New Minor Vessels - pre-announcement speculation

[electrotech]

An observation for route 4 - and may be applicable to other minor routes also....

Fulford has a pretty good Café right next to the terminal. Any attempt at food service on route 4 could stir up some nasty opposition from 'Locavors', and anyone else who feels strongly about local economies.

I ride the Skeena a lot. The commuter sailings fill up okay, weekends get more traffic overall. Summertime escalates the weekend traffic again. Saturdays in the summer can be an absolute mêlée due to the popularity of the Saturday Market in Ganges. The traffic outside these busier times drops off pretty sharp.

It almost hurts to be one of only a dozen vehicles onboard - say the 7:50pm from Fulford on a Tuesday. An IS vessel would have more staff, and burn more fuel... for the same dozen vehicles.

Right now they have the ability to tighten up the sailings to a 1.5 hour round trip vs. the current 2 hour adventure. Evidence of that is the 06:15 departure @ Fulford followed by the 07:00 sailing @ Swartz Bay. To me that makes more sense that dumping/loading traffic at the exact same time as route 1 - especially on weekends.

[ferrytraveller]

just a bit of interesting information, some new numbers i have heard for vessel types, all bases on 2006 information though: take it for what its worth

11 - 120 AEQ vessels to be built over the next 32 years starting in service in 2015.
they will replace all the intermediate vessels like bowen, mayne, powell river, HSQ, Quinsam, Quinitsa, Skeena, Capilano, cumberland and 2 to replace the nanaimo

6 - 60 AEQ vessels to replace the K's , T 's, NIP, QQ2, Nimpkish

[Mike C]

Feb 5, 2009 23:31:19 GMT -8 ferrytraveller said:

11 - 120 AEQ vessels to be built over the next 32 years starting in service in 2015.
they will replace all the intermediate vessels like bowen, mayne, powell river, HSQ, Quinsam, Quinitsa, Skeena, Capilano, cumberland and 2 to replace the nanaimo

Thanks for those numbers. Interesting ones indeed.

however, I think you may have forgotten to count the Island Sky...

and I don't think they would replace the two I-Class and Century-Class (Cumberland, Capilano, Skeena) at such early ages? (maybe I'm wrong, it is BCFS) Maybe those will be set aside to replace the Burnaby?

[ferrytraveller]

yah i didn't make it quite clear, this was also BCFS long term plan, so replacing the Capilano, Cumberland, Skeena won't occur until like 2030 ish, but they are planning now what kind of vessel they want to use to replace them.
The Nanaimo and Burnaby will (well as of 2006 documents) will each be replaced by 1 - 185 AEQ Vessels or the Nanaimo will be replaced by 2 - 120 AEQ Vessels and the Burnaby by 1 - 120 AEQ vessel or i have even seen 1 - 85 car AEQ vessel.

[Mike C]

This is a little off topic, but in response to FerryTraveller's comments regarding the Burnaby's replacement plan, I heard a few proposals for Route 17:
-2 85-AEQ vessels on a triangle between Texada-Westview-Comox
-1 140-AEQ vessel and 1 50-AEQ vessel in the existing arrangement
-1 185-AEQ vessel on the triangle

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

Feb 9, 2009 21:42:18 GMT -8 Mike C said:

This is a little off topic, but in response to FerryTraveller's comments regarding the Burnaby's replacement plan, I heard a few proposals for Route 17:
-2 85-AEQ vessels on a triangle between Texada-Westview-Comox
-1 140-AEQ vessel and 1 50-AEQ vessel in the existing arrangement
-1 185-AEQ vessel on the triangle

lol...expect lots of NIMBY attitude for options 1 and 3. Though the triangle route was convenient the couple of times it was tried, I don't think the Texada public would be too appreciative of it, especially seeing both options would produce a reduced service schedule. Also, and here's where the NIMBY attitude would really factor in, the additional exposure to outsiders would be viewed as detrimental. I know the island and it's people pretty well, and there's a reason many of them live there. Most of them are happy to be three ferry trips from Vancouver, no matter how you shake it out. ;D

[timmyboy]

Feb 10, 2009 4:12:10 GMT -8 D'Elete BC in NJ said:

