So the gross tonnage of most old, classic liners can be misleading, since vast amounts of their volume was taken up by cargo holds, coal bunkers, massive boiler and engine rooms, etc. Apparently at that point in time, AQUITANIA measured out with just a bit more passenger space than OLYMPIC did.

Rich

[ 04-09-2011: Message edited by: Linerrich ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linerrich:
Traditionally 1 GRT is equal to 100 square feet of permanently enclosed passenger space.

---

Make that 100 cubic feet, Rich.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linerrich:
Gross tonnage is not a measure of dimensions, such as length and width of a ship; it's the measure of interior space. Traditionally 1 GRT is equal to 100 square feet of permanently enclosed passenger space.

So the gross tonnage of most old, classic liners can be misleading, since vast amounts of their volume was taken up by cargo holds, coal bunkers, massive boiler and engine rooms, etc. Apparently at that point in time, AQUITANIA measured out with just a bit more passenger space than OLYMPIC did.

Rich

[ 04-09-2011: Message edited by: Linerrich ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oslo dutch:

Thanks Rich so how does this measure up compared to today's cruiseships?

---

By the way, thanks to Brian for pointing out my typo--a big difference!

Comparing gross tonnage today can be misleading when figuring dimensions of ships. Today's passenger ships have a vast majority of their internal volume taken up by passenger space, which figures into the GRT, whereas old liners had a lot of space, especially forward, which was not taken into account. Also, today's ships have many more decks than most of the traditional liners, which adds to the tonnage.

So that is how a ship like QUEEN ELIZABETH, at 1,031 feet in length and some 83,000 tons, was the largest pax ship in the world for half a century. Nowadays a ship of 83,000 GRT is considered mid-sized, and her length could be considerably less than 1,000 feet. GRT now is mostly in the bulk, width, and height of ships.

An amazing comparison to consider is Oceania's new MARINA, which just entered service at around 66,000 GRT. She is being touted almost as a boutique ship, somewhere between small and mid-sized, yet her tonnage is roughly the same as the SS FRANCE or QE2 when they entered service!

Rich

[ 04-10-2011: Message edited by: Linerrich ]

Which is what Rich is saying: because modern day cruise ships have very little or perhaps no cargo space, the GRT is higher....which is absolutely true.

His example of Queen Elizabeth is a sound one, especially when compared to, say, Disney Wonder, which has roughly the same GRT. Even though QE was considerably longer than DW, if one was to calculate her NT, it would be less because DW has little, or no cargo space.

When I first saw this thread pop up, I thought it was going to be about which ship people like better: Olympic or Aquitania.....

Olympic, hands down.

-Russ

[ 04-12-2011: Message edited by: linerguy ]

With Aquitania, Cunard actually regressed, at least when compared to Lusitania. Even Mauretania was a step in the wrong direction.

Since the beginning Cunard has only built a handful of modern ships: Lusitania, QE (barely), QE2 and QM2. Everything else, even QM, has either been a re-hash of another design or far from ground-breaking.

I'm not getting down on Cunard; and I can certainly appreciate the historical importance of the line....I just don't think they were ever on the cutting edge of ship design.

After all, they're not German or French!

quote:

---

Originally posted by linerguy:

With Aquitania, Cunard actually regressed, at least when compared to Lusitania. Even Mauretania was a step in the wrong direction.

-Russ

---

How was Mauretania a step in the wrong direction?

As far as Aquitania goes, yes, I've read the "Lusitania with an extra deck" comparison, which brings home my point about Mauretania being a step in the wrong direction: Cunard supposedly used Lusitania as a model for Aquitania, not Mauretania. That's because Lusitania was the more ground-breaking of the two...even though she was slightly older.

Having said that, I can honestly say that I don't see a lot of Lusitania in Aquitania....except the four funnels.

As far as Aquatania vs Olympic goes, I would have to go with Olympic even though I find the Aquatania to be absolutely gorgeous!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:
Lusitania was the sleeker of the two and I always liked her pre-maiden voyage paint job scheme.

---

LUSITANIA will be forever linked to her tragic ending, but during her 7+ years of transatlantic service, she was the more popular of the twin liners. According to contemporary reports, the "blogs" of the day, most people liked her lighter interiors over MAURETANIA's heavy, dark atmosphere on board.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cunard Fan:
Interesting....I have never heard that about gross tonnage....I have always thought that the whole volume of the ship was being measured.

---

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/427361_316258491748819_100000940118051_863147_1744979459_n.jpg

[ 01-27-2012: Message edited by: desirod7 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeBarryboat:
I think with modern ship-building we are able to get more useable interior volume for passengers, than the old ships.

---