Welcome to Cruise Talk the Internet's most popular discussion forum dedicated to cruising. Stop by Cruise Talk anytime to post a message or find out what your fellow passengers and industry insiders are saying about a particular ship, cruise line or destination.
>>> Reader Reviews >>> CruisePage.com Photo Gallery >>> Join Our Cruise Club.
Latest News...Carnival Corporation today announced that 100% of its ships across the global fleet are equipped with Starlink's high-speed, low-latency global internet connectivity. The completed installation further enhances Carnival Corporation's onboard experience for its guests and crew to provide even faster service, greater capacity, and more reliable Wi-Fi on its fleet of 90-plus ships across its portfolio...
Latest News...Villa Vie Residences, a leading innovator in modern-day residential cruising, proudly announces the new Endless Horizons program, transforming the concept of retirement for adventurers who dream of traveling the world without the hassle of planning or ongoing expenses. With a one-time payment of $299,999 USD for single occupancy and $499,999 USD for double occupancy,...
Latest News...Setting sail today for her debut season from Southampton, Celebrity Cruises award-winning ship, Celebrity Apex, is turning heads as she becomes the first ship in the revolutionary Edge Series to call the United Kingdom home. Celebrity Apex will kick off her European season from Southampton with an eight-night Norwegian Fjords cruise. This serene sailing will visit idyllic locations...
quote:Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:[...] As I said earlier, Payne said pods were essential for manoeuvrability for such a big ship.
The advantage of podded propulsion is of course the manoeuvrability at low speeds and this indeed makes them attractive for very large cruise ships. However, it is of course not impossible to build a ship of that size without pods.
RR gave undertakings and provided evidence that their design was fit for purpose, unless Cunard have misused or failed to maintain against spec the equipment it would seem that Carnival have a obvious case especially in light of RR's previous pod issues.
There is no technical reason I know of that pods should not be as successful and traditional prop and shaft arrangements. Other cruise ships have used them successfully and there is no reason they should not be just as successful on a liner - Stephen Payne is one of the worlds foremost deigners and he would not have specified pods unless he know they would work. Likewise Chantiers (now SKX) are without doubt one of the most experienced large cruise ship / liner builders - they too would never have gone along with the pod idea if they thought it was wrong.
quote:Originally posted by mike sa:[....]There is no technical reason I know of that pods should not be as successful and traditional prop and shaft arrangements. [...]
There is no technical reason I know of that pods should not be as successful and traditional prop and shaft arrangements. [...]
Well, there are some reasons. Especially 'in the begin' pods have been oversold. (I won't necessarily blame the people/designers who chose pods) Like every technical solution, pods have advantages AND disadvantages.
The pods are a fragile system and if they bump into a wharf or sea wall they will break.
The only warships that use them at the moment seem to be mine hunters where they need manouverability in waters. Despite warships needing a quiet propulsion system they always go for the shaft and rudders as it is more reliable, faster and more resiliant to the stress that they will likely be placed under.
I still think Carnival should accept responsibility of their own as there have been continual documented problems with pods since they were introduced.
What manufactures of them say about their reliability should not be confused with brilliant sales techniques.
The USS Enterprise entered service in 1961. It is still in service.
Its lenght 335m. Its width 40m water line and 76m flight deck.
The USS Enterprise has four shafts and four rudders and is capable of speeds of over 30 knots.
The QM2 is 345m long and 40m wide. Very similar in length and width.
I cannot compare gross tones of cruise ships to the tons warships are measured in.
47 years of reliable service for a large warship built in 1961 has already outlasted the QM2 built in 2004 which has already needed its pods replaced.
So rule of thumb seems to be all Rolls Royce pods are crap and the other types are fine.
quote:Originally posted by mike sa:Other than RR pods used on Celebrity ships and QM2 pods have proved to be as reliable. [...]
There are also issues. Maybe not as bad (and not as public) but still.
