|
Post by Kahloke on Jan 28, 2013 8:31:16 GMT -8
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. Keystone Harbor
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jan 28, 2013 8:34:24 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. BC Ferries is looking into LNG as a fuel source for some of its vessels, so would that lead to greater fuel efficiency? That's, of course, if anything becomes of the LNG experiment, which WSF is also studying for its fleet.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jan 28, 2013 8:38:19 GMT -8
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. Keystone Harbor Right... forgot about that one. On the other hand, by my understanding that Keystone has more of a tidal rip that cuts across the entrance to the harbour, not a constant current like is found in Discovery Passage or Active Pass. EDIT: Just to add to Kahloke's recent post mentioning LNG. I personally think LNG is going to be the fuel of the future for marine use. It is far cleaner than diesel, which results in less maintenance and operating cost, fewer harmful emissions, and it's still extremely plentiful. BC has immense natural gas supplies just waiting to be tapped. NG can also arguably be extracted from the ground in a more environmentally friendly way. Oh yeah, and it's way cheaper than oil. For the immediate future (Nanaimo/Burnaby newbuilds) I'm not sure BCF will jump on the LNG bandwagon as of yet, just because they're going to want something quick and with minimal teething issues. It is possible to get engines that are capable of being dual fueled though, which is something they may do if they're intelligent, and retrofit later if and when LNG catches on.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jan 28, 2013 9:04:31 GMT -8
Getting back to the discussion at hand, it might be worthwhile to post the links Flugel Horn cut out of the presentation BC Ferries presented to the Washington State Transportation Committee last summer, outlining possible future new-builds for BC Ferries. As others noted in that thread, this plan shouldn't be taken too seriously at this point. And here's what the Burnaby / Nanaimo replacement MIGHT look like (the top "Carrier Princess" style is what might happen if they do a "Like for Like replacement re vessel capacity) - the bottom 2 ships are what MIGHT replace the Bowen Class & Howe Sound Queen. I am wondering how well a Hiumaa, or Boknafjord, based design would do as a replacement for the Queens of Burnaby and Nanaimo. It seems like it would be a versatile design, but my one criticism would be the smallish passenger cabin, particularly if it were to be operated on Route 9. Perhaps the design could be modified to enlarge the passenger areas; don't know, but it's a thought. Here is a link to Boknafjord so you can see what it is I am referring to: www.ferryvolution.com/newbuilding-archive/2011/fjord1/The same company also made a smaller version of that design called Edoyfjord. It carries 50 cars, looks to be pretty sturdy for rougher-seas conditions, and I think could potentially be a good fit to replace QQ2, Tachek, Tenaka, and possibly NIP. Once again, the smallish passenger cabin may need to be addressed. www.ferryvolution.com/2012/01/19/photolog-edoyfjord/And, lastly, what about building more I-Class vessels (like Island Sky) to replace the Powell River Class, Bowen Queen, Mayne Queen, & PRQ? One could operate with Queen of Cumberland on Route 5 which would be a nice bump to capacity there. One could operate on Route 4 also increasing capacity there and giving Saltspring Islanders a nicer passenger cabin where they can better enjoy the 35 minute crossing. Yes, I know there is no room in Fulford Harbour to expand facilities and the vehicle marshaling area, but a 125 car vessel would accommodate future growth and kick Skeena Queen to another route where growth may eventually require a larger vessel, like Route 6 or maybe even Route 19.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2013 9:38:46 GMT -8
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. Good point. That leaves me wondering how much stock should we put into the plans/ideas BCF showed to WSF. If the NDP wins, which is obviously very likely, I guess those ideas can be scrapped. The Burn/Nan need to be replaced by April 2016 (as per the CFSC), and they haven't even selected a shipyard for their replacement nor have they started designing a new vessel. The whole process of the Coastals programme took about 4 years. My guess is that this whole process for the Burn/Nan is going to start right after the election, so that leaves us with just under 3 years. That is if the CFSC isn't scrapped, too- which might mean they would have a little longer to replace the ships. Lots of unknown variables ("if's") right now, and all this political uncertainty in the transportation sector makes it very hard to make any predictions...
