|
Post by islandvisitor on Nov 9, 2008 21:15:49 GMT -8
The Daily News (Nanaimo), Page A10, 06-Nov-2008
Less fuel-efficient ferries was very poor planning
By Jennifer O'Rourke
So B.C. Ferries has big plans to impress the world with its expertise in running ferries, leveraging "the company's intellectual capital and marketing it on a world-wide basis."
Here's an idea they could share. In a time of increasing fuel costs, order custom-built ferries and claim that the new ferries are more fuel efficient by weight, without mentioning that they are heavier than the old ferries, so they use more fuel.
To carry just 100 extra passengers, the new ferries use between 3300 to 3500 litres of fuel on the Departure Bay-Horseshoe Bay run, compared to 2500 to 2600 litres of fuel for the older ferries. New ferries use between 32% and 38% more fuel to carry just 6% more people.
So the brains trust at B.C. Ferries have increased their per-passenger fuel usage from 1.7 litres on the old ferries to 2.125 litres on the new ferries, making the per-passenger fuel cost 25% higher on the new ferries. Their solution? BC Ferries will run the old ferries most of the time, leaving their $524 million new ships sitting in the dock.
Building new ferries that cost more to run, and then saving money by not running them is definitely an original idea. Surely this brilliant plan should be shared with smart transportation operators all over the world.
Jennifer O'Rourke
Nanaimo
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Nov 9, 2008 22:12:49 GMT -8
So this means the Super C's are white elephants?
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Nov 10, 2008 8:05:12 GMT -8
Missing from the equation is how much more income the ferry can generate with overheight vehicles on the upper deck and trucks and buses on the main deck. And when volume dictates and they add the gallery decks, it will put this person's figures in a totally new light.
Hindsight is 20/20 and few predicted the massive spike in fuel costs not alone the current drop off in the economy. Maybe the writer knew all this and made Warren Buffet style investments and has profited wildly from the downturn. But BCFerries crystal ball was out for repairs when the order was placed and ferry traffic was consistantly growing. That and the potential for more traffic resulting from the spikes in tourism that is normal before and after the games. BC Ferries needed lift with the TC mandated retirement of the V's. Time will tell whether the current economic climate messes with the normal tourism spike.
If BC Ferries was still facing an increased demand in ferry traffic and the economy was still fine, and the increased tourism happened and wait times dramatically increased, there would be people complaining that BC Ferries sat on their duffs and should have ordered larger ferries with greater lift. Lots of IF's, but in business you have to make decisions on what information you have and go forward with your best shot. There will always be people who pick apart whatever decision you have made. People still can't agree whether the launch of the New Coke was a good thing, or a mistake, or a bad decision Coke deftly turned to their advantage.
I think for years to come the Coastals will also carry some controversy. People will cherry pick figures on both sides to bolster their opinions. I would love to see a thorough audit in a few years that brings all factors into play and lays out the real facts.
As we have discussed the ferries are probably much more expensive to run with lighter loads so using them during peak periods is probably good business sense. Over the 30 or 40 year life of the ferries it may not matter a hill of beans.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Nov 10, 2008 8:31:10 GMT -8
Here's hoping that hill of beans isn't too big...though with the methane produced by consuming said beans, one could conceivably use it to reduce fuel expenditures!
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Nov 10, 2008 23:41:28 GMT -8
I think that this whole fuel issue is a big smoke screen AT THIS MOMENT. We really don't have any CONCRETE figures YET for the averaged ANNUALIZED fuel burn on the Coastals. How about we wait until the CR has been in service for ABOUT A YEAR so we can figure out real fuel burn costs? Being a completely new design, and requiring the extensive training that the crew had to receive, and owing to the fact that they have been operating WHILE THE LEARNING CURVE IS STILL PRETTY STEEP, how about we judge the fuel burn numbers when they actually mean something?
