|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 1, 2016 11:50:03 GMT -8
Thread name to be modified once we know more about this. - for now, this is likely the start of a multi-year thread about the next trio of new ships (similiar to how we started the Salish Class thread, a few years ago).
I think that this Request for Expressions of Interest is the signal that the process for 3 new minor vessels is now underway. So our discussion is also now underway.
===============
No fooling, here's your chance to be the designer of the new minor vessels. (oh, you've got to build them too)
from BCFS website, business opportunities page
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 1, 2016 11:53:58 GMT -8
It is interesting why they are calling for 3. Not that this was an official plan document, but this here old possible-timeline doesn't exactly match today's call for 3 minor ships. (not that it needs to) =========== Is "Minor Class" too small to be the Bowen/Mayne/PRQ replacements? So many questions, but this is just the start of things.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 1, 2016 14:08:59 GMT -8
A replacement for the mighty Nimpkish on the 'Discovery Coast Connector' has been promised for 2019 (or was that 2018)? Will one of these 'Minor Class' be a Nimpkish replacement? If not, then what? Lots of questions ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2016 8:29:13 GMT -8
It is the first of the replacements for the Bowen Class, as mentioned in the last annual report. Why they aren't building 4 is beyond me...
|
|
|
Post by roeco on Apr 2, 2016 14:18:17 GMT -8
It is interesting why they are calling for 3. Not that this was an official plan document, but this here old possible-timeline doesn't exactly match today's call for 3 minor ships. (not that it needs to) =========== Is "Minor Class" too small to be the Bowen/Mayne/PRQ replacements? So many questions, but this is just the start of things. I would think according to the timeline above. the North Island Princess and Nimpkish would be the next two replaced and I expect maybe Howe Sound Queen...they would be minor vessels. I don't think the Bowen class are that minor...! However I would think Discovery Coast would require something a little bit different than Nimpkish unless they plan to purchase used for Discovery Coast from Eurpope??
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Nov 1, 2016 18:07:04 GMT -8
So without any warning, it appears BC Ferries has put up some preliminary info on their next class of vessels on their projects page. They are planned for the Northern Gulf Islands, will carry 44 vehicles, and 150-300 passengers. I'm not sure if this is related to the Nimpkish replacement, but this is very likely the replacement for the North Island Princess. www.bcferries.com/about/projects/bc-ferries-newest-class-of-vessels.htmlA very strange vessel that's for sure. Very similar in look to the Salish Class, but much more barebones.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 1, 2016 18:19:56 GMT -8
As is our WCFF custom when new-ship speculation turns to published plans with timelines, we create a new thread for the coming new ships.
This will cover the design & construction phase of what is originally announced as 2 ships, but could turn into 7 ships in the coming year.
Here's the text of the BCF media release:
Big kudos to member Curtis for spotting this news.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 1, 2016 18:26:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 1, 2016 18:32:47 GMT -8
First thoughts:
Will construction really commence in 2017?
Is a shipyard lined up already, from the design proposal submissions from last year (which were kept very quiet) ?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 1, 2016 18:35:59 GMT -8
Take a look at this photo of San Diego for comparison LINK HERE- ok, it's just the windows. (visit evergreenfleet.com for a good ferry time)
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Nov 1, 2016 18:38:58 GMT -8
BC Ferries has been fairly prescriptive in their RFPs in past; and by that I mean unusually prescriptI've. Consequently I imagine the final product will bare a very true likeness to the images attached in this webpage Curtis has shared. This document isn't the RFP but I stand by the general idea.
This is the first minor vessel new build in ... ? many years. I suppose it depends somewhat on definitions but it has been forty years since active development (vice building) of small boats notwithstanding Kuper.
Unless I missed it no mention of fuel type.
