|
Post by Taxman on Dec 14, 2008 16:56:33 GMT -8
The island sky is single ended, compared to the QoT's single endedness, so she doesn't take as much time doing docking and departures one way.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Dec 14, 2008 17:07:18 GMT -8
Warning! Photos Ahead.I'm back from Saltery Bay with new photos of the Island Sky. Let's start off with some of the first photos of the Island Sky at Saltery Bay... Down on the Government Wharf. The sun was facing us so photos from this angle proved difficult. But facing the other way the scenery was beautiful. Then I started making my way back up to the terminal. Through the trees... From inside the terminal. With the Queen of Chilliwack. Along the path to the secondary berth. These signs were posted at the secondary berth... Peeking through the fence. Another with the Queen of Chilliwack. After walking a bit up the hill. From there I payed a little less attention to the Island Sky and took some shots of the terminal. From the log dump. Another scenery shot. A few more back by the Government Wharf. And up in the parking lot. This concludes my photos of the Island Sky. She'll fit in well once she's in service.
|
|
|
Post by sunshinecoastkid on Dec 14, 2008 17:16:18 GMT -8
Great shots! I think the Island Sky fits in perfectly on this route. Maybe i'll go down to Saltery Bay and take a few shots myself one of these days. I Can't wait to go on her.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Dec 14, 2008 17:40:31 GMT -8
Great pics Ship-Rider. I find the ones especially interesting are the pics with the Wack showing. I know Island Sky is a little closer but the height and width of the ferry are really noticable. But stubbier than the Wack.nnShe should be quite stable with the beam on her.
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Dec 14, 2008 20:46:33 GMT -8
she sure looks great up there!
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Dec 14, 2008 20:59:47 GMT -8
She is certainly larger than the QoWack.
These signs were posted at the secondary berth... I think the boys at BCF were thinking of us ferry freaks when they put that sign there, to make sure we don't get into any trouble. Although the Island Sky may look like an elementary school junglegym, rest assured that she is certainly not such a toy.
|
|
|
Post by oceaneer77 on Dec 15, 2008 21:13:43 GMT -8
wow... that is the ugliest vessel BCFC has.. i thought that the greeks made ugly ferries!
I am sure that some will disagree ;D
oceaneer77
|
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Dec 15, 2008 21:51:01 GMT -8
I dissagree! I dont think the Island Sky is all the bad. She is not that ugly! There are other ships that are worse maybe not a BC Ferry but still worse. I look forward to riding on the Island Sky when she goes into service!
|
|
|
Post by oceaneer77 on Dec 15, 2008 21:53:23 GMT -8
i would love to know what the pretty aspects of thsi ship are..
|
|
|
Post by Canucks on Dec 15, 2008 22:02:04 GMT -8
I don't mind her other than those d**n walkways to the exhaust pipes. They look so ugly and out of place. Other than that she seems to look like the offspring of Queen of Chilliwack and Queen of Capilano/Cumberland. Boxes on boxes always look good don't they.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Dec 15, 2008 22:32:12 GMT -8
My only big pet peeve about her as I've probably said is the "Snug Cove Embarkation" Platform on the No. 2 End. It sticks out too much; I would rather them cut it off so she is not asymmetrical. That and her lack of blue paint bothers me the most. Aside from that she's a very nice vessel.
And for those who think she's one of the Ugliest BC Ferries yet, look at the photos of the I-Sky and Queen of Chilliwack above and compare. Oh, and in length and breadth too.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Dec 15, 2008 23:20:14 GMT -8
It's the off-balance sensation you get when looking at it due to the Snug Cove antenna on one end, and the tall narrow superstructure that ruins her appearance. I don't know why they didn't just follow the same lines as the Capilano and Cumberland, where there is only one additional deck structure between the main passenger deck and the bridge. Instead, they inserted yet another deck house which appears to be of an extended height which pushes the shape of the superstructure out of balance, because it is getting taller and narrower, without any supporting structure below on the sides or fore and aft to balance it out.
And they didn't even try to balance out the shape with any transitional curves or angles to help out the perspective distance a little bit... it's all just harsh, boxy right angles, and that's what looks ugly, along with the narrowness of the superstructure below the bridge which leaves large gaps, giving the impression that the bridge isn't really supported and the structure itself is somehow incomplete.
