|
Post by Dane on Apr 1, 2024 18:44:57 GMT -8
What was the trip to Vancouver for? Route 2 overload?
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 28, 2024 20:01:52 GMT -8
Part of the campaign to raise the issue with the BC government would likely include some kind of funding request to expand the company's capacity to build beyond what's currently available in North Van. It wouldn't just be "please direct BC Ferries to change their requirements". As for progress to date...well, having COVID right in the middle certainly didn't help matters! If construction on the Navy ships entirely stopped during the peak of Covid restrictions, but the boats were otherwise on time according to Seaspan's self generated timelines when they bid, they'd still have delivered the first of two Navy ships in sea trials by now. But they haven't. I'm not sold that this is the industry or company to prop up. Not a particularly strong opinion on this, if we buy in BC cool. I would look forward to the first vessel entering service in 2038 🙃
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 27, 2024 19:04:31 GMT -8
I'm a little surprised by this effort from Seaspans to be honest; admittedly I am not tracking their order book but I can only assume that they believe there's capacity to bid. My surprise, though, comes from the Malaspina Sky. I don't think we ever saw specifics but rumour had it that there were very significant penalties for performance failure and construction delay. That one boat took just a little less time than the Coastal class contract including delivery. I hope Seaspan doesn't qualify to bid unless there's a tangible demonstration of ability. Here's how other things are going at Seaspan: The Navy's Joint Supply Ships are currently doubled in construction time and over budget: www.ctvnews.ca/politics/new-shipbuilding-delay-leaves-canada-reliant-on-allies-civilian-ship-to-supply-navy-1.5969994Things aren't much better for the Coast Guard: ca.news.yahoo.com/cost-canadas-flagship-ocean-science-150020504.html
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 27, 2024 6:54:00 GMT -8
And illustrating my point about the RfQ basically excluding Seaspan, here's their brand new website with a campaign that basically seeks popular support for changing the requirements to terms more favourable to them: www.buildferriesbc.ca/It looks to me that it is not actually Seaspan behind this website "buildferriesbc.ca", or at least if it is, they are working at arm's length. The Seaspan corporate logo is nowhere to be seen.
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see at least some of this work come home to BC. It is Seaspans phone number on the webpage.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 27, 2024 6:52:43 GMT -8
When a company builds their own ferries elsewhere it's a tough sell to me that they're qualified to deliver on the public's contract needs.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 24, 2024 18:13:42 GMT -8
It isn't beeping. How will I keep myself from getting injured by this fast moving door.
I really enjoy the Salish class for what they are but those explicitive doors are the worst. Hopefully these new ones increase reliability from the 50% average that seemed to be the case on all four Salish boats.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 12, 2024 16:00:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 6, 2024 10:34:20 GMT -8
I was down at the Base yesterday (where the SoVI is) and in passing heard they're delayed for parts manufacturing.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 4, 2024 21:06:50 GMT -8
One thing I haven't seen much reference to in communications from BC Ferries is how this advances their goal of fleet standardization, which is something that was really emphasized during the introductions of the Salish and Island Class. Making this newbuild program "Coastal Plus", similar to that rendering, would bring this somewhat into alignment with that goal, but it is looking like we are going to end up with a whole new class. A couple thoughts - I don't think standardized fleet should necessarily mean every broad class of vessel is more or less exactly the same, not necessarily a progressive update of a previous generation design. Rather it's bringing mechanical systems, interior fittings etc into greater commonality. In that regard BCFS seems to have been largely successful if you look back 15 or 20 years since that became a named goal. - the literal decades between major vessel procurement that we experience here almost ensures a clean slate design will more or less be a necessity due to evolution of technology, changes to ridership, how people are moving etc. I think literal standardized fleet assets are of most value when several ships are bought in succession, like the Island class. If seven of these new generation ships are purchased it'll be the largest vessel fleet we have seen that's standardized, the C class probably being the next closest. The seven sisters looked closely related but were mechanically more like cousins once or twice removed.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Feb 26, 2024 15:22:22 GMT -8
]I think retired of Cowichan Class and Queen of New Westminster and mid-life refits of Coastal Class should be priority. These aren't competing priorities, though.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Feb 26, 2024 15:21:24 GMT -8
BC Ferries uses inconsistent math for cars; BC Ferries would call the Surrey 310 cars.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Feb 26, 2024 13:49:10 GMT -8
With AEQ at 360 they could be the largest double ended ferries by tonnage, but this "first look" (for the third time) would suggest we are looking at Coastal size ferries.
Last time we had a first look I expressed reservation at three passenger decks, which admittedly is an assumption, from the view of passenger accessibility. More demand on elevators, and need to move around to access different things. Don't love that.
But at this point I'd take a laminated Pirate Pak to get more capacity on the Majors, so I like it.
PS - I was able to get the photos to load. Just took several minutes.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Feb 18, 2024 15:45:21 GMT -8
I think they're just not running the 930pm where there is an 1130pm Vancouver departure?