Also no project timeline, but the generalities of that are known. Local yards likely need not apply due to the Canada Shipbuilding contracts.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 1, 2016 19:06:44 GMT -8
This is the first minor vessel new build in ... ? many years. I suppose it depends somewhat on definitions but it has been forty years since active development (vice building) of small boats notwithstanding Kuper. Are you forgetting the BS Con? It does count as minor, very minor ... and very recent.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 1, 2016 19:09:38 GMT -8
It looks very Scandinavian, as do the Salish class trio. I gather that there are 'scads' of similar designs in service today in northern European waters.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Nov 1, 2016 19:11:25 GMT -8
This is the first minor vessel new build in ... ? many years. I suppose it depends somewhat on definitions but it has been forty years since active development (vice building) of small boats notwithstanding Kuper. Are you forgetting the BS Con? It does count as minor, very minor ... and very recent. It's not a ferry in my books. Suppose that's my bias showing through; and my expectation that is BC Ferries becomes public again that the currently unforecasted 8th minor vessel will end up in the BS Con's place.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 1, 2016 19:22:31 GMT -8
Are you forgetting the BS Con? It does count as minor, very minor ... and very recent. It's not a ferry in my books. Suppose that's my bias showing through; and my expectation that is BC Ferries becomes public again that the currently unforecasted 8th minor vessel will end up in the BS Con's place. I love that we're already speculating on the "8th Sister." Perhaps she will be named "Ferry Richmond." ...and if the new class stops at 7, then we've got "Seven Sisters - The Next Generation"
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 1, 2016 20:51:02 GMT -8
It's not a ferry in my books. Yes, it is not a 'ferry', but rather, a 'horizontal elevator'.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Nov 1, 2016 21:41:08 GMT -8
For the most part, this is really good news... particularly for this forum, where most of us have fallen away from posting anywhere near as often as we used to.
Good news for Hornby, Thetis, Penelakut, Cortes, Cormorant, Malcolm, Moresby, Saanich Inlet... a considerably bigger ferry, three to ten years down the road. Given the money put into the Tachek, Quadra Queen II, and Kuper, one would have to think Texada would get the first new boat, with Hornby perhaps second, for both capacity reasons, and the age of the Kahloke. I doubt Texada would be thrilled to get a vessel smaller than their existing one- but perhaps Curtis could tell us if the North Island Princess really can carry 50 AEQ. One size fits all isn't always ideal... but sea keeping ability is a real issue for Cortes, Texada, and Hornby, and I suppose, for the Port MacNeill run as well.
I'm sure that this announcement has absolutely nothing to do with the Liberals' recent focus on improving their vote in coastal ridings, just as I'm absolutely certain that there will be no speculative announcements about LNG prospects. But whatever the motivation (altruistic, I'm sure) islanders have to be heartened that there is indeed a plan to replace, and in some cases, improve on the vessels serving us.
I'm curious about Dane's comments about the cable thingy. I think it's here to stay, no matter what party or service provider construct is in place.
|
|
|
Post by Kahn_C on Nov 1, 2016 21:54:12 GMT -8
A full load on the NIP is closer to 45 than 50.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Nov 2, 2016 1:51:52 GMT -8
I doubt Texada would be thrilled to get a vessel smaller than their existing one- but perhaps Curtis could tell us if the North Island Princess really can carry 50 AEQ. The short answer is no, you can't safely carry that many vehicles on the NIP today. Maybe if you did a bit of strategic loading and wedged a few small cars in the empty spaces forward and aft of the bulkheads you might get close to it, but some people wouldn't be able to get out of their vehicles and it would block the engine room escape hatches. A full load on the NIP is closer to 45 than 50. Kahn_C is correct, I will start off though by saying that the NIP can comfortably carry 40 vehicles. The maximum capacity of the NIP, while listed as 49 by BC Ferries is actually 45, or 9 to a lane. You have to park every vehicle bumper-to-bumper to do it though, so it's generally only done for overloads. (Or running Route 7) The side lanes also present a challenge since they curve at the bow and stern and merge with the middle lanes, so it's easier to load 8 on the sides leaving us with 43 vehicles. So this new class of minor vessels will more or less have the same capacity the NIP does now.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Nov 2, 2016 5:24:24 GMT -8
