Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2011 4:02:53 GMT -8
So, did BC Ferries buy the "Hiiumaa" or not?
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Feb 8, 2011 11:20:30 GMT -8
We haven't heard or discussed anything about this in the last 2 months... so at this point I think it's safe to say no.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 8, 2011 11:54:57 GMT -8
I occasionally do a google news-search on the word "hiiumaa", and I haven't seen anything since November.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2011 1:33:14 GMT -8
MF "Hiiumaa" is now in the yard drydock, still in Saaremaa Shipping Company livery! Here a photo of her from this morning. www.refvik.info/Forum/Hiiumaa 4.jpg[/img] Photo: © Oddgeir Refvik
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2011 15:49:55 GMT -8
"Hiiumaa" have been on seatrails lately, and it looks like she will be delivered to Saaremaa Shipping Company shortly!
|
|
timo
Deckhand
Posts: 57
|
Post by timo on May 26, 2011 4:51:12 GMT -8
Hi,
Bumped into this forum by accident. Saw this thread and also saw as my duty to inform you that it appears your hopes of getting the HIIUMAA seem to have been in wain.
As I understand she is already delivered to Estonia and in service. If not yet in service, then it is any day now.
As to the discussion I might give some points, and bear in mind that I have never been to your side of Canada:
I have been on the MUHUMAA and also on the first commercial sailing of the SAAREMAA. And I have seen these ships in heavy duty. Although nowadays working ashore I spent 4 years on both freighters and ferries and live in Finland.
1. Car deck. The ship is built with a main car deck of open type, and this can take up to 100 European cars or 150 Lane Meters + some additional cars. In your standards I expect this to be around 70-75 cars giving real space to even open the car doors. The cars are not usually "packed". There is no platform deck, but such can be added. 2. Lower car deck. This one is NOT below water line. There is space for about 50 cars or slightly less than 40 over there. It is surprisingly fast to load and unload and in current service the ship is cleared in just a few minutes, even if foot passengers also use the ramps. 3. Freightwise the capacity would not alter - as she is intended for fast turnaround the lanes are the widest I have ever seen. 4. Total capacity would be over 100 cars. And by adding platforms one can definitely say 150 could be close. 5. The ice-strengthened hull seem to be seen as a problem. the question you should in my opinion ask is if you want a vessel that can handle 40 years of service? Then ice-strengthened is what you will look for, as it is not only the - hull, but also the machinery that needs to be dimensioned for heavy use. She might be heavy, but she will be long lasting - I have seen ships that have been "economically built" and they have been rubbish. 6. Fuel consumption. She appears to use 9.6 tons/24 h at 15 knots. This is among the best of this size. 7. Crew accommodation. Now, I do not know how large a crew she would need over there, but here 13 cabins with 19 beds is enough. Usually the crew is less than 12, in the summer might be more. Many seem to live at home, not on board. 8. Passenger accommodation. This might be the main problem if you have a lot of foot passengers. She has a large galley and a good café. There are some 400 seats inside and about 200 outside seats on the sun decks. There is a large shop, which if not needed could give space for about 50 seats more. However - this can be modified. There is a possibility to expand the passenger deck both forward and towards the stern. This could add up to 150 seats without cramming. And if doing that, then one can add slightly more superstructure on the crew deck as well, but this will of course reduce the deadweight of the vessel.
