HOME | DD

omega-steam โ€” The Lovely RMS Queen Mary

Published: 2012-08-04 19:40:07 +0000 UTC; Views: 3969; Favourites: 38; Downloads: 171
Redirect to original
Description Ah, to be on this ship in its heyday, still a marvel of British Engineering but now lies gutted in a small rockpool on the side of the mouth of Long Beach Harbor. Still, I'd be happier on her than on the Carnival Inspiration, at least the Cunard Queen's got more class.

Gonna make this huge so you can see all the delicious details on her.
Related content
Comments: 38

12e6teixnrsj [2023-06-21 22:53:53 +0000 UTC]

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

12e6teixnrsj In reply to 12e6teixnrsj [2023-09-07 22:53:47 +0000 UTC]

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 0

brymj [2016-08-14 17:39:06 +0000 UTC]

Beautiful ship.

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 0

nixops [2015-04-17 17:32:01 +0000 UTC]

Such a beautiful vessel, so very different to the blocks of flats afloat today.

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

omega-steam In reply to nixops [2015-04-17 17:59:23 +0000 UTC]

Even the current Cunard MS Queen Victoria and Elizabeth?

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

nixops In reply to omega-steam [2015-04-18 07:52:13 +0000 UTC]

Yep, although of the pair the QV looks marginally better than the QE, unfortunately they are all clones of those Vista class, the concept of individuality has gone down the pipes since Carnival started to foist their idea of what a ship should look like onto the cruising public. I am an old school ship buff, I prefer my ships to look like ships and not like flats with pointy ends.

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

omega-steam In reply to nixops [2015-04-18 13:03:24 +0000 UTC]

Agreed to be quite honest, looking at the flat side of a Carnival Hull (and believe me, I've been on the Carnival Inspiration for a cruise) makes me imagine how a ship as flat as an iron would float. At least the RMS QM2 looks better, right?

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

nixops In reply to omega-steam [2015-04-19 07:07:57 +0000 UTC]

QM2 is a difficult one, I am not really a fan of her, she could have looked very much nicer, she is too much ofย  a hodge podge of design that from some angles she looks really ugly. However, she is an impressive ship, and she does have her moments. I have seen her on numerous occasions and there is usually one or 2 angles that will make me admire her. There are a few nice looking modern ships out there though, but most have lost the curves and sweeping decks and cascading aft decks that really were the hallmark of a cruise ship. My current personal favs are Oriana and Aurora, but they are midway through their lives so they are now regarded as classics . I may post more cruiseships amongst my pics when I get the energy. I just dont know if there is much of a demand for them

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 0

BadgerN00b [2012-10-22 18:59:11 +0000 UTC]

I'd love to go see her one day...

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 0

btomimatsu [2012-10-08 06:07:37 +0000 UTC]

Very beautiful indeed and the target of a plethora of angry history buffs.

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

omega-steam In reply to btomimatsu [2012-10-08 13:16:18 +0000 UTC]

Who rage against the fact it's not the Titanic, yet it did portray the Titanic in one film

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

btomimatsu In reply to omega-steam [2012-10-08 14:55:31 +0000 UTC]

No not that. It's more or less the 40 plus years bad decisions and neglect the ship got from its lease operators and the city of long beach.

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

omega-steam In reply to btomimatsu [2012-10-08 15:13:34 +0000 UTC]

Ah, I see. I wish I could see her run again, too bad her boilers were lost

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

btomimatsu In reply to omega-steam [2012-10-09 03:24:32 +0000 UTC]

Wouldn't we all. Sadly she is too structurally unsound to go to sea again.

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

omega-steam In reply to btomimatsu [2012-10-09 03:31:30 +0000 UTC]

Oh blast and damned, Cunard could have used her like Union pacific uses 844 and 3895

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

btomimatsu In reply to omega-steam [2012-10-09 03:34:03 +0000 UTC]

Well, its sort of complicated. As part of the sales agreement with the City of Long Beach, the Queen Mary had to be made unseaworthy, thus the controversial 5+ year conversion in the late 60's and early 70's.