Feb 9, 2009 21:42:18 GMT -8 Mike C said:

This is a little off topic, but in response to FerryTraveller's comments regarding the Burnaby's replacement plan, I heard a few proposals for Route 17:
-2 85-AEQ vessels on a triangle between Texada-Westview-Comox
-1 140-AEQ vessel and 1 50-AEQ vessel in the existing arrangement
-1 185-AEQ vessel on the triangle

lol...expect lots of NIMBY attitude for options 1 and 3. Though the triangle route was convenient the couple of times it was tried, I don't think the Texada public would be too appreciative of it, especially seeing both options would produce a reduced service schedule. Also, and here's where the NIMBY attitude would really factor in, the additional exposure to outsiders would be viewed as detrimental. I know the island and it's people pretty well, and there's a reason many of them live there. Most of them are happy to be three ferry trips from Vancouver, no matter how you shake it out. ;D

Funny, funny,

Remember the uproar at the time when they were proposing they ferry service into Anderson Bay. I seem to remember having to leave the room when they all got into it. LOL

[Mill Bay]

Apr 7, 2009 14:05:45 GMT -8 timmyboy said:

Feb 10, 2009 4:12:10 GMT -8 D'Elete BC in NJ said:

lol...expect lots of NIMBY attitude for options 1 and 3. Though the triangle route was convenient the couple of times it was tried, I don't think the Texada public would be too appreciative of it, especially seeing both options would produce a reduced service schedule. Also, and here's where the NIMBY attitude would really factor in, the additional exposure to outsiders would be viewed as detrimental. I know the island and it's people pretty well, and there's a reason many of them live there. Most of them are happy to be three ferry trips from Vancouver, no matter how you shake it out. ;D

Funny, funny,

Remember the uproar at the time when they were proposing they ferry service into Anderson Bay. I seem to remember having to leave the room when they all got into it. LOL

I'm sure both of you have been imbibed to an unsanitary degree with the local passions and protests of Texada culture. For a community that wants no one in it's backyard, you'd think they'd want less ferry service, so they could then keep themselves that much more cut off from the civilized world ;D.

[timmyboy]

Apr 7, 2009 14:36:41 GMT -8 Mill Bay said:

Apr 7, 2009 14:05:45 GMT -8 timmyboy said:

Funny, funny,

Remember the uproar at the time when they were proposing they ferry service into Anderson Bay. I seem to remember having to leave the room when they all got into it. LOL

I'm sure both of you have been imbibed to an unsanitary degree with the local passions and protests of Texada culture. For a community that wants no one in it's backyard, you'd think they'd want less ferry service, so they could then keep themselves that much more cut off from the civilized world ;D.

I very much have to agree with you Mill Bay. If the most of the citizens of the Island , including some family, could find a way to transport themselves to the middle of the pacific they would. However, since that is not possible they will ask for larger service to get the intruders off the Island quicker. quiet chuckle.

[Shane]

Being a local, I often go over to Texada and I find that in the winter months it's usually quite quiet and a ferry the size of the Tachek is all they really need to keep efficient service going. In the summer it's much different, with two large festivals taking place on the island in the summer (Sandcastle Weekend & Jazz on the Rocks) the traffic is much heavier. I remember a few years back on Sandcastle Weekend, they had the NIP and the Nimpkish both in service because the traffic was just so heavy. Personally I find that alot of Texadians like the quietness and the isolation, I myself enjoy it like that too. Texada just wouldnt be the same with huge crowds of people.

[oceaneer77]

seems that this post is getting away from the start topic..


So replacements should be...