The walkways to the funnels I don't mind as they actually sort of help to balance off all that glaring emptiness. Apart from that, my opinion has largely change... if you want ugly, look at the K class with all their off center wheelhouses: they are ugly.
Now I just started wondering what might happen if they ever one day decide to take those platform decks one step further for a subsequent model of this class of vessel, and make them the full width of the ship for a complete second cardeck... Who wants a mini-Alberni...? How bout for route 3?
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on Dec 15, 2008 23:28:23 GMT -8
I don't mind her other than those d**n walkways to the exhaust pipes. They look so ugly and out of place. Other than that she seems to look like the offspring of Queen of Chilliwack and Queen of Capilano/Cumberland. Boxes on boxes always look good don't they. I think that the crew aboard the ISLAND SKY want the bridge wings so they can see rescue boat operations better. Also, good for docking operations when she moors alongside docks at shipyards et al during maintenance.
|
|
|
Post by landlubber on Dec 16, 2008 12:22:06 GMT -8
i would love to know what the pretty aspects of thsi ship are.. Her "pretty aspects" are... that she will deliver her passengers, crew, and cargo safely, efficiently, and comfortably to their destination over and over again for the next 40 years or so. That by itself is a beautiful thing, is it not?
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Dec 16, 2008 13:58:31 GMT -8
Comparing the new Keystone ferry to the design of the Island Sky is a useless exercise, there is a reason a covered ferry is needed there, whereas it is not here. Clearly we are going for the "economy model" here, so points wrt spending money to balance the shapes are obviously out of place. Functionality is king... I don't think she's the best looking ferry either, but does she need to be?
|
|
|
Post by kevins on Dec 16, 2008 21:20:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Dec 16, 2008 21:38:40 GMT -8
Wow, Kevin! That is cool! I hope you'll be able to train a Little River crew on her.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Dec 16, 2008 21:40:25 GMT -8
Wow! Excellent photos, especially of all the places most of us will never see. It looks like she will fit in nicely with the fleet.
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Dec 16, 2008 22:11:53 GMT -8
Well, she is replacing the Queen of Tsawwassen, which subbed every once in a while for the Queen of Burnaby on route 17.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Dec 16, 2008 22:22:35 GMT -8
Great photos. I thank you for posting them, "kevins".
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Dec 16, 2008 22:31:13 GMT -8
Comparing the new Keystone ferry to the design of the Island Sky is a useless exercise, there is a reason a covered ferry is needed there, whereas it is not here. Clearly we are going for the "economy model" here, so points wrt spending money to balance the shapes are obviously out of place. Functionality is king... I don't think she's the best looking ferry either, but does she need to be? For the sake of humanity, she should look at least somewhat pleasing to the eye. (This depends on the angle. At times she does look nice from the right vantage.) I'm just wondering whether it might have been expedient to fully enclose those bridge wings like the Queen of Chilliwack and the new Keystone ferries. That might just have balanced out her appearance if she had a full width bridge riding atop all the emptiness in between the passenger decks and the bridge.
|
|
|
Post by Nickfro on Jan 12, 2009 17:00:57 GMT -8
The Island Sky has been out and about today, sailing around Jervis Inlet on what I assume to be BCFS sea trials and crew training. I'm not sure if they went over to Earls Cove or not today, but as their Service Notice mentions, they should be heading over there tomorrow for dock trials. The notice also mentions a vague 'In Service' date of sometime in February. . .we shall see.
|
|
|
Post by boardsailor on Jan 17, 2009 20:43:59 GMT -8
Feb. 16 in service - that is my entry...
|
|
|
Post by boardsailor on Jan 17, 2009 20:55:24 GMT -8
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. It wasn't a builders choice of engines. Builder will install engines requsted by owner...
|
|
|
Post by electrotech on Jan 18, 2009 0:48:51 GMT -8
It wasn't a builders choice of engines. Builder will install engines requsted by owner... I find it hard to believe the original engines were considered constant-speed. Its a fixed pitch prop on each z-drive and a single speed gearbox. The Cap/Cumby is constant speed, and has CPPs on each drive. I heard the story with the old engines (V12's) was excessive vibration, premature wear, and even engine block failure. I say April 1st for the I-Sky to be in service.
|
|