|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on May 11, 2012 22:13:47 GMT -8
A neat little story reported on by CTV Vancouver Island regarding a dolphin (berthing structure) at Berth 3, Swartz Bay...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on May 20, 2012 21:36:36 GMT -8
Berth 4 Update: The ramp abutment footings are taking shape, as well as some of the pilings for the new float taking shape. You can see some of the new pilings sitting on the barge as well. The dock crews took the weekend off.  |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 21, 2012 8:26:21 GMT -8
Views from Friday May 18, 2012: Berth-4 in progress:   ------------------------ Completed berth-5:     |
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager 
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on May 21, 2012 9:15:28 GMT -8
Wonder if a Coastal or Spirit could dock in Berth 5 lol!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on May 24, 2012 4:14:04 GMT -8
The Skeena barely fits in there as it is, and there has to be at least a minumum 1.5M tide for it to be able to go in there. If I'm not mistaken, she has a similar beam to the V/B-Class
|
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on May 24, 2012 6:29:16 GMT -8
Weren't berths 4 and 5 the original berths at SWB? If so, the V/B and Sidney class would had to be have been able to fit in both of them. After 50 years, they could probably just dredge them, and they'd be fine, as long as the larger ships fit in the space provided by the dolphins, and as long as the ramp is high enough to reach their car decks on the new berths.
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on May 24, 2012 7:35:08 GMT -8
Weren't berths 4 and 5 the original berths at SWB? If so, the V/B and Sidney class would had to be have been able to fit in both of them. After 50 years, they could probably just dredge them, and they'd be fine, as long as the larger ships fit in the space provided by the dolphins, and as long as the ramp is high enough to reach their car decks on the new berths. In a word no! I am fairly certain that today's berth 1 is indeed berth 1 from an historical perspective. The Gulf Islands Ferry company also had a berth in Swartz Bay that I believe was located close to where berth 4 & 5 are today, but may actually have been closer to what is now the Seaspan berth. The second major berth, originally numbered berth 2, and now called berth 3 was also installed in the early 1960's (at the time when route 1 first became a four boat operation). Today's berth 2 wasn't constructed until the mid 1970's in preparation for the arrival of the dedicated truck/ rec vehicle ferry. |
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080 
|
Post by Nick on May 24, 2012 7:38:19 GMT -8
Weren't berths 4 and 5 the original berths at SWB? If so, the V/B and Sidney class would had to be have been able to fit in both of them. After 50 years, they could probably just dredge them, and they'd be fine, as long as the larger ships fit in the space provided by the dolphins, and as long as the ramp is high enough to reach their car decks on the new berths. No. The current berth 1 was the original berth at SWB. I believe the original Gulf Island Ferry Co. berth was in the vicinity of the current berths 4 and 5, but that I'm not sure about. In any case, nothing bigger than a gulf island boat has ever used berth 4 or 5 on a regular or semi regular basis. EDIT: WCK beat me to it. |
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080
|
Post by Nick on May 24, 2012 11:51:09 GMT -8
Sorry for the double post, but I found this picture on Kevin Stapleton's Pbase site. It shows SWB in the early 1960s, probably shortly after the purchase of the Gulf Island Ferry Co. You can see the original berth No. 1 in the bottom right corner. As far as I can tell, the other two berths don't exist at all anymore. The land has been built out significantly where those berths are. www.pbase.com/kstapleton/image/30243602 |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on May 24, 2012 12:36:07 GMT -8
Here is another aerial view of Swartz Bay from the early 1960's. Click on the photo there to bring up a larger version. You will note that the BC Archives gives a date for this photo as June 1960, but that is clearly wrong as one of the 'Seven Sisters' is berthed in berth 1. The date has to be no earlier than 1962. In the photo you can see berth 1 as well as the newly constructed berths 2-4 (now 3-5). You can also see the angled berth beyond berth 4 which I expect is the old Gulf Islands company slip.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 26, 2012 4:43:52 GMT -8
Berth 2 at Swartz Bay - seen May 18, 2012 from the arriving SOVI, as we prepared to berth there.   |
|
|
|
Post by Dane on May 28, 2012 19:42:43 GMT -8
How do foot passengers get on a Coastal when in Berth 3?  |
|
|
|
Post by ferryfanyvr on May 28, 2012 19:54:04 GMT -8
How do foot passengers get on a Coastal when in Berth 3? Via the car deck. That berth 3 overhead doesn't fit any ship that presently serves any Swartz Bay routes. Depending on the crew and number of foot passengers they will sometimes move the ship to berth 2 for loading. |
|
|
|
Post by Dane on May 28, 2012 20:12:49 GMT -8
Did it fit the V's (I am assuming no because the New West would fit)?
|
|
|
|
Post by ferryfanyvr on May 28, 2012 20:25:22 GMT -8
Did it fit the V's (I am assuming no because the New West would fit)? Not the V's either. I sometimes wonder if they intended to put a gate on the sundeck of the Cumberland, as on the Capilano |
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on May 28, 2012 20:30:08 GMT -8
Last Friday I boarded the Rennie at berth 3 via the car deck for the 8am sailing!
