Jump to content

Talk:SS France (1960)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:SS France (1961))

Untitled

[edit]

A tragedy that this beautiful and historic vessel was allowed to be beached and is destined for demolition in the breakers of Alang. --OneCyclone 23:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last liner, etc.

[edit]

Anon. user: The France was built as a dual purpose ship - to undertake both the trans-Atlantic line and cruises. Thus, she was not the last liner built specifically for the Atlantic. Further, both the QE2 and QM2 were built for a similar dual purpose, and continued running the North Atlantic, meaning that ocean travel still continues on that run today. Unless you can provide some sources, or at least provide a decent argument to back up your claims to the contrary, please stop inserting fallacious information into the article. --gbambino 02:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gmbambino: I agree with most of your reversions but there is some support for one claim made by the Anon (and for the substance if not the exact phrasing of my prior edit of the Anon's additions):
"The French . . . produced the last purposely designed year-round transatlantic supership. There was hardly any expectation whatsoever of her going on cruises, at least in the beginning."
William H. Miller, Famous Ocean Liners published by Patrick Stephens Ltd. in 1987 ISBN 0-85059-876-1. The reference is to the France, and appears at p. 106. Miller also states that originally she sailed for about 10 months a year on the Le Havre-New York route.
Regards, Kablammo 02:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting find. However, John Maxtone-Graham, in his book The Only Way to Cross (pg. 409) said: "In the early sixties, the Compagnie General Transatlantique's vast France was put into service, a successor to the Normandie but with none of her structural daring... Whether designed for it or not, these liners led a double life - summers on the North Atlantic and winters in the Caribbean. They spent as much time cruising as crossing. They layout of the passenger spaces, the firm commitment to two classes that could painlessly unite into one and the vibrant palette of their interiors were cruise oriented..."

Further, in his other book Liners to the Sun, he states on pg. 71: "The Rotterdam's design breakthrough would be duplicated three years later on the France... Once again, the company had cruise conversion in mind: France's public rooms were spread along a similar class sandwich on two adjacent decks the full length of the hull... There was no Chambord staircase trickery on the France. Tourist Class passengers were restricted to their own stairwells forward and aft, smaller and less lavish than la grande descente amidships trod exclusively by First Class. But the conversion modus was the same; for cruises, all baffle doors segregating staircases from taboo decks were opened to permit free circulation throughout the vessel."

And the ship's first passenger voyage was itself a cruise to the Canary Islands.

