|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 12, 2013 18:23:11 GMT -8
A new thread, for the possible ships that will replace the Queens of Burnaby & Nanaimo. - the below-quoted news story is much more than just speculation. It's a BCFS Proposal that is expected to be presented to the Ferry Commissioner next week. Yes, this thread is for the process to replace the vessels on Routes 9 & 17. A process that has now officially begun, seeing as how a public meeting is scheduled and a proposal will go to the Ferry Commissioner. I will be monitoring the Ferry Commissioner website next week, and will post links to the new vessel proposal here, in this thread, once it is available for viewing. Exciting times for us who are interested in new ships.... ============== A news story from this week's FAC meeting for Salt Spring Island: - This is a bit better than speculation, because this is BCFS explaining their "proposal" for replacing the Burnaby & Nanaimo. - from Gulf Islands Driftwood: from here: gulfislandsdriftwood.com/news/new-boats-touted-for-long-harbour-run/
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Apr 12, 2013 18:36:39 GMT -8
So the Olympic design might as well get handy now, as some predicted. I'd think they'd be better off with 3-145 car vessels to get an increase of 20 cars on the Tsa-SGI run, on which the summer traffic is particularly heavy (and needs more than a total of 270 cars with the two vessels) from what I've heard. If they stick with their plan, there is going to be a 145 car ship for Powell River-Comox. Isn't 125 cars enough, or does the summer need that much of an increase?
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Apr 12, 2013 18:53:40 GMT -8
So the Olympic design might as well get handy now, as some predicted. I'd think they'd be better off with 3-145 car vessels to get an increase of 20 cars on the Tsa-SGI run, on which the summer traffic is particularly heavy (and needs more than a total of 270 cars with the two vessels) from what I've heard. If they stick with their plan, there is going to be a 145 car ship for Powell River-Comox. Wow, I totally agree with you. I was actually thinking the same thing as you. 2-145 during the winter months on Tsa- SGI will be overkill.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 12, 2013 19:00:31 GMT -8
3-145 during the winter months on Tsa- SGI will be overkill. 1 ship would be for Little River-Westview and 1 ship would be for TSA-SGI. The third ship would provide refit relief and provide extra service for TSA-SGI in the summer.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Apr 12, 2013 19:07:30 GMT -8
3-145 during the winter months on Tsa- SGI will be overkill. 1 ship would be for Little River-Westview and 1 ship would be for TSA-SGI. The third ship would provide refit relief and provide extra service for TSA-SGI in the summer. How SolDuc word his post it sound like he was putting 3 on the route.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on Apr 12, 2013 19:32:04 GMT -8
1 ship would be for Little River-Westview and 1 ship would be for TSA-SGI. The third ship would provide refit relief and provide extra service for TSA-SGI in the summer. How SolDuc word his post it sound like he was putting 3 on the route. Actually, it would be one new ferry on the COM-PRV run and two on the TSA-GFI runs.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Apr 12, 2013 19:34:58 GMT -8
This is intriguing. It looks like they've dropped their goofy notion of a combined 17&18 route. It also sounds like the summer service model for route nine might be quite different than the winter one- perhaps keeping the milk run system in winter, and having two vessels do a more point to point route in summer.
It will also be more expensive building three 145s rather than 2 190s. I think this is the better solution, although it doesn't allow for future summer growth on the Comox run.
Interesting times ahead.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Apr 12, 2013 19:39:22 GMT -8
It will also be more expensive building three 145s rather than 2 190s. I think this is the better solution, although it doesn't allow for future summer growth on the Comox run. For now, in future it could be 2 on both routes with the same sized vessels.
|
|
|
Post by Cable Cassidy on Apr 12, 2013 19:48:53 GMT -8
3-145 during the winter months on Tsa- SGI will be overkill. 1 ship would be for Little River-Westview and 1 ship would be for TSA-SGI. The third ship would provide refit relief and provide extra service for TSA-SGI in the summer. Depending on the design of the vessel it could also serve as a replacement for the Island Sky as she enjoys here annual elevator refits
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 12, 2013 21:55:08 GMT -8
This is intriguing. It looks like they've dropped their goofy notion of a combined 17&18 route. It also sounds like the summer service model for route nine might be quite different than the winter one- perhaps keeping the milk run system in winter, and having two vessels do a more point to point route in summer. It will also be more expensive building three 145s rather than 2 190s. I think this is the better solution, although it doesn't allow for future summer growth on the Comox run. Interesting times ahead. This news is interesting & welcome, but don't expect final decisions until well after the election. I do think a slightly modified WSF Olympic class design would work well and would provide the basic ferry service that is needed. As for traffic growth on the Comox - Powell River route, they easily could go with five (or even six) round trips daily as a means of increasing capacity. Such might be done only on Fridays & Sundays, and perhaps daily in summer. And speaking of that route, might we ever see the vessel based on the PR side?
