Esquimalt, Vancouver, Saanich, What to do?

[Ian]

Sould BCF retire them, Should they refit them, Should they be sold or scraped. What will happen to these three v-class. I think thtey should be sold the year after the super c-class arrive because if the super c-class suck then we still have some back-up ships.

[Balfour]

You're right. keep them for a bit. and keep the Saanich around longer, because of her refit in 96.

[Dane]

Saanich has the wekest hull. She'll be the first to go.

The ferries should be kept for a very brief perid after the arrival of the Super Cs, but then disposed of.

They are not worth investing money into; too old and steal won't last another 15-20 years (safely)

[Curtis]

They keep the Vs too long to have a refit. they should have done it in the 80s when they were being lifted

[Guest]

Vancouver should go first, then followed by Esquimalt, and lastly Saanich.

[Ferryman]

Why/How does Saanich have a weak hull?

[Retrovision]

And why did they choose to do the only mid-life refit of any V-Class to the one with the weakest hull?

[cascade]

Here's an idea to all the School Posters.
Has anyone worked out what it cost to build these 3 vessels, then add in there mid-life refit, plus all the general maint'ce they have had done, then add in all the Crew training over the same period - years. Fuel cost ect. Now bring those figures up to current dollar value from past years. (Adjust them for the last 20 years)

Now add in all the Rev / income - sales - she should have made over the years - again adjusting the dollar levels to current years.

I bet the bottom figure is a massive loss?

[NMcKay]

actually. i had to do that with the new SUper C's and anyone remember the number? well i do, and i added in Repairs, maintinence, paint, and crews, and the number is 100,000$ in the + (positive) catagory, thats over the entire life of the ship, with exsisting crew pay, and exsisting Ticket prices.

[cascade]

If Saanich has a weak hull - then how can she pass her SS / DD and IMO class?

If it is a design fault - then all the vessels in her class have the same problem? Don't they?

Do they all come from the yard ? same steel ?

[NMcKay]

check out Transport canada for all those questions.

[cascade]

I think you missed the point. If she has a weak hull - then it is down to either her frames are too far apart - or she was built with the wrong type of plate - steel.

Maybe even the gauage of steel is the wrong type - thickness - or as we have seen in a number of Great Lake vessels - even the steel from a certain plant is made / man'f incorrectly.

So the info that is on the Transport site with regards to her - only holds the very basic outline details.
It does not mention anything about where the steel plates came from - nor does it mention what is the spacing on the frames for her hull - plus taken into account the thickness of the steel plates and there wear fractions.

You have to add in the mid-life refit - add in extra weight she maybe carrying - plus newer types of materail used in up grades ect.. - a whole host of possible problems.

But if someone is making the comment about her weak Hull - then there must be talk out there - which is important to hear about and the possible reasons why.

[Dane]

I didn't say it has a week hull, I said it has the weekest. It's based on the density of the metal. For a very easy to ID example, look at the Steel Electric s in Washington. One got so bad they just pulled her from sevrice a few years ago, and Klickitat (a sister ship) is pretty d**n close, too.

They did a "mid-life" on the Saanich because all 4 ships were to actually recieve it. The funding was then pulled. Just like the Cs you start with the vessel in worst mechanical shape (just because the Cowichan had a pretty passenger deck didn't make her a superior vessel) and then work your way up the ladder.

[Alex]

Dane said:

I didn't say it has a week hull, I said it has the weekest. It's based on the density of the metal.

Don't forget about fatigue.

[Dane]

yeah, fatique isa large reason behind a reduced density, and just plain old corrosion.

[nolonger]

Old ships, all of them. I believe they'll be kept running as is for as long as possible then scrapped. Don't see much use pouring good money after bad,.....but then, we are talking about BC Ferries!

[cascade]

If my knowledge of shipping is correct -then a weak hull is caused by a number of things.

1. Design fault - Frames to far a part and can not take the load been put on them. Possible up grade was badly design hence the addational pressure on the hull & Frames. Mixing of newer and older material.

2. Wrong type of Steel - plates used and wrong way they were fix to the frames. The "wear " factor on the steel - this brings on part of the fatique quesation.

3. Fatique of the Hull is brought on by the plates wearing higher than expected - due to the condation she is working in - and lack of proper maint'ce to her hull or top side.

[Dane]

cascade said:

If my knowledge of shipping is correct -then a weak hull is caused by a number of things.

1. Design fault - Frames to far a part and can not take the load been put on them. Possible up grade was badly design hence the addational pressure on the hull & Frames. Mixing of newer and older material.

2. Wrong type of Steel - plates used and wrong way they were fix to the frames. The "wear " factor on the steel - this brings on part of the fatique quesation.

