|
Post by Hardy on Jul 16, 2007 17:59:58 GMT -8
The Queen of New Westminster is specially built for the Duke Point run, so she is due to undergo a major refit and will continue to service Duke Point. The C class will not be regulars on route 30. Revisiting this topic brings up schedule expansion again. If I had the time to sit back and analyze everything and plot week over week capacity/wait time (or look at BCFS stats for the same), I'd be interested to see how some schedule expansion running some kind of a triangle run would work for adding sailings Swartz-Tsawassen-Duke. Sort of like how the QoEsq does her usual summertime triangle. Unfortunately, from my armchair position, I think that the capacity is all the wrong direction at the wrong time for a triangle to work properly. You'd probably need two spare vessels running opposites to move the "bursts" of traffic in a timely fashion to make scheduled sailings worthwhile. Of course, if the goal is to reduce the MD sailings, then increasing the schedule is the ultimate answer. Will the capacity increase of the new vessels and the repositioning fix the volume issues that we have now? I don't know, but I don't think so. I still think that we will need more hulls plying the waters to move everyone efficiently. We can play this back into another discussion of "can we fill all these sailings?" and argue against MD sailings versus scheduled and advertised ones. Get out the carrot and the stick too and "entice" people to get on the underutilized ones. Stats and marketting and operations need to schedule a few late night pizza-meetings and get this worked out!
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Jul 16, 2007 18:08:07 GMT -8
At the least they need to have at least one spare ship for the summer season. Just look at what having the Oak Bay out for a week has done.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 16, 2007 20:55:43 GMT -8
Welcome Mr. Bay: Here are some links to old threads here, that discussed some of your questions: ------------------------- Here's a thread about the 3rd Coastal-Class vessel, the C-Celebrex. There's some discussion on how it will do in Active Pass, and on the Route-1. ferriesbc.proboards20.com/index.cgi?board=newferries&action=display&thread=1175825467------------------------- Here's a huge thread on new-vessel placement. This thread spans 2 years of discussion...lots of ideas, some practical and some not.... ferriesbc.proboards20.com/index.cgi?board=newferries&action=display&thread=1141870883--------------------------- And, to give you a sense of deja-vu again, here's a very similar thread, with similar discussion by similar participants. ferriesbc.proboards20.com/index.cgi?board=generaltalk&action=display&thread=1170635409------------------------- Enjoy your readin' ------------------------------- PS: Enjoy your stay on this forum. Say hello to your siblings Horseshoe, Sturdies, Otter, Mill and the others for me.... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Jul 17, 2007 1:50:32 GMT -8
At the least they need to have at least one spare ship for the summer season. Just look at what having the Oak Bay out for a week has done. If I were the one having actual input, I wouldn't surplus either of the 2 V's ... I'd hang onto them both. This type of critical incident shows it up for what it is. As long as the "storage"/mothball/lay up costs are not that high. The other thing that would work out then is more "commercial charter" trips -- ie the paving projects and other high traffic demand situations (such as the ones that they put out SN's about). This could even work to open up a whole new marketting angle for BCFS. Then again, there are other possibilties for re-deployment or further uses of "mission ready" boats ... some of them are just a little more outside the box than others.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jul 17, 2007 20:29:26 GMT -8
Absolutely - at least one of the old 'majors' should be kept around for summer 'contingency'.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Jul 17, 2007 22:13:04 GMT -8
Absolutely - at least one of the old 'majors' should be kept around for summer 'contingency'. Wholehearted support for that; I'd even think about route expansion as well as alternate revenue opportunities also. I've posted elsewhere on this. I know that BCFS is still a ways off from ultimate decision on disposition of the older boats (especially since the newbuilds are not hear yet), and that nothing that is "planned" is set in stone until ships are transferred on paper ... there is a lot of time for things to change. Who knows -- there might be "Squamish (Porteau Cove) to Nanaimo (Duke Point)" thrice daily service scheduled by that time .....
|
|
Mirrlees
Voyager
Bathtub!