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 28, 2013 10:44:05 GMT -8
I am not sure that it would make much sense to replace the Burnaby & Nanaimo with identical ships. The Comox - Powell Rive route could easily be served by something very much similar to WSF's new 144 AEQ vessels. They might choose to go with a single-ender on that route though, as a double-ender is not a huge advantage for that run and probably less fuel efficient overall. An enclosed car deck version of the Island Sky would also work on this route.
As for route 9, you first have to decide on the future of the route, before deciding on a ship. However, assuming the route stays as is, than a larger (~180 AEQ) double ended ship seems appropriate, perhaps an expanded version of a WSF's 144, or an expanded, closed car deck Island Sky. A double ended design is pretty much essential for this route, I think.
In regards to the future of BC Ferries, if the NDP wins the upcoming election (which appears to be very likely), I think you will see a determination to build at home, and a determination to better serve coastal British Columbians than has been the case with the current government. I also expect that much of the planning work done over the last few years to survive. One must keep in mind that the current government will not be leaving the new government a particularly healthy financial situation. You probably will see retirement dates extended yet again as a result of this.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Jan 28, 2013 11:59:21 GMT -8
Perhaps we shall have to see more life extension plans for vessels as seen by the folks in Washington State and Alaska have done quite sucessfully! It in of note that the near sister of our first BC ferry soldgers on very nicely, while the one year younger BC ferry rots in a floating sespool up river! mrdot.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 28, 2013 17:10:39 GMT -8
In regards to the future of BC Ferries, if the NDP wins the upcoming election (which appears to be very likely), I think you will see a determination to build at home... I am leaning towards Nick on this one, but you could be right, we will have to wait and find out. The fact is that today, the shipbuilding industry is a global market. I am hesitant to say that the NDP would give favouritism to localized bids if a foreign shipbuilder such as FSG were to bid substantially lower, especially if the financial situation will be as dire as you mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Mar 24, 2013 20:01:00 GMT -8
I was thinking about RADs and how they're so inefficient, yet they are great for maneuvering crazy tidal currents. I was thinking of doing a sort of diesel-electric (Except probably LNG-Electric would be a more precise name) configuration with Diesel/LNG engines powering generators, which would power four drive motors that would spin azi-pods on each corner of the ferry. Would that be more efficient than the RADs or would it just add more weight to the ferry? Also, it seems that it's mainly the bigger WSF ferries that have Diesel-Electric configurations though, so I'm not sure how well it'd work on a small ferry.
Why do they have all this complicated crap like RADs anyway? Why can't they just use the good-ol' prop and rudder? I know, it's the tidal currents and the tight harbors, but really, what's wrong with just having props and rudders instead of more complicated RADs and azi-pods?
