|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Aug 3, 2007 17:09:11 GMT -8
Not to start another huge debate, but can anyone confirm the current plan for placement of the Inspiration once she arrives in BC waters..? A rumor currently circulating around the terminals is that she could be placed on Route 30 once she gets here (for testing?), even though there has been no mention of this anywhere... Markus, have you heard anything about this..?  Apparently from a reliable source, this rumor is true. The Coastal Inspiration will be running on Route 30. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 3, 2007 18:47:34 GMT -8
Which is the one with the buffet ? (I keep getting Inspiration & Celebration mixed up).
I wonder if the buffet will be used, since she won't be on Route-1....
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Aug 3, 2007 18:59:50 GMT -8
Which is the one with the buffet ? (I keep getting Inspiration & Celebration mixed up). I wonder if the buffet will be used, since she won't be on Route-1.... The Celebration was the one to have the buffet - supposedly... By the sounds of it though, I would assume it will probably be omitted from her current construction plan... |
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Aug 3, 2007 19:47:20 GMT -8
is the Inspiration going to have Showers? if so, no ferry geeks allowed.
|
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Aug 3, 2007 20:21:56 GMT -8
I don't believe it. They don't need the New West's 20 knot speed on route 1, so it would be a waste of fuel. She has much bigger engines than the V-Class. The only thing I see going for it is an increase in capacity on Route 30, which is only really needed during the summer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Aug 3, 2007 21:30:45 GMT -8
Now I am really starting to become confused. Although I have been advocating for increased capacity on Rte-30, I would think that putting the Coastal on this would be a waste of boat.
In terms of re-deployment, I would have thought that leaving the two existing Rte-30 vessels in place and supplementing the service with a V on a modified schedule or a C would be the ideal situation.
In terms of "newest vessels", the logical thing would be sending a C to Rte-1 (from Rte-2) and redeploying a V to Rte-30 on the modified schedule.
Duke has it's limitations with the single berth though, and I am not quite sure how a 3-boat schedule would work over there.
However, seeing as the arrival of the boat will put it into a non-peak time, and the "plan" as it sits at this current moment calls for re-deploying the New West .... hmmm.
Someone appears to be burning midnight oil playing with ideas. I wonder if they are reading what we are posting here ... LOL.
|
|
Neil
Voyager 
Posts: 7,192
|
Post by Neil on Aug 3, 2007 21:55:19 GMT -8
Umm, Hardy...... "Waste of boat"? Ouch. Are you saying that us route 30 users are second class citizens, and we don't deserve a nice ferry? Do you think we all smell like truckers, or something? (Oops, sorry, I forgot they've got showers for the truckers now).  Route 30 can be pretty darn busy with all sorts of non-trucker type people- BC Ferries' own figures show that commercial passengers make up less than 20% of the count. I'd love to ride something spiffy and new rather than the dumpy old 'New West or the cramped Alberni. I'm sure they want to 'grow' the route; a passenger friendly vessel wouldn't hurt. |
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Aug 3, 2007 21:57:21 GMT -8
Having a Coastal class vessel is a plus since it would alleviate waits on busy sailing days. It is a great alternative to having to wait in line at Departure Bay. Though there has been 2 sailing waits on the route lately. The capacity it could carry would make truck drivers very happy along with car passengers. It could make a big difference in the peak season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Aug 3, 2007 23:08:50 GMT -8
Uhh...Hasn't BC Ferries stated themselves that the Coastal's locations will be two on route 2(CR & CI) and one on route 1 (CC)
This Is My Opinion...
Route 1
SoBC (Obvious Reasons)
SoVI (Obvious Reasons)
CC (Matches the S Class with the Buffet)
QoCow (So there's a 4th Vessel)
Route 2
CR (Obvious Reasons)
CI (Obvious Reasons)
QoOB (Obvious Reasons)
QoCoq (Possible 4th Vessel)
Route 30
QoAl (Obvious Reasons)
QoNW (If they're Upgrading her in September Why the Heck would they need the CI??)
