|
Post by Mike on Feb 21, 2013 17:57:35 GMT -8
I see no reason why vessels the size of the Skeena Queen could not use Knapp Passage. Vessels the size of the V-class used to use that route routinely, though that may have depended on tides. In any case, that route via Knapp Passage would be about equal in length to Paul's 'route A'. The Skeena Queen and the Route 5 vessels often do use Knapp Gosse Passage. Here's proof: (Wake is from the ' New West, which proves she often uses it too, during the summer.)
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 21, 2013 18:10:59 GMT -8
Paul: Thanks for pulling that chart together. That provides a good visual. I see no reason why vessels the size of the Skeena Queen could not use Knapp Passage. Vessels the size of the V-class used to use that route routinely, though that may have depended on tides. In any case, that route via Knapp Passage would be about equal in length to Paul's 'route A'. My measurement of 3.01 NM was based on travel through Knapp Passage (C). As far as I know, minor vessels accessing Swartz Bay use this route almost exclusively.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Feb 21, 2013 18:43:29 GMT -8
Isabella Point to Swartz Bay would cut the route distance by almost 50%. As such, a transit time of 20 minutes seems doable. The distance is almost the same as Horseshoe Bay to Snug Cove which BC Ferries says has a transit time of 20 minutes.
Having said all that, it seems that yes, money could be saved by building a terminal at Isabella Point. It is no different than me cutting my heating bills by 50% simply by doing a major makeover on my house. Spending $20,000 on new window, doors, insulation, etc. will substantially tighten up this place and I will save a lot on each year's fuel bill. On the other hand I would not expect to recover my initial investment until about 20 winters have passed. The same economics apply to shortened ferry routes, I would think.
It seems that you must first spend a lot of money in order to 'save' money.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Feb 21, 2013 20:19:59 GMT -8
Correction that needs to be mentioned which has me cringing more and more every time I read it just so there's no confusion. The passage between Piers and Knapp Island is called Gosse Pass (pronounced as "goss", not "goose").
While I'm not at my home computer at the moment, there should be archived news articles on google which me mention the relocation of the Fulford Terminal idea back in the 70's or so. I'll have a look when I get home later tonight.
The Skeena has the exact same beam measurement as the V-Class of 24m, however she has a draught restriction at a certain tide level. Can't think off hand of what it is, but I believe anything under 2 ft is a no go via Gosse Pass, and she'll go via Colbourne Pass/Arbutus Island during that time. I'm sure the New West will follow these same parameters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 0:03:23 GMT -8
One thing about the minor route vessels-why can't they be made to go faster?
I know the old ones are designed to "chug" along but for example, I don't think a trip from Quadra Island to Cortez should take almost an hour-can't they put some more "oomph" in the new ships when they build them?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Feb 22, 2013 9:28:00 GMT -8
One thing about the minor route vessels-why can't they be made to go faster? I know the old ones are designed to "chug" along but for example, I don't think a trip from Quadra Island to Cortez should take almost an hour-can't they put some more "oomph" in the new ships when they build them? It's Cortes, not Cortez, and the route takes 35-40 minutes, not almost an hour. Pushing a ship to its maximum speed as opposed to its normal operational speed takes a disproportionate amount of fuel per knot, as does building fast ferries, especially if you're talking car ferries. The additional speed is not worth it.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 11, 2013 12:41:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Sept 11, 2013 21:42:48 GMT -8
Do you think that when it comes time to replace the minor vessels (I'm just talking about the ones with 30-car capacity), will BCF have to build two very-different classes of 30-car ferries to serve open and sheltered water routes? Or will they just build one "Minor Vessel Class" with modifications such as bow/stern doors and higher bulwarks for the vessels serving more exposed routes? I have a feeling that they will do the latter, since there seems to be quite a push towards standardization with BCF's vessels, something that WSF has pretty much done already.
My thought is that BCF should have its minor vessels all have a 40-car capacity, in order to allow it to be used as a replacement for the NIP (whose real capacity is 40 cars, not 49). They will need another class with two 60-car ferries in order to replace the HSQ and the Quinitsa.
