|
Post by lmtengs on Jun 25, 2010 9:07:31 GMT -8
Here's a new thread regarding possible newbuild plans that you think up. We have some aging ships in the fleet, so they're gonna need replacing soon, and we can think up plans on how ships will be replaced here.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jun 25, 2010 9:08:15 GMT -8
I might move a few more newbuild plans here soon too, but here's the first, from Kahloke. 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.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jun 26, 2010 8:50:00 GMT -8
I was just thinking about something while reading this: Would a double-ended ship the size of the WSF 144s really work on Route 9... It might work for some of the intermediate stops, and potentially make loading easier on the cardeck, but it would not make it easier for the navigating crew, who would not be able to swap bridges after every stop so they could be facing forward again. Also, a vessel that size actually operating as a double-ender might be really tricky to maneuver in Long Harbor if they were to try and make a bow-first entrance to the dock there. It is actually easier to make the landing with a single-ended ship, and simply come in parallel to the dolphins and then back astern against the dock. For a double ended ship set up to operate like the !44`s with separate propeller assemblies at each end, the final positioning into the berth would be tricky and, in able to make a forward landing in Long Harbor using whichever navigation bridge is the leading end, the ship would have to come around in a sweeping circle and still somehow manage to come out of the final curve to run straight into the berth, resting against the dolphins. Despite what some may think, the next vessel built for route 9 will probably ultimately end up looking like the Island Sky, with a central navigation area for bi-directionality, and driven by RADs for ease of movement. Unless, of course, they could rebuild a 144 with RADs (or maybe Azipods) instead of propellers and rudders. I might move a few more newbuild plans here soon too, but here's the first, from Kahloke. 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2012 18:15:04 GMT -8
I think this new design from Flensburger could operate some routes in BC such Powell River to Comox, Tsawwassen to Galiano, Mayne, Pender, Salt Spring and Saturna Islands, and maybe Tsawwassen-Duke Point with some design charges to increase the car Capacity and Passenger capacity. www.fsg-ship.de/56-1-Day-Ferry.html
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Jan 26, 2013 1:27:50 GMT -8
Because of all the New Vessel Discussion in the General News Thread I thought I'd come up with a Newbuild Plan. Some are realistic some are pipe dreams. Tenaka - 50 Car Cable Ferry. We know already the Tachek will take over Quadra-Cortes when her MLU is done and the Cable Ferry will free up the Quinitsa for relief. North Island Princess - 40 Car Vessel. Pretty much a status-quo replacement for Texada. Queen of Burnaby & Queen of Nanaimo - 135/185 Car Enclosed Vessels. Either Single Enders based off the Alaska Class design or Double Enders based off the Hiiumaa design would do. Queen of Chilliwack - A Soap Dish... Kidding of Course, the Northern Discovery. A scaled down 65 Car NorEx would do the trick if were building this solely for the North. If BCF wanted something more multi-purpose to relieve Route 17 they could build a 100-130 Car Vessel similar to the Replacements for the Nanaimo and Burnaby. Bowen Queen - 85 or 125 Car Intermediate Vessel. This New Vessel I feel would become the No. 1 on Route 8. If it's a 125 Car Vessel, it could also take over Route 5 or 7. The Capilano would assume the Bowen's former duties. Mayne Queen - 85 Car Intermediate Vessel. Should be a good sized replacement for Route 5. Probably based off the Bowen's Replacement. Powell River Queen & Howe Sound Queen - 60-80 Car Vessels Two 'Q' Barge types would do the trick. That's about it for the Intermediate Vessels and Minors that need to be replaced in the next decade.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 26, 2013 11:10:32 GMT -8