Double ended with all similar hulls. Single Azipod electric drive on each end, but built to have the Azipod removable in the water. (soft hatch on the car deck). Log striker/fin ahead of the azipod. No more rads! and defiantly not 4 of them.
Diesel Electric propulsion with 2 main generators and one harbor standby gen.
Service speed with 2 gens at 15kts and only one gen 9-10kts. (slow but still safe)
Gens to be easily removed for replacement. again soft hatch under car deck. gens skid mounted
Medium speed diesel engines.. no more of this high speed crap!
The vessels should be designed for efficiency, longevity and simplicity.
Passenger lounge on one side of the vessel with a additional lounge above the car deck for use when demand is high and vessels license is high. Possible coffee shop in lower lounge. vending machines on upper.
Try to keep the upper lounge a bit smaller than the current cappy design. (better stability and looks)
Washrooms and crew mess on other car deck side.
(?? would you need an elevator or not as the lower lounge would be sufficient for the disabled??)

vessels that need to run in open water to have higher bulwarks and hydraulic bow/stern doors. Hull freeboard to be increased at the bow/stern of these vessels as well.
vessels to be a bit narrower and longer than the current fridge style hull shape. this will cost slightly more to build but the long term costs (fuel) will be lower.


that would be the start of my wishlist..

Oceaneer77

[Northern Exploration]

May 10, 2009 20:40:16 GMT -8 oceaneer77 said:

seems that this post is getting away from the start topic..


So replacements should be...

Double ended with all similar hulls. Single Azipod electric drive on each end, but built to have the Azipod removable in the water. (soft hatch on the car deck). Log striker/fin ahead of the azipod. No more rads! and defiantly not 4 of them.
Diesel Electric propulsion with 2 main generators and one harbor standby gen.
Service speed with 2 gens at 15kts and only one gen 9-10kts. (slow but still safe)
Gens to be easily removed for replacement. again soft hatch under car deck. gens skid mounted
Medium speed diesel engines.. no more of this high speed crap!
The vessels should be designed for efficiency, longevity and simplicity.
Passenger lounge on one side of the vessel with a additional lounge above the car deck for use when demand is high and vessels license is high. Possible coffee shop in lower lounge. vending machines on upper.
Try to keep the upper lounge a bit smaller than the current cappy design. (better stability and looks)
Washrooms and crew mess on other car deck side.
(?? would you need an elevator or not as the lower lounge would be sufficient for the disabled??)

vessels that need to run in open water to have higher bulwarks and hydraulic bow/stern doors. Hull freeboard to be increased at the bow/stern of these vessels as well.
vessels to be a bit narrower and longer than the current fridge style hull shape. this will cost slightly more to build but the long term costs (fuel) will be lower.


that would be the start of my wishlist..

Oceaneer77

Hmm you would think you actually know what you are talking about with that list .

So you are proposing a type of saddle lounge for the lower lounge if I get what you are suggesting. The saddle lounge at car deck height or above the car deck? I presume there would be still access through the upper lounge to the decks - when the upper lounge was closed.

BTW keep us up to date with progress etc. on your new assignment. If you need a deckhand I know a recent graduate who may be interested .

[Mill Bay]

I'm not sure what to say with this except that there really is no reason some of these concepts had already been applied in the Island Sky. Either BCFerries, or the marine design community, or just the designers BCFerries is choosing to work with, seem stuck in some kind of rut when it comes to constantly recycling the same design over and over for new minor or intermediate vessels, even if it is a design that ends up having numerous flaws, or just causes a rather unseemly scandalous mess, or evokes criticisms of poor quality construction and design just as the Island Sky did, or is doing.

The biggest thing though, is they entirely forget the meaning of design with the Island Sky. It's more than just throwing a bunch of rectangular blocks together into a semi-enclosed box structure, any ape or two-year-old kid playing with wooden blocks can design a ship if that's the case. And it's also more than just punching a bunch of numbers into a computer and letting it blow fuses trying to fulfill all the demands you are trying to fit into a certain shape.

[oceaneer77]

---

Moderator Edit: Fixed URL to display picture.

Thanks moderator for fixing this!!! i was getting right Pi$#($#* off with it

So this is what i would vote for sort of a Super Skeena in looks with a Saddle style upper lounge.
Flat sections that would make the design flexible and keep all of the engineering on the vessels the same. This would also save huge money in design fees, and give the option of stretching the ferries later as traffic volume increases.
oceaneer77

[Neil]

May 11, 2009 8:29:10 GMT -8 Mill Bay said:

I'm not sure what to say with this except that there really is no reason some of these concepts had already been applied in the Island Sky. Either BCFerries, or the marine design community, or just the designers BCFerries is choosing to work with, seem stuck in some kind of rut when it comes to constantly recycling the same design over and over for new minor or intermediate vessels, even if it is a design that ends up having numerous flaws, or just causes a rather unseemly scandalous mess, or evokes criticisms of poor quality construction and design just as the Island Sky did, or is doing.

