Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on May 19, 2008 20:59:28 GMT -8
Yes, I remember that discussion, though admittedly, I do still have my doubts about it, since energy is expended with all the water that's pushed aside when a boat pushes through. What's more, you're also moving the weight of the boat itself, which I believe is far more than the weight of all the cars carried aboard combined. If car ferries are such lean, mean, energy efficient machines, why don't they have them sail the old Vancouver-Prince Rupert route again, instead of making them drive all the way up to Port Hardy? Or even Vancouver-Victoria downtown to downtown service (or as bloody close to it as possible, instead of the shortest crossing possible)? If you're going to be questioning the laws of physics, there is not much I can do to sway your opinion. However, having said that, 1. The reason BCF doesn't run a Vancouver-Prince Rupert run is because it doesn't have the demand to even come close to breaking even, as we know with the current run from Port Hardy. Running from Port Hardy cuts down on BCF's fuel bill by almost half making the run a little less of a burden on the rest of the system. 2. As we have been over before, Vic-Van harbour to harbour is not done because it would take twice as long, and in today's fast paced society, people are not willing to sit on a ferry for 3.5 hours to go to Vancouver/Van Island. 3. As far as ships not being efficient, I would like to ask a question. Why do you think that almost all non-time-sensitive goods are shipped by water? Because people like seeing huge ships? Just like over land, rail is the most efficient because of the sheer amount of goods transported at a time, the same goes for ships.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 19, 2008 21:15:04 GMT -8
Yes, I remember that discussion, though admittedly, I do still have my doubts about it, since energy is expended with all the water that's pushed aside when a boat pushes through. What's more, you're also moving the weight of the boat itself, which I believe is far more than the weight of all the cars carried aboard combined. If car ferries are such lean, mean, energy efficient machines, why don't they have them sail the old Vancouver-Prince Rupert route again, instead of making them drive all the way up to Port Hardy? Or even Vancouver-Victoria downtown to downtown service (or as bloody close to it as possible, instead of the shortest crossing possible)? If you're going to be questioning the laws of physics, there is not much I can do to sway your opinion. However, having said that, 1. The reason BCF doesn't run a Vancouver-Prince Rupert run is because it doesn't have the demand to even come close to breaking even, as we know with the current run from Port Hardy. Running from Port Hardy cuts down on BCF's fuel bill by almost half making the run a little less of a burden on the rest of the system. 2. As we have been over before, Vic-Van harbour to harbour is not done because it would take twice as long, and in today's fast paced society, people are not willing to sit on a ferry for 3.5 hours to go to Vancouver/Van Island. 3. As far as ships not being efficient, I would like to ask a question. Why do you think that almost all non-time-sensitive goods are shipped by water? Because people like seeing huge ships? Just like over land, rail is the most efficient because of the sheer amount of goods transported at a time, the same goes for ships. Okay. But if the goods (cars) can run themselves, without all the added weight of the ship or any other carrier, does the advantage still go to the ship? With a cargo ship, I gather it is practically loaded with cargo from top to bottom (with a little room up top for the crew). With a car ferry, only the bottom deck or two are filled with cars, with all the higher decks as passenger space. Does the efficiency still compare with that of a cargo ship? As for your Point 1, they could charge a fare that reflects the distance/cost. Anyways, I take it the ship would lose to the car for fuel efficiency if they were run at the same speed.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on May 19, 2008 21:23:02 GMT -8
You have not answered this question ruddernut and I like to wait for your response instead of using the avoiding the question. The only thing I have concluded is that everything needs to be made as efficient as possible regardless of personal comfort. Right now in this century, I do not think that will go over well so instead of trying to make a futile effort and aggresively pushing your opinion down everyone's throats, how about ask a few questions instead of making harsh criticisms going off onto useless rants.
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on May 19, 2008 21:26:44 GMT -8
Ruddernut, did it ever occur to you that being efficient isn't only about fuel?
