|
Post by Dane on Apr 24, 2013 21:04:52 GMT -8
BCFS is reporting the Nanaimo's real AEQ is 140. This seems highly plausible. Given improvements in car deck design and space allocation it appears that the 145 / 125 AEQ option represents at a minimum a maintenance of current capacity and in the summer it provides a fairly considerable increase in lift. I do not see this plan as negatively as others.
As for the vessel design shown, always fun to see the ideas but the renders at this stage of the game rarely have a meaningful connection to reality when the ship is actually delivered.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Apr 24, 2013 22:25:34 GMT -8
We have to keep in mind that BC Ferries has not been given the authority to do anything more than replace existing capacity by the present government. The fact that they're considering replacing two vessels with an AEQ capacity of 290 with three vessels carrying 415, without retiring the Bowen Queen, is not a bad thing. I couldn't care less about how these boats look.
Nick's point about the 'Tsawwassen's capacity is well taken, as is Dane's regarding the 'Nanaimo. This new plan has more flexibility, although there may be some issues about capacity on Friday afternoons and Sunday evenings, even in 'off' season.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Apr 24, 2013 23:36:46 GMT -8
In the off season, I see this design working out no problem capacity wise. The average weekend load in the off season usually runs anywhere between 60-100 cars on the Queen of Nanaimo. It's the Long Weekends where I'd begin to feel really concerned, since the full capacity of the Nanaimo is always used for about 5 consecutive days for the any usual three day weekends (Thursday through Monday). You just don't hear about the overloads come Sunday/Monday, since traffic is coming from the Islands where coverage of the terminal current conditions isn't advertised online.
I think the biggest reason why the push for the lower capacity and by stating that overloaded traffic can be accomodated by the end of the day, is because of the Alternative by traveling Route 1 and then attempting to connect with Route 4 or 5/5a. The problem with this though, is that the thrufare system currently in place doesn't always work out too well if the initial vessel you board is running late, since the connecting vessel rarely waits unless it's the last run of the night. Even then, there are no guarantees.
Route 9 and Route 17 are very different routes traffic wise, even though they're served by the same ships. Route 17 sees a huge amount of commercial traffic, whereas Route 9 doesn't see a whole lot of commercial traffic due to limitations of being able to make the turn around the stern, so they are directed to travel via Swartz Bay unless there's advanced communication for accommodation on Route 9 (ie: being prepared to drive on to the vessel in reverse, and forecasting traffic for the day of travel).
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Apr 25, 2013 2:00:39 GMT -8
Overall, I think this is a good draft for what we need. If they make some improvements, this could easily be the Island Sky we never had.
Main/Gallery Car Deck: Quite creative to have the second gallery deck lane on the opposite side of the stairwells. Looks similar to the retractable platform lanes on the Burnaby and Nanaimo. Looking at the ends of this vessel concept, I think Bow Doors could still be an option if they are needed. Oh and another thing, put some windows on the main car deck.
Passenger Deck/Pickleforks: Exterior-wise, BC Ferries really needs to remember what symmetry is. Having one end curved while the other is straight is fine on a single-ender, but it looks terrible on a double-ender. Hopefully that gets fixed in the revised design. One thing I do like is that the evacuation slides and zodiacs are on the pickleforks, it'll save space in the lounge. Speaking of which, the lounge looks fine, maybe shuffle a few things around on the cafeteria end though.
Bridge/Sun Deck: I agree with SolDuc that two bridges would look better on this vessel it would give it a 'C' Class type appearance (or maybe an Olympic Class look), BC Ferries however seems to prefer the single bridge design for any double-ended vessel that uses RAD Propulsion so I imagine this is going to stay the same no matter what. Not really much else to say except remove that funnel on the sun deck.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 25, 2013 7:01:21 GMT -8
Thanks for all who've participated in this thread. I always appreciate the immediate and varied responses, and by the end of a day of discussion we've got good feedback and and better insight on the item.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 25, 2013 8:31:58 GMT -8
BCFS is reporting the Nanaimo's real AEQ is 140. This seems highly plausible. Given improvements in car deck design and space allocation it appears that the 145 / 125 AEQ option represents at a minimum a maintenance of current capacity and in the summer it provides a fairly considerable increase in lift. I do not see this plan as negatively as others. As for the vessel design shown, always fun to see the ideas but the renders at this stage of the game rarely have a meaningful connection to reality when the ship is actually delivered. Dane, just where does BCF say that the 'real' capacity of the Nanaimo is 140? The current discussion pdf document from BCF does not say that although it does say this, with respect to the Burnaby: '140 real working capacity'. Why the difference? I can only assume that the ramps remain fully operational on the Nanaimo, but not on the Burnaby. I know the ramps are routinely used on the Nanaimo, but I don't know if they get any use at all on the Burnaby. It is my understanding that the 'real' AEQ capacity of the Nanaimo is ~180.
