Strange how Queen Elizabeth's efficiency didn't include a faster speed. When you think about it, efficiency doesn't always include every feature you might expect. That she was bigger while using less fuel is a huge feat. Learned so much in 6 minutes.
Excellent document, I learned in it that Lizzy is 4 meters longer because of her bow angle, but the keel is the same as her sister as well as the engines. The sea keeping defects were equivalent on both ships, which suffered from terrible rolling despite the stabilizers installed in the 50's. If indeed Lizzy would have had two extra boilers, she could have been a bit faster.
Yes: another video to make this day even more interesting! :D I will admit I used to be one of those who, while I didn't necessarily believe the Elizabeth was actually faster, did think that Cunard wanted the Elizabeth held back specifically so she couldn't potentially beat the Mary's record. After all, Sir Percy Bates said just this when she was heading out for her sea trials, that it was not expected that her crew attempt a speed record either on her trials or on her maiden voyage. However, your analysis makes a ton of sense considering that at the end of the day, no matter how many advantages the Elizabeth had over the Mary, she still produced roughly the same power and didn't have all of her boilers dedicated to her speed. Mary being slightly faster is something I'm perfectly ok with.
Years back we took a tour of the Queen Mary, the tour guide said that the ship got about 10 feet per gallon of fuel----that's worse than my truck..... Thanks to Alex the Historian for posting his great work.....
I’ve always wondered how fast Elizabeth went on her secret maiden voyage to NY and if she was faster than Mary. Very interesting analysis. On the subject of ship captains telling the truth, Our captain of the Eurodam was asked why the ship was vibrating so much. He said with a straight face a large clothes dryer in the laundry was off balance! I don’t think he was allowed to talk about the azipod problems.
the pods have had issues with the giant thrust bearings wearing and warping. qm2 - carnival sued rolls royce and won a settlement and re-design insued. the pod issues are spread across many ships and companies.
The Queen Mary was a V12. Big engine with a lot of torque and horsepower in reserve. Queen Elizabeth was a small modified to the max straight-six producing the same power. Going fast for the Mary was a lot easier for it’s boilers whereas for Elizabeth to do the same, it was like asking it to sprint having just run a marathon. The Mary’s boilers while less efficient, had more in the bag.
I've been on many cruises. I always like to walk the decks late at night or early mornings when things are peaceful. The Ocean is a vast and beautiful place and I know my place. In my mind I often thank the engineer's who through their hard work and knowledge brought me such a beautiful and peaceful place. Kudos Sirs and hats off!!!!!
I have to congratulate you on this very well explained and accurate description on the historically contentious topic of the two “Queen’s” speed. Loved your explanation, thank you.
Do you think the QE would have been able to be retro-fitted with more boilers to make it faster if needed, to stay competitive or should something have happened to the QM? Seems like the addition of more boilers could have really allowed for good speed if you factor in the improved hydro dynamics, just a thought…
Thats an interesting notion. I think yes, they could have fit two more boilers forward of boiler room 1. Those two boilers could substantially increase the volume of steam production and probably allow the ship to reach an equivalent speed to QM at 32.84 knots. But I must admit, the only hydrodynamic change they made was make the bow pointier, and it had little to no effect on the ship. And because the ship was heavier it sat a few feet deeper on the water than Queen Mary, adding drag.
when I was around 3 years old, we went out on the bluffs near our house to watch the Queen Mary steaming north to her final destination. It was very exciting, even if I didn't know how historic it was. Kids are all the same. Big ships and trains are exciting!
i sailed aboard the RMS Queen Elizabeth in March 1950 - I was a child of 2 1/2 years but remember well that experience - from New York to Cherbourg France. We encountered gail force winds near South Hampton which caused much consern but we survived. The Captain ordered all passengers to stay in their room and the ship's crew locked all the cabin doors to make certain passengers stayed in their rooms until it was safe to leave our cabin. I also remember the gift shop filled with wonderful kid's toys - the latest and the greatest. I wanted this realistic looking all metal big rig - it cost 50 franks which was more than my mother was willing to spend - I imagine 50 franks was a loit of money for a toy back in 1950..
I'd have loved the chance to have stood on the prow of either Queen, blasting across the Atlantic at full steam, and feel the sheer wonder of 80,000+ tons of steel powering forth at almost 35mph. Thoroughbreds both and still some of humanity's greatest achievements in my opinion. A crime that only one of the pair survives, and in such a parlous state that she will likely never move again, certainly not under her own power.
