|
|
Post by FerryDude2012 on Sept 5, 2011 18:21:31 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Oct 18, 2011 21:27:33 GMT -8
|
|
mrdot
Voyager 
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Oct 19, 2011 10:44:09 GMT -8
:)these are a great batch of pics. posted of the New West., and happy birthday to Kam! :)mrdot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Oct 31, 2011 20:37:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 5, 2011 20:18:06 GMT -8
Queen of New Westminster seen on her route-30 substitution gig, November 5th in Nanaimo. - emerging from behind Jack Point   - disappearing behind Gallows Point.  |
|
|
|
Post by dofd on Nov 16, 2011 18:17:56 GMT -8
Aboard the SoVI 2:00pm sailing on 11/11/11. Didn't leave the dock until 3:17pm. Video is at 3:05pm at Tsawwassen. Narrated by a guy from Mission standing next to me. (Taken with my phone)   |
|
|
|
Post by dofd on Nov 19, 2011 0:00:00 GMT -8
In video two, what is the engine doing to make that sound?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Nov 19, 2011 0:20:24 GMT -8
In video two, what is the engine doing to make that sound? Those are her two bow props running at top speed to help keep that bow pointed the right way. The New West does have unusually loud bow props though... |
|
|
|
Post by dofd on Nov 26, 2011 0:00:10 GMT -8
Just noticed the time between the bow thrusters running and the smoke from the stacks. I am guessing the smoke is from them running at full power. (Thank you Ferryman)
|
|
|
|
Post by chinook2 on Nov 26, 2011 17:58:58 GMT -8
The Queen of New West pics really interest me too, because we have next to no photos of her pre lifting in the late 80s (expo scheme), let alone interior photos! I'm surprised to see the really old dogwood carpet as late as 1989. I thought for sure that the old dogwood carpet was completely removed from the fleet by the late 70's, early 80's. Another surprise, is the lack of the snack bar back then. The basic infrastructure for a snack bar is visable (ie: table seating and partitioning walls..) is all there, except for the actual snack bar itself. I wonder if that was something that had existed at one point before, and then was later removed. While she was lifted, the Snack Bar must have been re-installed. From what I remember, the Queen of Nanaimo was the only one of the 7 stretched sisters with a snack bar. The aft lounge area on the other ships was used as overflow seating for the cafeteria, hence the tables. I just found some photos of the Queen of Burnaby when she was doing business as the Royal Victorian so I'll post those in a couple days. Spending another night going through old threads..... Prior to stretching, all 7 sisters had a "Coffee Shop" window in the back of the aft lounge. Area seating was standard tan like the forward lounges. The railings, tables, and bucket seats were added at stretching, overload seating for the caf, and the coffee shop window removed. Later reisntalled in the Nanaimo as a "snack bar". As a young child, apart from cherry pie in the restaurant, the best refreshment on the Victoria class ships was from the pop machine located on the back wall of the forward lounge, next to the builder plate. Dispensed an 8 oz. paper cup of pop (my choice: orange) for 10 cents. As a group, the Victoria class were so indistiguishable in their original state, if you missed the announcements at the beginning of trip (done live, by the newsstand clerk, who always seemed to have a thick scot accent) the only way to know what you were riding on was to find a life saving ring or builder plate. |
|
|
|
Post by FerryDude2012 on Nov 29, 2011 22:08:36 GMT -8
I recently spoke with some of the crew on the New West, and there are rumours that the Queen of New Westminster is going to be deployed on Route 3 in the new year, and remain there until summer, when the CR goes back to Route 2 and the NW goes back to Route 1. They said it's because of the increased overheight traffic heading to the Sunshine Coast. None of this has been 100% confirmed yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Nov 29, 2011 22:23:09 GMT -8
I recently spoke with some of the crew on the New West, and there are rumours that the Queen of New Westminster is going to be deployed on Route 3 in the new year, and remain there until summer, when the CR goes back to Route 2 and the NW goes back to Route 1. They said it's because of the increased overheight traffic heading to the Sunshine Coast. None of this has been 100% confirmed yet. The 'Celebration's crew told me the same thing the other week, but it sounded fairly set in stone. So I think it'll end up happening. The wasted space that is the SeaWest Lounge though, would that be opened as normal lounge space? And what about the other route 1 dedicated spaces aboard? |
