' movement is for many the far worse option (concerning seasickness).

Modern passenger ships might in general move in a different way - or it's perceived this way - but one must not forget that a lot has changed over time (for a reason) - it is not only possible to build 'more extreme' ships these days (if you want to call it that) - they also have to meet more stringent safety requirements.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:

The QE2 used an IBM 360 to do the hand calculations, I believe was the first liner to have a computer at all in her design. [...]

---

Not true. Computers have been in use for quite a while at this time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:

guesswork and wrong ideas are eliminated in the CAD stage. Fastship is the software.

---

You confuse something here: The term CAD describes software for 'drawing' or drafting and not for doing simulations - this are two totally different things!

Also, 'Fastship' is actually a highly specialized CAD program for creating hull shapes - it's not a program for simulating e.g. the flow around a hull.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:

The much maligned Vista/Spirit class have very good sea-keeping and designed by the same man as QM2.

---

That's not how it works but this positing is already too long.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:

The difference between the modern ships and the old liners is taking the Force 11 storm on a regular basis.

---

In general, I would say the advantage is clearly on the side of modern ships and not the other way around.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:

The QM2 is designed for that and more robust than a typical cruiseship in hull plating, bow tapering and internal structure. If a typical boxboat did regular winter X-Atlantic the hulls would wear out fast.

---

Don't forget that QM2 is a faster ship - this is the main reason for most of these differences.

[ 11-13-2011: Message edited by: Ernst ]

You may be right that the modern box boats are more robust than the old pre-computer days liners.
Most were designed with slide rules and much more guesswork. Today's steel is much better too.

It is the computer aided design that eliminates most of the wrong decisions, easier optimization so less extensive physical model tank testing and wind tunnel is needed.

Ernst, I use 3d cad and technical simulations all the time for my work. I am also the "bridge' generation that learned both manual and the computer way of doing things. www.solidworks.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:
At Sea Trade there were demonstrations of Fastship

---

...well, then you should know what it is.

FastShip

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:

Ernst, I use 3d cad and technical simulations all the time for my work. I am also the "bridge' generation that learned both manual and the computer way of doing things.

---