So, if the ship was designed specifically to operate in both a liner and cruiser mode, clearly she was not built specifically for the North Atlantic run. --gbambino 04:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have always read the same; that the SS France was the last purpose-built transatlantic liner. Gbambino, just because she did cruises does not mean that she was dual purpose, as many purpose-built liners ( the Normandie, Queen Elizabeth, the Ile de France) went on cruises during off seasons. But here is how you can tell: the France had two pools, both of which were indoors. This is an indication of her transatlantic-purpose. The QE2 which is a dual purpose ship had one pool that had a retractable roof. Another was the Caronia (1949) that also had one outdoor pool.
The article notes France's indoor pools, but mistakenly calls this a "design flaw". Also, I read both Maxtone-Graham (M-G)books and the qoutes you listed are misleading. The first one only states that the liners did double duty. The book also noted this for the other liners I listed above. In the second qoute (from the second book) M-G was tracing the evolution from liner to cruiser and how this was displayed/affected by changing ship design, sea traffic, and social ideas about class. We should restore the "last major liner" distinction.Gary Joseph 16:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested that because she did cruises meant she was built for a dual purpose. I stated that because her architecture was designed in such a manner as to provide for easy conversion from a classed transatlantic liner to a uni-class cruiser meant she was built for a dual purpose. This was supported by Maxtone-Graham's comments: "The layout of the passenger spaces, the firm commitment to two classes that could painlessly unite into one," and "the Rotterdam's design breakthrough [meaning the ability to convert from crosser to cruiser] would be duplicated three years later on the France... Once again, the company had cruise conversion in mind...Tourist Class passengers were restricted to their own stairwells forward and aft, smaller and less lavish than la grande descente amidships trod exclusively by First Class. But the conversion modus was the same; for cruises, all baffle doors segregating staircases from taboo decks were opened to permit free circulation throughout the vessel.
I've been on the Norway twice, and saw first hand the retractable baffles (note: not just doors or gates) that M-G talks about. These are original to the ship, and wouldn't have been installed at all if conversion hadn't been on the minds of the France's designers.
Thus, she was not the last liner built specifically for the the Atlantic, nor was she the last dual-purpose liner as she was clearly followed by at least two others from Cunard. --gbambino 17:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon your style and basis for argument, I will not argue this any longer.Gary Joseph 00:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're implying that my "style" is offensive, then I apologise - such an interpretation was not intended. Sometimes, I suppose, written text lacks the subtlety of intonation that would otherwise clearly communicate the difference between being unpleasant and simply being succinct. --gbambino 15:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
" If you're implying that my "style" is offensive..." Not at all. Here at Wikipedia we are all one big ( unhappy and dysfunctional) family. I just think that how you are arguing will not lead to any other conclusion than the one you already have. Thus, there is no point in proposing any other viewpoints. So the apology is unnecessary.Gary Joseph 18:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah: so I finally see why my addition is always being taken out. Interesting that you should think "Whether designed for it or not..." should trump "The French . . . produced the last purposely designed year-round transatlantic supership..." written by William H, Miller, surely an authority. (Incidentally, I was on the last crossing, which is how I know the bit about the crew striking. It is also why that particular fact means a lot to me: to have been on the last crossing of the last liner built specifically...) Anyway, there is at least one other source I know of -- other than the crew, of course -- that makes this claim. I saw it in a used book store somewhere nearby (I fear they have closed); should they still be open, I will track the line down and provide source. And yes, the QE2 was built for dual purposes; the France, no. Ellerslie.

I'm aware of Bill Miller's credentials, however I am also aware of the scope of John Maxtone-Graham's work. The latter has done much more substantive studies of passenger ships, whereas Miller's books are more meant as coffee-table fare. But, this isn't really a dispute about which historian is more credible, or about the POV of the crew of the France (who would, no doubt, be very emotionally attached to the ship). Rather, when it comes down to it, the debate is about the reason for the inclusion of operable baffles that allowed the French Line to convert the France from a two-class to a one-class ship. If the Line never had cruising in mind for the France, why were the decks laid out in such a manner as to allow for easy conversion from a classed crossing mode to a non-classed cruising configuration? Further, the very first voyage the ship undertook with passengers was a cruise, and her first fare-paying cruise was to Rio de Janeiro in Feb. 1963 - a scant year after her maiden arrival in New York. --gbambino 18:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to quibble, but the fact the France's first voyage was a cruise is a red herring: so what? Just because they have docks and water doesn't mean that's what she was built for. More relevant to me is when she began cruising: winter of '62? '63? '64? Steadily? If that's what she was built for, then why didn't she do a lot more of it earlier in her "career"? Ellerslie. And I should also like to add here, since three of us think the last-liner designation belongs, who are you to arbitrarily overrule us, Gbambino? Tad arrogant, no?

