|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 5, 2010 6:01:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on May 5, 2010 17:24:30 GMT -8
Not a surprise. I didn't think it would be feasible to run this route anyway. It would draw tourists, but not enough to make any money. Plus, BC Ferries is already in debt quite a lot, so the route wouldn't have helped them with that at all.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 24, 2010 13:23:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jun 24, 2010 14:56:03 GMT -8
Kind of sad for us, as we won't have the extra opportunities to photograph the Northern Ships :\
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,190
|
Post by Neil on Jun 24, 2010 21:38:29 GMT -8
As disappointing as this outcome is, it would have been a financial disaster waiting to happen. Money would have been lost if BCF had decided a sail from Tsawwassen to 'Port Hardy would be the same in cost as a sail from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert. Didn't like that 25% discount for a combination of sailing the two routes in one go. Money would have been lost, and the Northern Communities are just too dependent on the two ships they have now. Perhaps a third one could be brought in at a future date to optimize the route if the traffic volumes warrant, a vessel that would work on the Southern major routes in winter and the Northern routes during the summer. There was alot of opposition to the proposal, some of the opposition got a bit too political and not practical, but the practical reasons for not going ahead won out. I disagree on two counts. BC Ferries promoted this idea because their research told them the Northern Expedition would be better utilized with a southern leg added to a route which lost $13.7 million on operations in the last fiscal year. Especially in the shoulder seasons, a south coast day cruise would have been a unique offering that might very well have found a market, especially with BC Ferries' increasing contacts with other players in the tourist industry. I also didn't notice any overtly political aspect to the community opposition to this idea. It seemed that business people on the north coast- tourist operations in particular- as well as community representatives and the regular folks who use the ferry, had crunched the numbers and determined that the unarguable cut in sailings outweighed any possible increase in traffic from the south coast. What really killed this proposal was the lack of enthusiasm from the province, and BC Ferries admitted as much. Refreshingly, the minister responsible, for perhaps the first time, voiced the notion that what was good for BC Ferries wasn't necessarily good for coastal communities. It's probably naive to hope that might start a trend.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jun 24, 2010 22:25:14 GMT -8
...the remaining V class... V-Class? The only of the seven sisters I can think of that are still in service are the B's and the Super B...?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,190
|
Post by Neil on Jun 24, 2010 23:41:43 GMT -8
There was much opposition to the idea it never really took much support. BC Ferries originally researched the idea, but they did seek to their credit input from the Northern Communities who did not want the logistical cuts that would have been required to make the extended route possible. So because of that, its out. I don't think that's the case. If you recall, BC Ferries adopted a rather dismissive attitude to feedback from the northern open houses they did on this proposal. When they originally said they were not going ahead with the plan, it was, they said, because the province was not expected to agree to it "in a timely fashion". And it's not to BC Ferries credit that they sought input; they're obliged to whenever they seek substantial changes to a route, as part of their contract with the province. The old mantra of subsidies for such a route extension would not be possible within the current scope of the relationship between BC Ferries and the provincial government. There's simply no money for it from the provincial government and there would be howls against it right from the start. There is also the small matter, often overlooked, of the Northern Expedition being a part of the BC Ferries fleet supposedly for the exclusive servicing of the northern routes. The province may have used the normally toothless Mr. Crilly to remind BC Ferries of that reality.
