Ugly ships

That bow is reminiscent of modern submarines which always look far too blunt yet must be extremely efficient.  I daresay it's hulking strong if not fast.

Just as aeroplane designers would rather do away with windows in passenger aircraft in the interests of cost-saving and efficiency so ship designers would like to rid their vessels of all the protuberances (sticky-out bits) that give character to a vessel.

Bit like modern cars, streamlining produces beauty and efficiency produces boxes.

Michael 

I sailed for 8 years as a mate on salvage tugs and supply vessels (Wijsmuller and Smit Lloyd). I can see that this ship would be able to maintain a reasonable speed without damage in heavy sea conditions. It remains plug ugly though

Julian

I am sure they are refering to Offshore drilling support.

The Bourbon Orca was the first of this series that I know of...

 It's odd, but I haven't decided if it is ugly or not...

Gotta admit, even compared with a sheep carrier that one fair takes the biscuit!  My wife's steam iron looks more seaworthy.

I was interested in the company's "emphasis on offshore applications" - never yet seen a ship designed for onshore applications......

Michael 

I am afraid you all lose because this has to be the ugliest ship around (although a fascinating design  ):

It's got a bow shaped like Barbara Streisand's nose

Julian

I feel similarly about the Canberra, on both counts.

Michael 

I can tell you that the SS France was the most beautiful engine powered ship ever built, at least to my eyes.   Compared to her every other engine powered ship is ugly.

The fate of the France makes me cry. 

kp80;

Thank you in turn, I can really appreciate the world you describe, right down to the plain food and minimal entertainment - who'd want to 'cruise'?

I should tell you the Fairsea (ex USS/HMS Charger) was a migrant ship at that time and that I was only seven years old!  My goodness but could she roll!  There was a tank-like 'swimming pool' set in one deck aft but it generally had breakers like a Hawaiian beach rolling from side to side and was therefore half-empty.  It was out of bounds after one daring passenger received head injuries  The only 'shop' was a cigarette kiosk selling Senior Service "Navy Cut" cigarettes in a flat tin.  A daily highlight to us kids was the freshly baked bread rolls.  Compare that to a modern cruise ship (why don't we call them 'cruisers?).

I've always wanted to go back, but not through the frenetic, impersonal air routes with their strict timetables, crammed shoulder to shoulder in a tube with wings, eating plastic food with a plastic spoon and risking DVT.  If I could organise it I'd like to sail as a passenger in a freighter, perhaps even a working one (passenger that is, I always fancied being a cook).  Even if it's still possible I suppose it would have to be in a container ship these days, and they're not much smaller than these cruise ships.  Distinct lack of casinos and shops of course!

Apologies for the reminiscences everybody.

Michael 

MJH,

Your post brings back many memories.  Ships like the one in my avatar (SS James Lykes) were among my first experiences at sea.  I loved those trips.  Nothing like sitting on a bitt on the fantail with a cup of coffee, shooting the hooey and watching the sunset (and keeping an eye out for the elusive green flash) after a long day in a hot engine room (that was our sauna).  We used to carry up to 12 passengers on those old ships, and they seemed to enjoy every aspect of a "freighter cruise" -- the sudden changes in itinerary, the colorful characters in the ship's crew, the endless sea stories, and the plain but hearty cooking.  They couldn't sit anywhere on deck without picking up a smudge of grease.  The only planned activity we had to offer the passengers was the weekly movie.  Since the passengers watched what we watched,  sometimes the ladies would skip the movie.  When we returned to the states, they were truly sad to leave the ship, they had became part of the family.  We used to throw them a big party the night before our arrival.  I just wonder if folks take these trips anymore.

 Thanks for the memories Michael!

Wow, we went from

Beau Mansfield wrote:

...please tell me which ones you don't like. ...

To

Beau Mansfield wrote:

Cruise lines are run to make a profit. So here's to ugly cruise ships (Sheep carriers) They are here to stay.

In nothing flat.

I don't think anyone said to keep the old steamers. Just consider more beautiful precidents. Not everyone wants to maintain a 60's era Mustang either, that is why they bought the 2005 or more current version cars. The technology moved on, but Ford managed to capture the "spirit" of the older cars.  The influence the older car is obvious.  As is the profit maximization of the ugly cruise ships. So can maximum profit, and beauty be married? The QM2 was a good effort. As a designer, it is something you might be able to influence. Let us know how you fair.

Then we could convert them all into aircraft carriers!

Now that'd make an interesting model.

Hi Michael,

Didn't you know that when the oil runs that all the cruise ships are going to be converted over to nuclear power.