Operating costs in GENERAL are higher on the Coastals/Super-C's because of the added amenities, and the fact that they require higher crewing. Yes, the displacement is higher, and the general HOTEL load on the power plant seems to be higher as well.
I am sure that by the time the Coastals have been operating 24 mos or so that we will have figured out MANY efficiencies that will make them less costly to operate.
From what I have been able to determine, due to SPECIFIC design criteria, the Coastals will burn more fuel in DOCK when loading/unloading than the C's - they apparently use full MODE-2 when docked and loading/unloading, whereas I do not think that the C's do this (only when docking/maneuvering). Furthermore, the Coastals were designed to have pretty well ALL of their machinery running when operating, whereas the C's (and V's, Spirits) tend to have more systems in STAND-BY.
Again, I have no inside info or anything, but let's see how the Coastals are stacking up once BCFS has been fully familiarized and run them "without kid gloves" for a reasonable time.
That said, I would like to see comparisons on the other 2 routes as well, #1 and #30, compared to say the Spirits and say the Alberni.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Nov 11, 2008 18:08:57 GMT -8
Actually the crews do have fuel burn figures and they are significantly higher. There is no increased revenue in over height vehicles or any others when the fares are so high they discourage travel. Dinosaurs building Dreadnoughts....both out dated.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Nov 11, 2008 20:47:51 GMT -8
Kerry: all due respect, but having numbers and having "AVERAGE" annualized numbers are two different things, as I THOUGHT I took great pains to verbosely state in my previous post.
To compare: I can get INSTANTANEOUS mpg ratings while driving, and they're higher when I stand on the throttle. I can also have "trip" mode engaged, and if I am driving HARD, my mpgs will be low. I can then reset the "trip" mode and shift early, not lug the engine, etc. However, after 6 mos of driving, I have the "lifetime" average mpg which will actually MEAN something.
I could dumb it down more if you wish for me to engage you further on this.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Nov 12, 2008 22:39:03 GMT -8
I could dumb it down more if you wish for me to engage you further on this. Hmmh... not sure that came out quite the way you meant it... Kerry's point, I think, was simply that figures so far show that the new boats are more expensive to operate than the Cs, with a minimal increase in capacity. That is pretty much admitted by BC Ferries in their decision to pull the CR from operation in non-peak times. Crewing may also be a factor, but fuel is probably a big issue, and I don't know what kind of magical solutions they're going to come up with over time to remedy the issue- Hahn seems to think that once the officers and engineers deal with the 'learning curve', fuel economy will improve. We shall see. Great big fuel guzzling boats sailing around with one deck completely closed off, all for... what? A minimal increase in overheight capacity? No wonder the Cs look like the better option, a lot of the time. Maybe they should have brought the old plans out of mothballs, updated them, and, ahem, got Allied or WMG to build a couple more.* (* provocative remark intentional. )
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Nov 13, 2008 7:25:57 GMT -8
How minimal is the difference between the Coastals & the Cs?
I thought the Cs had fixed gallery decks which would decrease he overheght capacity?
The Coastals & the Cs are roughly the same size ( Vehicle & pax capcities) why are their gross tonages so diferent?
|
|
|
Post by Canucks on Nov 13, 2008 14:13:34 GMT -8
How minimal is the difference between the Coastals & the Cs? I thought the Cs had fixed gallery decks which would decrease he overheght capacity? The Coastals & the Cs are roughly the same size ( Vehicle & pax capcities) why are their gross tonages so diferent? Question 1: Minimal difference in what? Gross tons, fuel efficiency, number of sunshine breakfasts served? Question 2: The C's do have fixed decks that decrease over height capacity. Question 3: The most obvious answer would be the coastals have an extra passenger deck.
|
|
|
Post by brokenfoot123 on Nov 13, 2008 16:57:08 GMT -8
So basically, BC ferries has once again messed up what should have been a simple fleet upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Nov 13, 2008 21:45:22 GMT -8
No, actually, ADDITIONAL vessels were required. Were the Super-C/Coastals the right answer? Dunno, time will tell.
