The number of people going on cruises keeps rising year over year, with the number passengers carried increasing from just over 3.7 million in 1990 to well over 28 million in 2023. This has meant an increasing demand for more and also much larger cruise ships, which has led to an interesting phenomenon where it has become more economical to chop up an existing cruise ship and put in an extra slice to add many meters to each deck. This makes intuitively sense, as the segment added is fairly ‘dumb’, with no engine room, control systems, but mostly more rooms and cabins.
The current top-of-the-line cruise ship experience is exemplified by the Icon class that’s being constructed for the Royal Caribbean Group. The first in this line is the Icon of the Seas, which is the largest cruise ship in the world with a length of 364.75 meters and a gross tonnage of 248,663. All of this cost €1.86 billion and over two years of construction time, compared to around $80 million and a few months in the drydock. When combined with a scheduled maintenance period in the drydock, this ‘Jumboization’ process can be considered to be a great deal that gives existing cruise ships a new lease on life.
Extending a ship in this manner is fairly routine as well, with many ships beyond cruise ships seeing the torch before being split. A newly built segment is then slid in place, the metal segments are welded together, wires, tubing and more are spliced together, before the in and outside are ready for a new coat of paint that makes it seem like nothing ever happened to the ship.
Is that not what killed the Edmond fizgerald?
There are many hypothesis on what sunk the SS Edmund Fitzgerald but nothing is definitive.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald#Hypotheses_on_the_cause_of_sinking
i would never go on a cruise ship, those things are filthy, ever hear of Legionnaires Disease?
It’s the gastro that makes covid death ships scary to me.
Right? And No thanks! Everyone just flocks to these things seemingly with nothing better to do and because “everyone else has done it and loved it”. I wonder if people will ever start thinking for themselves again?
These monstrosities pollute like mad everywhere they go. Seriously, they should be banned with how bad for the environment they are but cargo ships are even worse and nobody has the balls to actually make serious legislation that regulates them.
Likely for a very similar reason – cargo ships bring commerce dollars, while cruise ships bring tourist dollars. In the end, it all comes down to money, and we’re not going to fix it as long as that remains the case.
They bring money, but only to companies. They don’t bring money to cities along their route, they only bring pollution and overcrowding, and cities began to ban or limit cruise ship visits.
Stores in cities love cruise ships as they are overwhelmingly filled with wealthier people that bring in massive amounts of money to the cities along their route. Amsterdam is a great example, where there were tons of stores closed down as a result of the mayor of Amsterdam banning cruise ships. The ships are now going to Rotterdam which is getting a surge in stores as a direct result of these policies. Directly related to that, is that Amsterdam got more unemployment due to the ban and Rotterdam got more employment due to it being a new destination. If you want a thriving economy and have the ability, letting cruise ships arrive is a great thing. It’s much better than the average tourist. They are more likely to buy more expensive things, resulting in more taxes and more money flowing in as a result.
The pollution thing isn’t even true. Every cruise ship in the west uses super efficient hybrid systems with wet scrubbers and other features to limit the pollution. Now sure, the Titanic might have not been all that clean, but that was a long long time ago. I know there was this debunked article claiming something like, 10 ships pollute as much as every car on the planet, but that entire article was made up and made zero sense.
I work for an environmental research organization focused on near/offshore. Fuel is a major expense for fleet operators and every drop that can be saved is seen as a part of the profit. If they can save fuel by putting in new cleaner engines, then they will do that in a heartbeat. I’m not even kidding. When companies like Wartisla or RR design more efficient pods or generators, then the cruise ship is going to get upgraded.
Those dirty fuels aren’t even for sale anymore in the EU and haven’t been for a long time. The current “bio”diesels are very clean in use compared to the fuels used in the 80’s/90’s, to limit the pollution even further. Besides that, promoting clean energy used in ships results in more people wanting to go on cruises. A lot of guests don’t even mind paying extra to go on a greener cruise ship.
There are some cruises in Asia that use vintage cruise ships with old engines that use fuels that are banned in the west, but you won’t see them anywhere near western countries as they can’t even enter the national waters.
I really don’t understand why people want to go on a cruise ship. Seems horrifying to me. I’d rather be dropped in the middle of a forest with basic camping tools, away from people. But I’m glad those people aren’t on my holiday spots.
We’ve done just that here in Charleston, SC. We’ve also closed the port for departing cruises as well. The general opinion here is mixed about both (less $$$ coming into the city vs. a relief from the number of tourists). Still, we’re overcrowded as it is and it has had little impact outside of a slight positive ecological one.
@Gravis
Oh God, this type of mentality is killing the life on this planet faster than any pollution…
Nuf said…
Not really. We should stop being afraid of banning gross things just because lots of gross people like them. Intelligent people have generally been too timid with their power and should instead start flaunting it openly. Ban cruise ships, nascar, and disneyland.