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:The pods have proven to be extremely unreliable in the past with continual break downs and failures for Celebrity ships. QM2 has suffered pod problems before after damaging one and having to operate on three pods instead of four.
Pods have proven to be reliable on many ships too. Some different brands have (or had) indeed some problems, like mainly ball bearings and seals on some Mermaid ones.As for QM2 damaging one propeller and having to operate on 3 pods instead of 4, it would have been the exact same result as far as partial operating is involved if the ship was shaft fitted. In case of big problem needing the replacement of the whole thing, it is usually faster to replace a pod than a shaft and shaft-mounting system.
Ever heard or seen effect of an hard bump on a shaft? Surprise, the shaft and shaft-mounting may be unusable and to be replaced too. That kind of thing has happened hundreds of times during the past 150 years or so.
Apart from small auxiliary propulsion units (usually retractable and not exceeding about 6 kts), I've yet to see a pod, (I mean a real pod, motor+propeller, as a main prpulsion system) on a mine hunter. You must probably mistake them with Voith Schneider systems, which are often used on modern mine hunters, but they are very different systems and have nothing to do with pods. In fact, in term of internal machinery layout, they're far closer than traditional shafts/propellers fitted ships than pods fitted ones.
Now as far as large warships with pods are concerned, never heard of MISTRAL and TONNERRE?
Again, you don't know what RR, Converteam, Alstom and Kamewa told them.Besides, and even if I conceed they're still less reliable than traditional shaft systems (but they have so much more advantages, see here) by your reasonning, no shipping companies would have ever invested in and adopted steam and then propellers since sails were technically far more reliable and proven then.
A ship the size of QM2 could have been built with shaft, screws and rudders.
Ah, you know better than Carnival, Cunard and Chantiers's architects and engineers then? They may have all spent thousands of hours analizing and deciding what propulsion system would be the more suitable, with all the pros and cons. In one sentence, you obviously decide it is enough for you to have that kind of conclusion and certainty.
And do you have some stats and real facts regarding the BIG E's shafts maintenance, limitations, breakdowns and replacement she may have had during her career?How can you be that sure a large pod fitted ship will not last longer (and perhaps with less time and monney consuming maintenance)?
Thank you, we all know USS ENTERPRISE main characteristics, or we all know how to quickly find them.
They certainly CAN'T be compared! Two completely different operationnal functionning/rate and life and contrainsts, as far as propulsion is concerned. Night and day. For a reliable and not meaningless comparison, you need two ships about the same size and the same operationnal contrainsts and life.
Besides, many shaft fitted ships have had shaft problems too.
By the way, even if, as you said, you can't compare GRT on cruise ships with tons of warships, you can still compare displacements of both ships.
You know Sutho, I admit, overall, pods are not as reliable as shafts systems yet (but I repeat, they have other advantages in term of operations too), but things in life are not just black or white, with the good things (shafts, ocidental shipping trade) on one side and the bad things (pods, civilian innocent people that can be bombed since living in the same area than pirates). They must be analized with all parameters and datas. One must have our facts straight as well.
You may think I may keep my morale for myself, but I do think I'm tired of reading the kind of partial, wrong and brainless statements you're doing lately.
[ 12-06-2008: Message edited by: Vaccaro ]
It has been said (discovery channel thing on the construction of the QM2) that if it were not for the pods (amongst many things) the QM2 would not of been built, the space need for a conventional drive train would of required to much space and rendered the QM2 uneconomical in Carnivals mind.
Also using the Discovery Channel again, one of the first uses for pods was on icebreakers, by rotating the pods and using the screws they are able to "chew" through the pack ice.
Again I am taking this from the Discovery Channel, feel free to contradict them, nothing like a good debate.
It is certainly not impossible to build a ship like QM2 without pods. Whether that would be a good idea or not is of course a totally different story.
Carnival made the mistake of accepting them and they should live with that. If they were stupid enough to believe the sales pitch about pods then that is their problem.