Because of all the New Vessel Discussion in the General News Thread I thought I'd come up with a Newbuild Plan. Some are realistic some are pipe dreams. Tenaka - 50 Car Cable Ferry. We know already the Tachek will take over Quadra-Cortes when her MLU is done and the Cable Ferry will free up the Quinitsa for relief. North Island Princess - 40 Car Vessel. Pretty much a status-quo replacement for Texada. Queen of Burnaby & Queen of Nanaimo - 135/185 Car Enclosed Vessels. Either Single Enders based off the Alaska Class design or Double Enders based off the Hiiumaa design would do. Queen of Chilliwack - A Soap Dish... Kidding of Course, the Northern Discovery. A scaled down 65 Car NorEx would do the trick if were building this solely for the North. If BCF wanted something more multi-purpose to relieve Route 17 they could build a 100-130 Car Vessel similar to the Replacements for the Nanaimo and Burnaby. Bowen Queen - 85 or 125 Car Intermediate Vessel. This New Vessel I feel would become the No. 1 on Route 8. If it's a 125 Car Vessel, it could also take over Route 5 or 7. The Capilano would assume the Bowen's former duties. Mayne Queen - 85 Car Intermediate Vessel. Should be a good sized replacement for Route 5. Probably based off the Bowen's Replacement. Powell River Queen & Howe Sound Queen - 60-80 Car Vessels Two 'Q' Barge types would do the trick. That's about it for the Intermediate Vessels and Minors that need to be replaced in the next decade. The NIP is a 49-car ferry so replacing it with a 40 car ferry would be a loss of capacity on the Powell River-Texada. The NIP really needs to be replaced--NOW! But since there going to keep it until 2016, at least paint the darn thing, (do the same with Queen of Burnaby) considering all the rust that's streaking down its sides. Also I think it would be best to replace the Powell Riv. class and the HSQ with one type of ferry, instead of 2 as you're suggesting. I really like the PR class design, so they should do something like that. Or do a mini-I class design and remove the gallery decks and/or make the hull narrower and shorter. If anything just make sure that all new 70 car ferries in your fleet are of the same class/design, instead of there different ones like currently. Just make sure it has a cabin. BC Ferries has some very nice cabins on board its larger ferries, but some really tiny ones on its smaller ferries. Us Washingtonians like to get out of our cars and go up to the passenger cabin or sundeck aboard our ferries and enjoy the spacious interior, rather than being cramped in some teeny cabin/ lounge. (even on a 15-minute crossing!) If you Canadians don't like to "go upstairs" on your ferries, you're weird. But don't worry, you're also weird in that you don't get up to speed on freeway onramps and you wait till you get to the freeway before doing so. (safety hazard!!) Almost forgot, you say "a-boot" instead of "about" and you also say "eh?" after every sentence. Now that's weird. Finally with the Burnaby (also getting rusty and in need of more paint) and Nanaimo, those boats could be replaced with a WSF Olympic class (144-car) ferry--3 of them. Just slap a gift shop and some bow doors on them, and you got yourselves a ferry. That way, you could have 2 down on the Tsawwassen-Gulf Is. route during the summer (one in the winter, and the other in reserve) and one on Powell River-Comox route year-round. Or BCF could do a mini-Coastal Class design, but I think that the WSF Olympic class design would be perfect for BC Ferries. If they wanted to make them closer in capacity to the current Burnaby class to allow for future growth (something they have NOT been doing thus far), they could stretch the Olympic class design. It could be built in their own shipyards and would have next to no engineering costs except for modifications. I do think that BC ferries, if they were to use the Oly Class design, should at least stretch it so that on the PR-Comox route, there isn't such a capacity redux.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 26, 2013 11:15:35 GMT -8
What do you think would be the replacement for the Nicola and Nimpkish? Would they just be replaced with a larger 30-car ferry or what?
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Jan 26, 2013 12:03:36 GMT -8
So hi there! I had just a few ideas for vessel replacements: Powell River Class and HSQ: An design based of an Issaquah 130, except with more outside space (sundeck with possible lounge up there and risen bridge). Capacity could be extended to 130 cars in the future if needed. It would be a good design for routes 5, 8, 19, 23 and if capacity extended also routes 7 and 17.
Burnaby Class: A Olympic widened by a lane (~3 m) would do fine, as it would have 160 car capacity and around 1,500 passengers. Designed for routes 9 and 17 but could do possible relief work on route 7. I would plan to build 2 of those, and the lost capacity (for the route 9 boat) could be compensed by the Bowen replacement.
Queen of Chilliwack: That same widened Olympic without gallery decks (capacity around 120 cars). Could do relief work on 7 and 17 and capacity could be extended with gallery decks.
NIP, Nicola, Nimpkish and Tenaka: A version of the Hiyu stretched by ~20m (3 cars), giving a 52 car capacity. Also a little widened to include an elevator. It would have small lounges on the side wings and a big cabin above the whole thing (Kinda like the Bowen and Mayne).
