|
Post by Mike C on Jan 31, 2013 20:07:22 GMT -8
There is currently a railbarge berth in service in Vancouver, directly north of the intersection of Powell St and Cordova Div, between Balantyne Pier and Rogers Sugar. This berth was used for a brief period of time (I think in 2009) by the SRY, I'm assuming while their berth under the Alex Fraser Bridge was undergoing maintenance. That would be the BNSF barge slip, I don't think it's been used since SRY used it in 2009. It seems like all the rail barge movements that come in and out of the lower mainland have been consolidated at the Annacis barge slip. Documentation of this operation for your viewing enjoyment
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 31, 2013 18:27:55 GMT -8
Is there any way of getting outside of the terminal once you have passed the toolbooths and that your car is in the holding lanes? If no, what are some good vantage points that can be accessed? Yes. As long as you keep your vehicle receipt with you, you can leave the terminal via the foot passenger access walkway from the holding lanes. You will be required to show that receipt for re-entry when you walk through the foot passenger toll booths.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 31, 2013 18:25:44 GMT -8
Route 21: Besides the hill spot, I don't think there's much on either side besides the terminals. Route 2:
-Newcastle Island Provincial Park, Nanaimo. Hike-in via ferry. Overlooks departure bay. -Whytecliffe Park, West Vancouver. Overlooks Queen Charlotte Sound and the entrance to Howe Sound. Also overlooks Route 8. Route 19: You can spot directly from the seawall adjacent to Nanaimo Harbour Terminal. The walkway runs parallel to the berth. Route 30:-Jack Point Park, Nanaimo. Hike-in. Overlooks Duke Point. -Fred Gingel Park, Delta. Overlooks Tsawwassen Terminal, optional hike to beach. Also overlooks Routes 1 and 9. Thanks! Can you see either route 2 or 30 ferries from that seawall in Nanaimo Harbour? If yes, what is the zoom you would advise to have (in mm please)? You can't see Route 2. You can see Route 30, but I would advise a tripod + at least 200 mm.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 31, 2013 18:01:34 GMT -8
So, as you might've heard, I might be going down Vancouver Island's west coast some time this summer. Here are a few questions: -Apart for the Flugel Horn hill spot, what are some nice spots for vessel viewing on Route 21? -What about easily aceessible spots in Nanaimo for routes 2, 19 and 30? -And finally, what about Chemainus? Route 21: Besides the hill spot, I don't think there's much on either side besides the terminals. Route 2:
-Newcastle Island Provincial Park, Nanaimo. Hike-in via ferry. Overlooks departure bay. -Whytecliffe Park, West Vancouver. Overlooks Queen Charlotte Sound and the entrance to Howe Sound. Also overlooks Route 8. Route 19: You can spot directly from the seawall adjacent to Nanaimo Harbour Terminal. The walkway runs parallel to the berth. Route 30:-Jack Point Park, Nanaimo. Hike-in. Overlooks Duke Point. -Fred Gingel Park, Delta. Overlooks Tsawwassen Terminal, optional hike to beach. Also overlooks Routes 1 and 9.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 31, 2013 17:26:17 GMT -8
2) Or another plan of mine is to go to Galiano Island and a day to trip Mayne Island and another day trip to Saturna Island. What are good parks to go to on Galiono Island? What are good parks to go to on Mayne Island? Is Saturna Island even worth a day trip could we make with the day trip and go Pender Island? What are good parks to go to on Saturna Island? Galiano: Good parks are Montague, Bellhouse and the Bluffs. I would suggest reading some of the posts in the thread regarding recommendations for places to visit on this island. Mayne: The only park-like areas that I can think of are Georgina Point Lighthouse and Naval Passage Beach, on opposite ends of the island. Saturna: My favourite Gulf Island, also the most isolated and least populated. The only real park space is Winter Cove. 3) What would be nice to go too? I hear Newcastle Upon Tyne, England is lovely this time of year.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 31, 2013 15:20:18 GMT -8