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Apr 12, 2013 23:54:14 GMT -8
I like this idea. IMO, Building a 125 Car Vessel would be worth the extra cost in the long run and would fill the void that's been around since the Queen of Tsawwassen was retired. BC Ferries would also gain an off-season replacement not just for the two new 145 Car Vessels, but every intermediate vessel in the fleet. It would also increase capacity for Route 9a and reduce the amount of relief provided by the Bowen Queen... assuming the plan isn't to retire her when this new vessel enters service. Plus there's the added bonus of the Queen of Chilliwack never having to relieve a southern route again. (Route 17 passengers rejoice!)
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Apr 13, 2013 11:24:25 GMT -8
It will also be more expensive building three 145s rather than 2 190s. I think this is the better solution, although it doesn't allow for future summer growth on the Comox run. As for traffic growth on the Comox - Powell River route, they easily could go with five (or even six) round trips daily as a means of increasing capacity. Such might be done only on Fridays & Sundays, and perhaps daily in summer. Growth is an interesting topic to explore on this route. Since you piqued my interest, I did a bit of research on growth for the municipalities that utilize this route, and here are the numbers:
from Statistics Canada: www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cma-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=943www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cma-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=945
| Population 2006 | Population 2011 | % Growth | Courtenay | 22,021 | 24,099 | 9.4% | Comox | 12,385 | 13,627 | 10.0% | Cumberland | 2,762 | 3,398 | 23.0% | Powell River | 12,957 | 13,165 | 1.6% |
The Comox Valley is more reliant on Routes 2 and 30, than Route 17. Powell River's growth rate indicates to me that there will not be a substantial increase in traffic in the near future, which means that WCK's idea of adding an extra round trip, when necessary, is backed up by the numbers. And speaking of that route, might we ever see the vessel based on the PR side? This has been a reoccurring topic of conversation, every time there is any kind of ferry consultation for Route 17. Powell Riverites would like to see the vessel based on their side, while Comoxians want to be reassured that the vessel is staying in Little River. I have personally always thought that having the vessel on the PR side would be good for their economy, especially since the mill has begun scaling back. Would there be any scheduling conflicts with Route 18?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Apr 13, 2013 13:12:21 GMT -8
As for traffic growth on the Comox - Powell River route, they easily could go with five (or even six) round trips daily as a means of increasing capacity. Such might be done only on Fridays & Sundays, and perhaps daily in summer. Growth is an interesting topic to explore on this route. Since you piqued my interest, I did a bit of research on growth for the municipalities that utilize this route, and here are the numbers:
from Statistics Canada: www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cma-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=943www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cma-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=945
| Population 2006 | Population 2011 | % Growth | Courtenay | 22,021 | 24,099 | 9.4% | Comox | 12,385 | 13,627 | 10.0% | Cumberland | 2,762 | 3,398 | 23.0% | Powell River | 12,957 | 13,165 | 1.6% |
The Comox Valley is more reliant on Routes 2 and 30, than Route 17. Powell River's growth rate indicates to me that there will not be a substantial increase in traffic in the near future, which means that WCK's idea of adding an extra round trip, when necessary, is backed up by the numbers. And speaking of that route, might we ever see the vessel based on the PR side? This has been a reoccurring topic of conversation, every time there is any kind of ferry consultation for Route 17. Powell Riverites would like to see the vessel based on their side, while Comoxians want to be reassured that the vessel is staying in Little River. I have personally always thought that having the vessel on the PR side would be good for their economy, especially since the mill has begun scaling back. Would there be any scheduling conflicts