"I have received word from a source at Lloyd Werft that the S/S "Norway" is scheduled to enter drydock at Lloyd Werft in April. Please keep in mind that this does not necessarily mean she will return to the NCL fleet. Also, this information has not yet been officially confirmed"

Take this as you may, but I think it is somewhat positive...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Cunard:
Will SOLAS 2010 not make Norway illegal (as everyone tells me it will make QE2)... so if that is the case why bother fixing Norway - SIMPLY from a financials P.O.V.

---

I do not know about SOLAS 2010, but even if it is true, I assume the income a big ship like the SS Norway could generate over the next seven years must be significantly bigger than the repair costs?

Apart from the cost of the running costs, regular maintanence (which admittedly must be quite high) she must be pure profit. After all NCL must have paid of the cost of the conversion from France to Norway years ago!

[ 01-01-2004: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

So why are people so quick to sign QE2's death warrant but willing to think Norway is viable past 2010 if SOLAS doesn't effect them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Cunard:
So why are people so quick to sign QE2's death warrant but willing to think Norway is viable past 2010 if SOLAS doesn't effect them?

---

Both ships are now in their golden years.

It is NOT just a case of how long they can be maintained, it is a case of how expensive they become to maintain and if people still wish to book cabins en mass. Additionally, there is also the question of how much people are prepared to pay.

A decision to re-engine Norway in this manner at her advanced age would be financially irresponsible and would leave the company and the individual directors on the board open to shareholder lawsuits, especially after the purchase of 2 old crocks like the Big U and the Independence.

Brian

P.S. Having said all this, just watch them prove me wrong.

[ 01-01-2004: Message edited by: Brian_O ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian_O:
A decision to re-engine Norway in this manner at her advanced age would be financially irresponsible and would leave the company and the individual directors on the board open to shareholder lawsuits, especially after the purchase of 2 old crocks like the Big U and the Independence.

Brian

P.S. Having said all this, just watch them prove me wrong.

[ 01-01-2004: Message edited by: Brian_O ]

---

The Nieuw Amsterdam II was re-boilered in 1967. They were used boilers from a freighter, but it kept her going until 1974.

It would not surprise me in NCL got used diesels from a ship on the way to the scrappers.

The BigU and the Indy were most likely purchased for scrap value.

Personally I think the Blue Lady should be deployed on summertime X-Atlantic after the QM2 hype dies down. Winter time, Indian Ocean, Latin America, or South Pacific cruises, or X-Pacific service, Los Angeles to Sydney

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Cunard:
Will SOLAS 2010 not make Norway illegal (as everyone tells me it will make QE2)... so if that is the case why bother fixing Norway - SIMPLY from a financials P.O.V.

Long Live Norway!

---

Chris, here's a discussion about the impact of SOLAS from a previous thread.

quote:

---

SOLAS 2010 actually refers to the deadline - specifically 1 October 2010 - by which certain SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea) requirements must be met.

The SOLAS Convention in its successive forms is one of the most important of all international treaties concerning the safety of merchant ships. The first version was adopted in 1914, in response to the Titanic disaster, the second in 1929, the third in 1948 and the fourth in 1960. After attempts at keeping exisitng conventions updated proved unsuccesful, a completely new Convention was adopted in 1974 and that, and its various amendments, is what is in force today.

The amendments you asked about - sometimes referred to as SOLAS 2010 - were adopted on 10 April 1992 (Resolution MSC.24(60)) and introduced new fire protection requirements for passenger ships constructed before 1 October 1994. Specifically, these new requirements were to be phased in during the 16 year period 1 October 1994 / 1 October 2010.

The April 1992 amendments are particularly important because they apply to existing ships. In the past, major changes to SOLAS had been restricted to new ships by so-called "grandfather clauses".

The specific requirements are contained in the new Regulations II-2/41-1 and 41-2.

In particular, according to paragraph 2.4 of Regulation 41-1, pre SOLAS 74 passenger ships shall comply with all the requirements of "chapter II-2" applicable to ships constructed on or after 25 May 1980 not later than 1 October 2010.

