Rumors about modernizing boats

MQ Modernization

I've been following this website for a few months now, and have enjoyed the comments and certainly the information provided by all of you who are so well informed - for which I thank you. I think you can tell, I am new to this style of cruising and it has come to light with my husband's great desire to cruise the Mississippi.

We decided in March to book the Great Steamboat Race for June, 2007. We have cruised on cruise ships but are so looking forward to the MQ. While I too, am hoping that they continue with the flavour of the current MQ, I am trusting that they are looking to 'upgrade' the MQ. We, personally, bought the concept of the 'steamboat' so it would be disappointing to see it change dramatically.

I have to agree with many of your sentiments that the cost is extremely high but we're willing to take the gamble. We've booked on the Promenade Deck (AA Cat.) and again, hope that we won't be disappointed. If anyone has knowledge of these staterooms, your comments would be appreciated.

Again, this website is a fountain of information and is so much more informative than anything else I have been able to find. Thank you.

And no "clutter" of propulsion machinery--also about half as many cabins. The lack of need for onboard power plant(s) leaves a lot more space for public use. Hmm, maybe a big loooong extension cord for the Queen? 🙂
S'
David D.

SOLAS only applies to vessels on international voyages, so the QUEENs remain in good standing. A trip from below the Mason-Dixon Line, north, to Yankee territory is no longer is considered an "international voyage".

Sam,

??? Did I understand something wrong? I thought the DQ needs an exemption of SOLAS. Weren´t river vessels not excluded from SOLAS and that was the big problem for the DQ??

Carmen

Carmen,
I think you're right. It is my understanding that ANY U.S.-flagged vessel carrying more than 49 overnight passengers falls under SOLAS. I have often wondered, however, how the AMERICAN QUEEN can have so much wood, while they really had to wrangle to have a wooden dance floor on the MQ when she was new. I know also that the NATCHEZ had a roll-up wooden dance floor when new, and those silly thwartship bulkheads with fire doors when she first came out. Apparently the rules were relaxed a bit, and they were able to remove the bulkheads and have more wood. Maybe Capt. Bates, with his "chummy" relationship with the USCG, can shed some light on this! (sorry to get you fired up, Alan!)

Bob,
The rules for construction set limits on fire load (lbs of flamable material/sq. ft.)in spaces depending on the degree of fire protection and supression.

The DQ can never fit within those rules hence the need for the exemption.

The AQ was built with a sprinkler system and does well with some monitoring of the load.

The MQ as built had very low fire load e.g. metal furniture except for upolstery etc. She was built without a sprinkler system. That is the main issue involved in a major redesign of the interior.

Adding a sprinkler system while very desirable from that point of view, is not so desirable in terms of weight added and changes in the stability calculations.

There are some hard decisions to be made, thankfully by someone other than me!

Dennis

Show Me the Regulations

Ya better tell the Coast Guard, then. Their word is what I stated earlier. If not, then show me a citation in the CFR's. "CC" spent the better part of an hour in the RH Public Library, Marine Section, and came up with nothing. SOLAS (Safety of Lives at Sea), of which I know very little, has been around since 1914 and the TITANTIC disaster, and the last convention was held in 1974 with updates since. Seems that when the Q's were built, they would have surely been built with compliance with what influence the SOLAS had over inland construction during the times they were built.

Somewhere in my search, I saw something pertaining to SOLAS emergency egress lighting stuff, and it addressed hallways leading to dead-end spaces, and there were provisions for dealing with signage and lighting in these areas. So, obviously, there are exemptions other than re-construction to deal with pre-existing situations aboard older vessels, and the older QUEENs would be dealt with accordingly. Believe me, if SOLAS regulations affected inland passenger vessels, I would be up to the knot of my necktie in them, and I'm not.

I say again, "Show me the regs." I may be in error, but if so, so are a lot of others. the only reference to SOLAS, I've found, is in 46 CFR, Subchapter H- Passenger Boats, Part 70- General Provisions, Subpart 70.05- Application, Table A, Footnote 6: "Any vessel on an international voyage is subject to the requirements of the International Convention for Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS), 1974".

