|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 26, 2013 11:37:35 GMT -8
[...] We want a cost effective fleet that is easy to crew and easy to repair. A fleet that has small inventory of spare parts (engines .. rads ) that are sitting ready to be fitted to the vessels that need them. The thought here was to lower fares by having similar machinery. The original V and Bs all looked the same and were of the same design.. now we have major nostalgia over them. BCFC has every conceivable type of ship and classes of ship that have only one ship! (century for example) And every engine and equipment make out there. this may be fun for us to watch and comment on but the cost of the ferries is sucking the life blood out of the islands. (example Denman island... the elementary school when i left had over 100 students now i think it is at 40.. families can not afford to live on the gulf islands ) And no i don't think the rad barges are the way forward.. they are possibly the most inefficient ships ever. Bending the drive line 90 degrees twice is really a poor way to transmit power to the water. Conventional shafts / diesel electrics/ and Azi pods are the way forward. It is also vital to not build the cheapest ships but to build the cheapest ships to build AND operate. This means using good equipment and making sure that the life time costs of the vessel are worked out before steel cutting. It is normal for the lifetime costs of the ship to be higher than the build costs. A good example here is engine efficiency.. if engine X and engine Y are of the same output (Kw. HP, Rpm) but engine X is 3/4 the price you go for engine x right?? No there is more to the equation.. you need to factor in fuel burn, maintenance, rebuild costs and down time. it may be that engine Y is double the purchase cost of X but in 5 years you end up saving money by buying Y. [...] Agree with you, no more RADs, they're totally not RAD! And make sure vessels of similar size are ALL in the same class, instead of a mish-mash of a bunch of different ferries that are all the same size. For example, with the 70-car ferries, we have the Powell River class, the HSQ, and the Q-Class. That's three different designs for the same capacity ferry! As for the 30-car ferries, let's see: there's the two T class ferries, the Quadra Queen II, and the K-Class. Again, three different designs for the same car capacity. Sure, it makes sense to have some single-ended, raised-bow ferries for the rougher seas of the northern routes and another class of double ended ferries for routes over calmer seas, but no more than two classes/ designs there.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 26, 2013 11:57:47 GMT -8
As for the 30-car ferries, let's see: there's the two T class ferries, the Quadra Queen II, and the K-Class. Again, three different designs for the same car capacity. Ok eh just eh to eh let eh you eh know eh, the eh two eh T-class ferries eh and eh the eh Quadra Queen II eh are actually eh similar eh in eh a different eh grouping eh that eh what eh you've eh given, eh. Tachek & QQII are almost identical, eh. Tenaka is the oddball, eh. ps: how many guns do you own ?
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 26, 2013 12:04:22 GMT -8
I just came up with a new idea for a standardized fleet slogan looking at the 'spice of our fleet' section of the BCFerries website. With the retired vessels gone now, and the icons for the Coastals up there, the page seems to be almost dominated by the large boxes of the Coastals and the flat, thin outlines of all the minor vessels... so how about "Boxes and Barges: the ferries of British Columbia" for the title of any new fleet profile they publish. Nice one!!!
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 26, 2013 12:27:34 GMT -8
As for the 30-car ferries, let's see: there's the two T class ferries, the Quadra Queen II, and the K-Class. Again, three different designs for the same car capacity. Ok eh just eh to eh let eh you eh know eh, the eh two eh T-class ferries eh and eh the eh Quadra Queen II eh are actually eh similar eh in eh a different eh grouping eh that eh what eh you've eh given, eh. Tachek & QQII are almost identical, eh. Tenaka is the oddball, eh. ps: how many guns do you own ? Hahaahaaha Just like to poke fun at you Canadians. And I don't own any real guns, I just have an airsoft gun. It looks like a real gun, so I could still use it for self-defense in case some stupid psycho tries to break into my house. (Now I bet you'll call me weird for owning a gun, even though it's not a real one) Now back to ferries--- I thought that just because Tenaka and Tachek were the same just 'cause they were in the same class. Not so, as I'm now finding out. Anyway, good grief, that's more complicated than it needs to be. They need four 40-car single end ferries to replace the Nimpkish (in order to have a spare ferry of suitable size), QQII, Tachek, and Tenaka. That'd be an increase in capacity of ten cars. And do likewise with the K-Class ferries: replace them with 4 double-ended ferries that actually have a decent cabin. Even down here in Washington, the 34-car Hiyu (which is almost never used) has a decent-sized passenger cabin above the car deck. Same with the Pierce County ferries, which carry around fifty passengers.