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Mar 25, 2013 6:24:42 GMT -8
I was thinking about RADs and how they're so inefficient, yet they are great for maneuvering crazy tidal currents. I was thinking of doing a sort of diesel-electric (Except probably LNG-Electric would be a more precise name) configuration with Diesel/LNG engines powering generators, which would power four drive motors that would spin azi-pods on each corner of the ferry. Would that be more efficient than the RADs or would it just add more weight to the ferry? Also, it seems that it's mainly the bigger WSF ferries that have Diesel-Electric configurations though, so I'm not sure how well it'd work on a small ferry. Why do they have all this complicated crap like RADs anyway? Why can't they just use the good-ol' prop and rudder? I know, it's the tidal currents and the tight harbors, but really, what's wrong with just having props and rudders instead of more complicated RADs and azi-pods? Please see the Queen of Cumberland and Queen of Capilano. Their propulsion system is virtually exactly what you are describing. RADs are useful in small harbours and high currents. The "good ol' prop and rudder" is not as maneuverable and are much slower to get into the small harbours. Case in point, the Mayne, Bowen, and Powell River Queens were all built originally with props and rudders at each end. They were rebuilt in the early 1970s to use RADs instead because they were not maneuverable enough for the intended routes.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 25, 2013 7:48:41 GMT -8
I was thinking about RADs and how they're so inefficient, yet they are great for maneuvering crazy tidal currents. I was thinking of doing a sort of diesel-electric (Except probably LNG-Electric would be a more precise name) configuration with Diesel/LNG engines powering generators, which would power four drive motors that would spin azi-pods on each corner of the ferry. Would that be more efficient than the RADs or would it just add more weight to the ferry? Also, it seems that it's mainly the bigger WSF ferries that have Diesel-Electric configurations though, so I'm not sure how well it'd work on a small ferry. Why do they have all this complicated crap like RADs anyway? Why can't they just use the good-ol' prop and rudder? I know, it's the tidal currents and the tight harbors, but really, what's wrong with just having props and rudders instead of more complicated RADs and azi-pods? I'm curious where you got the idea that RADs are inefficient? Considering they combine the functions of a propeller and a rudder, and give ships added maneuverability, I'd say they're pretty efficient.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Mar 25, 2013 9:45:54 GMT -8
I was thinking about RADs and how they're so inefficient, yet they are great for maneuvering crazy tidal currents. I was thinking of doing a sort of diesel-electric (Except probably LNG-Electric would be a more precise name) configuration with Diesel/LNG engines powering generators, which would power four drive motors that would spin azi-pods on each corner of the ferry. Would that be more efficient than the RADs or would it just add more weight to the ferry? Also, it seems that it's mainly the bigger WSF ferries that have Diesel-Electric configurations though, so I'm not sure how well it'd work on a small ferry. Why do they have all this complicated crap like RADs anyway? Why can't they just use the good-ol' prop and rudder? I know, it's the tidal currents and the tight harbors, but really, what's wrong with just having props and rudders instead of more complicated RADs and azi-pods? I'm curious where you got the idea that RADs are inefficient? Considering they combine the functions of a propeller and a rudder, and give ships added maneuverability, I'd say they're pretty efficient. Okay, are they really not that way? I just thought that the fact the drive shaft took 2 90-degree turns between the engine and the azipod, (is that what it's called?) it seemed like a lot of energy would be lost in those turns. I really don't know enough about these things anyway to make judgements, but people like Mill Bay seem to dislike RADs.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Mar 25, 2013 9:56:28 GMT -8
I was thinking about RADs and how they're so inefficient, yet they are great for maneuvering crazy tidal currents. I was thinking of doing a sort of diesel-electric (Except probably LNG-Electric would be a more precise name) configuration with Diesel/LNG engines powering generators, which would power four drive motors that would spin azi-pods on each corner of the ferry. Would that be more efficient than the RADs or would it just add more weight to the ferry? Also, it seems that it's mainly the bigger WSF ferries that have Diesel-Electric configurations though, so I'm not sure how well it'd work on a small ferry. Why do they have all this complicated crap like RADs anyway? Why can't they just use the good-ol' prop and rudder? I know, it's the tidal currents and the tight harbors, but really, what's wrong with just having props and rudders instead of more complicated RADs and azi-pods? Please see the Queen of Cumberland and Queen of Capilano. Their propulsion system is virtually exactly what you are describing. What? No, they have RADs, too. The Capilano has had lots of problems with them, though. RADs are useful in small harbours and high currents. The "good ol' prop and rudder" is not as maneuverable and are much slower to get into the small harbours. Case in point, the Mayne, Bowen, and Powell River Queens were all built originally with props and rudders at each end. They were rebuilt in the early 1970s to use RADs instead because they were not maneuverable enough for the intended routes. The environment that BC Ferries operates in is so different than WSF. If RADs are used in the Powell River class with few problems, (perhaps I'm wrong?) why has the also RAD-powered Capilano had countless problems with its propulsion system? Just explain to me the whole setup, would you?
