Cosmic Ray’s replacements for the "B" class ships.

[cosmicray]

If I had any say at BC Ferries on want kind of vessels they should build to replace the Queens of Nanaimo, Burnaby [Also known as the "B" class ships.] and Tsawwassen. I would build three vessels that would be based on the new Washington State “144 Class” boats. They will be 25 Meters longer then their Stateside cousins (bringing their total length to 135 Meters), however, they will keep the same breadth (25.41 Meters). They would be powered by four MaK 6 M 25 1900 diesel generator sets developing 1800-kWe each for a total of 7,200-kWe and would have four Thrustmaster TH200MZ diesel electric nozzle azimuth thrusters, two at each end, giving each a top service speed of 18 knots. They would carry 186 vehicle, between 686 and 980 passenger (depending on what route their on.) and would be designed to be rebuild as a 332 vehicle ship sometime in the future with an adding of a second vehicle deck (to be build to the same clearance as on the Coastal class.).

I don’t know where I will build them. I would really like to give the jobs to the local shipyards, however, they would have to be delivered on time and on budget, and with the troubles I’m hearing their having with the Island Sky, it's likely I’ll be ordering them from Germany’s Flensburger Yard. I would like to see all three off them delivered over a 9 to 12 month period starting in early 2012, because the Nanaimo and the Burnaby are not getting any younger.

When delivered I would assign the first one to the Gulf Islands-Tsawwassen, the second to the Comox-Powell River route. The thrid I would assign as the second boat on the Horseshoe Bay- Langdale route for the winter, since the Queen of Coquitlam would be the second boat there the rest of the year, she can replace her two twin sisters on their routes when their in for refits in the spring and fall, in the summer months she could be used as the second boat on the Gulf Islands-Tsawwassen route or any route that needs a 186 vehicle / 980 passenger ferry.

OK, I like to give you guys a little fun now. If these ships are order tomorrow what would you name them? Also Please feel free to write what you feel about my idea.

Be seeing you.

Cosmic Ray.

[Scott]

Why would they need to be capable of being "lifted"? It's been pretty well established that you get the most efficient design when it's not built for future chop jobs. Even so, I think there will always be a neccessity for some larger intermediate single deck ferries so it wouldn't be neccessary to have them lifted ever.

Also, if you're thinking of some of the Gulf Island routes, having a double ender probably isn't neccessary since I don't think you want your bridge crew switiching ends at Galiano, then again at Mayne, then again at Pender, then again at Saltspring. A single ender would do fine there. In fact, I doubt we'll ever see a design like the B-class ships in the Gulf Islands again. You're probably looking at a ship with a single bridge like the Island Sky/Queen of Chilliwack where the ship neither has to turn around or switch bridges.

And on the Powell River - Comox route, I don't know if having a double ender would be a huge improvement over a single ender since there is lots of turning room at both sides and a single ender design is more efficient.

[hergfest]

PR-Comox needs an enclosed car deck, something that the WSF vessels will not have. But in looking at the C-Class, a WSF design can be modified for BC Ferries use.

[oceaneer77]

Good thread cosmic ray..

On these new vessels i agree that having them all the same class would be way better. As they get cheaper to build and way cheaper to staff and maintain.
Could we include the chilli in this class as well? With the chili at least mechanical and hull design.

I am not sure if a double ender is the way forward as some of the runs are fairly long and a single ender is just more efficient, an possible more sea worthy.
covered car decks should be a must as i dont want salt spray on my Porsche

On your diesel electric idea i agree that for a maneuverable and efficient ship this is the best compromise. But i think that ABB is way more advanced with their designs than thrust master. Also not sure on the 4 drives idea.. if is is a double ender you can get away with one on each end with no sacrifice to maneuverability.
Only a slight decrease in redundancy. But is is a very odd looking hull design.
One of the advantages to the single ended ship is the need for only 2 Propellers/pods with a conventional hull design.

Jonh H what do you mean by your saying that we will do not need a double ender than referring to the island sky and the chilli as the replacement.. i am confused.. they are double enders.. did you mean a ship with 2 bridges or a double ender...

I would love to see BCFC do more standardization in the ships. they are presently running a rag tag fleet with every equipment and engine manufacturer. This must invoke a logistical night mare in keeping spares and crew trained up on all of the systems.
If we had a 4 or 5 major class fleet the savings would be quite large as well as the crew flexibility.

