|
|
Post by johnnytindale on Sept 2, 2008 19:05:57 GMT -8
Now that the busiest time of the year for BCFS has come and gone, I thought it would be interesting to do a recap or grading of sorts of the highlights/lowlights of BCFS' performance. Highlights:- Two of the three Super C's were introduced (CR & CI) and were relatively well-received by the public and most importantly the members of this forum ;D
- Major catastrophes were avoided to a large extent (whether this is a credit to good stewardship by BCFS or just plain good fortune is up for debate).
- Despite their advanced age, the V-class vessels (Queen of Saanich & Queen of Vancouver) were essentially problem free all summer (save for one afternoon).
Lowlights:
- Ship Breakdowns
What would a summer be without long lineups due to ferry breakdowns. The fact that one of the fleet's newest and most prized acquisition (CR) was forced out of service on several different occasions (including one trip to the drydock) certainly was a disappointment. However, the weekend of Aug.22-24 saw the biggest trouble as the S-class SOBC was removed from service to fix a broken propeller during one of the busiest weekends of the year. Three sailing waits were the norm on Route 1 that weekend.
- Inability of BCFS to replace injured vessels and avoid having to cancel sailings. Whether this was due to crew shortages, management's preference to save money, or lack of available vessels, the fact remained that far too many sailings were canceled.
- New/refurbished vessels not in service. The third installment of the Super C-class vessels, the Coastal Celebration arrived in BC waters in June. Aside from a trip to the drydock (and being a spare parts supply cabinet for her sisters), she sat idle for the summer. The Island Sky, who was supposed to be in service by July, is still yet to formally commence revenue service. Finally, the Queen of New Westminster was and continues to be out of service on her seemingly never-ending mid-life upgrade. Once again, she was originally supposed to be in service by summer's end, but is still months away from returning to duty.
- Departure Bay. Two main issues plagued this Route 2 terminal. Sailing waits were far too common, particularly on Sunday afternoons. When will BCFS finally add a fourth vessel to this route for, at bare minimum, supplemental service during peak times? Second, similar to the vessel issues mentioned above, terminal renovations that were supposed to be complete prior to the summer season are still yet to finish. This resulted in massive traffic backups outside of the terminal and inconvenienced both residents and passengers alike.
- Increased fares and passenger decline. Aug.1 saw a significant increase in the fuel surcharge on all sailings. This in addition to the annual fare increase implemented in April. This fact cannot be ignored when examining the obvious lower passenger count this summer. Although higher gas prices and the poor US economy likely played a large part in the reduction, the increasingly higher ferry fares did not help either.
Conclusion:Overall, I would grade BCFS' performance this summer as a "B." The summer went by relatively smoothly (aka no Queen of the North or Queen of Oak Bay incidents) and the vast majority of passengers got to where they needed to go in a reasonably timely manner. Additional sailings were added to accommodate heavy traffic (although not nearly enough). However, as pointed out above, there were a number of deficiencies which need to be corrected. Basically, these boil down to crewing, poor management decisions, lack of spare vessels, and poor/slow communication with the public. Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. I would be interested in how you would grade BCFS' performance this summer. Agree, disagree?? Do you have any other highlights/lowlights that I've overlooked? |
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 3, 2008 2:35:42 GMT -8
I think your grading came across fairly accurate. I would give BCFS a lower grade, however, rating no better than a low C+ rating. The lack of timely information by BCFS in times of major service issues, missing the boat on ship redeployment (during breakdowns etc), and the overall mismanagement of the "sidelined" ships brings their "grading" down. The New West, CC, IS are all big black marks that should have a lot of weight in the grading.
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Sept 3, 2008 18:29:39 GMT -8
Johnnytindale,
I think that you have summarized things pretty well here. However, you are much too charitable in handing out BCFS a 'B' for their performance. I would give them a 'C-'.
One other thing...
