Hi!
Goodness! Please accept my apologies for leaving this thread so long. I fear I might forget it again, but I'll try not to and here goes...
Once again, Bill, thanks for an informative post. I know you are busy so it's all the more appreciated. I remember now about the faulty turbines, although I had forgotten since I read it in Gary Buchanen[sic]'s book.
While we're on the topic, I wonder how long the QE2 will remain in service. She seems to be going strong, but she is getting old in ship terms. Kind of like the Norway. Still, it will be wonderful to see her with the Queen Mary 2. I was in Liverpool recently and there were several proud articles in the Echo.
It is really unfortunate that the QM2 could not be built in Britain; I just hope that those two new massive 60,000 ton Royal Navy carriers (planned for 2010) and their fifty-year maintainance contracts will be awarded to struggling British yards. We might have the fourth largest navy and economy in the world, but that does not translate to profitable shipbuilding unfortunately.
Returning to the subject of the Queen Mary, I understand she was built very strong, and she certainly stood up to the Atlantic and thirty-one years of hard service. Yet such a large ship surely isn't built to last that long -- I know there have been rumours of failing rivets in her hull, but I hope and understand that those rumours are false.
Ships generally get retired for competitive reasons rather than structural or maintainance problems, or at least they used to; but from a naval architect's viewpoint is there anything to prevent a ship being designed to last fifty years of service? Costs may be high at first, so I suppose that counts against the idea, especially considering that the ship will need modernisation. Cunard spent quite a bit on Aquitania, refurbishing her accommodation, etc. (and she coped well with the depression), and she certainly lasted long, albeit due to Adolf. Although, especially from the 1940s, she was ageing rapidly, and had shown some minor troubles as early as 1924, I get the impression that it was primarily due to her outdated accommodation that she was withdrawn from service, rather than unsolvable mechanical/structural problems. I understand the post-war economic problems, so I suppose she could have been overhauled and refitted, but there was not sufficient necessity, or funds. Perhaps Steve Anderson has something on this as well?
Best regards,
Mark.