Which vessels are you refering to? Seems to me that most of the minor boats are fairly well suited to the runs they're on, and many have served pretty efficiently for a long time. What is an "unseemly scandalous mess"?

If anything, the problem with the 'minor' vessels is the opposite of what you're suggesting. Rather than "recycling the same design", they have, instead, too many different vessels, with different chacteristics, and they want to move to a more standardized design in future.

As for the Island Sky, I'd like to see some legitimate, verifiable information about it being poorly built.

May 11, 2009 8:29:10 GMT -8 Mill Bay said:

The biggest thing though, is they entirely forget the meaning of design with the Island Sky. It's more than just throwing a bunch of rectangular blocks together into a semi-enclosed box structure, any ape or two-year-old kid playing with wooden blocks can design a ship if that's the case. And it's also more than just punching a bunch of numbers into a computer and letting it blow fuses trying to fulfill all the demands you are trying to fit into a certain shape.

As a taxpayer as opposed to a ferry fan, I want BC Ferries to be building car ferries that are well engineered and well built, and have efficient vehicle decks and adequate passenger amenities. I don't want them wasting money on designs that might satisfy my preference for a sleeker or more classical look. Whatever works, in other words. I suspect most of the public would agree.

[Mill Bay]

May 11, 2009 13:59:39 GMT -8 Neil said:

May 11, 2009 8:29:10 GMT -8 Mill Bay said:

I'm not sure what to say with this except that there really is no reason some of these concepts had already been applied in the Island Sky. Either BCFerries, or the marine design community, or just the designers BCFerries is choosing to work with, seem stuck in some kind of rut when it comes to constantly recycling the same design over and over for new minor or intermediate vessels, even if it is a design that ends up having numerous flaws, or just causes a rather unseemly scandalous mess, or evokes criticisms of poor quality construction and design just as the Island Sky did, or is doing.

Which vessels are you referring to? Seems to me that most of the minor boats are fairly well suited to the runs they're on, and many have served pretty efficiently for a long time. What is an "unseemly scandalous mess"?

If anything, the problem with the 'minor' vessels is the opposite of what you're suggesting. Rather than "recycling the same design", they have, instead, too many different vessels, with different chacteristics, and they want to move to a more standardized design in future.

As for the Island Sky, I'd like to see some legitimate, verifiable information about it being poorly built.

Standardized in the sense that they all have to be RAD driven, without any interest shown in other styles of propulsion systems, as Oceaneer suggested. The similarity in basic shape between the Capilano, Cumberland and Island Sky also suggests the same basic design elements were used and that we can also expect the same ones to follow. The I-Sky apparently also used a very similar hull to the Skeena Queen. Again, using the same mold to cast multiple vessels.

Just because they look different doesn't mean that they don't all follow a common basic design. All of your K/Q class ships are essentially the same in engineering and hull form. The Island Sky is essentially an expended form of the Skeena with a much larger superstructure.

I doubt you could easily verify that there were issues with the Island Sky, but at the same time, what do we really know about the Queen of the North, either. Beyond that, though, I'm sure that the below water portions are perfectly fine, and even up to the level of the passenger lounge, it seems to make sense, except for the unrealistic foot passenger ramp supposedly intended for Bowen Island. It's just that, above that level, they seemed to have done things to the Island Sky that don't even make engineering sense, as opposed to simply aesthetic concerns. Why they just kept piling one deck on top of another for the sake of a couple more electrical closets and a smoking room doesn't seem to be as logical as having all those spaces at the same level on the same deck would have.

Whatever works, may be workable for the majority of designs and mechanical applications, not counting how they look, but sometimes it is also fairly easy to tell a poor design from a good one by its appearance as well. Discounting what we don't know and can't prove anyway, since it is only conjecture, I will offer up the notion that, even from an uneducated observer's stand point, the Island Sky as it is just doesn't look like it's design was done right.

