|
Post by ferrytraveller on Jan 11, 2009 15:02:44 GMT -8
that could be the best solution there
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jan 11, 2009 15:15:03 GMT -8
I think a Quinsam-esque vessel with a 15kn service speed would be a good choice. Maybe even Quinsam itself if they built another Century Class vessel like Skeena Queen to replace Quinsam at Nanaimo-Gabriola. Unfortunately, there seems to be a recurring theme of having to custom draft a completely new ship design for every new vessel lately, so we keep ending up with alarmingly awkward things like the Fastcats, or things that cause great unease like the IS. Maybe they have licensing agreements that are preventing production of any more Skeena-type vessels.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jan 11, 2009 19:19:17 GMT -8
The Skeena Queen was pretty much a failure... just to throw it out there... we were just to busy watching the Fast Cats to notice.
A lot of money, and warranty recovery went into that vessel to get it to the point it's at now - an fuel sucking mule with the worst pax accommodations of any vessel in the fleet on a route so long.
|
|
|
Post by electrotech on Jan 12, 2009 0:12:53 GMT -8
The I-Sky is pretty much an upsized Skeena. I think that speaks for the BCF's design preferences. FWIW, 4 engines, RAD drives, and keel coolers provides fairly low maintenance and lots of redundancy. The Skeena has had major engine overhauls done while on-the-run. The Skeena has four 1500hp engines. It's a generous schedule so they aren't worked hard, and that saves fuel. I would say it has turned into a modest success story since the original V12 engines were replaced with inline 6's. I do think route 4 needs more accommodation space and amenities. Its a 35 minute ride.... route 3 gets full cafeteria service on a 40 minute ride. A Skeena/Cap swap seems appropriate to me.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jan 12, 2009 16:43:12 GMT -8
A Skeena/Cap swap seems appropriate to me. That would be a downsize for vehicles. Skeena carries 100 cars, and Cappy carries 85, according to the BCF website. Can Route 4 make do with reduced capacity? Here's what I'm thinking (playing armchair quarterback here) - if the Island Sky template ends up working well for BCF (time will tell), build 2 more, and distribute them around to heavily used runs like Route 4. You could have something that looks like this in 5-6 years on the intermediate & minor routes: Swartz Bay - Fulford Hbr: I-Sky-type vessel #3Swartz Bay - SGI: Queen of Capilano, Queen of Cumberland Crofton - Vesuvius: Quinsam Chemainus - Thetis - Kuper: Kuper Nanaimo - Gabriola: Skeena Queen HSB - Snug Cove: Island Sky Saltery Bay - Earl's Cove: I-Sky-type vessel #2Other routes remain status quo, except for ones served by Tenaka, NIP, and QQ2, which will hopefully get replaced by new 60 AEQ ferries, as has been planned.
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Jan 12, 2009 17:03:29 GMT -8
well dane, i partly disagree with you. I agree that BCFC had alot of trouble with the Skeena's original engines, but that was fixed in the end by the manufacturer. I remember reading it was due to the Skeena have High Speed Diesels, not good for a route like route4, or most BCF routes. She has no troubles now and she is better on fuel then the Capilano and Bowen Queen.
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Jan 12, 2009 17:08:33 GMT -8
I believe the Island Sky will work out quite well, she is pretty much an improved Skeena Hull with an enlarge Capilano superstructure. Here are two good articles about the Skeena: www.ship-technology.com/projects/skeena/ that one as she was built and : www.nautican.com/skeena.htm which is about how the Skeena's design was arrived at. She was and is a no frills ferry that was fairly inexpensive to build, low maintenance and moved people from A to B. Here is a quote from the second website: In January of 1995, B.C. Ferries issued a "Request for Proposal" for the design of a "fairly Spartan and cost efficient" 100 vehicle Century Class commuter ferry. The Century Class ferry is intended for use on a number of short distance ferry routes serviced by B.C. Ferries. These routes are one to five miles in distance and predominantly commuter-oriented with heavy early morning and late afternoon rush hour traffic patterns. This ferry was also to be capable of operation on longer routes. * One other point, the Skeena was originally designed for route 23 to replace the PRQ. *
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Jan 12, 2009 18:15:19 GMT -8
UHM, I don't want to burst your bubble, but the Island Sky's hull is nothing like the Skeena Queens hull. The Skeena is fairly flat on the bottom and the IS is a deep V. Id anything the IS is like a C class with rads sticking out the side. Skeena Queen www.ship-technology.com/projects/skeena/skeena6.htmlIsland Sky www.pbase.com/kstapleton/image/101870619I do think she will do fine on route 7, she is pretty much the same as the Queen of Chilliwack when considering amenities. She may be an open deck ship, but you cant spend time in the car deck on the Chilliwack anyways as it is so loud. Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jan 13, 2009 11:28:37 GMT -8