Though I said above that her first commercial cruise was in Feb. 1963, it appears that she actually completed two cruises by the end of her first year of operation (2 cruises, 44 transatlantic crossings). From her maiden voyage in Jan. 1962, she did 1 cruise to the Canary Islands in Jan., 1962; 1 Christmas cruise in Dec., 1962; 1 cruise to Rio in Feb., 1963; and 1 cruise to the Caribbean in Mar., 1963. So, clearly, she was operating as a cruise ship from the start of her career - 4 cruises in 13 months. From then on, she did 1 in Dec. 1963, 2 in Feb. 1964, 1 in Mar. 1964, 1 in Dec. 1964, 2 in Feb. 1965, 2 in Mar. 1965, etc.
And again, if the French Line never had cruising in mind for the France when designing and building her, why were the decks and stairs laid out in such a manner as to allow for easy conversion, via built-in retractable baffles, from a classed crossing mode to a non-classed cruising configuration?
I present this information, and ask the above question, not out of arrogance, but to provide evidence that runs contrary to the claim you are trying to make. The onus is now on you to prove your claim is right. --gbambino 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's YOUR proof? A cruise or two a year? They're going to design an ocean liner based on that? That's like saying a fireplace is also designed for burning chairs because once in awhile you might break one up and toss it in. And these phrases you use: "to allow for easy conversion..." Again, a red herring. Allowing for easy conversion does not mean designed for; in fact, it means just the opposite: if it were designed for, it wouldn't need to be converted. As I said before -- somehow it was removed -- the crew of the France stating this to be the case might have more to do with knowledge of the ship than nostalgia for. Yet you believe you can overrule not only them but the three of us on this page. Arrogance pure and simple. I'm with Gary Joseph: discussion with you is pointless. Ellerslie.

Um, "allowing for easy conversion" does indeed mean "designed for" - do you think the baffles used to establish and dissolve barriers between classes appeared where they did by accident? Seriously. If you can't explain why those baffles were there, other than to separate two classes during a crossing and eliminate class distinction during a cruise, then yes, there is no use in continuing this conversation. Though, I might suggest you do a detailed study of the deck layout, and pay close attention to the location of the baffles in relation to certain stair-towers; if you're not going to believe the words of a ship historian, then hopefully your own homework will convince you of their purpose.
Failing that, even if we do pretend the baffles mean nothing, and apply the same logic to the QE2 (which we would have to do to avoid being hypocritical), then the France still wasn't the "last liner built specifically for the North Atlantic run." --gbambino 20:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three more sources:

http://ocean-liners.schuminweb.com/ships/france.asp

http://www.ibiblio.org/maritime/photolibrary/index.php?cat=179

And in "Seven Centuries of Sea Travel," by B.W. Bathe, Tudor Publishing Company, 1973, he writes on page 262: "Although not originally designed for cruising, the France, like the other earlier superliners still in service, has been forced by the fall in transatlantic seaborne passenger traffic to spend the winter months as a cruise ship." And that's not even including the book I referenced earlier.

I also note you removed my reference to the USS United States: how the Steinway piano and chopping block were reputedly the only flammable things on board. That you continue to hold yourself as the sole authority on ocean liners is just beyond belief to me. Does everyone using Wikipedia need your approval? Ellerslie

Those two websites you provide wouldn't be considered reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources); the site owners could well be only drawing the "conclusion" from their copy of Bill Miller's book, and, really, they, plus Bathe, only support one side of the debate I added to the article.
As for the reference regarding the SS US, I have no idea what you're alluding to. --gbambino 18:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the edit you're referring to here: [1] (Line 175). Firstly, the piano was not flammable. Secondly, that information is not really pertinent to the SS France, and is already included at SS United States. --gbambino 20:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Events

[edit]

I think this page should probably be updated to reflect recent events right about now...specifically the finding and documenting of radioactive material as well as the SC's latest weaseling-out (IMHO) ruling aka "what would you have us do?". Does anyone want to draft text? Alex79818 10:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have sources? --G2bambino 15:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I've got a bunch...some of them are POV but I think they should be ok for the purposes of reporting recent events (i.e. justices' quotes, etc)...I'm also trying to locate the actual text of the latest decision...let me get some things together.Alex79818 02:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's good. But, I'm not sure how much minute detail is necessary to include. --G2bambino 19:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End of The Road

[edit]

According to the BBC, the Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the ship for dismantling[2]. Sad news. --OneCyclone 18:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Powerplant "installation"

[edit]