[rt1commuter]

Hey Mill Bay, how about this:



Ugly as sin, right? Thing is, this baby has one of the most efficient airframes ever put on this type of airplane. The fuselage itself produces 20% (or so) of the required lift. Just pointing out that you're untrained eye theory brakes down very easily.

[Quatchi]

May 11, 2009 16:16:03 GMT -8 Mill Bay said:

May 11, 2009 13:59:39 GMT -8 Neil said:

Which vessels are you referring to? Seems to me that most of the minor boats are fairly well suited to the runs they're on, and many have served pretty efficiently for a long time. What is an "unseemly scandalous mess"?

If anything, the problem with the 'minor' vessels is the opposite of what you're suggesting. Rather than "recycling the same design", they have, instead, too many different vessels, with different chacteristics, and they want to move to a more standardized design in future.

As for the Island Sky, I'd like to see some legitimate, verifiable information about it being poorly built.

Standardized in the sense that they all have to be RAD driven, without any interest shown in other styles of propulsion systems, as Oceaneer suggested. The similarity in basic shape between the Capilano, Cumberland and Island Sky also suggests the same basic design elements were used and that we can also expect the same ones to follow. The I-Sky apparently also used a very similar hull to the Skeena Queen. Again, using the same mold to cast multiple vessels.

Just because they look different doesn't mean that they don't all follow a common basic design. All of your K/Q class ships are essentially the same in engineering and hull form. The Island Sky is essentially an expended form of the Skeena with a much larger superstructure.

I doubt you could easily verify that there were issues with the Island Sky, but at the same time, what do we really know about the Queen of the North, either. Beyond that, though, I'm sure that the below water portions are perfectly fine, and even up to the level of the passenger lounge, it seems to make sense, except for the unrealistic foot passenger ramp supposedly intended for Bowen Island. It's just that, above that level, they seemed to have done things to the Island Sky that don't even make engineering sense, as opposed to simply aesthetic concerns. Why they just kept piling one deck on top of another for the sake of a couple more electrical closets and a smoking room doesn't seem to be as logical as having all those spaces at the same level on the same deck would have.

Whatever works, may be workable for the majority of designs and mechanical applications, not counting how they look, but sometimes it is also fairly easy to tell a poor design from a good one by its appearance as well. Discounting what we don't know and can't prove anyway, since it is only conjecture, I will offer up the notion that, even from an uneducated observer's stand point, the Island Sky as it is just doesn't look like it's design was done right.

Mill Bay, I think you are talking before you completely understand the situation. I don't want to be in that situation either but here are a couple of my thoughts.

1) you have to face the fact that looks are one of the last things BCF should really be concerned about. So what if the IS is ugly, as long as she is efficient in design and practice.

2) The IS's hull is nothing like the Skeena's hull. There are pictures out there proving this.

3)I recall a study somewhere done for BCF where they looked into different propulsion systems for the Northern Expedition and it concluded that azimuth style propulsion systems were too expensive to maintain for the benefits they received. I'm not saying this directly applies to every vessel, but its a small margin to go by. Now I don't remember where I saw this but I do remember it was linked to somewhere on this forum.

4) I think that baring some of the small issues that have cropped up on the IS, and they must be small otherwise she wouldn't be in service, she is a ship headed in the right direction for BCF. As for the decks with "Electrical Closets" stacked up on eachother that has a very simple solution, the higher the bridge is on a vessel the better the view. The Queen of Chilliwack has an issue where the bridge crew cant really figure out where the bow is and the deckhands have to radio positions to the bridge for her to get into the berth safely. This occurs because the passenger decks cut off the view from the bridge this was solved with this IS by sticking some non-passenger dependent but required spaces between eh bridge and the passenger deck to jack it up higher so the bridge crew can see over the passenger deck right at the bow.