well dane, i partly disagree with you. I agree that BCFC had alot of trouble with the Skeena's original engines, but that was fixed in the end by the manufacturer. I remember reading it was due to the Skeena have High Speed Diesels, not good for a route like route4, or most BCF routes. She has no troubles now and she is better on fuel then the Capilano and Bowen Queen. Original two sets of engines... We're on set three.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jan 13, 2009 11:51:06 GMT -8
well dane, i partly disagree with you. I agree that BCFC had alot of trouble with the Skeena's original engines, but that was fixed in the end by the manufacturer. I remember reading it was due to the Skeena have High Speed Diesels, not good for a route like route4, or most BCF routes. She has no troubles now and she is better on fuel then the Capilano and Bowen Queen. Original two sets of engines... We're on set three. Yes, and since this set was installed in 2004 UNDER WARRANTY, she has operated without ANY major incident. As far as her fuel consumption is concerned, she burns less than the Mayne does, and carries 25% more vehicles while doing so. I would hardly call her a failure. I admit that as a passenger, she's not the most enjoyable ship to be on. I would say that 35 minutes is a little on the long side considering her level of amenities. There was an incident that happened a little over a year ago. Skeena was ready to depart Fulford when they were informed over radio that there was an ambulance leaving Ganges that had to be on board to transfer a patient to Victoria. She waited for the ambulance to come, and finally departed 15 minutes late. SHE STILL ARRIVED IN SWARTZ BAY ON TIME. Not sure how the fuel consumption was on that trip though!
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Jan 13, 2009 12:53:46 GMT -8
I've been on the Skeena Queen on one of those fast runs. I remember doing the trip in 22 minutes! Of course this was on a Saturday when the Skeena Queen runs on her accelerated schedule.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jan 13, 2009 13:34:12 GMT -8
Yes, and since this set was installed in 2004 UNDER WARRANTY, she has operated without ANY major incident. Which is tremendous, don't get me wrong, I'd like to think of most on the forum I am among those not trolling for minor incidents and then create a giant mountain out of a moll hill, but the Skeena Queen has been one friggin' expensive ship, but again the Fast Cats distracted us from what was going on. It's interesting, if you read any papers/books about BC policy during this time the Skeena Queen will often come up, yet we never discuss the gong show of the Century Class project. Finances put the nails in the coffin of the projected several-vessel class, but an inability to get sound performance out of the Skeena Queen within the first 18 months is what put vessel #2 on hold, thus getting the project stuck in the spending freeze of the NDP. As far as her fuel consumption is concerned, she burns less than the Mayne does, and carries 25% more vehicles while doing so. I would hardly call her a failure. Perhaps the word failure is a little too strong. If she were a University student, she would receive a D. Sadly, in most schools, as I learned after receiving a D, that leads to academic probation ;D You're bang on with the fuel efficiency obviously, and that is a good and popular measure of a vessel. I would hope that given the comparative tonnage of the vessels (964.46 t Mayne Queen, 795.00 t Skeena Queen) that the vessel would have superior performance. Given the lack of amenities the vessel also has, compared with the upper deck structure of the Mayne Queen one could also reasonably expect that the 30 years of marine technology that developed between the design of the two vessels would develop some efficiencies (Off the top of my head I think the Skeena Queen also has roughly double the hp of the Mayne). I admit that as a passenger, she's not the most enjoyable ship to be on. I would say that 35 minutes is a little on the long side considering her level of amenities. The Skeena Queen also had a trial out of Bowen Island and was woefully inadequate because of the high foot passenger levels that the Queen of Capilano sees on the route. She actually reaches license fairly often in the am with the school rush. If they could build a Century class today with the hindsight of some very expensive lessons I am sure all would be well - but in 1997, that wasn't the case. ... it's also too bad they never built an Isabella Point terminal.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jan 13, 2009 13:59:48 GMT -8
I think the problems you have outlined reflect more on the poor project management strategies BCF and the province had at the time than the inadequacies of the vessel herself. If I recall correctly, the inadequate engines were installed against the engineering team's recommendations, for the reason they were cheaper than the engines originally specified.
Mayne = 3600 HP Skeena = 5040 HP ~50% more.
The Skeena has been known to hit 18 kts on occasion (with her current engines). I've never heard of figures like that from any of the other minor vessels. The fact that she can hit numbers like that while burning very little fuel, and creating next to no wake screams "engineering success" to me.