The renaming of this section in the article is somewhat baffling; what is meant by "installation"? The powerplant proper (as though it were an art piece), or the process of installing the power plant? I don't see any benefit to changing it from "Power station," so, I'll put it back to that. But, beyond that, isn't "power plant" the more common term for a ship's engine rooms and power generation areas? --G2bambino (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

64.47.153.38 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Dan Wright The forward engines were removed when she was rebuilt into Norway. They were replaced with large diesal generators. The original generator installation did not have the output to handle the ships needs as a cruise ship.[reply]

I was going to ask for more specifics on the original propulsion plan. Number of Boilers, installed Horsepower? So after rebuild as SS Norway, what was new horsepower rating, new maximum speed.--Wfoj2 (talk)

I was wondering about the weight of the powerplant, in the paragraph, the weight of the eight boilers is described by "Her engines consisted of eight high-pressure, super-heating boilers[..] all weighing 8,000 tons". I can't find the book used as a source online, so is it meant that each boiler weight 8000 tonnes or is it the total? I'd use "each" rather than "all" in the first case, or "weighing 8000 tons in total" for the second case. Rmvandijk (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory

[edit]

This site (which I find impossible to navigate) alleges that the boiler room explosion on the SS Norway was in fact an al Qaeda attack. Is there any credible evidence for this, and is this conspiracy theory worth a mention? Here's the NTSB report, which seems entirely free of anything suspicious. Jpatokal (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's a legitimate report from the NTSB [3], as they investigate all transportation related accidents. I'd recommend reinstating the link but not in the context of a conspiracy theory. Rather, it's a detailed analysis of the history and maintenance of the boilers of the Norway and the report identifies the causes of the explosion. --OneCyclone (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay fine, but get a link to the NTSB report, not some site that uses the report to support some secondary of tertiary theory. That is why I removed them. The links should remain deleted.Gary Joseph (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation about "SSFrance" visit to Montreal in 1967

[edit]

In the section "Service history as SS France" it is mentioned that she was docked at Ile Notre Dame from July 13 to July 26 1967. This information is false. SS France never came to Montreal. Born and raised in Montreal, I lived in that city then. She came to Quebec city during that period of time but not in Montreal. Navigation further up St-Lawrence river was impossible for the ship. Taigrof 13-03-17 Taigrof (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ship anchored in Rabaul (PNG), Simpson Harbor, in late 1967. The crew gave guided tours of the ship to the townsfolk, who had been ferried out via some of the life boats. There appeared to be very few passengers aboard, almost a ghost ship.220.244.238.18 (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on SS France (1961). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on SS France (1961). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on SS France (1961). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger Manifest

[edit]

Passenger list for the SS France voyage of September 17, 1964 to France. 2603:8000:6AF0:A000:8D96:D77C:7737:EACA (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "nose"

[edit]

it says the nose of SS France is in Paris, but it has now been moved to Le Havre. Time to update the info (and the photo maybe). 2A02:8429:2CF7:D501:28F7:A4B4:C1CD:9EE4 (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In 2018, the city of Le Havre bought the tip of the liner’s bow, “exhibited since 2018 near the fishing port and the ferry terminal [de la Citadelle]in memory of a bygone era”. https://time.news/the-bow-of-the-france-all-that-remains-of-the-great-liner/ palmipedTalk 13:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"turbocharger fire"?

[edit]

"turbocharger fire erupted on Norway as she entered Barcelona in 1999"

What turbocharger? It says it's a steam turbine powered vessel. It doesn't say anything about any auxiliary diesel plants anywhere. Idumea47b (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go upward on this talk page - powerplant - Dan Wright wrote "The forward engines were removed when she was rebuilt into Norway. They were replaced with large diesal generators. The original generator installation did not have the output to handle the ships needs as a cruise ship." Also pre conversion - I expect she had some small diesel generators for electricity if there was a total or significant loss of boiler operational to at lease maintain some electricity. Wfoj3 (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SS_France_(1960)&oldid=1245090899"