ArchGuy1 wrote:

Concerns are growing over the future of the famous ocean liner Queen Mary, which has an impressive history in both wartime and peacetime. Concerns have rose about the upkeep and condition of the famous ocean liner now in Long Beach around the complex of businesses operating her. A group of supporters say their efforts to raise awareness on this are being ignored. The engineer that looked after the ship for 25 years was dismissed after he said conditions were the worst he ever saw. Urgent repairs are expected to cost $23 million, while further repairs are estimated to cost $200 million. Hopefully, the ship can be restored and proper upkeep can be provided.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/189 ... pbuilding/

johns624 wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

Concerns are growing over the future of the famous ocean liner Queen Mary, which has an impressive history in both wartime and peacetime. Concerns have rose about the upkeep and condition of the famous ocean liner now in Long Beach around the complex of businesses operating her. A group of supporters say their efforts to raise awareness on this are being ignored. The engineer that looked after the ship for 25 years was dismissed after he said conditions were the worst he ever saw. Urgent repairs are expected to cost $23 million, while further repairs are estimated to cost $200 million. Hopefully, the ship can be restored and proper upkeep can be provided.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/189 ... pbuilding/

This is a perfect example why your desire to preserve/restore lesser ships would never work. If people can't keep one of the best known ships under good repair, what chance does a ship that nobody has ever heard of have? I've heard that the USS Texas also has severe problems.

ArchGuy1 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

Concerns are growing over the future of the famous ocean liner Queen Mary, which has an impressive history in both wartime and peacetime. Concerns have rose about the upkeep and condition of the famous ocean liner now in Long Beach around the complex of businesses operating her. A group of supporters say their efforts to raise awareness on this are being ignored. The engineer that looked after the ship for 25 years was dismissed after he said conditions were the worst he ever saw. Urgent repairs are expected to cost $23 million, while further repairs are estimated to cost $200 million. Hopefully, the ship can be restored and proper upkeep can be provided.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/189 ... pbuilding/

This is a perfect example why your desire to preserve/restore lesser ships would never work. If people can't keep one of the best known ships under good repair, what chance does a ship that nobody has ever heard of have? I've heard that the USS Texas also has severe problems.

They managed to restore the SS Meteor, which was in bad shape in about 2000, but in very good shape now. SS Meteor is less well known than Queen Mary or USS Texas.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Meteor_(1896)

FGITD wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

This is a perfect example why your desire to preserve/restore lesser ships would never work. If people can't keep one of the best known ships under good repair, what chance does a ship that nobody has ever heard of have? I've heard that the USS Texas also has severe problems.

They managed to restore the SS Meteor, which was in bad shape in about 2000, but in very good shape now. SS Meteor is less well known than Queen Mary or USS Texas.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Meteor_(1896)

SS Meteor might as well be a rubber dinghy compared to an ocean liner. They have nothing in common.

The longevity of these restorations is the problem. You spend a fortune and all you’re doing is kicking the can further down the road, but sooner or later you’ll catch up to it and have to spend another fortune

ArchGuy1 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

They managed to restore the SS Meteor, which was in bad shape in about 2000, but in very good shape now. SS Meteor is less well known than Queen Mary or USS Texas.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Meteor_(1896)

SS Meteor might as well be a rubber dinghy compared to an ocean liner. They have nothing in common.

The longevity of these restorations is the problem. You spend a fortune and all you’re doing is kicking the can further down the road, but sooner or later you’ll catch up to it and have to spend another fortune

SS Meteor is also on dry land and in a freshwater environment.

johns624 wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

Concerns are growing over the future of the famous ocean liner Queen Mary, which has an impressive history in both wartime and peacetime. Concerns have rose about the upkeep and condition of the famous ocean liner now in Long Beach around the complex of businesses operating her. A group of supporters say their efforts to raise awareness on this are being ignored. The engineer that looked after the ship for 25 years was dismissed after he said conditions were the worst he ever saw. Urgent repairs are expected to cost $23 million, while further repairs are estimated to cost $200 million. Hopefully, the ship can be restored and proper upkeep can be provided.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/189 ... pbuilding/

This is a perfect example why your desire to preserve/restore lesser ships would never work. If people can't keep one of the best known ships under good repair, what chance does a ship that nobody has ever heard of have? I've heard that the USS Texas also has severe problems.

bennett123 wrote:

I have to say that I thought that the Marco Polo would survive.

northstardc4m wrote:

It seems the MV Magellan (nee Holiday for Carnival) has been sold for scrap as well...