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Mar 25, 2013 10:07:41 GMT -8
Nick has said previously in this thread that RADs and azipods have increased fuel burn. As such, that's where I've found out that the RADs are inefficient, as well as numerous allusions to their inefficiency by people like Mill Bay, IIRC.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Mar 25, 2013 10:08:14 GMT -8
I'm curious where you got the idea that RADs are inefficient? Considering they combine the functions of a propeller and a rudder, and give ships added maneuverability, I'd say they're pretty efficient. Okay, are they really not that way? I just thought that the fact the drive shaft took 2 90-degree turns between the engine and the azipod, (is that what it's called?) it seemed like a lot of energy would be lost in those turns. I really don't know enough about these things anyway to make judgements, but people like Mill Bay seem to dislike RADs. There are different circumstances where RADs are necessary in our system. Routes like Route 5 and Chemainus/Thetis/Penelakut require RADs to keep the schedule, because the ship can do a 180 with very little added time. I think it also has to do with hull design. Higher-bow open water single-ended minor ferries (e.g. Tenaka) operate with a propellor-rudder design, as that is more suitable for longer-distance open water travel. Inland/closed water minor vessels (e.g. Klitsa) have RADs because those vessels require maneuverability and efficiency is not lost, due to the relatively flat/rounded hull. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I believe all of our single-ended and major double-ended ferries have propellor-rudder systems, with our minor and intermediate double-ended ferries having RADs.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Mar 25, 2013 10:22:02 GMT -8
RADs are useful in small harbours and high currents. The "good ol' prop and rudder" is not as maneuverable and are much slower to get into the small harbours. Case in point, the Mayne, Bowen, and Powell River Queens were all built originally with props and rudders at each end. They were rebuilt in the early 1970s to use RADs instead because they were not maneuverable enough for the intended routes. The environment that BC Ferries operates in is so different than WSF. If RADs are used in the Powell River class with few problems, (perhaps I'm wrong?) why has the also RAD-powered Capilano had countless problems with its propulsion system? Just explain to me the whole setup, would you? The Capilano and Cumberland have a diesel electric CPP RAD system. There are 3 diesel generators, which provide electrical power to run 4 electric propulsion motors. Each motor is directly coupled to a Z-drive RAD unit. (The term RAD is not generally used outside of BCF... the rest of the world refers to them as Z-drives). The motors are inside the hull of the ship, but I'm not sure whether they stand vertically or horizontally. If they were vertical that would eliminate one 90 degree gearbox. The propellers are also controllable pitch propellers, which allows fine control of the thrust and increased maneuverability. You're correct in saying that Z drive ships aren't as efficient as conventional propulsion systems. The primary reason for this is as you mentioned, there is at least one 90 degree turn in the shaft line, which introduces friction losses. Another reason is that you have the "blob" of the drive unit hanging off the hull into space creating drag forces. The hull is not able to channel water into the propeller nearly as efficiently either. ALL that said, in some circumstances we acknowledge that there will be a reduction of overall mechanical efficiency, as part of a compromise to increase the maneuverability of the ship. Sometimes, increasing the maneuverability can pay for increased fuel burn by increasing the overall efficiency of the operation, not just the mechanical efficiency of the ship. The overall operation has to be accounted for, not just one small part. You commented on the problems the Capilano and Cumberland had with their RAD system. As far as I know, that problem was isolated to those RAD units, which have since been replaced on the Capilano (The remaining drives from the Cap have been rebuilt as spares for the Cumberland). Other ships in the fleet have been running RADs for years without issues, such as the K class, Q class, PRQ class, and Skeena. Tugs and ferries around the world use Z-drive technology with astounding reliability. EDIT: Just wanted to add that I think vessel speed makes a big difference in how big the losses are with RADs. Worldwide, ships using Z-drive propulsors are typically slower speed vessels, such as smaller ferries (<15kts), tugs, and other utility vessels.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Mar 26, 2013 10:48:06 GMT -8
Thanks for explaining to me how the Capilano/ Cumberland's propulsion system works. So basically, you're saying the general setup used by these ferries works fine, but it was just the particular model of engines or drive motors that caused all the problems?