|
|
|
Post by YoursTruly on Jul 13, 2015 20:43:34 GMT -8
Just throwing this out there, everyone who works on the Coastal class vessels hate them. The running gear was designed and built by a company which basically said We've never done this before, but sure we'll give it a shot... hence the horrid shake the ship apart vibration. This company wasn't the first or 2nd choice of the Ferries, but they couldn't buy their way into the construction line up of the first 2 companies.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Jul 13, 2015 21:49:27 GMT -8
Just throwing this out there, everyone who works on the Coastal class vessels hate them. The running gear was designed and built by a company which basically said We've never done this before, but sure we'll give it a shot... hence the horrid shake the ship apart vibration. This company wasn't the first or 2nd choice of the Ferries, but they couldn't buy their way into the construction line up of the first 2 companies. Am I the only one who hasn't noticed any particular vibration issue on the Coastals?
|
|
Mayne
Voyager
I come from a long line of sinners like me
Posts: 289
|
Post by Mayne on Jul 13, 2015 21:57:28 GMT -8
Just throwing this out there, everyone who works on the Coastal class vessels hate them. The running gear was designed and built by a company which basically said We've never done this before, but sure we'll give it a shot... hence the horrid shake the ship apart vibration. This company wasn't the first or 2nd choice of the Ferries, but they couldn't buy their way into the construction line up of the first 2 companies. Am I the only one who hasn't noticed any particular vibration issue on the Coastals? To me the Coastals are the smoothest ships we have, mind you I grew up on the QOTWS and Nanny so it's doesn't take much to impress me.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jul 13, 2015 22:26:18 GMT -8
Just throwing this out there, everyone who works on the Coastal class vessels hate them. The running gear was designed and built by a company which basically said We've never done this before, but sure we'll give it a shot... hence the horrid shake the ship apart vibration. This company wasn't the first or 2nd choice of the Ferries, but they couldn't buy their way into the construction line up of the first 2 companies. Am I the only one who hasn't noticed any particular vibration issue on the Coastals? ...not anything more noticeable apart from the rest of the fleet, based on my own experience. The Cs are pretty bad, and the Spirits at the stern are terrible on arrival/departure (pre-MLU, mind you).
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jul 14, 2015 16:30:17 GMT -8
This is not a slight or criticism to BC Ferries employees. But.
I can count myself among a very very small number of people that's actually read the annual report and board minutes for every year since 1958. While this makes me an expert on nothing, I can say that every time a new major vessel fleet has come on line the crews have declared them the worst and a vibration study is undertaken, subsequently finding no major issues.
Is there a vibration issue on the Coastals? Maybe. I ride one weekly and notice nothing, but that's nothing compared to the forty hour work week of a ferries employee stuck in one area of the ship.
The union almost shut down catering on the Surrey and Oak Bay thirty three years ago - due to vibration.
It seems we are just going full circle.
|
|
|
Post by princessofvanfan on Jul 14, 2015 20:29:50 GMT -8
I can still remember noticing how vibration free the C's were when we took our first trip on one (the Cowichan) back in '77 when they were new, as compared to the B's and V's.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jul 14, 2015 21:26:24 GMT -8
The single-ended Spauldings were pretty bad (for vibration) when going in reverse. Jump forward to now & it seems to me that the NorAd is pretty bad, considering that it is a post year-2000 built ship. As for the FSG double-enders, I know their was some talk about vibration issues when they were new. But I haven't heard anything on this in a few years now.
