|
Post by herrbrinkmann on Sept 3, 2007 21:20:25 GMT -8
Thanks for the info. I have seen the pics before, but I wonder, why there are no construction pics. Does nobody have the possibility to take some pictures in the shipyard or from outside?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 4, 2007 6:06:33 GMT -8
Thanks for the info. I have seen the pics before, but I wonder, why there are no construction pics. Does nobody have the possibility to take some pictures in the shipyard or from outside? Apparently BC Ferries only knows of one photographer in the entire world, and that is Mr. Stapleton, and he's busy. It has been strange in how there has been so little news or progress updates on this new ship. I don't know why BC Ferries is ignoring this I-Class ship, re public-relations. I suppose it is because it's a "Minor ship", and just not as important as the larger ships. Also, it has been pointed out that the local BC Shipyards don't have much in the way of "media relations". This is likely because they don't have the resources for this, because of their lack of "economies of scale", being so small and having infrequent newbuilds. The contrast of this local yard's public-face to that of Flensburger is interesting, and is an indication of stark differences that began with how the respective Federal Governments have treated shipyards 25 years ago. Or maybe the people managing the BC Shipyards are just shy and awkward when it comes to public communication....
|
|
|
Post by herrbrinkmann on Sept 4, 2007 6:20:46 GMT -8
Yes, I know Mr. Stapleton is busy, he has to take photos all the time here in Flensburg ;D I am wondering also that there is no info about the newbuilding in BC because I assume this is an important job for the shipbuilders in BC and should be honored (if that´s the correct word for it).
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Sept 4, 2007 14:23:52 GMT -8
Somebody should mention why we aren't seeing any of the progress made beyond Keellaying on the new I Ferry to whoever manages the BCFS Site or anything else.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Sept 4, 2007 16:54:32 GMT -8
There are a couple of webcams at vanship showing current status. I'll see if I can dig up the link.
Update: The webcam is part of the employee section of the website, so I can't link to it. I'll try to post screenshots once in a while though.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Sept 4, 2007 17:06:26 GMT -8
These are the views at the Vancouver yard. So here is the south view: And here is the north view The superstructure is under construction at Victoria Shipyards and is not shown.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 4, 2007 17:15:46 GMT -8
Ok, so I've now done some web research, to see what I can find on the 'net re the I-Class, from the shipyard websites. Here's what I found: =============== I started with the BCFS website's newbuild page, to get info on the names of the shipyards doing the work. - Vancouver Shipyards is the only shipyard listed on the BCFS I-Class newbuild page, from news releases on July 6, 2006 and December 11, 2006. : - There is no mention in the BCFS news releases of a Victoria shipyard doing any of the work on the ship. ======================= Now, armed with the name "Vancouver Shipyards", I started googling, looking for an official website, where I hoped to find some PR info on the new I-Class. - Here's the main webpage, that I found: www.vanship.com/- Here's their "news release" page: www.washcorp.com/media_center/mc_frames.htm?http&&&www.washcorp.com/media_center/mc_press_releases.htm I can't find any mention of the BC Ferries I-Class.... - The website's photo page has 6 unidentified photographs, none of which appear to have anything to do with the I-Class. Conclusion: If this company (WMG's Vancouver Shipyards) wants more business, why wouldn't they promote the fact that they are building this ship for such a locally high-profile customer? Isn't a company's webpage one of the first places that potential global and local customers would look, to find out who can build a new ship? ===================== Ok, so if the WMG company seems to be apathetic about promoting this latest contract, then maybe the Union has some interest in doing so. After all, it's the shipyard workers' union that seems to be the "public face" of shipbuilding in this Province. On the premise that the shipyard workers' union would want to promote the fact that BC Workers can build ferries here in BC, I will now check the 'net for evidence of such Union promotion of this work on the I-Class: ===================== From the BC Federation of Labour's website, I found this union website: www.bcshipyardworkers.com/www.bcshipyardworkers.com/shipyard/index.html This page has some general, but relevant, comments about why BC Shipyards should be doing BC Ferries work. And it mentions that " In the next international tender, for a new ship to replace the current Bowen Island ferry, despite encouraging foreign participation, only a BC company submitted a qualified bid." I can understand their point, but the current Bowen Island Ferry is the Queen of Capilano, and there is no plan for a replacement. I suspect that the Union is talking about the replacement of the Queen of Tsawwassen, ie the new I-Class. But they don't go out and explicitly say "I-Class". So they don't get the Flugel Promo Points on this page. ========================== So I checked the shipyard union's "news" page: www.bcshipyardworkers.com/news/index.html- There's lots of negative-headline items, the type that you'd expect, given the union's displeasure with BC Ferries awarding newbuilds to non BC yards. - But there's no news release trumpeting the good-news that a BC Yard is constructing the new I-Class. There's no union self-promotion to say "we can do the job here, and here's a real example". Not one mention of the actual job that's being done by actual BC workers (part of their union) in a BC Yard, going on right now. No mention at all. - So the Union has nothing good to say about the work that they actually are doing for BC Ferries ? ============================== Flugel conclusion: - No effort is being made by the shipyard company or union to publicize the fact that a BC Ferry is being constructed in a BC Yard, by BC Workers. - re the Union's lack of publicity, I can presume that by keeping silent on this "success", they won't deflect attention from their focus on the "failures" of not getting the larger newbuild contracts. They seem to enjoy the negative publicity more than the occasional good news. - re the Shipyard company's lack of publicity, I can presume that they don't need any more similar type business from any new customers. They must be happy with their current workload and future bookings, and not be looking to grow their customer base.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Sept 4, 2007 18:57:23 GMT -8
The following is scanned from the Summer 2007 edition of The Wave, BCFS's employee newsletter. It sheds some light on this project. I got a copy of this magazine from my brother, Mr. DOT, who is on the mailing list. Mr Brinkmann, are you just interested or are you looking to acquire 'trade secrets' from competitors? ;D ;D PS: I read somewhere that this vessel is initially slated for the Jervis Inlet route but may end up on the Bowen run, which might explain the union entry referred to by Mr. Flugel Horn above.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Sept 4, 2007 19:13:58 GMT -8
I had gotten my info from that edition of "The Wave" as well.