My choice among the options presented by BCFS for routes 9 & 17 would be to go with 'Option 2' (modified like for like), which is much the same as Option 3, except that the primary route 9 vessel would be larger and with a fully enclosed car deck. My 'other' discussion items: 1 - Will choosing to build vessels with 'open' car decks result in an increased number of weather related service disruptions? If yes, is that acceptable? 2 - BCFS says this about service 'benefits' on route 9 - Complex 4 port loads split into simpler 2 port loads - Time saved with 2 port loads versus 4 port loads I gather they are talking about the situation that applies only when two vessels are operating. I am have a bit of difficulty trying to understand what they are saying here. Firstly, shouldn't '4 port loads' read '5 port loads'. Route 9 serves four Gulf Islands plus Tsawwassen. Are they possibly going to drop one of the islands and serve it in the manner that Saturna is presently served? I assume the primary vessel would continue to be based at Long Harbour and the second vessel would be based out of Tsawwassen. Any guesses at what the schedule might look like in order to realize the benefits as outlined by BCFS.
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Apr 25, 2013 9:13:33 GMT -8
To me the design looks great for option 3. I'd say get it built asap, they are needed! Yes the 125 AEQ vessel would be crewed from Tsawwassen and dont forget it would run about 6 months a year. ( approx apr - sept) That is a huge increase in service for route 9 and because of that you could increase frequency by have the Long Harbour vessel stop LH>Pender>Mayne ; The TSA vessel do TSA > Sturdies > Mayne. In the winter for approx 1 month the 125 vessel will be just fine.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Apr 25, 2013 11:27:15 GMT -8
Most of my own viewpoints regarding capacity of this vessel have been stated by Dane and WCK, so I'll leave that one to rest. As an aside though, I think Option 3 would be most efficient, as Sept-June, Route 9 can operate with a 145, and Route 17 can operate with a 125; and June-Sept Route 9 can operate with 125+145, and Route 17 can operate with a 145. I also share Jim's concerns regarding weather conditions for open-deck vessels.
I am disappointed regarding the lack of food services offered on board these vessels. The impression that I got from the presentation was that expansion of retail took somewhat of a priority over expansion of food services - retail is nice, but I could live without it; the food services, on the other hand, should remain status-quo. I am not rushing out to buy a sweater with a bear on it that says "Powell River."
I understand that they claim there is an increased cost for providing these services. However, I recall seeing somewhere (I can't remember where) that these food services actually turned a profit, so I am not sure why there would be a need to pass the buck on to the passengers (hunger surcharge)? Perhaps they don't make money on Route 17?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 25, 2013 12:45:55 GMT -8
This is the 145 ship No slugs or corporate logo. - on most other conceptual drawings, BCF would include their logo. hmmmmm
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Apr 25, 2013 14:03:55 GMT -8
:)if we are going forward with this nordic creation, how bout going back with dogwood trimmings, and building it here at home! mrdot.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Apr 25, 2013 14:12:05 GMT -8
My choice among the options presented by BCFS for routes 9 & 17 would be to go with 'Option 2' (modified like for like), which is much the same as Option 3, except that the primary route 9 vessel would be larger and with a fully enclosed car deck. My 'other' discussion items: 1 - Will choosing to build vessels with 'open' car decks result in an increased number of weather related service disruptions? If yes, is that acceptable? 2 - BCFS says this about service 'benefits' on route 9 - Complex 4 port loads split into simpler 2 port loads - Time saved with 2 port loads versus 4 port loads I gather they are talking about the situation that applies only when two vessels are operating. I am have a bit of difficulty trying to understand what they are saying here. Firstly, shouldn't '4 port loads' read '5 port loads'. Route 9 serves four Gulf Islands plus Tsawwassen. Are they possibly going to drop one of the islands and serve it in the manner that Saturna is presently served? I assume the primary vessel would continue to be based at Long Harbour and the second vessel would be based out of Tsawwassen. Any guesses at what the schedule might look like in order to realize the benefits as outlined by BCFS. This is my second attempt at replying in this thread due to a server crash... crossing fingers. First off, to address WCK's question, I think the "4 port load" refers to the fact that the Nanaimo loads traffic for a maximum of 4 ports. For example, while at Long Harbour she's not about to load traffic bound for SSI, just Pender, Mayne, Galiano and Tsawwwassen. Saturna isn't served by route 9 because it is so far out of the way and it's population is significantly lower than the other SGIs. While people may moan and complain about an open decked ship, bear in mind that ships like the Bowen Queen with chest-high bulwarks are not constructed anymore. Whatever gets built will have higher bulwarks better able to repel oncoming sea, and I'd think it would have some sort of weather barrier like the Skeena's to prevent water from shipping on deck. An open deck design will have a significant impact on construction costs as well. As far as galley service, I had a few ideas today about why it might not be as cost effective as one might think. 