I never saw the interior of the NATCHEZ in the beginning, so I don't know about the dance floor or the first bulkhead removal, but I was around when the midship bulkhead was removed. Scotty Viegas, now Chief Engineer, was instrumental in getting it removed. He was on the Bergeron Shipyard crew which built the NATCHEZ and came to the boat when she came out. He was able to convince the CG that structurally it was unnecessary and was able to point out the various safety features which would protect that large space. As I recall, isn't the CG limit 110 feet for an open space now? My guess is that each section of the N. would be just under that now, considering her hull is 236, with quite a few feet of bow forward of the cabin. One of the great charms of the PREZ was the ability to keep her ballroom one space when she was casinoized, due to the grandfather clause. Originally the N. had wooden chairs in the dining/bar rooms. Now they are metal/brass/upholstery. Here's one for the CG to answer: they wouldn't allow the big wooden pilot wheel to be placed in the pilothouse, but it decorates the dancing area on the stern of the Boiler Deck...isn't there just as much wood in it there as would be in the pilothouse?????

I've always thought the 49+pax overnight limit was part of SOLAS. Maybe that is a false assumption. But that law is officially Public Law 89-177, which prohibits the operation of overnight vessels with wooden superstructures. So the exemptions/extensions they fight for are for 89-177, whether that is part of SOLAS or not, I haven't looked up.

#9 Why not? The company(s) have been doing it for years!

Kathy Slocombe wrote: I've been following this website for a few months now, and have enjoyed the comments and certainly the information provided by all of you who are so well informed - for which I thank you. I think you can tell, I am new to this style of cruising and it has come to light with my husband's great desire to cruise the Mississippi.

We decided in March to book the Great Steamboat Race for June, 2007. We have cruised on cruise ships but are so looking forward to the MQ. While I too, am hoping that they continue with the flavour of the current MQ, I am trusting that they are looking to 'upgrade' the MQ. We, personally, bought the concept of the 'steamboat' so it would be disappointing to see it change dramatically.

I have to agree with many of your sentiments that the cost is extremely high but we're willing to take the gamble. We've booked on the Promenade Deck (AA Cat.) and again, hope that we won't be disappointed. If anyone has knowledge of these staterooms, your comments would be appreciated.

Again, this website is a fountain of information and is so much more informative than anything else I have been able to find. Thank you.

Kathy, I'm glad you enjoyed the MQ, she's a fine lady. IF all of the Promenade suites are still "AA" rate category, except the two forward AAA's flanking the pilot house, you'll find that those aft of the elevators ( elevators are plainly depicted in the brochure) are a bit larger than those forward, so woujd choose one of those if possible.They are very spacious by river standards.

Hey Ray,
Give Mirian a seditive and tell her to call Jim Davis for a calm down talk. HHA!
Modernizing the MQ is something that needs to be done to enhance your steamboat adventure. Flat screen TVs will be used, so very little space will be used. I really don't think that 60 inch screens will be put in. As far as the internet high speed connections, well, that is an added feature that is and has been a plus while staying in motels while on the road.
Don't worry about loosing any of the beautiful splinder on her. The company will never turn her into a plain brown bag. The beauty that is there will just be renewed and preserved. Our beloved MQ has reached her 30th birthday and has a lot of areas and things that need to be replaced.
Modernizing can be a very good thing. Take a look at the pilothouse for one. The new equipment that has been added since I became a member of the Navigation team has only helped me take the MQ up and down the rivers safer and with much less effort. We did get a brand new coffee pot this year and belive me, we need that. No coffee, no workee.
I for one look forward to the work to be done onboard the MQ. She is a beautiful steamboat that needs her makeup redone just as a beautiful woman does sometimes. Lets wait and see what happens. There are many of us working there that will be inquiring what is to take place and adding our two cents worth.
As far as the TVs and internet, if that's not your thing, turn them off. My hopes are that there will be a special onboard channel that musical slide shows and steamboat related movies will be played at all times. This may be where you can catch the Riverlorian's talk and see their face and supporting media props, if you were busy doing something else and missed their show.
Let's all look forward to change and help it along with suggestions to our new owners as we navigate our beloved Queens into the next generation of steamboating.
Jim Davis

Hi Jim,

Good to hear that the modernization does not mean the general decor is changing to some modern one!

