|
Post by Hardy on Nov 23, 2008 3:19:22 GMT -8
Economy....it seems to me that the only measurement that makes sense is....how many passengers/vehicles are moved and at what total cost/profit. For answers you have to wait until after the break in period and after the summer/winter loads are totaled. Give it a year and you will know. It even costs to tie them up. Then following that logic, we should be running the size of V's all the time, with each sailing at 100% capacity -- but with leaving pax and vehicles behind and having sailing delays. That is the MOST cost-effective way to run the operation. However, the hit to customer service is deemed unacceptable. Note that I said V-size, not the V's themselves, as they are unarguably past their useful service lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Nov 23, 2008 11:37:00 GMT -8
Are the V sized ships not roughly the same size vehicle capacity wise -if not somewhat smaller than the Alberni & the New West. That would be quite good in the slower times of the year but potentially leave significantly larger lineups during the busier Summer season which would cause all sorts of customer complaints.
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Nov 23, 2008 15:35:55 GMT -8
Firstly, someone has to get some data on what the older C class vessels diesel generators burn per round trip and add that to their main engine diesel consumption then we will have accurate numbers. Until then, the older C class vessels and the Coastals are no good to compare.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Nov 23, 2008 16:12:15 GMT -8
Don't hold your breath for the release of this information; it is much more fun to sit around being an armchair quarterback and saying how unsuitable the new boats are. Especially for the "brothers and sisters" of BC and those that believe in "splendid isolation".
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 23, 2008 18:15:09 GMT -8
Firstly, someone has to get some data on what the older C class vessels diesel generators burn per round trip and add that to their main engine diesel consumption then we will have accurate numbers. Until then, the older C class vessels and the Coastals are no good to compare. By the way fuel consumption is on ships calculated on daily basis using dips in fuel tanks. It is provision to monitor fuel consumption of main engines, specially on ship like Super C with 2000 parameters monitored continuously. But if comes to fuel consumption is one figure recorded on daily basis. The question in the first quote appears to have already been answered by the second quote. Some of you may have missed comments from 'boardsailor' which you will find back on page 2 of this thread. Unless there are different fuel tanks that feed the auxiliary engines from those that feed the main engines, we already have our answer.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Nov 24, 2008 0:02:51 GMT -8
Not to drag the topic away from fuel - just a quick comment - when BC Ferries first announced the CR would be a "#2" vessel they justified it in part by a larger crew.
Queen of Cowichan's license: A – 1460 / 34, B – 1265 / 29, C – 841 / 23, D – 0 / 12 Coastal Renaissance's license: A – 1571 / 33, B – 1177 / 27, C 881 / 23, D – 0 / 12
Crew sizes on the CR are indeed less on a B license, which I think is what's frequently sailed on. Interesting to note a B on the CR is less than the Cow.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Nov 24, 2008 2:35:16 GMT -8
Not to drag the topic away from fuel - just a quick comment - when BC Ferries first announced the CR would be a "#2" vessel they justified it in part by a larger crew. Queen of Cowichan's license: A – 1460 / 34, B – 1265 / 29, C – 841 / 23, D – 0 / 12 Coastal Renaissance's license: A – 1571 / 33, B – 1177 / 27, C 881 / 23, D – 0 / 12 I had stayed away from broaching this topic as I did not have the numbers available to back up any statement I would make. The largest crew difference is "2" people -- hardly a bank breaking wage issue when you look at the overall scope of things. With these being the TC levels, do we know if BCFS sails ABOVE this for any reason? I mean, after all, they wouldn't outright lie about something, would they? They MUST have been telling the truth all along, right??