Secondly, have you ever done research of any type? I think it would really benefit you and make you much better in a discussion.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 19, 2008 21:34:12 GMT -8
You have not answered this question ruddernut and I like to wait for your response instead of using the avoiding the question. The only thing I have concluded is that everything needs to be made as efficient as possible regardless of personal comfort. Right now in this century, I do not think that will go over well so instead of trying to make a futile effort and aggresively pushing your opinion down everyone's throats, how about ask a few questions instead of making harsh criticisms going off onto useless rants. Why are you getting so defensive and confrontational? I take his point about ships being efficient at transporting cargo. There are nevertheless still some differences between a cargo ship and a ferry that remain unaccounted for, namely that a cargo ship is much more loaded.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on May 19, 2008 21:39:41 GMT -8
I am just defending my fellow ferry geeks from your calling the kettle black.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 19, 2008 21:48:03 GMT -8
I am just defending my fellow ferry geeks from your calling the kettle black. How about letting them defend their own arguments and positions, instead of using personal confrontation tactics that you complained and warned me about earlier? They're big boys who are intelligent enough to back their own arguments, right? Hardly an argument here, but more just a discussion. It seems more like you have a chip on your shoulder and are intent to jump on me at every opportunity. Besides, the most interesting discussions and debates tend to be those that are the most intense and heated.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 19, 2008 22:01:33 GMT -8
Ruddernut, did it ever occur to you that being efficient isn't only about fuel? Secondly, have you ever done research of any type? I think it would really benefit you and make you much better in a discussion. I was just seeking the answers here. I thought it would make for worthy and interesting discussion. Is that so bad?
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on May 19, 2008 22:08:34 GMT -8
Then why did you not ask questions? Why did you instead defend a position you could not defend and be all hostile to people who could have answered questions and instead get into heated debate that leads to galavanting off topic? Why did you go through all this trouble to find answers while trying to defend a position in a repeating theme without sufficient evidence? In fact, it has been rather annoying having to go through all the trouble just to find out you only wanted answers. Instead, you accuse people of being wrong in their opinions. So now I ask why should I answer to your questions about fuel when all you have done it criticized?
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 19, 2008 22:16:35 GMT -8
Then why did you not ask questions? Why did you instead defend a position you could not defend and be all hostile to people who could have answered questions and instead get into heated debate that leads to galavanting off topic? Why did you go through all this trouble to find answers while trying to defend a position in a repeating theme without sufficient evidence? In fact, it has been rather annoying having to go through all the trouble just to find out you only wanted answers. Instead, you accuse people of being wrong in their opinions. So now I ask why should I answer to your questions about fuel when all you have done it criticized? Okay. But if the goods (cars) can run themselves, without all the added weight of the ship or any other carrier, does the advantage still go to the ship?
With a cargo ship, I gather it is practically loaded with cargo from top to bottom (with a little room up top for the crew). With a car ferry, only the bottom deck or two are filled with cars, with all the higher decks as passenger space. Does the efficiency still compare with that of a cargo ship? Do these not look like questions to you? And what's wrong with challenging other people's opinions anyways?
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on May 20, 2008 6:40:11 GMT -8
Perhaps we should hear from a local's point of view... Sure, but you wouldn't have them hold back the progress of the entire Island, would you? The Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone (BANANA) approach will really get you far. Once upon a time, the ferry terminals as they exist today had to be built somewhere, amidst some people's objections. As I pointed out in another thread, I take time to consider what you said. It has merit, as others have pointed out, but now I will point of the flaws: - to echo WCK and kyle fossett...Porlier Pass has several issues for larger vessels, key being the tidal currents and numerous navigational hazards. It can be done, but may require significant speed reductions which would negate the time advantage one would expect to enjoy. -Now to my personal feelings...does the cost of building the infrastructure including the environmental, social, and economical factors, outweigh the economical, social and environmental benifits of the project...just something to chew on...
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on May 20, 2008 9:45:49 GMT -8
As I pointed out in another thread, I take time to consider what you said. It has merit, as others have pointed out, but now I will point of the flaws: - to echo WCK and kyle fossett...Porlier Pass has several issues for larger vessels, key being the tidal currents and numerous navigational hazards. It can be done, but may require significant speed reductions which would negate the time advantage one would expect to enjoy. Then why not just give Porlier Pass the same treatment we gave to Ripple Rock back in '58—clear the Pass by blowing up the hazards (ie rocks)?
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on May 20, 2008 10:11:30 GMT -8
As I pointed out in another thread, I take time to consider what you said. It has merit, as others have pointed out, but now I will point of the flaws: - to echo WCK and kyle fossett...Porlier Pass has several issues for larger vessels, key being the tidal currents and numerous navigational hazards. It can be done, but may require significant speed reductions which would negate the time advantage one would expect to enjoy. Then why not just give Porlier Pass the same treatment we gave to Ripple Rock back in '58—clear the Pass by blowing up the hazards (ie rocks)? Okay, here's a link to a current plot for Porlier Pass: www.mobilegeographics.com:81/locations/4844.htmlnote the 8 knot currents... And, I don't have the charts in front of me, so if you could post a screen shot of the pass from your GPS software, I think it will highlight the number of hazards. Ripple Rock was a single entity, a major navigational hazard, and it represented a significant economical burden to the shipping industry in BC. It also was dealt with in a era before we really began to contemplate how significant an impact we have on the environment. So, while we could blast every obstacle out of the way, let's look at the rest of my comment from before...does the cost of building the infrastructure including the environmental, social, and economical factors, outweigh the economical, social and environmental benefits of the project...and I'll repeat...just something to chew on...
