QUEEN VICTORIA - IMO 9320556
|More Of This Ship|
© Drago Brdar
© Edson de Lima Lucas
|More Of: This Photographer - This Ship - This Ship By This Photographer|
Photo Comments (49)Comments sorting method :
|Roy Batty on Jan 16, 2013 16:23 (5 years ago)|
|Thank you Brian.Happily or unhappily everything is changing over the years!|
|Brian Brady on Jan 07, 2013 10:31 (5 years ago)|
|Great photo Roy, setting too. It makes for a good shot.It also shows how much Cruise Ships have changed over the Years !|
|Kelvin Davies on Jan 03, 2013 14:44 (5 years ago)|
Some time ago, there was a very good TV documentary about the building of the Queen Mary 2. The naval architect responsible for the design said he started out building a ship with nice accommodation for passengers. The owners then started throwing in specifications that made it obvious he was to build a hotel that floats. Even the balconies were an "added extra".
Incidentally, I have heard pilots on the Solent refer to them as cattle carriers when talking between themselves.
Now stop squabbling!
|Roy Batty on Jan 03, 2013 14:29 (5 years ago)|
|Let's see the bright side of the skyscraper ships.The cost of a cruise is reduced because the capacity for each vessel is more than 2-3 thousands passengers.now many people can enjoy a cruise for 500 euros for example.But how many people of the past could experience that?a few decades ago,cruising was for those who had big budgets.|
|Jimmy Christie on Jan 03, 2013 13:50 (5 years ago)|
Clive - what you did or did not do is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.
I wasn't talking about individuals, I was talking about the market. And the _market_ demands balconies - that is why the ships have them, and that is why they look as they do. Ships like QV and QE are not transatlantic express passenger liners - they are cruise ships and they are optimised for cruising.
|SteKrueBe on Jan 03, 2013 13:39 (5 years ago)|
|Very nice picture. Good balance and atmopheric lighting. However, seen from this particular angle the vessel reminds me of an apartment house too.|
|Phil English on Jan 03, 2013 13:38 (5 years ago)|
|Clive, Jimmy is spot on. His point concerns the 'modern cruise passenger'. Clearly you are not one of them ;-))|
|Captain Ted on Jan 03, 2013 13:36 (5 years ago)|
Jimmy,,,you said it,,for the PASSENGERS
ever been in the crew decks ? they travel also nice ?
|Phil English on Jan 03, 2013 13:34 (5 years ago)|
|@samson46. I agree with you and I enjoy the banter. I just wanted to make it clear that everyone is welcome here and welcome to make comments, provided it does not degenerate into personal abuse. Thankfully that hasn't happened in this thread and rarely does :-)|
|samson46 on Jan 03, 2013 13:18 (5 years ago)|
|Phil English: It is quite difficult to make it obvious that one is writing with tongue in cheek; as it seems both of us were trying do do in this instance. Nevertheless I think the point was worth making because all the incessant, negative comments about modern ship design are rather spoiling this site.|
|Jimmy Christie on Jan 03, 2013 13:05 (5 years ago)|
|It's quite simple - the modern cruise passenger demands a level of comfort and convenience that, in the "good old days" would have been available only in first class (if at all). No one these days will accept less than a cabin with en suite facilities, of a good size, and with a strong preference for a balcony. If, as a cruise line, you are not prepared to meet these requirements then the paying public will jump ship to a line that does, and you will go out of business. Form follows function, people - so we have convergent design evolution between blocks of flats (with balconies) and cruise ships (with balconies). For 17 nights back in 2007 I occupied an inside cabin on QE2 with upper and lower bunks - I described it at the time as "a broom cupboard with sleeping shelves". It was fun at the time (my first cruise), and I have dined out on the story many times since then. But the key question is "would I do it again" and the answer to that is "Would I heck as like!"|
|Cornelia Klier on Jan 03, 2013 12:03 (5 years ago)|
I think, those ones who prefer oldies, should widen their eyes when they see a new cruiseship/containership/carcarrier etc, and look closer. Or go to optician and get new glasses :-) :-)Then, it will not happen anymore, that you mistake cattleboats with passenerships.