I think that some blame resides with BCF, since they haven't exactly promoted this new ship. I know, it isn't exactly a Super-C (I absolutely refuse to use the other C-word), but shouldn't it be promoted as part of the "biggest newbuild program in BC Ferries history"?
That quote isn't actually true. How many ships were built for BCF between 1960 and '65? Let's see, - Sidney (1960) - Tsawwassen (1960) - Victoria (1962) - Vancouver (1962) - Saanich (1963) - Esquimalt (1963) - Nanaimo (1964) - Burnaby (1965) - New Westminster (1964) - (and don't forget the long forgotten 'Richmond)
That's the 2 originals, plus the 7 (8?) Vs and Bs. Then we can include the minor ships built for the current minor routes during that period, since the Kuper was included in the "newbuild" program.
So that gives the Powell River class and the Tenaka.
That's 13 vessels built in a period of 5 years and all in in BC shipyards.
I think that the current newbuild program of 3 Super-Cs, 1 used open water ferry, 1 slice-and-dice, 1 new intermediate, and 1 or 2 new northern vessels kinda pales in comparison. Total of 7 or 8 ships between 2005 and 2010 or 13 ships between 1960 and 1965.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Sept 4, 2007 19:44:38 GMT -8
I had gotten my info from that edition of "The Wave" as well. I think that some blame resides with BCF, since they haven't exactly promoted this new ship. I know, it isn't exactly a Super-C (I absolutely refuse to use the other C-word), but shouldn't it be promoted as part of the "biggest newbuild program in BC Ferries history"? That quote isn't actually true. How many ships were built for BCF between 1960 and '65? Let's see, - Sidney (1960) - Tsawwassen (1960) - Victoria (1962) - Vancouver (1962) - Saanich (1963) - Esquimalt (1963) - Nanaimo (1964) - Burnaby (1965) - New Westminster (1964) - (and don't forget the long forgotten 'Richmond) That's the 2 originals, plus the 7 (8?) Vs and Bs. Then we can include the minor ships built for the current minor routes during that period, since the Kuper was included in the "newbuild" program. So that gives the Powell River class and the Tenaka. That's 13 vessels built in a period of 5 years and all in in BC shipyards. I think that the current newbuild program of 3 Super-Cs, 1 used open water ferry, 1 slice-and-dice, 1 new intermediate, and 1 or 2 new northern vessels kinda pales in comparison. Total of 7 or 8 ships between 2005 and 2010 or 13 ships between 1960 and 1965. Yes, you are right on, and don't forget the QPR, and the Queen of the Islands, also. BCFS's current claim is pure nonsense.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Sept 4, 2007 19:49:08 GMT -8
I didn't include the QPR because it was built in 1966, and, well, I forgot the Queen of the Islands.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Sept 4, 2007 20:02:52 GMT -8
There was quite a few inaccuracies in the show. The biggest one would be the statement about the most ambitious ship building effort in the history of BCF's. Let me see, between 1959 and 66 we built, here in BC, the Sidney, Tsawwassen, Victoria, Vancouver, Esquimalt, Saanich, Burnaby, New Westminster, Nanaimo, Prince Rupert, Bowen class (3) and Q of the Islands. I may have missed some. That is fourteen vessels in 8 years. Impressive! Or perhaps they mean the history of BCFS's from 2003 to the present. This quote comes from an earlier thread re a BCFS piece done on the Discovery Channel program the Daily Planet. The QPR entered service in 1966. I would include her in that building frenzy of the golden age of BC Ferries.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Sept 5, 2007 9:21:18 GMT -8
I think that the current newbuild program of 3 Super-Cs, 1 used open water ferry, 1 slice-and-dice, 1 new intermediate, and 1 or 2 new northern vessels kinda pales in comparison. Total of 7 or 8 ships between 2005 and 2010 or 13 ships between 1960 and 1965. Back in the 1960s they were also armed with the full provincial ministry of highways budget. I find it interesting how they plan to utilize this vessel though... With a capacity of 125, it is smaller than the Tsawwassen's capacity, which would make it too small too handle the traffic on the Jervis Inlet route during summer, unless it is able to cover the route faster to make up the difference... On the other hand, a vehicle capacity of 125 would be grossly overweighted for the Bowen Island run. It will be interesting, then, to see where it does end up running, but it is likely not going to be the only one to be built, because they will also need to build one or two that are more custum fitted in terms of size and vehicle capacity for specific smaller routes, because 125 cars would be a little bit of overkill on some routes. By the way... Flugel Horn should open an office as a private investigator... he made his search for answers sound very dramatic to say the least.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Sept 5, 2007 9:31:52 GMT -8
The 'Tsawwassen's listed capacity is something of a fiction. It's only 74' wide, and it's very difficult to put the eight lanes of cars on to make up the number- it's probably closer to 100 in reality, most of the time.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Sept 5, 2007 10:27:31 GMT -8
