|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 14, 2006 15:42:12 GMT -8
Hmm. Well, I'm with Sean on this one... it varies from boat to boat. To me, the Langdale Queen and City of Sacramento are essentially two separate boats, as are the Chinook and the Chinook II/Sechelt Queen.
But you'll never catch me referring to the Bainbridge as the Jervis Queen, or the Klickitat as the Stockton.
And certainly not the Queen of Burnaby as the Maggie-3. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 14, 2006 17:11:29 GMT -8
Hmm. Well, I'm with Sean on this one... it varies from boat to boat. To me, the Langdale Queen and City of Sacramento are essentially two separate boats, as are the Chinook and the Chinook II/Sechelt Queen. But you'll never catch me referring to the Bainbridge as the Jervis Queen, or the Klickitat as the Stockton. And certainly not the Queen of Burnaby as the Maggie-3. ;D ......or the T-Birds as the Breakers.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 14, 2006 20:04:53 GMT -8
Or as the Totems, though occasionally you will catch me speaking of the Edmonton Ice. Or the Oakland Raiders... no, wait, they're back again, aren't they?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2007 18:27:22 GMT -8
Does anyone know if any pcitures exist of the Sechelt Queen getting her bow chopped off so she could load through it? I think it would be cool to see her going through her conversion from the Chinook to the Chinook II for use on Horseshoe Bay to Departure Bay.
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Jun 13, 2007 18:45:02 GMT -8
oh, and when is her anniversary coming up?
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jun 14, 2007 5:11:03 GMT -8
oh, and when is her anniversary coming up? 25 June is the anniversary of her maiden voyage. You didn't think I'd let that pass by unnoticed, didja? www.evergreenfleet.com/news.html
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 23, 2008 18:41:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jun 5, 2009 9:32:16 GMT -8
Couple of interesting things related to my favorite old PSN/BC Ferries boat: From Todd's website: ** note, it wasn't Todd's website as I thought. Here's the link... www.shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/2large/active/toddseattle.htmHull #: 50 Name: Chinook Owner: Puget Sound Navigation Type: Ferry Displace Tons: 4,106 Delivered: Jun-47 Disposition: Last ship built in this yard: later Chinook II 1955, Sechelt Queen 1963, Muskegon Clipper 1992, now laid up in Vancouver BC Obviously the info wasn't updated after '92. Then there is this bit: March 11, 1994 VES-10-03/VES-13-CO:R:IT:C 113038 GOB CATEGORY: CARRIER Mr. Bob Farahi President Sea World Processors, Inc. 3840 Baker Lane Reno, NV 89509
RE: 46 U.S.C. App. 289, 316, 883; Towing; 19 U.S.C. 1466; Vessel Repair
Dear Mr. Farahi: This is in response to your letter dated March 4, 1994 to this office. FACTS: You ask "whether there is any problem with the provisions of the Jones Act or any duty payable as a result of" the following proposed activity:
Sea World Processors, Inc., an Alaska corporation, owns a U.S. registered ferry called Muskegon Clipper, Official Number 252908. We would like to take the vessel to Vancouver, B.C. in Canada for removal of the existing super structure and installation of temporary fittings needed for ocean towing.
The vessel will be in Canada for no more than 60 days, at which time it will be towed to a shipyard in Houston, Texas for installation of a new super structure and other renovation work.
ISSUES:
Whether the proposed activity is prohibited by any of the coastwise laws. Whether there is any duty liability.
LAW AND ANALYSIS: Coastwise Laws Generally, the coastwise laws prohibit the transportation of passengers or merchandise between points in the United States embraced within the coastwise laws in any vessel other than a vessel built in, documented under the laws of, and owned by citizens of the United States.
The coastwise law applicable to the carriage of passengers is found in 46 U.S.C. App. 289 and provides that:
No foreign vessel shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States either directly or by way of a foreign port, under a penalty of $200 for each passenger so transported and landed.
46 U.S.C. App. 883, the coastwise merchandise statute often called the "Jones Act", provides in part that no merchandise shall be transported between points in the United States embraced within the coastwise laws, either directly or via a foreign port, or for any part of the transportation, in any vessel other than a vessel built in, documented under the laws of, and owned by citizens of the United States.
46 U.S.C. App. 316(a) prohibits the use of a non-coastwise- qualified vessel to tow any vessel, other than a vessel in distress, between ports or places in the United States embraced within the coastwise laws, either directly or by way of a foreign port, or to do any part of such towing, or to tow any such vessel between points in a harbor of the United States.
The coastwise laws generally apply to points in the territorial sea, which is defined as the belt, three nautical miles wide, seaward of the territorial sea baseline, and to points located in internal waters, landward of the territorial sea baseline.
We note that you do not state whether the subject vessel was built in the United States.
The facts which you present do not involve the coastwise transportation of passengers or merchandise. Accordingly, the proposed activity is not prohibited by 46 U.S.C. App. 289 and 883.
The proposed activity does not involve the towing of a vessel between ports or places in the United States embraced within the coastwise laws. The proposed towing is from Canada to Houston, Texas, and perhaps from Alaska to Canada. Accordingly, the towing does not have to be performed by a coastwise-qualified vessel.
Liability under 19 U.S.C. 1466
19 U.S.C. 1466 provides for the payment of duty at a rate of fifty percent ad valorem on the cost of foreign repairs to vessels documented under the laws of the United States to engage in foreign or coastwise trade, or vessels intended to be employed in such trade.