I'm thinking that in the case of the Nimpkish (and Nicola) they would just be replaced with like-for-like 16-car, single-ended vessels. Would there be any reasons to replace them with vessels of different size and/or design?
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Sept 12, 2013 10:43:19 GMT -8
Do you think that when it comes time to replace the minor vessels (I'm just talking about the ones with 30-car capacity), will BCF have to build two very-different classes of 30-car ferries to serve open and sheltered water routes? Or will they just build one "Minor Vessel Class" with modifications such as bow/stern doors and higher bulwarks for the vessels serving more exposed routes? I have a feeling that they will do the latter, since there seems to be quite a push towards standardization with BCF's vessels, something that WSF has pretty much done already. My thought is that BCF should have its minor vessels all have a 40-car capacity, in order to allow it to be used as a replacement for the NIP (whose real capacity is 40 cars, not 49). They will need another class with two 60-car ferries in order to replace the HSQ and the Quinitsa. I'm thinking that in the case of the Nimpkish (and Nicola) they would just be replaced with like-for-like 16-car, single-ended vessels. Would there be any reasons to replace them with vessels of different size and/or design? I still think the Edoyfjord, built for Fjord1 Ferries in Norway, would be a pretty good template to base the minor ferry off of. It has the protected sides and bow visor of its larger cousin (Boknafjord) which would make it ideal for some of the more unprotected routes in the BCF system. This vessel, as designed for Fjord 1, carries 50 cars and 150 passengers. Here are the specs from the Ferryvolution website: length: 66m (217') breadth: 13,4m (44') auto capacity: 50 pass. capacity: 150 speed: 13 kts And, here are some photos of it: www.ferryvolution.com/2012/01/19/photolog-edoyfjord/
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Sept 12, 2013 14:18:35 GMT -8
Do you think that when it comes time to replace the minor vessels (I'm just talking about the ones with 30-car capacity), will BCF have to build two very-different classes of 30-car ferries to serve open and sheltered water routes? Or will they just build one "Minor Vessel Class" with modifications such as bow/stern doors and higher bulwarks for the vessels serving more exposed routes? I have a feeling that they will do the latter, since there seems to be quite a push towards standardization with BCF's vessels, something that WSF has pretty much done already. My thought is that BCF should have its minor vessels all have a 40-car capacity, in order to allow it to be used as a replacement for the NIP (whose real capacity is 40 cars, not 49). They will need another class with two 60-car ferries in order to replace the HSQ and the Quinitsa. I'm thinking that in the case of the Nimpkish (and Nicola) they would just be replaced with like-for-like 16-car, single-ended vessels. Would there be any reasons to replace them with vessels of different size and/or design? I still think the Edoyfjord, built for Fjord1 Ferries in Norway, would be a pretty good template to base the minor ferry off of. It has the protected sides and bow visor of its larger cousin (Boknafjord) which would make it ideal for some of the more unprotected routes in the BCF system. This vessel, as designed for Fjord 1, carries 50 cars and 150 passengers. Here are the specs from the Ferryvolution website: length: 66m (217') breadth: 13,4m (44') auto capacity: 50 pass. capacity: 150 speed: 13 kts And, here are some photos of it: www.ferryvolution.com/2012/01/19/photolog-edoyfjord/But the ferries design would need to be redesign to fit in are berth, meet BC Ferries standers, and Transport Canada requirements to operate in BC.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Sept 12, 2013 14:23:55 GMT -8
Do you think that when it comes time to replace the minor vessels (I'm just talking about the ones with 30-car capacity), will BCF have to build two very-different classes of 30-car ferries to serve open and sheltered water routes? Or will they just build one "Minor Vessel Class" with modifications such as bow/stern doors and higher bulwarks for the vessels serving more exposed routes? I have a feeling that they will do the latter, since there seems to be quite a push towards standardization with BCF's vessels, something that WSF has pretty much done already. My thought is that BCF should have its minor vessels all have a 40-car capacity, in order to allow it to be used as a replacement for the NIP (whose real capacity is 40 cars, not 49). They will need another class with two 60-car ferries in order to replace the HSQ and the Quinitsa. I'm thinking that in the case of the Nimpkish (and Nicola) they would just be replaced with like-for-like 16-car, single-ended vessels. Would there be any reasons to replace them with vessels of different size and/or design? That actually is not a half bad idea because it standardization the fleet,increase the capacity and makes it easily for vessel replacement on routes. Since the replacement are the exact same design, measurements. I could see that happening in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Sept 12, 2013 15:33:28 GMT -8