For instance, the Canexus Chemical Plant: it has it's own barge slip but I know it's also switched by CN. So does this barge slip get used anymore? After looking at an updated Google Maps view of their barge slip, it shows the actual barge slip is still there but all rails leading to it have been removed. That would explain why they're selling their barge. That leaves the lower mainland with I believe 3 operational rail barge slips: the BNSF Burrard Inlet slip, Tilbury, and the only one currently being used on Annacis Island. If I missed any, I'd be interested to hear about them There is currently a railbarge berth in service in Vancouver, directly north of the intersection of Powell St and Cordova Div, between Balantyne Pier and Rogers Sugar. This berth was used for a brief period of time (I think in 2009) by the SRY, I'm assuming while their berth under the Alex Fraser Bridge was undergoing maintenance.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 30, 2013 18:40:06 GMT -8
I was not commenting about how pretty the threads look now. Rather, I was commenting about missing Reply #'s. Do you understand what those are/were? Nope I have know idea? Where at the top of very post? Yes. Along the top of the post, they used to say Reply #XXX. I can't access Wayback Machine to specific threads to show you unfortunately, but I can assure you this is true. Unless you don't believe me and require proof. Then you are out of luck.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 30, 2013 17:26:57 GMT -8
Oh, yeah do not forget your cemera like me on that trip. Whoops. I always try to pack my camera, but I forget my cemera every single time. Whoops indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 30, 2013 15:03:59 GMT -8
If you travel to a Gulf Island by ferry with your bicycle, arrive early for your sailing. Since cycling is a popular way to get around on the Islands, I wouldn't be surprised if they have to turn away some cyclists, because too many bikes takes up too much space on the car deck. To my knowledge this has never happened. There is ALWAYS room for another bike. They DO like to load cyclists before vehicles typically, so it does pay to be somewhat early, but not because of lack of space. I can only think of one occasion where I was turned down (with Jordan) on my bike, at Sturdies Bay heading to Tsawwassen, when the Queen of Tsawwassen was operating on Route 9 on the last day of the May Long Weekend. It was a rather extreme circumstance, and they were turning down foot passengers also. Although I believe theoretically there must be a limit, I am not aware of any bicycle capacity restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 30, 2013 13:10:36 GMT -8
Saltspring is a good place to spend the night, notably Ruckle Park, where you can watch the ferries sail by from your campsite. Just be ready to reserve in early-May. The only thing that is reservable at Ruckle are group campsites which are available only to 'groups'. Check the Ruckle Park link in my post above. My mistake! I had thought it was reservable. My post will be edited accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 30, 2013 12:26:30 GMT -8
Galiano is probably the best island to go to for ferry-spotting, with some fantastic views of Active Pass, plus some history with the former terminal, now a provincial park, that is Montague Harbour. Saltspring is a good place to spend the night, notably Ruckle Park, where you can watch the ferries sail by from your campsite. Just be ready to arrive early, due to popularity. As Jim mentioned, reservations are not available, except in instances of group sites. Mayne has some good ferry watching points as well, and a great village. It's also, in my opinion, the easiest to get around. Pender and Saturna are both spectacular and you should plan on visiting one of those if you can. If you like, last year I wrote the WCF GuideBook, perhaps you will find this tool useful in planning your trip: www.westcoastferries.ca/forum/GuideBook.pdfMy favourite method of transportation in the Southern Gulf Islands is by cycling. The islands are very bicycle-friendly, so long as you don't mind a few rolling hills. I find that about 4-5 hours is plenty of time to do a loop around any island (the exception to that being Saltspring, in which a solid couple of days is needed to check out everything). Cycling is also considerably cheaper than vehicle travel: one way with a vehicle + driver is $72, as opposed to bicycle which is $20.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 30, 2013 12:17:15 GMT -8
