|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 4, 2006 12:45:17 GMT -8
What do you want to see done so that BC Ferries has a fleet of Northern vessels worthy of the flagship? After seeing no replies, I am sure some of you don't mind a box up there. What are we doing here letting BCF just do what they want? Do we want them to make three boxes for a great route that a great ship ran? NO! We want ships that are worthy of taking the flagship, ships that are worth remembering, ships that are some of the best in the world.
|
|
Doug
Voyager
Lurking within...the car deck.
Posts: 2,213
|
Post by Doug on Apr 4, 2006 16:51:06 GMT -8
I don't think the box trend has been continued much in recent years...especially for vessels around 200 cars (which would be needed) fortunately. However, there are aspects that do exist in all new vessels.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Apr 4, 2006 17:07:35 GMT -8
How 'bout the words "INSIDE PASSAGE" written on the side of the vessel?
It needs ramps and good manuverability to get into those tight mid-coast berths.
Also, for the PR-Haida Gwaii ferry, we need stabilizers so the ferry won't rock as much.
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Apr 4, 2006 23:36:19 GMT -8
If BCF was smart, they would make all three almost exactly the same. I know that wouldn't be interesting to us ferry nerds, but it makes financial sense. Then you would have a Queen Charlottes boat, a Inside Passage boat, and a Discovery Passage boat. Plus during the winter, the boats would be interchangable. And it would allow them to have a second boat running during the winter, if traffic conditions allow. I also believe they will abandon the RO/RO concept of the bow doors and go to a more Alaska Ferry concept with side loading. While it is a slower load/unload, it is a safer boat.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 5, 2006 12:02:12 GMT -8
RO/RO is stil common, the side doors would cause an issue because of car deck configuration, un/loading procedures, berth modifications and so forth. RO/RO is still commonly used overseas for ferries, it is also much easier to use versus loading via a side door. Now if BCF was financially smart and could attract a hoard of tourists up north, (one of my crazy ideas now) build two vessels that can carry the capacity of a C class or S class and use them for cargo during the summer or more who want to get up north. Then build one that is bigger than the QPR for winter use. Winter is the season when not many go into the Inside Passage, there would be no need for two vessels during the winter, maybe the nimpkish to provide interisland but that is about it.
|
|
Doug
Voyager
Lurking within...the car deck.
Posts: 2,213
|
Post by Doug on Apr 5, 2006 21:20:39 GMT -8
No need to worry about the bow doors...the most recent ones (for about 10 years) are sliders rather than lifters. It also elminated the need for the bow nose to be so small compared to the superstructure....
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Apr 6, 2006 22:28:50 GMT -8
I agree that there are certain benefits to having 3 ferries that are the same as far as maintenance goes, but there are also some down sides to this, mainly because you have 3 vastly different routes with different purposes and roles.
You need one to relpace the Chilliwack. That means you'd want something that can access the smaller docks, maybe with a side-loading door (could be ro-ro too), maybe with a "crane" to load cargo, a place where you could store kayaks (and launch them). You probably wouldn't need a fancy buffet or reserved seating lounge or an ultra-fancy gift shop. This ferry might need to be smaller than the other 2, but there could be ways around that problem.
You need one to replace the Queen of Prince Rupert. This is an essential service rather than a tourist trip.. so again, you'd want one without a big buffet or fancy restaurant (it just won't make money with the average type of traveller on that route) or fancy gift shop or reserved seating lounge and that type of stuff. You'd want some cabins and nice comfortable seats for a long voyage.
For the Queen of the North replacement, you'd probably want something with lots of places to spend money, plenty of outside deck space, a big gift shop, buffet, big windows, pay-for-your-seat lounge, nice cabins, large passenger capacity, a bar, some slot machines, etc....
If you tried to fit all the requirements of all three routes onto three exactly-the-same ferries, then you'd probably be compromising passenger satisfaction and ultimately, how much money you make.
Would it be possible though, to have 3 ferries that are the same below the car deck, but different above the car deck - like the C-class ferries. So for engine maintenance, they'll all be the same. As far as the superstructure goes, it doesn't matter so much if they're different, except for the initial cost of designing three different plans. Once they're built, however, it's just paint, carpets, seats... things that don't really matter whether the ships are the same or not.