On a serious note: I do like old ships, as well new ships. I like the old Sietas built ships, I like it when I see a photo and I can see.. it's a Sietas ! Or with Peterswerft Wewelsfleth. You can recognize their ships. BUT - not only the old, also the new. Same with containerships: If you give them a chance, you can recognize a Odense built one, certain Korea built ones, and distinctive Mitsubishis built for Evergreen. Same with cruiseships. You can see very well difference in building Disney Magic, Aida ships.... OK I can go on, you know where I am going to :-)
I know new ships, and old ones, I have no prejudge against any of these.
I though do not like a tendency on this forum:
a) It is tolerated to call passengerships whatever names, comments with likewise text are made daily under photos.
b) It is not tolerated to do likewise with Oldies, if done so, you face a flaming and discussion gets personal.
It would be nice, if there would be more common sense, usually I simply look at photos, if I don't like, I look next, if I like or find interesting, I say something.
Also, this page here is called shipspotting.com not shipnostalgia.com. Although I like both old and new ships, and I like especially coasters and ferries, I think this site is not really one to talk only about good old times and shitty new times.
|jadran on Jan 03, 2013 11:39 (5 years ago)|
samson46, maybe just to explain myself, I am not a "ship nostalgic" and shall never be one in the "nostalgic" sense of meaning!.
I look at ... appreciate and "love" ALL THE SHIPS, that are eye-catching no matter they are tall ships, old-timers, middle age, today design, modern and/or futuristic creation.
To prove & confirm my statement I herewith add my YESTERDAY comment ref cruiser Carribean Princess.
I do like this ship, it is my favourite cruiser & I specially like the aft "handle" on her !!
This is the very ship (however, my favourite cruiser) where I like the "gorgious handle" up at the aft!
In my below comment I have only placed HISTORICAL FACTS about ship design in the 60s, nothing else, only a "Historical script" or "Encyclopedia".
|JonWoodhouse on Jan 03, 2013 11:28 (5 years ago)|
|@Roy - your last comment sums up what i was meaning - I do like the modern ships, especially like the look of the new Norwegian Breakaway Plus design|
|Patagualino on Jan 03, 2013 11:25 (5 years ago)|
|Well said Roy. (Still a great photo too.) Have a Great 2013....Keep 'em coming!|
|Roy Batty on Jan 03, 2013 11:21 (5 years ago)|
I dont think anyone is modernship-hater,just maybe some people prefer oldliners.
A more negative parameter for modern vessels is not the appearance.It's the fact that most of them are the same.Even those which are not sisterships.For example like Queen Victoria,we have Queen Elizabeth,Arcadia,Noordam etc from HAL,a few Costa vessels and a few from Carnival.The basic design is the same,only the funnel changes,the rest is almost identical.
There is no personality in each vessel,they dont make you feel as you see something unique.
Thank you again for your kind comments,best wishes for 2013!
|Phil English on Jan 03, 2013 11:13 (5 years ago)|
@samson46 Well thanks, but I was commenting more in jest and banter. I wouldn't have put it quite so harshly. Each to their own, eh?
Incidentally, it's an awesome photo. In all this discussion We shouldn't lose sight of that fact :-)
|samson46 on Jan 03, 2013 10:58 (5 years ago)|
I would echo and re-echo the comment by Phil English.
Wouldn’t it be good if all these moaning modern-ship haters could be automatically redirected to one of the other sites that specialise in nostalgic ships. It would be better for their own health and blood pressure in that they did not get so hot under the collar so often and it would relieve the rest of us from their incessant, tiresome stuck-in-the past bleating.
|josip botica on Jan 03, 2013 10:49 (5 years ago)|
|Photo of the year.Best regards and happy new year Josip|
|jadran on Jan 03, 2013 10:23 (5 years ago)|
:-)In general it is true Clive, I have to agree 90%, because throughout 1960s the ship designers were really putting their top-top effort to create something 'beautiful', to create something unique & not yet seen with others; each ship to be an 'individual' and to have its 'good, more best & distinctive look', to have the designer's "sole touch & signature" .................... !!
These 'special & beautiful' designs had their cost, honestly quite high & functionally not necessary, but the shipowners at that time approved these extra costs and even boosted the designers for more new creations.