This summer I might be spending about a week on the sunshine coast (camping of course). I will probably be coming from HSB and leaving via Powell River. What are some nice things to do (my family is more outdoors than city) and some nice places to camp (in term of provincial parks)? I would say, in addition to the above, that if you are staying in Powell River, and interested in taking a round-trip on a ferry, make sure you check out the Burnaby sailing to Comox (a lovely town if you ever get the chance) and the North Island Princess sailing to Texada Island. Both are vintage ferries, and both are slated for retirement within the next five years. I am x2 with Jordan on kayaking, it is the cat's pajamas. As well, Saltery Bay Provincial Park is another nice park in addition to Skookumchuck. Lots of great things on the Sunshine Coast to do, that do not require extended periods of driving.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 29, 2013 12:08:38 GMT -8
You and me and a few other old guys can start our own group someday... That is not such a crazy idea! You can start your own forum, but it will still have to go through the upgrades
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 28, 2013 17:10:39 GMT -8
In regards to the future of BC Ferries, if the NDP wins the upcoming election (which appears to be very likely), I think you will see a determination to build at home... I am leaning towards Nick on this one, but you could be right, we will have to wait and find out. The fact is that today, the shipbuilding industry is a global market. I am hesitant to say that the NDP would give favouritism to localized bids if a foreign shipbuilder such as FSG were to bid substantially lower, especially if the financial situation will be as dire as you mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 28, 2013 15:24:53 GMT -8
Why does the forum's recent threads link [http://ferriesbc.proboards.com/threads/recent] only work when I'm logged out? Is anyone else having this issue? When i'm logged in, it directs me to some events on the forum calendar. I DO like to read the discussion that followed up to the 'recent posts', so I avoid using the new recent posts button, unless I'm on my mobile phone. I am not having any issues with this on my end.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 27, 2013 13:50:28 GMT -8
I guess they decided that 6 trips an hour wasn't needed, or a 1 1/2 min. turnaround was too quick... My understanding is that the idea of 6 trips per hour was killed by excessive wake generated by these vessels when they operated at the speed necessary to achieve that number of trips. The wake problem was particularly troublesome in shoreline areas close to each terminal. I don't know if they ever operated a 6-trips per hour schedule in revenue service, but they obviously did during the sea trials & pre-operational training period. I expect the 90 second turn-around time might have been problematic also. As far as life saving equipment & rafts are concerned, I believe the SeaBuses are not required to have boat/raft accommodation for 400+ persons as one would normally expect. As they are operated only within Vancouver harbour other vessels (including the opposite SeaBus) are available on very short notice to assist with rescue. I think that articles such as I posted are very much worth sharing as they shine light on what 'the thinking was' at the time the project was conceived. I believe, on balance, that the 1970's Vancouver SeaBus 'experiment' is something that has turned out rather well, and at a very modest cost. The ten-minute frequency/7 min crossing is operated whenever a North Shore Bridge, notably the Lions Gate, shuts down. In this event, buses that typically run over the bridges are routed to the SeaBus terminals on either side and passengers are ferried across the water.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 26, 2013 15:44:47 GMT -8
Happy birthday, PrincessOfVan!
