Why Passenger Numbers Don't Tell You How Good an Expedition Ship Will Be

Dozens of expedition ships now operate around the world, from converted sailing vessels carrying little more than a dozen guests to sophisticated, purpose-built polar ships with up to 200 passengers. For someone coming to expedition cruising for the first time, figuring out which one is right for them isn't particularly easy.

Unless you are already loyal to an operator, have been recommended a particular ship or have a very specific requirement, the comparison invariably gravitates towards two things: size and comfort.

How many passengers does it carry? Does it have balconies? Is there a choice of restaurants? Does it have a sauna, pool or gym? Is it described as luxury, premium or expedition?

These are useful questions, but they tell you relatively little about how the expedition itself will work.

Two ships carrying similar numbers of passengers can provide markedly different experiences once everyone starts putting on waterproofs and heading towards the mudroom. The number of Zodiacs, the size and composition of the expedition team, the range of activities, the ability to get everyone ashore together, the amount of outside observation space, and even the way dining works can all change the character of a voyage.

The same applies to size. A smaller ship may offer quicker embarkation, greater intimacy and easier access to the expedition team, but it may have fewer specialist guides and less capacity to run several activities at once. A larger ship has more people to move, yet may also have considerably more Zodiacs, guides, equipment and space.

None of that is captured particularly well by a passenger-capacity figure.

This is why choosing the smallest expedition ship you can find is not necessarily the same thing as choosing the best expedition ship for you. What matters is the relationship between the ship, the people aboard it,

and how the expedition is actually operated.

A more useful question might therefore be:

What can the ship actually do with the passengers it carries?

One of the most useful measurements of an expedition ship rarely appears prominently in a brochure.

How long does it take to get everyone outside?

That can matter enormously in Antarctica, Greenland and Svalbard. Expedition days are shaped by weather, ice, wildlife and local conditions rather than a perfectly predictable schedule. A cetacean encounter might develop quickly and be best seen at water level, or a planned landing window may shorten. Ice moves and conditions that looked poor at breakfast can suddenly become excellent.

On a small ship, the logistical advantage can be obvious. Fewer people need lifejackets, fewer boots pass through the mudroom, and fewer passengers need to be loaded into Zodiacs.

Adventure Canada recently provided an unusually useful example. On a Greenland voyage aboard the 75-passenger Ocean Nova, the ship was carrying just 53 guests supported by 13 expedition staff. According to the operator, Zodiac embarkation took around 20 minutes, helping the expedition team achieve two off-ship excursions during the day.

That is the kind of number that tells an expedition traveller considerably more than the dimensions of a cabin.

Adventure Canada offers another side to the same example.

The company operates both the 75-passenger Ocean Nova and the larger 150-passenger Ocean Victory. The obvious assumption might be that the smaller ship delivers the stronger expedition experience.

Yet Adventure Canada has chosen not to offer kayaking aboard Ocean Nova. Running the programme would require expedition staff and resources that the smaller operation can use more effectively elsewhere.

Ocean Victory, with its larger expedition team and greater physical capacity, can support kayaking alongside a broader range of activities.

This illustrates one of the less discussed compromises of very small expedition ships.

Reducing passenger numbers can simplify expedition operations, but reducing the ship's scale can also reduce the resources available to support it.

A larger vessel may have more passengers to move, but it can also carry more guides, more Zodiacs, more kayaks and more specialist equipment. It can accommodate dedicated photographers, ornithologists, marine biologists and other experts without requiring the same individuals to perform several operational roles.

Small and large therefore describe scale. They do not necessarily describe the quality of the expedition.

This is where expedition ship comparisons could become much more useful.

Imagine two ships: One carries 70 passengers and five Zodiacs, and the second carries 120 passengers and ten Zodiacs.

The first ship is considerably smaller, but the number of passengers per Zodiac is almost identical.

Now add the expedition team. The smaller vessel may have eight expedition staff while the larger vessel has 20. Suddenly the larger ship may provide more specialist knowledge per passenger despite carrying considerably more people overall.

Then consider public space, observation decks, mudroom capacity and the number of activities that can operate simultaneously.

Passenger capacity starts to look less like an answer and more like one part of an equation.

A new Antarctic vessel entering service this year illustrates the point from another direction. Magellan Discoverer has physical accommodation for up to 96 passengers, but its operator plans to carry fewer guests on its principal Antarctic air-cruise programme. The ship carries ten Zodiacs and is configured to get its expedition complement ashore together.

The interesting thing is not the ship itself. It is the design philosophy. Rather than simply making the vessel smaller, operators can increase the amount of expedition infrastructure available to each passenger.

At the other end of the spectrum are expedition vessels carrying little more than a dozen guests.

This is a genuinely different type of travel.

A 12-guest ship can place its entire passenger complement into one or two Zodiacs. No large groups need organising, and virtually everyone aboard quickly gets to know the expedition team and their fellow travellers.

The ship can feel closer to a private expedition than a cruise.

That intimacy is difficult for a larger vessel to reproduce, regardless of how efficiently it operates.

But the trade-offs become equally apparent. There is less space for multiple restaurants, lecture theatres, wellness facilities and extensive science or activity programmes. There may be fewer guides, fewer specialist disciplines represented aboard and fewer alternative activities taking place at the same time.

For some travellers, none of that matters. They are buying access, intimacy and the ability to react quickly to conditions.

For others, the range of expertise and activities aboard a larger expedition vessel may contribute significantly to the experience.

Neither traveller is wrong, but they are choosing very different expeditions.

It is easy to become so focused on getting off an expedition ship that we forget passengers may spend a considerable amount of time on it.

There will inevitably be time spent aboard, whether crossing stretches of open water, repositioning between landing sites or waiting for weather to improve. In Antarctica, that might include the Drake Passage, while Arctic itineraries can involve considerable distances between one area of exploration and the next.

This is where larger expedition ships can have a genuine advantage.

More physical space allows larger observation lounges, extensive outside decks, multiple dining venues, science centres, gyms and wellness facilities. Modern stabilisation and hull design can also affect comfort in open water.

A very small vessel may provide a remarkable experience when everyone is outside watching a polar bear or approaching a penguin colony.

The comparison can feel rather different during 36 hours of poor weather at sea.

That is why the right ship depends partly on the traveller.

For someone primarily interested in photography, wildlife, and spending as much time outside as possible, a very small ship may be extremely attractive.

If you want kayaking, specialist lectures, a larger science programme, multiple dining options, and more space aboard, moving up in passenger capacity may actually improve the overall experience.

Families and multigenerational groups can have different requirements again. So can solo travellers and people concerned about motion at sea.

The key is to understand what changes as the ship gets smaller or larger.

Small ships generally offer intimacy and simpler logistics, whereas larger ships can offer greater resources and choice. However, the best expedition vessels try to balance the two.

Passenger capacity remains useful. A 12-passenger expedition yacht and a 180-passenger polar vessel will unquestionably provide different social and operational experiences.

But treating the smaller number as an automatic measure of expedition quality is too simplistic.

Travellers comparing ships should also look at the number of Zodiacs, the size and composition of the expedition team, the ability to land everyone together, the activities offered, observation space, mudroom design, and how much time an itinerary is expected to spend at sea.

Those details reveal how the expedition actually works.

Perhaps there is one particularly useful question to ask an operator or specialist before booking:

When something extraordinary happens outside, how quickly can everybody aboard go and see it?

Because that is ultimately what all the ship specifications, passenger capacities and expedition ratios are trying to achieve.

The best expedition ship is not necessarily the one carrying the fewest people, it is the one that makes it easiest for the people it does carry to explore.