FGITD wrote:

This is the wrong conversation to have. The real question afoot here is if you could take the Sydney Opera House, and turn it into an ocean liner, then convert it to to a hotel/museum at a later date.

ArchGuy1 wrote:

Here is a petition to save the SS United States that you should sign as it can bring change.
https://www.change.org/p/save-the-ss-un ... rect=false

johns624 wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

Here is a petition to save the SS United States that you should sign as it can bring change.
https://www.change.org/p/save-the-ss-un ... rect=false

Once again, money saves things, not petitions...

ArchGuy1 wrote:

Concerns are growing over the future of the famous ocean liner Queen Mary, which has an impressive history in both wartime and peacetime. Concerns have rose about the upkeep and condition of the famous ocean liner now in Long Beach around the complex of businesses operating her. A group of supporters say their efforts to raise awareness on this are being ignored. The engineer that looked after the ship for 25 years was dismissed after he said conditions were the worst he ever saw. Urgent repairs are expected to cost $23 million, while further repairs are estimated to cost $200 million. Hopefully, the ship can be restored and proper upkeep can be provided.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/189 ... pbuilding/

Kiwirob wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

Concerns are growing over the future of the famous ocean liner Queen Mary, which has an impressive history in both wartime and peacetime. Concerns have rose about the upkeep and condition of the famous ocean liner now in Long Beach around the complex of businesses operating her. A group of supporters say their efforts to raise awareness on this are being ignored. The engineer that looked after the ship for 25 years was dismissed after he said conditions were the worst he ever saw. Urgent repairs are expected to cost $23 million, while further repairs are estimated to cost $200 million. Hopefully, the ship can be restored and proper upkeep can be provided.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/189 ... pbuilding/

Why bother, it's not worth spending $200m fixing her up.

ArchGuy1 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

Concerns are growing over the future of the famous ocean liner Queen Mary, which has an impressive history in both wartime and peacetime. Concerns have rose about the upkeep and condition of the famous ocean liner now in Long Beach around the complex of businesses operating her. A group of supporters say their efforts to raise awareness on this are being ignored. The engineer that looked after the ship for 25 years was dismissed after he said conditions were the worst he ever saw. Urgent repairs are expected to cost $23 million, while further repairs are estimated to cost $200 million. Hopefully, the ship can be restored and proper upkeep can be provided.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/189 ... pbuilding/

Why bother, it's not worth spending $200m fixing her up.

From the 1940's until at least the 1980's, the Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan Bridge, Williamsburg Bridge, and Queensboro Bridge were neglected and suffered a lot of deteoriation, including corrosion. In addition to deferred maintenance, the freeze-thaw cycles of New York City and the brackish water environmental of the East River accelerated the deteoration of these two bridges. This led to expensive rehabilitation projects that lasted from the 1980's until at least 2010 that cost over a billion dollars in some cases. So, I feel that the Queen Mary should be repaired and returned to her former glory.

fortytwoeyes wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Why bother, it's not worth spending $200m fixing her up.

From the 1940's until at least the 1980's, the Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan Bridge, Williamsburg Bridge, and Queensboro Bridge were neglected and suffered a lot of deteoriation, including corrosion. In addition to deferred maintenance, the freeze-thaw cycles of New York City and the brackish water environmental of the East River accelerated the deteoration of these two bridges. This led to expensive rehabilitation projects that lasted from the 1980's until at least 2010 that cost over a billion dollars in some cases. So, I feel that the Queen Mary should be repaired and returned to her former glory.

How is that a valid comparison? Bridges are useful for crossing bodies of water. What body of water can the Queen Mary help people cross?

