New service from down under

[Low Light Mike]

Thanks for this story:

Is this a strictly-private ventures, or is it a P/P/P item?

I'd be surprised if it was strictly-private, as there would be a lot of risk in such a startup. So I'm wondering what or who is driving this new service?

[Low Light Mike]

Let's use this old Cascade ghost thread, for another downunder ferry news story:

==================
www.stuff.co.nz:80/stuff/4145412a7693.html

Faster ships worry groups
By DAN HUTCHINSON - The Press | Monday, 30 July 2007

Environmental groups are concerned inter-island ferry companies will be able to get around new speed restrictions in the Marlborough Sounds by prolonging the life of existing ships.


The issue of ferry speeds has been bogged down in the Environment Court for almost two years since the Marlborough District Council varied its Sounds Resource Management Plan to curb ferry wakes.

All new ferries must now pass a wake test as part of a resource consent process before operating above 15 knots in the Sounds.

An end to the court battle is close, although the issue of existing ferries, particularly Toll Shipping's Aratere, remained a stumbling block.

Inter-island ferries in service at the time of the plan change, including Toll's Aratere, were exempt from the new rule. Toll's Arahura ferry and two Strait Shipping ferries were also covered by the grandfathering clause but did not create the same wake as the Aratere.

Council regulatory manager Hans Versteegh said there was a grandfather clause in the original variation that allowed existing ferries to operate as usual. There was no sunset provision with that clause.

He said there were rumours that Toll planned to prolong the life of the Aratere and Arahura by upgrading the vessels.

"We were under the impression that the Aratere and Arahura would be withdrawn next year and the rumours are that the ships are going to stay in service a lot longer," Versteegh said.

Toll spokeswoman Sue Foley said it was normal to maximise the life of its ships and the Aratere was in dry dock.

She said Aratere was a relatively new ship and there had not been plans to retire the ships next year.

"The issue is that there are very few rail ferries, I think only seven in the world, and we have two of them. They are quite central to this country's transport network," Foley said.

She said the company agreed there had been issues with ferry wash but there had been no complaints for a long time, indicating it was now acting responsibly.

"We are aware of the need to be a good citizen," Foley said.

Friends of Nelson Haven spokesman Steffan Browning believed the Environment Court had clearly indicated a finite period at which existing ships were exempt from the new rules.

However, the Environment Court ruled that the Friends did not have the right to negotiate on the grandfathering aspect, despite being one of the main parties in the case.

Browning said he could not comment fully on the issue because it was still before the Environment Court.

He hoped the council had not done a deal that would allow the existing ships to continue operating at higher speeds indefinitely in an attempt to resolve the matter quickly.

Environment Court Judge Shonagh Kenderdine directed Toll and the council to sort the issue out among themselves.
==============

[NMcKay]

2 eh? in the whole world? so that would mean BC own 5 of them, meaning none in the rest of the world

(Carrier Princess)
(Princess Superior)
(Seaspan Greg)
(Seaspan Doris)
(Coastal Spirit)

[Neil]

Only the Carrier Princess and Princess Superior are railcar carriers.

[Retrovision]

hornbyguy said:

Only the Carrier Princess and Princess Superior are railcar carriers.

And only one of those two was built as a traditional-RO/RO vessel

[NMcKay]

The Doris and the Greg both have capacity for rail car, and the coastal spirit has rail car capacity, but on thier nromal runs, only the Carrier Princess and the Princess Superior carry rail traffic

Name ||Hull ||Trailers ||Railcars
Princess Superior ||386 x 66 x 24 ||38 ||15
Carrier Princess|| 380 x 66 x 24 ||38|| 22
Coastal Spirit ||456 x 82 x 18|| 54|| 0
Seaspan Doris ||325 x 55 x 18.75|| 42|| 16
Seaspan Greg ||325 x 55 x 18.75|| 26 ||0

[NMcKay]