HI ALEX ,,GREAT TEA TIME THE OTHER DAY , THAT WAS MY FIRST TEA TIME VIDEO,. YOU TALKED ABOUT ALOT OF THINGS THANKS,.. THE Q.M. I DID NOT KNOW SHE WAS A LITTLE SMALLER , THEY BOTH LOOKED SO GREAT TOGETHER SOME TIME I GET CONFUSED WHO IS WHO THERE BOTH PAINTED THE SAME ??? BUT.. ITS THE SMOKE STACKS Q.M. HAS THREE,, THE Q.E. HAS TWO,, OK..IT WAS A SHAME WHEN Q.E. WAS SOLD TO BE A FLOATING SCHOOL IN ANOTHER COUNTY. THEY WERE DOING WORK ON HER AND SHE CAUGHT ON FIRE , THEY PUT SO MUCH WATER ON HER THE Q.E. LISTED ON TO HER I BELIEVE ON HER PORT SIDE ( LEFT).. MY Q. IS DID THEY SCRAP HER OR IS SHE STILL IN THE WATER SUNK ?? CORRECT ME IF ANY THING IS WRONG THANKS, VETERAN..
Thanks Ronald, the completely scrapped QE because she was in the middle of the harbor channel where large ships need to enter and exit. There's no more of her there.
Hi Alex I'm having a difficult time understanding if the queen Elizabeth was bigger than queen mary but had half the boilers and had to share steam with power generators etc how was she able to go almost as fast without running out of steam I'm confused
The short explanation is that both ships were designed for a service speed of 28 knots. But Queen Mary was built to race, so she was capable of speeds over 32 knots. Queen Mary did not need to use all of her boilers for an ordinary scheduled crossing of the Atlantic at 28 knots. She usually ran with about 18 or 20 of her 24 Yarrow Boilers lit. The only times Queen Mary used all the Yarrow Boilers at once was when she needed to race for the Blue Riband, or when she was running behind on her schedule due to poor weather conditions that forced her to slow down during a day or two of the trip. Queen Elizabeth didn't need to race, so therefore the need to supply enough steam for racing speeds was not necessary. It's kind of like how a police car might seem identical to a car you could purchase at a consumer dealership...except that the police car is capable of speeds faster than the consumer car of the same make and model.
Excellent presentation. All videos should be like this, straight to the point and gimne the facts. Sorry but Aunt Barbara's a 'bullet-point' kind of girl 😉
If she was faster, I do not know. But she WAS BIGGER and (to many) more beautiful, with her external appearance rectified (e.g. no docking wings, no forecastle, only two stacks). On the other hand however it was 'Mary', who several times entered her basin (dock??...) at NY without assistance of tugs!! A ship 311 m long and 36 m wide.
Thats not correct, you are pronouncing it like the flowering plant. But Sir Alfred Yarrow, the namesake of his company's boilers pronounced it different.
Interesting, but one of the captains of the QE during the war reported, in print, that she had hit just over 36 knots on one wartime crossing. I’ll have to dig up the reference.
Yes and another captain reported Queen Mary hitting 39 knots. But on both those instances that was with all safety features disengaged and shut off. Nevertheless Queen Mary was still the faster of the two.
You probably could have modified the Queen Elizbeth to be faster than the Queen Mary but what would have been the point? Maybe even running her with a skelton crew with no heat or electricity would have been enough to get the Blue Ribband but again, what for?
Why does Queen Elizabeth have only 1 turbo generator room compared to Queen Mary's 2 Turbo Generator rooms? Also Queen Elizabeth's water softening plant was smaller? Why?
Queen Mary's designs were finalized in 1929. Her parts were ordered and constructed starting in 1930. By the time of Queen Mary's maiden voyage in 1936, her 7 year old designs were updated before applying them to Queen Elizabeth. Queen Elizabeth had 4 powerful turbo generators, as opposed to Queen Mary's 7 generators. And Queen Elizabeth had more efficient machinery in her water softening plant, allowing for less space to be needed, dedicating it the excess space to other areas. It's the same reason why An iPhone 14 is thinner, more capable, and more powerful than an iPhone 1.
@AlextheHistorian So by making Queen Elizabeth more efficient, she only needed 12 boilers in 4 boiler rooms from Queen Mary's 27 boilers total in 5 boiler rooms. And only 4 generators from Queen Mary's 7 Generators. And a smaller water softening plant. So basically, by making Queen Elizabeth more efficient, the less machinery was needed to operate her. And she was cheaper because she consumed less fuel.