As far as comparing HSB-Bowen and Fulford-SWB goes, you're comparing two completely different routes. SWB-Fulford is primarily a car-oriented route. with relatively few foot passengers in comparison to a route like Bowen-HSB. HSB-Bowen is primarily a commuter run with people going to work every morning in Vancouver. While that traffic certainly exists on SSI-SWB, it's nowhere near as prevalent. The Skeena was designed for primary use in Fulford Harbour originally, which is where the requirement for a very low wake came from.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jan 13, 2009 15:36:51 GMT -8
I wonder how an Island Sky-type vessel would do on Route 4? You would get 25 more vehicle spaces (vs. Skeena Queen's capacity) + a bonified passenger cabin. Based on the previous post, would a passenger cabin of that size be too much for this route (ie. very little walk-ons)? Or, would it be justified because of the 35 minute crossing, and actually having a real cabin may encourage vehicle passengers to go upstairs? Next silly question - can an I-Class boat fit into Fulford Harbour? And I mean the harbour itself, not necessarily the dock - we know docks can be modified.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jan 13, 2009 15:57:19 GMT -8
An I-Sky type ship shouldn't have any problems getting into Fulford Harbour, as it's actually fairly deep.
Honestly, I think having a passenger cabin like the I-Sky's on route 4 would be overkill. Having said that, something with some halfway comfortable seats and some decent soundproofing would be a significant improvement over what is currently available. I'm not sure how many people would utilize any food services though... perhaps a coffee shop-like venue would do OK?
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jan 13, 2009 16:48:35 GMT -8
I'm working right now, so I will be very brief.
1. Poor maagement still lead to performance issues which cost money. Doesn't matter if politics screws something up, it still needed to be fixed. 2. I was comparing the routes for the oly reason that Skeena Queen 2 would have been on Bowen-HSB
|
|
|
Post by electrotech on Jan 13, 2009 17:04:55 GMT -8
IMO, 80-100 AEQ is large enough for route 4. It's rare that it is at full capacity. Its also a generous schedule... they could fit in more trips per day in the busy season. Remember, the BQ used to do the route faster.
How about the Skeena gets refit with an I-Sky lounge? ;D
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Jan 13, 2009 18:08:45 GMT -8
Lets face it- virtually every one of BC Ferries' 'minor' vessels is a dump when it comes to passenger accommodations. I'm not being rhetorical when I say that your average crosstown bus has more ambience than the lounge on a minor BC Ferries boat. And this isn't likely to change, judging by the 'upgrades' on vessels like the Quinitsa. Hard plastic or metal seats, and finishings as minimal and plain as possible are the order of the day.
The below deck cattle pen that serves as a lounge on the Mill Bay is a disgrace. And the Skeena', while efficient, is also uncomfortably utilitarian for a half hour route.
Every dollar available for passenger amenities gets spent on the major boats. The 'minor' routes get soaked with the highest fare increases, and get third world comfort.
|
|
|
Post by corporalrabbinoff on Jan 13, 2009 18:20:01 GMT -8
In regards to the mv Quinsam. The Problem I have with the Quinsam is that it has very limited viewing areas from its lounges. It is a pain in the but when sailing on her because one can only look out at one direction and can not see whats behind or comming from the otherside unless you are out front. Even at that the superstructure blocks alot of the view and the stupid railings are in the way. I perfer the Skeena Queen for this type of vessle where at least you are allowed 'Uptop". But idealy a vessle siminlar to the PRQ with elevators would be perfect. A Open deck design for max overhight capacity with large passenger deck cabin with 360" View would be nice, Especially when the Cruise ships are at Anchor in the Harbour. The word "Dump" hardly explains the Horrible, Trashy and dispicable condition the mv Quinsam was in before she left for refitt. Her interior walls were filthy with some holes and her exterior paint (as looking from shore) made her look like a vessle from India or China a Rust Bucket.. Hopefully she will be like new when she returns next month. Ladies and Gentlemen I present you the mv Gabriola Rustbucket.
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Jan 13, 2009 18:30:24 GMT -8
well i think an Island Sky vessel is a bit overkill for route 4. But thats why i wanted to know how you would all design/redesign a vessel for routes like route 4.