You know you’re not one of the intelligent people right
That’s what midwits always say. Humility is for losers.
Yeah, and also manufacturing overseas which is orders of magnitude worse.. Do you want to talk about de-globlization? No more container ships? Move manufacturing and energy production? Around eight of the largest container ships and tankers pollute more than every land vehicle on Earth, including military. But you want to gripe about the anachronistic rounding error of cruise ships? How about some prohibitions on manufacturing everything in China and getting oil here at home instead of in the Persian gulf? Nah because if you scratch an environmentalist these days you uncover a globalist
And moving production back to the West will meet a million Nimby’s who don’t want a factory in their town.
And rejecting imports leaves you labelled a racist or nationalist.
Cargo ships are actually very efficient; the issue is just the scale of it. If we made locally even just the things we could, the world would be greener and more resilient.
De-globlization doesn’t really fix anything, at least on that front. In many cases it will make the green credentials worse, as lots of little factories making something less efficiently with more transport costs shipping the raw materials around in smaller batches is worse than a few massive factories around the globe able to operate with very high efficiency.
I do agree more things can and should be done in our own backyards, for many reasons including the green potential when you are putting the production in the right place, making products that will last so the ongoing economic activity becomes the spare parts made locally etc.
I tried to fact check that stat (8 largest cruise ships…) and it has some truth, probably, but what I found said it was 15 cruise ships (not all that much better) but the statistic is based on the amount of sulfur produced/ released, not really the overall pollution. So it is kinda true (and shocking TBH) but still pretty misleading. Comparing sulfur emissions from burning bunker fuel to automobile highly refined petrol is a bit of a stretch. That was just some quick google-fu though
oops that was supposed to be “8 largest container ships” NOT cruise ships
The ships do also harm the environment by spreading invasive spacies.
They can travel in the holes meant for the anchors, for example.
I’m not talking about big animals, but things like algae and little crabs and so on.
Cargo ships do at least serve a purpose.
If same amount of cargo had been shipped via airplanes or trucks, the pollution might be higher even.
Not sure about trains, though. The lenght of route by land might matter here.
Big cruising ships are like swimming cities more or less.
They’re nolonger as romantic as Titanic era ships used to be.
It’s mass tourism vs once-in-a-lifetime experience.
The travel with early ocean liners was an adventure and the passengers had class.
Not just because of money, but also in terms of attitude.
It’s comparable to flying.
Back then flying by plane was special and the service was good.
Nowadays, airlines operate like bus lines.
You’re traveling with an air onmibus.
The goal is to squeze as much passengers into the plane as possible, for maximum profits.
Because that’s the only way the airlines can compete which others.
Or so they think.
The downwards spiral has no end, because there’s no regulation that stops them going lower and lower for the ticket price.
Laws would be required, so that safety and other factors wouldn’t be left behind because of profit maximization.
An outright ban is the wrong approach – that then becomes an attack on the people that like that sort of getaway and will actively annoy a large portion of the population. It is like what Extinction Rebellion has been doing in the UK with gluing themselves to trains and major roads actively inconveniencing thousands of regular people just doing their best to get on with their lives, and often doing so rather obviously hypocritically. Which ends up turning people who would like to do more about climate change, pick the odd option they think to be cleaner already into people that don’t want to hear about it at all and would rather kill the protestors than join them in pushing for better regulation…
There does need to be more regulation on the pollution of all shipping for leisure and commerce, but do it right and all the people that are using these ships will mostly be celebrating that what they want to do is less destructive, even if it costs them a little bit more. So here in the UK there is alot of money in these cruising holiday, and few UK ports these ships dock at – that means even without any global agreement to improve these ships simply denying them the ability to dock here if they don’t meet a certain standard would have an outside influence. If some of the other wealthy nations full of folks that like cruise ships did the same it becomes in effect a global agreement.
Didn’t marine fuels get cleaned up a few years ago. The reduction in sulphur dioxides caused a brief spike in the global mean temperature anomaly.
I cannot believe how this is actually feasible and a good financial investment. And I hate cruises but have to say this is pretty cool.
Please someone show this to Audi. 2 turbochargers, 6 cylinders 500HP and no leg room in the rear seats 🤣.
I’d rather have a lobotomy than go on a cruise ship. But a 4 day hike where there are no cell towers sounds amazing.
That Audi is designed to drive the kids to kindergarden or school by one of their helicopter parents. Adults are not meant to use the rear seats but drive their own suburban tank around……
Is this the game drunk or chat bot?
Is this where the weather controlling rich people hide?
No, they have mega-yachts.
That ship looks kinda like the Pillar of Autumn with that strange inexplicable bridge section.