So - conclusion. I think that they would suit the service even over there. Even if the accommodation is small, a typical mix when sailing full could be about 5 trucks and maybe 60-70 cars. Here such a mix would mean less than 200 passengers. When sailing full with cars 450 might be possible here, but as you have over-sized cars in the US and Canada, I still do not see this as a real problem. But then I have not seen the services over there. Crossing time, time in port, typical car-deck-mix and all sorts of other stuff affect the suitability. Let us just say that even if she would probably not be perfect, I somehow doubt she would be worse than any ship she would realistically replace.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on May 26, 2011 6:52:54 GMT -8
Hi, Bumped into this forum by accident. Saw this thread and also saw as my duty to inform you that it appears your hopes of getting the HIIUMAA seem to have been in wain. As I understand she is already delivered to Estonia and in service. If not yet in service, then it is any day now. As to the discussion I might give some points, and bear in mind that I have never been to your side of Canada: I have been on the MUHUMAA and also on the first commercial sailing of the SAAREMAA. And I have seen these ships in heavy duty. Although nowadays working ashore I spent 4 years on both freighters and ferries and live in Finland. 1. Car deck. The ship is built with a main car deck of open type, and this can take up to 100 European cars or 150 Lane Meters + some additional cars. In your standards I expect this to be around 70-75 cars giving real space to even open the car doors. The cars are not usually "packed". There is no platform deck, but such can be added. 2. Lower car deck. This one is NOT below water line. There is space for about 50 cars or slightly less than 40 over there. It is surprisingly fast to load and unload and in current service the ship is cleared in just a few minutes, even if foot passengers also use the ramps. 3. Freightwise the capacity would not alter - as she is intended for fast turnaround the lanes are the widest I have ever seen. 4. Total capacity would be over 100 cars. And by adding platforms one can definitely say 150 could be close. 5. The ice-strengthened hull seem to be seen as a problem. the question you should in my opinion ask is if you want a vessel that can handle 40 years of service? Then ice-strengthened is what you will look for, as it is not only the - hull, but also the machinery that needs to be dimensioned for heavy use. She might be heavy, but she will be long lasting - I have seen ships that have been "economically built" and they have been rubbish. 6. Fuel consumption. She appears to use 9.6 tons/24 h at 15 knots. This is among the best of this size. 7. Crew accommodation. Now, I do not know how large a crew she would need over there, but here 13 cabins with 19 beds is enough. Usually the crew is less than 12, in the summer might be more. Many seem to live at home, not on board. 8. Passenger accommodation. This might be the main problem if you have a lot of foot passengers. She has a large galley and a good café. There are some 400 seats inside and about 200 outside seats on the sun decks. There is a large shop, which if not needed could give space for about 50 seats more. However - this can be modified. There is a possibility to expand the passenger deck both forward and towards the stern. This could add up to 150 seats without cramming. And if doing that, then one can add slightly more superstructure on the crew deck as well, but this will of course reduce the deadweight of the vessel. So - conclusion. I think that they would suit the service even over there. Even if the accommodation is small, a typical mix when sailing full could be about 5 trucks and maybe 60-70 cars. Here such a mix would mean less than 200 passengers. When sailing full with cars 450 might be possible here, but as you have over-sized cars in the US and Canada, I still do not see this as a real problem. But then I have not seen the services over there. Crossing time, time in port, typical car-deck-mix and all sorts of other stuff affect the suitability. Let us just say that even if she would probably not be perfect, I somehow doubt she would be worse than any ship she would realistically replace. Thanks for your comments and insight to HIIUMAA, Timo, and welcome to the Forum. It seems like with a few modifications, such as expanding the passenger cabin a little bit, this vessel, or one similar in design to it, would be a good fit on some of the BC Ferries routes, such as Rte 17 (Comox-Powell River), or even Rte 7 (Earl's Cove-Saltery Bay). The small passenger cabin would not make such a vessel an ideal replacement for Queen of Nanaimo on Rte 9 (Tsawwassen-Gulf Islands), as that route sees fairly high passenger yields. Alas, this conversation is somewhat academic since it appears BC Ferries has chosen to not purchase HIIUMAA, but who knows what the future might bring?
|
|
timo
Deckhand
Posts: 57
|
Post by timo on May 26, 2011 8:49:22 GMT -8
Thank you. I am very interested to find out more about what happens and can happen in other parts of the world as well, not just in my "home corner"
Well, this "old news" can be read in both ways: 1. BC Ferries decided not to buy. 2. The owners decided not to sell. You can add the words "at that price" to either one or even both of them.
However, I for one would not count out the possibility of them ordering a modified type, but from where and when, that will be the question. My impression is that much of the BC Ferries fleet is now nearing the end of their life. As many of the 1970-ies ferries are being scrapped as we speak it is unlikely that many of the current fleet can continue the next decade - and with an average age of about 28 years (1983) this seems quite impossible. Then again, with proper maintenance and (once) well built, who knows how long a ship can be used.