Carnival cant solve QM2's problems by taking legal action against the manufacturer. Sooner or later no pod manufacturer will want anything to do with cruise lines if they keep taking legal action.
Carnival bought it, they signed the contracts and they agreed with it so lets see them live with their problem. They are just as much to blame as the manufacturer.
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:[...]Carnival bought it, they signed the contracts and they agreed with it so lets see them live with their problem. They are just as much to blame as the manufacturer.
The involved parties agreed on something in this contract. Carnival seems to think that Rolls Royce did not full fill it's part of the contract which is why they take legal actions. Why is that so hard to understand?
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:The pods have already proven unreliable on QM2 if not why are they taking legal action? just for fun?
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:Carnival made the mistake of accepting them and they should live with that. If they were stupid enough to believe the sales pitch about pods then that is their problem.
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:Carnival bought it, they signed the contracts and they agreed with it so lets see them live with their problem. They are just as much to blame as the manufacturer.
I don't know whether it is true or not but if it is true then Carnival clearly has a right to damages.
There have been never ending problems with pods on the Celebrity ships, on QM2 and I believe the Fantasy class experienced problems when two ships were built with pods and Carnival decided not to build any other of their ships with pods.
There are larger ships than QM2 that use the old form of propulsion and more modern ships today are still being built with shafts and rudders, larger and smaller than QM2. There was no real reason why QM2 could not be built without pods and still be an efficient ship.
Take a look at all the super tankers and large freighters built. Allot of them are larger than Oasis and they still use standard propulsion.
Havent you learned to take resposnibility for your own actions? Perhaps Cunard has been driving the QM2 in a manner contrary to manufacturers instructions.
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:[...]Take a look at all the super tankers and large freighters built. Allot of them are larger than Oasis and they still use standard propulsion.
Sorry, but to compare QM2 or Oasis of the Seas to 'super tankers' in this context is a bit simple minded. (at best) A 'super tanker' has a TOTALLY different mission profile that a cruise ship that is in a different port nearly every day.
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:[...]Havent you learned to take resposnibility for your own actions? [...]
Well, the same can be said about Rolls Royce who delivered a system that not only fails to satisfy their customers but even leads them to take legal actions.
I wouldnt even expect to buy a car and expect it to last 15 years without wear and tear and things needing replacement.
I do not think Carnival will win anything and in the end the lawyers will be the winners and both company's will be the losers with a hefty legal bill to pay.
I suppose Carnival is setting an example that next time a cruise ship of theirs is late or skips a port due to technical difficulties passengers can take legal action on them for failing to deliver.
I am sorry but childish legal action and the blame game are just examples of greed vindictive people. I dont agree with legal action at all no matter what Rolls Royce guaranteed, Carnival is still a party to the matter. In any event if legal action were to be successful a percentage of Carnivals fault will be weighed in to reduce their pay out if any.
I have not seen any evidence that using standard propulsion on QM2 is not economical. The pod option may have been cheaper but it does not make standard propulsion uneconomical.
I wonder why Rolls Royce and Carnical did not want a 15 year warranty for the pods if they were that great! perhaps Carnival should have asked for it, then again maybe they knew all along they wouldnt last that long.
Ships should be dry docked every two years and have the hole hull scraped and repainted from the keel all the way to the top deck. All mechinical repairs and services should be done in that time as well.
I have been on cruise ships and often noticed flaking paint from the bulkheads on the promenade deck and all they do is casually paint over it. Flaking paint should be scraped to bare metal and repainted. Vents on ships are covered in dust and never seem to be taken down and cleaned. There are several things I have noticed that cruise lines have neglected to do on ships. I can list lots of things like windows are never washed down on the outside. The exterior hull is not washed down every time they are in port and they leave a salty residue on the hull.
If the cruise lines like Carnival cant look after their assets then they do not deserve them. I find it very hypocritacal of Carnival a company that does not look after ship to expect the most out of them when they are not prepared to maintain and service them regularly.