I do not think that there is any arguing the QUALITY of the new vessels.
Neil: It came out as I wanted it, I was being provocative too.
WRT the fuel burn numbers and the "learning curve", I think it is more "operational averaging" now than learning curve. Throw out the first month or two of calculations to clear the "curve" and then talk to me after 18 mos of full revenue service to get actual fuel burn.
As for the tonnage of the vessels, I have flogged this dead horse for a long time -- I think we are comparing apples to oranges with the measurements. I do not think that the Coastals/Super-C's are the multiple of tonnage larger than the C's that the two numbers show. I beleive that the methods of arriving at those numbers were changed at some point (I don't have the TC reference for this handy); I still maintain that the tonnage numbers are not standardized.
Yes, shoving a huge entirely empty pax deck around adds to the inefficiency of the vessel - however, you cannot really have a "lift deck" for pax accomodations. BCFS/FSG would have been better off in their designs if they had made the main pax deck the lower one and had the upper as the overflow, as is commonly done with the S/V/C classes which we are so used to; I think it would have been far less of an issue had the decks been "flipped" as it were. It seems that having to climb up the stairs past a "not in service" deck just exacerbates this problem.
This said, I don't think that anyone would have been too happy if BCFS had commissioned new ships of the "C" class, and then had the decks been overcrowded during peak season usage. They would have been chagrined for not planning ahead adequately; I think that they almost HAD to overbuild the pax capacity into the vessel - I do not fault them for it. Configuration, however, as I stated in the above paragraph plays into this.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Nov 13, 2008 23:15:57 GMT -8
Well said, Hardy. I'm getting very tired of hearing the media, and whoever else being overly critical of these ships. I think the fuel consumption with these vessels are right where they should be. If you look at it from a casual viewer point of view, you'll note this: Consumption on a one way trip in Litres (L), Net Tonnage {t}, and Length [m] C-Class : 2500-2600L(30% Less) {4,473 tOak Bay)} [126.79 m] V-Class : 2500L (30% Less) {3,903 t (Vancouver)} [120.23 m] Super C-Class: 3200-3500L {7,492 t (Renaissance)} [154.00 m] Spirits: 4200L (17% More) {13,894 t (SOBC)} [ 167.57 m ] I don't think the Super C's really show off any stunning stats, and are sort of in between in terms of size for major vessels. A Super C easily dwarfs a V-Class, and it can even dwarf a C-Class. The numbers may not show it, but in person, the Super C's feel alot bigger to be on. There's plenty of room for passenger comfort, and when both passenger decks are open on a full sailing, you'll still be able to find a row of seats for yourself to sit at no problem. That wouldn't be the case on ANY of the C-Class. I think its good that the Super C's have that extra deck "just in case". Back on Thanksgiving weekend, I happened to stop by Horseshoe Bay during the peak of the rush, to find a lineup of people going from the waiting room, all of the way up to the foot passenger ticket booth. I've never seen that before. That will likely become the norm, as ferry fares spike, making it cost prohibitive to drive. So maybe it's not a bad thing that the Super C's don't carry that much more cars. Here's some pics to show just how huge our German girls really are. (I'm gonna get slapped for that. I just know it....)
