|
Post by oceaneer77 on Feb 6, 2008 18:56:45 GMT -8
Mill bay
We are in total agreement.. it seems that nice ship designs apexed in the 1930 and have been on a steady down hill slide since then... But a possible reason was cheap energy.. so could we be moving away from the floating green houses to a more pleasent looking ship??
The old vesivus queen.. i like that one.. realy efficent.. no fuss but it had a great look!
oceaneer77
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Feb 6, 2008 19:16:29 GMT -8
It is also vital to not build the cheapest ships but to build the cheapest ships to build AND operate. This means using good equipment and making sure that the life time costs of the vessel are worked out before steel cutting. It is normal for the lifetime costs of the ship to be higher than the build costs. A good example here is engine efficiency.. if engine X and engine Y are of the same output (Kw. HP, Rpm) but engine X is 3/4 the price you go for engine x right?? No there is more to the equation.. you need to factor in fuel burn, maintenance, rebuild costs and down time. it may be that engine Y is double the purchase cost of X but in 5 years you end up saving money by buying Y. Excellent rant ... errr point made O77! I have stated similar before, and I think that every now and again it needs to be brought to the forefront. Build-costs versus life-cycle costs are VERY important, but are often overlooked when you simply have to satisfy THIS YEARS budget. Anything as major as a new vessel should be looked at in 10- or even 20-year sightlines, to get a true acquisition cost. As you say, BUYING it is the easy part, running it and maintaining it are the hard part. So many people fall into this pitfall, even when buying a new car, or on a much smaller scale of buying new furniture or appliances. However, in retrospect, they all see (or at least should if they are not dumb!) that if they had spent another 10-15% up front (average in furniture) that they would have something of better quality that will (a) be more comfortable thru-out it's life and (b) last at least 5-10 years longer. Go on, buy a cheapy $450 sofa from The Brick on the "don't pay until 2010" plan. By the time you pay it off, it is in the landfill anyways, crappy fake pleather and chipboard construction. Spend the $800-900 and get a plywood/hardwood frame, with non-crushing seat foam. Gotta remember though, politicians think in 4-year cycles. "Life-cycle costs" are a foreign concept to most of them that are lawyers and have no real life business background to draw on. ... Rant on, O77 -- you have good ones! :-) -fellow ranter (feel free to borrow my soapbox anytime, no permission req'd)
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Feb 6, 2008 20:04:37 GMT -8
Now I know why Hardy's pic is up on the employee bulletin board in the Brick with a red x through it. ;D
Your point is well taken Hardy. Three cars ago I picked a car that I both liked and that the engine had won a bunch of awards. I am now on the third car with the latest version of that engine. They keep increasing the displacement by boring the cylinders bigger from 3 litre to 3.5 litre and increasing horsepower from 255 to 305 etc. However it is all based on the same engine. I haven't spent a penny beyond normal maintenance. Each time I have upgraded in model but the engine has stayed the same. The latest added 4 wheel drive (days like this make me very glad I did). I could have spent less on many cars but I also could have spent a lot more. But likely my next car may be a different model but I am pretty sure the engine will be the same. The investment has paid off.
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Feb 6, 2008 22:05:52 GMT -8
I was being largely facetious on this point actually... I know that they'll do their engineering properly. I just want to know why the new vessels they seem to be drafting plans for are so hideously UGLY. Just one look at the Island Sky and your eyes start to water. We need another word that can describe these 'things' as being distinctive from the term ship... Barge is an apt description for some of them, but maybe UFO (unidentified floating object) might be more accurate. what do you propose the design look like? I think the island sky is a good design for the route its being built for. It can handle rough water due to its inclosed decks, it will have passenger space and do 14 knots. What else do you want from it?
