|
|
Post by stingray on Jul 19, 2010 23:56:27 GMT -8
If indeed Ottawa cuts the $5-million in funding to this route that runs from Caribou, Nova Scotia to Wood Islands, PEI, the 17 year old, 220 car and 600 passenger ferry, the Confederation II will be looking for work. Since there's no other run on the East Coast for her to be used, I feel her owner, Northumberland ferries, will likely put her up for sale. If the price is right, I feel that it's a good chance that BC Ferries could pick her up and bring her to the west coast. She will likely first have a refit at shipyard either in Vancouver or Victoria. After that, I would like her to be assigned to the Little River-Westview run year round, freeing the Burnaby to used as the second ship on the Horseshoe Bay-Langdale run in the summer months (witch free the Coquitlam to run out of Horseshoe.) and as a relief ship for the remaineder of the year. It will be interesting if this come to pass to see what BC Ferries will rename the Confederation if she does come to the west coast. String Ray  . |
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Jul 20, 2010 3:58:39 GMT -8
It's really hard to say if the Confederation II would ever be able to live over here. She certainly would not be put on the Comox to Powell River run, since the 192 vehicle Queen of Burnaby is too big for Route 17 as it is, and shes rarely used to capacity. Her car carrying capacity might be handy on Route 9, in the place of the Queen of Nanaimo, however I have no idea what her car deck layout is like which might be tricky to load for multiple destinations.
The only vessel I could really only see her replacing is the Queen of Chilliwack, and used exclusively on the Discovery Coast run as the Northern Discovery. But who knows if she has the proper water tight doors for it. It will be interesting to see what happens with her. I'm skeptical about ever seeing her on this side of the Country.
Her passenger accomadations seem small to me, and it's really hard to say if Transport Canada would allow her passenger count to be stretched out some more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Jul 20, 2010 12:20:10 GMT -8
Everything Chris has said above is valid. Thinking of another use for it...BCF could always use another Mid-Island Express Vessel. One thing I wonder is if, BCF would use the ramp to the lower car deck. If I recall, the NorAd has something like this, but it is not regulated for usage. If they used it, she might be good as a third Mid-Island ferry. If not, I could see the Confederation as a decent replacement for the Burnaby.
The only issue I'd see out of a deal like this is berth structures. What is the breadth of the Confederation? Now that I think about it, it looks similar to the NorAd. A new berth is going to be needed for this Double-Ended Chilliwack look-alike and it's likely she would only be able to operate on routes that have berths upgraded to match her breadth.
If she was put on the Comox Route, rumour has it that the Westview dock is going to be replaced soon and I'm sure BCF wouldn't put in the money in for two new berths on both sides after replacing the one at Westview. The new Westview dock would still berth the NIP though. A 2nd Westview Berth could also give Powell Riverites the edge on the debate that the Comox Ferry should be based on our side.
