|
Post by Kahloke on Feb 20, 2012 6:22:37 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. Maybe this is a silly question, but why would the Westview dock in its current orientation preclude the use of a double-ended ferry? As long as the vessel can fit into the berth, why does it matter if the ferry is a single-ender or a double-ender?
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Feb 20, 2012 6:59:34 GMT -8
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. Maybe this is a silly question, but why would the Westview dock in its current orientation preclude the use of a double-ended ferry? As long as the vessel can fit into the berth, why does it matter if the ferry is a single-ender or a double-ender? The Queen of Chilliwack is double-ended, and she fits, so it shouldn't matter at all... maybe someone knows more than I?
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Feb 20, 2012 8:28:43 GMT -8
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. Maybe this is a silly question, but why would the Westview dock in its current orientation preclude the use of a double-ended ferry? As long as the vessel can fit into the berth, why does it matter if the ferry is a single-ender or a double-ender? I'm not sure what the big deal is either. As far as I can see, it shouldn't make any difference other than it will be more difficult/time consuming to dock and doesn't necessarily take advantage of the nature of a double ender. That said, Langdale was designed for a single ender as well, and the Surrey does just fine.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Feb 20, 2012 9:54:07 GMT -8
There are many berths in the BCFS system that are oriented such that they optimize the efficiency of single enders backing in. Many of these same berths are routinely used today by double enders. Some of the berths that come to mind are #'s 1&2 at Swartz Bay & a large percentage of the smaller terminals serving islands all over the Salish Sea.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 20, 2012 15:04:22 GMT -8
Maybe this is a silly question, but why would the Westview dock in its current orientation preclude the use of a double-ended ferry? As long as the vessel can fit into the berth, why does it matter if the ferry is a single-ender or a double-ender? I'm not sure what the big deal is either. As far as I can see, it shouldn't make any difference other than it will be more difficult/time consuming to dock and doesn't necessarily take advantage of the nature of a double ender. That said, Langdale was designed for a single ender as well, and the Surrey does just fine. I wasn't trying to completely sideline the idea of a double-ended vessel traversing Route 17. There is no doubt that it could work. My point was, why convert it to a double-ended vessel, when a single-ended vessel works just fine, and would be more suitable for a relief boat on Route 9? Personally, I feel that the Route 17 and off-season Route 9 vessels should be interchangeable.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 9, 2012 12:19:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 9, 2012 19:05:05 GMT -8
I guess this is an example of some of the "tough decisions" that communities will have to make in the next few years, that Minister Lekstrom was talking about today, . If they want new ferries and the same service, they'll have to pay more. Otherwise they'll have to deal with lower service levels.
If BC Ferries was to lower service levels and build slightly smaller ships in order to cut costs, do you think it would cost the government much to subsidize small passenger-only ferries to suppliment reduced auto ferry service? It's obviously very costly to subsidize a large auto ferry that requires several crew members and a lot of fuel (whether it's full or not), but to subsidize a 30-50 passenger ferry would cost a fraction of the price.
It could all be run under BC Ferries. You could have one connecting the southern Gulf Islands to Swartz Bay, one connecting Bowen to Downtown, and another one from Gambier to Downtown. Then you could have one doing the Powell River/Texada/Comox(downtown) triangle route. Obviously, it's been proved time and time again that these types of ferry services can't make money - but they'd probably be a lot cheaper than subsidizing empty car ferry sailings.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 14, 2012 17:27:51 GMT -8
I don't know why a Gambier to Downtown would enter the picture as Gambier Island does not have the population to merit such a service. Hehe, yeah you're right. I actually meant Gibsons. I know these operations would lose money, but I was thinking it might work if they were going to cut back on automobile sailings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2012 17:34:32 GMT -8
How and when are BC Ferries going to replace the Powell Rive Class?