The QoNWM is not having a 'mid life' upgrade. She is having an ancient life upgrade (ALU). They are sinking $50 plus million into a 44 year old boat (92% as old as the Tsawwassen). You have to wonder... On the otherhand at least there will be one 'V'* around for another 10 years or so.
*Yes, I know, she's a 'B', not a 'V'. But, in my mind a lifted 'B' = a 'V' - make sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Sept 3, 2008 19:02:23 GMT -8
Yes, the Queen of New Westminster is a "V" class vessel, and yes, she is definitely nearing the end of her service life as well. Another case for a fourth Super C ferry, the opportunity for which BCF missed.
I would gladly pay more PST if it went toward a fourth Super C.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Sept 3, 2008 19:37:50 GMT -8
Another case for a fourth Super C ferry, the opportunity for which BCF missed. That's for sure. In the long run, it would be nice to have 6 Coastals for increased service on all of the mainland routes. I'm talking long term here, and I realize this is probably a pipe dream. But, if you had 6 Coastals, you could do 4 boat service on Rte 2, continue 4 boat service on Rte 1, and have a more permanent 2nd boat on Route 3. The assignments might look something like this: Rte 1: SOBC, SOVI, Coastal Celebration, Coastal #6 Rte 30: Coastal Inspiration, Queen of Alberni Rte 2: Coastal Renaissance, Coastal #4, Coastal #5, Queen of Oak Bay Rte 3: Queen of Surrey, Queen of Cowichan relief/standby: Queen of Coquitlam |
|
|
|
Post by ferryking on Sept 4, 2008 8:52:02 GMT -8
Yes, the Queen of New Westminster is a "V" class vessel, and yes, she is definitely nearing the end of her service life as well. Another case for a fourth Super C ferry, the opportunity for which BCF missed. I would gladly pay more PST if it went toward a fourth Super C. First off Qof NW is a B the only lifted B which somewhat makes it a V, if i am incorrect sorry but that is the way I always understood it. Second, I don't think with BCFS spending 50million on this ferry, that she is near the end of her service life...I think she'll have to be around for at least 10years and at 5 million per year for the upgrade I think 10years is probably a little short even probably more like 15 years...just my two cents. |
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Sept 4, 2008 9:10:55 GMT -8
So Ferryking in other words you are saying the QNW is a B+  . |
|
ProudCanuck
Chief Steward
Champ Car - Gone, but not forgotten!
Posts: 242
|
Post by ProudCanuck on Sept 4, 2008 11:40:57 GMT -8
I would gladly pay more PST if it went toward a fourth Super C. You may very well be the only one in the province who would be willing to pay more PST for a fourth Super C. While I would love to see another Super C, built fy FSG, WMG or whoever, I simply would not be willing to increase the PST for such a venture. |
|
|
|
Post by ferryking on Sept 4, 2008 11:50:37 GMT -8
So Ferryking in other words you are saying the QNW is a B+ . ...and sorry for the double info I didn't read West Coast Kid's original email before denelson...'s email, which pretty much stated what I was saying. not sure why Denelson...contradicted the previous email... or was it sort of she might as well be a V comment...of well |
|
Neil
Voyager 
Posts: 7,191
|
Post by Neil on Sept 4, 2008 14:01:21 GMT -8
One other thing... The QoNWM is not having a 'mid life' upgrade. She is having an ancient life upgrade (ALU). They are sinking $50 plus million into a 44 year old boat (92% as old as the Tsawwassen). You have to wonder... On the otherhand at least there will be one 'V'* around for another 10 years or so. *Yes, I know, she's a 'B', not a 'V'. But, in my mind a lifted 'B' = a 'V' - make sense? Don't forget the $50 million or so (in today's dollars) they put into her back in '90-'91, not to mention the original stretch job. This old boat has had something of a charmed life. She's a 'V' to me too, and probably to the vast majority of the public who might be inclined to think about such things. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2008 14:53:45 GMT -8
heck when i was a kid i coulnt tell the difference from the QoNWM and any v.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Sept 4, 2008 16:12:18 GMT -8
