Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on May 12, 2009 19:35:36 GMT -8
I understand the problem now... my comments were misplaced because I'm not arguing ship design. Could have fooled me. I thought all those comments about how ugly the Island Sky is had something to do with its design. Sheesh. The point of criticizing the Island Sky or any other double ended barge like car ferry for not looking like a 'proper ship' completely escapes me. It's kind of like knocking a mom and pop sandwich shop for not making the Michelin guide.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on May 12, 2009 20:08:06 GMT -8
I understand the problem now... my comments were misplaced because I'm not arguing ship design. Could have fooled me. I thought all those comments about how ugly the Island Sky is had something to do with its design. Sheesh. The point of criticizing the Island Sky or any other double ended barge like car ferry for not looking like a 'proper ship' completely escapes me. It's kind of like knocking a mom and pop sandwich shop for not making the Michelin guide. Try rereading that quoted sentence in the context of the paragraph it was originally part of. Or let me rephrase that: what I really meant was: I understand the problem now... my comments were misplaced because I mistakenly believed I was arguing ship design, but that is clearly not the case in this situation because the things we are discussing aren't even ships. In that last post, I had actually moved on from ships and their appearances to a simple cross reference list of the essential component parts differing between ships and barges, not the particular shape of those component parts.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on May 31, 2009 12:53:23 GMT -8
I heard some news about the Tenaka's replacement from the Texada crew today. When this new vessel comes in to service it is not taking over the Tenaka's duties on the Quadra-Cortes route. The Tachek will be taking over the route. The crew was criticized this move because the Tachek apparently doesn't perform well in high winds.
This makes sense if it is going to be a 60 AEQ vessel. But if this new vessel isn't going to the Quadra-Cortes route, where is she going? The only places in the Northern Gulf Islands I can think of are either the PR-Texada route or the Buckley Bay-Denman Island route.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on May 31, 2009 15:38:34 GMT -8
I heard some news about the Tenaka's replacement from the Texada crew today. When this new vessel comes in to service it is not taking over the Tenaka's duties on the Quadra-Cortes route. The Tachek will be taking over the route. The crew was criticized this move because the Tachek apparently doesn't perform well in high winds. This makes sense if it is going to be a 60 AEQ vessel. But if this new vessel isn't going to the Quadra-Cortes route, where is she going? The only places in the Northern Gulf Islands I can think of are either the PR-Texada route or the Buckley Bay-Denman Island route. Probably because what they are going to build is just another Island Sky that is limited in any capacity to cross open stretches of water. That doesn't quite seem logical even for the Texada run, though, as the wind and water around there can get pretty stiff and one of the crews once told us that they get a special allowance and are classed differently in terms of navigational skills simply because the route is not considered to be in sheltered waters. Hopefully by the time they get around to replacing the Tenaka, maybe enough management will have changed so that they get a little bit smarter and drop the obsession with the four corner RAD driven barges. This has nothing to do with how I may think the Island Sky looks. It's just that this particular comment seems suspicious to me, and there seems to be a progressive pattern they are following with the new ships. It seems like they are trying to force the same mould to fit all the routes whether it actually does or not. They may think they can congratulate themselves for cutting design costs or whatever, but the northern inter-island routes, especially open water crossings can't really be approached with a one-size-fits-all approach. When it comes time for replacing vessels on route 5, or the Quinsam or any of the smaller routes connecting Saltspring, they can use RADs and barges to their heart's content and standardize everything, but their current design trend seems fixed a little too rigidly in two-dimensional thinking. The maneuverability of RADs won't help a ship that can't leave the berth because the waves and wind are just a little too strong and they have a completely open cardeck.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jul 14, 2009 16:07:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Canucks on Jul 14, 2009 17:37:09 GMT -8
I think the new style looks pretty good. It is nice to see they included a funnel and not just pipes. It would be nice if they provided a front view.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Nov 10, 2011 7:24:07 GMT -8
I wall trolling through the Ferryvolution site, and ran across this little ferry being built in Norway for the Fjord1 Ferry system - see link: www.ferryvolution.com/newbuilding-database/fjord-1/I bring it up here because the design, at first glance, looks like it would be a good template to replace the northern minor ferries, such as Tenaka, Tachek, QQ2, and NIP. Of course, I realize QQ2 has received a major MLU to extend its service life, and I'm guessing Tachek will receive a similar upgrade (can anyone confirm this?), so they won't be retired anytime soon. Never-the-less, this little Norwegian ferry has all the attributes which would make it an ideal design for North Coast operations: a sheltered car deck (i.e. high bulwarks), double-ended design with a central pilot house for easy ro-ro loading and unloading, and it's just about the right size. Here are the specs from the Ferryvolution site: length: 66m breadth: 13,4m cars: 50 pass: 150 (same as Tenaka, QQ2, Tachek, and NIP) service speed: 13kts I realize nothing will ever come of this, but I think it is a cool little ferry, and one that I think could suit BC Ferries nicely. Norway knows a thing or 2 about building and operating ferries to run in rough waters, so I would think this vessel will be very seaworthy and sturdy. This particular one operates on LNG as do a lot of Norway's ferries.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Nov 12, 2011 14:35:36 GMT -8