And that Leaves Route 3 With the Little Queen of Surrey...And Maybe a V Class or something maybe the Coquitlam can do some type of Triangle Route
|
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Aug 4, 2007 2:08:16 GMT -8
It could make a big difference in the peak season. Thanks for that enlightening yet understated reality about Route 30, ferrymaniac101. We must step-back and realize Route 30's potential again, I think. Heck, it got rid of the need to develop Iona Island (Richmond) as a terminal atleast, eh? (as has been proposed in the past) |
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Aug 4, 2007 2:27:47 GMT -8
Wow, this is pretty confusing...My connection has said something different. He has told me that once the Renaissance arrives, the Cowichan will go in and have it's Gallery Decks removed and then placed on to either Route 30 or Route 1. I've also heard from him that the New West is supposed to be moved to Route 1 as well. I can't wait to see how it will all play out in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by stvfishy on Aug 4, 2007 11:01:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by stvfishy on Aug 4, 2007 11:08:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 4, 2007 11:51:44 GMT -8
I think that a lot of us are saying that nothing is "written in stone" re BC Ferries. Who knows where the vessels will actually be placed, and whether that placement will be temporary, a few years, or longer...... However, a lot of us on this forum-board enjoy discussing any new possibility for vessel placement. But I think that most of us realise that none of us really know what will actually happen. But it is fun for most of us to talk through the possibilities and what that might mean to us. =-----------------------------= Welcome Mr/Ms Stvfishy. Are you new here, or is it just that your username is new? If you'd like to introduce yourself, you'll find a thread on the "rules and recommendations" page for that.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Pauser on Aug 4, 2007 12:05:26 GMT -8
- Why are you all surprised at this? You didn't REALLY think a Coastal was going to route 1, did you? Yes, yes - I know, on the Website it says that was the plan, but look at the history. 1976 - Queen of Cowichan built for rt.1 - ended up on rt 2. 1981 - Queen of Oak Bay built for rt.1 - ended up on rt 2. You see a pattern here? |
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Aug 4, 2007 13:58:52 GMT -8
- Why are you all surprised at this? You didn't REALLY think a Coastal was going to route 1, did you? Yes, yes - I know, on the Website it says that was the plan, but look at the history. 1976 - Queen of Cowichan built for rt.1 - ended up on rt 2. 1981 - Queen of Oak Bay built for rt.1 - ended up on rt 2. You see a pattern here? Because of the maneuverability through Active Pass issue, but this forum told me that FSG compensated for this. |
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Aug 4, 2007 15:18:30 GMT -8
That is what we heard from FSG too. Unless something has gone up? My suspicion is that they are using the smaller vessels on Route 1 since Route 2 has been carrying more traffic. Also, since it would be pointless to have it be a relief vessel during summer, why not make it a full time position on route 30 where it will be in use until refit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Aug 4, 2007 15:54:37 GMT -8
So was it paid-for to be compensated-for or not, Active Pass? Is this a possibility down the road that was included in plans for versatility?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Aug 4, 2007 16:14:50 GMT -8
Umm, Hardy...... "Waste of boat"? Ouch. Are you saying that us route 30 users are second class citizens, and we don't deserve a nice ferry? Do you think we all smell like truckers, or something? (Oops, sorry, I forgot they've got showers for the truckers now). Route 30 can be pretty darn busy with all sorts of non-trucker type people- BC Ferries' own figures show that commercial passengers make up less than 20% of the count. I'd love to ride something spiffy and new rather than the dumpy old 'New West or the cramped Alberni. I'm sure they want to 'grow' the route; a passenger friendly vessel wouldn't hurt. I don't dispute this fact -- I ride that route more than any other route, and I would take it as a regular (non-commercial) rider too, or even as a pax. BCFS own treatment of this route though, shows us that it is considered a "second class route". Which route is most usually disrupted by tossing an older V-class onto it when one of the regular vessels is out of service? When they had the Coquitlam subbing for the New West, and they needed a "newer" boat back on Rte-2, who got the Vancouver, on a modified schedule? I think that by f---ing around with the schedule, it is pretty clear that this route is the "Red-headed Step-child" of the fleet AT PRESENT. I agree that it should be grown and have decent boats on it -- it is the longest trip on the south coast. However, in terms of pax and vehicle volume, Rte-1 and Rte-2 are the undisputed champs as far as that goes. The original plan to deploy two of the new Coastals to Rte-2 (where they were designed for!!) and the third one to Rte-1 makes perfect sense to me. Now we are already playing "Shuffle the boats" before we even take delivery of the first one! This leads me back to a question I posed way earlier --- "Can we increase our order of Coastals and get a 4th or a 5th?" There is OBVIOUSLY a need for additional replacement vessels, if this is the case. Again, to restate another one of my points, if we manage to stick with one 'type' of boat, then at least we have crew familiarity, spare parts and inter-operability. To recap, I am all for growing Rte-30 -- it doesn't seem at all like this is in the cards though AT THE PRESENT. The constant shuffling of boats and disruption on this route, coupled with the fact that there has been no willingness to add a boat to this route in the past, and not run extra sailings (unless they are really backed up). |