Comparison of ships (and cost) in the article is like comparing apples and oranges. Icon of the Seas is almost twice as long (and has almost twice the tonnage), and will carry 9-10 times more people than Silver Spirit. Thus strange is to comment the price of 1.8 billion for the new ship vs 80 million for refurbishment, when new ship of that size (Silver Spirit) is in 400-600 milion range.
And just to mention, it’s been done in 2005 to a much bigger ship, Enchantment of the Seas, 22meters (73 feet) was added, with 151 new cabins (around 15% increase) but no new amenities – which enraged the passengers due to lower cruise quality – having the same amenities divided on 15% more people isn’t something that people would not notic…
When I think of a cruise ships I think of Titanic, Lusitania, Andrea Doria, Morro Castle, Costa Concordia…and many others and the possible Titanic level disaster (loss of life) that will happen some day.
because of those mentioned, the safety of modern cruise and passenger ships, as well as all seagoing vessels, is highly regulated and much, much safer. Short of nefarious third party causes, or like a catastrophic explosion, another Titanic level F-up is pretty darn unlikely. First thing on a cruise ship is mandatory muster and life boat drill, as one example. Another is sufficient lifeboat capacity for entire passenger and crew. And so on
Costa Concordia…..people still died.
I do not think this is a good argument. From Wikipedia
“of the 3,229 passengers and 1,023 crew known to have been aboard, 32 died” which works out to…3%? Literally 97% survival rate with all the ridic negligence involved and that’s not good enough? Tough critic.
Titanic was fine, actually. Like other ocean liners of the White Star Line, such as the sister ship Olympic.
The tragedy of the Titanic had several causes.
The bolts were made of iron, rather than steel. Because there was a steel shortage or something.
There weren’t enough boats. The ballroom had been extended, so that ship integrity was reduced.
One of the chimneys was fake, so that the engine power was reduced.
The damage done by the iceberg wasn’t noticed quickly enough.
The other ships of the White Star Line were quite reliable.
Construction wise, on paper, the Titanic was excellent. Who knows how another ship had performed in same situation..
Also, there weren’t much ships cruising the oceans at the time. The Titanic didn’t cause any environmental damage.
It didn’t land on historic ports, it’s passengers weren’t tourists that overrun distant places.
It was a small elite, rather. The passengers of the time weren’t a burden to anyone.
hey what the heck?! like 20 of the 24 comments disappeared
“Was it something I said?”
-Richard Pryor
Reminds me of making a stretch limo.
Sure hope it’s not as janky done as some limo’s, who somehow keeps passing inspections despite being a sketchy express.
I am curious if this will work in the long term. The U.S. Coast Guard tried to essentially do this to extend the 110-ft Island Class Patrol boats to 123 ft spending more than $100 Million on the project.
What they found was the extension degraded the hull substantially and resulted in cracking.
Every single one of the 8 converted ships was decommissioned and a total loss.
“Multiple extensive studies and analyses by both Coast Guard engineers and third-party naval architects and marine engineers over many months have described the failures in these vessels. They have been unable to determine a single definitive root cause for the 123- foot patrol boat structural problems,” Adm. Thad Allen, commandant told reporters during a briefing yesterday in Washington.”
All the Gov resources couldn’t make it work, now it is being done on MUCH MUCH larger, heavier cruise ships…
Guess we will see it it works in the long run.
Yeah that caused quite a stink across the board along with the rest of utterly disastrous “Integrated Deepwater System Program”. We weren’t even allowed to talk about it for a while. I spoke with an engineering LT about the whole thing and he said that it was a combination of near zero oversight, siloed engineering offices just not communicating, and Coast Guard HQ turning a blind eye to the vendors when they bothered to check in at all. I’m paraphrasing, it was a weekend long conversation covering everything from graft to sloppy math.
It kind of soured the whole service on asking for new, or even moderately upgraded, hardware. Which is a shame because when I left active duty the average fleet age was still around 40 years. We desperately needed new boats and tools, but we also needed experience E6 and E7 level enlisted input on the systems being developed. The NSC have had a lot of teething troubles since 08. Everything from the superstructures cracking to the launch and recovery system for the stern launched small-boats; the latter killed a man before positive changes were made.
Anyway… yeah, if you need a longer boat just build one. Stretching something that big is sketchy.
I have always wondered at the CG engineering program and overall finances.
For instance they spent more than $10 billion on the Coast Guard National Security Cutters. Why? Why bother to design something new?
The NSC requirements were:
– Go fast
– Launch Small Boats (usually OTH’s)
– Have guns including main guns and CIWS
– Launch/land/refuel/and store helo’s
– Have spare parts
Know what widely tested platform can do all of those? The US Navy DDG (which is also roughly the same length and manning requirements). Literally skip designing something new, build some more DDG’s, paint them in CG colors, and forego the missles. Done.