The other thing about the pods that beggers beleif is that if Carnival claims that they had problems since day one, then why did they not return the ship to the shipyard whilst under warranty I would imagine and demand all problems be fixed.
The reason I suspect is negligence and a lack of care at all. Basically they rushed it into service by their own admission that things werent right and keep it in service making the probelm worst.
Carnival should not have let that ship leave the ship yard until they were 100% satisfied that it worked and should have returned it there immediately when the first problem arose.
And I suppose Carnival is an innocent victim in all this? well it probably is for the blind and brainless shareholders.
quote:Originally posted by mike sa:[QB]From Cruise Community:"Carnival claims litany of QM2 pod issues3/12/2008Carnival Corp. said problems with the Mermaid pods installed on Queen Mary 2 began shortly after the liner was put into operation and have continued to date, forcing the ship to be drydocked every two or three years instead of the standard five-year drydock cycle.QB]
"Carnival claims litany of QM2 pod issues3/12/2008Carnival Corp. said problems with the Mermaid pods installed on Queen Mary 2 began shortly after the liner was put into operation and have continued to date, forcing the ship to be drydocked every two or three years instead of the standard five-year drydock cycle.QB]
If this was the case then the ship should have been returned every time there was a problem and all cruises cancelled until it was fixed, and if problems persisted, then back to the shipyard.
Why did Carnival wait 4 years to take legal action, why not just keep sending it back to the builders every time a problem arose?
Why because they were negligent and rushed it into service and they should take responsibility for their actions.
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:No one forced Carnival into signing the contract.
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:I believe the Fantasy class experienced problems when two ships were built with pods and Carnival decided not to build any other of their ships with pods.
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:There was no real reason why QM2 could not be built without pods and still be an efficient ship.
Really, I am curious... What qualifies you to make such a statement?
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:Take a look at all the super tankers and large freighters built. Allot of them are larger than Oasis and they still use standard propulsion.
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:Havent you learned to take resposnibility for your own actions? Perhaps Cunard has been driving the QM2 in a manner contrary to manufacturers instructions.
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:Carnival bought the pods. They had an alternative not too.
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:I wouldnt even expect to buy a car and expect it to last 15 years without wear and tear and things needing replacement.
Let's say that you bought a car and the manufacturer says that you have to change the oil once every 3,000 miles. However, after buying it turns out you have to change the oil every 600 miles or the car will stop working. This means you have to get the oil changed once a week instead of once every five weeks. How would you feel about that?
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:I suppose Carnival is setting an example that next time a cruise ship of theirs is late or skips a port due to technical difficulties passengers can take legal action on them for failing to deliver.
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:You know cruise lines are notorius for neglecting their ships.
I have been on QM2 many times and "neglected" is the last word that would come to mind to describe her condition.
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:I have been on cruise ships and often noticed flaking paint from the bulkheads on the promenade deck and all they do is casually paint over it. ... I can list lots of things like windows are never washed down on the outside. The exterior hull is not washed down every time they are in port and they leave a salty residue on the hull.
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:The other thing about the pods that beggers beleif is that if Carnival claims that they had problems since day one, then why did they not return the ship to the shipyard whilst under warranty I would imagine and demand all problems be fixed.
By your logic if the problem could not be fixed Carnival should have forced Rolls-Royce to build it a whole new ship!
quote:Originally posted by Sutho:You know cruise lines are notorius for neglecting their ships. Their upkeep of them is shamefull and a complete embarrassment.
Well Cunard are not guilty of the above. The QE2, for example, had more multi-million refits than any other ship afloat. Even after 40 years service she was still in excellent upkeep. There are many old ships our there which are still imaculate.
I know that the paint now used on the ships hulls has improved but P & O dry-docked the ss Oriana every year when she was based in Australia.
She would be dry docked at Singapore for either a 9 day or 14 day visit on alternate years.
Ultimate Bulletin BoardTM 6.1.0.3
More Vacation & Cruise Specials...