Now would be a good time to order from European Yards - the prices are not ridiculously low, but still on the low side. As for Asian yards it appears the prices are already rising there.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on May 26, 2011 16:25:53 GMT -8
My impression is that much of the BC Ferries fleet is now nearing the end of their life. As many of the 1970-ies ferries are being scrapped as we speak it is unlikely that many of the current fleet can continue the next decade - and with an average age of about 28 years (1983) this seems quite impossible. Then again, with proper maintenance and (once) well built, who knows how long a ship can be used. Boy, you sure don't know how we do ferries in this part of the world. We believe in squeezing every year possible out of our ferries. In British Columbia and Washington, just before the first passenger falls through the rust on the promenade deck onto the car deck below, we give our vessels a 'mid-life upgrade'. Then, twenty or thirty years later, we flog them, along with a lifetime supply of duct tape and bondo, to a third world country where SOLAS is thought to be a brand of solar heating panel. Of course, I'm exaggerating. A bit. To paraphrase Neil Young, sort of: Rust never sleeps. It sails. Just look at the Queen of Burnaby.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on May 26, 2011 18:36:22 GMT -8
My impression is that much of the BC Ferries fleet is now nearing the end of their life. As many of the 1970-ies ferries are being scrapped as we speak it is unlikely that many of the current fleet can continue the next decade - and with an average age of about 28 years (1983) this seems quite impossible. Then again, with proper maintenance and (once) well built, who knows how long a ship can be used. Boy, you sure don't know how we do ferries in this part of the world. We believe in squeezing every year possible out of our ferries. In British Columbia and Washington, just before the first passenger falls through the rust on the promenade deck onto the car deck below, we give our vessels a 'mid-life upgrade'. Then, twenty or thirty years later, we flog them, along with a lifetime supply of duct tape and bondo, to a third world country where SOLAS is thought to be a brand of solar heating panel. Of course, I'm exaggerating. A bit. To paraphrase Neil Young, sort of: Rust never sleeps. It sails. Just look at the Queen of Burnaby. Neil, at least we have taste in our ship designs. I'd take a rusty Queen of Burnaby over whatever this is supposed to be any day: www.faktaomfartyg.se/pride_of_al_salam_95_1972_bild_1.htmwww.faktaomfartyg.se/pride_of_al_salam_95_1972_bild_2.htmAnd we call the 'Wack ugly...
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on May 26, 2011 19:12:34 GMT -8
That's really weird... It looks like they took another ship and placed it on top of the existing superstructure...
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on May 26, 2011 19:37:58 GMT -8
Wow. No argument from me on that one. That is without question the ugliest ferry I've ever seen. It looks like at least two major rebuilds- huge chunks just stacked and welded together. Yes, the Queen of Chilliwack would actually look pretty good next to that abortion.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on May 26, 2011 20:26:14 GMT -8
That is without question the ugliest ferry I've ever seen. It looks like at least two major rebuilds- huge chunks just stacked and welded together. Yes, the Queen of Chilliwack would actually look pretty good next to that abortion. I agree with you 100% on that one. She didn't always look that bad, but she was never a beaut. www.faktaomfartyg.se/free_enterprise_VI_1972.htmAs built, she's probably a 5 out of 10. Prior to her sinking, a 2 at most. That's a generous grading. Looks like she was julienned, then two passenger decks were added on, then the top was plopped back down on top. A ferry sandwich? I don't at all like the appearance of what I'll call a back-up wheelhouse under her actual one. This tub would actually make a good Lolferry: "I wants lipo" ;D EDIT: Actually, this ferry and her sistership had their hulls chopped off and new ones built, as well as the two-deck addition.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on May 26, 2011 20:53:37 GMT -8
???I am a little confused by these links that show this old free enterprise abortion of a rebuild, this isn't what we are considering? We allready have a maritime junk pile on our hands! As for the age of some other coastal relics, some of these have been loveingly looked after like the Coho, but these Greek and other beauties are old when only a few years of age, you only need to look at the lovely Sonja for an example, and check out her well aged railings as a starting point. mrdot.