ArchGuy1 wrote:

fortytwoeyes wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

From the 1940's until at least the 1980's, the Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan Bridge, Williamsburg Bridge, and Queensboro Bridge were neglected and suffered a lot of deteoriation, including corrosion. In addition to deferred maintenance, the freeze-thaw cycles of New York City and the brackish water environmental of the East River accelerated the deteoration of these two bridges. This led to expensive rehabilitation projects that lasted from the 1980's until at least 2010 that cost over a billion dollars in some cases. So, I feel that the Queen Mary should be repaired and returned to her former glory.

How is that a valid comparison? Bridges are useful for crossing bodies of water. What body of water can the Queen Mary help people cross?

While the Queen Mary does not help people cross bodies of water, a bridge like the Williamsburg Bridge is in a harsh marine environment and probably harsher than what the Queen Mary sits in Long Beach.

FGITD wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

fortytwoeyes wrote:

How is that a valid comparison? Bridges are useful for crossing bodies of water. What body of water can the Queen Mary help people cross?

While the Queen Mary does not help people cross bodies of water, a bridge like the Williamsburg Bridge is in a harsh marine environment and probably harsher than what the Queen Mary sits in Long Beach.

But it’s an entirely different conversation. The money isn't being spent on the bridges to keep them open as hotels and museums. They're important pieces of infrastructure, without which millions of lives and billions of dollars would be disrupted.

If the Queen Mary sunk right now, almost no one's life would change in any meaningful way.

Old ships, and yes despite this being an aviation site, old airplanes, are simply not meant to exist forever unless there's a lot of money in the bank, and meticulous upkeep.

bennett123 wrote:

IMO, the Queen Mary is much more valuable historically that the modern cruise ships.

The problem is that even if the $23M is found, which is no mean achievement, there is then another $200M to find.

ArchGuy1 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

Concerns are growing over the future of the famous ocean liner Queen Mary, which has an impressive history in both wartime and peacetime. Concerns have rose about the upkeep and condition of the famous ocean liner now in Long Beach around the complex of businesses operating her. A group of supporters say their efforts to raise awareness on this are being ignored. The engineer that looked after the ship for 25 years was dismissed after he said conditions were the worst he ever saw. Urgent repairs are expected to cost $23 million, while further repairs are estimated to cost $200 million. Hopefully, the ship can be restored and proper upkeep can be provided.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/189 ... pbuilding/

Why bother, it's not worth spending $200m fixing her up.

From the 1940's until at least the 1980's, the Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan Bridge, Williamsburg Bridge, and Queensboro Bridge were neglected and suffered a lot of deteoriation, including corrosion. In addition to deferred maintenance, the freeze-thaw cycles of New York City and the brackish water environmental of the East River accelerated the deteoration of these two bridges. This led to expensive rehabilitation projects that lasted from the 1980's until at least 2010 that cost over a billion dollars in some cases. So, I feel that the Queen Mary should be repaired and returned to her former glory.

ArchGuy1 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

While the Queen Mary does not help people cross bodies of water, a bridge like the Williamsburg Bridge is in a harsh marine environment and probably harsher than what the Queen Mary sits in Long Beach.

But it’s an entirely different conversation. The money isn't being spent on the bridges to keep them open as hotels and museums. They're important pieces of infrastructure, without which millions of lives and billions of dollars would be disrupted.

If the Queen Mary sunk right now, almost no one's life would change in any meaningful way.

Old ships, and yes despite this being an aviation site, old airplanes, are simply not meant to exist forever unless there's a lot of money in the bank, and meticulous upkeep.

Here is another link, which has some information about the restoration of the SS Great Britain and the challenges faced with preserving the ship. I posted it earlier on this thread and another reason why it would be worth it to spend the money on repairing Queen Mary.
https://www.ssgreatbritain.org/story/co ... at-britain

Kiwirob wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

But it’s an entirely different conversation. The money isn't being spent on the bridges to keep them open as hotels and museums. They're important pieces of infrastructure, without which millions of lives and billions of dollars would be disrupted.

If the Queen Mary sunk right now, almost no one's life would change in any meaningful way.