I will try to draw all of those vessels and post the pictures here.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 26, 2013 12:30:23 GMT -8
So hi there! I had just a few ideas for vessel replacements: Powell River Class and HSQ: An design based of an Issaquah 130, except with more outside space (sundeck with possible lounge up there and risen bridge). Capacity could be extended to 130 cars in the future if needed. It would be a good design for routes 5, 8, 19, 23 and if capacity extended also routes 7 and 17. Burnaby Class: A Olympic widened by a lane (~3 m) would do fine, as it would have 160 car capacity and around 1,500 passengers. Designed for routes 9 and 17 but could do possible relief work on route 7. I would plan to build 2 of those, and the lost capacity (for the route 9 boat) could be compensed by the Bowen replacement. Queen of Chilliwack: That same widened Olympic without gallery decks (capacity around 120 cars). Could do relief work on 7 and 17 and capacity could be extended with gallery decks. NIP, Nicola, Nimpkish and Tenaka: A version of the Hiyu stretched by ~20m (3 cars), giving a 52 car capacity. Also a little widened to include an elevator. It would have small lounges on the side wings and a big cabin above the whole thing (Kinda like the Bowen and Mayne). I will try to draw all of those vessels and post the pictures here. Great ideas you have here, SolDuc!!! I totally agree with them!
EDIT: Though these are interesting ideas to consider, I don't really agree with them. WSF's routes are generally on calm inland waters. On a windy day where there's whitecaps in the Puget Sound, that's enough to make even the Jumbo class ferries roll back and forth.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Jan 26, 2013 13:10:52 GMT -8
The NIP is a 49-car ferry so replacing it with a 40 car ferry would be a loss of capacity on the Powell River-Texada. The NIP really needs to be replaced--NOW! But since there going to keep it until 2016, at least paint the darn thing, (do the same with Queen of Burnaby) considering all the rust that's streaking down its sides. The NIP actually doesn't hold 49 Cars... At least she can't anymore. When I worked aboard her last summer, she could hold 8 cars comfortably in each of her 5 lanes (40). Now perhaps if we sardine packed everyone in we could get a few more vehicles on, but we'd be blocking a few Evacuation Paths and possibly some engine room escape hatches if we did. Plus, Texada only needs that extra capacity about 2 or 3 times a year truth be told so 40 Cars would be a reasonable replacement for Texada.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 26, 2013 14:10:40 GMT -8
Because of all the New Vessel Discussion in the General News Thread I thought I'd come up with a Newbuild Plan. Some are realistic some are pipe dreams. Tenaka - 50 Car Cable Ferry. We know already the Tachek will take over Quadra-Cortes when her MLU is done and the Cable Ferry will free up the Quinitsa for relief. North Island Princess - 40 Car Vessel. Pretty much a status-quo replacement for Texada. Queen of Burnaby & Queen of Nanaimo - 135/185 Car Enclosed Vessels. Either Single Enders based off the Alaska Class design or Double Enders based off the Hiiumaa design would do. Queen of Chilliwack - A Soap Dish... Kidding of Course, the Northern Discovery. A scaled down 65 Car NorEx would do the trick if were building this solely for the North. If BCF wanted something more multi-purpose to relieve Route 17 they could build a 100-130 Car Vessel similar to the Replacements for the Nanaimo and Burnaby. Bowen Queen - 85 or 125 Car Intermediate Vessel. This New Vessel I feel would become the No. 1 on Route 8. If it's a 125 Car Vessel, it could also take over Route 5 or 7. The Capilano would assume the Bowen's former duties. Mayne Queen - 85 Car Intermediate Vessel. Should be a good sized replacement for Route 5. Probably based off the Bowen's Replacement. Powell River Queen & Howe Sound Queen - 60-80 Car Vessels Two 'Q' Barge types would do the trick. That's about it for the Intermediate Vessels and Minors that need to be replaced in the next decade. I am very much on board with this plan. You are spot on with replacing the BQ and MQ with a Capilano-class design. The PRQ and HSQ should be replaced with 80-car versions of the Skeena Queen.My original thoughts would be replace the Burnaby/Nanaimo with three 125-vehicle designs with a full cafeteria, but I don't think that's in the cards. So I like your solution. So hi there! I had just a few ideas for vessel replacements: Powell River Class and HSQ: An design based of an Issaquah 130, except with more outside space (sundeck with possible lounge up there and risen bridge). Capacity could be extended to 130 cars in the future if needed. It would be a good design for routes 5, 8, 19, 23 and if capacity extended also routes 7 and 17. Burnaby Class: A Olympic widened by a lane (~3 m) would do fine, as it would have 160 car capacity and around 1,500 passengers. Designed for routes 9 and 17 but could do possible relief work on route 7. I would plan to build 2 of those, and the lost capacity (for the route 9 boat) could be compensed by the Bowen replacement. Queen of Chilliwack: That same widened Olympic without gallery decks (capacity around 120 cars). Could do relief work on 7 