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Feb 5, 2024 19:11:04 GMT -8
Hi! I'm curious about the 'missing' route numbers. BC Ferries lists routes numbered 1-13, 17-26, 28, and 30. However, 14-16, 27, and 29 are missing. Why is this? The only think I can imagine is that these are these retired routes that aren't sailed anymore? I've never figured them all out; however, the route numbers are a holdover from when Highways Ferries and BC Ferries were more or less "one". And that system has been maintained, obviously. So, one I know off the top of my head is the old Howe Sound/Woodfibre route, which was 14. I've assumed one was the Powell River - Comox via Texada, but that's entirely a guess. Contract routes were / are in the 80s and 90s. The exception to this is 13, which didn't change numbers when it was privatized.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jan 18, 2024 13:35:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jan 13, 2024 11:58:27 GMT -8
Was there any other vessel design consider building such as more Spirit Class vessels other than these vessels? I have a feeling that if these were never built, we would’ve had 4 Spirit Class vessels and the other 3 Century Class that were slated to be built. Also probably would’ve had overpasses at all interchanges on the Nanaimo Parkway as well but I digress lol We don't actually need to guess - BC Ferries had sent their plans to the Government of BC at the time, which were not followed as we know. To abbreviate the history a bit, BC Ferries itself did not come up with the fast ferries thing, that was largely on the political side of government. It's also important to note that the full post-fast ferry vessel allocation was never made entirely clear. Since the Fast Ferries did not materialize as planned, i.e. slower and couldn't carry as much weight as initially planned, BCF was forced to keep a C Class running on Route 2. I suspect we would have seen only 2 V Class get retired if the Fast Cats stayed online. BC Ferries was more or less ready to start procurement on four double ended vessels at the same time the Fast Cat project started, which would have been a one-for-one replacement of the V Class. Even as the Spirits were entering service it was more or less a foregone conclusion that the days of single ended vessels were done on the Southern routes. This version of history would have also maintained an additional major vessel. It is important to remember that the Fast Ferries made the BC Ferries system one generation behind in major vessel replacement. If you read plans from the early into mid 1990s the Coastal Class were nominally delivered 'on time' in the loosest sense of the term, and would have / should have replaced the C Class. Obviously purchasing the Fast Ferries is an allusion only suitable for internet chat groups, but it is still interesting to watch the sad history of these boats play out.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jan 13, 2024 10:53:02 GMT -8
This comment is based on information from a few years ago, but BC Ferries was the only fixed date user of the drydocks. I suspect that's still the case. While obviously there's an unscheduled visit here and there, I suspect scheduling issues don't really involve BC Ferries; heck we have enough corporate knowledge that we could quite accurately predict the Ferries drydock schedule into 2026, I bet!
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jan 9, 2024 13:08:38 GMT -8
the high winds td have tied up the first two sailings for rt1, but the high winds are ok for rt30? can somebody explain? (rt2 is running as scheduled however) Ability of the double ended vessels to dock is "superior" to the single ended boats that don't benefit from props at both ends / rely on thrusters.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jan 4, 2024 21:30:48 GMT -8
BCFS needs to publish a realistic schedule for Route 1 when there's a prolonged issue, such as the CI's slow crossings which obviously don't have an immediate end in sight.
The CCel received such a realistic schedule in Fall 2023, why not now?
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Dec 22, 2023 22:09:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Dec 22, 2023 22:05:01 GMT -8
Interesting day on Route 1. Both the #2 vessels started about an hour late due to crewing issues. The CCel is doing it's modified South of Saturna route which is, in real terms, adding about 10-15 minutes per sailing. The QoNW did a 65 minute crossing, and is almost back on time. Conversely the CCel, in my uneducated ferry nerd opinion, is running too aggressive a schedule with mostly two hour turn around times. It's been losing time all day. This will likely lead to the New West passing the CCel if the day says the same (posting at 3pm) for what should be the CCels 730pm departure, and the New West's 8pm. Dane, I didn't see a 65 minute crossing on the departures/arrivals page, but I did see 73 minutes, twice, which is pretty remarkable. The old girl is apparently the speedster of the fleet. I was watching Vessel Tracker, which tends to show faster crossings (inaccurately, I think when the boats do their really really slow approaches it reads as zero knots). Conversely the Departure page seems to be conservative. The truth probably lays in the middle. Cool to see the QoNW really get well used today. Ultimately the 8pm sailing was held until the 730pm sailing cleared. Social Media suggests the QoNW loaded before the CCel, and then just held in dock.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Dec 22, 2023 19:39:43 GMT -8
And as predicted the New West is on time ish and has passed the Coastal Celebration.
Must be weird time for reservation line ups. The 8pm (QoNW) is ready to load now,740pm and the 730pm departure of the CCel is still ten minutes from landing at Tsawwassen.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Dec 22, 2023 15:17:50 GMT -8
Interesting day on Route 1.
Both the #2 vessels started about an hour late due to crewing issues. The CCel is doing it's modified South of Saturna route which is, in real terms, adding about 10-15 minutes per sailing.
The QoNW did a 65 minute crossing, and is almost back on time.
Conversely the CCel, in my uneducated ferry nerd opinion, is running too aggressive a schedule with mostly two hour turn around times. It's been losing time all day.
This will likely lead to the New West passing the CCel if the day says the same (posting at 3pm) for what should be the CCels 730pm departure, and the New West's 8pm.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Dec 21, 2023 16:10:34 GMT -8
They're operating it as a result of one engine likely being inoperative. They don't want to go down to two engines in there and end up with limited maneuverability. So until it can be resolved they take the alternative route. It happened last year too. But when Spirit of British Columbia was operating with three engines she was able to safely travel through active pass. But why only on those sailing but not the others for Coastal Celebration.I'm sure there's more properly technical explanation somewhere on the forum. But the CCel activates the props on both ends through Active Pass which in short, I gather, requires two engines per prop.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Dec 21, 2023 16:08:33 GMT -8
The CCels Christmas-time schedule is pretty "aggressive", as in supposedly maintaining two hour turn around time for most, but not all sailings, with some padding generally at the end of the day. Will be curious to see how it maintains schedule with the avoidance of Active Pass; it might be okay if loading and unloading is relatively efficient as sailing times seemed to be roughly averaging 1h45 on the last appearance on the route.
Interestingly there's a couple spots on the schedule where the SoBC / CCel and New West figuratively stack up and give thirty minute frequency. That'll be a lot of pressure on the terminal!
|
|