1. Galley areas of a ship are expensive to construct to standard because of the fire risk, and they require expensive dedicated firefighting equipment. 2. Galley spaces require a separate fire zone, increasing construction cost. 3. Crew requirement would definitely be higher because of the significantly increased fire risk, as well as being a separate passenger zone. I would expect that adding a galley would increase the crew requirement by at least 2, possibly more just for firefighting, regardless of whether the galley is actually used or not. On the Nanaimo and Burnaby the galley/cafeteria made money because the equipment and crew requirements were already set, since the ships were originally intended for mainline service. If you compare the revenue generated with the added cost of construction and significantly increased operating cost, the financial picture might be different. Just my $0.02, HST included.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Apr 25, 2013 14:28:00 GMT -8
As far as galley service, I had a few ideas today about why it might not be as cost effective as one might think. 1. Galley areas of a ship are expensive to construct to standard because of the fire risk, and they require expensive dedicated firefighting equipment. 2. Galley spaces require a separate fire zone, increasing construction cost. 3. Crew requirement would definitely be higher because of the significantly increased fire risk, as well as being a separate passenger zone. I would expect that adding a galley would increase the crew requirement by at least 2, possibly more just for firefighting, regardless of whether the galley is actually used or not. I think BC ferries will do how the Island Sky has the snack bar. But, I think they will service limited hot food on the boats.
|
|
Mayne
Voyager
I come from a long line of sinners like me
Posts: 289
|
Post by Mayne on Apr 25, 2013 19:51:44 GMT -8
Well I jumping in to this conversation late, most of my thoughts have been well said all ready so I will put out my views in a quick point form.
-Off season capacity, (like Ferryman posted) the long weekends can be crazy with the Nanny on route 9 and I just don't see how a boat with a capacity of 125 could handle it. -Running two ships on route 9 in the "busy" season I see as being a great bump to capacity and really would look forward to that extra little bit as long as its run longer then 9A is run now. -I think BC Ferries would be crazy to go with any less then what they have in the way of the galley size on route 9. It is one busy place on most morning and evening sailings, and I think this would be a fairly decent loss of revenue for them. -The open deck concept is most likely what we will for these ships, I have long come to the conclusion that noting is going to look as good as the Bs so I almost don't care what they look like, because I don't think anything that is build these days stands up to the old Queens. (if they did a mini coastal that might be all right but I don't for see that happening) I look forward to going to the Richmond consultation on the 30th to hear what BC Ferries has to say, I wish I could have made it to the one on Mayne as I think it would be nicer in the small venue with what I think would be less people.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Apr 25, 2013 20:35:41 GMT -8
Dane, just where does BCF say that the 'real' capacity of the Nanaimo is 140? The current discussion pdf document from BCF does not say that although it does say this, with respect to the Burnaby: '140 real working capacity'. Why the difference? I can only assume that the ramps remain fully operational on the Nanaimo, but not on the Burnaby. I know the ramps are routinely used on the Nanaimo, but I don't know if they get any use at all on the Burnaby. It is my understanding that the 'real' AEQ capacity of the Nanaimo is ~180. Yes you are correct - I confused myself between reading and replying. So this would in fact represent a shoulder and off season capacity decrease. However, given the lack of use of the Rte 9 "spare" vessel in the same sporadic nature of the current Bowen Queen it still seems more plausible to have that vessel in service to increase lift when required, such as on long weekends where we are currently restrained to one vessel service. Even as a spare for Rte 5, 7, 8, 9, 17, the 125 vessel assigned to Rte 9 would still have less spare use than the Bowen Queen. Really this somewhat complicates the longer term spare vessel outlook even more, as the BQ is certainly a flexible ferry in her potential assignments. A growing fleet of "Island class" vessels will certainly bring a lot of potential positives in fleet flexibility - something we have needed for quite some time. Would be nice to see Bowen Island sort their stuff out, assign the Cap to Rte 5, and a Island class vessel could then be assigned to Rte 8, ultimately replacing the Mayne Queen.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Apr 26, 2013 11:06:00 GMT -8