Now non of the minor vessels should be furished extremely nice, but i agree its time to upgrade them to comfortable levels. They spend most of their day quite empty and are really only full during the summer and in the morning and evening runs, so they need to be plain and low maintenance to get good value for money spent on them.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 13, 2009 18:39:44 GMT -8
Lets face it- virtually every one of BC Ferries' 'minor' vessels is a dump when it comes to passenger accommodations. But while the quality of the accommodation may be dumpy, there are elements of history and community in some of those spaces: - the community bulletin boards on some of the minor vessels, giving an indication of some of the issues and happenings on Quadra, Cortes, Galiano, Bowen, etc. - the wonderful historical photo collage in the Mill Bay's lounge, re the Kennaird & Williams venture. - the Ginger Goodwin history lesson on the Queen of Cumberland. As an occasional rider on some of these minor vessels, I use these on-board postings as a way to discover something about the communities and people that the ships serve.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Jan 13, 2009 19:34:51 GMT -8
- the wonderful historical photo collage in the Mill Bay's lounge, re the Kennaird & Williams venture. I'm afraid I found that little pen so claustrophobic, I didn't even notice what was on the walls. I got out of there fast. Route 4, for instance, carries 650,000 passengers every year. That's 50% more than the entire Alaska ferry system. This is a fairly major route- and it's half an hour. I don't see how anyone would think that an Island Sky type vessel would be overkill, especially when you look at Washington's system, and notice that not one vessel, even on routes that take fifteen or twenty minutes, keeps it's passengers on the car deck in gungy, noisy little side lounges. Look at vessels like the Mayne Queen- 44 years after launching, it still looks like the interior was never finished. No doubt, our scenery on the coast is magnificent; so much so that most of us have never gotten too upset about the muffler shop waiting rooms that pass for lounges on many of our 'minor' ferries.
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Jan 13, 2009 19:56:29 GMT -8
well neil what would you like to see them do to make the minor/ intermediate vessels more user friendly??
at least the IS is a step in the right direction
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 14, 2009 9:03:00 GMT -8
- the wonderful historical photo collage in the Mill Bay's lounge, re the Kennaird & Williams venture. I'm afraid I found that little pen so claustrophobic, I didn't even notice what was on the walls. I got out of there fast. I agree that it's a very narrow stairway leading down to the lounge, and it's a small area.......but I actually found it enjoyable. There were only 2 people down there, and it reminded me of what I'd imagine a small coastal freight ship would be like, re small nooks & crannies to sit in. But diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. For me too, a 1/2 full C-Class is torture re the main passenger deck. Everyone has a different personal-experience of what is comfortable. I don't see how anyone would think that an Island Sky type vessel would be overkill, especially when you look at Washington's system, and notice that not one vessel, even on routes that take fifteen or twenty minutes, keeps it's passengers on the car deck in gungy, noisy little side lounges. Hiyu & Rhodo came to mind as vessels I thought were outside that definition. But I checked the WSF website, and even the little Hiyu has a top-located passenger deck. www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/your_wsf/our_fleet/index.cfm?vessel_id=71Washington's county ferries have some ships more similar to our K/Q ships. But then there are also the Pierce County ferries which too have a top-located passenger deck. www.evergreenfleet.com/countyboats.html
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jan 14, 2009 10:55:38 GMT -8
Neil, if you want to see third world comforts, just look at many of the third-world ferries in various countries... also see what happens when they sink from poor maintenance, taunting the weather and overcrowding.
Compared to that, the Mill Bay is actually pretty decent, and I'm sure, well appreciated. There is also the question of, besides us, does anyone really care about what they do on a minor ferry or how comfortable it is.
For intermediate vessels, such as the Cumberland, it would be nice to have better interior fittings. Bringing in the lounge-style chairs that were on the Tsawwassen would actually be very descent for an interior refit of the Cumberland, as they were soft, reasonably comfortable, and colorful, as opposed to the plastic fast food booth seating on the Cumberland.
The reason the Mayne Queen looks half-finished is because she's actually had her snack bar boarded up for one thing, and all her furniture is cast off from some outdoor seating at Expo sites. Besides that, she's kind of a little old and it's hard to enlarge the passenger spaces without significant structural changes, now, so you have to work within the space. Maybe some of those lounge chairs off the Tsawwassen would really help her as well. I'm sure that, at her next refit, if you were to offer BCFerries a low enough bid, they might be willing to let you redo her interior.
I guess the root of the issue is an overkill of expectations. So much time is spent complaining here about the minor vessels, but no one is really glad that they are there... What would you rather have? A first class stateroom? Are nice snazzy passenger areas really justified? Are they really needed at all? Maybe we've just all become used to the glitzy amenities of high-end coffee shops so that we are unable to judge the difference between that and reality, or unwilling to accept a little bit less than were used to in terms of comfort, yet still be content with it. It's the difference between a full-service restaurant, and fast food. You get food at both, but you pay more at one. But you also stay longer generally in a nicer restaurant... On the other hand, you may have wait in line at either, if they're busy, so upscale isn't necessarily always a convenience. In any case, you can still decide for yourself that you could also be content with either, depending on the situation.
As I've said before, when ferry service first started to the islands, you were lucky to maybe get service once or twice a week, and that would have been the Island Princess, where they might have to use a boom and a sling to get your car on board. Maybe the cars should start complaining about being stuffed in enclosed, exhaust filled spaces, or left to shiver on open car decks. In the end, we can paint the minor vessels with as black a brush as we want but when it comes right down to it, what would you rather have... a K Class with plastic seats that at least gets you to the island, or nothing at all.
|
|