|
|
timo
Deckhand
Posts: 57
|
Post by timo on May 26, 2011 23:59:49 GMT -8
Boy, you sure don't know how we do ferries in this part of the world. We believe in squeezing every year possible out of our ferries. Of course, I'm exaggerating. A bit. To paraphrase Neil Young, sort of: Rust never sleeps. It sails. Just look at the Queen of Burnaby. Thanks for todays best laugh - it was needed in the work of evaluating exam after exam... Rust never sleeps... Not meaning to offend anyone, but as someone interested in maritime history, I would say that BC Ferries of today could be renamed - give it the name British Columbia Ship Preservation society... But, seriously, from another point of view you can claim that this is actually the environmentally sound solution. And it also shows that the ships have originally been quite well built and reasonably well designed if it can work after all these years. Let us face it, a ship is a huge investments and the margins they have to work with are really not that huge. As for the talk of ugly ship design - I would like to add an example of ferry design at its best - this is a true beauty - and the last ship I ever worked on. In those days she served a Finland-Germany 21 h service. She, or rather her sister has actually a Canadian link... www.faktaomfartyg.se/superfast_VIII_2001_bild_2.htmThough, I admit, this type is in itself totally out of question for the services on your West Coast. Added as an afterthought: Even todays ship design goes sometimes horribly wrong. This ship is in itself so ugly that they decided (and quite rightly so) that there was no need to think of how to paint her as long as they did paint her - she would still look ugly: www.faktaomfartyg.se/superstar_2008_b_1.htmIn service between Helsinki (Finland) and Tallinn (Estonia).
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on May 27, 2011 7:15:13 GMT -8
As for the talk of ugly ship design - I would like to add an example of ferry design at its best - this is a true beauty - and the last ship I ever worked on. In those days she served a Finland-Germany 21 h service. She, or rather her sister has actually a Canadian link... www.faktaomfartyg.se/superfast_VIII_2001_bild_2.htmThough, I admit, this type is in itself totally out of question for the services on your West Coast. Ah, yes. That would be Marine Atlantic's Atlantic Vision, formerly Superfast IX. I would someday like to get out to Nova Scotia and see those ferries.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on May 27, 2011 11:54:08 GMT -8
As for the talk of ugly ship design - I would like to add an example of ferry design at its best - this is a true beauty - and the last ship I ever worked on. In those days she served a Finland-Germany 21 h service. She, or rather her sister has actually a Canadian link... www.faktaomfartyg.se/superfast_VIII_2001_bild_2.htmThough, I admit, this type is in itself totally out of question for the services on your West Coast. Ah, yes. That would be Marine Atlantic's Atlantic Vision, formerly Superfast IX. I would someday like to get out to Nova Scotia and see those ferries. So does that mean you are calling Atlantic Vision ugly, or not? 4.bp.blogspot.com/_FQS3asumli0/ST_-cHam2lI/AAAAAAAAABY/VS6DhOtZneU/s1600-h/2008_12080015.JPGI still believe that a vessel design like the Hiiumaa is what BCFerries should have considered for replacing intermediate ships, and not the Island Sky. A good seaworthy 'ship' instead of a barge which could also be capable of open strait crossings, having raised bulwarks and a semi enclosed car deck. Also a bit easier to look at with the sloped front to the passenger decks. Looks like she was julienned, then two passenger decks were added on, then the top was plopped back down on top. A ferry sandwich? I don't at all like the appearance of what I'll call a back-up wheelhouse under her actual one. This tub would actually make a good Lolferry: "I wants lipo" ;D EDIT: Actually, this ferry and her sistership had their hulls chopped off and new ones built, as well as the two-deck addition. I don't get how people ever even felt safe in those death traps. I feel trapped and claustrophobic just looking them. The car decks must have been caves, and the passenger spaces an absolute maze. Maybe in their absolute original configuration they had a certain visual appeal, but what they did to them is the ultimate display of greed and cheapness rolled in to one top heavy looking package.
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on May 27, 2011 12:28:42 GMT -8
The word “Spoiled” comes to mind, for both us in Canada and the Europeans. It seems that we have been spoiled by some gorgeous ferries in our area, and the Europeans get the new model every 20 years. I don’t quite understand why people think ships have to be replaced so often. The argument of “not good enough for today’s standards” kind of boggles me. I do not personally believe that in the 1960’s people were putting their lives at risk to go on the ferry, and I still do not believe that. So far the only fatalities that have occurred with BCF have been operator error, or more accurately procedural inadequacy. I would tend to think that even with the almost 50 year old Queen of Vancouver in her dying days of mistreatment and neglect, the largest risk to passenger safety was still operator / procedural error.