I very well know that, as became Naval Architect early 70s.
|Clive Harvey on Jan 03, 2013 09:48 (5 years ago)|
|It is amusing to read all our heated comments regarding the design of modern cruise ships. It does seem to be a case of you either love them or loathe them. However, I do think that I ought to just point out that all passengers ships (past as well as present) were designed and built for the benefit and enjoyment of those travelling on them rather than for the pleasure of the casual, shore-side observer.|
|Phil English on Jan 03, 2013 09:45 (5 years ago)|
|Oh blimey! I think I'm living in some 1960s parallel universe. Hello!! it's 2013!!|
|JonWoodhouse on Jan 03, 2013 09:40 (5 years ago)|
|Are these ships really worthy of the 'Queen' name? Proper Cunard's were bespoke designed and built, not 'off the shelf' albeit with mods, so to speak...|
|Cornelia Klier on Jan 03, 2013 09:39 (5 years ago)|
|Hello Jadran, I know, I know :-) No need to play Big Teacher here. Instead, in case you are in possession of such one, take out your sense of humour, when you are reading comments. Of course it is always a pity when there are too many old people here, who are not able to differ cruiseships from livestock-carriers, due to bad eyesight or other cases. It is sad, indeed.|
|miraflores on Jan 03, 2013 09:31 (5 years ago)|
|Looks like a modern cattle- and sheepcarrier|
|jadran on Jan 03, 2013 09:25 (5 years ago)|
VESSEL is international accepted 'word' and 'meaning' for "the SHIP".
Regarding to "the Ship" the expression "the Vessel" is used in all Maritime business (shipping, chartering, shipbuilding & shiprepairing, maritime law & maritime arbitration, etc).
Expression "the VESSEL" is irrefutably International & Legal accepted WORD/WORDING when refering to "the SHIP".
|Cornelia Klier on Jan 03, 2013 08:57 (5 years ago)|
|Jadran, if you think that "vessel" is round, in Germany we do not use "vessel" (Gefäß) for a ship. "Vessel" here, can mean a BUCKET, POT, and as well a TRASH CAN. All these things are with round form of course :-) :-) Now, do you see the old rustbucket coming along with your vessel ?|
|jadran on Jan 03, 2013 08:46 (5 years ago)|
I am sorry to bring a comment once again, but I must stress three points, as I see them:
1) Q/V is strictly painted in BW colour/tint (this usual black/white hull/superstructure does not make me feel
boring at all).
2) Synonym for "the Ship" is "the Vessel", and 'vessels' are round/oval/curved shaped things, NOT AT ALL rectangular things with edges e.g. like shoe box.
3) It seems that with the 'modern design' the synonym for SHIP is changing today from VESSEL to BOX or even SHOE BOX (these later expressions many people use today on this site !!).
|Cornelia Klier on Jan 03, 2013 07:47 (5 years ago)|
|I sort of must admit that I think, that some rough edges add to Character of a ship. These round shaped hulls of ships decades ago, together with their usually black/white hull/superstructure make them to me boring and characterless. All a matter of taste :-)|
|Jimmy Christie on Jan 03, 2013 07:23 (5 years ago)|
|Can I just say to all of you who are gleefully comparing Queen Victoria to an apartment block that modern cruise ships are designed and built for the benefit and enjoyment of those who travel on then, not for the benefit of those who stand on the quayside and gawp at them. I have sailed three times on QV and once on her near twin QE, and for a passenger, they are in every way superior to the sainted QE2 (on which I have also travelled).|
|TARBATNESS on Jan 03, 2013 06:18 (5 years ago)|
|As modern ships go, QUEEN VICTORIA is one of the better looking ones. Although off the same production line, I think her colour scheme makes her far more attractive when compared to ARCADIA. Good photo.|
|Graham Moore on Jan 02, 2013 23:23 (5 years ago)|
This really does look like a view of some shoreside apartments with a funnel photoshopped on for a joke !