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Jun 19, 2012 19:07:58 GMT -8
How and when are BC Ferries going to replace the Powell River Class? BC Ferries has not made any plans announced to the public, so one would assume they plan to run them for the next few years. Please have a good read through the forum. You will find a lot of questions of yours will be answered.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Dec 24, 2012 19:10:05 GMT -8
How and when are BC Ferries going to replace the Powell Rive Class? On this topic, I was thinking of the Powell River Class lately, and thinking (perhaps wrongly?) that these have been good reliable little ferries for a long time. I may have missed something in the history books, but have they really had any major problems other than limited overheight space? Would a similar design pass modern marine regulations? Are they fuel efficient? Is the reason they're rarely out of service because they can run on 3 or 2 engines? They seem to have served us well. Definitely worth the $1 million each they cost back in the mid-60's. They're versatile, and I think reliable, and always seem a little more interesting to travel on than the barges. I think if they did make a similar design, they would probably just go with a single central bulkhead. A wider staircase and elevator would probably be required. Then it starts looking like a small Capilano/Cumberland I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Dec 24, 2012 19:25:53 GMT -8
John, documents I have read from the late-1980s said exactly what you just posted, and this evolved as you said the Queen of Capilano. Unfortunately the entry into service of the North Shore's namesake Queen was hardly smooth it seems the general concept worked well again. I have always been surprised that the PRQ was the only vessel of the three past-sisters to get the major overweight modification.
It is nice to see more contemporary BC Ferry designs have been more appropriate to their intended services as well. Despite romanticizing the past the Powell River class required substantial modification to being them into line with the Authority's requirements. However there was also little corporate knowledge on which to design from at the time, either.
Minor vessels have been a topic of little discussion it seems. As I believe many of us agree planning at this point may be futile with a potential substantial political shift ahead, but nonetheless it would be nice to see some more outward consideration of what's needed; other than the outline designs we see on Power Point decks a couple times a year - which are never the same.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 28, 2013 21:38:48 GMT -8
I don't know why a Gambier to Downtown would enter the picture as Gambier Island does not have the population to merit such a service. Hehe, yeah you're right. I actually meant Gibsons. I know these operations would lose money, but I was thinking it might work if they were going to cut back on automobile sailings. Passenger-only ferries aren't worth it because they generally lose money. WSF had a passenger ferry service in the mid-1980s and from the early-90s to 2003, and it lost buckets of money. Currently, passenger only ferries are ran by King County across Elliott Bay and from Seattle to Vashon, and by Kitsap County from Bremerton to Port Orchard, but I guess the counties seem to run them better. I think that when they have competition with auto ferries, the auto ferries always win. And the passenger-only ferries lose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2013 21:47:58 GMT -8
Hehe, yeah you're right. I actually meant Gibsons. I know these operations would lose money, but I was thinking it might work if they were going to cut back on automobile sailings. Passenger-only ferries aren't worth it because they generally lose money. WSF had a passenger ferry service in the mid-1980s and from the early-90s to 2003, and it lost buckets of money. Currently, passenger only ferries are ran by King County across Elliott Bay and from Seattle to Vashon, and by Kitsap County from Bremerton to Port Orchard, but I guess the counties seem to run them better. I think that when they have competition with auto ferries, the auto ferries always win. And the passenger-only ferries lose. I agree with you about passenger ferries on auto ferries routes. But I think the SeaBus make a profit?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Jan 28, 2013 22:49:57 GMT -8
Passenger-only ferries aren't worth it because they generally lose money. As do all except a handful of vehicle carrying ferry services in BC, Alaska, and Washington. 'Losing money' is largely irrelevant, in land or marine based transit systems. What counts is how heavily they're utilized.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 29, 2013 8:26:47 GMT -8
As do all except a handful of vehicle carrying ferry services in BC, Alaska, and Washington. 'Losing money' is largely irrelevant, in land or marine based transit systems. What counts is how heavily they're utilized. Yeah, utilization counts for more. It makes it more "worth it" for the government to provide the service in the first place. Can we actually get back onto topic about new minor vessels? We kinda went off on a tangent with this pax-only ferry discussion.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Feb 8, 2013 21:26:51 GMT -8
I'm not sure what the big deal is either. As far as I can see, it shouldn't make any difference other than it will be more difficult/time consuming to dock and doesn't necessarily take advantage of the nature of a double ender. That said, Langdale was designed for a single ender as well, and the Surrey does just fine. I wasn't trying to completely sideline the idea of a double-ended vessel traversing Route 17. There is no doubt that it could work. My point was, why convert it to a double-ended vessel, when a single-ended vessel works just fine, and would be more suitable for a relief boat on Route 9? Personally, I feel that the Route 17 and off-season Route 9 vessels should be interchangeable. I don't think anything would be wrong with having a double-ended ferry serving Route 9. The route is similar to WSF's Anacortes-San Juans route, and double-ended ferries work just fine there. Even double-ended ferries still have to turn around on that route; I've seen them do that on VesselWatch.