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Aug 4, 2007 16:24:26 GMT -8
Wow, this is pretty confusing...My connection has said something different. He has told me that once the Renaissance arrives, the Cowichan will go in and have it's Gallery Decks removed and then placed on to either Route 30 or Route 1. I've also heard from him that the New West is supposed to be moved to Route 1 as well. I can't wait to see how it will all play out in the end. I was also "operating" under this information from both this forum, and other sources that I have some contact with (Cow modification and her to Rte-30). I fail to see the logic in taking the New West off Route-30 and putting her on Rte-1. She's got the bigger engines, and the modified configuration already to deal with Rte-30, so WHY THE HECK MOVE HER to Rte-1??? So assuming that we leave the Alberni and New West on 30, and add in the modified Cow as a 3rd boat, doesn't that fulfill the requirements? I am just starting to get so confused now ... as was stated, the original plans were 2 on Rte-2 and 1 on Rte-1. Minimal shuffling of the other boats required under the original plan -- so who is sitting around a conference table mucking things about now? |
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Aug 4, 2007 16:33:02 GMT -8
Because of the maneuverability through Active Pass issue, but this forum told me that FSG compensated for this. The "issue" may or may not be a real issue, but in light of the grounding of a C-class vessel, the determination was made to not use them whenever possible thru AP. Insofar as the technical details of it, they have been previously discussed at length on this forum. Just because the Coastal class are called Super-C's does not mean that they resemble them in any way, shape or form especially in terms of engineering. Just the addition of Variable Pitch props in the driveline makes the Coastal class much more maneuverable than the C-class. A completely different rudder system arrangement, and different driveline components AND the fact that the Coastals were designed from the GROUND UP to be operable on ANY of the existing routes. We have also heard from inside sources as well as BCFS themselves that maneuverability thru AP should not be an issue at all on the Coastals. I think that we can safely take this at face value. |
|
|
|
Post by Ferry Rider 42 on Aug 4, 2007 17:56:00 GMT -8
Total speculation, but what about this. Three Coastal class vessels really does seem like a weird number to have. Ferries should push that third boat around to see how it handles on all potential runs.
I’m betting that more orders are on the way. But I see a bit of a pause while these new boats are tested out in case some system or layout doesn’t work out as planned. In short, within two years of the last boat arriving I see another two boats being ordered. Of course, this is total speculation; no source. So yeah, I hope that boat spends some time on Route 30, and similarly some on Route 1. They should even try out three coastal between Horseshoe and Departure Bay for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackshadow on Aug 5, 2007 8:55:16 GMT -8
Mr. Taylor of BC Ferries is telling employees the first vessel is still going to Departure Bay (old news) but here is a change second is now going to Duke Point (he stated as of July 31st). The reason because of the large main deck the super can hold more trucks. BCFS managers are worried that being both new vessel to route 2 would mean more truckers will choose route 2 instead of route 30.
New west is getting route 1 make over so it can carry more trucks on this route. COW(1) and Ablrine(30) both out of Tswassen.
Nothing is in stone and change again next month.
|
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Aug 5, 2007 9:10:18 GMT -8
I must make a point that route 1 does not need more truck capacity. Usually, only 4 lanes on the Spirits if not less than that are full of trucks, therefore, I do not see a point in doing that. I see more of a point in getting more car capacity. Secondly, if they do not want extra trucks on Route 2, they might as well add platforms to the Super Cs to carry more cars since the plans have that expansion option open.
|
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Aug 5, 2007 9:11:47 GMT -8
Mr. Taylor of BC Ferries is telling employees the first vessel is still going to Departure Bay (old news) but here is a change second is now going to Duke Point (he stated as of July 31st). The reason because of the large main deck the super can hold more trucks. BCFS managers are worried that being both new vessel to route 2 would mean more truckers will choose route 2 instead of route 30. If a Coastal class vessel ends up on route 30, do you think it will fit into the single berth at Duke Point? |
|
