After the fins were fitted, I believe both liners had similar sea-keeping capabilities.

I'll be honest: other than the Veranda Cafe and the Observation Bar, I liked everything about QE over QM!

-Russ

[ 04-21-2011: Message edited by: linerguy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by linerguy:
You're pretty fast with that typing there guys!

I'll be honest: other than the Veranda Cafe and the Observation Bar, I liked everything about QE over QM!

-Russ

[ 04-21-2011: Message edited by: linerguy ]

---

I think QM had the more elegant first class dining room and indoor pool.

Overall I think prefer the interiors of QM but much preferred the exterior of QE.

And I'm sure I'm one of only a few who like QE's interiors better!

http://www.travelserver.net/travelpage/ubb-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=0043 48

http://www.travelserver.net/travelpage/ubb-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=0004 76

Other information

As regards QE versus QM, conversation many years ago with some of the folks who built the two ships

QE started as a duplicate QM, but this changed first with the selection of the newer, more efficient boilers that the Royal Navy was happy with. As drastic as that was for the
interior layout of QE, there was a more serious change that came from a seemingly innocuous pair of additional changes: plating in the well deck forward, and allowing for a bow anchor. This set off a chain reaction of problems.

Between the additional hull and deck plating, the bow anchor, the entire set of machinery for the bow anchor, QE's forepart was suddenly too heavy. Even worse, to allow for the bow anchor, the
entire body plan had to be revised from the bridge forward - and stretching those extra feet used enough more steel the design was even heavier forward.

This was catastrophic, because now the waterline would not meet the proper line in the bodyplan, slowing her down. Naturally, more mass was added aft to bring her stern down...but now the whole bloody thing had settled deeper, and again, the ideal bodyline for the waterline was now underwater slightly. I was told that the remainder of the hull was NOT redesigned, and that she was a new nose on the Queen Mary's hull. I recall this man saying the QE had had a "nose job". He said it was inefficient aft, with turbulence produced by
the unbalanced design.

The design team had been left with essentially identical turbines to propel the ship (one of the few things that were NOT changed). Both
QM and QE had a significant power reserve, so about 30 knots might be possible with the new ship. To add impulse to the engines, I was told that the propeller blades were lengthened...part of the
additional weight used to hold her stern down.

I am thinking it was George Keene that told me all this...it has been 15 years. I recall the story better than the teller!

Anyways, he maintained that QE was definitely slower, the result of a very carefully designed hull being forced to accommodate a lot of changes. I think he opined that Cunard and John Brown should have gone all the way back to the design tank, but that they did not want to spend the money then.

Queen Mary the faster of the two due to QE having limitations with her condenser capacity, thus while potentially faster she couldn't convert steam back to water fast enough to make use of what may have
been a slightly more efficient hull or greater steam generating capacity

The QE was certainly more fuel efficient. She burned about 936 tons of oil per day with 12 boilers at cruising speed compared to 948 tons for the QM with 24 boilers.

You cannot really make such a comparison on the basis of numbers of boilers, as boilers are of different sizes and capacities. You would really need to compare the horsepower developed and calculate pounds of fuel per shaft horsepower per hour. Without looking up their horsepowers--it's too late
in the evening--I would have to say on the basis of those figures that Queen Mary was just as efficient as Queen Elizabeth if not more so, and in fact the fuel consumption figures I've seen for
her (in the neighborhood of .6 or .65 lb/shp/hr) are extremely respectable for a ship of her era, especially given the quite conservative nature of British marine engineering practice of the time.

The decor of the Queen Elizabeth could hardly be described as being eclectic. It was a pared-down version of Art Deco, often referred to as Art Moderne. It was a very distinctive late 1930s and 1940s look. Her internal decor was a look that reflected the time that she was due to
enter service. She was a very modern- looking liner.

It depends on what you mean by 'popular' and it depends on who you are talking about... passengers or crew.

The ELIZABETH might have carried more passengers, but the MARY may have carried more REPEAT passengers.

It has been recorded that the MARY was a more popular ship for the crew. Some of the working arrangements in the MARY were supposedly
better than they were in ELIZABETH. The earlier ship may have been more easier to work.

For sure, crew that were loyal to the MARY didn't care about the ELIZABETH and vice versa. The late Captain Alan Bennel served in the ELIZABETH for many years and he loved her. He didn't have much
good to say about the MARY. Likewise my good friend Russell Southern who sailed as First Officer in the MARY has nothing good to say about the ELIZABETH. The MARY was homeported in Southampton and had a good ten years association with the city before the ELIZABETH arrived on the scene.

[ 04-21-2011: Message edited by: desirod7 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cunard Fan:
Personally I think that the QE was probably the best looking ship ever put into service. Her lines were perfect in my opinion.

---

Why does this statement come as no surprise? LOL

Actually, while QM and QE are two of my favorites, I give the edge to NORMANDIE, FRANCE and some Italian built liners for the most beautiful exterior lines and proportions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:
I'll say that QE was the best looking two-funneled liner ever built. The view of her broadside was perfection.

---

Sorry, that award goes to Bremen & Europa of '29 and '30. But of course I admit to being bias when it comes to German ships.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:

I preferred the profile of SS FRANCE. Perfection personified!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:

I always liked ss France but the funnels were to far apart for my taste

---

Funny, I think that is one of the reasons I prefer FRANCE over QE.

For twin funnels close together, give me the MIKE and RALPH. Love those Italian liners!

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:
I'll say that QE was the best looking two-funneled liner ever built. The view of her broadside was perfection.

---

Don't forget to consider the NIEUW AMSTERDAM of 1938 and the GRIPSHOLM of 1957; definitely contenders for the best-looking two-stackers ever built.

Rich

[ 04-22-2011: Message edited by: Linerrich ]

There were many beautiful 2-funneled liners (including the Disney Magic and Wonder!). The SAL ships were gorgeous and the Bremen and Europa strong and impressive looking-even better looking when the funnels were extended.

I also liked the Nieuw Amsterdam even though I think she would have looked even better w/a mast above the bridge and kingposts on the forecastle. There was plenty of space for a proper mast above the bridge w/the forward (working) funnel being positioned so far aft. ss America was also a beauty w/her forward positioned funnels giving the illusion of speed and of course ss US's massive funnels and sleek hull gave her the look of the ultimate ocean greyhound.

As for the 2-funneled Disney ships, I saw the Wonder the other day and my friends commented on what a beautiful ship she is. The other ships in port were not even noticed.

Greetings Ben.

[ 04-22-2011: Message edited by: Maasdam ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by linerguy:
I'll say that QE was the best looking two-funneled liner ever built.

Sorry, that award goes to Bremen & Europa of '29 and '30. But of course I admit to being bias when it comes to German ships.

-Russ

---

And one need only look at the Italians to find them!