It helps reduce wind drag...but...without that funnel there, they just replaced the available space on every deck with more rooms and stuff...so the weight of the ship was increased as a result and that counteracts any reduction of wind drag.
@Brad, Queen Mary didn't reach 81,237 tons until after the war, before that she was 80,774. So you're right, QE was never 4,000 tons larger, she was 3,000.
@@AlextheHistorian Let's not forget that you are speaking of Gross Tonnage, which has nothing to do with weight, but rather with volume (1 Gross Ton = 100 cubic feet enclosed deck space [non-machinery]).
No one knows for sure, probably arson from anti-imperialists. But one thing is for sure, it was not burned by the university that owned her, it wasn't an attempt to claim insurance.
cj tung owned the elizabeth, was scorned by the communists so evidence suggested sabatoge against the billionaire shipping magnet & banker who was taiwanese.
good assumptions alex. after years of reading which some of this discussion from seaman diaries-- qe1 on her secret voyage from john brown to nyc the ship reached astonishing speeds at times over 34-35 knots. these speeds could not be maintained, wind & currents change. what was in her favor was a skeloton crew, light ballast- minimum fuel &water so her draft was light, and engineering improvements over qm1enabled her. finally she was kept out of ribbon territory as a marketing tool. 20 yrs earlier francis gibbs @co rebuilt leviathan and for a time in favorable conditions performed at 27 knots for hours. the talk was levi would challenge mauretania. but your right, levi could not sustain that speed. even normandie with equivalent power of both queens could not sustain 200k shaft power because her steam electric powerplant was not as robust as steam turbine application. normandies electric motors would tend to overheat at prolonged 32+knots.
@@AlextheHistorian bad choice of words on my part. the assumptions could be used on my response since its in the realm of sea lore, like the rogue wave stories that no one believed for centuries. your streams are sur-footed and well thought out.
That might be the reason why Normandie's maximum engine power was 200,000 hp but is only running on 160,000 hp on average. Both Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth can run on 200,000 hp for much longer periods of time and they could go somewhat beyond that for a short time, making their engines more powerful overall. But Normandie makes up for it by having a more efficient hull design than the two queens. At that time, Normandie's hull design was considered very radical.
@@psalmerperena4120 the yorkovich design required about 40000hp less at 28.5kn than the queens from what information i can find. the us navy was also concerned how the hull design would perform in trooping duty as he would have been loaded with 10000+soldiers. maybe like the europa loaded with troops stability might have been an issue?
It is a big mystery I must say as to why Cunard instructed specifically to never attempt to go any faster than 30 knots on the speed trials for queen elizabeth. Personally I think she could have matched her speed at least.
But that's the thing, Cunard did NOT instruct that. That was a false rumor. That's what I explained in the video. I explained how it wasn't physically possible for Queen Elizabeth to match Queen Mary's speed.
@@AlextheHistorian what do you mean? Sir Percy Bates clearly said that he didn't want the two ships competing with one another. Essentially that is the same thing as saying I don't want the Queen Elizabeth to try to break the Queen Mary's record. I have been on several guided tours of the Queen Mary and many of the tour guides have told me that the Queen Elizabeth was as fast if not faster. See the Queen Elizabeth may have had fewer boilers but if one of those boilers could produce as much steam power and pressure as two or three of the Queen Mary's boilers then it's essentially an even amount of power.
@@AlextheHistorian yes I did watch the video but there is no evidence in your video at all. Just like in the fitness industry most of the athletes have to keep their mouth shut about performance enhancing drugs. If they come out and say that yes they used drugs and it's rampant in the Olympics and other sports they would lose not only their job but their pension. So those two captains saying that the Queen Elizabeth was not as fast as the Queen Mary may have just been a statement made to imitate that. Bottom line is we will never really know which ship was faster because neither ship will ever sail again.
There's Soo minimal pictures for queen Elizabeth's interior. I wonder how she looked from the inside, and all the documentaries about her are Soo short
The documentaries are short because there aren't enough pictures and images of her interiors. Even I've had that problem. Can't make a video if there isn't enough to show.
Oh Could you do a video on Quee Elizabeth......It be exciting to build another Queenmary look alike but with a bobous modern bow and 4 pods propellers ????