I still think the Edoyfjord, built for Fjord1 Ferries in Norway, would be a pretty good template to base the minor ferry off of. It has the protected sides and bow visor of its larger cousin (Boknafjord) which would make it ideal for some of the more unprotected routes in the BCF system. This vessel, as designed for Fjord 1, carries 50 cars and 150 passengers. Here are the specs from the Ferryvolution website: length: 66m (217') breadth: 13,4m (44') auto capacity: 50 pass. capacity: 150 speed: 13 kts And, here are some photos of it: www.ferryvolution.com/2012/01/19/photolog-edoyfjord/But the ferries design would need to be redesign to fit in are berth, meet BC Ferries standers, and Transport Canada requirements to operate in BC. Well, yes, of course it would, but the basic design seems promising, and, like all of the ferries in Norway, its design incorporates LNG as a fuel source, something BC Ferries has been pursuing.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 20, 2015 16:38:22 GMT -8
From the BCFS Management's Discussion & Analysis report, for year ended March 31, 2015. - released June 19, 2015;
-------------------
Here's the continued message from BCFS on the minor vessels strategy:
OPTION to retire Tenaka. It's not for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jun 20, 2015 19:24:36 GMT -8
Current steps towards standardization: - one-of cable ferry; - second fuel type; and - a Northern fleet with three ramp systems which differ from the Southern fleet.
I realize these things need to start somewhere so I am not trying to blast the concept before implementation has been possible - but seriously? This seems more like business buzz for funding approvals. BC Ferries does not make sufficiently large purchases to allow meaningful standardization to occur in fleet type. They have made great bounds in the equipment front it seems, though?
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jun 20, 2015 21:37:09 GMT -8
Current steps towards standardization: - one-of cable ferry; - second fuel type; and - a Northern fleet with three ramp systems which differ from the Southern fleet. I realize these things need to start somewhere so I am not trying to blast the concept before implementation has been possible - but seriously? This seems more like business buzz for funding approvals. BC Ferries does not make sufficiently large purchases to allow meaningful standardization to occur in fleet type. They have made great bounds in the equipment front it seems, though? I don't think that standardization is a realistic goal for BC Ferries. Replacing/life extending vessels is such an ongoing process that changing technologies and vessel safety standards would make it pretty well impossible to make all ships in a single class-type (major-minor-northern) identical. This is especially the case with the minor vessels, as each small community has its own unique needs. Over the past five years, BCFS has made it pretty clear that life-extending older minor vessels is a more viable option than replacement - and why wouldn't they? Many of those older minor vessels work very well on their designated routes. But, that means that the goal of fleet standardization isn't going to happen. Dane is right. It's a buzzword for replacement ship funding. This is a word that makes it sound like they have a strategy of some sort when they are looking for ferry commissioner approval. We aren't the WSF, our communities and terminals simply do not have that level of flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by roeco on Jan 2, 2016 1:03:51 GMT -8
A few things, What will replace the North Island Princess when it retires and which Bowen Class ship will be retired first? I would think maybe Powell RIver Queen, and then replace with Quinitsa( since she will be surplus), and will work better for that run anyway its only 10 min crossing. However I wonder what could replace NIP?? Maybe life extended Tenaka?? who knows! Or is PRQ overkill for capacity on her run, same with NIP??
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 2, 2016 8:01:16 GMT -8
A few things, What will replace the North Island Princess when it retires and which Bowen Class ship will be retired first? I would think maybe Powell RIver Queen, and then replace with Quinitsa( since she will be surplus), and will work better for that run anyway its only 10 min crossing. However I wonder what could replace NIP?? Maybe life extended Tenaka?? who knows! Or is PRQ overkill for capacity on her run, same with NIP?? Here's a helpful chart, from 3 years ago: HERE
|
|
|
Post by Kahn_C on Jan 2, 2016 10:43:29 GMT -8
I think BCF is seriously toying with the notion of just dropping the NIP completely and servicing Texada as part of a triangle with Comox-Powell River (w/ contracted water taxi). They don't like putting the Burnaby into Blubber Bay, but they don't seem to mind stopping in with the Island Sky (and it's probably safe to assume they'll be ok with the Orca going in there). Community opinion on the matter is somewhat spit, should be interesting to see how that works out.