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on May 28, 2012 21:03:39 GMT -8
Two questions re the overhead walkways at SWB:
1 - Was there an accident at berth 1 which puts its walkway out of service? Or was it a breakdown/maintenance thing? It has been out of service for some time so the problem has to be something reasonably serious?
2 - That walkway serving berth 3 looks pretty new and it looks like a few loonies were spent on it. It also looks fairly useless. Is this just possibly an expensive mistake?
|
|
|
|
Post by ferryfanyvr on May 29, 2012 5:38:26 GMT -8
Two questions re the overhead walkways at SWB: 1 - Was there an accident at berth 1 which puts its walkway out of service? Or was it a breakdown/maintenance thing? It has been out of service for some time so the problem has to be something reasonably serious? 2 - That walkway serving berth 3 looks pretty new and it looks like a few loonies were spent on it. It also looks fairly useless. Is this just possibly an expensive mistake? There was a breakdown involving the hydraulic system and a part had to be ordered. The walkway is now back in service. As for the second question, I'd like to know that too! |
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on May 29, 2012 6:10:06 GMT -8
Two questions re the overhead walkways at SWB: 1 - Was there an accident at berth 1 which puts its walkway out of service? Or was it a breakdown/maintenance thing? It has been out of service for some time so the problem has to be something reasonably serious? 2 - That walkway serving berth 3 looks pretty new and it looks like a few loonies were spent on it. It also looks fairly useless. Is this just possibly an expensive mistake? "Building for the future!" ...maybe? The Island Sky and Capilano both have overhead walkway gates at this level, so maybe one or both of them are planned to be brought over, or maybe it's for the Island Sky's future sistership(s). |
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080
|
Post by Nick on May 29, 2012 6:13:51 GMT -8
Two questions re the overhead walkways at SWB: 1 - Was there an accident at berth 1 which puts its walkway out of service? Or was it a breakdown/maintenance thing? It has been out of service for some time so the problem has to be something reasonably serious? 2 - That walkway serving berth 3 looks pretty new and it looks like a few loonies were spent on it. It also looks fairly useless. Is this just possibly an expensive mistake? It COULD be for the Island Sky, as route 5 was considered a possible deployment at the time of her construction. That ramp was installed in 2006 when berth 2 was rebuilt, which coincides with the start of the I-Sky project. |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on May 29, 2012 8:27:36 GMT -8
Assuming that you guys are correct and that the berth 3 OH walkway was put in for future use (e.g. Capilano, Island Sky, etc.), I have another question:
Suppose that a major Route 1 vessel is loading at berth 2 with the OH walkway in service position on that vessel. Would they simultaneously be able use the OH walkway on another smaller vessel in berth 3? I am thinking here of the elevation difference between where the ramp lands on the C-Cel (or Spirit, or QNWM), and where it would land on the main passenger deck of the I-Sky or Cumberland?
This current OH arrangement at berth 3 also makes it clear that this berth can not be used by route 1 vessels except for storage or emergency. It makes me wonder as they have obviously spent a fair bit of mony on this just a few years ago.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080
|
Post by Nick on May 29, 2012 12:11:49 GMT -8
Assuming that you guys are correct and that the berth 3 OH walkway was put in for future use (e.g. Capilano, Island Sky, etc.), I have another question: Suppose that a major Route 1 vessel is loading at berth 2 with the OH walkway in service position on that vessel. Would they simultaneously be able use the OH walkway on another smaller vessel in berth 3? I am thinking here of the elevation difference between where the ramp lands on the C-Cel (or Spirit, or QNWM), and where it would land on the main passenger deck of the I-Sky or Cumberland? This current OH arrangement at berth 3 also makes it clear that this berth can not be used by route 1 vessels except for storage or emergency. It makes me wonder as they have obviously spent a fair bit of mony on this just a few years ago. No, they most likely could not put the ramp on both ships simultaneously, because the main "ramp" is shared between berth 2 and 3 and the ships would be at much different elevations above the water. Also, because the main ramp is shared, it would get very congested with 2 ships unloading at the same time. I don't think it really cost them that much money. They would have had to put the ramp in for berth 2 anyway, and really the only thing they added for 3 is the extra apron. The rest of the ramp is exactly the same as it would be if it were only for berth 2. |
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on May 29, 2012 15:09:50 GMT -8
Just for the record, the Berth 3 overhead walkway apron didn't lineup for the V's/New West either. Here's a look at the Queen of Vancouver in Berth 3. (This was one of the Vancouvers final tasks before being retired. The Saanich had just been retired, and the SOVI went for refit. The Celebration covered for the SOVI and the Vancouver covered the Celebrations position)  Queen of Vancouver by Ferryman2007, on Flickr Also, I'd agree that this is more appropriate for the Cumberland/Island Sky when a Route 1 vessel is not in Berth 2 |
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on May 29, 2012 17:23:04 GMT -8
I'm guessing it would fit the Burnaby or Queen of Nanaimo, though...?
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080
|
Post by Nick on May 29, 2012 18:44:44 GMT -8
I'm guessing it would fit the Burnaby or Queen of Nanaimo, though...? What makes you think they would be any different than a V-Class or QoNW? The issue isn't height (providing you aren't trying to serve another boat in berth 2) ... it's overall bow-stern placement of the ramp. |
|