If something breaks its an easy integration with Navy supply options and contractors for repair on well understood platforms. Heck the Navy could even front the part and be paid at FY end via a reimbursable account (already done for fuel so it would be a simple thing to spin up a reimbursable parts account).
But nope the CG had to design their own at huge cost, and limited parts. If something substantial breaks it will takes weeks or months for a replacement to be fabricated.
Sorry the CG spent $10 billion on DESIGN alone, not even building the NSC’s.
I didn’t make that part as clear as I should have.
Well there are some differences between the best design for deep water active navy use and coast guard use that is only a little military in its job. So if the budget exists it is probably right choice to build a dedicated ship for the role, and if the budget doesn’t using any old hull you can afford is probably good enough.
I have heard multiple chiefs and junior officers express a desire for the FSF-1 Sea Fighter but that program just sort of fizzled.
As for civilian hulls, there was brief talk of doing exactly that. The U.S. Navy has been using armed converted platform supply vessels (PSV) for submarine escort duty for a while now. A 450 ft (137 m) PSV could be easily converted to perform all the duties of a Coast Guard cutter, if a bit slowly. The newer generation of “Fast Supply Vessels” could even meet the 30+ knot speed requirements with some modifications.
Its been done on many ships in the past, successfully more often than not to my knowledge, though definitive failures as well. Also have to consider the use the ship will be put to, with military style ship use likely being much tougher on the hulls than a cruise ship… Which is a big part of the issue with those odd Littoral ships hulls its a good hull in the more civilian setting it seems.
When the submarines USS Flasher, Greenling, and Gato were being built, their hulls were reportedly cut in two and a 13 foot section was inserted as part of the corrective action following the Thresher sinking. They all served for ~30 years.
Those are fine in perfectly calm waters those and the JHSV’s start to break the minute they hit any choppy waters at ~20+ knots.
This reminds me of how a number of the C-130J military cargo aircraft had a 15 foot extension added to the fuselage behind the wings, becoming the C-130J-30.
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1555054/c-130-hercules/
Well, if you can cut up a 747s and triple their size to make the Dreamlifters, this can’t be that difficult.
I went on a cruise with my parents in Nov. 1970. The ship, Royal Caribbean Song of Norway and it was the 1st cruise ship that cruised the Caribbean. At that time, the only other cruise ships crossed the Atlantic. It was a small ship and about 10 years later, it was cut in half and was enlarged. I was 15 years old when I went on the Song of Norway. I’ve been on the smallest cruise ship in 1970 and the largest at the time, Wonder of the Seas on a transatlantic cruise in 2022.
It sounds to me like commenters are arguing over the CO2 released by cruise ships. Especially the ones comparing them to shipping.
Clearly extra CO2 release is not a great thing.
But I thought the main problems with cargo ships was the sewage and trash that are just released overboard. With thousands of over-eating, souvenir buying vacationists aboard I’m sure the sewage and the trash are both tremendous. And given we are talking about for-profit companies.. conveniently finding themselves in international waters.. they aren’t likely to bring that stuff home for proper disposal.
Even worse than releasing in the middle of the ocean though… I’m pretty sure I remember reading about them doing this right at the docks, fouling up beaches when stopped at 3rd world ports where the locals cant afford to tell them no.
Can regulation fix this? I don’t know. How do you regulate what occurs in international waters? Maybe countries of origin can enforce minimum waste tank and garbage hold sizes per number of passengers. Perhaps they can monitor the quantity of sewage pumped out (into the sewer, not the ocean) when they get back and if the numbers don’t add up for the length of time and number of passengers… the ship gets an inspector/babysitter riding along for the next few voyages.
Meant to add.. for the cargo-ship comparison… No doubt the workers on a cargo ship produce sewage and trash too but nothing on the scale of a cruise ship. Should be obvious… but… people were already going there saying cargo ships are worse so…
Cargo ships tend to burn high contamination fuel oils which stink too much for the patrons of the aft deck swimming pool. They are also slower so it runs the engines longer per trip.
LOL!
Two words here…
Naval Architecture
I worked for a company about 20 years ago that bought two small Naval vessels with the thought of lengthening them about the same as this.
Don’t remember the details but these were medium sized, very sea worthy vessels that the Royal Navy decided we’re no longer needed.
So a fairly expensive lengthening program was initiated.
The first one was completed and left the ship yard for sea trials.
It was, to be kind, completely unseaworthy. The pitch and roll characteristics had been changed so much by the lengthening that virtually everyone onboard was seasick by the time that trials were complete.
Work on the 2nd hull was stopped and both were scrapped.
Caveat emptor….