Mind you by then we will most likely be far too busy fighting wars to go cruising.

Regards,

Beau.

Glad to see you haven't lost your sense of humour in the face of all our cynicism.

If I took the aforementioned voyage I personally would be content to go in a freighter.  The modern cruise ship is little more than a vast hotel and entertainment complex to keep the livesto...sorry, passengers, amused between ports of call with their multiple restaurants, casinos, shops (SHOPS, for goodness sake!), swimming pools, saunas, and what have you, not to mention mulct them for every possible extra penny on top of their fare.  In fact they appear to do everything they can to insulate the occupants from the fact that they are actually at sea.  I bet you could take a worldwide cruise and never actually see the open ocean if you didn't want to.

I'm realist enough to know the old ships have had their day but it's not the vessels themselves that are the loss, it's a certain intercourse with the vitality of the sea which has driven men "down to the sea in ships" since the beginning.  I felt it in 1958 on the MV Fairsea and have never forgotten it, despite the fact I've never been to sea since.  The throb of the engines, the boiling wake, the constant hiss of the water passing the ship and the salt spray in your face - I scarcely remember the departure and arrival, just the bit in between.

As to cruise ships being here to stay... when the oil runs out they'll be among the first casualties.

Michael 

The modern cruise ship is not designed to operate on a "scheduled service" in the North Atlantic in February apart from the QM2 and QE2, but are quite capable of handling server weather conditions.

As you are all aware technology has to move on and however much we may romantisise about the past and the old Trans Atlantic steamers, there comes a time when we have to say good bye to them, accept change and move on to the next generation.

Is it safe to travel across the Atlantic on the new cruise ships of today.

The answer is yes.

They are built to very high standards and have to meet very strict safety regulations and test before entering service.

However no industry is perfect.

As the saying goes, in "most" cases it is not the machine, but the operator who causes the accidents.

Do we have concerns within the cruise industry about safety, Damn right we do.

Do I believe that a modern cruise ship could not be evacuated any better than an older ship, that really depends on the circumstances.

In recent years in "most" cases where a cruise ship has had to be abandoned the weather conditions have been fine and fortunately to date the cruise industry has not suffered a really serious Disaster,

Although I do not rule out the potential for it to happen.

Just by the shear number of ships currently in service and the new ones currently building there is always the potential for something to go wrong.

You will remember the sinking of the Sea Diamond just a couple of month ago in Santorini, Greece.

This was caused by ‘human error' in flat calm conditions in broad daylight as the ship was coming into the dock.

The cruise lines spend a lot of money on building these ships and they have to return a profit.

Ships more than 30 years old have run their course and the new ones are only built with a 16-20 year service life expectancy.

I hear people saying what a shame and disgrace that the S.S. Norway was sent to be scrapped.

Stop and think about it, the ship was built in 1961 she was in service for 42 years before being retired.

If we were to try and save every old ocean liner, who would be expected to pay for their up keep and where are their going be kept.

Cruise lines are run to make a profit.

So here's to ugly cruise ships (Sheep carriers)

They are here to stay.

Regards,

Beau.

I've never flown in an aircraft and if I was contemplating such a trip I should prefer to go by ship and if the only available vessel was one of these modern cruise ships then so be it.  You can't see the ugliness from inside....

Michael 

Up umtil the late 1950's. (until the arrival of the Boeing 707) the only practical way to go from Europe and North/South America, was a ship. The ships were meant to sail on a schedlule, which included passages in the winter north Athlantic. They were m,eant to sail in style and comfort. The result was some of the most beautiful vessels to garce the seas.

Now I stand to be corrected on this, but I believe the last vessel to be built for this service was the France (Norway). It is now on the breakers beach in India. Again I stand to be corrected on this, but I believe the last vessel of this class now sailing is the Olympic, former flagship of the Greek line now sailing short cruises out of Port Everglades (Fort Lauderdale) Florida ae the Imperial Magesty.

I fully agree with most of you in saying that the ulgliest group of ships ecver produced are the current crop of cruise ships. And I ask a retorhical question: Would you elect to make a passage from New York to, lest say, Liverpool in February on any of the new cruise ships? If you had to, would you have any concerns for your own safety? I know I would. 

 Ugly Cruise ships....

 It really comes down to an old statement, "Think out of the box". Box being the key word here.

Why are the old "K" series cars ugly? all the square corners... The first Honda Element..., The Hummer... It's all too easy to make "ugly" Why do you think the Scion Xb is suddenly going to have shaped fenders for 2008? Because Xb has been ugly up till now.