The 'Tsawwassen's listed capacity is something of a fiction. It's only 74' wide, and it's very difficult to put the eight lanes of cars on to make up the number- it's probably closer to 100 in reality, most of the time. Actually, you are probably right, Neil, because I remember from my trip on the Tsawwassen, there was one lane on each side left completely open because there were large trucks or vehicles with trailers that went around the curves of the deck space and cut off the access to the center lanes on each side. They had the platform decks loaded, but that would still account for about 20 cars there as well I would assume.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 5, 2007 10:54:34 GMT -8
By the way... Flugel Horn should open an office as a private investigator... he made his search for answers sound very dramatic to say the least. The Flugian style of investigative reporting is something you won't find taught at BCIT..... Yeah, I enjoy the thrill of the over-dramatic conclusion, along with the twists in the process along the way. Infotainment for the ferry nerd. Seriously, the referred-to post was to satisfy a curiosity of mine, and the writing style is to make it fun for me.
|
|
|
Post by oceaneer77 on Sept 5, 2007 14:56:25 GMT -8
Did you notice the nigatta engines amd z drives??
Niigatta makes a positivly great product.... but is whith out much or any support in the north american market..
BCF seems hell bent on having differing parts on all of thier vessels.. Standardization saves money!
I think that the skeena has Mitsubish engines, some of the minor vessels still have the detroits. i cant rember what the cap and the cumberland have in them.. In just the minor vessels alone i am sure we could find all of the engine manufactures.
I cant see the logic here.. can some one enlighten me??
ocenaeer77
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Sept 5, 2007 18:14:25 GMT -8
They are currently trying to standardize berth width, so that more vessels on the minor routes are interchangeable. Currently, they are looking at using the I-class design as a base and altering it to suit differing sizes. There are distant plans to create another 80AEQ as well as a 60 AEQ, which will be based on this design. (just make shorter and narrower).
Ultimately, the Inlet Crosser will most likely be used on the Bowen run or SGI. It is not destined for Jervis Inlet service forever, from what I have been told.
|
|
Mirrlees
Voyager
Bathtub!
Deck Engineer- Queen of Richmond
Posts: 1,013
|
Post by Mirrlees on Sept 5, 2007 23:17:37 GMT -8
Did you notice the nigatta engines amd z drives?? Niigatta makes a positivly great product.... but is whith out much or any support in the north american market.. BCF seems hell bent on having differing parts on all of thier vessels.. Standardization saves money! I think that the skeena has Mitsubish engines, some of the minor vessels still have the detroits. i cant rember what the cap and the cumberland have in them.. In just the minor vessels alone i am sure we could find all of the engine manufactures. I cant see the logic here.. can some one enlighten me?? ocenaeer77 The Cappie and Cumbie are powered by3 Normo-Bergen engines coupled to Siemens electric drive motors with PTO's to the RAD's. The 'Wack also has Normo-Bergen too but, connected with gearboxes to the RAD's.
|
|
|
Post by lest69 on Sept 6, 2007 18:19:58 GMT -8
Does nobody have the possibility to take some pictures in the shipyard or from outside? I have the opportunity to get some photos of the work being done here in Victoria. I'll try and get some soon. The superstructure is getting pretty far along (much farther than in my crude drawing).
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 8, 2007 0:47:16 GMT -8
Isn't it ironic that we've been getting better information/photos/video from Germany than we have from a shipyard in our own backyard?
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Sept 8, 2007 6:25:47 GMT -8
Is the hull being built in the old CFI assembly shed where the fast cats were built?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 8, 2007 7:39:45 GMT -8
Isn't it ironic that we've been getting better information/photos/video from Germany than we have from a shipyard in our own backyard? It seems that with BC shipyards, you've got to know someone in the Union, in order to get any information. A "closed shop" in more ways than one?
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Sept 18, 2007 17:30:53 GMT -8
Isn't it ironic that we've been getting better information/photos/video from Germany than we have from a shipyard in our own backyard? It seems that with BC shipyards, you've got to know someone in the Union, in order to get any information. A "closed shop" in more ways than one? But of course this has nothing to do with management.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Sept 18, 2007 18:14:14 GMT -8
OK, so seeing as the ship has had some major progress on the hull, I'll post some more pics. North facing South facing
|
|