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

omega-steam In reply to btomimatsu [2012-10-09 03:36:38 +0000 UTC]

Oh damn

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 0

plappyxsam [2012-10-02 00:30:47 +0000 UTC]

Last true masterpiece of White Star Line

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

omega-steam In reply to plappyxsam [2012-10-02 01:01:16 +0000 UTC]

I would correct you, but Cunard did own White Star at the time. However, Queen Mary was built exclusively for the Cunard Line, while the RMS Olympic was the only White Star ship left after the merger

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 2

Eddie-Sand In reply to omega-steam [2013-04-22 23:16:17 +0000 UTC]

What? Okay, no. Just No.

The Queen Mary and the Queen Elizabeth was built for the Cunard White Star. She has quite a lot of White Star features in her, such as a forward well deck and extended promenade. Both Massive White Star features. The merger of the two lines was a symbiotic relationship. On Cunard built ships, the Cunard flag would fly above the White Star flag, vice verse on ex White Star liners. However after the war, the White Star aspect was pretty much dropped.

As for Olympic's disposition, she and Mauritania where both broken up around the same time as the merger. They where broken up in order to obtain funds to built the Mary. Other White Star liners survived the merger and lived on to serve in the second world war. Such as the Georgic, the Britannic(II), the Laurentic, and the Calgaric.

Hope that clears up a few misconceptions.

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

omega-steam In reply to Eddie-Sand [2013-04-22 23:32:25 +0000 UTC]

Thanks Eddie, I learned not to listen to myself while intoxicated after this. It did clear up some misconceptions I had about Cunard and White Star's merger, if it did exist.

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

Eddie-Sand In reply to omega-steam [2013-04-22 23:37:40 +0000 UTC]

" I learned not to listen to myself while intoxicated after this."







wut?

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

omega-steam In reply to Eddie-Sand [2013-04-22 23:47:38 +0000 UTC]

I sometimes get naturally "baked" and begin babbling incoherant thoughts at random, I have no idea why

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

Eddie-Sand In reply to omega-steam [2013-04-23 00:08:46 +0000 UTC]

O.o you might want to get that checked out.

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

omega-steam In reply to Eddie-Sand [2013-04-23 00:25:10 +0000 UTC]

And get ritalin'd? No thank you.

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 0

plappyxsam In reply to omega-steam [2012-10-02 01:55:46 +0000 UTC]

oh, i just asumed

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

omega-steam In reply to plappyxsam [2012-10-02 01:56:21 +0000 UTC]

Not all classic Ocean Liners look like titanic

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

plappyxsam In reply to omega-steam [2012-10-03 02:28:56 +0000 UTC]

I know, but the Birtannic and Olympia were the twin sisters of the titanic

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 0

ColinTheP6M [2012-09-04 23:33:29 +0000 UTC]

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 0

engineer825 [2012-08-26 15:37:05 +0000 UTC]

She certainly looks lovely.......needs a touch up on paint though.

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

omega-steam In reply to engineer825 [2012-08-26 15:41:43 +0000 UTC]

Aye, true on that

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 0

Random-Prospector [2012-08-05 02:40:51 +0000 UTC]

You mean to be on this ship in its heyday, in first class.

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

omega-steam In reply to Random-Prospector [2012-08-05 02:41:28 +0000 UTC]

Right in the bridge or down in the piston and turbine room!

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

Random-Prospector In reply to omega-steam [2012-08-05 03:26:44 +0000 UTC]

lol.

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

omega-steam In reply to Random-Prospector [2012-08-05 03:43:04 +0000 UTC]

Seeing those massive A-frame reciprocating engines pump up and down, powering the turbines that spin huge axles connected to the massive brass quad-propellers... technology porn right there

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 0

Soundwave3591 [2012-08-04 22:02:23 +0000 UTC]

COMMENT

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 1

omega-steam In reply to Soundwave3591 [2012-08-04 22:06:04 +0000 UTC]

REPLY

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 0

Evel6 [2012-08-04 19:40:55 +0000 UTC]

Excelent picture. Congrats

๐Ÿ‘: 0 โฉ: 0