I still have problems thinking of a space for a TV screen in the inside triple we´ve been in. On the Empress they had a bow camera which I found is a nice feature to turn on and see where you are. The tiny camera is located in the pilot house (don´t worry, you can´t see the pilots :-)). Another nice feature was the map showing where the boat actually is. Would be nice to see the river charts like you have in the pilot house.

Carmen

Carmen... the map would be a very nice feature... they have those on most large ocean cruise ships, and even commercial jets. You can also buy Navigation Charts if that is what you mean.

http://www.lrd.usace.army.mil/navigation/navcharts/

At this link... they can be downloaded or looked at online. They can also be purchased, and for Upper Mississippi River charts... go to http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/NavCharts/UMRNavCharts.asp

I can't find Lower Miss charts...

Nick,

Thanks, but I don´t need the river charts, we have them already :-). We do have a printed copy of the UMR (LMR is not online). By the way in our web directory you´ll find links to all online river charts. We also have all river charts on our laptop computer which can be connected to a GPS receiver. And it did work quite well out of the chart room of the MQ on our recent trip.

Carmen

Hello Jim! It's comforting to see that our pilots are just as concerned about our boats!!! Thank you for your great comments, they were sooooooo calming!!! So eloquent!!!! We are not worried about the company putting a brown paper bag over her head, just that the surgeons might give her too drastic of a face lift that is irreversible. She is already a Majestic Lady. Give her a new paint job, new furniture, carpet, keeping with the victorian decor theme, internet connections. Oh, the Pilot House should also be updated with new furniture! (like that one?) As for TV's we vote NO!!!
Thanks for keeping us passengers safe, Jim. Our boats are blessed with having the best of Captains and Pilots to navigate them thru our beautiful rivers!! Wish the Home Office would ask for your imput on the boats.
Ray & Marian

I've always wondered if that would work.

I didn't like it when they played Musak on the DQ. (That didn't last long.)

By the way, If you are 30 or younger you already know that you don't need tv's to watch tv. If someone in that "young family on a cruise" has an ipod, cellphone, and/or laptop, (and they will), they can watch tv anyway. Just get the appropriate receivers and the tv is redundant.

Is anybody in the new company reading this message board?

I will try to kepp my temper under control. During the design of the Natchez we had a long argument with the USCG about the wooden paddlewheel bucket planks as a fire hazard! Those nasty-looking pilothouse sash were required because wooden muntins were a fire hazard, as well as a wooden pilotwheel. Presumably they could burst into flames at any moment in the commander's opinion (he retired as an admiral, incidentally). A wooden dance floor was verboten.
Imagine my shock when I first saw the General Jackson with wood decorations all over the place. The Spirit of Peoria was allowed to use much wood, also.
It all depends on which nut approves the designs. If the examiner is hipped on fire safety, watch out. If he is cranked about electricity the power system will suffer. We were forced to use waterproof lighting fixtures in the Natchez cabin, especially made, so they would not shock anyone in a sinking. The fact that the generator would be thirty feet under water when the lamps submerged was not considered. The lighting fixtures in the Belle of Louisville were over-the-counter commercial-duty fixtures. On an aluminum boat we were held up for weeks about installing steel clips on the glazing. The fact that no matter how big the clips were they would still be held by aluminum made no difference to the numbskull who called for them.
The USCG construction codes are wide open to individual interpretation, bias and even spiteful decisions. That is why it is a good idea to treat the examiners to a night out, cost-free, before applying for plan approval.
You're right, Bob. You pulled my chain!