We need to remember though that crew members are aboard these boats (all of them, including the FSG trio) for long periods of time per day & per year. Their perceptions may be much different than casual travellers like most of us.
There are standards & guidelines for whole body vibration. It would be interesting to know how our ferries compare with those standards/guidelines.
|
|
|
Post by YoursTruly on Jul 17, 2015 8:50:30 GMT -8
I recall when they first came, all the residence in Horse Shoe Bay and Swartz Bay where concerned with their vibrations resonating into their houses and on Tsawwassen terminal you can feel when a coastal is arriving in the crewing office. There was also a sinkhole that developed after they came and hence why there was all that fortification on the seawall. Apart from the terrible navigation equipment, terrible turning circle (not really suitable for active pass and our Captains don't feel comfortable going deep in Miners Bay when meeting the opposing vessel(s)) the vibration, and high amount of computer controlled items onboard (Spirit Class most things are mended with a rock as opposed to programming issues,) its not a bad vessel.
oh yeah, one more thing on the vibration, the vessels would shake loose their breaker circuits. I recall aborting our landing at Tsawwassen because of this and we couldn't go into Mode 2. A week later it happened to the Coastal Inspiration and they had to be assisted by tug boats because they didn't have a spare breaker.)
|
|
|
Post by YoursTruly on Jul 17, 2015 10:39:48 GMT -8
Limiting to 6 or 7 classes makes economic sense, hopefully said classes aren't ugly blobs... wait, Coastal, and new intermediate class are taking care of that Oh well. The trouble with making various vessels, is standardizing the dock/ ramp configuration to work universally across the fleet, minus the Northern vessels which have their own ramps like the majority of major European ferries. I think the main fault of single bridge double-enders, is the way they handle rough seas. Otherwise they are very practical. Thus there should be a Northern Gulf Island class ferry built for the seas generated with the long fetch of Georgia Strait. Northern Class(s) (3 vessels, build either a sistership to the NorEx when the Sonia is to be replaced in the future or two smaller vessels like a slightly larger than QPR sized NorEx. (the NorEx is a fantastic ship, very smooth running, efficient and comfortable for all crew and passengers. -Assuming that the Coastal is the future generation of major route vessels, we can designate that one of the classes (hopefully with updates based on noted deficiencies and having the amount of computer control "dumbed down.") Another suggestion for a major route vessel, is to widen the mouth a bit so it can double lane offload semi's like the Spirit Class. Then it truly will be a faster turn around in dock. I am a fan of the Skeena Queen's design, as are anchorages thanks to the crafty hull design minimizing wake. Instead of right angle drives, diesel/lng electric azipods would possibly work better or reduce the amount of maintenance wear and tear (eliminate two gears boxes in the drive shaft.) Then again, RAD drives are fantastic, as the whole drive unit can be replaced without a trip to the docks. They are incredibly maneuverable compared to conventional ship stearing mechanisms. Anyway to make it more efficient. However, not having a snack bar, and a large lounge like the Queen of Cumberland eliminates some passenger comforts during gulf Island routes that hop about the different ports. Its also not suitable for Northern Gulf Islands which can see quite a fetch build up the entire Strait of Georgia. The tug boat style hulls (looks kind of like a tug boat's sheer line from the side,) that are currently running up there are pretty well suited, though very old and an update to keep them up to current codes and more efficient would be good. I suspect that the corporation is hoping to go with a small double-ender up there to reduce the number of class types by one. If that's the case, lets hope it has a sheer line unlike the skeena Queen's completely flat sheer strake. anyway: -updated S class, more efficient hull design, etc. (the Coastal class loses its efficiency in turn around by not being able to double lane semis off the main deck and having a very long departure protocol.) -Northern Class(s) -Intermediate Class (the blobs currently being built in Poland. 145 car 600 passenger, 107m long.) -A smaller than intermediate class should also be built, because It seems like some of the routes don't need quite such a large vessel like Earls Cove, but busy enough, so a 125 car ferry would be good. Cumberland or Island Sky accommodation block. -Small double ended diesel/LNG or electric for routes, -Northern Gulf Island Ferry. Single ended ferry with a graceful sheer. Once again, diesel electric seems to be the trend in ferry transportation. -Cable class.... NOPE!