They shouldn't be vastly different, either, because sometime along the line they'll need to replace each other. But if there were just some modifications to the superstructures to make them most suitable to their primary routes, I think that would work the best.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 6, 2006 23:00:09 GMT -8
Next thing I am curious about is capacity. How many months in advance to you have to reserve in order to get a spot for the summer trips?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 6, 2007 12:17:17 GMT -8
I'll use this existing thread for this news story, re the Victoria Shipyard, and its busy year. www.oakbaynews.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=23&cat=23&id=844231&more===================== Shipyard expects positive year ahead By Vern Faulkner News staff vfaulkner@vicnews.com Mar 02 2007 The departure of Northern Adventure does not leave Victoria Shipyards devoid of work. Rather, the drydock is cleared for another flurry of activity that will last for much of the year. The company performs significant labour on cruise ships, and two of the large vessels will arrive in early April for refits and upgrades. Malcolm Barker, the manager for Victoria Shipyards, said that the Esquimalt-based company’s international reputation for top-quality cruise ship refitting likely assisted the company in winning the bid to refit MV Sonia for BC Ferries. “I think it would be fair to say that Victoria Shipyards has established a worldwide reputation for cruise ship repairs,” Barker said. The local company outbid a cluster of shipyards in Europe and elsewhere for the right to refurbish the former MV Sonia. A group of eight senior managers travelled to Greece in October to inspect the vessel and prepare a bid for BC Ferries. “There was a lot of information that the shipyard had to put together in a very short period of time.” There are still several vessels either in drydock, or soon to arrive. Currently, Canadian Coast Guard vessel Sir Wilfred Laurier is in the midst of a major refit. Spring cruise ship refits will follow shortly after. “As soon as these vessels leave, we go back to our conventional Puget Sound customers – fishing boats and oil barges,” Barker said. The long-term prospects for Victoria Shipyards look solid, he noted. “There are all levels, from new construction, major upgrades and ship repair to mid-life upgrades. “We’re cautiously optimistic about the future.” ===================
|
|
Doug
Voyager
Lurking within...the car deck.
Posts: 2,213
|
Post by Doug on Mar 6, 2007 16:36:20 GMT -8
It looks like new northern vessels will now be fitted with onboard ramps as the terminals are being converted to the Alliford Bay style.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most companies moving away from this system? Or maybe it's similar to what Cascade was saying, as with the second hand market of conventional vessels vs. BC Ferries' unique ships.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Mar 6, 2007 17:01:15 GMT -8
The terminals shouldn't be changed much. Just for the NA to fit in the docks.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jun 21, 2007 16:18:29 GMT -8
The terminals shouldn't be changed much. Just for the NA to fit in the docks. BC Ferries is moving away from the bow visor concept now. Once the Queen of Prince Rupert is retired, bow visors will be a thing of the past. The way they have the Northern Adventure set up, with the single stern ramp and the ability to dock in all BCF docks, is temporary. Once the Northern Expedition is on the run, all of the docks up North will be modified to a European design, and the Northern Adventure will be given back her double stern doors once again. This is so they will be able to simply lower the stern ramps on to a floating pad. I know everyone is focused on the Alberni's return right now, but I've been wondering about the operations with the Northern vessels. I don't really think they'll go for European style stern-only loading, because it is largely unfeasible with current infrastructure as evidenced by the Northern Adventure on the wharf at Prince Rupert. The idea of a floating dock is more likely if they intended to replace the current style of fixed berths outright, although this does not necessarily mean the end of bow-on and stern-off loading. The Alaska state system appears to use a style of floating dock at certain ports with their side-loading vessels. If they did decide to go with stern loading only, then they at some point will have to replace the dock at Prince Rupert if only to provide a straight line in for the loading of larger vehicles and drop trailers. However, the majority of the new publicity photos for the northern ships do show them retaining bow visors. Which brings me to the big question.... Since there some to be one or two actual engineers, one or two more engineering students, and a whole army of arm-chair engineers... I know it's been discussed many times the fact that the Northern Adventure has no bow loading, but... For purely hypothetical purposes I wonder if anyone wants to take a shot at determining given the design of the ship, whether or not it is even feasible or physically possible to re-engineer the bow itself for a visor, or some sort of watertight door, as is fitted on the Queen of Chilliwack. (It's not like they haven't cut the noses off ships before... look at what happened to the Chinook II and the Princess of Vancouver.) I just didn't really think this particular idea had really been touched on yet, and I wanted to know from an actual engineering perspective whether refitting the NorAd's bow is something that could even be considered.
|
|
|
Post by blackshadow2 on Jun 21, 2007 19:17:57 GMT -8
As an engineer any thing is possible if you have deep pockets.
As I never seen the vessel personally or seen structural drawings I can not say yes or no for sure. Problems come in what equipment, tanks, voids, ramps, all in this area. If one removes tanks or voids this affects the vessel's stabilty when flooded there fore need to see if there is spare floodation left. In that you would add in the extra weight of two doors (visor and inner door/ramp would add). Cause must remember is wasn't designed with one. Is it worth it in the long run. O course there is possible chance ths may cause fewer vehicles to be carried. There again is it really worth it. The engineering, approvals and refit work, you could see it cost a ball park 40 million mark. Remember what vessel cost and the work you never see. It is far cheaper to change the berths than vessel.
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Jun 22, 2007 22:06:50 GMT -8
The NorEx will have a bow visor, BTW. It has been confirmed by our German friend.
|
|
|
Post by Construction Team on Jun 29, 2007 5:40:51 GMT -8
The Northern Expedition will be worthy to be called the flag ship of the BCF fleet and yes it does have a bow ramp.
|
|
|
Post by ferryking on Jul 11, 2007 11:51:27 GMT -8
The new northern vessel has a 2 page pdf on FSG website...under the 'our products' and 'current product portfolio'.