|
|
|
Post by herrbrinkmann on Nov 14, 2008 7:23:11 GMT -8
let me put a simple question here as I really do not know: When comparing the figures, I assume that the consumption of the Coastal is for her 4 engines. They propel the ship and produce electricity for the hotel load. On the other vessels I assume you have main engines and auxiliaries. So I think you have to add the consumption?! Can it be that in total the Coastal are more efficient? When I am back at FSG I´ll try to get some figures from the engineers.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Nov 14, 2008 7:53:22 GMT -8
Thanks Markus any information will be very helpful. Not that it will stop people from deliberately misquoting, misrepresenting or miscreating* information to their own end. Miscreating is my word of the day. It is the present participle of miscreate that is defined as create with malice or error. A client of mine gets a word of the day from somewhere, and then uses it every opportunity that day to get it secured in her brain. Good in principle. She however often strings together sentences on purpose just to show off, and then everyone around her will look puzzled, wondering what the heck she is going on about. Now people have grown so tired of it they don't even react, nor ask her to clarify, and basically ignore her when she goes off. It hasn't sunk in yet that no one is amused. There is a reward offered by her boss, of lunch at the restaurant of choice, to discover and then sabotage her source. ;D
|
|
|
Post by blackshadow on Nov 14, 2008 9:21:46 GMT -8
Ferryman is on the right track. How a vessel is more or less efficient are base on a number of factors; net tonnage, speed, horsepower, length and carrying capacity.
It is not fair to judge super Cs fuel consumption just on present capacity. We should remember these vessel were designed to have movable decks on main deck and are able to carry taller vessels on upper decks. Which all must be counted in to get real comparsion.
When you drive a vehicle off the lot the sale man states don't compare your mileage until you are use to it and broke in. The crew are still very much learning and these engines are not completely broke in either.
Interesting to see what fuel consumption was on the old C class this summer when management had the fuel trip computer turned off. I would think their consumptions was close to new ones.
For vessels best to compare fuel consumption vs horsepower. These new babies have far more horses than old ones and V class. If one compare these figures out will be more interest to see.
This my two cents are every one has their own idea on how efficient something is.
|
|
|
Post by brokenfoot123 on Nov 14, 2008 10:04:05 GMT -8
No, actually, ADDITIONAL vessels were required. Were the Super-C/Coastals the right answer? Dunno, time will tell. No they weren't, they were and still are a HORRIBLE idea. What would have been a better use of all that wasted money would have been to buy more smaller boats that could have had a higher turn around rate (Being able to load and leave more often). Had they done that, there wouldn't be 4 to 6 sailing waits in the peak times of the year. They'd be pulling in more money and more people would happy with their service. Better yet, what they should have used the money on was a bridge connecting the mainland to the island. I stand by my stance of the ferry system being wholly inadequate.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Nov 14, 2008 10:40:50 GMT -8
The bottom line is that, currently, these ferries are more expensive to operate than the Cs. That is backed up by the figures Ferryman posted, by Kerry's anecdotal report, and by BC Ferries' action in taking the CR out of service at non-peak times. Traffic increases on the major routes are negligible, if any, so the bit of added capacity on the new boats is not usually needed. That doesn't mean that in future their size and design won't turn out to be a good thing, but for now, questions about their economy are valid.
|
|
|
Post by Nickfro on Nov 14, 2008 11:44:26 GMT -8