FROM THE IMO REG

Ship Name: Seaspan Greg
Official Ship Number: 323224 (Transport Canada)
Owner: Seaspan International Limited
10 PEMBERTON AVENUE
NORTH VANCOUVER BC V7P 2R1
604-988-3111
Operator: Canadian Pacific Rail
1100-700 WEST PENDER ST.
VANCOUVER BC V6C 1G8
604-643-3375
Port of Registry:
Date of Registry: 1965/01/11
Government Ownership:

Ship Operation
Usage: Passenger/vehicle ferry (Primary)

Area of Service: Pacific

Features: Bow Doors
Rail Car Capacity - 25
Trailer Capacity - 37

Ship Name: Seaspan Doris
Official Ship Number: 328327 (Transport Canada)
Owner: Seaspan International Limited
10 PEMBERTON AVENUE
NORTH VANCOUVER BC V7P 2R1
604-988-3111
Operator: Canadian Pacific Rail
1100-700 WEST PENDER ST.
VANCOUVER BC V6C 1G8
604-643-3375
Port of Registry:
Date of Registry: 1968/04/09
Government Ownership:

Ship Operation
Usage: Passenger/vehicle ferry (Primary)

Area of Service: Pacific

Features: Ocean-going Capacity
Rail Car Capacity - 25
Trailer Capacity - 62

[Retrovision]

Are these stats current?

Owner: Seaspan International Limited
10 PEMBERTON AVENUE
NORTH VANCOUVER BC V7P 2R1
604-988-3111
Operator: Canadian Pacific Rail
1100-700 WEST PENDER ST.
VANCOUVER BC V6C 1G8
604-643-3375

[NMcKay]

probably not. but the part about the rail cars and trailers was the stuff i was looking for.

[Neil]

Klatawa Teen: According to Seaspan, the Carrier Princess and Princess Superior are the only vessels with rail carrying capacity. If the others ever had it, the rails have been paved over.

[Retrovision]

I didn't realize that Seaspan Coastal Intermodal services were ever operated by CP while being owned by Seaspan / WMG; just caught my eye.

[Neil]

Retro: I'm not quite clear on your meaning here. The coastal CP operations were sold to Seaspan in the late '90s- are you saying there was some sort of joint operation between the two at one time? I'm not aware of that.

[NMcKay]

i dont think they were paved ove...just the rails arn't used now. i think its sligtly illegal to have an incorrect IMO reg for a vessel...these things are supposed to be kept up to date.

[Neil]

Klatawa Teen; I phoned Seaspan and asked them. I'm assuming they know their own vessels. Information you get off the internet isn't always up to date.

[NMcKay]

im wondering why they would pave over the rails....seems like a waste of money, and a waste of weight on those vessels...

Next Question - Why would you phone Seaspan?

[Retrovision]

For the sake of the forum?

[Neil]

harbourlynxkid said:

Next Question - Why would you phone Seaspan?

Thank you, Retro.

I've phoned Seaspan before. And I've phoned and e-mailed BC Ferries, and others, for information about transportation. Doesn't seem an odd thing to do, considering we're all interested in ferries here. Why argue or wonder about something when a simple answer is a quick question away, and when these firms generally don't mind answering queries?

[Retrovision]

hornbyguy said:

Retro: I'm not quite clear on your meaning here. The coastal CP operations were sold to Seaspan in the late '90s- are you saying there was some sort of joint operation between the two at one time? I'm not aware of that.

It was more a matter of it catching my eye, I'm not aware of Seaspan Coastal Intermodal happenings and history very much myself, exept for the fundemental dates of changes of the service in the past and the acquisition of the 1944-built former "...tank landing ship (LST)...LST 1003..." - and eventually "...U.S.S. Coronis...and was designated ALR10..." -- From: Pacific Princesses by Robert D. Turner, Page 223 -- as the precursor for our region's drop-trailer services of today, but I do wonder about how the modern handover to WMG played-out.