What I don't get is why NCL has kept on making empty pomisses. It just makes them look very fooloish and incapable of following through their stratergies i.e. In May 2006, Tan Sri Lim Kok Thay, chairman of Star Cruises said that the company's next project is "the restoration of the...United States."

If there ever was a glimmer of hope it was extingished when it became clear that NCLA was not the cash-cow that NCL predicted.

The F3 ships will form part of the future of NCL, not a rusty old Ocean Liner. Apollo have mores sense than to fund the SS United States pipe-dream.

[ 08-23-2007: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

What I really can't understand there is seemingly no alternative between economic usefullenss and scrapping.

The ship is idealto become a historic monument, and asbestosfree.

Forget the economic viability, hotels and cruising, it can be part of it, but think of it as a monument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johan:
What I really can't understand there is seemingly no alternative between economic usefullenss and scrapping.

---

Surely the American Governmnet should fund the preservation of the SS United States, as an historic monument.

Capitalism alone cannot provide the answer to everything!

[ 08-23-2007: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:

Surely the American Governmnet should fund the preservation of the SS United States, as an historic monument.

Capitalism alone cannot provide the answer to everything!

[ 08-23-2007: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

---

Malcolm,

quote:

---

Originally posted by timb:

....unfortunately it seems the only old ships prreserved for their relavance by the US govt are warships.

---

Then again, no matter what they did, she would flop on the $699 week Carribean milk run, when there are design specific boxboats.

It is a tall order, but the BigU with modern amenities, as an American Hurtigruten could be the next bell of the ball.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:
Also, is it possible to rebuild her in a manner that she could still pass as 'vintage vessel' - which is actually her only asset? (This would also be a problem if one decides to keep her as static ship)
There is not much left - and most people would not expect steel decks (or her original interiors) on an old ship - and to rebuilds her with teak decks and a fake e.g. 'Titanic' interior is pointless - one could then take any other vessel -

---

Onno and I have done the studies and it is possible to keep her vintage essence, yet be acceptable to the 21 century cruiser.

My recent cruise on the Summit proves that ships can be moderne and tasteful. AMK can pen the BigU interiors with more mid century furnishings and fittings than the M class, and pull it off.

With todays cruise ships seemingly focusing on a wide variety and multitude of entertainment diversions and dining options, allowing for balcony add-ons and aft deck extensions for more exterior space, what could be done to the SSUS that would make her competitive enough (within the confines of the exisintg hull and public spaces) that would make today's cruisers would pick her over the Carnival Conquest-class or Freedom-Class?

As said, there ARE quite some ships "off the mainstream" - and these markets are growing - IF then United States would have to be a sort of niche product.

Speaking about the United States another Gibbs&Cox ship comes to my mind - she is a 'bit' smaller and in original condition - but it proves that one CAN provide a truly luxurious cruise experience aboard an old ship - she is a top rated five star luxury vessel and she and her crew deserve that - it IS POSSIBLE to do that WITHOUT theater, pool (weather permitting you can swim in the ocean), TV in the cabins (! - yes, there is no TV ) , minibar in the cabins (but room service)....
see here

[ 08-23-2007: Message edited by: Ernst ]

One United States company that likes ships with a classic design and might have a use for her could be Disney.

No doubt if they showed some interest in her and refitted her as a stationary attraction, with some hotel accommodation, she would soon have many visitors.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmwnc1:
..what could be done to the SSUS that would make her competitive enough (within the confines of the exisintg hull and public spaces) that would make today's cruisers would pick her over the Carnival Conquest-class or Freedom-Class?

---

Good question. Possibly nothing!

This is where NCL’s plan made little sense. They said some think like the SS United sates would be renovated into a ‘state-of-the-art’ cruise ship and NOT some sort of retro ‘ocean Liner’ recreation. I’m not sure how you can turn an ocean Liner Hull into a state-of-the-art ship.

Let’s not forget at 53,000gt (approx) she is small-mid sized by modern standards. I suppose a design comprise might have been possible with some balconies added on the upper superstructure, without completely destroying her lines. However, there would never have been room for giant atriums, waterparks and multiple 'Freestyle' dining rooms etc. all associated with ‘state-of-the-art’ these days.

I’m sure NCL just wanted her for her American Hull, allowing unique itineraries. Some cynics say they simply purchased her to stop any other company purchasing her.

Who would cruise on her? I’m sure that many Liner-nuts would fill her cabins in season one, but what about season two, season three? Surely she would need to attract the masses? However, Cuanrd seem to have the monopoly on the ‘Ocean Liner’ experience. Cunard of course combine Ocean Liner ambience with fine food and good service, not always NCL’s strong points!

Finally, NCL have never been into operating ‘classic ships’. The SS France was purchased not for reasons of nostalgia, but she allowed NCL to quickly obtain a big ship and convert her into the then biggest, modern Caribbean cruise ship.

The SSUS does not seem to fit in with NCL's current business plan. After all they don’t even want the Marco Polo. So I really don’t know how NCL would market the SS United States, or who they would sell the cabins to, if the pipe-dream ever became a reality. Maybe neither do they?

[ 08-24-2007: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

The balconies are flush with the boat deck bulkhead which would be about 70' wide. They do NOT overhang. Each module is 3 cabins per lifeboat width.

I was advised by a marine engineer who worked on QM2, and a bunch of other cruise ships that
BigU will need a ducktail. Hull hole balconies would disrupt the structural system.

My original idea had QE2 style balconies, but NCL noted it needs 3 decks of them. The top idea is a compromise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by viking109:
Without going into too much detail can you explain why she might be considered unstable when built for rough winter Atlantic crossings.

---

Nowadays regulations demand more uprighting torque.

Over the past decades, there has been a change in how the stability of a ship is analyzed.

There are many reasons for that (stricter requirements for the max. heeling angle - more profound analysis of the ship motion etc.) - to keep it very, very simple:

For a long time waves from the side were seen as the major risk for capsizing a ship - an emphasis has been put on having a very low eigenfrequency for this degree of freedom - which is also more comfortable. (less uprighting torque per moment of inertia - a sleeker hull) It has nevertheless been found that it is actually waves from astern which are more likely to capsize ship - a wave crest midships can considerably reduce the uprighting torque of a ship and cause it to capsize.

[the uprighting torque scales with the third power of the width of the ship - having parts of the hull not fully submerged (= the hull is intersecting the surface of the water where it is more narrow) when e.g. the ship is traveling with the waves and stays in such a position relative to the waves for a longer time the total uprighting torque decreases and a rather small distrubance might cause the ship to capsize]

Therefore (and for other reasons) ships are now built with more uprighting torque (per moment of inertia) - it makes them MAYBE a bit less comfortable but there is more 'buffer' in critical situations. (this is all very simplified)

United States is an old ship with a sleek hull (also, because it is better to have a sleek bow for a fast ship) - it is very likely that she would need some modifications - even more when we talk about removing her present power plant (heavy and low in the hull) and adding ('heavy') cabins to the top.

[ 08-24-2007: Message edited by: Ernst ]