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 26, 2013 15:28:54 GMT -8
I am not about to have a bunch of crazy gun-toting, freedom-loving 'Muricans dictate what my fleet is going to be so let me say this: The Issaquah replacements are overkill, the Chilliwack replacement would need to be able to do Northern work, and the Hiyu design you suggested would be a ton of extra, unused space. It would be crazy to send a boat like that up north (see NIP, Tachek, Tenaka, Nimpkish, QQII, and Nicola threads respectively regarding ability to operate in open ocean with their bow design). Remember, replacements are about efficiency, not necessarily about expansion. Also, because of USCG certifications, I think your ferry designs as direct interpretations would work on about six of our ferry routes. Also note that crewing needs are much different here - we tend to follow more international crewing standards (see our passenger capacities for this info), regarding how many crew members must be on board to patrol the deck space. More deck space = more crew = more costs. Mo' money, mo' problems Something that CompDude needs to remember that, as wonderful and lovely as your ferry designs are, our ferry needs are very different. Our vessels travel further, have more open sea-time, have more stringent crewing and safety requirements, and serve different purposes. We serve more ports of call, more vessels, more routes, and therefore have a vastly increased array of needs. Ok, thanks for the advice, now let me redo my plans: Powell River Class (excluding Bowen) and HSQ: A Capilano design. 85 car-500 pass design with a decent cabin seems good for the routes these vessels serve. Bowen Queen: A car deck similar to the Skeena, but with a decent passenger cabin (located above the car deck). Overall it would make a mix of the Skeena and Capilano. Burnaby Class: I'll still sick with my widened Olympic for that one. Queen of Chilliwack: An Issy 100 design with bow doors and inside loading ramps that would make it able to serve the northern terminals. With more passenger amenities on the sun deck though. NIP and Tenaka: A QQII elongated design (by 3 cars), giving a total capacity of 42 cars. Nicola and Nimpkish: Same design elongated by 1 car (19 cars) and superstructure like the Tenaka. I like this a lot better. Good work. Couple things: re. Chilliwack... Despite this ship being a hybrid, I think going forward it would be best for Northern designs to have pointed bows similar to the NorEx. I believe we discussed way back when that a NorEx design that's about the size of the Queen of Prince Rupert would work well here. Re. Burnaby and Nanaimo, I would suggest that this be a closed deck design, but something along the lines of an Olympic would work. re. the Bowen replacement suggested: Somewhere on this forum there is a plan for exactly what you described. Basically it looked something like this, except smaller: DOT photo ©
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 26, 2013 14:10:40 GMT -8
Because of all the New Vessel Discussion in the General News Thread I thought I'd come up with a Newbuild Plan. Some are realistic some are pipe dreams. Tenaka - 50 Car Cable Ferry. We know already the Tachek will take over Quadra-Cortes when her MLU is done and the Cable Ferry will free up the Quinitsa for relief. North Island Princess - 40 Car Vessel. Pretty much a status-quo replacement for Texada. Queen of Burnaby & Queen of Nanaimo - 135/185 Car Enclosed Vessels. Either Single Enders based off the Alaska Class design or Double Enders based off the Hiiumaa design would do. Queen of Chilliwack - A Soap Dish... Kidding of Course, the Northern Discovery. A scaled down 65 Car NorEx would do the trick if were building this solely for the North. If BCF wanted something more multi-purpose to relieve Route 17 they could build a 100-130 Car Vessel similar to the Replacements for the Nanaimo and Burnaby. Bowen Queen - 85 or 125 Car Intermediate Vessel. This New Vessel I feel would become the No. 1 on Route 8. If it's a 125 Car Vessel, it could also take over Route 5 or 7. The Capilano would assume the Bowen's former duties. Mayne Queen - 85 Car Intermediate Vessel. Should be a good sized replacement for Route 5. Probably based off the Bowen's Replacement. Powell River Queen & Howe Sound Queen - 60-80 Car Vessels Two 'Q' Barge types would do the trick. That's about it for the Intermediate Vessels and Minors that need to be replaced in the next decade. I am very much on board with this plan. You are spot on with replacing the BQ and MQ with a Capilano-class design. The PRQ and HSQ should be replaced with 80-car versions of the Skeena Queen.My original thoughts would be replace the Burnaby/Nanaimo with three 125-vehicle designs with a full cafeteria, but I don't think that's in the cards. So I like your solution. So hi there! I had just a few ideas for vessel replacements: Powell River Class and HSQ: An design based of an Issaquah 130, except with more outside space (sundeck with