|
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jul 20, 2010 13:33:28 GMT -8
One thing I wonder is if, BCF would use the ramp to the lower car deck. If I recall, the NorAd has something like this, but it is not regulated for usage. I think that the NorAd's trap-door deck actually holds traffic BELOW the waterline. Transport Canada doesn't allow that, so probably the Confederation II's lower deck is not below the waterline. I envision BC Ferries using that deck the same way that they use the gallery decks on the Spirits and the Gallery Decks on the 'Burnaby; only when there's lots of vehicle traffic. I wonder if they'd be silly enough to try the Seattle-Victoria Express again with her? She's a smaller ship than the other ships they've tried it with, so it could potentially work this time... |
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Jul 20, 2010 14:42:30 GMT -8
Interesting notion, bringing the Confederation out to our coast. Another thing, in addition to other valid points made, sticks out to me, her speed. There seems to be an expectation of a higher standard than just 14 knots to be a regular on Routes 3 or 30. When it comes to routes that utilize slower ferries, the majority being minor routes with smaller vessels, BCFS hasn't even touched the ex Albion ferries for a possible John Atlantic Burr-to-Kuper type rebuild with an enlarged capacity such as this ferry could provide. As for the 'Chilliwack, Seeing as they've kept on extending her TC certs, I'd guess that they're holding out for funding and shopping to contract a newbuild that will last for decades longer and be custom-built unlike the ex Basto I, imho.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jul 20, 2010 15:00:49 GMT -8
The Confederation II is a Quebec based pleasure craft, and not a ferry. The NFI operated Transport Canada owned Confederation (sans II) is the ferry that is being discussed  wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/4/vrqs-srib/d.aspx?shipid=815540&lang=eSimilarly the Holiday Island is also Transport Canada owned. It seems to me to be like Provincial Parks in BC; government owned, subsidized, but fully privately operated. Not quite as complicated as the beast that exists in The Best Place on Earth. |
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jul 20, 2010 15:57:34 GMT -8
|
|
Nick
Voyager 
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078 
|
Post by Nick on Jul 20, 2010 16:43:22 GMT -8
For the record, BCF does not use the below-decks car deck on the NorAd because other than the main ramp, which is covered over when the main deck is full, the only way to access that deck is by a vertical ladder. TC will not allow passengers to use a ladder as the primary method of transcending decks, so BCF would have to use crew to drive the cars on, which they does not want to do due to cost.
I very highly doubt we'd ever see the Confederation on this coast. Too many alterations would need to be made to the ship and berth infrastructure to make it compatible with our systems. Also, we don't really need another ~200AEQ vessel around. BCF seems to be content to live with the Nanny and Burnaby for the next 10 years or so, after which time they'll probably be replaced with new purpose built vessels.
As far as replacing the 'Chilliwack on route 40, again, I don't think so. A double ender is not needed up there, and a single ended ship would be much more efficient. I really believe that if route 40 continues, it will be with a more suitable vessel, with ample passenger space and, most importantly, CABINS. Route 40 will never come anywhere close to breaking even until they can appeal to the tourist crowd.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jul 20, 2010 21:14:00 GMT -8
Since she is able to do the crossing to NFLD in winter, I would imagine that the Confederation has although necessary watertight construction to make her more than safe on route 40 (unless TC doesn't glare as harshly upon her as they do upon our old BCFS barges). She is relatively new, so you can imagine her construction was up to date when she was built. However, that's where the joy ends. She's unlikely to visit here do to the noted design and operational differences. Although I've often thought that this type of ship with it's fully enclosed cardeck with a lifting visor at each end might actually be feasible for something like route 40, it would still have to be designed to the operating standards of BCFerries, and the Confederation is not.
Interestingly enough, I recently heard from a roundabout source that the Norad could actually be considered BCFerries second go round of a Sonia debacle. The first one, interestingly enough was actually the Queen of the North. Although, not purchased in haste like the Sonia, and also having the good fortune of being built as a proper ship... the decision to use the Queen of the North in the north did ruffle some feathers at the time, as the BC shipyards were all ready set with a design for a northern ship to be built on the coast, and the fact that the vessel that ultimately went into service came from Europe made some people none too happy. I'm not sure if the design process was already in place at the time the Stena Danica come to BC, or not, but at some point, it seems the marine sector in BC was hoping they could have built what would have been the Queen of the North.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jul 20, 2010 21:19:17 GMT -8
