|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Jun 2, 2012 18:13:50 GMT -8
Departure Bay has now reopened and the remainder of Route 2's sailings will continue as scheduled.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Jun 2, 2012 22:30:28 GMT -8
Twitter, via BC Ferries and CKNW is reporting a bomb threat on the Queen of Coquitlam at this moment. Youtube video from a passenger aboard the Coquitlam:
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Sept 14, 2012 19:50:26 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Oct 10, 2012 19:55:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 10, 2012 20:35:21 GMT -8
The Sun report, which originates from the Victoria Times-Colonist, seems to be a little screwed up to me, and reports only numbers for 4 of 8 vessels operating on two of the three routes. I don't think that it includes all of the days of the weekend either. The Nanaimo report did not include any numbers for Route 1. Neither report looked at traffic on Route 3.
It could be that traffic was up a fair bit on Route 1, but down on the others. In any case, these two reports are incomplete, and traffic overall was likely about the same as last year.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Oct 17, 2012 18:27:59 GMT -8
Here is the latest from today's Powell River Peak on what will happen when the Berths at Little River and Westview are replaced.
I'm in favor of Running Route 17 from Saltery Bay to Departure Bay, the Island Sky shouldn't be doing it though. What I'd like to know is why they can't use the Queen of Burnaby? I wouldn't doubt if it's so the Burnaby (or Nanaimo) can have her annual Refit during this time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2012 18:45:49 GMT -8
Here is the latest from today's Powell River Peak on what will happen when the Berths at Little River and Westview are replaced. I'm in favor of Running Route 17 from Saltery Bay to Departure Bay, the Island Sky shouldn't be doing it though. What I'd like to know is why they can't use the Queen of Burnaby? I wouldn't doubt if it's so the Burnaby (or Nanaimo) can have her annual Refit during this time. When is this the berth rebuilding for Little river and Westview going to happen? I would hate to ride the Island Sky from Saltery Bay to departure Bay! Would the Queen of Burnaby fit into Earls Cove berth? If the Queen of Burnaby fits into the Earls Cove couldn't BC ferries do the Route 17 from Earls Cove to Departure Bay!
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 17, 2012 19:03:07 GMT -8
Question: What I'd like to know is why they can't use the Queen of Burnaby? I wouldn't doubt if it's so the Burnaby (or Nanaimo) can have her annual Refit during this time. Answer, from the quoted article: Here is the latest from today's Powell River Peak on what will happen when the Berths at Little River and Westview are replaced.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 17, 2012 19:05:10 GMT -8
When is this the berth rebuilding for Little river and Westview going to happen? Go back & carefully read the Powell River Peak article posted above by 'NorEx-Rider 16' (aka Curtis). It is written there.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 17, 2012 19:06:04 GMT -8
When is this the berth rebuilding for Little river and Westview going to happen? - the answer is in the article. ------------------ I would hate to ride the Island Sky from Saltery Bay to departure Bay! - haha, most ferry-fans salivate at rare opportunities like these.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,186
|
Post by Neil on Oct 17, 2012 20:23:26 GMT -8
I suspect they've decided that vehicle marshalling for this route is impossible at Buckley Bay... and I think they're right. They tested the Queen of Burnaby in the dock there, but there simply isn't room to accommodate cars for Denman and Hornby, as well as Powell River, without somehow adding space that would have to have stretched along the highway.
This makes for a really intriguing opportunity for ferry fans: a route down Malaspina Channel, followed by a less than interesting crossing of Georgia Strait south of Texada and Lasqueti.
Looking at the map, I have to wonder if the Island Sky could do this in three hours.
In any event, I sure will want to do this crossing if it comes about.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Oct 17, 2012 20:37:04 GMT -8
Answer, from the quoted article: Oh, whoops, my bad. Back on track though, I wonder what prevents the Burnaby from using the Saltery Bay Berth? The Queen of Tsawwassen used to dock here, and aside from overall length, the Tsawwassen and Burnaby are very much the same vessel. I'm going with Depth because I just can't believe it would be to do with size.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Oct 17, 2012 20:39:43 GMT -8
I am strongly supportive of mid-January as I will be in BC. Obviously the ferry service should coordinate its opportunities for ferry fanning around my annual leave schedule. Haha!