I do not in any way condone neglecting the possibility of a disaster. There should always be an adequate and operational lifesaving plan and equipment. There should always be provisions for firefighting and emergency preparedness. Lastly there should always be a proper maintenance plan to ensure that the only errors that can occur are operator / procedural errors. If these three major things are taken care of and the ship gets regular maintenance and TLC there is no reason they could easily surpass 50 maybe 60 years of service and still be a good ship. I was on board the COHO last summer, she seems like a good ship, 52 years young I believe, granted I was not able to take a look at her hull and machinery, but I understand she received new or rebuilt engines a few years back and she gets taken care of quite well.
I know that as a ship gets older it is harder and more expensive to keep her in tip top running condition, but I also know that preventative maintenance, something that BCF doesn’t seem to know about, makes your money go a heck of a lot further than waiting for it to break. I know the simple and obvious thing most people think of is to just replace the ship. Investing in a new ship is a huge capital cost, BCF knows this, I know this as well, I think most of us understand that.
So, now I ask to all the armchair CEO’s like myself, why, considering BCF’s A+ bond rating, or whatever that thing is, are they not taking out a loan and replacing all these old ships, NOW? BCF may seem like a bunch of bumbling morons running around the majority of the time, but I am sure their accountants have crunched the numbers and they may have found that it is cheaper to reinvest in some of their existing fleet, than to take on the cost of building a new ship. Now we get back to the argument of old ships, meeting standards etc. I still feel our greatest risk as passenger on a BCF vessel is HUMAN ERROR, or tripping over the stupid raised doorway access’s on the car decks of the Coastal.
In summary It is my opinion that people are equating the vessel condition to their safety more than the human aspect of its operation. Given the wrong person at the helm, you are in just as much danger on a Coastal as you would have been on the queen of Vancouver. I feel that the Europeans replace their vessels far to often, and that money could be better spent in other places.
Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by glasseye on May 27, 2011 14:18:03 GMT -8
Human error is indeed the leading cause of accidents but this doesn't make modern ships overkill. New ships have a lot more resiliency to survive human error without producing fatalities in comparison to their elder counterparts.
You have a better chance of survival in the event of a collision or grounding in a modern ship designed to survive two flooded compartments than in an older, one-compartment, ship.
You also have a much better chance of survival in a marine fire on a ship that has incorporated the last 40 years of blood knowledge on fire survivability than on a ship from the 1960s built with materials that emit toxic smoke when burned.
New ships can't eliminate human error, but they do make human error more survivable.
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on May 27, 2011 17:13:26 GMT -8
Glasseye,
I do not think that everything about modern ships is overkill, there are a few things, not many. Of course I think we should use our past experiences to improve our new ships, there is no point in building a replica of a ship that we know we can design better now.
I also agree that new ships cannot eliminate human error. My point is that the human error is what we really need to be taking care of, not relying on newer technologies to make us safer. We tend to put more effort into assuming the worst will happen VS actually decreasing the probability of the worst occurring.
If you think about it the newer ships are no better at preventing an accident than the old ones. You do have radar and such, and AIS, and this and that. The Queen of the North had all that and look where she ended up. To me to much emphasis is put on the equipment. Minus the fact that the Queen of Vancouver was not taken care of she was still quite reliable into her dying days. The QPR was still chugging along strong and look at the beating she took over her 40+ years. Both ships offered all a well trained crew needs to provide safe and reliable service.
I am not knocking BCF for having poorly trained crews, I know 99.9% of the crew members out there are competent and do their jobs well. We all know though that it takes a simple breakdown in protocol or procedure and the errors pile up.
My simple point and opinion is it takes two to tango, a good, attentive crew and a reliable, seaworthy ship.
Cheers,
|
|
timo
Deckhand
Posts: 57
|
Post by timo on May 28, 2011 0:19:32 GMT -8
Interesting ideas -and all with at least a hint of truth - if not even more. My point here is not to thrash anything that has been said before - but maybe trying to expand further on these ideas. We shall see if I succeed or fail.
I admit I am a bit sceptical when it comes to the safety of old vessels. But, if the ship has been well designed and fills the latest SOLAS requirements this does not automatically mean that she is less safe than a new ship. As for Queen of the North - it is in my opinion totally impossible to say that a more modern ship would have survived that accident better - it all depends on how the ship was designed - if it just followed the rules when built or if it was built and designed to survive all unthinkable scenarios. Let us just face it - unsinkable ships will never exist.