I am interested about the real working capacities of Burnaby, Nanaimo, and even Bowen & Mayne Queens. As was pointed out in an earlier post, BCFS is stating that Queen of Burnaby's "real working" vehicle capacity is 140, which is nowhere near the 192 AEQ posted on BC Ferries Fleet Page. Does anyone know if that is accurate? Is it, as Wett Coast alluded to, because Burnaby's platform decks are not fully functional anymore? I am also curious about Queen of Nanaimo's working capacity. I think I have read somewhere on this forum in the past that it's capacity is more like 172 cars instead of the reported 192. Wett Coast said +/- 180 cars. Is that also true? And, finally, is the capacity on Bowen & Mayne Queens really 70 cars, or has that "real working" number also been reduced over the years? Curious minds want to know, and I'm sure Ferryman, or others who have connections with BCFS, have that information - hint, hint As for the new design for what BCFS is calling the ICF Class, it is certainly interesting. To me, it looks like a cross between Island Sky and the Norwegian ferries (i.e. Boknafjord), with a little dash of WSF thrown in there (the twin fidleys in lieu of a single central fidley). It seems like the platform decks on the inside of the fidleys is what makes the vessel either a 145-car boat or a 125-car boat. I'm surprised they are considering retractable platforms at a time when they seemed to be shying away from that.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Apr 26, 2013 13:20:53 GMT -8
I am interested about the real working capacities of Burnaby, Nanaimo, and even Bowen & Mayne Queens. As was pointed out in an earlier post, BCFS is stating that Queen of Burnaby's "real working" vehicle capacity is 140, which is nowhere near the 192 AEQ posted on BC Ferries Fleet Page. Does anyone know if that is accurate? Is it, as Wett Coast alluded to, because Burnaby's platform decks are not fully functional anymore? I am also curious about Queen of Nanaimo's working capacity. I think I have read somewhere on this forum in the past that it's capacity is more like 172 cars instead of the reported 192. Wett Coast said +/- 180 cars. Is that also true? And, finally, is the capacity on Bowen & Mayne Queens really 70 cars, or has that "real working" number also been reduced over the years? Curious minds want to know, and I'm sure Ferryman, or others who have connections with BCFS, have that information - hint, hint As for the new design for what BCFS is calling the ICF Class, it is certainly interesting. To me, it looks like a cross between Island Sky and the Norwegian ferries (i.e. Boknafjord), with a little dash of WSF thrown in there (the twin fidleys in lieu of a single central fidley). It seems like the platform decks on the inside of the fidleys is what makes the vessel either a 145-car boat or a 125-car boat. I'm surprised they are considering retractable platforms at a time when they seemed to be shying away from that. The Burnaby's Platform decks should work just fine. They would have been serviced (New Cables and servicing of the all the pumps, hoses, etc) during the last refit in 2011. The Nanaimo had her's serviced back in 2010 also. As for the working capacity, I have no idea where the 140 is coming from. Possibly it is what the capacity is without the Platforms, since they hold roughly 50 cars in an ideal load. Currently the Nanaimo reserves 180 of underheight spaces. That number gets less and less as soon as commerial vehicles or vehicles towing trailers start coming on. The Width of the lanes on the car deck are quite constricted by the tumblehome (exterior bulkhead) which slopes inboard with a cambered deck. The fixed stanchions holding the platform deck also impact the stow of the cars. So with those things in mind, a fair amount of car deck space is lost when overheights and overwidths come on. It's rare to see the Nanaimo hold very much more than 180 these days though, but it's always possible. Back in the day, I've heard of loads as many as 200 on there back before there was every any concern about escape routes and escape hatches. The Bowen Queen's 70 car stat holds fairly true surprisingly. That's with a full car deck load of underheights, and if they're crammed in, you could probably get a few more. Lately with the Bowen on Route 4, we've been seeing constant 60-70 car loads whenever there isn't alot of commercials. She can only hold four Semi's, or you're lucky if you can get 6 commercial vehicles on which only allows for about 30-40 underheights in that case.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 26, 2013 13:34:17 GMT -8
Apparently, BCF's defines 1 AEQ as follows:
This is from the pdf discussion document re B-class replacements linked by Mr. Horn a few days ago in this thread.