Based on the facts which you present, it would appear that the work to be performed in Canada is more in the nature of a modification to the vessel than a repair to the vessel. Modifications are not subject to the vessel repair duty. However, modifications still must be declared. 19 CFR 4.14(b)(1) states in part:
Upon first arrival of the vessel in the United States, the owner or master shall declare on Customs Form 226 all equipment, parts, or materials purchased, and all repairs made, outside the United States. Except as provided in 4.14(a)(2)(iii)(B), the declaration is required regardless of the dutiable status of such items or expenses.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 4.14(b)(2), the Customs Form 226 must be filed within five working days after arrival of the vessel.
We emphasize that our comment that the proposed work in Canada appears to be more in the nature of a modification to the vessel than a repair to the vessel is merely an informal comment based on extremely limited facts. A formal determination as to the dutiable status of the work will be made by Customs after filing of the Customs Form 226.
HOLDINGS:
1. The proposed activity is not prohibited by any of the coastwise laws.
2. The foreign shipyard work must be declared on Customs Form 226.
Sincerely,
Arthur P. Schifflin Chief
Interesting that Sea World didn't seem to know she was built in the states to begin with. Also interesting to note that instead of going to Canada, she went to Alabama instead...where the now infamous asbestos removal took place en route from San Diego. Another interesting snippet--this congressional record shows she ended up back under American ownership and was renamed a lot earlier than I thought. This is dated October, 1984: Here's the link... sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/pdfs/pl98_498.pdf
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jul 18, 2009 10:44:49 GMT -8
wasn't the burnaby working on the gulf is. to TSA for a short little stint one or two years ago?? I seem to remember seeing her berthed at one of the islandss...
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Jul 18, 2009 11:49:01 GMT -8
wasn't the burnaby working on the gulf is. to TSA for a short little stint one or two years ago?? I seem to remember seeing her berthed at one of the islandss... ...Uh, hold on, what does this have to do with the Sechelt Queen?
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jul 18, 2009 11:51:30 GMT -8
awhile back on the thread it was being talked about, so i'm wondering
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jul 20, 2009 16:58:39 GMT -8
awhile back on the thread it was being talked about, so i'm wondering OK, well next time sir, quote the post in question so we know the context in which your question is being asked... It's not rocket science, it's just a preventative measure to ensure your post is not deleted... As for the Burnaby, I would not be surprised if she had a stint in the SGI-Route 9 sector, since she is the sister to the Nanaimo. However I have no solid knowledge of her time there.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jul 20, 2009 18:32:03 GMT -8
awhile back on the thread it was being talked about, so i'm wondering OK, well next time sir, quote the post in question so we know the context in which your question is being asked... It's not rocket science, it's just a preventative measure to ensure your post is not deleted... As for the Burnaby, I would not be surprised if she had a stint in the SGI-Route 9 sector, since she is the sister to the Nanaimo. However I have no solid knowledge of her time there. Flugel already talked to moi about this ... I use quotes, its just that I forgot. Humans aren't perfect.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Aug 13, 2009 15:58:12 GMT -8
That is a great shot of the Vacationland/Sunshine Coast Queen. Check out those bergs. She might not have been pretty, but, boy, she was tough. Did the Chinook ever actually see service with a black hull? That is a first, to me. EG Fleet- I would love to see a larger version of that Black Ball folder, and the other side, too, if possible. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Nov 1, 2009 21:15:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Nov 1, 2009 21:29:05 GMT -8
Here are some pics of the Sechelt Queen while she was moored in the Puget Sound area during the early 90's. While moored at Eagle Harbor: While moored in Tacoma at Foss Maritime: Wow! I just became your # 1 fan. I didn't think any photos of her down at EH existed! Cool! ======= [mod edit to remove over-width pic. No sense having to always edit 2 posts for that pesky over-width pic... ..]
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Nov 1, 2009 22:27:24 GMT -8
Bit painful to look at, but a necessary addition to the photo history of the vessel. Thanks for those.
The Sechelt Queen was a bit like an aged starlet- you didn't want to look at her in a harsh light, because all her flaws showed up too sharply. She had a a steel version of cellulite all over her exterior, and I remember the car deck was decidely washboard as well. I wonder if she was like that when she was new, and if it had something to do with the quality of the steel plating, or the welding? Still, when she was new, she had one of the nicest profiles of any modern car ferry that ever sailed our coast.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Nov 1, 2009 23:33:21 GMT -8
I have to say it looks incredibly odd to see a BC Ferry in Ministry of Highways colours tied up next to a WSF vessel. Certainly worth taking a few photos. Thanks for sharing, San Mateo.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 14, 2009 18:56:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 15, 2009 13:58:47 GMT -8
A few more pics from Mr. 7-Sisters' collection:
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 15, 2009 16:07:45 GMT -8
a few more vintage shots from 1970-71, just in the process of scanning many of the images from that era.Edited to fix mangled IMG tag (missing '[')
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 15, 2009 16:30:43 GMT -8
Sechelt Queen, sliding into Westview, summer '78.and approaching the dock at Little River
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 15, 2009 16:31:17 GMT -8
after 1972, Sechelt Queen arriving at Otter Bay Pender Island
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 15, 2009 16:32:53 GMT -8
To continue the detail on the Sechelt Queen... I am sure glad the days of smoking inside have long gone. However it would be a gem to find one of the old ash trays to use as a plant stand!
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 15, 2009 16:34:46 GMT -8
a closer detail
|
|