and 17 and capacity could be extended with gallery decks. NIP, Nicola, Nimpkish and Tenaka: A version of the Hiyu stretched by ~20m (3 cars), giving a 52 car capacity. Also a little widened to include an elevator. It would have small lounges on the side wings and a big cabin above the whole thing (Kinda like the Bowen and Mayne). I will try to draw all of those vessels and post the pictures here. Great ideas you have here, SolDuc!!! I totally agree with them! I am not about to have a bunch of crazy gun-toting, freedom-loving 'Muricans dictate what my fleet is going to be so let me say this: The Issaquah replacements are overkill, the Chilliwack replacement would need to be able to do Northern work, and the Hiyu design you suggested would be a ton of extra, unused space. It would be crazy to send a boat like that up north (see NIP, Tachek, Tenaka, Nimpkish, QQII, and Nicola threads respectively regarding ability to operate in open ocean with their bow design). Remember, replacements are about efficiency, not necessarily about expansion. Also, because of USCG certifications, I think your ferry designs as direct interpretations would work on about six of our ferry routes. Also note that crewing needs are much different here - we tend to follow more international crewing standards (see our passenger capacities for this info), regarding how many crew members must be on board to patrol the deck space. More deck space = more crew = more costs. Mo' money, mo' problems Something that CompDude needs to remember that, as wonderful and lovely as your ferry designs are, our ferry needs are very different. Our vessels travel further, have more open sea-time, have more stringent crewing and safety requirements, and serve different purposes. We serve more ports of call, more vessels, more routes, and therefore have a vastly increased array of needs.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Jan 26, 2013 14:50:27 GMT -8
I am not about to have a bunch of crazy gun-toting, freedom-loving 'Muricans dictate what my fleet is going to be so let me say this: The Issaquah replacements are overkill, the Chilliwack replacement would need to be able to do Northern work, and the Hiyu design you suggested would be a ton of extra, unused space. It would be crazy to send a boat like that up north (see NIP, Tachek, Tenaka, Nimpkish, QQII, and Nicola threads respectively regarding ability to operate in open ocean with their bow design). Remember, replacements are about efficiency, not necessarily about expansion. Also, because of USCG certifications, I think your ferry designs as direct interpretations would work on about six of our ferry routes. Also note that crewing needs are much different here - we tend to follow more international crewing standards (see our passenger capacities for this info), regarding how many crew members must be on board to patrol the deck space. More deck space = more crew = more costs. Mo' money, mo' problems Something that CompDude needs to remember that, as wonderful and lovely as your ferry designs are, our ferry needs are very different. Our vessels travel further, have more open sea-time, have more stringent crewing and safety requirements, and serve different purposes. We serve more ports of call, more vessels, more routes, and therefore have a vastly increased array of needs. Ok, thanks for the advice, now let me redo my plans: Powell River Class (excluding Bowen) and HSQ: A Capilano design. 85 car-500 pass design with a decent cabin seems good for the routes these vessels serve. Bowen Queen: A car deck similar to the Skeena, but with a decent passenger cabin (located above the car deck). Overall it would make a mix of the Skeena and Capilano. Burnaby Class: I'll still sick with my widened Olympic for that one. Queen of Chilliwack: An Issy 100 design with bow doors and inside loading ramps that would make it able to serve the northern terminals. With more passenger amenities on the sun deck though. NIP and Tenaka: A QQII elongated design (by 3 cars), giving a total capacity of 42 cars. Nicola and Nimpkish: Same design elongated by 1 car (19 cars) and superstructure like the Tenaka.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 26, 2013 15:28:54 GMT -8
I am not about to have a bunch of crazy gun-toting, freedom-loving 'Muricans dictate what my fleet is going to be so let me say this: The Issaquah replacements are overkill, the Chilliwack replacement would need to be able to do Northern work, and the Hiyu design you suggested would be a ton of extra, unused space. It would be crazy to send a boat like that up north (see NIP, Tachek, Tenaka, Nimpkish, QQII, and Nicola threads respectively regarding ability to operate in open ocean with their bow design). Remember, replacements are about efficiency, not necessarily about expansion. Also, because of USCG certifications, I think your ferry designs as direct interpretations would work on about six of our ferry routes. Also note that crewing needs are much different here - we tend to follow more international crewing standards (see our passenger capacities for this info), regarding how many crew members must be on board to patrol the deck space. More deck space = more crew = more costs. Mo' money, mo' problems Something that CompDude needs to remember that, as wonderful and lovely as your ferry designs are, our ferry needs are very different. Our vessels travel further, have more open sea-time, have more stringent crewing and safety requirements, and serve different purposes. We serve more ports of call, more vessels, more routes, and therefore have a vastly increased array of needs. Ok, thanks for the advice, now let me redo my plans: Powell River Class (excluding Bowen) and HSQ: A Capilano design. 