This ship's been mentioned a couple times in the international board. She'd be a better replacement for the 'Wack or 'Burnaby.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Nov 12, 2011 15:11:45 GMT -8
This ship's been mentioned a couple times in the international board. She'd be a better replacement for the 'Wack or 'Burnaby. I think you're reading the wrong part of the page, Luke. Scroll down toward the bottom of the page and it'll make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Nov 12, 2011 16:24:05 GMT -8
This ship's been mentioned a couple times in the international board. She'd be a better replacement for the 'Wack or 'Burnaby. Yeah, I was referring to the EdeyFjord, the little ferry at the bottom of the page. Although, I agree with you that the larger vessel, Boknafjord, with its 240 car/600 passenger capacity, would be a great replacement for the Queens of Burnaby and Nanaimo. But, I guess BC Ferries has already looked at, and rejected this design, with the Hiiumaa, that Estonian ferry of the same design BCF was looking at a little while back.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 8, 2012 10:30:25 GMT -8
News story from today's Powell River Peak: - the vessel replacement item is in the 2nd-half of this news story. from here: www.prpeak.com/articles/2012/02/08/news/doc4f31d2759ed1c266512203.txt------------------------------ I like that the BCFS CEO is pushing the issue with the government re the need to make decisions now regarding replacement ferries. - it's a long process, and it needs to start soon.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 13, 2012 14:04:02 GMT -8
Here's a quote from a Feb.13 2012 story in the Powell River Peak. - I've underlined the part that caught my interest, and I believe that the story attributes this quote to Mr. Corrigan of BCFerries. Getting BCFS and the Provincial Gov't on the same page, is essential to getting a vessel replacement plan into action. - It appears that both the community and BCFS are both asking the Province to step-up and commit to a vessel replacement plan. from here: www.prpeak.com/articles/2012/02/13/news/doc4f30277623968575330033.txt
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Feb 16, 2012 0:07:17 GMT -8
I would love to see a double-ended vessel built specifically for routes 9 and 17.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Feb 16, 2012 0:33:22 GMT -8
I would love to see a double-ended vessel built specifically for routes 9 and 17. In the case of Route 9, I wouldn't. Anything double ended on Route 9 would be wasted because the ship would still need to turn around at some point. Would be a different scenario if the ship has RAD's though, but still. What is on Route 9 is perfect, and makes perfect sense from a Car Deck loading perspective. My only complaint is that the Nanaimo is too big in the winter time. Back in the day, the Tsawwassen used to run on Route 9 in the off season, and the Nanaimo would run in the summer.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 16, 2012 16:02:25 GMT -8
I would love to see a double-ended vessel built specifically for routes 9 and 17. In the case of Route 9, I wouldn't. Anything double ended on Route 9 would be wasted because the ship would still need to turn around at some point. Would be a different scenario if the ship has RAD's though, but still. What is on Route 9 is perfect, and makes perfect sense from a Car Deck loading perspective. My only complaint is that the Nanaimo is too big in the winter time. Back in the day, the Tsawwassen used to run on Route 9 in the off season, and the Nanaimo would run in the summer. The thing about Route 17 is that the Burnaby is complete overkill for such a low-volume route. The ONLY time I have ever seen the Burnaby sail full in all my years in the valley was one Filberg Festival weekend in Comox, which left four cars behind. The Sidney was of a perfect size for 17. A 120-AEQ size vessel is quite adequate for handling traffic on this run during all times of the year. On the 2045 sailing out of Westview, I have never seen more than 6 cars aboard in the off-season, and 10 in the summer. Like in the case of Route 9, a double-ended vessel I think would be wasted, simply because of the orientation of Westview - it is designed for a single-ended vessel's stern.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Feb 16, 2012 16:26:52 GMT -8
In the case of Route 9, I wouldn't. Anything double ended on Route 9 would be wasted because the ship would still need to turn around at some point. Would be a different scenario if the ship has RAD's though, but still. What is on Route 9 is perfect, and makes perfect sense from a Car Deck loading perspective. My only complaint is that the Nanaimo is too big in the winter time. Back in the day, the Tsawwassen used to run on Route 9 in the off season, and the Nanaimo would run in the summer. The thing about Route 17 is that the Burnaby is complete overkill for such a low-volume route. The ONLY time I have ever seen the Burnaby sail full in all my years in the valley was one Filberg Festival weekend in Comox, which left four cars behind. That might be over stating things a bit. According to the most recent report to the ferry commissioner, route 17 did 2,862 sailings in the year, of which 1.3% were overloaded. I believe that gives you a total of 36 overloads in the year. Perhaps some of those were when the Queen of Chilliwack was operating; the vessel is not specified.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 16, 2012 16:35:52 GMT -8
That might be over stating things a bit. According to the most recent report to the ferry commissioner, route 17 did 2,862 sailings in the year, of which 1.3% were overloaded. I believe that gives you a total of 36 overloads in the year. Perhaps some of those were when the Queen of Chilliwack was operating; the vessel is not specified. ...and the other issue to consider is whether the overload is because of the vessel capacity or because of the crew-license capacity.