Oceaneer77

[ferrytraveller]

This is true, a standard class would help fleet flexibility and have enough crews trained. BC Ferries though is starting to standardize their fleet and they are planning 4, 60 vehicle vessels, to run on the Denman - Hornby route replacing the tachek, the quadra - cortes replacing the tenaka and the alert bay - sointula - Port Mcneill replaced the QQ2 and the powell river - texada run, replacing the NIP.
That would be 4 vessels that would be the same class and possibily a few more to be spares for those routes.

[Ferryman]

I've always sort of thought the MV Island Home, that runs between Woods Hole MASS. to Vineyard Haven on Marthas Vineyard would be a good replacement for this class, in my opinion. She's 77 meters (255') in length, and 19.5 meters (64') in beam, and was designed by Seattles Elliot Bay Design Group. She's a little bit narrower and shorter compared to a B-Class, which is 130 M (426.5') in length and 24 M (78.7') in Beam So I think the design could be enlarged enough for it to fit comfortably into the existing docks. On the car deck of the Island Home, you have 5 lanes of vehicles, 3 in the center, and 1 on the opposite ends of the support walls, which are tunnels, underneath the saddle lounges. There are 2 hydraulic lift decks suspended from the ceiling to accomadate another 2 lanes of cars. In total she carries about 77 vehicles. Another reason why the design would have to be adjusted.

For pictures of the MV Island Home, have a look at my gallery at:

photosbychris2006.fotopic.net/c1394399.html

[ferrytraveller]

Speaking of replacements, has there been any word on designs or sizes of vessels to replace the B class?

[Scott]

oceaneer77 said:

Good thread cosmic ray..
Jonh H what do you mean by your saying that we will do not need a double ender than referring to the island sky and the chilli as the replacement.. i am confused.. they are double enders.. did you mean a ship with 2 bridges or a double ender...

Yeah, I meant it's probably impractical to have a double ended ship with two bridges on short hop routes where the ferries go in and out of multiple terminals in a relatively short period of time. A single bridge, double-ended ship is probably the most practical and efficient... and ugliest;)

[Curtis]

ferrytraveller said:

Speaking of replacements, has there been any word on designs or sizes of vessels to replace the B class?

All We Know is that the Burnaby's Replacement will hold 185 Cars

[ProudCanuck]

prqueenkid16 said:

ferrytraveller said:

Speaking of replacements, has there been any word on designs or sizes of vessels to replace the B class?

All We Know is that the Burnaby's Replacement will hold 185 Cars

Where did you find that fact about the 185 cars?

[ferrytraveller]

the coastal ferry service contract
says the burnaby is due to be replaced with a 185 AEQ vessel.
I assume the nanaimo will be the same as well.

[cosmicray]

“B” Class replacement vessels: Update #1.

As Oceaneer77 pointed out, they may not need two pods at each end. Two should work just fine, however, I would have them designed so one can be replaced within one eight hour shift. With trials this will mean that these ships would be out of service for less then a full day and will not make a huge dent in BC Ferries' schedules as with the present ships. I would go as far as stationing a “Back-Up Pod” and trained personnel at Nanaimo Shipyard for the Comox-Power River boat, so the only thing the Ferries need to do is to call them and the ship is back in action in less the 24 hours.

I would do the same with the main engines, why should a 186 car, 980 passenger ferry be out of service for seven to ten weeks every five years whiles her engines are rebuilt. With these new ferry the olny thing they have to do is to remove the original engines and replace them with spares, with the original engines being rebuild over the next few months to be placed in the next vessel in the class that’s due for a engine rebuild. With this the amount of time each of these ships is out of service would be cut to between two to three weeks. Besides doing this will allow any of these vessel's four engines to get replaced in mather of days in an emergency.

A few more things I want to add about these ships I would build.

1) Like the Coastal class, they can run on three of their main engines 98% of the time, at their 18 knots service speed.

2) To save weight I would have the upper superstructure (the passenger decks, the wheelhouses, the fanrooms, funnel and the like.) made out of aluminum.

3) They would have a loading door at each end of the deck 2, based on the type used on the Coastal class and have four gates in the railings of the passenger decks to accommodate the overhead walkways found at (for Now) Long Harbor, Tsawwassen and Horseshoe Bay.

OK, that’s all for now, be seeing you.

Cosmic Ray.

[markkarj]

cosmicray said:

2) To save weight I would have the upper superstructure (the passenger decks, the wheelhouses, the fanrooms, funnel and the like.) made out of aluminum.

OK: please excuse the "Engineering for Dummies" question I'll ask here.

