Intermediate Class 'MLU'

[ferryking]

With the forum flagship being and intermediate class ferry...either the capilano or the cumberland...looking at the various pics, i got thinking.

What are the possibilities of Upgrading one of these vessels (or the skeena queen), to replace or be comparable to say the Tsawwassen or even in extreme situations the Nanaimo or the Burnaby (or even the Chiliwack).

What would be required...Bow Doors or enclosed ends of some kind...would the existing underwater structure need to be modified or 'sealed' or reinforced in any way...more crew...lots of money(no brainer)...what changes would be required for the above water structure...different lifesaving equipment...changes to crew 'viewing' areas as a result of possible reduced sight lines around the both ends of the ship. I guess the Transportation Safety Board would set these and other guidelines.

Just food for thought, hey if this isn't even possible, sorry for the dead thread.

ferryking.

[Quatchi]

I wouldn't say it is impossible, just very expensive. remember the Alberni was originally a larger version of the Cumbie and Cappie in theory minus the Rads. If the deck is just enclosed and Pax space is created above it would be relatively light, blisters could be added to the hull to compensate for extra weight much like the "V"-class lifting upgrades. I think you would end up with something like the Chilliwack.

I don't think the Skeena would do so well in such an upgrade though. You would have to build a new bridge pax space and major hull reconfigurations. The Skeena has a very complex hull, it is designed so that the hull itself pushed water perpendicular to the rads during straight line maneuvers. She is very light as it is and any extra weight could require a complete hull rebuild and engine reconfig. Ultimately making it easier and cheaper to build a new ship.

Thats just my thoughts. Nick might have a better or more accurate theory, but I don't think it would be much different than myn.

Cheers,

[hergfest]

They would be better off building a new boat, they have so many that need to be replaced anyways.

[Mill Bay]

If you want a medium sized boat with an enclosed car deck, then just build an Island Home type vessel for us up here as well, as long as WSF has some shipyard space open alongside theirs.

[ferrytraveller]

though, we are only likely to see 2 new boats until 2013. The northern explorer and the replacement for the tenaka, that still leaves 12 minor vessels and 4 major vessels to be replaced in 5 years after 2013, if BCFS keeps to their 22 new vessels in 15 years speel they have been going on about.

[Political Incorrectness]

Mill Bay, feel free to put in order to Martinec, just specify you do not want Rolls Royce engines.

[Mike C]

I wouldn't really call it an "MLU" since the ships are only 16/17 years old... maybe a "YLU" (young life upgrade) would be more appropriate.

Second of all, this is not necessary! Compared to others, these ships are fairly new. Island-home class ferries should be built new, not based on smaller ferries.

...heck, while we're at this, I should make a proposal to slice & dice and raise the Mill Bay and the K's!

[Kahloke]

Jul 31, 2008 12:35:20 GMT -8 Mill Bay said:

If you want a medium sized boat with an enclosed car deck, then just build an Island Home type vessel for us up here as well, as long as WSF has some shipyard space open alongside theirs.

How about one modeled on the new 144-car ferry for WSF. You could still enclose the car deck like on the Island Home design, or do partial-height bow doors and leave the pickle forks. There would be plenty of room in the cabin for a cafeteria and gift shop (certainly more room than what the Island Home template would allow). Two of this size vessel running the Tsawwassen-Southern Gulf Islands route might be just the ticket during the summers. It might also be a good size for Comox-Powell River during the off season.

[Nick]

My first question would be "why?" All of these ships are currently needed on the minor and intermediate routes of the system. The down time needed to complete a project such as this wouldn't even be possible with the current fleet, without sacrificing capacity. Also, the money required would be an astronomical amount, due to the massive amount of redesigning necessary. Also, you have to factor in the lost revenue during the year (and that is being optimistic) that it would require to complete these changes.

Is it physically possible? Probably. The Skeena would be difficult, because as Cadmunkey mentioned, she has a hull specifically designed to create a very small wake. These drawings are from www.ship-technology.com/projects/skeena/index.html **Late edit to fix link**





The last drawing illustrates the channels built into the hull that direct the flow of water into the RAD. These would probably need major reconstruction just because they would be much farther underwater, and won't direct the water as designed.

Also, the hull would have to be heavily ballasted, to counteract the much higher center of gravity created by the new superstructure. This, I think, would be the downfall of such a design. A new superstructure, which is made of mostly 1/2 inch steel plating weighs an awful lot (about 20 pounds per square foot). The hull is a fairly flat shape, so having that much weight above the waterline will make the ship very top heavy, which will make the ship capsize easily.

The other big problem, is something Markus mentioned about the Coastals. Modern ships (actually most machines nowadays) are engineered to do a certain job, and no more. 40 years ago, computer modeling and calculating the forces on every portion of the ship wasn't possible, so they did the classic "A 4 inch beam should do, so we'll go with 6 inches to be safe". Now, we can predict much more accurately how much force that beam needs to hold, so we can safely say that a 5 inch beam will do the job. So, that's what they use. Now we are talking about modifying these ships, and putting them though stresses that the original engineers wouldn't have dreamed about. All those chunks of steel that were sized perfectly for what their job was, would be way undersized, so the current structure of the ship would have to be completely redesigned.

As far as the Capilano/Cumberland are concerned, I don't know a lot about the hull shape on those ships, so I can't comment too much on it. However, I would imagine that similar problems to the Skeena would crop up.

I think that if you really wanted to, you could redesign these ships to do what you say, but in the end, it would be much more cost effective to build a new ship. They are spending $55 million on the New West's MLU. I think a similar amount of steel, and much more engineering would have to go into the changes proposed here. In contrast, WSF is planning on spending under $50 million for their proposed Island Home design, which is slightly smaller than the Capilano/Cumberland. I would therefore conclude that it would be a lot smarter to build new ships, rather than retrofit old(er) ones.

I hope this makes some semblance of sense, as I typed it off and on over the past few hours.

[ferryking]

Thanks to all of you for you replies...yes I had kind of thought money would be the major stumbling block. I hadn't realized how complex some of the hulls are...thanks for those great drawings of the skeena. i guess weight on the hull form and the effect it would have on wake, etc., wasn't something I am familar with.

Yes MLU wasn't the best description ... hence the quotations...but i was kind of thinking of these ideas in the sense of making these ships more flexible, in terms of service and route availability. Being able to handle the rougher waters would be the goal of said 'MLU' or SU service upgrade??

thanks
again