Great post. I was away from Vancouver for a vast majority of the summer, but here are some of my thoughts for inclusion. I think you were bang on with your highlights. [/li][li]Ship Breakdowns What would a summer be without long lineups due to ferry breakdowns. The fact that one of the fleet's newest and most prized acquisition (CR) was forced out of service on several different occasions (including one trip to the drydock) certainly was a disappointment. However, the weekend of Aug.22-24 saw the biggest trouble as the S-class SOBC was removed from service to fix a broken propeller during one of the busiest weekends of the year. Three sailing waits were the norm on Route 1 that weekend.[/quote] It is unfortunate that the CR had the difficulty it did, but I am glad the media didn't seem to jump all over it as these vessels have had one of the smoothest entries into service of any of the large vessels currently running in the fleet. The Coastals themselves did very well this summer. The decision to not use Deck 5 almost every day on Rte 2 was flawed. [/li][li]Inability of BCFS to replace injured vessels and avoid having to cancel sailings. Whether this was due to crew shortages, management's preference to save money, or lack of available vessels, the fact remained that far too many sailings were canceled.[/quote] I have a feeling it was a combination of those issues. I know that crews at the two terminals I know employees at were very stretched, and several people found themselves working in positions outside what they ussually do for vacation relief etc. I believe that for the foreseeable future this will be the "norm" for BC Ferries. [/li][li]New/refurbished vessels not in service. The third installment of the Super C-class vessels, the Coastal Celebration arrived in BC waters in June. Aside from a trip to the drydock (and being a spare parts supply cabinet for her sisters), she sat idle for the summer. The Island Sky, who was supposed to be in service by July, is still yet to formally commence revenue service. Finally, the Queen of New Westminster was and continues to be out of service on her seemingly never-ending mid-life upgrade. Once again, she was originally supposed to be in service by summer's end, but is still months away from returning to duty.[/quote] I don't really think that these are the fault of BC Ferries. The Coastal Celebration I think should have been ready for service, or at least an attempt made to have her as the #2 out of Departure Bay. The feedback I heard from crew though is that there simply was not enough people to make this happen (with increased staff demands on the Coastals) and in July the ship was described to me as "unable to be used." I imagine this is in reference to your supply cabinet comment. I thought the training had all been done with the CR/CI, but I suppose this was only for Nanaimo crews? Of the vessels you listed this is the only place that I think BC Ferries dropped the ball so to speak. Its been known for quite some time that the Island Sky would be unavailable for service this summer. BC Ferries has made that aware, albeit not explicetely in their Press Releases for months. The lateness of the vessel is an issue with WMG, not BC Ferries. It may have been delievered slightly earlier, but it would not be a good use of crews to get her prepped for service, particularly given the fact that its obvious more crews are needed. [/li][li]Departure Bay. Two main issues plagued this Route 2 terminal. Sailing waits were far too common, particularly on Sunday afternoons. When will BCFS finally add a fourth vessel to this route for, at bare minimum, supplemental service during peak times? Second, similar to the vessel issues mentioned above, terminal renovations that were supposed to be complete prior to the summer season are still yet to finish. This resulted in massive traffic backups outside of the terminal and inconvenienced both residents and passengers alike.[/quote] I traveled Rte 2 twice this summer, both times when I was taking annual leave. There were sailing waits on all three sailings I took (the fourth being on Rte 30). The waits were reasonably well handled by BCFS, and the signage on the Highway was good. What I did not like was the scheduling, it's hard to keep track of, and I don't understand why the #2 vessel doesn't just run half way between sailings? There were times when the #2 seemed to leave busy after a "regular sailing", but not full, only to have a crowd form quickly afterwards because of the odd schedule. I hope there is a technical reason behind this absurd schedule I am not aware of. Maybe use of Hoseshoe Bay berths? Also, I never got a straight answer from the ticket agent on any sailing on what trip I could expect to be on. That was