|
|
|
Post by Coastal Canuck on Feb 16, 2012 17:14:49 GMT -8
could an Island Sky type vessel work on route 17?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 16, 2012 17:31:06 GMT -8
could an Island Sky type vessel work on route 17? Probably not, as it has an open cardeck.
|
|
|
Post by Coastal Canuck on Feb 16, 2012 17:33:11 GMT -8
could an Island Sky type vessel work on route 17? Probably not, as it has an open cardeck. and the Northern Island Princess/Tachek don't?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 16, 2012 17:41:19 GMT -8
Probably not, as it has an open cardeck. and the Northern Island Princess/Tachek don't? I think the key thing for the NIP and Tachek is the raised bow.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Feb 16, 2012 19:52:04 GMT -8
Keep in mind that the Queen of Alberni crossed Georgia Strait year round for many years while an 'open decked' vessel. All of the WSF current fleet is 'open decked' and some of their runs are across waters that are sometimes pretty snarly.
An Island Sky type vessel probably could work for Comox - Powell River, but it would be preferable to be modified with a 'weather-tight' car deck, I would think.
Personally, however, I would prefer to see new single enders on both routes 9 & 17, something akin to a modern Sidney (a 'Super Sidney' class, if you will). This is simply because I generally prefer the look of boats that have clearly defined bows and sterns. As has been said, most of the existing terminals on both routes are well suited to single enders.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Feb 16, 2012 20:17:52 GMT -8
Personally, however, I would prefer to see new single enders on both routes 9 & 17, something akin to a modern Sidney (a 'Super Sidney' class, if you will). This is simply because I generally prefer the look of boats that have clearly defined bows and sterns. As has been said, most of the existing terminals on both routes are well suited to single enders. Or a double ender with a single central pilothouse like the kind being built in Norway. I still think that design could work, and I know BC Ferries at least looked at it. Sure, it's not as aesthetically pleasing to look at as a single ender like AMHS's Blue Canoes or the original Spauldings, but it seems like it would be more efficient.
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Feb 19, 2012 13:36:49 GMT -8
Like in the case of Route 9, a double-ended vessel I think would be wasted, simply because of the orientation of Westview - it is designed for a single-ended vessel's stern. Well then, the Westview dock may have to be redesigned for a double-ender if BCF decides to put a double-ender full-time on Route 17.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 20, 2012 0:42:20 GMT -8
Like in the case of Route 9, a double-ended vessel I think would be wasted, simply because of the orientation of Westview - it is designed for a single-ended vessel's stern. Well then, the Westview dock may have to be redesigned for a double-ender if BCF decides to put a double-ender full-time on Route 17. I don't really think that's a practical solution, seeing as the North Island Princess is also a single-ended vessel (yes, with an impending replacement, but for the sake of argument, we'll say that it will be a single-ended vessel also). If BC Ferries were to bite the bullet and construct a second berth at Westview, it would likely face directly west, so that would be designed for a double-ended ferry, but again, this isn't very realistic stuff. There was a bit of discussion in the Valley among the 55+ age group, about the orientation of the vessel replacement, and I doubt it will be very much different from the way it is now, just because of costs, existing infrastructure, etc.
|
|