|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 17, 2007 22:58:16 GMT -8
It's interesting to note that the bay in Chemainus, by the ferry landing, is known as "Horseshoe Bay".
There even is (or was) a "Horseshoe Bay Inn" nearby.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jan 17, 2007 23:35:39 GMT -8
Lovely, thanks for the pics!
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Jan 18, 2007 19:08:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Queen of Vancouver on Jan 26, 2007 11:38:07 GMT -8
Today on BCF website the News Releases said the Kuper will be put into service in February.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Feb 5, 2007 17:28:02 GMT -8
Guess who's back, back again? Kuper's back, tell a friend.
She's in North Van mere meters away from her assembly point.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Feb 9, 2007 20:47:25 GMT -8
Anyone know when the Kuper will begin operating out of Chemainus? There's a possibility I could get down there next weekend if the Kuper was in town.
|
|
Ferryman
Voyager
Posts: 7,474
Member is Online
|
Post by Ferryman on Mar 4, 2007 18:02:34 GMT -8
The Kuper is now sitting in the drydock again, at Allied. I saw that this morning as I was driving over the Second Narrows bridge. Just last week she was sitting near the Garibaldi II. I wonder what happened to her going into service within the next couple of weeks, back in January.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Mar 4, 2007 19:12:10 GMT -8
I wonder what happened to her going into service within the next couple of weeks, back in January. Perhaps they have taken a page out of MY book and rather than putting Kuper into service only to have her break a day or two later and go back in for a "REFIT" (see previous discourse on the meaning of this very funny word) they have just kept her out of service and now laid up in drydock. Might as well get all the bugs and gremlins out now!! No one would want to see, a la Bugs Bunny in the aircraft cartoon, the little gremlins out on the wings chewing thru them! ;D ;D In this case, I suppose, something mechanical or worse, below the waterline. Then again, perhaps to save those "Service Annoucements" they are taking a scratch or two out of the paint, fixing the tear in the loop of carpetting. It is either that, or the glue that they used to wallpaper the passenger areas with those new $5 Cdn bills is not sticking very well to the new finish on those bills........
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Mar 4, 2007 21:28:43 GMT -8
I hope they get her into service soon. I was thinking of possibly going on her during Spring Break
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 4, 2007 22:02:43 GMT -8
RAD work to bring her up to the TC recomendations....
I asked this afternoon at the Victoria office
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Mar 13, 2007 7:33:37 GMT -8
I wouldn't be getting too anxious about seeing the Kuper in service too soon fellas. It appears TC and BCFS are having quite a little bunfight on the issue, and rightly so. Just imagine, you buy a boat in Utah that operated there for what, 25 years, with a 2 man (3 in the summer) crew. You bring her to Canada, install another lane to increase her capacity to 32 instead of 26 vehicles and TC tells you that they demand and 11 person crew. Yes, that's right. Up until a couple of years ago the Klitsa had a 4 man certificate. Rumour has it that TC an BCFS are in discussion re an 8 man crew. Are these guys insane? ? Anyway, it appears it has more to do with TC standing by some of their folks back east. Apparently there's a 16 car ferry somewhere in Newfoundland operating (as mandated by TC) with a 10 or 11 man crew. Isn't it interesting that the Christine Anderson down in Puget Sound (65 cars) operates with a crew of 2! Long and short, supposedly Trafford Taylor has told TC that, until this is sorted out, the boat will sit at the dock, and TC can explain to the public why it is doing so. Let the games begin!
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Mar 13, 2007 8:01:44 GMT -8
I wouldn't suggest it's Mr. Taylor throwing his weight around. You buy a boat of which you have sisterships, some of which operate with a 4 person crew, and you increase her capacity by 6 cars and the regulatory authority tells you that you need almost 3 times as many crew. How is an operator supposed to make a go of it if he can't design a vessel and know what the crew complement is going to be before the TC inspector comes aboard. If you buy a 737, you know what your crewing costs are going to be. If you build a ferry, you have NO idea until God (oops, I mean the TC inspector) tells you what he thinks. This is all after TC funded extensively the BMT Fleet Technology system in Ottawa that will predict evacuation behaviour and design improvements. I can't blame Taylor except for the fact that they went out and spent 11.5 million on a ship they had no idea of the operating costs, did not sit down with TC to review design and get any sort of authoritative opinion on crew size. What kind of a crazy world is this?