À chaque fois que je vais à L.A je dors une nuit à Long Beach sur le Queen Mary. En Août 2018 les cheminées étaient repeintes. En se moment il enlèvent les cannots de sauvetage car ils contraignent le plancher du pont supérieur. La nuit règne une ambiance particulière sur se paquebot. Mehdi. Lyon, France.
I love how you call the QE Lizzie and QM Mary because it makes them more human, in a sense. And what I find pretty amusing, is that they're both still around. Queen Mary is sitting in Long Beach, while the Queen Elizabeth is in Hong Kong, so you could just get a few billions of dollars, restore both ships to their original glory, and you could put them in a race :)
The Elizabeth burned and sank in Hong Kong harbor, I saw her on her side laying in the harbor mud. Arson fire January 9th, 1972. Look it up, Matthew Chen.
To be honest, no matter how many images I've seen of them, my brain keeps seeing the Mary as the bigger one. I think it's the 3 funnels that throw me off.
This is another ship that sank in flames. The other two ships that sank in flames are the liparus from 007 the spy who loved me and Arrius’s Trireme from Ben Hur 1959.
The neither QE1 nor the QE2 tried for the Blue Riband. They were never built to go faster than 33 knots...the SS United States won the Riband at 38 knots, so they would have never even tried to take it, because there was no way they could ever hope to.
@@AlextheHistorian yes but the QE2 tried to pass the United States multiple times. There was even a call from commodore to commodore saying nice try! It’s one of the stories you hear at the college where all full time Captains of the SS United States went to.
Oh...thats different, that was a little friendly competition to pass the SS US at her cruising speed. Competing for the Riband requires breaking a previous record, not just getting to the destination first.
The Lizzie is still the better ship. She is a much more sleek ship, compared to the Mary, which was frankly ugly with all the clutter on deck and the massive forward superstructure.
Strange how Queen Elizabeth's efficiency didn't include a faster speed. When you think about it, efficiency doesn't always include every feature you might expect. That she was bigger while using less fuel is a huge feat. Learned so much in 6 minutes.
Excellent document, I learned in it that Lizzy is 4 meters longer because of her bow angle, but the keel is the same as her sister as well as the engines. The sea keeping defects were equivalent on both ships, which suffered from terrible rolling despite the stabilizers installed in the 50's. If indeed Lizzy would have had two extra boilers, she could have been a bit faster.
Yes: another video to make this day even more interesting! :D
I will admit I used to be one of those who, while I didn't necessarily believe the Elizabeth was actually faster, did think that Cunard wanted the Elizabeth held back specifically so she couldn't potentially beat the Mary's record. After all, Sir Percy Bates said just this when she was heading out for her sea trials, that it was not expected that her crew attempt a speed record either on her trials or on her maiden voyage.
However, your analysis makes a ton of sense considering that at the end of the day, no matter how many advantages the Elizabeth had over the Mary, she still produced roughly the same power and didn't have all of her boilers dedicated to her speed. Mary being slightly faster is something I'm perfectly ok with.
Years back we took a tour of the Queen Mary, the tour guide said that the ship got about 10 feet per gallon of fuel----that's worse than my truck..... Thanks to Alex the Historian for posting his great work.....
qe2 got about 50ft per gallon at 28kn.
Considering that most cruise ships today get 0.5 feet per gallon I'd say that's pretty good.
I’ve always wondered how fast Elizabeth went on her secret maiden voyage to NY and if she was faster than Mary. Very interesting analysis. On the subject of ship captains telling the truth, Our captain of the Eurodam was asked why the ship was vibrating so much. He said with a straight face a large clothes dryer in the laundry was off balance! I don’t think he was allowed to talk about the azipod problems.
the pods have had issues with the giant thrust bearings wearing and warping. qm2 - carnival sued rolls royce and won a settlement and re-design insued. the pod issues are spread across many ships and companies.
The Queen Mary was a V12. Big engine with a lot of torque and horsepower in reserve. Queen Elizabeth was a small modified to the max straight-six producing the same power. Going fast for the Mary was a lot easier for it’s boilers whereas for Elizabeth to do the same, it was like asking it to sprint having just run a marathon. The Mary’s boilers while less efficient, had more in the bag.
Even if she wasn't the fastest of the two; she was certainly the most beautiful to my eye.
I had never heard this. Glad to hear it with a definitive answer.
I wish the Queen Elizabeth were also still here.
Great video Alex!!!!!
Thank you!
Alex, Have you seen the QE's Anchor in Torrance CA?
I've seen pictures
@@AlextheHistorian Not a whole lot of people know about it. It even has the QE from her bow.