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Jul 11, 2007 12:43:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Jul 11, 2007 13:52:57 GMT -8
From the looks of it, that is one impressive ship there. Nicer than anything I've been aboard, anyway. It's a nice marketing piece. I would be interested in hearing from people in the know here whether it appears to look structurally and mechanically what you might expect (if you can tell from this).
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 11, 2007 15:20:07 GMT -8
I like this part:
CARGO ACCESS EQUIPMENT Stern ramp: 8.20 m x 6.1 m + 3.0 m fl ap (width x length) Bow ramp: 3.50 m x 17.3 m + 2.0 m fl ap (clear width of driveway x length) Bow Visor: top hinged type
-------------------------
silly question perhaps, but is 3.5 metres wide a standard width for a ferry bow-door? ie. is this similar to the QPR ?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 11, 2007 15:32:27 GMT -8
Also, similar to how NorAd worked out, the crew accommodations are higher-up than the passenger cabins.
An obvious reversal of the old way of crew-cabins being below the car deck.
=================
Also, how does the "fact" of bow-and-stern loading jive with the berth-modification work that is currently being tendered by BCFS?
Does this mean that the old plan of a universal new-style of berth & apron are now obsolete, and that there is a new plan ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2007 16:56:17 GMT -8
Ok is it just me or do those carpets look like whats on the Northern Adventure? For those of us who have travelled or been on the open house..... notice that the"Bar" in the pictures looks strikingly similar to the Norad's Cafe and so do the cabin pictures. Perhaps those were the interior photos on the Sonia before refit? I think so. Anyone else agree.
|
|
Doug
Voyager
Lurking within...the car deck.
Posts: 2,213
|
Post by Doug on Jul 11, 2007 17:54:31 GMT -8
Those pictures probably have nothing to do with the interior on the NorEx. They were possibly taken from a previous vessel built at Flensburger just to "advertise" the new ship.
|
|
|
Post by ferryrider42 on Jul 11, 2007 18:17:53 GMT -8
To me the neat thing is the section that says “Ice Rating 1A for complete propulsion train”. I almost jumped the gun and read it as a 1A ratting for the entire ship. Too bad, here is why I was excited: From my limited research ICE CLASS . . . . . . . . .FOR NAVIGATION IN 1A Super . . . . . . . . . .extremely difficult ice-conditions 1A . . . . . . . . . . . . . .difficult ice-conditions 1B . . . . . . . . . . . . . .moderately difficult ice-conditions 1C . . . . . . . . . . . . . .easy ice-conditions II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .very easy ice-conditions From : www.shipadm.org/templates/SFVXPage____5548.aspxFor those interested the site has further information about ice class calculations. However, the site is referring to Finnish-Swedish Ice-Class Designations. I tried, but was unable to find anything on Lloyd's ice designations. I do not know how different the two systems are. Lloyd's being what I assume the FSG document is referring to. But who knows, I don’t know much about this ice stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jul 11, 2007 20:15:16 GMT -8
Looking at the plans and layouts - all I can say is wow. Many of the deficiencies of the NorAd and the things that many missed from the QoftN seem to be addressed. The pictures are computer generations with partial real life photos mixed with computer drawn images. The bar pictured isn't really shown on the floor plans.
I like how the passenger seating areas are all broken up. It would be much easier to find a quieter area than the all in one room on the NorAd. The cabins look predictable but you will notice there are two lower berths in all the cabins versus the upper and lower in the QoftN. It will make the staterooms seem larger.
The buffet is back. The forward lounge on deck 6 looks like it will have excellent viewing. There seems to be some nice outdoor areas but not spread over as many outdoor decks as the QoftN. There doesn't appear to be a forward outside viewing area.
I guess I shouldn't get too excited yet it is a while before she will be in service. But I can't help it ;D
|
|
|
Post by herrbrinkmann on Jul 11, 2007 20:38:50 GMT -8
To bring some light into the "Ice Class". This is only for the propulsion train, e.g. the propeller and the shaft line. They are strengthened in a certain way. It has nothing to do with the steel structure itself. If you want to built a vessel completely acc. ice class, you have to strengthened the whole area around the waterline (appr. 1m up and below) that ice can not damage the steel. This is extremely expensive compared to a "normal" vessel, so it is only done by companies that navigate more than half a year in ice. But I know that there are some reason, that the NorEx will have this strengthened propulsion train. Some comments about the bow visor. Unfortunately BCF was not able to modify the terminals for vessels with a bow door (butterfly type) but stayed with the existing design. This "forced" us to build a bow visor which opens upwards. This was much more work, because you have to build a hydraulics with a mimic, which is able to lift the hole bow instead of opening two "little" doors. But we are finished and it will work. For those of you which are already nervous: The steel design of the NorEx is nearly finished, we have steel cutting of the NorEx in Mid September and will start to build the superstructure first. The bottom will start in January so you will see keel laying on the 16th of June 2008. btw: some more computer graphics of the NorEx can be found on my flickr (as I pasted the computer pics in the real world). www.flickr.com/photos/brinkmann/
|
|