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Nov 29, 2011 22:24:48 GMT -8
What else is Rte 1 dedicated on the New West?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Dec 5, 2011 10:01:37 GMT -8
I recently spoke with some of the crew on the New West, and there are rumours that the Queen of New Westminster is going to be deployed on Route 3 in the new year, and remain there until summer, when the CR goes back to Route 2 and the NW goes back to Route 1. They said it's because of the increased overheight traffic heading to the Sunshine Coast. None of this has been 100% confirmed yet. The 'Celebration's crew told me the same thing the other week, but it sounded fairly set in stone. So I think it'll end up happening. The wasted space that is the SeaWest Lounge though, would that be opened as normal lounge space? And what about the other route 1 dedicated spaces aboard? The SeaWest lounge could be opened on Route 3, I do not see any reason as to why not... The CR has one for Route 2? I don't really know anyone's reasoning as to why they would want to pay $15 for that 40 min crossing, that's another story. If the issue is overheights, I do not understand why the Alberni is not deployed on Route 3. It would be an absolutely perfect fit. |
|
bargain
Oiler (New Member)
Posts: 44 
|
Post by bargain on Dec 5, 2011 11:12:01 GMT -8
Are we talking about the New Westminster being the route 3 primary vessel or in place of the Coquitlam as the secondary during the Winter/Spring?
Looking at the reservation system I see the Surrey out for annual refit after Easter in April.
If the New Westminster was to be the primary vessel on that route BC Ferries may have an unholy riot on their hands. With a rated vehicle capacity 90 below the Queen of Surrey, single ended berthing procedure delays and 20+ additional years of aging vs the Surrey the people of the Sunshine Coast would be mighty irritated.
|
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Dec 5, 2011 13:07:23 GMT -8
Would a lack of vehicle capacity be that much of a problem over the Winter on RT#3?
Do Single enders have any issues with berthing at Horseshoe Bay?
|
|
bargain
Oiler (New Member)
Posts: 44
|
Post by bargain on Dec 5, 2011 13:23:40 GMT -8
Having almost left behind cars Sunday afternoon and having left behind some on the 1730 sailing Friday I would say so.
I can see 10 or 20 cars not being too bad but a 90 car reduction in 'rated' capacity would be significant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Dec 5, 2011 15:21:59 GMT -8
Queen of New Westminster and Queen of Nanaimo at Tsawwassen. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Dec 5, 2011 15:39:19 GMT -8
Having almost left behind cars Sunday afternoon and having left behind some on the 1730 sailing Friday I would say so. I can see 10 or 20 cars not being too bad but a 90 car reduction in 'rated' capacity would be significant. Considering the traffic loads of off-season Route 3, I do not think a temporary 90 AEQ decrease is a serious concern, especially if it's only on Fridays and Sundays that we see the issues, and the remaining 90% of the time is fine. I think all routes experience peak-period issues. For example, looking at traffic statistics from the month of March in 2010, Route 3 carried roughly 41,000 vehicles. 16 (sailings p/ day) x 270 (QoNW AEQ) x 30 (days p/ month) = 129,600 vehicles, meaning the route would already operate at a loss of 88,600 vehicles that month, which is around 66%, meaning on average it would sail at 33% full. I understand that traffic periods vary at different times during the week, but these are the numbers. I do transportation planning - sometimes, if the costs of adding the extra capacity outweigh the cost of people being annoyed about being left behind, then you have to suck it up. |
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Dec 5, 2011 15:48:04 GMT -8
For example, looking at traffic statistics from the month of March in 2010, Route 3 carried roughly 41,000 vehicles. 16 (sailings p/ day) x 270 (QoNW AEQ) x 30 (days p/ month) = 129,600 vehicles, meaning the route would already operate at a loss of 88,600 vehicles that month, which is around 66%, meaning on average it would sail at 33% full. I understand that traffic periods vary at different times during the week, but these are the numbers. I do transportation planning - sometimes, if the costs of adding the extra capacity outweigh the cost of people being annoyed about being left behind, then you have to suck it up. Woah, I think I just got a little aroused. |
|
bargain
Oiler (New Member)
Posts: 44
|
Post by bargain on Dec 5, 2011 16:10:53 GMT -8
I look forward to many an hour waiting in Horseshoe Bay and Langdale thanks to the services of bean counters like MileagePhoto. Are you based in Toronto or Ottawa? ;D