Yep, did you also know the "QE" from the other side of the bow is located on Wall Street in New York City?
@@AlextheHistorian Yup, very cool both sets survived. Not sure why the two Queens of the Atlantic ended up primarily on the west coast tho lol.
I've been on many cruises. I always like to walk the decks late at night or early mornings when things are peaceful. The Ocean is a vast and beautiful place and I know my place. In my mind I often thank the engineer's who through their hard work and knowledge brought me such a beautiful and peaceful place. Kudos Sirs and hats off!!!!!
Thank you for the video!
Thanks for clearing up a myth Alex. I will never tire of watching the Queen Mary plow thru those heavy seas. Magnificent!
Your videos are always very educational, Alex. Thank you once again!
Always informative. Thanks, Alex!
You're welcome!
Thank you, Alex I always like your content.
This was really interesting I have learned so much from your channel Alex 💙
A video on both Queens? Instant like. And so informative to! Loved it thank you!
I enjoy learning more and more about every aspect of the RMS Queen Mary.
I have to congratulate you on this very well explained and accurate description on the historically contentious topic of the two “Queen’s” speed. Loved your explanation, thank you.
Thank you for another educational video Alex. I am very interested in Queen Elizabeth and always wanted to learn more about her.
You're welcome!
Alex, this is the first I've heard of Lizzie rolling at sea.
All ships roll at sea, the only question is how much.
Excellent!
Do you think the QE would have been able to be retro-fitted with more boilers to make it faster if needed, to stay competitive or should something have happened to the QM? Seems like the addition of more boilers could have really allowed for good speed if you factor in the improved hydro dynamics, just a thought…
Thats an interesting notion. I think yes, they could have fit two more boilers forward of boiler room 1. Those two boilers could substantially increase the volume of steam production and probably allow the ship to reach an equivalent speed to QM at 32.84 knots. But I must admit, the only hydrodynamic change they made was make the bow pointier, and it had little to no effect on the ship. And because the ship was heavier it sat a few feet deeper on the water than Queen Mary, adding drag.
when I was around 3 years old, we went out on the bluffs near our house to watch the Queen Mary steaming north to her final destination. It was very exciting, even if I didn't know how historic it was. Kids are all the same. Big ships and trains are exciting!
Good video
i sailed aboard the RMS Queen Elizabeth in March 1950 - I was a child of 2 1/2 years but remember well that experience - from New York to Cherbourg France. We encountered gail force winds near South Hampton which caused much consern but we survived. The Captain ordered all passengers to stay in their room and the ship's crew locked all the cabin doors to make certain passengers stayed in their rooms until it was safe to leave our cabin. I also remember the gift shop filled with wonderful kid's toys - the latest and the greatest. I wanted this realistic looking all metal big rig - it cost 50 franks which was more than my mother was willing to spend - I imagine 50 franks was a loit of money for a toy back in 1950..
How can you remember anything much? You must rely on what
you have been told.
I remember being 2 years old as well, a few people I know can remember back that far as well, it's a rare ability, but not impossible.
@@megistigeorge7961 Wrong - I have an unusual childhood memory.
Great historic statistics on two great ocean liners! Thanks for sharing!
BP
Thanks for km/h.
What about the Queen Mary Buttiget?
She is a fast Mary!
Wow interesting video....Could you imagine their racy hulls with a bobous modern bow ....Speed increase to 36 knots???
I'd have loved the chance to have stood on the prow of either Queen, blasting across the Atlantic at full steam, and feel the sheer wonder of 80,000+ tons of steel powering forth at almost 35mph. Thoroughbreds both and still some of humanity's greatest achievements in my opinion. A crime that only one of the pair survives, and in such a parlous state that she will likely never move again, certainly not under her own power.
Queen Mary's raw powertrain was indeed very impressive for its time. Is it still the ocean liner having biggest powertrain?
Biggest in size, yes. But not the most powerful, SS United States had a smaller power train that yeilded more power output.
a tribute to Alex that his narration makes me care a whole lot about the speed issue of decades ago more than I do pressing matters in my own life.