Interesting thing about the rendering of the proposed new vessel: it appears to be a single-ender. I don't see bow doors on the other end, which leads me to believe it will operate much like Tachek, QQII, and NIP do today.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Nov 2, 2016 6:46:19 GMT -8
Interesting thing about the rendering of the proposed new vessel: it appears to be a single-ender. I don't see bow doors on the other end, which leads me to believe it will operate much like Tachek, QQII, and NIP do today. BCFS has outlined in the RFP, in the first few lines of the "design" section, that these will be double-ended vessels. Strange looking, but double ended nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 2, 2016 9:20:22 GMT -8
Allow me to get a bit regulatory here: There is nothing specific yet on the BC Ferry Commission website about these new minor ships being approved. The Commissioner will need to approve the ships before construction can start. There is mention of new minor ships in the Commissions's 2016/17 service plan document, as follows: from HEREIt says up to five minor ships, and the other two would be part of later years' assessments.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Nov 2, 2016 9:42:38 GMT -8
Good news for Hornby, Thetis, Penelakut, Cortes, Cormorant, Malcolm, Moresby, Saanich Inlet... a considerably bigger ferry, three to ten years down the road. Given the money put into the Tachek, Quadra Queen II, and Kuper, one would have to think Texada would get the first new boat, with Hornby perhaps second, for both capacity reasons, and the age of the Kahloke. I doubt Texada would be thrilled to get a vessel smaller than their existing one- but perhaps Curtis could tell us if the North Island Princess really can carry 50 AEQ. One size fits all isn't always ideal... but sea keeping ability is a real issue for Cortes, Texada, and Hornby, and I suppose, for the Port MacNeill run as well.
The crew of the Alert Bay-Sointula-Port MacNeill run have indicated their frustration with the capacity constraints with the Quadra Queen II, the last couple of times we have gone up there. At the time we were last there (January 2014), the BSC was preparing (still) to enter service, and the impending vessel shift was promising an opportunity to bring the North Island Princess to the route. That never happened, but I believe the Bowen Queen providing relief there was a trial for a larger vessel placement. On that reasoning I think that Port MacNeill would be one of the first to get the ships, but it does sound like there are some (seasonal?) capacity constraints on the Hornby run, and I defer to your judgement on that.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on Nov 2, 2016 14:43:01 GMT -8
These ferries will still need an elevator to get ADA (or disabled) passengers to the Sun Deck. For forward viewing purposes, these would be best to ride during the summer months as the enclosed lounge on the car deck would have a side view only. Despite having glass wind breaks on the Sun Deck, sightseers will need to brave the elements during winter months.
I think a smaller version of the Salish Class would be better. All around viewing in an enclosed Saloon Deck lounge above the car deck plus a sun deck. All connected by an elevator as well as ladders.
Since the departure of the SKANSONIA, KULSHAN, and the renovated (in 1981) KLICKITAT, all WSF vessels have enclosed end views as well as side views in their cabin above the car deck(s). With the retirement of the HIYU, all WSF vessels have an elevator or two besides the ladders.
A Junior-Salish would be better in my opinion.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Nov 2, 2016 15:07:22 GMT -8
These ferries will still need an elevator to get ADA (or disabled) passengers to the Sun Deck. For forward viewing purposes, these would be best to ride during the summer months as the enclosed lounge on the car deck would have a side view only. Despite having glass wind breaks on the Sun Deck, sightseers will need to brave the elements during winter months. I think a smaller version of the Salish Class would be better. All around viewing in an enclosed Saloon Deck lounge above the car deck plus a sun deck. All connected by an elevator as well as ladders. Since the departure of the SKANSONIA, KULSHAN, and the renovated (in 1981) KLICKITAT, all WSF vessels have enclosed end views as well as side views in their cabin above the car deck(s). With the retirement of the HIYU, all WSF vessels have an elevator or two besides the ladders. A Junior-Salish would be better in my opinion. Essential passenger services will be on the car deck, so no need for an elevator. As for viewing from the lounges, the k-barges only have windows on one side, so no change there.
|
|