|
|
Kam
Voyager
Posts: 926
|
Post by Kam on Jun 25, 2010 8:17:59 GMT -8
V-Class? The only of the seven sisters I can think of that are still in service are the B's and the Super B...? Queen of Burnaby for one. She is one of the originals alongside the Vancouver, Esquimalt, Nanaimo. They were completed in the mid 1960's and will possibily be up next for retirement. The Burnaby is actualy a "B" Class, as is the Nanaimo and the New West.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jun 25, 2010 8:33:30 GMT -8
But for the short term (several years), it wouldn't happen as there needs to be replacements for the remaining V class and afterwards, the C. Class ("Jumbo Ferries") first. More important and critical at this stage since the Jumbo Ferries are approaching 40 years and the remaining V Class ferries 50. I've said this before, but I believe BC Ferries could do worse than consider a variation on the new WSF 144-car ferry template to replace Burnaby and Nanaimo. Fully enclose the car deck with bow doors, and the rest of it could mostly be the same design. Heck, even the location of the marine evacuation slides on the passenger deck level could remain the same since WSF is actually incorporating those into their plans. On the car deck,you would get a similar layout to the C's - a centre tunnel wide enough to accommodate 3 semis side-by-side (that's in WSF's plans), twin stair/mechanical casings, and gallery decks. The passenger cabin level wouldn't need as much seating as WSF has planned, but there would be plenty of space for a galley and gift shop, maybe even a combined galley/gift shop like what Island Sky has. build 3 of them. One could replace Burnaby on Route 17, and the other 2 could operate Route 9 in the summer. In the winter, you would always have one in reserve for when one of the others needs to be rotated out for maintenance. I know, this is a bit off-topic here, so I now return you to your regularly scheduled Vancouver to Port Hardy route discussion.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,190
|
Post by Neil on Jun 25, 2010 9:53:08 GMT -8
Valid points, but the route extension isn't going ahead largely because of BC Ferries agreeing with the concerns of the Norhern Communities. so this series of entrieshas since been turned to the next one in the logbook. Do you seriously believe BC Ferries dropped this issue because northerners talked them out of it? Can you think of one other instance where a major policy change- say with fares, perhaps- happened because management was concerned about its effect on communities? If Shirley Bond and co. had agreed that the proposal made good business sense for BC Ferries, and that that was the overriding factor, the route extension would have gone ahead. Oddly enough, the province didn't appear to be in a hurry to rubberstamp this decision, even though there was little for them to gain politically, since the NDP is probably in little danger of losing the riding. Either David Hahn misread, for the first time, the province's intentions for BC Ferries, or the province has actually done a slight re-think on things.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jun 25, 2010 11:48:02 GMT -8
I think the decision was real simple. A lack of group sales for tour groups and tourists would kill it very fast. IF some of the current agents and tour groups, for example those from Germany, failed to book or show interest, then the chances of getting a good turnout on the ferry were remote. Since they are already flying into Vancouver anyways, it would be a natural. It is one thing to offer a positioning cruise or an occasional run, but to leap into a regular service means you have to cost justify all those runs somehow.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jun 25, 2010 12:05:53 GMT -8
This would be BC Ferries' newest route if it had happened. What is currently their newest route? I'm thinking that it might be the mid-Island express?
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Jun 25, 2010 12:18:35 GMT -8
This would be BC Ferries' newest route if it had happened. What is currently their newest route? I'm thinking that it might be the mid-Island express? Route 40 is the newest route. The Queen of Chilliwack began service from Port Hardy to Bella Colla, and ports between in 1996. The Mid Island Express began in 1991.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jun 25, 2010 18:56:07 GMT -8
Queen of Burnaby for one. She is one of the originals alongside the Vancouver, Esquimalt, Nanaimo. They were completed in the mid 1960's and will possibily be up next for retirement. The Burnaby is actualy a "B" Class, as is the Nanaimo and the New West. Actually, I'm with Paul on this one. The B class is not a class at all, just a very minor variation on the V's. As I have said before the V's & B's together constitute the Seven Sisters and are from my view one and the same class.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jun 25, 2010 20:57:47 GMT -8
Actually, I'm with Paul on this one. The B class is not a class at all, just a very minor variation on the V's. As I have said before the V's & B's together constitute the Seven Sisters and are from my view one and the same class. I thought they made quite a few changes to the design before they built the B-Class? For one, there's the wheelhouse windows. Secondly, I thought that the B's (or at least the New West) have an odd box beside their funnels that the V's have missing... Those are just two. There must be more... (more should be discussed in the appropriate thread, maybe?)
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Jun 25, 2010 21:40:44 GMT -8
I see it like this. I see the V's and B's as one class. Comparing the V's and B's is like comparing a 1990 suburban to a 1991 suburban, for contrast the C's and super C's is like comparing a 1991 suburban to a 1992 suburban. While the V's and B's are essentially the same vehicle with a few modifications, that follows for 90 and 91 suburbans. Then the C's and Super C's are of a complete new design, from the frame up, sure they follow the same general idea and layout just like the 91 to 92 suburbans did.
Cheers,
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,190
|
Post by Neil on Jun 25, 2010 23:30:28 GMT -8
Well again more valid points, but was more interested in the proposed route from a marine logistical and operational prespective rather than a political or Hahn one. Then you're only going to see part of the story. But since people are more interested in Vs and Bs, I guess there's not much point in talking to myself...
|
|
|
Post by Queen of Nanaimo Teen on Jun 25, 2010 23:53:52 GMT -8
Hate to keep this going, but I also agree with Paul. When all 7 were first built, there were minor differences, such as with cars. I see them as being a whole class. The seperation is redundant!