Deck Engineer- Queen of Richmond
Posts: 1,013
|
Post by Mirrlees on Jul 17, 2007 22:18:04 GMT -8
That is a good idea about keeping around both V's, Hardy. Although, one has to keep in mind that TC won't let BCFS operate them past 2009 due to SOLAS non-compliance.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Jul 17, 2007 22:25:59 GMT -8
That is a good idea about keeping around both V's, Hardy. Although, one has to keep in mind that TC won't let BCFS operate them past 2009 due to SOLAS non-compliance. This has been brought up before, and while I am all for compliance, as we all know, there are *always* ways to "comply" <wink> or be granted exemptions/grandfathering. I believe (from my reading on this forum) that they are currently grandfathered with the caveat that they are to be phased out by fleet renewal in time for the 09 deadline. That being said, extensions/exemptions etc have been applied for and granted in the past, and if there is a potential revenue stream, it may be worth pounding some more money into the old gals to allow them a few more years of service. Depending on how it all comes down the pipeline that is. The whole "Gaze into the Crystal Ball" thing is a crap shoot, and things DO change, often at a rapid pace. Phasing out obsolete boats and upgrading safety standards and becoming SOLAS compliant are all great and lofty goals. Real world and planned often diverge. I will take the wait and see approach!
|
|
Mirrlees
Voyager
Bathtub!
Deck Engineer- Queen of Richmond
Posts: 1,013
|
Post by Mirrlees on Jul 17, 2007 23:16:36 GMT -8
It's still a lot of money to sink into ships that are 45+ years old for mabee 1-2 more years of service. There's my two-bits, anyways.
|
|
|
Post by nolonger on Jul 18, 2007 6:00:30 GMT -8
That is a good idea about keeping around both V's, Hardy. Although, one has to keep in mind that TC won't let BCFS operate them past 2009 due to SOLAS non-compliance. This has been brought up before, and while I am all for compliance, as we all know, there are *always* ways to "comply" <wink> or be granted exemptions/grandfathering. I believe (from my reading on this forum) that they are currently grandfathered with the caveat that they are to be phased out by fleet renewal in time for the 09 deadline. That being said, extensions/exemptions etc have been applied for and granted in the past, and if there is a potential revenue stream, it may be worth pounding some more money into the old gals to allow them a few more years of service. Depending on how it all comes down the pipeline that is. The whole "Gaze into the Crystal Ball" thing is a sCrap shoot, and things DO change, often at a rapid pace. Phasing out obsolete boats and upgrading safety standards and becoming SOLAS compliant are all great and lofty goals. Real world and planned often diverge. I will take the wait and see approach! HHmm, True. The Queen of the North was granted all sorts of extensions, provisions and grandfathering.
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Jul 18, 2007 13:10:09 GMT -8
HHmm, True. The Queen of the North was granted all sorts of extensions, provisions and grandfathering. I distinctly remember reading in about '04 that all three northern vessels were at that time mandated to be off northern routes by '09
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Jul 18, 2007 13:19:25 GMT -8
HHmm, True. The Queen of the North was granted all sorts of extensions, provisions and grandfathering. I see your comparison -- however, it doesn't really matter how well a ship is built, when you drive her onto the rocks at full steam. Would the QotN still have been a viable ship in 2010, had she not made her unscheduled stop at Gil Island? Probably. Would she have been safe enough and been certified? More than likely. Thing is, we'll never really know, will we?
|
|
|
Post by nolonger on Jul 18, 2007 18:53:29 GMT -8
HHmm, True. The Queen of the North was granted all sorts of extensions, provisions and grandfathering. I see your comparison -- however, it doesn't really matter how well a ship is built, when you drive her onto the rocks at full steam. Would the QotN still have been a viable ship in 2010, had she not made her unscheduled stop at Gil Island? Probably. Would she have been safe enough and been certified? More than likely. Thing is, we'll never really know, will we? No we won't. My point however is that older ships need far more upkeep with regards to safety and compliance with newer safety regs. Is grandfathering to avoid compliance in any ones best interest? I think Transport Canada have dodged one bullet and aren't about to stick their necks out again.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Jul 18, 2007 20:28:34 GMT -8
It's shouldn't be about dodging bullets.
I think perhaps the point that I subconsciously had in my head but failed to put in electrons fully is the common sense aspect of things.
I am not saying that any individual or company should be able to pick and choose which rules to adhere to, and which ones to ignore, but some regulations are more important than others. I don't really want to get into a nit-picking argument about the finer points of SOLAS.