3. Fatique of the Hull is brought on by the plates wearing higher than expected - due to the condation she is working in - and lack of proper maint'ce to her hull or top side.

again, they aren't week hulls by design.... they're old.

[cascade]

So if this three are old - then why is the MV Brentwood - which is much older - doesn't have the same problem of old / weak hull's.

You know - a lot of older ships - used much better steel and the building style - method of building them back in the 50's was much better than in the 60's & 70's. So a lot of older vessels are actually in better shape - hull wise than stuff - only 30 years old.

I still don't buy it - that "because they are old" - I think it is down to design - for what they where - but due to BCFS - wanting to do mid-life upgrades and stretching - that they screwed up the the basic - simple design. They over loaded the hull's. The addational pressure is part of the problem - maybe even lack of correct maint'ce - cost cuttings - who really knows?

[Alex]

cascade said:

So if this three are old - then why is the MV Brentwood - which is much older - doesn't have the same problem of old / weak hull's.

You know - a lot of older ships - used much better steel and the building style - method of building them back in the 50's was much better than in the 60's & 70's. So a lot of older vessels are actually in better shape - hull wise than stuff - only 30 years old.

I still don't buy it - that "because they are old" - I think it is down to design - for what they where - but due to BCFS - wanting to do mid-life upgrades and stretching - that they screwed up the the basic - simple design. They over loaded the hull's. The addational pressure is part of the problem - maybe even lack of correct maint'ce - cost cuttings - who really knows?

You might be somewhat right, but certain materials can only take so many cycles of loading at certain stresses before they eventually fail. I think Steel has a lower limit, where if you keep the stress below a certain limit, it will never fail by fatigue. However, that might not always be possible in heavy seas. I'm not sure how relevant the specific design is on this, though. You could be right about better design causing a less stress, in which case it probably was their fault.

Interestingly enough, Aluminum has no lower limit for fatigue failure. Given any amount of cyclical stress, it will eventually fail.

[Dane]

cascade, I don't even understand what you are debating? Old ships that have run for a long time have generally had extensive work done to their hulls, something the V class have not have done.

The Mill Bay is tiny, vibration, loading, etc are all considerably lower on that vessel.

""I still don't buy it - that "because they are old" - I think it is down to design ""

don't you work for a ferry company?

Ships get old, these ships until 1995ish were used 365 days a year nons-stop (except night time). That's 30-33 years of continued service. You're going to find lots of examples of small ships that have lasted considerably longer. Let's look to WSF. Their steel electrics had tons and tons and tons of work done. In fact, I believe they're on their 3rd hull revision/rebuild. That would, in fact, meen that lasted a shorter service life, per hull, than any of the BCF V Class Vessels. Those steel electrics are signifigant because they're the oldest operating car ferries in the world.

"You know - a lot of older ships - used much better steel and the building style - method of building them back in the 50's was much better than in the 60's & 70's. So a lot of older vessels are actually in better shape - hull wise than stuff - only 30 years old."

The late 70s and also early 80s brought questiobale steel. Lot's of people think the Cs have cheap steel, but they've done just fine. Thus far (admittadly the older Cs are starting to show their age mechanically)

"They over loaded the hull's"

Most have been stretched for 30 years, and lifted for 24. If they truly stretched the hull capacity above and beyond what it could take we'd already know.

All the ships prove difficult to recieve parts for, and all are maintenance night mares in some respects because there is very little left 'out there' thats mechanically similar. (Before some one posts about the Coho, it's one ship that apparently buys parts from BCF)

Lot's of people on this board have romantic ideas about ships lasting a long time, but the maintence bill they accrue after about 30 years is ridiculously high.

[cascade]

Dane,

I am sure you know what and wear the "boot top" section is on a hull. This is the part which becomes the weakest. Added to the problem is the way - actually fabrication - of the steel. Back in the late 60's and 70's a lot of plants were trying to use - re-cycled steel. This caused major problems with cars also.

In the old days - like in the mid 60's they use to rub in a mixture of fish oil and diesel on the Boot top line. But due to the laws on pollution this was stopped, and they started to paint it instead - which didn't have the same results.

If you look at any "old" vessel - you can see the red - anti-fouling paint for the base - bottom. Then the next line is about 6 to 8 inches wide,which was mostly green - this was painted on instead of the fish oil (The colour green was from the paint company) - then the next colour was the main Hull - which was Black.

So for those who don't know the "Boot Top" was the section on the hull which was in the water - when loaded - when unload - she would be out of the water. This section became very weak - as it was always in and out of water - with all the weather elements against it.

The way they built vessels in the mid 60's also changed. They were still riveting some of the smaller vessels - as it was still very expensive to weld a ship then. Changes were happening. The Mill Bay is a riveted hull - which is much stronger.