However, there are lots of people who get seasick looking at a paddling pool, so perhaps the more a cruise ship looks like something on dry land the safer a lot of people will feel. Who knows, if this trend goes on, perhaps the next generation of cruise ships will make people feel much safer by not going to sea at all, and just be.... er...hotels ?
|Clive Harvey on Jan 02, 2013 22:30 (5 years ago)|
|Cornelia, whilst you may think of the ships from the past as being dinosaurs, at least they had some grace, whereas the likes of the Queen Victoria (despite your assertion that she has 'modern cruise ship style') actually looks like a dinosaur, big, ugly and awkward - and hopefully doomed to extinction.|
|jadran on Jan 02, 2013 21:51 (5 years ago)|
I see that this ship is also in B/W appearance (black & white).
Doesn't look bad this B/W image, I think !
: The hull topsides are black & superstructure is white.
OK, I admit, only the ship's boottop & funnel are red, very nice indeed for a contrast !
|Roy Batty on Jan 02, 2013 21:43 (5 years ago)|
Thank you all for your kind comments! :)
Noone can predict what future ships will look like,but a possible guess could be that they will look uglier even than todays' skyscraper vessels.
To my opinion few today-ships will be memorised by future-shipspotters.Exceptions could be Queen Mary 2,which became an instant classic unique ship and maybe (just maybe) the Disney fleet which has a retro old-liners look.
|Cornelia Klier on Jan 02, 2013 21:18 (5 years ago)|
Whow, what a ship :-) Nicer to see than the umpteenth black/white dinosaur from many decades ago.
Modern cruise style and the ship matches very well with the background, too.
|Jens Boldt on Jan 02, 2013 21:14 (5 years ago)|
Wait and see, Theo...:-)
And, I'm sorry Roy, I forgot to give you my compliments for this beautiful photo!
|Captain Ted on Jan 02, 2013 21:07 (5 years ago)|
True,,but then,,here are no lines,,therefore rather unlikely :-)
For the beauty,,yes,, I would say,,that would be rather easy, to beat these in that aspect !!!
|Jens Boldt on Jan 02, 2013 20:57 (5 years ago)|
Never say never, Theo. Who knows what (kind of ships) the future brings?
Maybe in 30 years the people will say what a beauty she was compared to the then existing ships...:-D
|Captain Ted on Jan 02, 2013 20:51 (5 years ago)|
One thing is sure, in 30 years nobody will say
OH look at her lines,,,!! there are none :-(
|Tore Hettervik on Jan 02, 2013 19:34 (5 years ago)|
Excellent shot Roy :)
|Roy Batty on Jan 02, 2013 18:18 (5 years ago)|
A sad sign of our times:Every modern ship looks like a bunch of apartments.
Happy new year to all shipmates here :)
|jadran on Jan 02, 2013 17:44 (5 years ago)|
Thank you Roy for your below explanation of the photo.
At first I thought, that to forward right of QV is another cruiser moored sidewise in front of QV !?
:-) you are right Roy, when you cover-away by your hand the FUNNEL, the photo only looks like a seaside view with restaurants & apartment buildings along the shore side !!
Best regards & Brilliant New Year for you/Jadran
|roar jensen on Jan 02, 2013 15:24 (5 years ago)|
A really nice shot, Roy.
Happy New Year.
|Roy Batty on Jan 02, 2013 13:26 (5 years ago)|
|Thanks jadran!To me the ship looks like the appartments of the surrounding buildings...the funnel is the only difference!|
|jadran on Jan 02, 2013 13:12 (5 years ago)|
|Excellent photo indeed (A1), but in its hereby appearance, the ship looks like a 'CIRCUS LIKE' image, instead of a "Good Old Seas Ship".|
|Patalavaca on Jan 02, 2013 13:08 (5 years ago)|
Happy New Year Roy, the future is already here!
|Roy Batty on Jan 02, 2013 12:52 (5 years ago)|
Ooooops,you are right,i forgot that the year changed :p.
Thanks for the commend,happy new year :)
|Patalavaca on Jan 02, 2013 12:40 (5 years ago)|
Roy a very nice shot indeed. I like the interface of ship lights building and land... but can you go 'back to the future' and change the date please! hahaha ;-)
All the best, Rick
This photo has been shown 3,953 times since it was added to the site.