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Feb 9, 2013 21:06:42 GMT -8
I wasn't trying to completely sideline the idea of a double-ended vessel traversing Route 17. There is no doubt that it could work. My point was, why convert it to a double-ended vessel, when a single-ended vessel works just fine, and would be more suitable for a relief boat on Route 9? Personally, I feel that the Route 17 and off-season Route 9 vessels should be interchangeable. I don't think anything would be wrong with having a double-ended ferry serving Route 9. The route is similar to WSF's Anacortes-San Juans route, and double-ended ferries work just fine there. Even double-ended ferries still have to turn around on that route; I've seen them do that on VesselWatch. Well, double-enders certainly work in all of the terminals in the Outer SGI. I'm not sure about Long Harbour, though. My guess would be that the Long Harbour-based crews on that route are simply more accustomed to manning just the Queen of Nanaimo, and they would need more training to be able to handle a double-ender.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Feb 10, 2013 20:21:26 GMT -8
I don't think anything would be wrong with having a double-ended ferry serving Route 9. The route is similar to WSF's Anacortes-San Juans route, and double-ended ferries work just fine there. Even double-ended ferries still have to turn around on that route; I've seen them do that on VesselWatch. Well, double-enders certainly work in all of the terminals in the Outer SGI. I'm not sure about Long Harbour, though. My guess would be that the Long Harbour-based crews on that route are simply more accustomed to manning just the Queen of Nanaimo, and they would need more training to be able to handle a double-ender. Long harbor looks really weird and it's one of those places that makes me wonder why they put the ferry dock where they did. I would think that a double-ender would be easier to maneuver than a single-ender in the tight confines of Long Harbor. Even though you may still have to back out of there (depending on the direction the cars are pointing) it'd be easier to do so in a double-ended ferry because the crew could steer the boat from the pilothouse on either end, depending on which is most convenient.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2013 22:43:08 GMT -8
I have never understood why the brainiacs at BC Ferries don't put a terminal at the very southern tip of Saltspring?
There is a road at the southern tip so why not stop wasting fuel and wear and tear on the ships and make it a 10 minute crossing instead of a 35 minute crossing?
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 19, 2013 23:34:34 GMT -8
I have never understood why the brainiacs at BC Ferries don't put a terminal at the very southern tip of Saltspring? There is a road at the southern tip so why not stop wasting fuel and wear and tear on the ships and make it a 10 minute crossing instead of a 35 minute crossing? Your argument could be made for pretty much every ferry terminal in British Columbia except Tsawwassen. There are a variety of geographic, engineering and logistical reasons behind where each terminal is located, including Fulford Harbour. In this case, it would be unrealistic to move because 1) it would get shot down in the public consultation process; 2) the cost savings would be extremely nominal: decreasing the crossing time to 25-30 minutes from 35 (I do not know where you got 10 from), crewing/labour costs would be the same; and 3) a new terminal is a huge undertaking in any circumstance and requires heavy investment, i.e. it would take a long time to recoup the "cost savings".
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Feb 20, 2013 10:58:04 GMT -8
BC Ferries (when it was the government) actually owned that land for a while; quite a long time ago. Is it Isabel Point?? (I am really stretching my memory here). Anyways public consultation and some infrastructure planning turned into a disaster and that ended that. I'll dig out more on Friday - stupid hours at work today and tomorrow.
The paper copy of the reports are at the SFU Bennett Library.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2013 13:43:06 GMT -8
30 minutes?
I used to live in North Saanich and looking across the water at the south end of Saltsping, I estimate the distance between the 2 places at 1-2 miles.
The Denman-Vancouver Island run only takes 10 minutes most days so I can't see the ferry taking more than that to get between Swartz Bay and the south end of Saltspring.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 21, 2013 14:57:53 GMT -8
30 minutes? I used to live in North Saanich and looking across the water at the south end of Saltsping, I estimate the distance between the 2 places at 1-2 miles. The Denman-Vancouver Island run only takes 10 minutes most days so I can't see the ferry taking more than that to get between Swartz Bay and the south end of Saltspring. The route to Swartz Bay, as you have suggested it, is 3.0 Nautical Miles (NM) according to Google Earth. The Mill Bay route is also 3.0 NM, with an indicated crossing time of 25 minutes. I stand behind my original assessment.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Feb 21, 2013 17:44:40 GMT -8
I see no reason why vessels the size of the Skeena Queen could not use Knapp Passage. Vessels the size of the V-class used to use that route routinely, though that may have depended on tides. In any case, that route via Knapp Passage would be about equal in length to Paul's 'route A'.
|
|