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jul 17, 2015 15:32:42 GMT -8
I think standized fleet of seven class fleet with one odd ball boat is a good idea because it would help reduce cost and increase capacity:
1) Northern Gulf Island Class - carries between 50 - 60 cars similar design to NIP with some improves to her design and faster, with two for replaces for the Nimpkish. 2) Southern Gulf Island Class- Replacements for Bowen Queen and Mayne Queen, a third one to place on Fulford Harbour - Swartz Bay to put more passenger space, and snack bar on the route. Similar design to Queen of Capilano with her gallery decks 3) Century Class to be put on routes that Northern Gulf Island Class or Southern Gulf Island Class will not operate on - to be put on routes less than 20 minutes excluding the Bowen Island. 4) Intermediate Class Ferries (144 cars) - Replacements for Queen of Nanaimo and Queen of Burnaby, spare vessel 5) 400 car Coastal Class - Replacements of Cowichan Class with improves on the current Coastal Class design. 6) 450 or 500 car Spirit Class - Replacements for the current Spirits with improves on the design. 7) Northern Class - 130 cars, Northern Expedition design, to Haida Gwaii to help increase capacity and help reduce loss capacity lost during the vessel swap in the winter. 50 or 60 car, Northern Expedition design, to be place on the Discover Coast route which restores the link to Port Hardy. When the 50 car vessel goes in for maintenance or refit the 130 car vessels, Northern Expedition design, will stop at Bella and Bella Coola; with two Northern Gulf Island Class will connect Bella Coola with Ocean Falls when the 50 car vessels is in for maintenance or refit. The other will connect Bella Bella to Shearwater on a permeant base even with the 50 - 60 car vessel is in maintenance or refit this will eliminate direct connections to the other stops, passenger will connect at a Bella Bella to the Discovery coast route or Port Hardy to Prince Rupert vessel. 8) Cable ferry from Buckley Bay - Denman Island
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jul 17, 2015 18:11:25 GMT -8
Thanks for your analysis, YoursTruly. I think you have laid out a good idea of what a standardized fleet should look like. However, I pretty firmly believe that fleet standardization for BC Ferries is a totally unrealistic goal, and (as I think Dane(?) said a while back) is simply a vehicle for BC Ferries to use to secure funding for new vessel acquisitions and construction. It's nearly impossible for it to happen for a number of reasons: 1) Changing safety regulations; 2) Improvements in vessel technologies; 3) More efficient vessel/hull design; 4) Different communities have different needs; Among others. The greatest feat of vessel standardization is WSF, where they have just modified designs from their most successful vessels to modern standards. That has created a level of interchangeability that works well for that system. BC Ferries has a much more specialized network with unique needs for each community. Re. the Skeena Queen: From a totally unqualified perspective (i.e. not involved with the ferries or marine design in any way, just from an observant passenger) that this design is incredibly effective - moreso than it gets credit for, I think. It is a shame that more of these were not constructed for routes such as Quadra, Gabriola, and Vesuvius. I won't deny that the Skeena is not my favourite ship - but from a design perspective, it's efficient. Going forward, however, maybe consider better fuel economy. Re. the Coastals: As a passenger, I really prefer traveling on the Coastals over any other class of major ship. I understand, however, that there are a number of issues from the crew perspective that, I think, have resulted from this passenger-centric design. I will let the more qualified voices speak to those, however as a result of that, I think our next major round of major vessels (most likely to replace the Cowichan/Coquitlam/New West/Alberni(?)) will be a modified version of the Coastals, given the feedback they have likely received from crew.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jul 17, 2015 20:36:43 GMT -8
Mr. Coulson's assessment of vessel standardization going forward is, I think, pretty much the way that I see it. I would add one other factor that goes against standardization & that is time. If, for instance, you feel that the Coastal class was the right choice for major vessels in 2007, it very likely won't be when decisions are being made about replacing the C class in about 10 years (though you may see a much modified sort of Coastal). When it comes time to replace the Spirits in 25 years who knows what the factors will be that have to be considered. One thing pertaining to the Coastal class that they need to think hard about is the arrangement of the passenger decks. Is deck 5 even necessary, and should the wheelhouses go back up top where some of think they belong?