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 17, 2012 20:42:36 GMT -8
Back on track though, I wonder what prevents the Burnaby from using the Saltery Bay Berth? The Queen of Tsawwassen used to dock here, and aside from overall length, the Tsawwassen and Burnaby are very much the same vessel. I'm going with Depth because I just can't believe it would be to do with size. I was thinking maybe it was because of lack of room in the (Saltery) bay for a longer ship to do the spin, for docking stern-to. But they could do the spin a ways out from the bay, and then back in.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Oct 17, 2012 20:51:00 GMT -8
When is this the berth rebuilding for Little river and Westview going to happen? - the answer is in the article. ------------------ I would hate to ride the Island Sky from Saltery Bay to departure Bay! - haha, most ferry-fans salivate at rare opportunities like these. This is really rather weird... because that's exactly what's happening right this second. I would make a special footy trip from Horseshoe Bay to Powell River, on this new triangle route!
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 17, 2012 20:52:31 GMT -8
Back on track though, I wonder what prevents the Burnaby from using the Saltery Bay Berth? The Queen of Tsawwassen used to dock here, and aside from overall length, the Tsawwassen and Burnaby are very much the same vessel. I'm going with Depth because I just can't believe it would be to do with size. I was thinking maybe it was because of lack of room in the (Saltery) bay for a longer ship to do the spin, for docking stern-to. But they could do the spin a ways out from the bay, and then back in. Do you not think that if the Burnaby was doing a run from Saltery Bay to Departure Bay, it would be going in by the bow at Saltery Bay? It has been the long standing practice for single-enders docking at Departure Bay to go in by the stern and hence to do their spin there. This is, BTW, planned tentatively for late 2013 or early 2014.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 17, 2012 20:56:34 GMT -8
Do you not think that if the Burnaby was doing a run from Saltery Bay to Departure Bay, it would be going in by the bow at Saltery Bay? It has been the long standing practice for single-enders docking at Departure Bay to go in by the stern and hence to do their spin there. Good point; I forgot about the other side of the strait. I think this temporary ship assignment (the Island Sky) is likely a trail-balloon by BCFerries, to see if the I'Sky design would work well for a replacement newbuild for the Comox route.
|
|
|
Post by glasseye on Oct 18, 2012 14:22:34 GMT -8
Looking at the map, I have to wonder if the Island Sky could do this in three hours. At first glance, three hours is possible given slack or favorable currents, good weather, and all engines working (41 nm in 3h = 14 knots, Island Sky max speed ~15.75 knots). Are the tidal currents in Malaspina fast enough to be a problem for schedule keeping with only 1-2 knots of speed margin? It's unfortunate that the NorAd couldn't be used to fill in here as 2-3 hours in winter conditions on NorAd would be more pleasant than three hours in winter conditions on the Island Sky.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Oct 18, 2012 16:21:34 GMT -8
Looking at the map, I have to wonder if the Island Sky could do this in three hours. At first glance, three hours is possible given slack or favorable currents, good weather, and all engines working (41 nm in 3h = 14 knots, Island Sky max speed ~15.75 knots). Are the tidal currents in Malaspina fast enough to be a problem for schedule keeping with only 1-2 knots of speed margin? It's unfortunate that the NorAd couldn't be used to fill in here as 2-3 hours in winter conditions on NorAd would be more pleasant than three hours in winter conditions on the Island Sky. Even if she was available, she can't fit into any Sunshine Coast berth or the Departure Bay berth without the berthing apparatus, of which BCF only has one, which is kept at Deas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2012 17:06:01 GMT -8
At first glance, three hours is possible given slack or favorable currents, good weather, and all engines working (41 nm in 3h = 14 knots, Island Sky max speed ~15.75 knots). Are the tidal currents in Malaspina fast enough to be a problem for schedule keeping with only 1-2 knots of speed margin? It's unfortunate that the NorAd couldn't be used to fill in here as 2-3 hours in winter conditions on NorAd would be more pleasant than three hours in winter conditions on the Island Sky. Even if she was available, she can't fit into any Sunshine Coast berth or the Departure Bay berth without the berthing apparatus, of which BCF only has one, which is kept at Deas. Yeah, I agree of Nor Ad will never do that route. In fact, I do not see the NorAD on any Southern Route at any Piont of her service life for BC Ferries.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 18, 2012 18:52:19 GMT -8
The NorAd is destined to sit idle for six months every winter, completely useless as a refit relief vessel mainly because of BCFS's decision to go with the European berthing system for its two "Northern" vessels. This is of course made worse yet by being the only vessel in the fleet that can't be loaded at both ends.