HI ALEX ,,GREAT TEA TIME THE OTHER DAY , THAT WAS MY FIRST TEA TIME VIDEO,. YOU TALKED ABOUT ALOT OF THINGS THANKS,.. THE Q.M. I DID NOT KNOW SHE WAS A LITTLE SMALLER , THEY BOTH LOOKED SO GREAT TOGETHER SOME TIME I GET CONFUSED WHO IS WHO THERE BOTH PAINTED THE SAME ??? BUT.. ITS THE SMOKE STACKS Q.M. HAS THREE,, THE Q.E. HAS TWO,, OK..IT WAS A SHAME WHEN Q.E. WAS SOLD TO BE A FLOATING SCHOOL IN ANOTHER COUNTY. THEY WERE DOING WORK ON HER AND SHE CAUGHT ON FIRE , THEY PUT SO MUCH WATER ON HER THE Q.E. LISTED ON TO HER I BELIEVE ON HER PORT SIDE ( LEFT).. MY Q. IS DID THEY SCRAP HER OR IS SHE STILL IN THE WATER SUNK ?? CORRECT ME IF ANY THING IS WRONG THANKS, VETERAN..
Thanks Ronald, the completely scrapped QE because she was in the middle of the harbor channel where large ships need to enter and exit. There's no more of her there.
Hi Alex I'm having a difficult time understanding if the queen Elizabeth was bigger than queen mary but had half the boilers and had to share steam with power generators etc how was she able to go almost as fast without running out of steam I'm confused
The short explanation is that both ships were designed for a service speed of 28 knots. But Queen Mary was built to race, so she was capable of speeds over 32 knots.
Queen Mary did not need to use all of her boilers for an ordinary scheduled crossing of the Atlantic at 28 knots. She usually ran with about 18 or 20 of her 24 Yarrow Boilers lit. The only times Queen Mary used all the Yarrow Boilers at once was when she needed to race for the Blue Riband, or when she was running behind on her schedule due to poor weather conditions that forced her to slow down during a day or two of the trip.
Queen Elizabeth didn't need to race, so therefore the need to supply enough steam for racing speeds was not necessary.
It's kind of like how a police car might seem identical to a car you could purchase at a consumer dealership...except that the police car is capable of speeds faster than the consumer car of the same make and model.
Awesome as usual 👍
We need a video about QE2 at some point, being that she was the successor to the original Queens.
Excellent presentation. All videos should be like this, straight to the point and gimne the facts.
Sorry but Aunt Barbara's a 'bullet-point' kind of girl 😉
If she was faster, I do not know. But she WAS BIGGER and (to many) more beautiful, with her external appearance rectified (e.g. no docking wings, no forecastle, only two stacks). On the other hand however it was 'Mary', who several times entered her basin (dock??...) at NY without assistance of tugs!! A ship 311 m long and 36 m wide.
Yarrow sounds like Sparrow, not Yah-row!
Thats not correct, you are pronouncing it like the flowering plant. But Sir Alfred Yarrow, the namesake of his company's boilers pronounced it different.
Absolutely beautiful ship like her sister the Queen Mary. Unlike the ugly new ships built now.
Interesting, but one of the captains of the QE during the war reported, in print, that she had hit just over 36 knots on one wartime crossing. I’ll have to dig up the reference.
Yes and another captain reported Queen Mary hitting 39 knots. But on both those instances that was with all safety features disengaged and shut off. Nevertheless Queen Mary was still the faster of the two.
You probably could have modified the Queen Elizbeth to be faster than the Queen Mary but what would have been the point? Maybe even running her with a skelton crew with no heat or electricity would have been enough to get the Blue Ribband but again, what for?
Why does Queen Elizabeth have only 1 turbo generator room compared to Queen Mary's 2 Turbo Generator rooms?
Also Queen Elizabeth's water softening plant was smaller? Why?
Queen Mary's designs were finalized in 1929. Her parts were ordered and constructed starting in 1930. By the time of Queen Mary's maiden voyage in 1936, her 7 year old designs were updated before applying them to Queen Elizabeth.
Queen Elizabeth had 4 powerful turbo generators, as opposed to Queen Mary's 7 generators. And Queen Elizabeth had more efficient machinery in her water softening plant, allowing for less space to be needed, dedicating it the excess space to other areas. It's the same reason why An iPhone 14 is thinner, more capable, and more powerful than an iPhone 1.
@AlextheHistorian So by making Queen Elizabeth more efficient, she only needed 12 boilers in 4 boiler rooms from Queen Mary's 27 boilers total in 5 boiler rooms.
And only 4 generators from Queen Mary's 7 Generators.
And a smaller water softening plant.
So basically, by making Queen Elizabeth more efficient, the less machinery was needed to operate her. And she was cheaper because she consumed less fuel.