annoying, but certainly it doesn't have a huge effect on my life. [/li][li]Increased fares and passenger decline. Aug.1 saw a significant increase in the fuel surcharge on all sailings. This in addition to the annual fare increase implemented in April. This fact cannot be ignored when examining the obvious lower passenger count this summer. Although higher gas prices and the poor US economy likely played a large part in the reduction, the increasingly higher ferry fares did not help either. [/list][/quote] Fares are wayyyy to high. But I will avoid getting myself off on a tangent with this  Overall I think BC Ferries got through the summer in alright shape. Waits are long, but almost unavoidable. My recomendations would be: - There used to be Service Notices for everything, it was a bit annoying but you knew what was going on. Service Notices now are very inconsistant; you never know what will justify one and what will not. They're also published well after information is known at times. - Fourth vessel service is required on Route 2. I don't think it will happen, but it is certainly needed. A fourth Coastal should have been ordered, but we've discussed that to death. A triangle with Rte 3 seems to be the only plausible solution to this. Also, none of us have noted but the CR seemed to do an awesome job of keeping her schedule under some very heavy load conditions. - Coast Savers should be used in the summer, even if they're not as great a deal as they are in the year. I should be encouraged to sail very early, or alternately very late. - The Coastal Inspiration continues to be wasted on Rte 30. On the service itself I would give BC Ferries a B as well. But on the fuel surcharge with falling fuel prices a C+. Next summer should hopefully go smoothly! |
|
|
|
Post by johnnytindale on Sept 4, 2008 17:31:36 GMT -8
Good points Dane, thank you. In fairness to BCFS, a lot of our speculations are made with only a limited knowledge of all the information at hand. That being said, there are some obvious issues that should be addressed. I definitely agree with you that the Service Notices are way below standard. Simple, prompt, and effective communication can go a long ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 4, 2008 21:07:27 GMT -8
Re: QoNW - she may be an older boat, but she has had quite the MLU, including re-engining, so I do also believe that she has a little more life in her than her hull-age would lead us to believe. The $50+M never-ending upgrade that she is having now DOES tend to baffle me considerably -- this IS an awful lot of money to pound into an old boat, and with the overruns on time and money, this upgrade does seem ill-advised -- a new boat would have been more economical.
As for more Coastals/Super-C's -- Rte-30 was never meant to have a full-time Coastal/C+ on it; this is just a temporary measure. So throw the QoNW back on #30, and only procure 2 more Coastals (5 total) to get true 4 boat service with reliable ships/capacity on the major routes. Of course, from a fleet renewal point-of-view, and alternative service provision (drop trailer, new routes, etc), ordering another 3 Coastals may make sense.
If BCFS had had in place a progressive fleet renewal process (not counting the FastCat Fiasco, and the QotN sinking), then they would not be in the capital expenditure free-for-all now that they are in. Penny-wise and pound-foolish as the saying goes. Also reference Pay me NOW, or Pay me a LOT MORE LATER ....
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Sept 4, 2008 21:47:49 GMT -8
I think that I said this before, and I will say it again. In the next few years more new boats for routes 1, 2, 3 & 30 will not be forthcoming. In anycase, they should not go for anymore of the Coastal design until they have had a few years to see how they work out.
As for what ships on what routes, here's my take:
Route 1 - 2 x Spirit + Coastal + QNWM
Route 2 - 2 x Coastal + Oak Bay
Route 3 - Surrey plus Alberni in summer
Route 30 - 2 x refurbished C1's*
Alberni acts a relief vessel for routes 2, 3 & 30, and they expand her passenger space which should have been done when they added the UCD.
The QNWM acts as relief on route 1 & 30. She should be retired by no later than 10 years form now. I am assumming that she is being fitted with MCD platforms thus increasing her under height capacity. As such she may need 35 minutes port time during busy times to unload/load. This should not be a problem for keeping to the schedule given this vessel's speed.