What would have been a better use of all that wasted money would have been to buy more smaller boats that could have had a higher turn around rate (Being able to load and leave more often). Had they done that, there wouldn't be 4 to 6 sailing waits in the peak times of the year. They'd be pulling in more money and more people would happy with their service. Better yet, what they should have used the money on was a bridge connecting the mainland to the island. I stand by my stance of the ferry system being wholly inadequate. Brokenfoot, what size ferries do you have in mind here? Are you saying that you think we should have a bunch of smaller, faster ferries than the C Class series? If so, do you recall three boats otherwise known as 'Fast Cats' that have been collecting dust along the North Vancouver shoreline for the past number of years? That would be what I would call 'wasted money'. Do you think that such proposed 'smaller ferries' would actually be a cost saver, having experienced a failed attempt at it before? Would having more boats than what they currently have be deemed more efficient from a fuel, upkeep and overall cost perspective? I would like to know more about your thoughts and ideas on this one. I feel that the Coastals will do their job well through their lifetime. Take the Coastal Celebration on Route 1. . .burning 17% less fuel than the Spooks. Sure vehicle capacity is less, but in the long run these ferries and their capacities will be welcomed. [off topic] I have noticed a couple of comments about the taller clearance on the upper car decks on the Coastals. I agree that they can utilize and manage overheights better, but I believe they currently maintain a 7ft maximum, as the overheight clearance bars on the ferry berth ramps haven't changed. Perhaps that will change for coastal berths in due time.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Nov 14, 2008 12:37:37 GMT -8
No, actually, ADDITIONAL vessels were required. Were the Super-C/Coastals the right answer? Dunno, time will tell. No they weren't, they were and still are a HORRIBLE idea. What would have been a better use of all that wasted money would have been to buy more smaller boats that could have had a higher turn around rate (Being able to load and leave more often). Had they done that, there wouldn't be 4 to 6 sailing waits in the peak times of the year. They'd be pulling in more money and more people would happy with their service. Better yet, what they should have used the money on was a bridge connecting the mainland to the island. I stand by my stance of the ferry system being wholly inadequate. I think that BC Ferries made a very informed decision, based on their experience with the current C and S Class vessels. The C class might be slightly utilitarian, but are efficient in every sense of the word. Despite their poor breakdown record for long weekends, they get the job done, and do it right. This is just my view: I think that in terms of the major vessels, the C Class is the best class in the fleet. I'm not saying they have had a LOT of issues with the Spirits, but they do have their faults. I think that if they could change one thing about the Spirits, they probably would have installed more passenger accommodation. The status-quo does not meet the current foot passenger numbers. When you ride the Coastal ferries, you feel much more spaced-out compared to everyone else, and there is more seating and space for everyone. I personally think that double-ended ferries with extra passenger accommodation were the right way to go, but I'm not sure I would have designed them quite the way they did. Brokenfoot, I want to hear what you would do if you were put in BC Ferries shoes. You're stuck with 3 inefficient, old ferries, with licenses soon to expire. How would you handle the problem?
|
|
|
Post by boardsailor on Nov 14, 2008 14:28:33 GMT -8
When you observe the Super C docking it is a lot of froth on surface of the water - propelers not deep in the water are sucking air. That fenomenon is called cavitation. In long run it will do surface damage on propelers blades - cavitation erossion. Besides that cavitating propeler doesn't have "bite" in the water to convert power from engines to thrust pushing vessel forward. Therefore for given speed needs more pitch and fuel, because prop efficiency is low due to cavitation. Someone at designing stage made a mistake placing propelers shaft line to high in the hull. Loading capacity was known and displacement of the hull, so fully loaded she will be deeper in the water only so much. Ships, like ro-ro type (ferries) are not deep hull vessels. Change of draft is not very dramatic being empty or fully loaded. For that reason depth at which propeler is woking is very important. The power transmited, diameter of propeler and speed of rotation. As well constant pitch or variable pitch. All those criterias are taken under consideration at design stage. What you end up with now a days is pretty sure thing. For that reason to end up with the vessel which has obvious flow in design, coming from reputable builder is somewhat puzzling. As a side note: props are turning on CC with constant speed of 130 rpm - under way or in the dock. Even with 0 pitch it is a lot prop wash. So much that caused some underwash damage to berth 3 in Tsawwassen. It took many trucksloads with rocks to fill sink hole. No wonder she is not on the run!
