Talk:Blue Riband

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blue Riband article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

(First comment)[edit]

This article needs distance in kilometres and speed in km/h. Lightmouse (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westbound[edit]

The last "superliner" to hold the trophy was SS United States, which set a time that was not beaten until 1990.
That makes it sound as though it no longer has one of the trophies. Traumatic (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct: The United States no longer holds the Hales Trophy, and no longer holds the record for an eastbound crossing by a commercial vessel. (It also no longer holds the record for a westbound crossing, though the current holder isn't a commercial vessel). OTOH, as the Blue Riband is pretty much a dead letter now, the United States was the last winner of the Blue Riband accolade. Xyl 54 (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inman City of Paris and Cunard Russia[edit]

Anyone know why the Inman Line City of Paris of 1866 and the Cunard Line Russia of 1867 are not included on this list? Gibbs reports that in November 1866, the City of Paris won record in the western direction and Russia won the eastbound record in 1867. Specifically, the City of Paris recorded a 8 days, 4 hours 1 minute (13.75 knot) voyage from Queenstown to New York and Russia recorded 8 days, 0 hours, 28 minutes (14.2 knots) from New York to Queenstown. Apparently, while the City of Paris had a longer time than the Scotia record, she claimed a faster speed because she supposedly used a longer route than Scotia. Russia's record appears to be both faster and shorter.

(GRUBBXDN (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Tables[edit]

The tables for the eastbound record holders and Hales Trophy holders are careful to point out they are "Not to be confused with Blue Riband holders"; but if the term only came into use (and the rules set down) around 1910, surely the westbound record holders before then weren't Blue Riband winners either. Surely they shoud be tabled separately with the same (or a similar) caveat. Does anyone know when this codification actually happened? Xyl 54 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(answered; below. Xyl 54 (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Limited to steamships?[edit]

Is the Blue Riband designation limited to steamships? Sailing packets had achieved considerably better than the time achieved by Sirius and by that time they had all the qualities of passenger liners: regularly schedules, taking of passengers, etc.

According to Carl Cutler, the packet ship Emerald sailed from Liverpool to Boston in 15 days 10 hours arriving on March 8, 1824. This was certainly exceptional, although a time of 15 days 23 hours was achieved by the Columbia from Portsmouth to New York arriving April 17, 1830. See Greyhound of the Seas (3rd ed), 1984, p410. Chris55 (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only limited to steamships, the Blue Riband title wasn't used prior to 1890, so the list of record-holders was largely retrospective when it was compiled. And no, a list of record-breaking sailing ships would be irrelevant to the subject. Xyl 54 (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Titanic have won?[edit]

Would the Titanic have won the Blue Riband if it had arrived safely?

141.117.1.162 (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC) L. Fernandes March 7, 2014[reply]

This is not a discussion page for the topic, only for the article. Chris55 (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. That said, the answer is no. White Star was not interested about Blue Riband. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch ships[edit]

I cannot beleive that this list is full of English ships. I am sure that ther emust have been Dutch ships crossing at winning speeds - but they are left out of the classification as it appears. Is this another example of the Anglo-Saxon media bubble happening? 94.213.30.93 (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it: the Dutch Atlantic shipping line (Holland America) seems to have been uninterested in the competition. Its liners of the period (Rotterdam (nl), Nieuw Amsterdam) were consistently several knots slower than their Cunard counterparts. Xyl 54 (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Red Jacket omitted from the tables for a reason? And should a category for sail vs powered be included?[edit]

It says in the body of the article that the Red Jacket crossed eastbound in 13 days ish -- but it is not in the corresponding table. Is there a reason for this?
Also should a column designating sail vs powered crossing be entered? 69.25.143.33 (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No; see above. Xyl 54 (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blue Riband. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140125210743/http://www.incat.com.au/domino/incat/incatweb.nsf/v-title/The%20Hales%20Trophy?OpenDocument to http://www.incat.com.au/domino/incat/incatweb.nsf/v-title/The%20Hales%20Trophy?OpenDocument

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 14:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictions[edit]

I've tried to resolve the anomalies mentioned above: Having read Kludas's book now I can see where they stem from. Although it is excellent in many respects and contains a wealth of information, it also holds a number of contradictions and statements of the authors opinion rather than fact.

First, after observing that there are no official rules for this competition, and that the Blue Riband title was given primarily by newspapers which were sometimes contradictory (as one might expect) Kludas has, with Germanic precision, created a set of rules which he has then applied retrospectively to the subject. (He pretty much says on p25 that he made the rules up himself).
Second, after observing that the term Blue Riband only came into common use in 1910 he has anachronistically labelled all record-breakers that met his criteria back to 1840 as Blue Riband winners, something which is not historically accurate.

So, the rule that the accolade Blue Riband only applies to westbound journeys is not traditional, at all; the resolution imposed by Kludas on the contradictions he sees in the primary sources. So limiting the term to westbound voyages only is not supportable, and we shouldn't do it here. Also, referring to record-holders of Victorian times is anachronistic, and we shouldn't do that, either.