Precisely. Queen Mary was the luxurious gas-guzzling race champion, Queen Elizabeth was the fuel-efficient luxury leisure transport.
Would one less funnel have contributed to Lizzy's speed?
It helps reduce wind drag...but...without that funnel there, they just replaced the available space on every deck with more rooms and stuff...so the weight of the ship was increased as a result and that counteracts any reduction of wind drag.
@@AlextheHistorian
Thank you Alex. Love your channel.
Not to mention the Elizabeth being 4000 tons heavier... that will definitly effect speed
She was never 4000 tons larger. 83673 GRT vs 81237 GRT.
@Brad, Queen Mary didn't reach 81,237 tons until after the war, before that she was 80,774. So you're right, QE was never 4,000 tons larger, she was 3,000.
@@AlextheHistorian Let's not forget that you are speaking of Gross Tonnage, which has nothing to do with weight, but rather with volume (1 Gross Ton = 100 cubic feet enclosed deck space [non-machinery]).
Yeah that's why I'm very careful to use the term "larger", and not "heavier", while I refer to GRT.
does anyone know how the queen elizabeth fire started?
No one to this day.
No one knows for sure, probably arson from anti-imperialists. But one thing is for sure, it was not burned by the university that owned her, it wasn't an attempt to claim insurance.
cj tung owned the elizabeth, was scorned by the communists so evidence suggested sabatoge against the billionaire shipping magnet & banker who was taiwanese.
@@AlextheHistorian is there any of her left?
Nothing, she was completely removed and scrapped by the Japanese Navy.
Tyler Mac there she is
good assumptions alex. after years of reading which some of this discussion from seaman diaries-- qe1 on her secret voyage from john brown to nyc the ship reached astonishing speeds at times over 34-35 knots. these speeds could not be maintained, wind & currents change. what was in her favor was a skeloton crew, light ballast- minimum fuel &water so her draft was light, and engineering improvements over qm1enabled her. finally she was kept out of ribbon territory as a marketing tool. 20 yrs earlier francis gibbs @co rebuilt leviathan and for a time in favorable conditions performed at 27 knots for hours. the talk was levi would challenge mauretania. but your right, levi could not sustain that speed. even normandie with equivalent power of both queens could not sustain 200k shaft power because her steam electric powerplant was not as robust as steam turbine application. normandies electric motors would tend to overheat at prolonged 32+knots.
Thank you, but they aren't assumptions. They are well researched facts, and testimonial.
@@AlextheHistorian bad choice of words on my part. the assumptions could be used on my response since its in the realm of sea lore, like the rogue wave stories that no one believed for centuries. your streams are sur-footed and well thought out.
Oh I see what you mean now. Thank you!
That might be the reason why Normandie's maximum engine power was 200,000 hp but is only running on 160,000 hp on average. Both Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth can run on 200,000 hp for much longer periods of time and they could go somewhat beyond that for a short time, making their engines more powerful overall. But Normandie makes up for it by having a more efficient hull design than the two queens. At that time, Normandie's hull design was considered very radical.
@@psalmerperena4120 the yorkovich design required about 40000hp less at 28.5kn than the queens from what information i can find. the us navy was also concerned how the hull design would perform in trooping duty as he would have been loaded with 10000+soldiers. maybe like the europa loaded with troops stability might have been an issue?
It is a big mystery I must say as to why Cunard instructed specifically to never attempt to go any faster than 30 knots on the speed trials for queen elizabeth. Personally I think she could have matched her speed at least.
But that's the thing, Cunard did NOT instruct that. That was a false rumor. That's what I explained in the video. I explained how it wasn't physically possible for Queen Elizabeth to match Queen Mary's speed.
@@AlextheHistorian what do you mean? Sir Percy Bates clearly said that he didn't want the two ships competing with one another. Essentially that is the same thing as saying I don't want the Queen Elizabeth to try to break the Queen Mary's record. I have been on several guided tours of the Queen Mary and many of the tour guides have told me that the Queen Elizabeth was as fast if not faster. See the Queen Elizabeth may have had fewer boilers but if one of those boilers could produce as much steam power and pressure as two or three of the Queen Mary's boilers then it's essentially an even amount of power.
Did you watch this video? I'm asking genuinely because the evidence given in this video supercedes what tourguides have said.
