|
Post by Dane on Jun 10, 2007 21:56:52 GMT -8
BTW - where do you get the information on lisence numbers and crew levels? I don't really have a lot of that information at my fingertips:) Family friend is the Cap's Captain, I just ask him ;D
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Jun 10, 2007 22:15:30 GMT -8
Well the other new boat this year was named "Kuper" so maybe they will just name her Jervis?
|
|
|
Post by NMcKay on Jun 11, 2007 9:50:41 GMT -8
Coastal illumination.... i like that one
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jun 12, 2007 23:48:56 GMT -8
Just a guest passing through here, (although I think I might stick around)
I do know that the capilano and cumberland are Diesel-Electric driven. I also know that the hull is deeper than the PRQ. Therefore ships are capable of travelling waters more open than the PR class. You may have noticed that they are much steadier and calmer than the PR class.
From what I have heard (A friend's dad is the cheif engineer on the Cumberland) the Capilano/Cumberland have a lot more "get up and go" than the PR and have more reserve power.
This is the same situation as comparing the V class to the Spirits. The spirits are capable of going much faster than their service speed of 19knots. (they tend to eat fuel at faster speeds, which is why they avoid them)
As far as the Skeena's problems, I was only aware of the engine troubles that resulted from the builders cheaping out and installing the cheaper engines that were designed for constant RPM use, wheras most of us know that the Skeena is not a constant RPM ship.
|
|
|
Post by NMcKay on Jun 15, 2007 10:58:00 GMT -8
Just a guest passing through here, (although I think I might stick around) I do know that the capilano and cumberland are Diesel-Electric driven. I also know that the hull is deeper than the PRQ. Therefore ships are capable of travelling waters more open than the PR class. You may have noticed that they are much steadier and calmer than the PR class. From what I have heard (A friend's dad is the cheif engineer on the Cumberland) the Capilano/Cumberland have a lot more "get up and go" than the PR and have more reserve power. This is the same situation as comparing the V class to the Spirits. The spirits are capable of going much faster than their service speed of 19knots. (they tend to eat fuel at faster speeds, which is why they avoid them) As far as the Skeena's problems, I was only aware of the engine troubles that resulted from the builders cheaping out and installing the cheaper engines that were designed for constant RPM use, wheras most of us know that the Skeena is not a constant RPM ship. i understand about the Cumbi and cappie...but the virbration and performance issues on the skeena, come from her have Massive driver shafts....that strech from the middle of the ship, all the way to the four propellers... it also makes it a safety hazzard.....on a K class...when you have an engine failure/ fire....the engine rooms are isolated...which makes them redundent.....on the skeena....a fire can put all four engines out of commision....making her helpless....
|
|
|
Post by Islander15 on Jun 15, 2007 12:44:06 GMT -8
Well i don't know about the PRQ, I can tell you that the Mayne and particularly the Bowen Queen have much more "get up and go" than the Cumberland. The Cumberland is a slug compared to the Bowen and Mayne, which are generally refered to as the sports cars of the fleet. The Cumberland does about 12.5 knots where the Mayne can do upwards of 14.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jul 15, 2007 0:05:51 GMT -8
I have been on the Cumberland when she was doing 16 knots (verified by GPS). If you pay attention to the GPS tracking on the BSFS website, you can see the cumberland doing 14.5-15 knots regularly, so they definitely do more than 12.5.
If the mayne/bowen/PR is so much faster than the cumberland/cap why do they fall behind schedule when filling in?
As far as using more fuel, they don't actually use more. I have watched the mayne and cumberland fueling up at swartz, and they are fueled at the same time. The B-train tanker drops the smaller trailer on the mayne and then goes onto the cumberland with the big one. The big trailer is at most 25% bigger than the small one.
I have also seen the preliminary drawings for the yet unnamed I-class vessel. I can't say too much, except that the superstructure/passenger deck is fairly big and has many ammenities for a short run ferry. Power is provided by four main engines but I can't remember if it is direct drive or diesel-electric like the cumbie/cap. (I'll check on monday when I'm back at work).
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jul 15, 2007 0:07:38 GMT -8
After re-reading your post, Islander15, I wonder if you were on the cumbie when it was down a rad? That would explain why it was so slow. (it was running on 3 for quite a while last year.)
|
|
|
Post by Islander15 on Jul 15, 2007 9:22:26 GMT -8
I am not 100% certain that the Cumberland uses more fuel than the Mayne. It's just what I've heard the engineers tell me. I am certain, however, that the Cumberland IS slower than the PR class vessels. Yes the Cumberland CAN do 14-15 knots, however only with a very favorible tide. For instance going Northbound through active pass on a flood tide or southbound on an ebb. If you were to race the mayne and cumberland side by side, the Mayne would have atleast 1-2 knots on the Cumby. I know this for a fact having worked on both vessels(after all the rad problems were fixed).