Is that possible? Steel hull with an aluminum superstructure? Clearly steel and aluminum couldn't be welded together, so they'd have to get pretty creative with bonding the two materials. Would it even be worth any weight savings though? Has it been done before, and where?

[Northern Exploration]

A number of the very large yachts have steel hulls and aluminum superstructures. The bonding techniques are propriatary and they are a bit cagey about describing how they do it. I have seen one of them described in a publication as welded together using mini explosions. I also know that dissimilar metals touching can create a problem for corrosion. That is why copper pipes are never joined to another metal. Or aluminium wiring used to connect to copper connections.

[markkarj]

shipyard said:

How feasible it would be on a ferry I'm not sure. With the sharp increase in the price of steel the last couple of years, the price gap between the two materials has significantly decreased, making aluminum much more cost efficient to use.

True, and I guess the question becomes: who would do such work? Does FSG do aluminum welding or do they just offer steel product?

Also, aside from bonding, what are the challenges of doing something like a steel hull and an aluminum superstructure? From a corrosion factor, wouldn't it make more sense just to build an all-aluminum ship?

I think one of the big problems with the old Fast Cats was that there was so little expertise on aluminum ship-building here that they had to do so much training and buy all sorts of expensive equipment that probably got sold at bargain basement prices.

[Hardy]

In smaller applications, such as truck bodies (yes, I speak that of which I am familiar!), the bottom and rear frames of van bodies (trailers, box trucks etc) are made of STEEL for its strength. The side panels and indeed the stiffening ribs are all aluminum for weight savings. Most of the time, these metals are in contact only at the point where they are rivetted/bolted together. There is a nonconductive tape material as well as a spray on version that coats one (or both) before they are put into contact. Rivets are dipped before they are set so that they are not a point of conduct either. Works pretty slick in the applications I have seen. As far as welding steel to aluminum, no, it is not feasible on a large scale, however, at certain small 'intersections' it can be done. Not pretty, not easy, but in small spots it can be accomplished.

In trucks, you try to keep those junctions as limited as possible, with a ferry superstructure, it would be slightly more complicated, probably requiring, as has been stated, flanges and overlaps etc.

[oceaneer77]

Cosmic Ray good thought on the pods and the removal times..
It would be possible to do what you suggest and quite easy.. a large soft hatch above the pod in the car deck with lifting eyes welded to the overhead. If you have only one pod at each end the pod location would be ideal for this as the pod would be right in the middle of the car deck just slightly aft of the bow. In our waters you would want a skeg of some sort in front of the pod drives to deflect any large logs.
On the engine replacement.. with diesel electric ship is is much easer to replace the engines are they have no shafting and alignment issues with the prop shaft just the input shaft of the generator.
You would want to make certain that the ship could ruin on only one engine for a prolonged time if needed,, but at a reduced service speed!

on the aluminum deck house.. i dont see much advantage.. as this is done on the yachts for stability reasons.. not normally weight issues (displacement yachts).
As ferries are quite wide and not to tall it may not make any difference.
It is most imperative to make all of our new ships as efficient as possible. The simplest way to do this is increase the waterline length. So we would have a less wide than normal ferry.. these also look much better
If aluminum was to be used the bond is an explosion bond between the steel and the Aluminum.. they are very common now and i have never heard of them causing any trouble (unless the Italians install them and try to thru bolt!)

ok thats all

oceaneer77

[Northern Exploration]

oceaneer77 said:

(unless the Italians install them and try to thru bolt!)
oceaneer77

You wouldn't be biased to yards from a more northern country now would you Oceaneer.

I thought you would weigh in given your experience. If the process is more common does that mean it is less propriatary now?

[ferrytraveller]

well i think a diesel-electric vessel with 2 pods and a central bridge like the chilli is good start

[oceaneer77]

Thanks PNW traveler

We have a saying on the feadships.. .If it ain't dutch it ain't much!..

But i do have a bias to well established yards that have well trained workers, good facilities, and above all really great after support. This is not saying that you cannot get a good or possibly great product out of a new or less reputable yard, it is just saying that it will be much harder and possibly take more money and time than just going with the higher priced and more experienced yard.

on the explosion bonding it is really common now (since the late 80s) and not expensive if compared to the alternatives. I worked on the first feadship with an explosion bonded cabin/hull. The vessel was launched in 1982 and in 2008 (i still keep in touch as she was my favorite ship) the bond is as good as new.

oceaneer77

[ferrytraveller]

maybe they will build a ship similiar in size to the tsawwassen to replace the burnaby??
or does the burnaby fill up quite often?