5) As for Standardization it doesn't really matter what your hull looks like or how a ship is laid out, what really matters is are they using the same engines, props, rad units, electrical systems, control systems and such. Any idiot can figure out how to navigate around a ship if they are laid out differently, but not any idiot can be completely proficient in the repair of 15-20 different makes/models of engines. If they were to standardize equipment that breaks down they could save busloads in time because the same mechanic could easily have a bunch of spare parts in a van or something and could be highly skilled/proficient in repair of those units. Instead we have a bunch of guys running around who all specialize in a little bit of everything and I'm not saying they aren't well skilled, I'm saying they could be more wisely utilized if they only needed to be experts in one engine manufacture, or one RAD unit.

6)The minor routes are so differing demand wise. There is no way a single hull form and superstructure design could handle every route satisfactorily, but there is no reason they all cant use the same propulsion system and same electrical system. BCF just need to get their act together and set up a standard for mechanical systems on their ships so that any engineer can walk onto any ship and fix the RAD. Of course this sint black and white, obviously a 60m ship and a 150m ship cant have the exact same Engines, but they can be the same make.

7) I think that shipbuilding is a learning experience, there is no perfect design. There may be some that come close, but they can always be improved upon. Take the Skeena for example she started out with a faulty RAD/Engine combination, it was fixed. She is quite a well engineered vessel, she does although have 4 independent lounges and no food services. This could be changed in a revision to the Skeena Queen, and could be even more successful than the Skeena is herself.

Thats my thoughts, and my understanding of the issue of basic vessel design. In a nutshell.

Cheers,

[Northern Exploration]

May 11, 2009 17:33:58 GMT -8 rt1commuter said:

Hey Mill Bay, how about this:



Ugly as sin, right? Thing is, this baby has one of the most efficient airframes ever put on this type of airplane. The fuselage itself produces 20% (or so) of the required lift. Just pointing out that you're untrained eye theory brakes down very easily.

The Shorts was a great plane but I still chuckle because my grandfather who was an accomplished pianist called it the flying piano. Shorts now builds components for Bombardier aircraft.

[FNS]

May 11, 2009 18:21:27 GMT -8 Northern Exploration said:

May 11, 2009 17:33:58 GMT -8 rt1commuter said:

Hey Mill Bay, how about this:



Ugly as sin, right? Thing is, this baby has one of the most efficient airframes ever put on this type of airplane. The fuselage itself produces 20% (or so) of the required lift. Just pointing out that you're untrained eye theory brakes down very easily.

The Shorts was a great plane but I still chuckle because my grandfather who was an accomplished pianist called it the flying piano. Shorts now builds components for Bombardier aircraft.

I think I will be flying in one of these this Friday as I begin my initial legs of my trek up to Port Hardy to see the NE. I'll be flying from CYVR to CYBL. FlightAware shows this plane assigned to this route on Pacific Coastal Airlines.

www.pacificcoastal.com/id/38/Our-Fleet.html

Returning from Port Hardy (CYZT-CYVR), I may be flying in a Saab twin prop. From CYVR to KSEA, it'll be on Horizon aboard a Q400 twin prop.

[Mill Bay]

Alright... I defer to the experts.

[Northern Exploration]

May 11, 2009 19:25:35 GMT -8 FNS said:

May 11, 2009 18:21:27 GMT -8 Northern Exploration said:

The Shorts was a great plane but I still chuckle because my grandfather who was an accomplished pianist called it the flying piano. Shorts now builds components for Bombardier aircraft.

I think I will be flying in one of these this Friday as I begin my initial legs of my trek up to Port Hardy to see the NE. I'll be flying from CYVR to CYBL. FlightAware shows this plane assigned to this route on Pacific Coastal Airlines.

www.pacificcoastal.com/id/38/Our-Fleet.html

Returning from Port Hardy (CYZT-CYVR), I may be flying in a Saab twin prop. From CYVR to KSEA, it'll be on Horizon aboard a Q400 twin prop.

The common industry nickname is the flying boxcar. Railfans ought to have some crossover passions for this one .

[oceaneer77]

3)I recall a study somewhere done for BCF where they looked into different propulsion systems for the Northern Expedition and it concluded that azimuth style propulsion systems were too expensive to maintain for the benefits they received. I'm not saying this directly applies to every vessel, but its a small margin to go by. Now I don't remember where I saw this but I do remember it was linked to somewhere on this forum.