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Nov 14, 2008 21:45:46 GMT -8
So, it's not really a question of whether the vessels themselves are suitable or unsuitable, nor whether they were a poor investment, or the result of poor planning. The simple explanation is that BCFerries simply doesn't want to pay for having to use more fuel if they can possibly avoid it. The figures can only be interpreted by comparison, but the fact that they use more fuel, doesn't really say anything substantive about the ships themselves... they obviously use as much fuel as they need to operate and it just happens to be more than the older C's, but that does not mean that they themselves are fuel inefficient, or flawed in any way.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Nov 15, 2008 4:25:36 GMT -8
No they weren't, they were and still are a HORRIBLE idea. What would have been a better use of all that wasted money would have been to buy more smaller boats that could have had a higher turn around rate (Being able to load and leave more often). On the major routes (1, 2, 30) you CANNOT efficiently use smaller boats due to the duration of the crossing and the number of crew members required for the safe operation of the vessel. You also have to factor into the equation that smaller vessels do not have the same seakeeping ability in all weather conditions - you NEED to have the "economy of scale". Were you to scale down a Coastal to say a single deck version (ie: smaller), you would still have essentially the same MACHINERY costs in the construction. You need engines, props, gennies etc ... how could you justify multiplying that cost in number to produce smaller vessels? I am curious as to where you would want to use the smaller vessels and approximately what size you want. How about 100 new 40 car ferries with 15 min departures on Rte-1? Had they done that, there wouldn't be 4 to 6 sailing waits in the peak times of the year. Which routes were experiencing "4-6 sailing waits" ?? Sure the SGI run sells out frequently, but I don't recall anything over a 3 sail at any given point, except when there were BOMB threats or WEATHER delays. Smaller boats would not help that issue any. When you pooch out the SoBC on the 2-hr winter schedule, a 2 sailing wait is up to 6 hours, which is far worse than any PEAK delays. Step up with some justification or proof on that 4-6 sailing wait stuff please.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Nov 15, 2008 4:29:46 GMT -8
[off topic] I have noticed a couple of comments about the taller clearance on the upper car decks on the Coastals. I agree that they can utilize and manage overheights better, but I believe they currently maintain a 7ft maximum, as the overheight clearance bars on the ferry berth ramps haven't changed. Perhaps that will change for coastal berths in due time. Until you mentioned this, I never really paid attention to it - must be because I am either a footie or driving a large moving truck - I don't get to play on the UCD very often. I did look at this at the terminal the other day and you are right. Perhaps they need to have these 'detection bars' modified so that they are no longer chains hanging down, but rather 'sensors' that trip some kind of a warning system. This would be easy to retrofit at the tollbooth area, because lane assignment (and loading assignment) are more or less determined at that point -- the booths generally separate "upper deck capable" vehicles from MCD specific with their lane assignments. The only time this would breakdown would be for MD sailings or last minute vessel replacements.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Nov 15, 2008 4:44:09 GMT -8
a lot of froth on surface of the water - propelers not deep in the water are sucking air. That fenomenon is called cavitation. In long run it will do surface damage on propelers blades - cavitation erossion. ... Someone at designing stage made a mistake placing propelers shaft line to high in the hull. ... Ships, like ro-ro type (ferries) are not deep hull vessels. Change of draft is not very dramatic being empty or fully loaded. ... As a side note: props are turning on CC with constant speed of 130 rpm - under way or in the dock. Even with 0 pitch it is a lot prop wash. So much that caused some underwash damage to berth 3 in Tsawwassen. It took many trucksloads with rocks to fill sink hole. No wonder she is not on the run! I found this post informative, and the shore erosion issue was not known to me before this. I would like to think that the placement of the props and shaft was a factor in the design somehow, and that this wasn't just an oversight. It does point out that all the tank tests in the world and computer modelling up the ying-yang are no real substitute for real world experience. I've seen the "excessive" prop wash when in dock, and I am curious why when docked, they are running the 'docked end' prop at all. As for changing the hull depth/waterline, wouldn't ballast tanks come in handy with regards to lowering the vessel in the water? I have also noticed that the Coastals do sit rather high, and I am not sure how lowering them with ballast would change their handling characteristics. Perhaps on the issue of cavitation and prop wear, Markus could enlighten us by passing that along to the proper department at FSG; if it is indeed a problem, I am positive that someone has looked at it so as to correct it for any future builds - after all, whether or not FSG builds any more double-ended RoRo's for BCF or any other line, I am sure that they would want to hone their craft...
|
|