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 13, 2007 12:26:16 GMT -8
I gather you have seen Taylor's job title within BCFS - hence it was his baby - responsibility - so he carries the can on this "mistake" or mis-understanding. Call it what you will - still a screw up some where down the line. Huh? The "screw up" is with TC.... BCFS was given the approval to operate with the smaller crew, and before service it was revoked.
|
|
|
Post by shipyard on Mar 13, 2007 19:54:15 GMT -8
I've learned from experience, all it takes is for the TC guy to be having a bad day!
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Mar 14, 2007 19:43:51 GMT -8
What are 11, or even 8 for that matter, crew members going to do on the Kuper? I could understand 6 maybe. Two on the bridge, two on deck, and two in the engine room. What are the other 5 going to do? Help people use the vending machine? Count the lifejackets every time they leave Chemainus? Or maybe they have 4 sets of oars down in the engine room and a place for one crew member to bang the drum.
|
|
|
Post by NMcKay on Mar 14, 2007 20:14:52 GMT -8
the bridge isn;t that big. i could see. 1 on the bridge, 3 on deck, and one in the engine room. but even on a vessel that new, only one on the bridge, and 3 on deck with one being traded off when the engines need maintinence
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 14, 2007 20:27:05 GMT -8
What are 11, or even 8 for that matter, crew members going to do on the Kuper? I could understand 6 maybe. Two on the bridge, two on deck, and two in the engine room. What are the other 5 going to do? Help people use the vending machine? Count the lifejackets every time they leave Chemainus? Or maybe they have 4 sets of oars down in the engine room and a place for one crew member to bang the drum. They are needed no doubt to serve dinner in the ship's buffet, or man the gift shop.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 14, 2007 20:49:59 GMT -8
Scene from the Kuper....
|
|
Doug
Voyager
Lurking within...the car deck.
Posts: 2,213
|
Post by Doug on Mar 14, 2007 21:50:06 GMT -8
Ben-Hur!
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Mar 15, 2007 0:03:35 GMT -8
Scene from the Kuper.... Yup! That's the exact scene I had in mind:)
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Mar 15, 2007 7:13:06 GMT -8
I can't believe you fellas think the crewing issue is funny. It is not. BCFS costs us, the taxpayers, about $130 Million a year in subsidies. We have many ships operating with approximately DOUBLE the number of crew required anywhere else in the world. Why did the Kuper operate for 25 years with a crew of 2, but her sisterships in Canada run with 5. The Christine Anderson down in Puget Sound a ship similar to the Powell River, Bowen, etc, with 60 car capacity runs with a crew of 2, yet our ships run with 8. How come?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 15, 2007 8:21:08 GMT -8
Because even with as large of a crew as the Queen of the North had, two passengers were still lost. Imagine a real emergency--like an engine room fire--with only two crew to fight it, and one of those is stuck to the wheelhouse.
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Mar 15, 2007 9:36:26 GMT -8
Because even with as large of a crew as the Queen of the North had, two passengers were still lost. Let alone the loss of such a major passenger vessel in the waters of Canada out of all 'top of the heap' developed nations of our world. So why give TC such strict control? Well, why not just abolish the CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications Commission), be finally swallowed-up by U.S. culture, and have our neighbours call into serious question our sovereignty even sooner than is seemingly almost inevitable? Personally, I understand how my place as a general citizen of this country in making decisions that are outside of my realm of expertize is, and should be, left to the ballot box alone.
|
|
|
Post by Gunny on Mar 15, 2007 11:03:05 GMT -8
I agree that 11 is too high a crew count. I think that the ship is larger than the K class, so it should be a larger crew... however, it is not THAT much bigger.
IIRC: A lot of BC Ferries's routes are classified as 'open waters', whereas WSF is in sheltered water, which make a difference in crewing. And comparing the JAB's lake route to the Kuper's ocean route is fairly apples and oranges. The expected conditions are different, and ocean requirements are higher than lake IIRC.
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Mar 15, 2007 12:37:14 GMT -8
TC and the CRTC have nothing in common. Ship design, voyage parameters and crew competancy do. I agree, the Q on N incident should give us all a wake up. 2 of 49 pax were lost. Why? What created the emergency in the first place? TC will argue that big crews are good and the more the merrier. So then, how do ferries go back and forth, 365 days a year with the fraction of the crews we have and do so successfully? How come our ferries run up on islands, crash into other ships, make 360 degree turns for no reason, have engine room fires where most of the heads blow off the CO2 systems, and depart their berths before they're supposed to? Is that a question of number or competancy?
|
|