Old ships, and yes despite this being an aviation site, old airplanes, are simply not meant to exist forever unless there's a lot of money in the bank, and meticulous upkeep.

Here is another link, which has some information about the restoration of the SS Great Britain and the challenges faced with preserving the ship. I posted it earlier on this thread and another reason why it would be worth it to spend the money on repairing Queen Mary.
https://www.ssgreatbritain.org/story/co ... at-britain

You can't compare SS Great Britain and RMS Queen Mary, SS Great Britain is about 10% the size of Queen Mary, keeping her going as a museum ship isn't the financial burden Queen Mary is, besides she's one of several museum ships in the UK which have similar levels of preservation, HMS Victory, HMS Warrior and Cutty Sark, these ships are largely self funding which the Queen Mary isn't.

Toenga wrote:

I do admire ArchGuy's enthusiasm for preserving bits of Maritime Heritage though.
But conserving museum exhibits, is expensive, and that expense is related to the storage environment, materials, and size.
Conserving, and maintaining 80000 tons of largely mild steel in a salt water environment is massively expensive, an expense that would only grow in time, as on going corrosion would make more and more of the structure safety critical.
The value of museum pieces, is massively dependant on their context. The Queen Mary was a British built ship trading largely between New York and Southampton. Los Angeles, is totally irrelevant to her history.
Simply there is much better uses, even in preserving maritime history, for the money required.
There may well be a case for preserving bits of her, like representative cabins from 1st Class through to lowest ranked crew members, but I would doubt that Los Angeles would be the place for any such exhibit.

FGITD wrote:

I really need to see a source stating that London Bridge is one of the most popular tourist attractions in Arizona. I just plainly can’t believe that.

And again...stop comparing bridges to ships. The location does not much matter with a bridge because traffic will use it regardless, as long as it connects 2 points. It’s not a tourist destination. A ship hotel is. Would you expect to visit a space shuttle displayed in Sioux Falls, SD? No, because it has no relevance to the history of it. QM maybe could have done better in NYC because it's a relic of an era when people used that means of transport to get to NYC. Hence, relevant

ArchGuy1 wrote:

London Bridge was moved from London to Lake Havasu City, Arizona in the late 1960's, around the same time Queen Mary came to Long Beach and London Bridge has become a popular tourist attraction for Lake Havasu City and one of the most popular in Arizona. London Bridge has no more relevance for Lake Havasu City than the Queen Mary does for Long Beach.

johns624 wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

London Bridge was moved from London to Lake Havasu City, Arizona in the late 1960's, around the same time Queen Mary came to Long Beach and London Bridge has become a popular tourist attraction for Lake Havasu City and one of the most popular in Arizona. London Bridge has no more relevance for Lake Havasu City than the Queen Mary does for Long Beach.

The only reason anyone would got to Lake Havasu City to see London Bridge is if they were ignorant and thought that they'd see Tower Bridge. I'm sure its popularity is dwarfed by the Grand Canyon, which requires no maintenance and is truly "iconic".

FGITD wrote:

I really need to see a source stating that London Bridge is one of the most popular tourist attractions in Arizona. I just plainly can’t believe that.

And again...stop comparing bridges to ships. The location does not much matter with a bridge because traffic will use it regardless, as long as it connects 2 points. It’s not a tourist destination. A ship hotel is. Would you expect to visit a space shuttle displayed in Sioux Falls, SD? No, because it has no relevance to the history of it. QM maybe could have done better in NYC because it's a relic of an era when people used that means of transport to get to NYC. Hence, relevant

Kiwirob wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Why bother, it's not worth spending $200m fixing her up.

From the 1940's until at least the 1980's, the Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan Bridge, Williamsburg Bridge, and Queensboro Bridge were neglected and suffered a lot of deteoriation, including corrosion. In addition to deferred maintenance, the freeze-thaw cycles of New York City and the brackish water environmental of the East River accelerated the deteoration of these two bridges. This led to expensive rehabilitation projects that lasted from the 1980's until at least 2010 that cost over a billion dollars in some cases. So, I feel that the Queen Mary should be repaired and returned to her former glory.

