|
Post by Curtis on Apr 5, 2007 18:11:07 GMT -8
Hot off the Press! Construction has began on the Coastal Celebration. Click Here to go to Flensburger's Home PageLooks like Yard 735 is going to be the Site where they build the QPR Replacement as well. Now all three Super C Class Vessels are Under Construction.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Apr 5, 2007 19:39:35 GMT -8
Wish they would update the modules page especially on Yard 733. Will be exciting to see the Northern Expedition come together too and how different it will look then the Coastals.
|
|
|
Post by NMcKay on Apr 6, 2007 10:11:33 GMT -8
April 19th (launch Day) is approaching
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Apr 15, 2007 7:32:25 GMT -8
According to the schedule all steel should be cut now. Just a couple days after launching the Renaissance is the keel laying for Celebration (April 23). I wonder if it will come together quicker now that they have experience with the first go round. I also wonder if there have been any changes from the Renaissance to the Celebration.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Apr 15, 2007 9:07:17 GMT -8
Don't forget about the 'Inspiration . She's the one that has most of the modules assembled.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Apr 15, 2007 10:26:12 GMT -8
You are right Chris I am out of order lol.
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Apr 22, 2007 2:40:12 GMT -8
Actually, I think the new Northern vessel will be yard 736. When they say "yard", they really mean "hull".
|
|
|
Post by herrbrinkmann on Apr 28, 2007 4:45:05 GMT -8
The Northern Expedition will be yard Number 748. The reason for this is, that the yard got orders for Roros before the contract for the Northern Expedition. After 735 will have had launching, FSG will be built two Roros for a turkish customer and after that built the NE. Construction of housedecks will begin in September 2007 and building the blocks for the hull will start in January 2008.
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on May 22, 2007 13:36:44 GMT -8
So, since they're going to put Coastal Celebration on route 1, that would mean another big double-ender through Active Pass. How is she going to be able to safely transit Active Pass at full speed?
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on May 22, 2007 15:49:01 GMT -8
So, since they're going to put Coastal Celebration on route 1, that would mean another big double-ender through Active Pass. How is she going to be able to safely transit Active Pass at full speed? she won't (go at full speed, I mean.)
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on May 22, 2007 16:39:35 GMT -8
Then that means it won't be cost-effective to put her through Active Pass, just like the C-classes when BC Ferries tried to run them through the Pass.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on May 22, 2007 16:55:49 GMT -8
denelson, perhaps you need to take a trip into our archives, or better yet, ask Brinkman yourself (at least I think that'd be the best reference)
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on May 22, 2007 17:06:18 GMT -8
So, since they're going to put Coastal Celebration on route 1, that would mean another big double-ender through Active Pass. How is she going to be able to safely transit Active Pass at full speed? I would imagine that this has been dealt with in the original design stage, as it is a KNOWN problem this time out. As for full speed, I doubt it -- reduced speed like any other vessel heading through Active Pass, but not in some weird maneuvering mode setting I would guess .... That is what you were really asking, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on May 22, 2007 17:08:44 GMT -8
Well, I just want to make sure that BC Ferries will be able to feasibly operate the Coastal Celebration on route 1 for a long term. The C-Cel needs to plow the route in as quick and efficient a period as possible to stay on that route, and Active Pass is the real iffy point on that route. Ships on route 1 only have two hours to do a full cycle of unloading, loading and travelling the route. If they can't make that timeframe, they'll just be put on other routes.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on May 22, 2007 17:11:19 GMT -8
Then that means it won't be cost-effective to put her through Active Pass, just like the C-classes when BC Ferries tried to run them through the Pass. Don't get the two confused. Remember that the restrictions on the C's came after an incident occurred. I would heavily suspect that the Super-C's were designed and engineered with transitting Active Pass in mind. Remember that BCFS does seem to learn from it's 'mistakes' (bad word) and shortcomings. I would suspect that they won't build any new "route-specific" vessels for South Coast use, as it has become apparent that they require interoperability and flexibility in scheduling their ships. The Mode-restriction on the C's transitting Active Pass would seem to be a specific hull-form/propulsion combination. I theorize that this has been overcome in FSG's design of the Super-C's. I await being proven wrong, or corrected by someone with the performance data, design specifications, etc (ie: Herr Brinkmann).