Accordingly I've edited the statement in the introduction, and deleted the caveat in the table of westbound record holders; and I have amended the designation to “record-holder” throughout, and reserved the accolade “Blue Riband winner” to those ships for which there is a contemporary source (such as the newspapers of the time)

I trust everyone is OK with that. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split?[edit]

The article also discusses the Hales Trophy at length, while at the same time pointing out that the Blue Riband and the trophy are not related, except tangentially.
So I suggest that the material on the Hales Trophy be moved to its own article under that title, and a summary of the relationship only be left here. Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Hales Trophy and Blue Riband as very much intertwined with each other, if they're not quite the same thing, the terms are definitely used interchangeably in some circles. I suspect that many of the edits to this page trying to further separate the two are either from misty eyed romantics who are in denial that the days of the old liners are long gone or from American patriots, who while they can't claim that the United States still holds the Hales Trophy, valiantly defend the right of an old ship named after their nation to hold the Blue Riband.

While I don't want to start a posting war with the romantics, at the very least, I'd argue that the two remain on the same page.--Bogong (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bogong: Thank you for replying, and my apologies for not responding sooner.

Well I've not been called a misty-eyed romantic before (or an American!): Nor I think is Arnold Kludas, who is author to one of the main works on this subject, and is the source for the contention that the Hales Trophy “can never be seen as synonymous with the Blue Riband”.(p18) He also points out that the current award has “little to do with Hales' original purpose”, which was to provide a framework and permanent award for the fastest trans-Atlantic passenger liner.(p16)

The two may well have overlapped, but I don't know about “intertwined”; only four of the thirty-five Blue Riband holders ever received it, while the modern holders hardly qualify as express liners. And if some people use the terms interchangeably, others (like Team GB, here) certainly don't,

The age of the express liners has indeed passed, and the Blue Riband (pretty much) with it; the contest has moved on, and the Hales Trophy has acquired a life of its own now. Also, the Hales Trophy is not sole successor to the Blue Riband; already in 1952 The Times was suggesting the contest for fast trans-Atlantic passenger travel had progressed to the air, and there are at least four trophy's to be had for sea crossings today.

So the intent still stands; to make a new article on the Hales Trophy (It is notable enough) and to summarize it and the post-United States history of the contest as a whole in this article here. Unless there is a good reason not to. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Now I know that you are neither a misty-eyed romantic nor an American uber-patriot, I'll try a different approach.

We have a choice between viewing the Blue Riband and the Hales Trophy as dusty historical artefacts that became irrelevant 60 years ago or we can view them as contemporary awards. Now I write and edit a lot of history, so I have nothing against consigning them to the distant past, however I'd prefer to have them as living things. To do that they need to be slightly redefined or reinterpreted in a similar way to the decision 20 odd years ago to award Incat the Hales Trophy. Personally I would have preferred to see it go the operating company rather than the ship builder and to have a ferry company proudly flying the Blue Riband on a ship.

Yes, I said a ferry company! Why? Well the gross tonnage of large ships run by modern cruise lines is probably greater than that in the grand old days of ocean liners, but the purpose of cruise ships is to be holiday venues rather than to provide efficient passenger transport. Even the trans Atlantic sailings of cruise ships are described as 'seasonal repositioning voyages', typically between Caribbean and Mediterranean cruising routes. Needless to say speed is not a factor, indeed high speed is seen as something to be avoided in a cruise ship as it might cause mild discomfort for the holiday makers.

By contrast the companies operating fast ferries aim for high speeds. A company running between Motevideo and Buenos Aries boasts of their three class ship which operates at over 50 knots. In markets such as the Canary Islands and some Baltic and Mediterranean routes, companies compete to offer the fastest voyages on the most comfortable ships, which is very much in the spirit of the old Blue Riband and Hales Trophy.

Now it's not for me to say whether the Riband / Trophy should remain for the fastest cross Atlantic passenger run by a commercial vessel (although that would be a little contrived these days) or redesignated to be for the fastest passenger shipping routes anywhere, but I would love to see a blue riband again proudly flying from the mast of an especially fast ship.

So If we are to see the Blue Riband and Hales Trophy revived to be contemporary awards, they probably need to be treated as concurrent awards. The alternative is to see the Hales Trophy fester away largely unappreciated in Hobart, (a city as far as it is possible to get from the North Atlantic) and to never see a fast ship proudly flying a blue riband.

Wow, that's not what I intended to write and it's not really a response to Xyl 54's post, but I'll leave it as a radically alternative take on the whole issue and hope it provokes a few interesting responses. ;) --Bogong (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bogong: Thanks for your comments.

I hadn't appreciated that the Hales Trophy had gone to Incat, rather than to the operators, but am reminded of a report in an Irish paper of the 1890's which suggested the BR now belonged to Belfast, as its shipyards had built the last three Atlantic record holders. Which is an interesting perspective.