with Route 18? Future traffic growth doesn't just depend on population growth. BC Ferries' traffic figures have been depressed by exorbitant fare increases. The experience with 'road equivalent' tariffs in Scotland shows that if fares are rolled back, traffic can increase substantially. If fares here are at least capped for a few years and the public perception of the value of ferry travel changes, there could be significant improvements in customer totals. That's why it can be very short sighted just to replace vessels with new ones of the same size. The Courtenay area understandably wouldn't want to lose the jobs provided by the vessel being based at Little River. And there would be conflict at Westview, unless the new dock will have some tie-up capacity, which I don't think it does. Still, this is truly Powell River's ferry, as people on that side use it far more than Courtenay area residents, and the commercial traffic is serving Powell River more the island side.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2013 8:22:33 GMT -8
With plans to build a third (125-car) vessel, I guess we'll be saying goodbye to the Chilliwack in 2016. Route 40 will likely be eliminated as well and the Nimpkish will provide summer service to Mid-Coast ports.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Apr 14, 2013 8:47:25 GMT -8
With plans to build a third (125-car) vessel, I guess we'll be saying goodbye to the Chilliwack in 2016. Route 40 will likely be eliminated as well and the Nimpkish will provide summer service to Mid-Coast ports. I wouldn't think so. BC Ferries has spent alot of money on the Chilliwack over the past few years for upgrades. I'd expect to see it in service until at least 2020, maybe later. The main purpose of the 125 car vessel is to provide Route 9a service to make up for the lost capacity with the 145 car ferry on Route 9. At first I was questioning the liklihood of the retirement of the Bowen Queen, however I'm not sure if that would be the intention just yet. 125 cars is pretty excessive for the majority of the routes it serves in the off season. However the 125 car vessel would be perfect on routes like Route 8 (Bowen Island), Route 5 (Qcumberland), Route 4 (Fulford), and Route 7 (Saltery Bay). I'm willing to bet the 125 car ferry design will be and Island Sky sister ship.
|
|
|
Post by ferryfanyvr on Apr 14, 2013 10:48:28 GMT -8
My friend was at the latest F.A.C. meeting on Saltspring. This is not official since I'm only going by what he told me, and what he HEARD at the meeting....apparently the 3 new vessels will all be the same size dimensionally. The 145-car ships will get their increased capacity by being equipped with either platform decks or gallery decks. Again, this was not officially presented, he just heard it mentioned by the reps from BCFS.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Apr 14, 2013 15:06:26 GMT -8
Route 40 will likely be eliminated as well and the Nimpkish will provide summer service to Mid-Coast ports. Why do you think route 40 will be eliminated? I think under the Coastal ferry Act BC ferries will not be allowed eliminated route 40.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 15, 2013 7:19:46 GMT -8
This news is interesting & welcome, but don't expect final decisions until well after the election. The fleet doesn't have time to wait until a few years after the May 2013 election. Planning on replacement ships needs to start now, and it is starting now. Keep in mind that during the ideological-shift change in government in 2001 (Liberals in, NDP out), it took 2 years for Minister Reid to implement the new model for BC Ferries (from 2001 election to 2003 implementation). - so any ideological-shift changes to the BC Ferries structure would likely also take a couple of years, after the election. ....the fleet renewal process can't wait that long. ps: there could be simple new-govt interjections made quickly, without needing to change the entire system structure, such as a "build it in BC" directive.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Apr 15, 2013 21:13:26 GMT -8
I think that WSF's 144-car design would be great to use on BC Ferries' routes 9 and 17. If BCF has any doubts about the maneuverability of such a ferry in Long Harbor, then they can just do this: When the Tokitae begins sea trials, BCF can borrow her for maybe a week and test her out in Long Harbor, as well as other tough-to-navigate spots in their ferry system.