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on May 22, 2007 17:13:19 GMT -8
I would heavily suspect that the Super-C's were designed and engineered with transitting Active Pass in mind. I certainly hope you're correct on that point. I'd really like to see double-enders plow route 1 again. They wouldn't have to turn 180° at the terminal, saving a lot of time, which I hope won't be lost in the transit through Active Pass.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on May 22, 2007 17:20:18 GMT -8
Well, I just want to make sure that BC Ferries will be able to feasibly operate the Coastal Celebration on route 1 for a long term. The C-Cel needs to plow the route in as quick and efficient a period as possible to stay on that route, and Active Pass is the real iffy point on that route. Ships on route 1 only have two hours to do a full cycle of unloading, loading and travelling the route. If they can't make that timeframe, they'll just be put on other routes. Speed isn't the only consideration. It's economy of operation. This was hashed to death (and I asked some pointed questions about it too) in a previous discussion of the C's in Active Pass and the self-imposed restriction that they operate in "Maneuvering/Docking Mode" while transitting Active Pass. This is a mode which consumes more fuel and results in a reduced speed. Keep in mind that the Spirits and V's don't plough through Active Pass at FULL SPEED either; they reduce speed. The concern with the C's was that because of their hullform and propulsion layout, they COULD experience problems in the confines of AP. BCFS is aware of this restriction on the operation of the C's -- why do you think that we don't see the C's on Rte1? This being the case, would it not follow logically that if they planned to operate the Super-C's on Rte1 that they would engineer in a design fix into the hullform/propulsion BEFORE the ships are built? I am not sure if BCFS would have provided FSG with the pertinent information regarding how the C's currently operate in Active Pass, but if _I_ was the ferry corporation and _I_ was contracting a ship builder to build me new multi-purpose, multi-route ships, _I_ would provide them with all the relevant information regarding my past experiences in operating ships on my routes! Then say: "Design me something that works in all these scenarios..." Can't say that they did this, but it would make sense that they did. Based on FSG's reputation, I would say that they probably would have taken any input like this into account in their design stages before any physical work took place on BUILDING it. Worst case, let's grab the first one off the line and run it thru AP. I'll take a day off work and sign up for that trip! :-)
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on May 22, 2007 17:27:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on May 22, 2007 17:28:42 GMT -8
I certainly hope you're correct on that point. I'd really like to see double-enders plow route 1 again. They wouldn't have to turn 180° at the terminal, saving a lot of time, which I hope won't be lost in the transit through Active Pass. .... and there you have the rest of the argument in a nutshell. The whole argument/discussion concerning C's in Active Pass before was the need for them to go through there in a non-fuel efficient Maneuvering Mode setting. The delay that this imposed upon the vessel was more or less negligible (10 mins I think was stated), part of which was made up in the fact that they did not have to do a Spin-o-rama at one end of their trip. Don't forget that the "cruising speeds" that the ferries operate at most of the time is NOT their maximum speed. It is a fuel-usage optimized speed for the route that they are covering. There's always the option of "dropping the hammer" when they are clear of maneuvering and obstacles and making up some time. Again though, this is not fuel efficient and therefore does not make a whole lot of financial sense, especially at the current price of diesel fuel. I don't have the models of fuel consumption versus speed, but suffice to say that it is a logarithmic progression -- your fuel consumption increases exponentially the faster you try to go over a certain speed. This is as true in ferries operating in water as it is for a car or truck going down the highway. There's always ways to make up 10-15 minutes over the Rte-1 run if you don't have to spin around. However, is it efficient? C class vessels are not banned from doing Rte1 through Active Pass, it is just that with other vessels available that are better suited to economically running on that route, why would you drop a dog into the mix? Have I made this point clearly enough, or is there something that you would want me to clarify? Perhaps if you tell me, I can point it out from a previous post, or do my best to explain it as it has been explained to me? ;D
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on May 22, 2007 17:31:25 GMT -8
Have I made this point clearly enough, or is there something that you would want me to clarify? You are as clear as the view from the Queen of Oak Bay on the Strait on a sunny afternoon, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on May 22, 2007 17:34:49 GMT -8
The Super-C's don't have a deep V-hull like the current C's. The hull design is more similar to the current S and V class ships (minus the bulbous bows)... Because of this there should be no problems transiting Active Pass...