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Mar 26, 2013 11:10:22 GMT -8
Thanks for explaining to me how the Capilano/ Cumberland's propulsion system works. So basically, you're saying the general setup used by these ferries works fine, but it was just the particular model of engines or drive motors that caused all the problems? The Capilano had issues with her Ulstein RAD's due to the location she works in (Howe Sound). Since being fitted with Rolls Royce units of a higher ice class, there have not been issues when the propellers ingest logs.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on May 22, 2013 19:24:15 GMT -8
I think BC Ferries should replace the North Island Princess with two thirty car vessel, one for all year, the second one spare during the off-peak season, and two during the shoulder season and peak season. Would this work good with the Westview-Blubber Bay route?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on May 22, 2013 21:32:08 GMT -8
I think BC Ferries should replace the North Island Princess with two thirty car vessel, one for all year, the second one spare during the off-peak season, and two during the shoulder season and peak season. Would this work good with the Westview-Blubber Bay route? Texada Island has a permanent population of about a thousand people, and there are few ferry overloads during the course of a year. There is no way on earth to justify the fuel and labour expenses for two vessels in summer. The NIP will be replaced by one fifty or sixty car vessel.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on May 22, 2013 23:27:38 GMT -8
I think BC Ferries should replace the North Island Princess with two thirty car vessel, one for all year, the second one spare during the off-peak season, and two during the shoulder season and peak season. Would this work good with the Westview-Blubber Bay route? Texada Island has a permanent population of about a thousand people, and there are few ferry overloads during the course of a year. There is no way on earth to justify the fuel and labour expenses for two vessels in summer. The NIP will be replaced by one fifty or sixty car vessel. It would also be extraordinarily difficult logistically to make a two-vessel operation work, given the single-berth situation at Westview, and having to share it with the Route 17 vessel. It is already a challenge with just the two boats, I don't think three is realistic.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on May 29, 2013 21:30:32 GMT -8
I think BC Ferries should replace the North Island Princess with two thirty car vessel, one for all year, the second one spare during the off-peak season, and two during the shoulder season and peak season. Would this work good with the Westview-Blubber Bay route? I don't agree with this. I think the NIP will be replaced with a 50-car ferry (slight capacity increase since the NIP's real capacity is 40 cars, not 49) and that BCF should build a sister ship to replace the QQII on Route 25 (Port McNeill-Sointula-Alert Bay). That way the QQII can once again connect her namesake island to Cortes Island and Tachek can serve as a refit-replacement ferry, which will allow for the Tenaka's retirement. Retiring her upon the advent of the cable ferry is a hare-brained idea, so it should be retired upon the introduction of these 50-car ferries.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jul 27, 2013 9:32:21 GMT -8
I was thinking about this, again, and for the Route 9 and 17 debate, I know it's pretty much guaranteed they will got some ugly, asymmetrical barges with no services and inadequate capacity but I'm thinking, in the realm of fantasy, it would have been smart if BCFerries had gone to Elliot Bay and come up with a design the same as the proposed Alaska Class ferries, but larger and long enough to match the capacity of the Burnaby and Nanaimo. Yes, I am proposing ferries that would need platform decks instead of using galleries, but they could have ended up with vessels near identical to the current ships, with bow loading of course, based on a design that is virtually already complete and doesn't need a lot of development. It also would have allowed them to pay due homage to Phil Spaulding and his work.
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Mar 13, 2015 8:57:56 GMT -8
I have a question about the eventual C class replacements, as these vessels aren't exactly spring chickens.
In your opinion, will BC Ferries pretty much replace them vessel-per-vessel with Coastal class ships?
If not, what would you see to be the best replacement option(s)?
|
|
|
Post by Kahn_C on Mar 13, 2015 9:07:41 GMT -8
Based on how much the term "standardization" is tossed around by BCF I think it's a safe bet that we'll see vessel-per-vessel Coastal replacements. I seem to recall hearing somewhere that the standardization dream was to only have ~4 classes of vessel in the end (probably an off the record comment from a BCF rep at one of the public meetings a few years ago...).
|
|