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 20, 2008 10:58:20 GMT -8
Then why not just give Porlier Pass the same treatment we gave to Ripple Rock back in '58—clear the Pass by blowing up the hazards (ie rocks)? Okay, here's a link to a current plot for Porlier Pass: www.mobilegeographics.com:81/locations/4844.htmlnote the 8 knot currents... It's about 5 kt on Active Pass. Will a 60% difference on something that barely has a lick of a push on a boat as big or powerful as a BCF mainline vessel be of such great concern? Don't know what the terrain profile looks like under the surface, but with vessels already having passed through there without incident, I reckon we won't need as enourmous a blast as the one needed for Ripple Rock to take out the peaks. What's more, I figure improvements in explosion techniques will enable us to contain it better.
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on May 20, 2008 15:07:10 GMT -8
Porlier Pass chart: Depths are in metres. Lightest blue is depth < 10 m, darker blue is depth < 5 m.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 20, 2008 15:25:14 GMT -8
^ On that map, are all the blue zones a no-go?
Would those numbers be depth in meters, feet, or what? What's the minimum required clearance?
Got one for Active pass, for comparison?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on May 20, 2008 15:41:54 GMT -8
Active Pass chart: HAZARDOUS EDDIES On a strong flood stream, dangerous tide rips and eddies occur over an area extending from midchannel, south of Mary Anne Point to Laura Point. Strong rips, which increase in violence during strong winds from the north quadrant, also occur near Fairway Bank. These rips are a serious hazard to small vessels.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 20, 2008 15:42:13 GMT -8
I that's like most nautical charts, the depths are in fathoms (1 fathom is a bit more than 1.8 metres). I wonder why the navigational community insist on using separate measurement units (fa, nm, kn). Isn't there a "go metric" push among them?
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on May 20, 2008 15:44:33 GMT -8
I set the depth soundings to metres because those are the units used to express ship drafts.
Nautical miles and knots are acceptable units for use with SI.
|
|
|
Post by cohocatcher on May 20, 2008 15:54:58 GMT -8
I didn't see DENelson's edit, so after doing so I deleted my response.
As for the "go metric" push, remember the Gimli Glider?
Actually, the old nautical terms go back hundreds of years and I can imagine that it would take billions (it not trillions) of dollars (or pesos or lira, or ...) to change to a different system. It would also take a monumental effort to change the maritime culture. There are still a lot of people who were brought up with miles, pounds, gallons etc. and are reluctant, even after all these years, to totally convert to and use the metric system.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on May 20, 2008 16:13:15 GMT -8
Active Pass chart: HAZARDOUS EDDIES On a strong flood stream, dangerous tide rips and eddies occur over an area extending from midchannel, south of Mary Anne Point to Laura Point. Strong rips, which increase in violence during strong winds from the north quadrant, also occur near Fairway Bank. These rips are a serious hazard to small vessels. Thanks for posting this...I'm guessiong the crosses with the R are rocks?
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on May 20, 2008 16:26:44 GMT -8
A circled plus indicates a submerged dangerous rock with a known depth. The figure after the "R -" is the depth, in the same units as the soundings. A circled star is an "obstruction that covers" with a known depth, but I have no idea whether that depth is in relation to MLLW or the chart datum.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on May 20, 2008 16:32:46 GMT -8
It means the rock is visible at low tide, but covered at high tide...roughly...it might not cover at every high tide, but will cover during the highest high tide...now say that ten times, fast.
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on May 20, 2008 16:35:07 GMT -8
Now since Porlier Pass is quite hazardous to large ships, that means if BC Ferries planned to use Porlier Pass more frequently, you'd need many more sea marks and leading lights (aka range lights) to indicate the best route for such ships to take.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 20, 2008 16:38:04 GMT -8
A circled plus indicates a submerged dangerous rock with a known depth. The figure after the "R -" is the depth, in the same units as the soundings. A circled star is an "obstruction that covers" with a known depth, but I have no idea whether that depth is in relation to MLLW or the chart datum. Am I to take it the uncircled +'s are rocks that are deep enough not to matter?
|
|