And building another 125-car ferry is a good idea. It will be nice to have it serve as a relief intermediate vessel.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Apr 15, 2013 21:19:27 GMT -8
ps: there could be simple new-govt interjections made quickly, without needing to change the entire system structure, such as a "build it in BC" directive. I hope that something like that will happen with the cable ferry project. What has been said countless times here is that BCF ought to build a bigger ferry for that route.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Apr 15, 2013 21:52:25 GMT -8
What has been said countless times here is that BCF ought to build a bigger ferry for that route. Just a thought. If the Cable Ferry, or the replacements for the Nanaimo and Burnaby turn out to have insufficient capacity, (For Example, let's say Fares went back to Pre-2003 prices and Traffic Numbers Doubled Overnight ) would the logical option not be to stretch these vessels? When BC Ferries was strapped for capacity once upon a time, the Seven Sisters underwent the stretch process. Then later the 'V' Class vessels were lifted to increase capacity further. I imagine the BC Ferries would prefer to have the Cable Ferry filled to capacity for most sailings, the public however would be quite annoyed by the constant 1 or 2 sail waits. If the demand for it is there though I'm sure stretching the vessel would be considered.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Apr 15, 2013 22:24:25 GMT -8
I think that WSF's 144-car design would be great to use on BC Ferries' routes 9 and 17. If BCF has any doubts about the maneuverability of such a ferry in Long Harbor, then they can just do this: When the Tokitae begins sea trials, BCF can borrow her for maybe a week and test her out in Long Harbor, as well as other tough-to-navigate spots in their ferry system. And building another 125-car ferry is a good idea. It will be nice to have it serve as a relief intermediate vessel. I was thinking about that tonight and have a few points to make: - if there is ever a double ender to enter long harbour, it should be operated just like a single ender, coming almost perpendicular to the berth and then backing in. - To follow the point of "similar vessels but two with platform/gallery decks", WSF's widened by a lane Olympics would be perfect. The 125 car vessel would be a single decked Olympic with one more lane in the main car tunnel -which doesn't add to rhe loading time when used on double laned aprons which Tsawassen, Village Bay and after-rebuild Little River and Westview docks will have. The vessel could have gallery decls added if traffic increases. The 145-car vessels would be widened Olympics with the gallery decks. The vessels would carry around 160 cars (15 more) and be good fits for the SGI as the vessel's large beams would make spinning relatively easy (no turntables!). The Vessel's sun decks and cabins are well suited for the longer routes that are r9 and 17. The passenger cabin would need to be modified in order to accomodate the mainland passenger planks and the moved-up-because-of-TC rescue boats. The bow and stern would be modified to include bow doors (which would make more oudoor space if there is no large fo'c'sle)
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 16, 2013 18:14:54 GMT -8
This news is interesting & welcome, but don't expect final decisions until well after the election. The fleet doesn't have time to wait until a few years after the May 2013 election. Planning on replacement ships needs to start now, and it is starting now. Keep in mind that during the ideological-shift change in government in 2001 (Liberals in, NDP out), it took 2 years for Minister Reid to implement the new model for BC Ferries (from 2001 election to 2003 implementation). - so any ideological-shift changes to the BC Ferries structure would likely also take a couple of years, after the election. ....the fleet renewal process can't wait that long. ps: there could be simple new-govt interjections made quickly, without needing to change the entire system structure, such as a "build it in BC" directive. Fluge, by 'well after' I did not mean 2 years. What I was thinking would be more like fall of 2013 or in other words, 6 months. I agree, there is some urgency to get moving on this. I do expect BC yards to be favoured this time. As for designs, we might see some variation on the WSF 144 car design (Olympic class) or we might see variations on the Island Sky, but with enclosed car decks. Just possibly we might see a stripped down Coastal class design with one car deck with fixed ramps and a single passenger deck.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 17, 2013 12:13:24 GMT -8
Powell River had it's FAC meeting with Rob Clarke, and here's an excerpt from a news story on that, from the Powell River Peak: - I have underlined a section for my emphasis. from here: www.prpeak.com/articles/2013/04/17/news/doc516de7d37b6ce014278076.txt------------------ For those who might be comparing the detail in this news story to the Salt Spring news story from last week, don't get hung-up on the different details. These are 2 different reporters' summaries of 2 different meetings. For the good stuff, wait until there is something available for analysis on the Ferry Commissioner's website.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Apr 17, 2013 12:29:10 GMT -8
Powell River had it's FAC meeting with Rob Clarke, and here's an excerpt from a news story on that, from the Powell River Peak: - I have underlined a section for my emphasis. An open deck ferry for Route 17? That doesn't seem logical to me given the weather conditions possible in that region. Even on Route 9, a closed car deck would be preferred for the Georgia Strait crossing.
|
|