I do not think that there is a SOLAS reg that makes ANY boat "Gil Island" proof; you ram a chunk of land full blast with a triple hull boat with 40,000 compartments and you are still going to have significant damage. Did the QotN sink with 2 souls on board? Did they disappear? Are they on the ship still? Did they get separated during the evac? No-one knows yet, and I doubt we will.
Are the V-class viable to continue service? They are getting older and will become even more "drydock queens" than they are now - that is a given fact, and no-one disputes that. Older ships need more maintenance and inspection. Is it worth any potential investment to keep them running for a few more years? Tough to say; if we could just build our way out of the boat shortage we have, great. But I doubt that we will see the fleet modernized quickly enough to keep up with demand IN THE SHORT TERM. Could running some V's a little longer aid in this transition? More than likely. Would they be allowed to run as non-SOLAS compliant? No, not without something earthshaking, or at least some expensive mods/retrofits. Is it feasible or viable? The forum seems to say no, or at least not likely .... but who really knows what will happen.
I don't mean to flog a dead horse. We've seen "drop dead dates" pushed before, and we have seen grandfathering occur in all kinds of cases. Will it, or won't it? Dunno -- stay tuned!
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Jul 18, 2007 20:35:37 GMT -8
Are the V-class viable to continue service? They are getting older and will become even more "drydock queens" than they are now - that is a given fact, and no-one disputes that. Older ships need more maintenance and inspection. Is it worth any potential investment to keep them running for a few more years? Tough to say; if we could just build our way out of the boat shortage we have, great. But I doubt that we will see the fleet modernized quickly enough to keep up with demand IN THE SHORT TERM. Could running some V's a little longer aid in this transition? More than likely. Would they be allowed to run as non-SOLAS compliant? No, not without something earthshaking, or at least some expensive mods/retrofits. Is it feasible or viable? The forum seems to say no, or at least not likely .... but who really knows what will happen. A couple of questions that come to mind: 1) replacing the three Vs with three larger Coastals will provide a bit of extra capacity, will it not? Would perhaps installing the platform decks in the Coastals provide more passenger vehicle capacity rather than adding new ships? 2) Sorry if this has been brought up elsewhere... what are the top upgrades that would have to take place aboard the V-class ships to keep them running longer? One other question... if the V class ships aren't retained, where will they go? Sold and then possibly over to the ship-breakers like the Vic/Ocoa?
|
|
|
Post by nolonger on Jul 18, 2007 20:44:19 GMT -8
The Esquimalt will be sold. As to what happens to her? Depends who buys her I guess. I think she'll be worth more as scrap than BCF will get for her. There are miles of copper wire onboard, tons of steel and some aluminum. Oh ya and a few thousand tons of asbestos. In discussions at work, ( pre - retirement) I heard numbers like $100,000 will buy her.
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Jul 18, 2007 20:49:37 GMT -8
The Esquimalt will be sold. As to what happens to her? Depends who buys her I guess. I think she'll be worth more as scrap than BCF will get for her. There are miles of copper wire onboard, tons of steel and some aluminum. Oh ya and a few thousand tons of asbestos. In discussions at work, ( pre - retirement) I heard numbers like $100,000 will buy her. Curious: are the Vancouver and Saanich in that much better shape?
|
|
|
Post by nolonger on Jul 18, 2007 21:00:01 GMT -8
The Saanich is. She had a major refit a few years ago. Unsure how the Vancouver is. But she's had her share of breakdowns lately. Problem with the Esquimalt is that she has become a relief vessel for the past few yew years and as such gets neglected maintenance wise. Add to that , her impending demise and the refusal of management to spend any money at all on her for the last year or so.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jul 18, 2007 21:57:12 GMT -8
That is a good idea about keeping around both V's, Hardy. Although, one has to keep in mind that TC won't let BCFS operate them past 2009 due to SOLAS non-compliance. BCFS's has a number of boats of about the same vintage . All the V's/B's and PowRiv class were built over a period of about 5 years between 1961 and 66. So why are the 3 V's no longer compliant but the B's and PowRiv class are? I thought the only real push from Transport Canada was to eliminate the remaining North Coast vessels with a single compartment stability design by 2009. Does anyone have the straight facts on this subject? Keeping at least 1 V (the Saanich) would appear to be the right thing to for peak season contingency purposes, and perhaps as an extra refit season relief boat.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jul 19, 2007 23:22:56 GMT -8
Seems most are in agreement that we should keep at least one V-class ship. I totally agree. We'll have 3 new ships, so hopefully that will cut down on the mechanical problems for a while. But we still have the C's and Spirits which occasionally break down - usually in the summer or just before a long weekend! Last week we could have used 2 extra major vessels.