85 car-500 pass design with a decent cabin seems good for the routes these vessels serve. Bowen Queen: A car deck similar to the Skeena, but with a decent passenger cabin (located above the car deck). Overall it would make a mix of the Skeena and Capilano. Burnaby Class: I'll still sick with my widened Olympic for that one. Queen of Chilliwack: An Issy 100 design with bow doors and inside loading ramps that would make it able to serve the northern terminals. With more passenger amenities on the sun deck though. NIP and Tenaka: A QQII elongated design (by 3 cars), giving a total capacity of 42 cars. Nicola and Nimpkish: Same design elongated by 1 car (19 cars) and superstructure like the Tenaka. I like this a lot better. Good work. Couple things: re. Chilliwack... Despite this ship being a hybrid, I think going forward it would be best for Northern designs to have pointed bows similar to the NorEx. I believe we discussed way back when that a NorEx design that's about the size of the Queen of Prince Rupert would work well here. Re. Burnaby and Nanaimo, I would suggest that this be a closed deck design, but something along the lines of an Olympic would work. re. the Bowen replacement suggested: Somewhere on this forum there is a plan for exactly what you described. Basically it looked something like this, except smaller: DOT photo ©
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Jan 26, 2013 16:19:54 GMT -8
I like this a lot better. Good work. Couple things: re. Chilliwack... Despite this ship being a hybrid, I think going forward it would be best for Northern designs to have pointed bows similar to the NorEx. I believe we discussed way back when that a NorEx design that's about the size of the Queen of Prince Rupert would work well here. Re. Burnaby and Nanaimo, I would suggest that this be a closed deck design, but something along the lines of an Olympic would work. re. the Bowen replacement suggested: Somewhere on this forum there is a plan for exactly what you described. Basically it looked something like this, except smaller: DOT photo © Chilliwack: Then I guess a mix of the QotN and 'Prince Rupert. And way faster than the Chilliwack if possible, thus giving a possibility of replacement of the NorAd or NorEx if one breaks down and the other one cannot sub. B Class: I forgot to precise that the bow/stern design was enclosed. Like what Ferrynut drew in the Voyager section. Bowen: Yes, pretty much a small original Alberni.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 26, 2013 19:04:10 GMT -8
Because of all the New Vessel Discussion in the General News Thread I thought I'd come up with a Newbuild Plan. Some are realistic some are pipe dreams. Tenaka - 50 Car Cable Ferry. We know already the Tachek will take over Quadra-Cortes when her MLU is done and the Cable Ferry will free up the Quinitsa for relief. North Island Princess - 40 Car Vessel. Pretty much a status-quo replacement for Texada. Queen of Burnaby & Queen of Nanaimo - 135/185 Car Enclosed Vessels. Either Single Enders based off the Alaska Class design or Double Enders based off the Hiiumaa design would do. Queen of Chilliwack - A Soap Dish... Kidding of Course, the Northern Discovery. A scaled down 65 Car NorEx would do the trick if were building this solely for the North. If BCF wanted something more multi-purpose to relieve Route 17 they could build a 100-130 Car Vessel similar to the Replacements for the Nanaimo and Burnaby. Bowen Queen - 85 or 125 Car Intermediate Vessel. This New Vessel I feel would become the No. 1 on Route 8. If it's a 125 Car Vessel, it could also take over Route 5 or 7. The Capilano would assume the Bowen's former duties. Mayne Queen - 85 Car Intermediate Vessel. Should be a good sized replacement for Route 5. Probably based off the Bowen's Replacement. Powell River Queen & Howe Sound Queen - 60-80 Car Vessels Two 'Q' Barge types would do the trick. That's about it for the Intermediate Vessels and Minors that need to be replaced in the next decade. I am very much on board with this plan. You are spot on with replacing the BQ and MQ with a Capilano-class design. The PRQ and HSQ should be replaced with 80-car versions of the Skeena Queen.My original thoughts would be replace the Burnaby/Nanaimo with three 125-vehicle designs with a full cafeteria, but I don't think that's in the cards. So I like your solution. Great ideas you have here, SolDuc!!! I totally agree with them! I am not about to have a bunch of crazy gun-toting, freedom-loving 'Muricans dictate what my fleet is going to be so let me say this: The Issaquah replacements are overkill, the Chilliwack replacement would need to be able to do Northern work, and the Hiyu design you suggested would be a ton of extra, unused space. It would be crazy to send a boat like that up north (see NIP, Tachek, Tenaka, Nimpkish, QQII, and Nicola threads respectively regarding ability to operate