For the record, BCF does not use the below-decks car deck on the NorAd because other than the main ramp, which is covered over when the main deck is full, the only way to access that deck is by a vertical ladder. TC will not allow passengers to use a ladder as the primary method of transcending decks, so BCF would have to use crew to drive the cars on, which they does not want to do due to cost. I very highly doubt we'd ever see the Confederation on this coast. Too many alterations would need to be made to the ship and berth infrastructure to make it compatible with our systems. Also, we don't really need another ~200AEQ vessel around. BCF seems to be content to live with the Nanny and Burnaby for the next 10 years or so, after which time they'll probably be replaced with new purpose built vessels. As far as replacing the 'Chilliwack on route 40, again, I don't think so. A double ender is not needed up there, and a single ended ship would be much more efficient. I really believe that if route 40 continues, it will be with a more suitable vessel, with ample passenger space and, most importantly, CABINS. Route 40 will never come anywhere close to breaking even until they can appeal to the tourist crowd. Agree with Niel here. She would need alot of work to live as a ferry on our side of the country. She's also a bit slow since most ferries on the more longer runs average about 80 knots. She would also need alot of cabin work for a replacement for the Chillwack. A replacement ferry would serve a dual purpose, providing a service ferry and one that would also serve the tourism trade. The in the hull deck would definately have to be taken out of service. The MV Sonia (N. Adventure) has one, but has never been used during her life as a BC Ferry. It would be more prudent to find an intermediate ferry to serve the Central Coast, something along the lines of the medium to larger size Caledonian ferries in Scotland. Paul, my name's Nick, not Neil. Neil is a well spoken member of this board who is much more intelligent than me. And I'm pretty sure you meant 18 kts, not 80.... unless you're referring to a helicopter or some new kind of propulsion technology... A Cal-Mac type ship may be a good idea. Something like the MV Caledonian Isles perhaps. I can't tell from my quick glance at their web page whether she has cabins or not, but it would be about the right size and capacity. Ideally, we should have something comparable to the Queen of Prince Rupert as a replacement for the Chilliwack, but we've discussed that many times before and is not the topic of the thread at hand. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 20, 2010 21:32:25 GMT -8
Since she is able to do the crossing to NFLD in winter, I would imagine that the Confederation has although necessary watertight construction to make her more than safe on route 40 Actually, I think her route was PEI to Nova Scotia, across Northumberland Strait. Not across the Cabot strait to Newfoundland. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jul 20, 2010 21:45:27 GMT -8
Since she is able to do the crossing to NFLD in winter, I would imagine that the Confederation has although necessary watertight construction to make her more than safe on route 40 Actually, I think her route was PEI to Nova Scotia, across Northumberland Strait. Not across the Cabot strait to Newfoundland. And from what I can gather, she doesn't cross during the winter. They stop from mid December until May. |
|
timo
Deckhand
Posts: 57
|
Post by timo on Jun 9, 2011 21:21:52 GMT -8
A replacement ferry would serve a dual purpose, providing a service ferry and one that would also serve the tourism trade. It would be more prudent to find an intermediate ferry to serve the Central Coast, something along the lines of the medium to larger size Caledonian ferries in Scotland. A Cal-Mac type ship may be a good idea. Something like the MV Caledonian Isles perhaps. I can't tell from my quick glance at their web page whether she has cabins or not, but it would be about the right size and capacity. The vessels in Caledonian MacBrayne´s traffic system are built for heavy use in all weathers, and would probably suit most needs over there. It is however unlikely that any of them would become available at young age, as they are usually used until (almost) the end of their commercial life. The ships do not usually have cabins. However, something like them would probably be a good solution. The ship would probably need to be slightly longer and larger to give room for some cabins as well. Though, I think there is already a better solution - but these two types may be too large? The car capacity of these two types is lowish because they do not have platform decks as in current use the number of trucks carried is quite high. The larger type has a lower hold for private cars. As it has been stated above, the problem with the SONIAs lower hold is that it has no stairs. It was actually an issue in her early career - this reduced her possibilities for service to those countries that could accept such a solution. So, it is not the lower car deck that is a problem, they just have to way the required exits in forms of decent stairs. The larger type (HJALTLAND) www.faktaomfartyg.se/hjaltland_2002.htmThe smaller type (HAMNAVOE) www.faktaomfartyg.se/hamnavoe_2002.htmAnd the deck plan for both types. hhvferry.com/northlink_dpx03.jpg |
|
.