As for European ferries being replaced too often. That is something I can not understand, as it is impossible to compare the markets. Most European ferries sail without any subsidies (of course - there are exceptions, mostly in domestic services) and on purely commercial terms. The reasons why they were replaced often before 1999 was caused by two things: 1. Booming trade because of tax-free sales and 2. because of nr. 1 the ships could be sold ten years later at the original building prices. That is the reason why for instance Viking Line, Silja Line and others were able to replace their ships every few years.
In 1999 this however changed, and the operators that survived this turned their eyes on freight and on ideas of how to minimize the number of crew needed. Now also the age of ships have been rising. Stena Line has turned into a BC-Ferries method - converting the over 30 year old (although admittedly deliverd 1987 and 1988) STENA GERMANICA and STENA SCANDINAVICA into STENA VISION and STENA SPIRIT. Also Viking Line has decided to squeeze 5 more years out of ROSELLA after their order from a Spanish yard fail when the yard went belly up. The main reason behind this change is that due to the tax-free abolition there was no market for these floating malls and this caused the second-hand values to decline, while the building cost of newbuildings continued to rise.
Now the need to replace vessels comes from different things. Some ships have originally been cheaply built. They are simply near their usable life - and these are of course ships that can be claimed to be optimized... Others are too fuel hungry or crew intensive. And then there is the capacity problem. Some ships are getting too small on their routes - or you can replace several smaller vessels with fewer numbers of larger vessels. Anyway, this has lead to European ferries being older than ever before.
As for why BC-Ferries is "not doing anything"? There may be a number of reasons. These are just suggestions to typical reasons why ship owners have not reacted to a changing world. They are in no particular order. 1. Lack of competition - competition is what drives operators forward forcing them to act in order to survive. 2. Uncertainty over tomorrow: Economy, politics, needs? Is the customer base expanding or reducing? Will our order from a domestic yard result in us getting a few very expensive vessels - or will ordering from abroad cause bad goodwill? 3. Uncertainty over what to invest in? Many steamshipowners failed in the 1950ies and 1960ies as they invested in classic tonnage that was in reality obsolete before delivery, they just did not know it yet. What is best for tomorrow? Steam power? Diesel-electric or conventional? LNG? Coal? Wind power or fuel cells? 4. Maybe we will know tomorrow what we need to do. Until then, let us just keep the old wreck moving - but let us not invest in it, so it is not wasted money when we will eventually order the new ships... 5. Financial situation. I do not know how bad it is to get financing over there, but I know that a fairly well known property developer in Finland bought a property in Helsinki, in good condition, prime location and useful. One of those you can sell anytime to anyone - the price was also unusually low. The reason for the price having to drop was not the lack of buyers, but the banks did not give loans until somebody came up with double securities. So, to get a 5 MEUR loan over 10 MEUR of securities were needed. 6. Some operators have lately been ailing, not being that profitable, and in reality, when all things are considered, being approaching a point where it would have been impossible to continue - or to invest. Viking Line has admitted the recent order was made almost at the last minute. Two, three more years and they would not have been strong enough to invest in a 240 MEUR newbuilding.
Sorry about this overlong post without any substance.
|
|
timo
Deckhand
Posts: 57
|
Post by timo on Jun 10, 2011 18:58:33 GMT -8
|
|
timo
Deckhand
Posts: 57
|
Post by timo on Aug 20, 2012 1:46:15 GMT -8
So - there will be more of these. The shiptype has functioned well. They have an upper deck (open) for cars and freight - and below this (but above waterline) a closed car deck for private cars. Due to the width of the ramps and cardecks unloading and loading is faster than one thinks. "SLK, BLRT and Swedbank signed a preliminary agreement for the construction of the fourth ferry 27.05.2012 17:02
On Saturday the Saaremaa Shipping Company, BLRT and Swedbank concluded the preliminary agreement on the design and construction of the fourth high-Strait ferry.
It also agreed on the possibility of a similar type to order two more, but advanced ice-breaking ferries. Joint letter of intent was signed in Saaremaa by Saaremaa Shipping Company Chairman Vjatseslav Leedo, BLRT Group CEO Fyodor Berman and Director of Swedbank in Estonia Priit Perens. "www.tuulelaevad.ee/index.php?option=com_tuulelaevad&Itemid=30&id=87&lang=et
|
|