Is this an international standard? Does WSF's use the same definition? Is BC Ferries' definition unique to BCF only?
Just for fun it would be interesting to assemble about 500 smart cars and see how many of them could be parked on various ferries. I would think all could be accommodated on one Spirit class without having to use the MCD ramps. Perhaps you could get 600 of them on.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Apr 26, 2013 14:16:31 GMT -8
Apparently, BCF's defines 1 AEQ as follows: This is from the pdf discussion document re B-class replacements linked by Mr. Horn a few days ago in this thread. Is this an international standard? Does WSF's use the same definition? Is BC Ferries' definition unique to BCF only? Just for fun it would be interesting to assemble about 500 smart cars and see how many of them could be parked on various ferries. I would think all could be accommodated on one Spirit class without having to use the MCD ramps. Perhaps you could get 600 of them on. WSF uses the "WSF standard" instead of AEQ. Currently it is 18' long and 6'6'' wide. AMHS uses "Alaska Standard vehicles" (ASV). I have no clue on the dimensions though. While in Europe the length of an AEQ stays about the same the width is completely different. I'm sure even the Patullo bridge would be up to europeean standards.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Apr 26, 2013 17:35:40 GMT -8
I'm sure even the Patullo bridge would be up to europeean standards. The Pattullo Br is built to 2.85 m width - MoT standards are 3.5 m, and city standards are 3.2 m. The width of the bridge does not meet current engineering standards.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on May 8, 2013 11:33:18 GMT -8
Highlights of the Information Session in Powell River for Route 9/17's New Vessels from Last Week. Includes a short video with BC Ferries' Public Affairs Manager, Darin Guenette explaining the Vessels. The vessel's size and the open deck design were among concerns brought up. The North Island Princess' replacement is mentioned but because it is a separate project, no detail is given other than they want her to be sailing by 2017/18. From the Powell River Peak: www.prpeak.com/articles/2013/05/07/news/doc518444e0320a3253325052.txt
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 11, 2013 16:55:37 GMT -8
Some of you have already seen this article, but the latest ISLAND TIDES has a good Patrick Brown article summarizing the new vessel proposal, along with some Gulf Island resident concerns. It's here for the May 9-22 2013 edition: www.islandtides.com/assets/IslandTides.pdf(If you are clicking on this link after late May 2013, it will take you to the current edition, not the May 9-22 one....)
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on May 11, 2013 22:25:21 GMT -8
After seeing the proposed design for our 125/145 Vessels, I decided to make a few modest modifications to the exterior design. The result is a more symmetrical design that's a little more pleasing to the eyes.
|
|
|
Post by princessofvanfan on May 12, 2013 0:23:42 GMT -8
Well, I sure don't like the open deck design for crossing the straight. I own a couple of very nice cars, and I'd be rather choked to have salt water spraying onto either one of them during a stormy crossing, especially after having an enclosed car deck ship for years and years. I say life-extend the Burnaby and Nanny, like the New West. Can't do it? Well, go talk to Black Ball, then. They'll show you how it's done.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on May 12, 2013 8:17:29 GMT -8
It would be very interesting to compare sea states in the North European regions where there are substantial numbers of "open" deck ferries with visors that help direct sea spray and high seas, with that of the Strait. The Sylt Island Ferry that was supposed to be the Cape Cod Ferry in the movie "The Ghost", is one example. There are others in service in Britain as well.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on May 12, 2013 14:28:54 GMT -8
Well, I sure don't like the open deck design for crossing the straight. I own a couple of very nice cars, and I'd be rather choked to have salt water spraying onto either one of them during a stormy crossing, especially after having an enclosed car deck ship for years and years. I say life-extend the Burnaby and Nanny, like the New West. Can't do it? Well, go talk to Black Ball, then. They'll show you how it's done. Regarding the concerns about having an open-deck vessel cross the Strait of Georgia, the Island Tides article (posted by Mr. Horn) said that the conceptual design for the vessels would have visors on each end to prevent spray from getting on the car decks. Also, the Island Sky has sailed across the Strait in 55knot winds (just as a test) and there was no spray on the deck. The hull was designed such that water doesn't spray onto the car deck. Even so, the ferry will most likely end up having partial-height doors on both ends. Remember, the design presented by BCF is just a concept. Since this is a design-build contract, the builder will most likely design a ferry that looks different from what we've seen, and they probably will put bow doors on each end. At least I hope so.
|
|