The actual capacity of the Super C's is probably not 100% known yet. However on their website, BC Ferries lists it as being 370 cars and 1,650 passengers which is marginally larger than the Queen of Sannich (10 cars more, 50 passengers less) and the Queen of Oak Bay (8 cars more, 150 passengers more). So I don't see any real capacity increase by replacing the V-class ships with the Super C's. Even if the numbers are a bit out and it's 25-30 cars more... hey, it's the same as putting the Tachek on the route;)
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jul 20, 2007 6:57:47 GMT -8
Without the platforms, the car deck space decreases, also, I don't think the V's have as much room to spread out as the Super C's do. The Super C's according to FSG's document on them when it came to the total of seats had 1800. I think rating them at 1650 will make them feel a bit more relaxed instead of all crowded
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Jul 20, 2007 7:35:09 GMT -8
I think the V's don't even take 300 cars without their platforms.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jul 20, 2007 8:06:32 GMT -8
Depends on who you ask...
Listed on John's ferry profiles page...
Queen of Esquimalt 286 vehicles
Queen of Vancouver 338 vehicles
Queen of Saanich 376 vehicles
Queen of Victoria, also matched the Esquimalt with 286.
BCFerries ship listing lists the Queen of Saanich at 360
Queen of Esquimalt is 376
and Queen of Vancouver is 338
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jul 20, 2007 8:48:45 GMT -8
BCFerries also lists the Queen of New West as having a 294 vehicle capacity, and this is without platform decks.
John's site lists her as having a capacity of 286.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Jul 20, 2007 18:09:58 GMT -8
Seems most are in agreement that we should keep at least one V-class ship. I totally agree. We'll have 3 new ships, so hopefully that will cut down on the mechanical problems for a while. But we still have the C's and Spirits which occasionally break down - usually in the summer or just before a long weekend! Last week we could have used 2 extra major vessels. The actual capacity of the Super C's is probably not 100% known yet. However on their website, BC Ferries lists it as being 370 cars and 1,650 passengers which is marginally larger than the Queen of Sannich (10 cars more, 50 passengers less) and the Queen of Oak Bay (8 cars more, 150 passengers more). So I don't see any real capacity increase by replacing the V-class ships with the Super C's. Even if the numbers are a bit out and it's 25-30 cars more... hey, it's the same as putting the Tachek on the route;) Thanks for pointing out, what IMHO, some others were missing. The Coastal-Class are not the end-all panacea to the situation. They are, without a doubt, a big huge step in the right direction. Newer boats should mean less breakdowns, but this is not a given either. It SHOULD follow, but then again, Murphy and his laws seem to pop up whenever we think we are getting too smart. 3 new boats, and retire 3. Where's the gain? There still seems to be a shortage of spares when you do the simple mathematics. This is why I have been stating that BCFS should examine keeping at least 2 of the older V's around, if not mothballing another for good measure. The vessels that are in the mix for the 10 year plan don't really leave much room at all for service expansion without the need to procure new vessels again. Coming from a trucking background, everyone loves driving a fancy new shiny truck. However, some of the best revenue generators are older, well maintained reliable trucks. And sure as shooting, when one of the shiny new ones goes down, some old dog is dragged out to fill in. I don't want to offend anyone's sensibilities or anything, but contingency planning and expansion should be front and centre. The old business axiom is now more true than ever: "if you are not growing/expanding, then you are shrinking/falling behind". There is no such thing in business as Status Quo. If you stand still, you are falling behind. This province in particular, even when compared to most others, lags far far far FAR behind others in foresight and planning. Look at our outdated and overcapacity highways. Take the #1 - Port Mann was over capacity years ago and planning was in it's infancy. We should have had a bigger/twinned bridge by '04, instead, that is when the planning began in earnest, and now our backs are against the wall. The twinned bridge, when opened, will be at capacity within 18 months anyways! As soon as they finish it, they'd better start planning their next expansion right away too! Darn it if we don't learn from any of the lessons of our past.
|
|