And I don't disagree that the fastest passenger vessels at sea these days are going to be ferry boats, where speed is a consideration.

But I think we are approaching the discussion from the wrong end. The BR accolade is given to a competition seen to be the most prestigious, or the most difficult, or most keenly sought (so the Epsom Derby is the BR of flat racing, and the Tour de France is the BR of cycling) so the title only really applied to the Atlantic run whilst it was seen to have those properties. Nowadays, though the term is still referred to for the Atlantic contest (in various ways) it is, as you say, "a dusty historical artifact", "largely consigned to the distant past", and whether it is revived again in the context of sea/ocean travel depends very much on whether some other rivalry gains sufficient stature.

Even at the time of the express liners, speed wasn't always everything; White Star (for example) focused on comfort and luxury (and, ironically, on safety) rather than speed; as Kludas points out there is little advantage in a four and a half day crossing over a five day one, if you have to leave or arrive in the middle of the night. And the Concorde story illustrates the emptiness of pursuing speed over cost or comfort (see Why planes don't fly faster) (though it also shows the difference in attitude from one side of the Atlantic to the other; in 1952 Cunard and the British crowds were able to cheer the United States when it broke the record [1]: By contrast Concorde faced a long battle to even be allowed to fly into the US.

in fact, I'm dubious about how real this contest was over much of the period described in this article; And even when it was hot, the shipping lines were insistent that they were running a scheduled service. And there was this snippet which mentioned that Stirling Castle, while on a “record-breaking” run down to Cape Town, lay over in Madeira for a day or so, in order not to arrive too early!

Meanwhile there are still a couple of speed/endurance record for the Atlantic crossing, and there will doubtless be people with the time, technical skill, inventiveness and money willing to have go at it. Xyl 54 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've gone ahead and done this; the Hales Trophy stuff is here, and I've added a section on the various awards (including the HT) that are around today. I hope that covers everything, Xyl 54 (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't like that one person has taken it upon themself to split the entry, when it doesn't seem to be supported by a number of people. Actually, I haven't seen any evidence of any support, except from the single person who wants this change. :(

But I don't have the energy (or the arrogance) to dispute this, so I guess I'll probably meekly accept the self-appointed arbiter's decision to split the entry. :( --Bogong (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bogong: As you are obviously not “meekly accepting” the situation, and do have the energy to make obliquely critical comments, I now have to respond to this.

To recap, then: I suggested this course of action three months ago, giving the reasons for it then. The only objection was yours, and that was only that you didn't like it, and that you felt the two were “intertwined, if not the same thing” something (I pointed out) that is explicitly refuted by the articles main source. I also asked if there was any good reason not to continue; you replied with some general comments (which were of interest) but were not a response to my question. I nonetheless replied, and after that heard nothing more. So after giving it another month, I followed the advice at WP:BOLD and went ahead. Now we have this dog-in-the-manger comment, accusing me of arrogance for doing so.

To be clear: As this is an encyclopaedia anyone can edit, we are all “self-appointed”; and if things are wrong we are all enjoined to “take it upon ourselves” and fix it. You make a big thing of there being no support for this suggestion; there often isn't. But OTOH yours was the only objection, and I believe I have dealt with that.

Now, the article was, and, at 66Kb, still is, at the stage where we should consider splitting sections out; the Hales Trophy is still notable in itself; and the overlap between the two subjects is still covered in the text: So, I'll ask again: Do you have any valid (ie policy/guideline/reliably sourced) objection to this change? Xyl 54 (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe show a map with the typical route?[edit]

Granted, the article states the route used varied depending on sea conditions. But it make sense to have some sort of visual indication. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Westbound, again[edit]

As mentioned above, the article previously suggested the Blue Riband accolade only applied to westbound voyages, which is not supported by contemporary sources. So I changed that in April.
OTOH it also says the Hales Trophy was awarded for records set in either direction, which is also not the case; it seems that the notion of westbound records being the only ones that counted was Hales' idea in 1935. So I have changed that too.
In any event, it only affected four ships :Rex and Normandie, which set their first records going west anyway, the Queen Mary, which set the record west but didn't get the Hales Trophy, and the United States, which was acclaimed as Blue Riband winner on her eastbound voyage, though presumably didn't get the Hales Trophy until she had returned home. In any event, it seems the Hales Trophy committee have changed their minds on that now, too, Xyl 54 (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing ships, again[edit]

As mentioned above, the history of the Blue Riband competition was compiled retrospectively, and is regarded by all the sources used here as starting with the race between Sirius and Great Western. So the section on packet ships, while interesting, is out of place here (and if the implication is that they were part of the Blue Riband story, borders on Original Research/Synthesis) So I have removed it. As it is primarily about the Black Ball Line, I have added it to that article, which IMO makes a good addition there.
However, the point that Sirius and Great Western were not the fastest ships on the Atlantic run (nor were they the first steam ships to cross) is well-made, and I have included it in a new Background section for the article. I trust everyone is OK with that. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]