Given that the Tenaka isn't up here to fill in for the NIP while the Burnaby is in for her annual propeller hub fixing, it's probably safe to assume she's also quietly on her way off the books.
|
|
|
Post by roeco on Jan 2, 2016 21:47:13 GMT -8
Well I guess I found out my answer about what vessels are on the replacement list next. North Island Princess and Powell River Queen, I guess the Quinitsa could replace NIP if they decided to keep the Texada route by itself. Or if they made Texada a triangle run then the Quinitsa could move to Vesuvius and Howe Sound Queen to Quadra Island, to replace PRQ. IN summer I guess you would need a dedicated ship for Texada
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Jan 2, 2016 23:13:38 GMT -8
Well I guess I found out my answer about what vessels are on the replacement list next. North Island Princess and Powell River Queen, I guess the Quinitsa could replace NIP if they decided to keep the Texada route by itself. Or if they made Texada a triangle run then the Quinitsa could move to Vesuvius and Howe Sound Queen to Quadra Island, to replace PRQ. IN summer I guess you would need a dedicated ship for Texada Quinitsa could not move to Vesuvius- it's too small. Nor could it move to Quadra for the same reason, and it's not seaworthy for year round service to Texada.
Keep in mind as well that BC Ferries cannot unilaterally decide to axe the dedicated Texada route- the contract they have with the province requires more than four round trips, and even four would be difficult to maintain on a triangle route to Little River.
It's not as straightforward as some people think to just shuffle vessels around and change schedules. Also, the retirement schedule for vessels is a constantly moving target, as we've seen over the years.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jan 3, 2016 7:10:38 GMT -8
If BCF were to combine the Texada and Comox-Powell River routes, as noted above, it seems like they would need an additional Salish Class vessel on the route to maintain the schedule. Under such a scenario, I could see the triangle route working, but that would mean building a 4th Salish Class ferry. It would, in some ways, open up options for Texada. Depending on how the triangle schedule is written, there could be direct sailings from Texada to Comox in addition to the ones to Powell River. All of this does seem unlikely, however.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 3, 2016 7:54:25 GMT -8
re shuffling of vessels:
Besides seasonal capacity and weather-handling abilities (both of which are very important), a little ship's power also needs to be considered. And that's the issue that likely disqualifies Quinitsa from ever doing the Quadra Island route, because of the strong currents in Discovery Passage.
And I suppose we'll find out what other routes Quinitsa is unsuitable for, as they try to make her work. As I understand it, she's an underpowered-vessel. Kind of like a smart car being told to tow a trailer up the Coquihalla (ok, maybe not that bad).
-------------------
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2016 10:25:02 GMT -8
re shuffling of vessels: Besides seasonal capacity and weather-handling abilities (both of which are very important), a little ship's power also needs to be considered. And that's the issue that likely disqualifies Quinitsa from ever doing the Quadra Island route, because of the strong currents in Discovery Passage. And I suppose we'll find out what other routes Quinitsa is unsuitable for, as they try to make her work. As I understand it, she's an underpowered-vessel. Kind of like a smart car being told to tow a trailer up the Coquihalla (ok, maybe not that bad). ------------------- The schedule will have to be modified when Quinitsa is on route 25 this summer, as the QQII always goes 11-12 knots.
|
|
|
Post by Kahn_C on Jan 3, 2016 11:49:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by roeco on Jan 3, 2016 13:14:37 GMT -8
When the PR Queen is retired what could take her place?? Same with Texada what could take the NIP spot? If PR Queen works good on Quadra maybe they will re deploy the Mayne Queen to Quadra and use the 2nd Salish ship or Bowen Queen to take her place out of Swartz Bay.
|
|