View Single Post
  #115 (permalink)  
Old 05-11-2007, 01:04 PM
Ron Clark's Avatar
Ron Clark Ron Clark is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 912
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by tncruiseman:
You really cannot compare the state of Norway and SSUS, as the situations are totally different. SSUS is a ship whose engines, although old, have had very little use over their lifespan; the NORWAY engines are old and worn out for all practical purposes. The SSUS has already been "gutted" and could easily be retrofitted with the newest of amenities..the NORWAY would have to be fully gutted to do the same. I cannot see any bank financing anything on NORWAY without the removal of the toxics used in her building. If both ships were to be fully refurbished, the SSUS is way ahead of Norway in terms of what must be done. Without a full top to bottom refurbishing, Norway could never be a premium cruise ship again and at best would be similar to Imperial Majesty's operation, and it costs too much to operate for that. The way SSUS was built, its lifespan could feasibly be an eternity with proper maintenance and the potential of success is much greater than that of Norway.
I agree. Most forget the SSUS was built to US Navy standards. It has two inch steel hull plates. The SS France was built to commercial standards. Standard thickness for the hull on most any commercial ship is 1 inch.
It's possible the SS France was also built with thicker steel plates. I just don't know.
But we do know that the SSUS hull is in great shape.
"Survey by ultrasound is used to check the thickness of plates. Up to 25% erosion is allowed before repair is necessary. When extensively surveyed after 28 years of service, only a few small areas of the hull showed any erosion and it was less than 12%."

Sources:
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question...7040711AAo7m19
and
http://www.ss-united-states.com/br1.html
Reply With Quote