I will try to keep my temper under control. During the design of the Natchez we had a long argument with the USCG about the wooden paddlewheel bucket planks as a fire hazard! Those nasty-looking pilothouse sash were required because wooden muntins were a fire hazard, as well as a wooden pilotwheel. Presumably they could burst into flames at any moment in the commander's opinion (he retired as an admiral, incidentally). A wooden dance floor was verboten.
Imagine my shock when I first saw the General Jackson with wood decorations all over the place. The Spirit of Peoria was allowed to use much wood, also.
It all depends on which nut approves the designs. If the examiner is hipped on fire safety, watch out. If he is cranked about electricity the power system will suffer. We were forced to use waterproof lighting fixtures in the Natchez cabin, especially made, so they would not shock anyone in a sinking. The fact that the generator would be thirty feet under water when the lamps submerged was not considered. The lighting fixtures in the Belle of Louisville were over-the-counter commercial-duty fixtures. On an aluminum boat we were held up for weeks about installing steel clips on the glazing. The fact that no matter how big the clips were they would still be held by aluminum made no difference to the numbskull who called for them.
The USCG construction codes are wide open to individual interpretation, bias and even spiteful decisions. That is why it is a good idea to treat the examiners to a night out, cost-free, before applying for plan approval.
You're right, Bob. You pulled my chain!

I was inquiring about river charts for the Ohio River, and I was told that the guide for recreational boats on the inland waterways would be just as good, and less expensive than the navigational charts. Which would you recommend for someone that doesn't live near enough to the river system to need them for their own navigation?

Bruce,

Here´s a link to the Ohio River Charts (2000):

http://www.uscg.mil/d8/mso/louisville/rivercharts.htm

The river charts are very detailed. I don´t know the guide for recreational boats. Maybe someone else can tell you more than I can.

Carmen

Dieselization

Dieselization. Now that's a scary word! That would make our favorite paddlewheelers not that much different from a common towboat! One thing's for sure; they better not do away with the steam whistle and calliope! That's what gives the paddlewheel riverboat its character. Can you imaging the Delta, Mississippi or American Queen sporting nothing more than an air horn? It just wouldn't be the same!

There was something said on another thread about the General Jackson being dieselized and its steam whistle being blown from a small boiler. If nothing else, it looks like it should be possible to use a large diesel's exhaust heat to "fire" a boiler for the whistle or calliope. There are certainly enough BTUs there. It's a shame to see all that heat just going to waste up the stack. At least such a boat could still SOUND like a steam paddlewheeler.

Jim Herron;802 wrote: Well, if "modernization" is in the plans, how far behind could the big, bad word "dieselization" be? A diesel power plant would no doubt be more economical but, for me, it would destroy all the appeal of these boats. The AQ is bacically a hybrid at best and runs without it's steam engines with no problem but MQ and especially the DQ are pure steam boats. Since DN or the new company got rid of the spare engine components, I've been expecting to hear this would happen to the DQ, if not actual retirement.

If it is retired, perhaps an effort should be made to acquire the DQ by a group of subscribers and operate it under their own flag; a kind of time share organization if enough subscribers could be found. Of course, they would have to contend with the coming renewal of it's congressional exemption. 285 people @ $1,000 per week x a 40 week annual schedule would raise $11,400,000 per year. Would that be enough to buy, operate and maintain the DQ? Could the required 11,400 subscribers be found? If so, that would give each subscriber an effective rate of $142.85 per day, a big savings. Food for thought! Comments and ideas most definitely welcomed.
-Jim Herron

That is indeed a scary thought. The word out on the DQ last week is that we will no longer be steamboatin' - we will be river cruisin'! So that may well be the handwriting on the wall.

The idea of bringing all the river boats under the same name and having them all do the same thing, just won't work. It's a horrible mistake to take away the DQSC name, which is world renowned, and giving the boats a name that won't mean anything to anyone.

I have been steamboating since 1996. The original lure was the step back in time. There are four of us ladies who travel together. We have averaged a cruise a year. Sadly, I think this Sept. cruise may be our last. The prices have gotten out of hand. We don't mind paying more for this kind of cruise but if they are doing away with the whole riverboat theme it will be just another cruise..

Hi, Pat. Can you be any more specific as to what was said, and how it was said? As Sally posted this afternoon, most folks who love the steamboats don't mind paying a little more for this kind of cruise, but if they're diesel, well, how in the world can the company justify the current new pricing? We on the steamboats.org message board realize part of the higher cost is due to the steam plant and its higher cost of operartion, and are willing (to a point) to pay for this.

Lexie asked the question recently - are any of the new owners reading this board? If so, y'all are going to price yourselves out of business this way!