On the positive side BC Ferries decision re the adoption of the Euro loading system means that both of the "Northern" vessels are perhaps more saleable on the international market. I can't see them wanting to sell the NorEx any time soon. On the other hand they might just want to sell the NorAd if they obtained a more suitable QCI / off season boat. But selling the NorAd might be a very tough sell...
On the negative side the Euro loading system means that: - These ships can be berthed only in modified docks on the North and Central coasts - at present that is just four berths. Without an 'adapter plug' these vessels can not dock at any south coast terminal. - It is highly unlikely that there will be any future re-positioning cruises for either "Northern" vessel because they can't be 'berthed' down south. - Neither vessel is capable of working as a relief vessel on a southern route as already discussed. - BC Ferries & AMHS have lost the inter-operability that they had for about 30 years in Prince Rupert. If either terminal is damaged the other terminal can not be used as was the case in the past.
The adoption of the Euro berthing system was, IMO, a mistake. It ought to be possible to use the NorAd (or NorEx) in a relief capacity on a southern route. It would be kind of fun to see it working a temporary run from Saltery Bay to Departure Bay.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,186
|
Post by Neil on Oct 18, 2012 20:38:23 GMT -8
The NorAd is destined to sit idle for six months every winter, completely useless as a refit relief vessel mainly because of BCFS's decision to go with the European berthing system for its two "Northern" vessels. This is of course made worse yet by being the only vessel in the fleet that can't be loaded at both ends. On the positive side BC Ferries decision re the adoption of the Euro loading system means that both of the "Northern" vessels are perhaps more saleable on the international market. I can't see them wanting to sell the NorEx any time soon. On the other hand they might just want to sell the NorAd if they obtained a more suitable QCI / off season boat. But selling the NorAd might be a very tough sell... On the negative side the Euro loading system means that: - These ships can be berthed only in modified docks on the North and Central coasts - at present that is just four berths. Without an 'adapter plug' these vessels can not dock at any south coast terminal. - It is highly unlikely that there will be any future re-positioning cruises for either "Northern" vessel because they can't be 'berthed' down south. - Neither vessel is capable of working as a relief vessel on a southern route as already discussed. - BC Ferries & AMHS have lost the inter-operability that they had for about 30 years in Prince Rupert. If either terminal is damaged the other terminal can not be used as was the case in the past. The adoption of the Euro berthing system was, IMO, a mistake. It ought to be possible to use the NorAd (or NorEx) in a relief capacity on a southern route. It would be kind of fun to see it working a temporary run from Saltery Bay to Departure Bay. I'm not sure we can really take BC Ferries to task for not having northern vessels that can be used down south in the off season. The fact that the northern boats have to have crew accommodations as well as passenger staterooms means that they could never be really used effectively on short day routes. Look at the space that is wasted even on the ' Chilliwack, with that entire upper deck only for crew.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 18, 2012 22:27:07 GMT -8
The NorAd is destined to sit idle for six months every winter, completely useless as a refit relief vessel mainly because of BCFS's decision to go with the European berthing system for its two "Northern" vessels. This is of course made worse yet by being the only vessel in the fleet that can't be loaded at both ends. On the positive side BC Ferries decision re the adoption of the Euro loading system means that both of the "Northern" vessels are perhaps more saleable on the international market. I can't see them wanting to sell the NorEx any time soon. On the other hand they might just want to sell the NorAd if they obtained a more suitable QCI / off season boat. But selling the NorAd might be a very tough sell... On the negative side the Euro loading system means that: - These ships can be berthed only in modified docks on the North and Central coasts - at present that is just four berths. Without an 'adapter plug' these vessels can not dock at any south coast terminal. - It is highly unlikely that there will be any future re-positioning cruises for either "Northern" vessel because they can't be 'berthed' down south. - Neither vessel is capable of working as a relief vessel on a southern route as already discussed. - BC Ferries & AMHS have lost the inter-operability that they had for about 30 years in Prince Rupert. If either terminal