in open ocean with their bow design). Remember, replacements are about efficiency, not necessarily about expansion. Also, because of USCG certifications, I think your ferry designs as direct interpretations would work on about six of our ferry routes. Also note that crewing needs are much different here - we tend to follow more international crewing standards (see our passenger capacities for this info), regarding how many crew members must be on board to patrol the deck space. More deck space = more crew = more costs. Mo' money, mo' problems Something that CompDude needs to remember that, as wonderful and lovely as your ferry designs are, our ferry needs are very different. Our vessels travel further, have more open sea-time, have more stringent crewing and safety requirements, and serve different purposes. We serve more ports of call, more vessels, more routes, and therefore have a vastly increased array of needs. Okay after considering SolDuc's ideas a little more, I don't really agree with them after all. I just thought it was an interesting idea to consider. I understand that BC Ferries is a totally different beast compared to WSF. It's a lot more complicated and harder to understand, since there's so many different kinds of vessels. BC ferries has a lot of variety in the routes it serves, particularly in terms of route length. And there's a lot of variety in their fleet since the routes have such stark differences in conditions. BC Ferries, I must say, puts a much nicer interior into its boats than WSF does. But the exterior appearance of some of their ferries is just appalling. Too much rust, particularly on the NIP and the Queen of Burnaby! Yeah, there's been some rusty WSF's, but they've been re-painted to hide the rust.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Jan 26, 2013 19:12:58 GMT -8
But the exterior appearance of some of their ferries is just appalling. Too much rust, particularly on the NIP and the Queen of Burnaby! Yeah, there's been some rusty WSF's, but they've been re-painted to hide the rust. I totally agree for that point. But BCFs also have a lot more of open waters that the ferries cross, so their ferries get way more washed up, which makes the rust appears. If the rust would hide the slugs, then I guess I would not care. You'll also see that most of the rusty BCFs are the old boats, and that the newer vessels are better in terms of paint (Except for the NorAd? But the NorAd is ugly anyways).
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 26, 2013 19:22:48 GMT -8
The NIP is a 49-car ferry so replacing it with a 40 car ferry would be a loss of capacity on the Powell River-Texada. The NIP really needs to be replaced--NOW! But since there going to keep it until 2016, at least paint the darn thing, (do the same with Queen of Burnaby) considering all the rust that's streaking down its sides. The NIP actually doesn't hold 49 Cars... At least she can't anymore. When I worked aboard her last summer, she could hold 8 cars comfortably in each of her 5 lanes (40). Now perhaps if we sardine packed everyone in we could get a few more vehicles on, but we'd be blocking a few Evacuation Paths and possibly some engine room escape hatches if we did. Plus, Texada only needs that extra capacity about 2 or 3 times a year truth be told so 40 Cars would be a reasonable replacement for Texada. Oh really? According to BC Ferries' fleet listing for the North Island Princess, it says the capacity is 49 cars. That's why I was thinking that a 40-car replacement would be a reduction in capacity. Given that it can't really fit 49 cars and that additional capacity is rarely needed, then okay, a 40 car replacement would work fine. But I'd make it be just be a tad bigger, like 45 cars.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 26, 2013 19:41:22 GMT -8
But the exterior appearance of some of their ferries is just appalling. Too much rust, particularly on the NIP and the Queen of Burnaby! Yeah, there's been some rusty WSF's, but they've been re-painted to hide the rust. I totally agree for that point. But BCFs also have a lot more of open waters that the ferries cross, so their ferries get way more washed up, which makes the rust appears. If the rust would hide the slugs, then I guess I would not care. You'll also see that most of the rusty BCFs are the old boats, and that the newer vessels are better in terms of paint (Except for the NorAd? But the NorAd is ugly anyways). True, the more-open waters that BCF's encounter mean a lot more rust. BC Ferries would probably make Powell River happy if they paint the two ferries that are seen there, so they don't have to keep looking at 2 old rustbuckets. Also agree about the ugliness of the NorAd. But it's not as ugly as the Spirit class is! OTOH, I think the Coastal Class ferries are the nicest-looking ferries that BCF owns. They look modern but not ugly.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jan 26, 2013 21:29:58 GMT -8
The numbers for car capacity BC Ferries publish are based on AEQ, or automobile equivalents. Each AEQ is 6.5 meters long and it doesn't necessarily always work out that the identified space is necessarily usable in normal operating situations. The reason the somewhat imperfect system is used is to provide a common base line which ferries can be measured.