The CC acts as more than a replacement for the Saanich. During refit period she replaces the SoVI out of Swartz Bay. Then when the SoBC goes out the SoVI is transferred to Tsawwassen and the CC continues to cover for the SoVI out of SWB. Outright replacement of a Spirit with a Coastal on route 1 will be viewed by many (maybe most) as a downgrade.
* C1's =the original C's Cowichan & Coquitlam. These need to be modified by having their gallery decks removed so as to increase truck & over hieght capacity. Someone on here said 'why spend so much money on vessels that are now 30 years old'. Stripping out the gallery decks might cost ~$5 million per ship. Remember, they are spending $50+ million right now on a 44 year old ship.
|
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Sept 5, 2008 8:14:06 GMT -8
I would rate their performance as, at best, C-. This is due largely to inane decisions (or indecision) by management. Crewing is the best example of stupidity in management. What use is a new ship if you have no, or insufficent, crew? The fare and surcharge increases are a direct result of Government policies and the Coastal Ferry Act.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Sept 5, 2008 8:51:54 GMT -8
* C1's =the original C's Cowichan & Coquitlam. These need to be modified by having their gallery decks removed so as to increase truck & over hieght capacity. Someone on here said 'why spend so much money on vessels that are now 30 years old'. Stripping out the gallery decks might cost ~$5 million per ship. Remember, they are spending $50+ million right now on a 44 year old ship. This has been discussed before. Here are Blackshadow's comments from a previous thread: "BC Ferries had looked at removing gallery decks but managerment found out the structure for main deck on the outside isn't up to carrying the weight of over height. The cost for these modifations are better spent on new vessels. The approx. cost was report in amount of $25 million+. It would take rest of the vessel life span to pay for the modifations. Which would you like to see money put to modifations or new vessels? (at least one minor vessel)" |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Sept 5, 2008 18:22:04 GMT -8
My understanding is that the Cowichan, Coquitlam & Alberni are (or at least were) identical from the main car deck down. So if the Alberni can work as overheight across the entire main car deck, so too can her 'sisters'. Furthermore I'm having trouble believing that it would cost $25 million apiece to remove the gallery decks. Last point, if you can spend $50+ million on a 44 year old boat what would be the problem with spending $25 million on a boat that is only 32 years old? These C1's should be good for another 10 to 15 years of service, and are well suited to route 30.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Sept 5, 2008 18:54:01 GMT -8
I actually don't know much about it. I was just regurgitating what has been discussed on the subject in previous threads. One other point I read in that previous thread, is that the twin stairwell configuration of the Alberni (which, of course, is a design common to all of the C's) presents more of an obstacle for large rigs using the outer lanes, and possibly means you can't squeeze as many in. Once again, it's not a point that I have a lot of knowledge on. Certainly, in comparison to one of the new Super C's, the original C's come up short in both capacity and ease of use. I'm sure it's easier for big rigs to navigate around the one central chase on the CI vs. the twin chases on Alberni. Would it be practical, and would it be money well spent, to remove the gallery decks on the C1's, and place them on Route 30? I don't really know. I guess my question would be, what plans does BCF have for that route? Are they really trying to get more non-commercial travellers to go that way? If so, maybe a Coastal on that run is a good thing. I will say this, though: they really DO need a 4th Super-C.
|
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Sept 5, 2008 20:16:40 GMT -8
well route 30 and the alberni carry enough Over height traffic that filling the twin tunnels aren't a big issue. we can also fit a few semis down either tunnel when we need to. It makes sence to have one of the C1's running full time on route 30. Right now, we will have both the Coquitlam and Cowichan sitting idle most of the low season, so they need to find something to do with them. Have 2 large vessels just sitting idle along with the NW is kinda silly. We know the NW will fill in for the SOBC and Route 30 the most often, so that means, we would only see the Cowichan or Coquitlam running during refits for the Oak Bay, Surrey or CR and that means probably the Cowichan will be used mostly and the Coquitlam will sit idle alot.
|
|
.