is damaged the other terminal can not be used as was the case in the past. The adoption of the Euro berthing system was, IMO, a mistake. It ought to be possible to use the NorAd (or NorEx) in a relief capacity on a southern route. It would be kind of fun to see it working a temporary run from Saltery Bay to Departure Bay. I'm not sure we can really take BC Ferries to task for not having northern vessels that can be used down south in the off season. The fact that the northern boats have to have crew accommodations as well as passenger staterooms means that they could never be really used effectively on short day routes. Look at the space that is wasted even on the ' Chilliwack, with that entire upper deck only for crew. Neil, I think you & Mr. Keenleyside have missed my point entirely. Did you read past the first sentence? I was not arguing that the NorAd be used routinely as a refit replacement replacement vessel on southern routes. (I was, in part, responding to the three posts preceding mine.) I did however say that it could potentially handle a temporary route between Saltery Bay & Departure Bay. It could also fill in as a refit replacement for the Burnaby on the Comox - Powell River route. I think it could well be a better replacement on that route then the Chilliwack is. My point is that such options are impossible due to the adoption of the Euro style berthing arrangements on the two northern vessels. That decision (to go with the Euro style berthing arrangements) also makes terminal inter-operability with AMHS impossible, something which was in place between 1980 and 2009. It also means that southern re-positioning trips are also unlikely any time soon unless one or more terminals are heavily modified to accommodate the Northern vessels. Can boats that are normally operated as overnighters with live-aboard crews, operate as day boats? Yes, of course they can, though it may be less than ideal. Just look at what AMHS does with the Malaspina every summer. Even the NorEx operates as a day boat for three & a half months of each year. All those cabins are not really needed during that time. I am still trying to figure out why PK is talking about putting the Nanaimo on the Crofton to Salt Spring run?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 19, 2012 7:09:09 GMT -8
I'm not sure as to why there is a need for AMHS/BC Ferries sharing one terminal, was this done in Rupert before the current terminal was built? I doubt that, given the look at the dock for AMHS, it looks to be quite old, and does not match the entire design overall of the BC Ferries one upshore. Up until 1980, BC Ferries used the Alaska Ferries dock at Prince Rupert. (so that's from 1966-1980, where the 2 systems shared 1 dock). - BC Ferries finally built their own dock in 1980. ===================== This so-called "European configuration" labelling is a bit odd. The Queen of Prince Rupert was largely based on European ferries in such that she had a visor and crew accomodations. I can't recall if she was ever used as a replacement vessel on any southern routes. The "European configuration" is referring to the berth/ramp system for the Adventure/Expedition, which is unique to the BC Ferries fleet, different from the norm at WSF and AMHS, and is incompatible with any other BC Ferries docks.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Oct 19, 2012 9:05:03 GMT -8
This so-called "European configuration" labelling is a bit odd. The Queen of Prince Rupert was largely based on European ferries in such that she had a visor and crew accomodations. I can't recall if she was ever used as a replacement vessel on any southern routes. The "European configuration" is referring to the berth/ramp system for the Adventure/Expedition, which is unique to the BC Ferries fleet, different from the norm at WSF and AMHS, and is incompatible with any other BC Ferries docks. To elaborate on Flugel's point above, the "european configuration" refers specifically to the flat transom and vessel based ramp design on the NorAd and NorEx. This is the ISO European standard, which is what most ferries in the world use. It enables the carrier to use cheaper, simpler shore based facilities because the ramp is based on board the ship. Also, the flat transom is a more efficient hull design (not that it does a lot of good for the NorAd) that almost all RoPax ferries are built with. As far as the NorAd being used on the south coast... I don't think so. Not with her crewing and fuel bill the way it is. I'd bet that she would burn close to the same amount of fuel as the Spirits, and with a bigger crew bill. Most of us have seen the document from BCF outlining the various ships on the market when the NorAd was bought, and I think we can all agree that she was one of the top options at the time. It was a rushed purchase in an emergency situation, and I don't think we need to re-hash an old topic again. We bought her, we have her, we have to deal with her.
|
|