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Feb 7, 2008 10:05:29 GMT -8
I was being largely facetious on this point actually... I know that they'll do their engineering properly. I just want to know why the new vessels they seem to be drafting plans for are so hideously UGLY. Just one look at the Island Sky and your eyes start to water. We need another word that can describe these 'things' as being distinctive from the term ship... Barge is an apt description for some of them, but maybe UFO (unidentified floating object) might be more accurate. what do you propose the design look like? I think the island sky is a good design for the route its being built for. It can handle rough water due to its enclosed decks, it will have passenger space and do 14 knots. What else do you want from it? A good design maybe, but not a nice looking one. It's a question of styles. I'm not sure where they keep coming up with these designs that look like they are from outer space. The angles in the design just aren't congruent. They don't intersect at the places that the eye expects them to, and the corners are sharp and the lines don't follow natural flows or patterns of perspective. Basically this makes the shape is awkward to look at and confusing to the eye. And there are just too many holes in the superstructure too. There's just the one deck of passenger spaces, and then you have great big gaping holes with the wheelhouse perched up so high above on a skinny ostrich neck. It also depends on how you define enclosed car deck too. This one has high side walls, but is that really an enclosed deck. Imagine getting out of your car on a soaking wet day on that enclosed car deck. Unless you have the superstructure over you, you're gonna get soaked before you get anywhere near the lounge for a coffee, so how does that contribute to passenger comforts. On the old ships, at least the whole car deck was enclosed and out of the weather, and there were lots of warm passenger lounges that you could spend the voyage in, or outer decks you could get out and walk around on, and a real cafeteria too. And on the outside they were nice to look at, with pleasant curves and soft features that were easy for the eye to follow and didn't feel hard and sharp when you looked at them. Basically, if you wanted a design style for them, ships like the I-Class and even the K-Class are what is called utilitarian, which basically means form follows function. The Island Sky in particular though, would seem to follow a style called brutalism with all the exposed exhaust housings and such. As the term implies, this is a design that doesn't value form and in fact actually attempts to make it appear harsh and distracting to look at. I don't know what design I'd choose, but I'd definitely try to make it more friendly both to the viewer and the passenger who has to inhabit that structure.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Feb 12, 2008 9:05:23 GMT -8
In case you didn't catch John H's comment in this thread, here it is again: I'd third this. My dad and I had a discussion about the suitability of vessels for the northern Gulf Islands, in particular regarding the rumor on our forum that a PR class will fill in for the NIP during her next refit. Our consensus was vessels on these routes need to be able to run in similar conditions to any of the cross straight vessels, and though a PR or similar class would be able to service these route in fair conditions, as soon as the weather deteriorates, they would be forced to remain in dock. Therefore, concluding my ramble, as both gunther and John pointed out, the Northern Gulf routes (and ask WSK noted, northern minor routes) would need a different vessel with similar sea-keeping characteristics to the Tachek, QQII, Tenaka, NIP or Nimpkish. Without this separate class, BCFS would either have to overbuild the minor vessels destine for the other routes to meet the requirements of northern service, or be prepared to have significant service interruptions on the northern routes.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Feb 12, 2008 9:40:01 GMT -8
Without this separate class, BCFS would either have to overbuild the minor vessels destine for the other routes to meet the requirements of northern service, or be prepared to have significant service interruptions on the northern routes. I don't think BC Ferries would mind service interruptions... that would save them money. But if they need to be designing vessels with route suitability and proper seaworthiness in mind, they aren't really starting off right even now. There's already some speculation about the Island Sky, and that she was built the same hull as the Skeena which is not the most stable design for the superstructure they have stacked on top of it. It might be a question then of how far they are willing to go to in this all compelling modern companies have of saving money. Cause it has already seemed like they are more than willing to compromise everything possible just for short term gain for the glorious private corporation, but how much is anyone really benefitting from the lack of long term vision?
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Feb 12, 2008 10:29:05 GMT -8
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To the company "cheap" is beautiful. One thing to keep in mind when considering standardization is that different routes have different requirements. A ship which never leaves the southern gulf islands does not need the same hull strength and stability requirements as one going across the gulf. Also a ship which is used in confined quarters benefits from the out drive systems increased maneuverability, unfortunately this system also increases fuel consumption. Ships designed for TSA/NAN or Swb could have a more economical system.
|
|
|
Post by oceaneer77 on Feb 12, 2008 17:39:10 GMT -8
Hi all So it seems that the consensus it that the the north ship will need to be slightly different then their fair weather southern sisters. But i wonder how different. If we manage to get away from the rad barges that are not only un-seaworthy, but also inefficiently, could a better designed ship cope with all the differing requirements. Or could we tweak a design to fit the north routes (but keep the docking apron the same as the sisters). The tweaking would be finer bows and more freeboard. Possible ballast tanks to cope with heavy weather, this would give the flexibility of having a heavy ship when needed but not carrying all of the extra weight when not... I agree with mill bay on the fact that BCFC is not starting out right with the Island Sky.. it seems from all reports to be a "CHEAP" ship... And that is quite sad seeing that it is built in BC on a BC design by BCers.
oceaneer77
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Feb 12, 2008 17:45:36 GMT -8
well speaking of the island sky, does anyone know what company designed the vessel??
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Feb 12, 2008 17:49:10 GMT -8
As I have mentioned in the past, i believe new vessels that replace the Nimpkish, QQ2, Tenaka, Tachek, NIP, will all be of the same design so that BC Ferries gets its standardized vessels, so that any of these ships can operate on any other their respected routes. Also keep in mind that each route that these ships run on, is said to be getting a 60 AQE vessel. To me this means, AT LEAST 5 vessels of the same design, that will fit in to this class!