I find this quite unbelievable... Most of the problems with the minor vessels are with the RADS.. not only are they complicated but they are also inefficient in a big way.
the idea of redirecting power 90' then 90' again is not efficient. And then to be always running 4 diesel engines like our current ferries (island Sky included) is just bad practice with the new systems on the market today.
The RAD /engine combo is the CHEAPEST solution not the best, or the one that requires least maintenance.

Mill bay is not all wrong in his posts..
The island Sky has another set of engines (niigatas) and yet another set of Rads.
no the ship was not cheap to build, (should have been) but it will not be cheap to run.
The small ferries have never been optimized they have been built quick and dirty and have run extremely well seeing that this is the case but i REALLY believe that we can do better.. It may cost a bit more on the front end but will be worth the investment.

) As for Standardization it doesn't really matter what your hull looks like or how a ship is laid out, what really matters is are they using the same engines, props, rad units, electrical systems, control systems and such. Any idiot can figure out how to navigate around a ship if they are laid out differently, but not any idiot can be completely proficient in the repair of 15-20 different makes/models of engines. If they were to standardize equipment that breaks down they could save busloads in time because the same mechanic could easily have a bunch of spare parts in a van or something and could be highly skilled/proficient in repair of those units. Instead we have a bunch of guys running around who all specialize in a little bit of everything and I'm not saying they aren't well skilled, I'm saying they could be more wisely utilized if they only needed to be experts in one engine manufacture, or one RAD unit.

6)The minor routes are so differing demand wise. There is no way a single hull form and superstructure design could handle every route satisfactorily, but there is no reason they all cant use the same propulsion system and same electrical system. BCF just need to get their act together and set up a standard for mechanical systems on their ships so that any engineer can walk onto any ship and fix the RAD. Of course this sint black and white, obviously a 60m ship and a 150m ship cant have the exact same Engines, but they can be the same make.


I agree with most of this but the frigging RADS!!
I can remember a time on the qunitsa serving denman when the ship was down to one engine and a tug strapped to her hip from RAD problems.
Standardize the new design and have the major components modular and replaceable in the field. May cost more initially but will pay for itself in down time and overtime expenses quite quickly.
(side note but the boats that i run charter for 200000 t0 290000 per week plus fuel, food, dockage, boose ect... i only work on Feadships which cost a bunch more to build but i have not missed a charter due to down time... we frequently pick up charters from other that have broken.. now if the boat missed the charter it would cost us the charter fee and whatever was needed to book a new vessel... this would over a short amount of time cover the extra build costs)

as for standardization the new 120-85 AEQ ship should or could have the same engines as the nor EX gensets Mak M20 series ( if diesel electric).
Standardization.. BCFS

oceaneer77

[Mill Bay]

May 12, 2009 6:46:36 GMT -8 Northern Exploration said:

May 11, 2009 19:25:35 GMT -8 FNS said:

I think I will be flying in one of these this Friday as I begin my initial legs of my trek up to Port Hardy to see the NE. I'll be flying from CYVR to CYBL. FlightAware shows this plane assigned to this route on Pacific Coastal Airlines.

www.pacificcoastal.com/id/38/Our-Fleet.html

Returning from Port Hardy (CYZT-CYVR), I may be flying in a Saab twin prop. From CYVR to KSEA, it'll be on Horizon aboard a Q400 twin prop.

The common industry nickname is the flying boxcar. Railfans ought to have some crossover passions for this one .

One last dig from me, then: at least that particular model still looks like an airplane. It still has wings, and a single cockpit at the front and engines that correctly direct their thrust aft. The central superstructure, polygon wheelhouse module and four cornered, double-ended barge like ferries don't even pretend to look like ships, utterly lacking in any traditional elements common to a ship, such as a single bridge, and a proper bow and stern. (Despite my other griping, Nick, at least should appreciate that sentiment.)

I understand the problem now... my comments were misplaced because I'm not arguing ship design. In fact, the people I'm making arguments against aren't even trying to design ships at all, because what they're producing clearly isn't a ship. Guess that age old stereo-label for the K-class is true: they are just a barge with a wheelhouse. (Same goes for the Island Sky.)

[oceaneer77]

inefficient barges with wheelhouses!