Then there is the future of the personal automobile. Will we all still be driving around in tanks in 25 years. I hope that we are much more reliant on public transportation by that time, and that the average size of vehicles will be significantly smaller. If I am right that will have a big impact on ferry designs in the future.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Jul 17, 2015 22:30:20 GMT -8
Mr. Coulson's assessment of vessel standardization going forward is, I think, pretty much the way that I see it. I would add one other factor that goes against standardization & that is time. If, for instance, you feel that the Coastal class was the right choice for major vessels in 2007, it very likely won't be when decisions are being made about replacing the C class in about 10 years (though you may see a much modified sort of Coastal). When it comes time to replace the Spirits in 25 years who knows what the factors will be that have to be considered. One thing pertaining to the Coastal class that they need to think hard about is the arrangement of the passenger decks. Is deck 5 even necessary, and should the wheelhouses go back up top where some of think they belong? Then there is the future of the personal automobile. Will we all still be driving around in tanks in 25 years. I hope that we are much more reliant on public transportation by that time, and that the average size of vehicles will be significantly smaller. If I am right that will have a big impact on ferry designs in the future. The size of vehicles in future probably will have an effect on needed ferry capacity, and that may impact standardization plans. I notice that in summer, so many people who come to Hornby have big honkin' SUVs, partly because they're carrying four or five bikes and/or two or three kayaks on top. For routes with that kind of recreational traffic, I don't know if smart cars will ever predominate.
I agree... standardization will probably never work as well in BC as in Washington. Although, if we keep electing the kind of government that thinks the Nimpkish is okay for the central coast, maybe the concept of jamming square pegs into round holes will be the order of things with standardization.
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Aug 29, 2015 10:16:34 GMT -8
I think standardization could work.
I think in addition to vessels currently under construction,
We will see an 85 car Salish vessel ( without garage deck) to replace the quinsam, maybe queen, HSQ and Skeena.
Northern gulf island vessel of 50-60 cars for NIP, Tachek and QQ2 maybe replacement of the ten aka for relief.
And a century class vessel that can be shrunk to 50 cars for the kuper,, kahloke, Klitsa.
Skeena replaces the PRQ until replaced.
I think that is the best case of standardization.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 12:48:34 GMT -8
I guess with the Skeena's recent trip to Campbell River, that is possible.
The "first" of the Bowen Class (this includes the HSQ) is going to be replaced along with the NIP, according to what was said at the AGM. I'll be curious to see the drafts for these, I'm guessing they will all be the same. On the other hand, the Nimpkish replacement design might be used for the NIP, to have a few vessels around w/ a raised bow.
|
|
|
Post by YoursTruly on Aug 30, 2015 16:04:48 GMT -8
I mentioned the sheer line of the northern gulf island vessels to one of the Captains in charge of fleet replacement and design, and he really paused and thought about it and took the note onboard... so Hopefully he remembers that! If so, then perhaps we can be spared of seeing shapeless ugly blobs plying the waters.
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Mar 5, 2017 11:12:25 GMT -8
I have some questions with respect to replacing the C class ships, which should in theory be in the next decade.
If BC Ferries stick to trying to do four-ish classes of ships (connector, island, coastal and ocean), coastals would replace C class ships.