Put another way, these older ships must be brought up to the specs of the newer ships by 1 October 2010 at the latest. Practically speaking, this means that by October 2010 most of the materials onboard these ships must be non-combustible. The regulations also covered mandatory requirements for smoke detection and alarm and sprinkler systems in accommodation and service spaces, stairway enclosures and corridors. Other improvements involved the provision of emergency lighting, general emergency alarm systems and other means of communication.

The challange to many of these older ships is that to comply with the requirements, large portions of the ships will need to be taken apart, changes made and then be put back together. Either that or the ships could be gutted and rebuilt to meet the new requirements. An expensive proposition either way.

Specifics can be found in the SOLAS documentation on the International Maritime Organization web site.

IMO came into existence in 1958, and was made responsible for ensuring that existing conventions (SOLAS 1948 for example) were kept up to date. It was also given the task of developing new conventions as and when the need arose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by steeplechase:
I love the Norway, but now seems like an ideal time to grind her up.

---

AS moodus2 has alreadty said, If they can repair her at reasonable cost and continue to sell her cruises at a reasonable profit, after deducting the ongoing maintenence requirements, there is no reason (as yet) to scrap her.

On the other hand, if the people do not want to cruise on her anymore, in favour of newer vessels...

[ 01-02-2004: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

If the Norway would match the QE2 itinerary, included X-Atlantic, the Mauretania class dis-service just might improve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:

On the other hand, if the people do not want to cruise on her anymore, in favour of newer vessels...

[ 01-02-2004: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

---

[ 01-02-2004: Message edited by: desirod7 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:

If the Norway would match the QE2 itinerary, included X-Atlantic, the Mauretania class dis-service just might improve.
]

---

The only reason QE2 has survived in her transatlantic role all these years is the fact that she has had no competition to speak of for most of her career. (While this statement might annoy fans of Stefan Batory, Alexandr Pushkin and Mikhail Lermontov, none of those ships was in QE2's class either speedwise or passenger facilities wise.) It is no secret that the deterioration of QE2's tourist class accomodations started when France was withdrawn from service.

There is just not enough demand for two large, fast tier 1 transatlantic liners, and there hasn't been for many years. It's too bad there isn't because competition would definitely have forced Cunard to improve its product before now. Let us hope that they don't let the lower priced accomodation on QM2 deteriorate the way they did on QE2.

BTW, I travelled regulary on QE2 because it went where I wanted to go...to sea rather than spend most of her time in port like most of the others. The Oceanic was a much nicer ship, originaly intended to be a transatlantic liner (between Cuxhaven and Montreal), but her itinerary sucked big time.

"France" operated four turbines, and, therefore had sufficient boilers to spin all four.

OK, "Norway" emerged with only two. It is my understanding that the original boilers and turbines were not removed at the time, and were presumably "mothballed."

"Norway's" explosion did in the one, operative, "boiler set" so to speak. But, as I understand it, the "spare" boilers are still in place, along with the inactive turbines?

Or are they?

Certainly not these not have as much service wear as those which failed?

Could not then, the unused boilers power the turbines?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cambodge:
This may belong in the technical area, but I am placing it here, as pertinent to the discussions.

"France" operated four turbines, and, therefore had sufficient boilers to spin all four.

OK, "Norway" emerged with only two. It is my understanding that the original boilers and turbines were not removed at the time, and were presumably "mothballed."

"Norway's" explosion did in the one, operative, "boiler set" so to speak. But, as I understand it, the "spare" boilers are still in place, along with the inactive turbines?

Or are they?

Certainly not these not have as much service wear as those which failed?

Could not then, the unused boilers power the turbines?

I assume I am missing something critical here, but I like to engage in "what if" scenarios!

---

If my memory serves me right, I think I remember reading that the other were used for spare parts for the active two because you cant just go out and buy parts like those...

NORWAY's future as a result is not good regardless of the technical merits. I predict in the next two months NCL's finance gurus will determine that rebuilding her to not be a good use of capital. The ship will then be sold for scrap shortly afterward.

I hope that I am wrong.

[ 01-03-2004: Message edited by: Marlowe ]