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Jun 26, 2010 1:11:42 GMT -8
Most of us I'm sure know the main differences between the 'V's & 'B's but for the newer members out there.
1. -The funnels on the 'V' Class sit on a platform connected to the block the mast sits on. -However, the 'B' Class funnels don't have this platform, so the funnel sits in line with with Deck 5/6.
2. [The placement of amenities you see here was the default for all V/Bs until the Mid-1990s.] -Going forward from the cafeteria on a 'V' Class, you pass the Gift Shop First, than the Snack Bar. -On a 'B' Class, you pass the Snack Bar first, than the Gift Shop.
3. [The most likely reason we distinguish these vessels as 'V' Class and 'B' Class] -The 'V' Class were lifted in the early 1980s. -The 'B' Class stayed the same. (Excluding the Queen of New Westminster)
Because of this, -The 'V' Class ditched their solarium for passenger space when they were lifted -The 'B' Class kept theirs. [At least to date, the Nanaimo has. The Burnaby lost hers for her service on the the Seattle-Victoria route and the New West, though she kept it when she was lifted lost hers during her (Well Past) Mid-Life Upgrade]
Also, if I'm correct, as originally built, the 'B' Class all had Mirlees engines like those that powered the Sidney and Tsawwassen, whereas the 'V' Class did not.
Otherwise, the 7 vessels all live up to their "Seven Sisters" title. I'll leave you to be the judge of this.
Can we get this debate into a separate thread please?
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jun 27, 2010 19:18:37 GMT -8
OK, back to the topic of the thread....
I'm relieved that BCF has dropped the route extension for the inside passage. While I do think that there is a market for it, and it would be a good way to make better use of the NorEx, I don't think that the reduction in the number of runs would make it worth it. If the schedule could be worked that the NorAd does a round trip between her trips to the QCI, then perhaps it could be made to work.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,190
|
Post by Neil on Jun 27, 2010 21:53:23 GMT -8
OK, back to the topic of the thread.... I'm relieved that BCF has dropped the route extension for the inside passage. While I do think that there is a market for it, and it would be a good way to make better use of the NorEx, I don't think that the reduction in the number of runs would make it worth it. If the schedule could be worked that the NorAd does a round trip between her trips to the QCI, then perhaps it could be made to work. Thanks, Nick. And I agree: if they had tightened up the NorAd's Skidegate schedule and brought her south once a week so no sailings were lost, this would have been a great idea, and it no doubt would have been supported by northerners. Bottom line, BC Ferries has a contract to provide a minimum 3.5 round trips per week on route 10 in summer, and their proposal would have broken that contract. No problem for them, as long as the province agrees, but for the first time since the establishment of the 'private' BC Ferries, David Hahn and the government were not on the same page, and from the tenor of their original announcement about not going ahead with it, it was clear BC Ferries was not too happy with that. They later revised the story, saying it was because they didn't get the support of northern communities, but remembering the information meetings they held up north, they were pretty much telling people what their plans were, rather than seeking consultation. I don't think the province has had any epiphany about the need to reign in BC Ferries and make them more accountable to coastal communities, but this story seems to have been a departure from form, for whatever reasons, and it may have some implications for the future of our ferry system, and how it's governed. And to me, that's a heckuva lot more interesting than the differences between Bs and Vs. At least in a thread with this heading.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 28, 2010 4:44:39 GMT -8
Bottom line, BC Ferries has a contract to provide a minimum 3.5 round trips per week on route 10 in summer, and their proposal would have broken that contract. No problem for them, as long as the province agrees, but for the first time since the establishment of the 'private' BC Ferries, David Hahn and the government were not on the same page, and from the tenor of their original announcement about not going ahead with it, it was clear BC Ferries was not too happy with that. They later revised the story, saying it was because they didn't get the support of northern communities, but remembering the information meetings they held up north, they were pretty much telling people what their plans were, rather than seeking consultation. I recall that the original response by BC Ferries to the non-happening of their new idea was that the Province did not give their approval "quickly enough" or not within some sort of internal ferries deadline. Good on the Province. It would have been a good idea, if it had considered the contract that's in place. Kinda silly of BC Ferries not to have originally done a proposal that included the fulfillment of their contract. Kinda arrogant? or naive? or just hopeful that they'd get their way and someone would forget about the contract that BC Ferries has to provide a specified number of sailings?
|
|