This is an interesting discussion to read! SolDuc I liked your Washington-based ideas, but I am onboard with the critique that offered. Additionally some of suggested ships would provide a capacity increase where it simply is not warranted. I said in another post that standardization is, IMO, a requirement for BC Ferries moving forward. That could lead Powell River-Comox with a larger ship than is needed, and a reduction of capacity on Tsawwassen-Southern Gulf Islands. Although I am cynical about the future of Route 9 as it is now. And I also question whether the Nanaimo and Burnaby should be replaced by a common vessel, or something different.
Perhaps a standard vessel design for large minors and intermediates could be developed, and scaled to the route group where the vessel intended to sail. I think BCFS ha proposed that idea somewhat recently.
I think the Queen of Chilliwack replacement will be easy - eliminate the service.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2013 22:03:59 GMT -8
I am fully onboard with most Curtis' ideas. The one ship replacement idea I don't agree with is the Chilliwack. As per BCF plans, the ONLY southern route the NorDisco would be operating on would be route 7. That is, if route 40 doesn't get scrapped althogether. Or perhaps they'll only keep the direct PH-Bella Coola sailings, eliminating the need for cabins (this would work great IMO). The Nimpkish could continue operating in the Summer out of Bella Coola. If i've got my info right, the direct sailings to/from Bella Coola are the only ones that make money. The NorDisco better be able to go a bit faster than the 'Wack.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Jan 26, 2013 23:48:46 GMT -8
Just to add into the debate on existing car capacities:
Those are based on 100% underheight average size sedan type loads with no consideration taken to keeping egress routes clear or any other restrictions which now exist these days. Quite often on the Nanaimo/Burnaby, an F-350 with a camper or even towing a boat/camper trailer can actually eat up alot of space between two lanes. So they'll be parked in lane 4 (outboard most lane on either side), and parked as close as possible to the exterior bulkhead which has a slight angle inboard, you'll usually find lane 3 is lost because that space is needed for the. So you easily lose space for around 3 or 4 cars because of that every time because lane 3 is now too narrow to drive down. Not to mention the added restrictions of the platform decks which are in the way a little or alot depending on whether or not they're stowed. So these days the Nanny/Burnaby are considered 180 car ferries, which means no oversized/overwidthed vehicles. Also having spent a few days following Route 17, there seems to be a huge different in loads compared to what the Nanaimo carries. The Burnaby carries alot of Commercial traffic compared to the Nanaimo. Commercial traffic in the Gulf Islands are encouraged to travel Route 1/5. However I was quite suprised with the Commercial traffic on the Burnaby, and they can cram in quite a bit on there if need be. They could have 10 semi's on there (thereabouts) sometimes, and then only a couple handful of cars. I often think that Route 17 crews are thankful for the extra space for a better car deck load in some cases.
The Howe Sound Queen is actually now a 55 car ferry at best. She has basically lost an entire lane to allow for a wheelchair accessable washroom and lounge as well as egress routes to the evacuation slides. The Egress routes also serve dual purposes as Assembly Stations in the event of an emergency. Lastly, the Howe Sound Queen is majorly restricted by her draft. Quite often the early morning runs will see overloads due to heavy commercial traffic traveling to Salt Spring with heavy loads, but there will actually still be alot of deck space left over.