Consider why so many people loved the 2005 Ford Mustang. How it reflected the "classic" lines of the old 60's originals. Consider why Dodge is heading the same way with the Challenger and it's 1970 lines. There is feeling and nostalgia in those designs and style. The question should not be, "why are modern cruise ships ugly", but "Why are classic cruise ships beautiful?"

 Why do board members here like the Savannah? Why do so many like the lines of so many Japanese WWII warships.(not all of them were beauties either). Innovation and the future are fine, but charge ahead using more than yesterday as the precedent. Look father back, look for the beauty.  The QM2 is easier on the eyes because they terraced the stern rather than building straight up the back. And they minimized the front profile by holding back the "box" and using dark windows on either side of the forward superstructure to emphasize the curve of its forward end. The bridge is given back its "authority" and stands up and out above the ship. The box follows... and it is contained between the "bow", and "stern". Two very distinct and recognizable areas of a "ship".  Don't let the square footage and it's maximization win over the "style" and "lines"

I can imagine going further for precedents in architecture. Le Grand Palais in Paris or some of the old cast iron arcades of the Buffalo gardens in New York, or Chatworth Conservatory. The proposal for the yacht Marco Polo comes to mind. I am sure I could go on, but I should really get a consulting fee...

Beau Mansfield wrote:

We have been here before. From one of those people in the cruise ship industry, who designs and oversees the building of these ugly cruise ships, please tell me which ones you don't like.

Beau;

Simple answer?  All of 'em.  QEII is not unattractive but anything that follows looks sterile, built by the mile and chopped off to length with a pointy bit stuck on so you know which direction it goes in when you press the go pedal and a few fiddly bits to try to make it look different from the last one.  Their ever-increasing size follows the same rule that makes the live-sheep transports what they are, economy of scale.  To use the vernacular; more bums on seats.

Please don't be offended - this is just my opinion - but the last really beautiful ship was Canberra. 

Michael

Beau Mansfield wrote:

Just wait until the new Genesis class cruise ships come out in the next few years for Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines. Each vessel will be 220,000 tons. Yes you did read that correctly that is 130,000 tons more than a Nimitz class aircraft carrier and it is planned that there will be three of them built. Regards,   Beau.

[rant] Uhhh, the 100,000 tons of the Nimitz is a displacement measurement, which reflects the mass of the water contained in a volume equal to the submerged portion of the ship, and by bouyancy principle also reflects the actual mass (approximate weight) of the ship.   The 220,000 tons of the cruise ship is a tonnage measurement, which reflects the result of an arbitrary, but commonly accepted, formula that roughly measures the volume of the entire hull.  The actual mass and weight of the cruise ship is unknown.

So the two measure are not directly comparable, and subtracting one from the other yields a number that has absolutely no meaning.   It is like asking "what does the difference between 75 degrees and 16 pounds tell us?".   The fallacy of subtracting displacement of one ship from the tonnage of another in order to express the difference between the size of two ships is an astonishingly common one even in nominally informed literature.  Scarcely can one open any popular nautical history reference without encountering it.    But it is absolutely wrong and meaningless. [/rant]

We have been here before.

From one of those people in the cruise ship industry, who designs and oversees the building of these ugly cruise ships, please tell me which ones you don't like.

I personally can't stand cruises, but building the ships is a great challenge and at times can be very rewarding.

The best part of building these ships for me is the sea trials.

When we take them out and really shake them up.

The one thing for sure is, you can't beat building in 1:1 scale.

Just wait until the new Genesis class cruise ships come out in the next few years for Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines.

Each vessel will be 220,000 tons.

Yes you did read that correctly that is 130,000 tons more than a Nimitz class aircraft carrier and it is planned that there will be three of them built.

Regards,

Beau.

I've commented before that the I think the two ugliest ships today are cruise ships and live sheep transports - and for exactly the same reasons.  Pre-WWI battleships and cruisers have little going for them and as for a couple of the merchant ship/escort carrier conversions from Japan...

Michael 

Mmm, modern cruise ships, yes.

Nelson and Rodney.

Winner of Fugly Contest: Union ironclad Chocktaw.

subfixer wrote:

A few years ago a thread ran on this site on members opinions on what they thought were ugly ships. We now have a few new members and I was wondering what they think. My vote for ugliest is the modern cruise ship. Bloated glitz. Yecchh! Form follows function it is said, but the designers went too far with those sorry looking things.

I concur on the Savannah. Too bad there aren't too many good looking merchant ships now days though. Those new car carriers are probably the ugliest. You have to squint your eyes to think a containership is pretty.

From a purely esthetic objective view, most aircraft carriers are pretty ugly.

Fred