So... 1) Would BC Ferries get identical coastals to the original three? 2) If not: a) What changes would they do compared to the originals; and/or b) Would it make sense to do either smaller versions or not buy as many?
|
|
|
Post by articulated on Mar 5, 2017 15:03:57 GMT -8
I have some questions with respect to replacing the C class ships, which should in theory be in the next decade. If BC Ferries stick to trying to do four-ish classes of ships (connector, island, coastal and ocean), coastals would replace C class ships. So... 1) Would BC Ferries get identical coastals to the original three? 2) If not: a) What changes would they do compared to the originals; and/or b) Would it make sense to do either smaller versions or not buy as many? I imagine that BC Ferries will be purchasing 6 more Coastal class ships in the nearish future: replacing the C class vessels and Queen of New Westminster (which IMO is more likely to be replaced before the C class). BC Ferries owns the design plans to the Coastal class and their design is still relatively new (~10 years old), so there should likely be some sort of cost savings associated with recycling the old plans with a few tweaks for more modern standards, rather than paying a shipyard's engineering staff to create a new design from the keel up. This would especially be the case if BC Ferries were to go forward with only one ship for QoNW replacement, rather than all 6 vessels at once. One of the bigger wrenches that I can see is the push for LNG/dual fuel - if the experiment with the new Salish class and the Spirit conversion is successful then the new vessels would also need to be dual fueled, with potentially big implications for the new vessel design. For 2b), I don't think the capacity differences between C and Coastal class are different enough to require changes. With the new AEQ standards, Coastal vessels are listed as 310 AEQ, with the C class around 311 AEQ according to BC Ferries' website. The only difference is about 200 passengers give or take.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Mar 5, 2017 15:34:34 GMT -8
I imagine that BC Ferries will be purchasing 6 more Coastal class ships in the nearish future: replacing the C class vessels and Queen of New Westminster (which IMO is more likely to be replaced before the C class). Or could it be, and I'm just throwing this out there, 4 new Coastal Class vessels for Routes 1, 2, & 30, and 2 smaller vessels for Route 3? I remember reading something on the forum about eventually replacing Queen of Surrey on Route 3 with 2 smaller vessels running at a higher frequency.
|
|
|
Post by mybidness459 on Mar 5, 2017 17:00:51 GMT -8
Personally I would like to stick with the traditional standard look and size to the Cowichan class. I have mentioned it before and I will again I like the look of ships like the Queen of Cowichan, Coquitlam, Spokane and Walla Walla. WSF updated the look in Tacoma class which is cool. All we really need is a updated version of the Tacoma class with a upper car deck and closed in decks.
The Coastal class vessels are nice ships and I enjoy sailing on them when I can, but do we really need that big of ships on rt 2 year round? I don't think so.
Last November I rode on the Queen of Coquitlam on route 2 to and from Horseshoe Bay during the Cowichan refit. Very empty sailings indeed. There were far less than 100 vehicles on each sailing. There were lots of empty seats up on the passenger deck and I can't understand why BCF would replace these ships with bigger ones. Especially ships with 2 passenger decks such as the Coastal class.
Sure there are peak times in the summer but does this justify running these mega ferries near empty year round?
If we want bigger ships year round we may need to have even less sailing in winter to fill them.
I just love the traditional look of a C class or Tacoma class double ended ferry with the pickle forks and do not want to see them disappear. Notice I left out the Surrey and Oak Bay here yuck! I don't like Thier snubbed bows.
Just my 2 cents here.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 5, 2017 21:24:24 GMT -8
The type of vessel that replaces the five current C class vessels, and the QoNWM, is anyone's guess. I think that it is more likely we will see a super-sized Salish class instead of more Coastal class vessels. There are just so many variables not the least of which is time & changing technologies.
BC Ferries stated goal of a 'standardized fleet' will probably never be any more 'standardized' than it is now, or it was 15 years ago. Just look at the northern vessels for example. The NorEx & the NorAd are completely different animals, and they will soon be joined by another unique animal (the Son of Wack).
|
|