Lucky dog

No need to hate admitting it. We Scots and you English are allies and partners. God save the new King Charles III, and greetings from Glasgow.

I couldn’t agree more.I stayed on her a couple of times,and left fascinated,in awe,and have studied and read about her ever since.

That’s your opinion

I sorta love the ship before this but after aquataina I frogot the name but damn is it a sexy ship also the qe looks just as nice as qm imo

@@845_Mk6 the name is Berengaria

Thank you! It's awesome to hear you have such a connection to the Queen Mary!

Fair point, but it had to be!

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thank you!

My pleasure!

You're welcome!

Thank you Andrew! You and your family will really enjoy being aboard Queen Mary, the old gal still has that special magic.

You're welcome!

Thanks!

Thanks!

You were all correct until that last statement. Cunard would NEVER design and launch a ship that they couldn't turn a profit on. Queen Mary was a highly profitable ship for about 27 of her 31 years at sea. It wasn't until 1964 that the two Cunard Queens saw such a drop in passenger numbers, that they began sailing at a loss. Otherwise they were highly profitable ships.

Even if they Servived into the 1970s, the Oil Crisis would have been the nail in the coffen.

My pleasure!

You're welcome, thank you for the Super thanks!

Thanks!

I have a video all about that, it's a really interesting one, very popular video! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pst0h7mGz52qlIU.html

@@AlextheHistorian Brilliant video indeed. Could you also upload the same about Cunard and WSL's previous ships especially Aquitania?

They carved out a section of the side ballast tanks to create a cubical pocket for the stabilizers. (The tanks were already about 12 feet in depth in those areas). I dont have pictures of the hydraulic actuators, but from my understanding they were bolted to the tank tops of Queen Mary's #3 and #4 Boiler rooms.

@@AlextheHistorian Thanks for info....

Well they've never moved her waterline, that one is just a myth. In Long Beach her daught is approximately 34 feet, which is 5 feet shallower. And there is about 12 feet of space between the bottom of the keel, and the bed of the lagoon, depending on the tide.

​@AlextheHistorian Is the reason her drought is 5 feet less than originally is it because they removed all her boilers,Generators,water softening plant, and 2 of her engines?

Thanks! I try to bring smiles to people's faces!

No, she's not. Her interior structure has been heavily altered, and not in a way designed to be seaworthy. Her alterations are designed to static building code. She could be floated across the harbor, but not across the ocean, not without significant risk.

@AlextheHistorian she probably couldn't handle the constant bending and flexing and just the movement of the ocean in general. The reason that Queen Mary is designated as a building is because Long Beach knew that to preserve as much of the ship as possible, they would have to designate her as a building which means altering her structure to a building code NOT seaworthy code. If they tried to tow her across the ocean, it could be disastrous. Also, even if Long Beach preserved her as she was when she steamed into the harbor, she probably wouldn't be seaworthy after 87 years anyway.

She is also not seaworthy because a large piece of her hull was removed and a tank containing freshwater was built around the removed piece of hull to let people see her last remaining propeller in the ship's engine room exhibit.

@@artsygala Also half of her C Deck was Removed from the stern to amidships.

They sat in "pockets" or "cavities" in the hull, and this would have only permitted sea creatures to turn it into a home, making future maintenance and upkeep just a little more difficult. So they chose to remove the stabilizers and patch over those four parts of the hull to create a smooth, watertight surface.

Olá Raphael, o Queen Mary não está em doca seca desde que foi convertido em hotel em 1970. Ele foi negligenciado por quase todos os operadores de hotéis desde que a Disney assumiu o controle pela última vez em 1989-1992. Ela precisa ser docada a seco a cada 25 anos. A boa notícia é que ela tem um Sistema de Ânodo Catódico Sacrificial funcional que evitou muita corrosão. Seu casco ainda está em boas condições. E agora que a cidade tem o controle do navio novamente, eles estão pensando em construir uma doca seca próxima com a intenção de que o primeiro projeto seja o Queen Mary.

@@AlextheHistorian obrigado pela explicação😀

Yes I had to re-do the video because of numerous inaccuracies and a segment I accidentally left out.

@@AlextheHistorian okay cool 😎

The rogue wave? That's a photoshopped image I created for my videos.

Her stern vibrated because of cavitation on the propellers. They resolved the vibration issues in 1938 when she recieved more hydrodynamic propellers. If they hadn't done that, she would have never been able to capture the Blue Riband from Normandie for the final time.

Thanks! And yes, I do!

Since February the ship has had 2 watertight bulkheads rebuilt, she is getting a new emergency power generator, she is having 11 new bilge pumps and water intrusion alarms installed. She's been receiving paint touchups, light fixtures repairs, some of her interior spaces are getting attention to original wood paneling and some minor artwork cleaning and/or restoration, and deep cleaning and maintenance is being done to the stateroom cabins. The city has only said the ship will reopen "Fall 2022".

Please don't take this the wrong way, but just to provide a bit of correction, all your information is inaccurate. SS United States was the most powerful ocean liner ever built and she had a combined output of 240,000 shaft horsepower. So if Queen Mary had 245 thousand per propeller....that would make her the most powerful ship that ever existed, and that's just not the case. Queen Mary had a maximum combined (all four propellers together) output of 212,000 shaft horsepower. RMS Queen Elizabeth had engines that were capable of the same horsepower, but she had only 12 boilers (half of Queen Mary's) not 8 fewer. Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were both designed for a service speed of 28 knots. That's the speed at which the liners maintained across the ocean. But maximum speeds were different. Queen Mary's maximum official recorded speed was 32.84 knots, while Queen Elizabeth achieved 32.50 knots. Still slower than Queen Mary but not so dramatically slower. Queen Mary was the more popular liner at first, but towards the mid 1950's and 1960's Queen Elizabeth was actually the more popular to book voyages on, than the Mary, because Queen Elizabeth had slightly newer interiors and the outside of the ship looked sleeker. Queen Mary appeared very old fashioned. But if you wanna say Queen Mary was more famous, then that would be correct, Queen Mary is currently more famous than Queen Elizabeth.

Indeed she was built to those standards. It's been well documented by historians. The Queen Mary was subsidized by Parliament BECAUSE she was under reserve by the British Admiralty.

@@AlextheHistorian Every British registered ship was Admiralty reserve.... Mary was subsidized to keep Cunard and White Star from going under. I've been studying the old cow for almost thirty years, and have never come across evidence of your claims.

Well I took the time to review my books, and I must concede I made an error. It seems I mixed up something I read on pages 36 and 37 of "Queen Mary, Queen of the Queens" with something else I read in "The Cunard White Star Quadruple Screw Liner Queen Mary" on page 24 where it stated she was built to the standards of the International Convention For The Safety of Life At Sea, as implemented by the British Board of Trade. It seemed some wording in the former book made me believe that Parliament subsidized the construction of QM and QE because of the British Admiralty. So yes, I was wrong. But in my defense, I try my best to research information and present it as accurately as I can.

I dont live in the United States.