possible lounge up there and risen bridge). Capacity could be extended to 130 cars in the future if needed. It would be a good design for routes 5, 8, 19, 23 and if capacity extended also routes 7 and 17. Burnaby Class: A Olympic widened by a lane (~3 m) would do fine, as it would have 160 car capacity and around 1,500 passengers. Designed for routes 9 and 17 but could do possible relief work on route 7. I would plan to build 2 of those, and the lost capacity (for the route 9 boat) could be compensed by the Bowen replacement. Queen of Chilliwack: That same widened Olympic without gallery decks (capacity around 120 cars). Could do relief work on 7 and 17 and capacity could be extended with gallery decks. NIP, Nicola, Nimpkish and Tenaka: A version of the Hiyu stretched by ~20m (3 cars), giving a 52 car capacity. Also a little widened to include an elevator. It would have small lounges on the side wings and a big cabin above the whole thing (Kinda like the Bowen and Mayne). I will try to draw all of those vessels and post the pictures here. Great ideas you have here, SolDuc!!! I totally agree with them! I am not about to have a bunch of crazy gun-toting, freedom-loving 'Muricans dictate what my fleet is going to be so let me say this: The Issaquah replacements are overkill, the Chilliwack replacement would need to be able to do Northern work, and the Hiyu design you suggested would be a ton of extra, unused space. It would be crazy to send a boat like that up north (see NIP, Tachek, Tenaka, Nimpkish, QQII, and Nicola threads respectively regarding ability to operate in open ocean with their bow design). Remember, replacements are about efficiency, not necessarily about expansion. Also, because of USCG certifications, I think your ferry designs as direct interpretations would work on about six of our ferry routes. Also note that crewing needs are much different here - we tend to follow more international crewing standards (see our passenger capacities for this info), regarding how many crew members must be on board to patrol the deck space. More deck space = more crew = more costs. Mo' money, mo' problems Something that CompDude needs to remember that, as wonderful and lovely as your ferry designs are, our ferry needs are very different. Our vessels travel further, have more open sea-time, have more stringent crewing and safety requirements, and serve different purposes. We serve more ports of call, more vessels, more routes, and therefore have a vastly increased array of needs.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 25, 2013 23:30:16 GMT -8
When you think about it, especially in the terms of those articles, the concept of the SeaBus is incredible - moving 800 people in a 3 minute turnaround, both disembarking and loading, is a fantastic level of efficiency. The system is very unique to Vancouver (although the concept is used other places, like San Francisco), and demonstrates how to execute a ferry run in the context of a transit system.
Thanks for posting those articles Jim.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 24, 2013 22:20:35 GMT -8
I am confident that, had the Island Sky been designed as a closed deck vessel with the same AEQ, we would not be seeing the Chilliwack on Route 17, nor would we see our B-Class vessels slip into states of neglect. I am confident that the coordination requirements for relief vessels for the B-Class are a contributing factor to their decreased upkeep. It will be interesting to see what happens when they send this thing out into the chuck next winter (Departure Bay/Saltery Bay). If the Sky can prove herself, then I will stand corrected. Until then I stand by my assertion that this vessel is not flexible, and a Soup-At-Hand does not suffice for full cafeteria service So is there a Transport Canada rule restricting the use of the I-Sky on cross strait voyages? Or is this just a choice being made by BCFS management? If there is a prohibition in effect then how come this vessel is slated to run from Saltery Bay to Departure Bay next winter? Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the issue is Transport Canada. BCFS had not sought out recertification of the vessel until now. It sounds to me like Transport Canada will recertify the vessel to operate in the Strait on a temporary basis, and will judge a permanent recertification on the vessel's performance during that period. If the permanent recertification takes place, which is likely, the vessel will be the future relief for Route 17. Note that WSF's vessels are certified by the USCG as inland ferries, and would not be permitted to operate on the Strait of Georgia.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 24, 2013 20:53:00 GMT -8