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Jun 20, 2008 8:46:26 GMT -8
sorry to bump up an old thread, but i didn't want to create a whole new thread for this topic.
I was thinking when BCFS builds more new minor vessels, how does 6 sister ships of an 60 AEQ design sound to replace the NIP, QQ2, Tachek, Tenaka, Nimpkish??
Then have a second minor vessel class with 4 vessels in this class to replace, the Bowen Queen, Mayne Queen , Powell River Queen and Howe Sound Queen.
This leaves only the Mill Bay and 3 K class vessels to be replaced. I would then use the Klitsa to replace the Mill Bay, as BCFS has preposed to do in their Ferries services contract. As the Klitsa has about 10 years left in her.
Then what do you replace the K class with, well only the Kwuna has a specific route right now, so either build a new K class design like the Kuper or just buy the two K class vessels from translink.
So thats my proposal to replace 13 minor vessels what does everyone think?
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jun 20, 2008 10:07:07 GMT -8
I love this kind of a discussion.
I agree that standardizing the northern minor vessel fleet with a 60 AEQ type of vessel would work well. I'm not sure you need 6 of them, if they were to be used on the following routes: Port McNeil - Alert Bay - Sointula Quadra Island - Cortez Powell River - Texada possibly the mid-coast during the off-season (IE. Bella Bella, Ocean Falls, Bella Coola, etc.)
As far as other minor vessels go, I think the Island Sky template would work well for the following routes: Earls Cove - Saltery Bay (already planned with Island Sky) Horseshoe Bay - Bowen Island Swartz Bay - Southern Gulf Islands (2 new I-class vessels) Swartz Bay - Fulford Harbour Nanaimo - Gabriola (perhaps Queen of Cumberland could be moved to this route) Campbell River - Quadra Island (move Queen of Capilano, with its 85 AEQ capacity, to this route)
Crofton - Vesuvius Bay could get Skeena Queen Buckley Bay - Denman West could get Quinsam, at least for awhile Denman East - Hornby Island could get Quinitsa
I agree with the idea of retiring Mill Bay and moving Klitsa to that route
Kuper can stay at Chemainus - Thetis - Kuper
What about Kwuna? How many more years does she have left in her?
Ultimately, the K-Class barges will need to be replaced. Something a little smaller than Skeena Queen, but in the same configuration, might work well for some of the Southern Gulf Island routes and the Denman-Hornby routes.
I would think that the next big task, after replacing the minor vessels, is to come up with a replacement for the Queen of Burnaby and Queen of Nanaimo. If it were up to me, I would build something similar to those vessels with a 200AEQ capacity, and build 3 of them. One can replace Burnaby at Comox - Powell River, and two can go on the Tsawwassen - Southern Gulf Islands route, at least during the summer. The rest of the time, the 3rd boat can be a spare.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jun 20, 2008 22:23:41 GMT -8
Switch some things around... send the Cumberland to Bowen Island and let them deal with the extra delays of platforms, and put the Capilano on Gabriola if you absolutely must, but that's more than they would need there.
For Saltery Bay I would say, something like the Island Home could work... it's double-ended and fully enclosed and could have full amenities too. Or, go back in time... update the safety specs and use the original Queen of Alberni design with the central tunnel, and it could even accomodate gallery decks if need be.
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Jun 21, 2008 1:30:35 GMT -8
well maybe 6 60 AEQ minor vessels is a bit much for now but i would say for sure, to be used on the following routes:
Port McNeil - Alert Bay - Sointula Quadra Island - Cortez Powell River - Texada possibly the mid-coast during the off-season (IE. Bella Bella, Ocean Falls, Bella Coola, etc.) Demand - Hornby That would replace the QQ2, NIP, Tenaka, and Nimpkish.
I would build 1 more to replace the Tachek on its winter time route, then this new vessel would run route 22 year round. As far as other minor vessels go, I think the Island Sky template would work well for the following routes: Earls Cove - Saltery Bay (already planned with Island Sky) Horseshoe Bay - Bowen Island ( I Class) Swartz Bay - Southern Gulf Islands (2 new I-class vessels) Swartz Bay - Fulford Harbour (I-Class) Nanaimo - Gabriola (Queen of Cumberland - upgrade of 55 vehicles from current vessel ) Campbell River - Quadra Island (Queen of Capilano, with its 85 AEQ capacity, upgrade of 15 vehicles from current vessel)
Crofton - Vesuvius Bay - Skeena Queen - 30 car upgrade from current vessel Buckley Bay - Denman West - Quinsam - 20 car upgrade from current vessel Denman East - Hornby Island - Quinitsa - 20 car upgrade from current vessel
This way we use what vessels we keep and standardize the intermediate vessels with the I class. An I class vessel would be too large for Campbell river - Quadra and Nanaimo - Gabriola routes. IT would be fine for the other routes.