The Skeena Queen is a great design. She is amazingly stable, and you can park all of the vehicles you want to one side, and you'll barely create a list on her. This is a vessel with very little restrictions on the car deck load. One escape hatch from the engine room that needs to be kept clear, and there only needs to be a path kept completely clear around the forward end of the vessel. I've counted as many as 110 cars on there, and that's of course done with parking each car one by one and ensuring they're about 24 inches away from the car in front. My only complaint is the RAD's, since all RAD's are actually pretty inefficient on long straight runs. They try to alleviate some of the fuel burn by only applying rev's to the aft end RAD's, and then having the forward RAD's running at idle to have less drag through the water and she'll maintain around 10/11 knots. At full speed she can get up to around 14 or 15 knots if conditions are right. That being said, you appreciate RAD's for turning around in places like Fulford Harbour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2013 18:52:50 GMT -8
The Howe Sound Queen is actually now a 55 car ferry at best. She has basically lost an entire lane to allow for a wheelchair accessable washroom and lounge as well as egress routes to the evacuation slides. The Egress routes also serve dual purposes as Assembly Stations in the event of an emergency. Lastly, the Howe Sound Queen is majorly restricted by her draft. Quite often the early morning runs will see overloads due to heavy commercial traffic traveling to Salt Spring with heavy loads, but there will actually still be alot of deck space left over. Chris, do you know what the car capacity is going to be on the HSQ's replacement?
I wouldn't be surprised if BC Ferries puts platform decks on one of the vessels that replace the Powell River Class. BCF might build four Capilano-type vessels (3 for the Powell River Class and one for the HSQ), one of those with platforms, for standardization purposes.
All this speculation is about BCF using current ship desgins for their future newbuilds. I do agree because these designs seem to have worked (ferry crews might say something different), but there's defenitely going to be some differences -notably in the engine room- IF current designs are used. They're now around 20 years old. We all know about the issues that had to be dealt with with the RADs on the Capilano/Cumberland/Skeena. Those ships have all been re-engined over the past decade.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jan 27, 2013 19:33:17 GMT -8
We all know about the issues that had to be dealt with with the RADs on the Capilano/Cumberland/Skeena. Those ships have all been re-engined over the past decade. Not true. The RAD drives on the Capilano have had issues, most of which have stemmed from a lack of spare parts between the Cumberland and Capilano. The Cap received new RAD units a few years ago, so the old units are available as spares on the Cumberland. Neither the Cap or Cumbie have been re-engined since launching. The Skeena's original high speed Mitsubishi engines were erroneously specified by either the shipyard or BCF, I have heard conflicting statements. They were high speed engines not designed for service in a situation like the Skeena. After problems with cracked blocks, they were replaced in the early 2000s with standard medium speed engines, and have had no problems since. I'm not entirely sure what BCF is planning for newbuilds, and I don't think they have much in the way of concrete plans due to the unknown political future of marine transportation in BC. I will make the following predictions, however. 1. BCF will not build any new tonnage with platform decks. The current regulatory environment makes their use very cumbersome in relation to their potential increased capacity. 2. Aside from a replacement for the Tenaka/Tachek etc on the northern gulf is. runs, any newbuilds will be double ended. 3. Despite their increased fuel burn, and lack of straight-line ability, the new ships will be either azipod or RAD driven. I will tend to lean toward RAD, as they do not require drydocking to perform most maintenance. 4. The ships will be built by the most cost-effective shipyard to bid, whether that's in Canada, Europe, or Asia will be up to Seaspan and Allied to ensure they are the lowest bidder. Just my $0.02,
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 28, 2013 8:06:55 GMT -8
3. Despite their increased fuel burn, and lack of straight-line ability, the new ships will be either azipod or RAD driven. I will tend to lean toward RAD, as they do not require drydocking to perform most maintenance. Increased fuel burn?? BCF needs ferries with less fuel burn, esp. small ones, so they don't have to charge a ridiculous amount on fares and make everyone leave whatever island they're living on, due to the insanely high fares.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jan 28, 2013 8:24:09 GMT -8
3. Despite their increased fuel burn, and lack of straight-line ability, the new ships will be either azipod or RAD driven. I will tend to lean toward RAD, as they do not require drydocking to perform most maintenance. Increased fuel burn?? BCF needs ferries with less fuel burn, esp. small ones, so they don't have to charge a ridiculous amount on fares and make everyone leave whatever island they're living on, due to the insanely high fares. Yes, but the argument can be made that the fuel burn is worth the benefits in increased maneuverability in cross currents (Quadra Island and Sturdies Bay in particular) and docking ability. I'm not sure there's really anywhere in the WSF system that have the tidal currents that can be found on some of the routes in BC.
|
|