I don't know for a fact if the Bowen had problems keeping on schedule during this years refit on the cumby but it's possible they were over loaded and tried to squeeze everyone on. If you like while I'm at work today I'll check my AIS and see what speeds the Mayne and Cumby do with the same tide.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Jul 15, 2007 12:22:17 GMT -8
Anyone know if there's any truth to the claim that the Capilano/Cumberland vessels use five times the fuel of the Howe Sound Queen?
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jul 15, 2007 12:53:10 GMT -8
I don't know what the exact consumption of the cumbie/cap is, but when I was in the engine room of the howe sound queen last week, the new electronic engine control system said it was using 35-40 litres per hour when it was cruising, spiking to above 50 during docking prodedures. Maybe someone can chime in with some numbers for the cap/cumbie?
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jul 15, 2007 13:05:29 GMT -8
Just another thought,
The HSQ is a double screw ship (one on each end) driven by a direct drive/gearbox propulsion system. The Cap/Cumbie has a 4 right-angle-drive system driven by a diesel-electric propulsion system.
The Cap/Cumbie are much more maneuverable (sp?) than the howe sound queen and also have a higher service speed (14 knots vs. 10.5), so logically they will burn more fuel.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jul 15, 2007 13:08:27 GMT -8
I hope the new I-class is as versatile as the Queen of Nanaimo or Queen of Tsawwassen. Those ships can fill in on many minor routes as well as the major routes.
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Jul 15, 2007 22:38:05 GMT -8
I hope so too.
This takes me back to 2003 when the Queen of Burnaby was brought down to route 1 because the Queen of Vancouver was on a route 2 & 3 interline run and the Surrey was being repaired due to its fire.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jul 17, 2007 19:56:26 GMT -8
I just checked the drawings today, It looks like the new ship is going to be diesel electric, with 4 right angle drives, just like the cap/cumbie.
It's hard to say whether it will be able to do straight crossings, since out of all of the open decked vessels, the cap/cumbie, skeena, howe sound, PRQ/Mayne all can't but the Bowen can. (Bowen is LSE class V and the others are all class III)
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jul 17, 2007 20:02:51 GMT -8
*sigh* can't they go back to the good old design of the z-drives on the mayne, bowen and PRQ that actually work?
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jul 18, 2007 17:51:32 GMT -8
apparently not.
The drawing I was looking at was a preliminary design, so minor changes could still have gone through.
|
|
|
Post by blackshadow on Jul 20, 2007 20:53:19 GMT -8
coxnnick:
The drawings I viewed last fall at Vancouver Shipyard are having her direct drive, the reason why the main enigines are in rad compartments at each end of the vessel. How old are the drawings you viewed?
Bowen Queen is class IV, lower the number more seas the vessel can handle. Bowen Queen has a special lience for crossing strait during the summer only. Restricted if wave conditions are certain height. PRQ is class IV but runs in class III waters (winter). TC knows this issue but grandfathered her. Skeena is class III. Check doors leading down below decks from open car deck. Class III require the doors to be watertight but class IV doesn't. The last time I work on the Bowen Queen her doors were no watertight same as MQ and PRQ (which I worked on all three).
The new vessel will be class III to cross the strait. She was to be design to used any where unless something has changed since April when I was talking to Senior chief engineer for her and Chiliwack.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jul 27, 2007 18:28:51 GMT -8
I asked about it the other day, and they changed the design to direct drive because of some issue with the RAD supplier.
It now has the shortest shaft lines I have seen in a ship of that size, which is a very good thing.
|
|
|
Post by lest69 on Jul 27, 2007 21:22:05 GMT -8
I would like to confirm that what looks like the superstructure of the I class is under construction in Esquimalt. I have attached a crude drawing showing the current status. It appears they are starting in the middle and working toward the ends. The lower level would be the car deck, and the upper level the passenger deck. The bridge module is also being constructed here, and it's structure seems close to being finished. The bridge looks just like how it is shown in the conceptual drawings. It is similar to that of the Cap/Cumbie, though the windows at each end are even more angled. I'll attempt to keep you guys up-to-date on what's happening here with this structure.
|
|
|
Post by herrbrinkmann on Sept 3, 2007 20:43:54 GMT -8
Is there any picture that exists about this new vessel? I am really interested how this vessel will look like and how vessels are build on the other side of the globe. It would be nice, if anybody could post some pics.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 3, 2007 20:52:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Sept 3, 2007 20:55:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by ferryrider42 on Sept 3, 2007 20:58:23 GMT -8
There are some concept drawings on the BC Ferries website, but I am not aware of any pictures showing the boats current status. We know the contract was struck on July 6, 2006, and the keel laying followed on December 11, 2006. A concept sketch is shown here (on the Dec 11 entry): www.bcferries.com/about/newbuild/newintermediate.html
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Sept 3, 2007 21:15:55 GMT -8
From what I've heard, was that the hull is basically complete at the WMG yards in North Vancouver. So that part should be sent over to Victoria undertow sometime soon I'd imagine. Also, the majority of the superstructure is complete on the Victoria side. Rumours floating around are that she should be on sea trials in April, the of course in service by the summer.
|
|