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Jul 24, 2008 19:57:42 GMT -8
well i was thinking about this more and more.. so this is what i have come up with:
5 - 60 AEQ vessels to replace the 5 minor northern gulf island ferries 4 - 85 AEQ vessels to replace the HSQ, and Bowen Queen Class
I would make the 5 Northern Minor vessels like the QQ2 with room for all over height trucks and a small lounge up top.
The New Bowen Class should hold 85 cars, be a bowen queen design thats can hold all over height vehicles. I just wouldn't make the sides as long as the powell river queens.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jul 24, 2008 20:08:49 GMT -8
Or you could design them after the Capilano design
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Jul 24, 2008 20:24:58 GMT -8
well i was thinking the capilano design, but everyone says she is soo terrible on fuel and the powell river class is better. So whats makes the cappy and cumberland use so much fuel? How can we change that?
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jul 24, 2008 20:44:06 GMT -8
Hold your horses ferrytraveller, the Capilano is the victim of a Rolls Royce RAD install. The only brand that has been good with the vessels is Niigatas yet BCFS has not figured that out yet.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jul 24, 2008 21:34:24 GMT -8
So whats makes the cappy and cumberland use so much fuel? How can we change that? I guess we'll all get to see if they've changed that when Island Sky goes into service. From a design standpoint, she's basically an updated version of the Cappy and Q-cumber, with some differences of course.
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Jul 25, 2008 22:18:02 GMT -8
well some information i came across, about some new vessels BCFS plans to build, though it may have been though up back in 2003, so it could be out dated now:
S -Class Ferry (500AEQ) – 1 Vessel Major 9500 175 28.2 C-Class Ferry (330AEQ) - 3 Vessels Major 7700 160 28.2 Route 3 Ferries (CFC) – 2 (Purchase) 4800 139 28 Northern Vessel (QPR II) – 2+ Vessels 5200 130 20.5 185 AEQ – 2+ Vessels Minor 4800 130 20.5 120 AEQ – 5 vessels (1 +4) Minor 2200 115 25 60 AEQ – 8 vessels Minor 750 75 19.5
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Jul 27, 2008 18:49:38 GMT -8
well some information i came across, about some new vessels BCFS plans to build, though it may have been though up back in 2003, so it could be out dated now: S -Class Ferry (500AEQ) – 1 Vessel Major 9500 175 28.2 C-Class Ferry (330AEQ) - 3 Vessels Major 7700 160 28.2 Route 3 Ferries (CFC) – 2 (Purchase) 4800 139 28 Northern Vessel (QPR II) – 2+ Vessels 5200 130 20.5 185 AEQ – 2+ Vessels Minor 4800 130 20.5 120 AEQ – 5 vessels (1 +4) Minor 2200 115 25 60 AEQ – 8 vessels Minor 750 75 19.5 So does this mean that BC Ferries at one point saw the potential need for another S-class ferry? Why would they have changed their plan on this... do the new Coastals provide sufficient capacity rather than spending $150 million (or likely more) on another S-class ship?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Jul 27, 2008 19:46:53 GMT -8
That plan is five years old, and from what we've seen, as well as what David Hahn has said, it is not on. All the replacement dates for the existing vessels have been pushed back (to the future) several years. We'll never see another single ended Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Jul 27, 2008 20:24:01 GMT -8
also, keep in mind, in the past 5 years, fuel costs, fares have gone up and traffic has started to decline, so that has changed the direction that BCFS has gone. Like Neil said, BCFS has started to push back retirement dates of vessels, a move the liberals and David Hahn said the NDP did repeatedly did and set the corporation back years with old and aging ships and terminals. The same thing is happening now because the ferries is starting to have reduced traffic and has lots of outstanding debts.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Oct 22, 2008 9:46:02 GMT -8
I just came up with a new idea for a standardized fleet slogan looking at the 'spice of our fleet' section of the BCFerries website. With the retired vessels gone now, and the icons for the Coastals up there, the page seems to be almost dominated by the large boxes of the Coastals and the flat, thin outlines of all the minor vessels... so how about "Boxes and Barges: the ferries of British Columbia" for the title of any new fleet profile they publish.
|
|