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,309
|
Post by Neil on Dec 5, 2011 16:18:32 GMT -8
Considering the traffic loads of off-season Route 3, I do not think a temporary 90 AEQ decrease is a serious concern, especially if it's only on Fridays and Sundays that we see the issues, and the remaining 90% of the time is fine. I think all routes experience peak-period issues. For example, looking at traffic statistics from the month of March in 2010, Route 3 carried roughly 41,000 vehicles. 16 (sailings p/ day) x 270 (QoNW AEQ) x 30 (days p/ month) = 129,600 vehicles, meaning the route would already operate at a loss of 88,600 vehicles that month, which is around 66%, meaning on average it would sail at 33% full. I understand that traffic periods vary at different times during the week, but these are the numbers. I do transportation planning - sometimes, if the costs of adding the extra capacity outweigh the cost of people being annoyed about being left behind, then you have to suck it up. Cut capacity 25% with a boat that probably can't keep the schedule, tell them you're a transportation planner who knows what he's doing, and that they'll just have to 'suck it up'... By george, I think we've just found BC Ferries a new CEO who could out-hahn David Hahn.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Dec 5, 2011 17:08:56 GMT -8
Considering the traffic loads of off-season Route 3, I do not think a temporary 90 AEQ decrease is a serious concern, especially if it's only on Fridays and Sundays that we see the issues, and the remaining 90% of the time is fine. I think all routes experience peak-period issues. For example, looking at traffic statistics from the month of March in 2010, Route 3 carried roughly 41,000 vehicles. 16 (sailings p/ day) x 270 (QoNW AEQ) x 30 (days p/ month) = 129,600 vehicles, meaning the route would already operate at a loss of 88,600 vehicles that month, which is around 66%, meaning on average it would sail at 33% full. I understand that traffic periods vary at different times during the week, but these are the numbers. I do transportation planning - sometimes, if the costs of adding the extra capacity outweigh the cost of people being annoyed about being left behind, then you have to suck it up. Cut capacity 25% with a boat that probably can't keep the schedule, tell them you're a transportation planner who knows what he's doing, and that they'll just have to 'suck it up'... By george, I think we've just found BC Ferries a new CEO who could out-hahn David Hahn. Again, by the numbers, cutting the capacity would still leave the route at a 66% average deadweight loss. You're absolutely right, the boat cannot keep the schedule. In my personal opinion, do I think the New West is suitable for Route 3? Absolutely not. No single-ended ferry should have to endure anything out of Horseshoe Bay. My point was regarding capacity - it is an adequate capacity to deal with Route 3 traffic, and yes, during those two days of the week between 5 and 9 pm, just like every day during rush hour in the city, the resources will be over capacity, so suck it up. It's simple efficiency/economics. |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,309
|
Post by Neil on Dec 5, 2011 17:55:06 GMT -8
My point was regarding capacity - it is an adequate capacity to deal with Route 3 traffic, and yes, during those two days of the week between 5 and 9 pm, just like every day during rush hour in the city, the resources will be over capacity, so suck it up. It's simple efficiency/economics. Actually, it's not quite that simple. No BC ferry route has it's capacity determined by average load, nor does the building of any highway. Peak requirements are always taken into consideration. There's also the matter of the Coastal Ferry Services Contract, which states that capacity must meet the numbers of the previous year's traffic figures. If, by cutting capacity by 25% over a prolonged period, BC Ferries was incurring overloads during every peak weekly period, they could be in breach of their contract with the province, unless they were granted a temporary variance by the commissioner. We don't have the average load figures for every sailing during peak times on Fridays and Sundays. If overloads would only occur occasionally with a smaller capacity vessel, the company would be okay, but if the boat was clearly too small to meet the criteria of the contract, residents might not have to make do with your verdict of 'suck it up'. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Dec 5, 2011 17:57:40 GMT -8
If the New West is deployed to Route 3, it would be used as the number two vessel during the summer months, not as the off-season vessel.
|
|