I am confident that, had the Island Sky been designed as a closed deck vessel with the same AEQ, we would not be seeing the Chilliwack on Route 17, nor would we see our B-Class vessels slip into states of neglect. I am confident that the coordination requirements for relief vessels for the B-Class are a contributing factor to their decreased upkeep. It will be interesting to see what happens when they send this thing out into the chuck next winter (Departure Bay/Saltery Bay). If the Sky can prove herself, then I will stand corrected. Until then I stand by my assertion that this vessel is not flexible, and a Soup-At-Hand does not suffice for full cafeteria service
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 24, 2013 17:46:21 GMT -8
I do not agree with BC Ferries replacing the Queen of Namaimo and the Queen of Burnaby with smaller vessel because of future growth in Comox, Powell River and all of Southern gulf Island. I would say to replace the Queen of Namaimo with a single 250 car vessel year round in the on season paired with a 100 car vessel or two 144 vessels for the off season and three 144 car vessels during the on season. For the Comox to Powell River route a single 225 car vessel or two 115 car vessel all year. Those vessel AEQ numbers are pretty high. I would agree with Jim that a 125-car vessel is adequate for servicing Route 17, seeing as the Burnaby sails empty a lot of the time. The Sidney/Tsawwassen were an ideal size for this route, because of the smaller capacity but full galley service. As for Route 9, traffic sees such a high fluctuation on this route that it's difficult to judge what is adequate. In addition, as Jim also mentioned, discussions are ongoing of potential route alteration. Those discussions could potentially be integrated and have an effect on what kind of vessel is built. I am personally on board with 3 125-car vessels that are closed deck, with full galley services, similar to the Tsawwassen/Sidney. The logic here would be that one could be sent to Route 17 full time, and one to Route 9 full time, with the third providing for extra Route 9 service during summer/Christmas, and relief service the rest of the year. However this scenario is unlikely, due to increased costs of building a third vessel, and increased crewing/operations costs.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 24, 2013 14:49:51 GMT -8
BC's newest mid-February holiday is just around the corner, and it's nice to see that BC Ferries is in the 'Family Day' spirit:
What caught me off guard was the offer of free travel on the Northern Routes. These types of promotions do not usually extend to those services. It will also be interesting to see how BC Ferries performs on this new holiday, with little traffic pattern history - although I doubt it would be difficult than other three-day weekends.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 23, 2013 23:15:23 GMT -8
There is little hope of seeing new vessels in three years if they don't even know at this point what the design of the new vessels will be. Then there are the funding issues. It is probable that nothing will decided until well after May's election. Will the replacements for the Burnaby & the Nanaimo be of the same design; will they be built at or about the same time? Many questions. Does anyone have any idea about what sort of vessel will serve Texada? Many other vessels (e.g. PR class) are equally old & in need of replacement. Has there been any prioritization of needs done? The way I see it, BC Ferries would be well into the bidding process on these newbuilds if Cost Saving issues and the Public Consultation weren't front and centre the last few months. Add in the BC Election in May and the earliest I see any activity on new vessels occurring is late Summer. Of course, all BC Ferries' plans will likely go down the drain should the NDP form government. Now if BC Ferries did manage to get a contract handed out by the end of this year, I'm sure we all agree the only way these new vessels are in service by 2016 is if "Built by Flensburger" is on the side of them. I personally don't think that it's going to matter who forms government - something's gotta give. The NDP will not likely send this order to FSG, although, as I have stated before, the products we have received from them have been phenomenal (as compared to a similar, smaller product built here at home during the same time frame). That being said, with a provincial government that has heavily mismanaged transportation infrastructure over the past decade, my hope is that a change in government will allow for this process to go ahead at a more reliable rate. BC Ferries, over the past few years, has executed in what my opinion has been a distinct lack of foresight in vessel designs - meaning they have built their vessels to be route-specific, whilst retiring other ferries that were more flexible for use on other routes during refit season. Between the future cable ferry, the new stern-design for Northern vessels, and the design of the Island Sky, these designs are limiting to what and where the vessel can operate. Hopefully newer designs to vessels will incorporate not just the intended routes, but other routes where the vessel could relieve another in the fairly common event of a refit.
|
|