@@AlextheHistorian yes I did watch the video but there is no evidence in your video at all. Just like in the fitness industry most of the athletes have to keep their mouth shut about performance enhancing drugs. If they come out and say that yes they used drugs and it's rampant in the Olympics and other sports they would lose not only their job but their pension. So those two captains saying that the Queen Elizabeth was not as fast as the Queen Mary may have just been a statement made to imitate that. Bottom line is we will never really know which ship was faster because neither ship will ever sail again.
There's Soo minimal pictures for queen Elizabeth's interior. I wonder how she looked from the inside, and all the documentaries about her are Soo short
The documentaries are short because there aren't enough pictures and images of her interiors. Even I've had that problem. Can't make a video if there isn't enough to show.
I read from many sources that eventually the queen Elizabeth took over as the flagship.
She did, she took over as flagship between 1967 and 1968. Before she retired
@@AlextheHistorian not from what I read. I read that she was the flagship going back as far as 1949.
Huh. I never heard that before
@@AlextheHistorian yes you can find some sources talking about it.
cool theory!
I would have to disagree, its a theory without merit.
@@AlextheHistorian Ok
Nice theory
I would have to disagree, its a theory without merit.
Oh Could you do a video on Quee Elizabeth......It be exciting to build another Queenmary look alike but with a bobous modern bow and 4 pods propellers ????
À chaque fois que je vais à L.A je dors une nuit à Long Beach sur le Queen Mary. En Août 2018 les cheminées étaient repeintes. En se moment il enlèvent les cannots de sauvetage car ils contraignent le plancher du pont supérieur. La nuit règne une ambiance particulière sur se paquebot.
Mehdi. Lyon, France.
Cunard didn't want the 2 ships to compete with each other.
That is a myth that I debunked in this video.
I love how you call the QE Lizzie and QM Mary because it makes them more human, in a sense.
And what I find pretty amusing, is that they're both still around. Queen Mary is sitting in Long Beach, while the Queen Elizabeth is in Hong Kong, so you could just get a few billions of dollars, restore both ships to their original glory, and you could put them in a race :)
Queen Elizabeth caught fire and sank in Hong Kong and was scrapped entirely, by the Japanese Navy. There's nothing of her left.
The Elizabeth burned and sank in Hong Kong harbor, I saw her on her side laying in the harbor mud. Arson fire January 9th, 1972. Look it up, Matthew Chen.
But I had a friend of an aunts sisters husband that said…..
Give her a few more boilers and make a few adjustments with her more streamlined hull I bet she could easily overtake the Queen Mary
You would also need to upgrade her engines because they were identical to Mary's engines.
Why did it take me until now to realise QE was larger than QM?
To be honest, no matter how many images I've seen of them, my brain keeps seeing the Mary as the bigger one. I think it's the 3 funnels that throw me off.
The difference in size between the two was pretty minimal.
@@AlextheHistorian that’s probably it
Tyler Mac queen Mary
After refit and new propeller she did 36 knots
If you could provide me a source for that information, I would most appreciate it.
Queen Elizabeth I don’t know why it’s faster because it has 2 funnels When the RMS queen Mary has 3 funnels
slower for sure, they embellished her speed because that's what shipbuilders do, every one.
The Queen Elizabeth sunk in flames, and it was eventually scrapped
This is another ship that sank in flames. The other two ships that sank in flames are the liparus from 007 the spy who loved me and Arrius’s Trireme from Ben Hur 1959.
As much as I hate the Mary but the other Elizabeth made a few tries to get the Blue Ribband back. Didn’t end well cause the big U had her in check.
The neither QE1 nor the QE2 tried for the Blue Riband. They were never built to go faster than 33 knots...the SS United States won the Riband at 38 knots, so they would have never even tried to take it, because there was no way they could ever hope to.
@@AlextheHistorian yes but the QE2 tried to pass the United States multiple times. There was even a call from commodore to commodore saying nice try! It’s one of the stories you hear at the college where all full time Captains of the SS United States went to.
Oh...thats different, that was a little friendly competition to pass the SS US at her cruising speed. Competing for the Riband requires breaking a previous record, not just getting to the destination first.
That scrawny old women has got some SPEED!
I'm curious was queen Elizabeth bigger than queen Mary ?
Yes, all the information is in the video
The Lizzie is still the better ship. She is a much more sleek ship, compared to the Mary, which was frankly ugly with all the clutter on deck and the massive forward superstructure.
queen elizabeth looks better than queen mary
If I hear the ship called "lizzie" one more time I will scream. so tacky and tastless
You might as well get all your screaming out now, because that name was one of endearment and many people to this day refer to her by it.