Also, keep in mind that the Super-C's are propelled through the use of an electric motor. Because of this they will not suffer the same fuel guzzling issue that the current C's do with extended, variable use in Mode 2...
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on May 22, 2007 17:44:22 GMT -8
The Super-C's don't have a deep V-hull like the current C's. The hull design is more similar to the current S and V class ships (minus the bulbous bows)... Because of this there should be no problems transiting Active Pass... Also, keep in mind that the Super-C's are propelled through the use of an electric motor. Because of this they will not suffer the same fuel guzzling issue that the current C's do with extended, variable use in Mode 2... Ah yes, all of the details that I was lacking at the tip of my tongue and searching thru old posts to find comes up while I started my dinner! Thanks Scott, for adding the whipping cream and fruit on top of the flan that I baked! ;D My those fresh details sure make a nice topping! hehehe Seriously, thanks ...
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on May 22, 2007 19:16:01 GMT -8
I think that it is unfortunate that these ships have been dubbed 'Super C's'. Yes, they are double ended and big, but the similarities run out there. If these vessels are in fact 'Super C's', then 'Spirit' vessels should be called 'Super V's'.
Some differences:
hull configuration, single machinery casing versus 2 on C's, electricly driven props, no gallery or ramp decks off of main car deck, vastly different superstructure, etc. I am sure that others can add to this list.
I expect these vessels will be as functional on route 1 as on route 2. We must also keep in mind that route 1 is significantly shorter than route 2, and that the Super C's have the capability of operating at 21 knots. Add to that the fact that backing into or out of docks will not be necessary. They should have no trouble maintaining their schedule on either route.
One other factoid: When the Alberni operated in the 1970's on route 1 as a single car deck vessel its crossing time was one hour and fifteen minutes. The Super C's should be able able to make the crossing in about that same time.
It is too bad that a Super C twin will not operate on route 1, opposite to the schedule of the Coastal Celebration. I gather that an older C (the Q of Cowichan?) will be the fouth vessel on route 1 once the Venerable class are sent to a beach somewhere in India. And that brings us back to the question of C's operating through Active Pass.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on May 22, 2007 20:20:01 GMT -8
I wish we just had 2 new Super V's so that we can keep the single ended tradition yet have capacity for sometime. Now why did BCFS not add platforms and have two stairways upto the passenger deck? Is that more effective in clearing exhaust from the engine to the main car deck and moving foot traffic up? or is it international standard to have one column?
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on May 22, 2007 20:33:27 GMT -8
Wow ... so many things to address. Naming them Super-C's ... yes, this wasn't the brightest idea ever created as it is entirely misleading. Elegantly described by WCK, the similarilty is that they are double-ended!! Wow, that qualifies for similar misleading class names!
Operational speeds - yup, even if they are slower thru Active Pass due to their shape/hullform/size etc, then they should have no problem making it up, what with the lack of a turn at one end of the journey. I assume that they will operate below 21kts though.
As for the Alberni doing the crossing quickly back in the day, that was before the Mode-2 restriction. Also before the fuel costs were as high as they are now. I imagine that they operate at a lower speed due to better fuel economy.
Now that I am typing this and thinking more about it, perhaps they will operate closer to their 21kts speed -- with those variable pitch props, they should be able to make pretty good fuel economy pushing them suckers ....
Alang might not be so soon in the future for some of our V sisters, depending on what all transpires with regards to volume and demand for service. It will be very very interesting to see the final vessel deployment once all three of the new ships are in service.
I know that Rte2 has been promised the new ships, and I can see the reasons for this. As is pointed out in regards to the C's, they may not be the best suited for Active Pass. Could BCFS reverse itself and send 2 of the new boats to Rte1? Maybe.
Also along this, where has it been chiselled in stone that BCFS will not go back to FSG and say "Give me another, just like the others"?
Not in the cards yet, and there are build slots that have already been allocated after the completion of the current three, but we know how quickly FSG can pump out another one of these things -- perhaps we will see a fourth of the class.
|
|