Its two completely different situations, those bridges are important pieces of transport infrastructure, they benefit the communities they connect, the existence of Queen Mary benefits nobody, she could be dismantled, after a couple of years very few people would care, unlike those bridges if you dismantled them replacement bridges would be needed.

OA260 wrote:

Cruise ship visits to Canada now banned until February 2022

A ban on cruise ships with more than 100 people coming to Canada will remain in place until February 2022, a federal government release said Thursday.

The temporary measures for cruise ships were scheduled to end on Feb. 28.

http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5901198

einsteinboricua wrote:

OA260 wrote:

Cruise ship visits to Canada now banned until February 2022

A ban on cruise ships with more than 100 people coming to Canada will remain in place until February 2022, a federal government release said Thursday.

The temporary measures for cruise ships were scheduled to end on Feb. 28.

http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5901198

I have Bliss scheduled for late September, but seems the only ways this trip can happen are if:

1. Cruise lines are granted exemptions from the Passenger Vessel Services Act and allowed their foreign flagged vessels to cruise within US waters without needing to stop in Victoria or Vancouver; and/or
2. Covid cases plummet from here to late summer, to the point where Canadian officials decide to revisit the ban and allow a late Alaska cruise season to take place.

Of course, I'm gonna keep it booked just to see if it's rebooked to next year (though I might as well settle for a transatlantic in Spring 2022 instead).

bananaboy wrote:

I guess they're lobbying hard for a removal of, or more realistically, a temporary exemption or suspension of The Jones Act for the 2021 season. We had notification on Friday from one of the big cruise lines that they were going to announce a new policy offering extra flexibility specifically for these guests, including later balance payments and swapping to another sailing. This cruise line has taken 2021 Alaska off sale but not cancelled - I don't think you'd do that if you didn't have at least some level of hope that a change in the regulations is going to be forthcoming.

Way less than 50/50 though, IMHO, sadly.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

bananaboy wrote:

I guess they're lobbying hard for a removal of, or more realistically, a temporary exemption or suspension of The Jones Act for the 2021 season. We had notification on Friday from one of the big cruise lines that they were going to announce a new policy offering extra flexibility specifically for these guests, including later balance payments and swapping to another sailing. This cruise line has taken 2021 Alaska off sale but not cancelled - I don't think you'd do that if you didn't have at least some level of hope that a change in the regulations is going to be forthcoming.

Way less than 50/50 though, IMHO, sadly.

Why just a temporary suspension of the Jones Act? The US does not have a passenger ship building industry. Can you imagine the outcry if there were a similar law prohibiting the use foreign built airliners by US airlines on domestic routes in the US?

bananaboy wrote:

I'd imagine NCLH would feel some conflict about this; Pride of America is by far NCL's most profitable ship and they won't be keen to permanently lose their exclusivity on Hawaiian intra-island cruises, yet they have a significant deployment in Alaska and Canada / New England.

bananaboy wrote:

I'm not familiar with the politics of this..who would likely be the key objectors to a permanent (or even temporary) scrapping of the legislation?

einsteinboricua wrote:

bananaboy wrote:

I'd imagine NCLH would feel some conflict about this; Pride of America is by far NCL's most profitable ship and they won't be keen to permanently lose their exclusivity on Hawaiian intra-island cruises, yet they have a significant deployment in Alaska and Canada / New England.

Is it? I know that being US flagged means the crew is mostly all American (with American labor and wage regulations) and passengers must pay more to set sail, but I would think the expenses would also be higher and thus net revenue would be on par with their other ships... .

einsteinboricua wrote:

bananaboy wrote:

I'm not familiar with the politics of this..who would likely be the key objectors to a permanent (or even temporary) scrapping of the legislation?

Most likely conservatives. You can bet that Alaska and Hawaii politicians are advocating that this be scrapped permanently (anything shipped from the mainland would have to stop somewhere before continuing on to either state, or vice versa). The island territories (PR, VI, GU, NM, AS) would also stand to benefit. But you may find a few coastal state politicians whose states have megaports and benefit from ships stopping there rather than the islands, and they may be joined by heartland politicians just because.