|
|
|
Post by yvr on Nov 25, 2008 22:07:58 GMT -8
Quote: Re: Coastal Renaissance: In Service Discussion « Reply #432 on Nov 18, 2008, 9:00pm » Nov 18, 2008, 7:29pm, Flugel Horn wrote: Here's a link to a "thetyee.ca" article re the new Coastal ships and their various problems. The bottom of the article has many, many interesting reader comments. www.thetyee.ca/News/2008/11/18/Ferries/If my memory serves me correctly, Cascade mentioned these ferries would have numerous problems. Now it appears he was correct. FSG says the ships are to spec. That being the case how much are the fixes going to cost you and I? It seems that every major project BCF undertakes has problems. The infamous Northern Adventure is in refit once again. As WCK pointed out that's 12 month's of refits for 27 month's of ownership. Then there's the Burr / Kuper boon doggle. Now the trio of German built ferries, and their problems. The one common factor for all the above is BCF management. In any other transportation business heads would have rolled long ago. In our case BCF Vice President - Trafford Taylor who was in charge of new vessel acquisitions. I wonder how large a severance package he could command, should he be terminated? YVR End Quote Global TV's November 25th 6' o clock news hour has a story regarding the the Coastal's heavy fuel consumption. Although I was unable to provide a direct link to the story, the actual article starts at the 9 minute mark and goes to 11:36 minutes. Mr. Hahn quotes most of my posting from the CR in service thread (Sonia, Kuper, the German triplets, and then actually added a North Van ferry. I'm assuming that was the Island Sky) and dismisses all problems as minor entry into service glitches. Some folks might call his take "spin doctoring". If the problems are only minor Mr. Hahn, please show the taxpayers of British Columbia the actual fuel consumption figures. www.globaltv.com/globaltv/bc/video/index.htmlYVR
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 25, 2008 22:21:25 GMT -8
The Tyee has today posted an additional piece on ferry fuel consumption: thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Transportation/2008/11/25/GuzzleFerry/They requested info from BCFS on fuel consumption but did not get it. They did however get data from another unnamed source (SoF, union, ). Is the data accurate - I suspect so. Among other interesting tidbits is the following: Route 30: C'Inspiration - 9719 litres consumed per round trip Q'Cowichan - 6378 litres consumed per round trip Q'Alberni - 7153 litres consumed per round trip
|
|
|
Post by hwy19man on Nov 26, 2008 0:26:59 GMT -8
Quote: Global TV's November 25th 6' o clock news hour has a story regarding the the Coastal's heavy fuel consumption. Although I was unable to provide a direct link to the story, the actual article starts at the 9 minute mark and goes to 11:36 minutes. Mr. Hahn quotes most of my posting from the CR in service thread (Sonia, Kuper, the German triplets, and then actually added a North Van ferry. I'm assuming that was the Island Sky) and dismisses all problems as minor entry into service glitches. Some folks might call his take "spin doctoring". If the problems are only minor Mr. Hahn, please show the taxpayers of British Columbia the actual fuel consumption figures. www.globaltv.com/globaltv/bc/video/index.html I was able to see this segment on the 2300h newscast and I agree with the fact that Hahn is doing the spin doctoring. He was gloating about how much less fuel would be consumed when the vessels were being constructed and now it seems that specification was only theoretical and not reality.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Nov 26, 2008 7:35:43 GMT -8
Very interesting fuel consumption comparison for route#30. If these are accurate stats the consumption differences are enormous. I wonderif the Alberni & cow numbers take into account the fuel used by the diesel generators the run the ship's physical plant that would likely increase the fuel sonsumption #s & maybe be a better compariosn due to the fact that the Coastals diesel electric system runs everything.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Nov 26, 2008 10:28:56 GMT -8
Go to that report cited in The Tyee story, and you'll see some rather astonishing figures, such as, the Mill Bay operating on less than 200 litres of fuel a day. The Howe Sound Queen, 70 car capacity, using only 84 litres on a 35-40 minute round trip, while the 'Capilano, 85 cars on a similar time frame, uses 500.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Nov 26, 2008 17:28:24 GMT -8
Hardy...you are quite right. Running smaller ferries at max capacity would give max benefit. Smaller ferries running more often also reduce infrastructure costs. How much are they spending on expanding SWB. How much did the TSA expansion cost. Parking lot expenses and road costs go up with size. It is cheaper to have a steady flow of traffic rather than to move huge blocks of traffic. On the other hand more ferries mean more crew, smaller crew size but on more ferries. The crew size is governed by passenger capacity. Then there is the fact that you must have a schedule for the commercial traffic which is a large part of the operation. BCFS is finally looking at drop trailer operations. Highly profitable. More, smaller ships also provide much more flexibility when passenger demand varies and if one ship goes mechanical. WCK... I think you can believe those figures. Neil...I know you can believe those figures. Kind of makes one wonder how the company can keep claiming that the small runs are the expensive ones. The small routes generally make money until head office overhead is costed out to them. The one run that realy costs a lot is rte 5a from SWB to the outer islands. Long ago the employees suggested a change which, according to the companies own figures, would considerably improve profitability on that run. Simply build a second dock at LH and have the ship start its run from there. On the HSQ a load of 22-24 cars pays for the trip including crew,fuel refit and maintenance. That is just over 1/3 capacity. On the big ships they need a much higher load to meet expenses. On the S class when they first came out I believe it was 95 percent capacity but I am sure that has been reduced by now.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 26, 2008 18:10:37 GMT -8
Go to that report cited in The Tyee story, and you'll see some rather astonishing figures, such as, the Mill Bay operating on less than 200 litres of fuel a day. The Howe Sound Queen, 70 car capacity, using only 84 litres on a 35-40 minute round trip, while the ' Capilano, 85 cars on a similar time frame, uses 500. Aww Neil, you're asking us to think for ourselves re the conclusion of what this means. Let's see, the Mill Bay is supposed to be really efficient, but 200L seems low. The Hound Dawg uses 84L? That's a SUV-tank's worth for a round trip. But I guess the comparsison to the Capilano is what makes that source-report really seem odd and unreliable. Let's get rid of the Capilano; it's too inefficient....
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Nov 26, 2008 19:38:10 GMT -8
How would running smaller ferries more frequently work on the 3 major routes in the Summer when these routes are running at or near capacity many times with sailing waits (does route #1 not run hourly between 6 AM & 9PM)
Does any one know what the break even point on the Coastals are?
|
|
|
Post by hwy19man on Nov 26, 2008 19:44:36 GMT -8
How would running smaller ferries more frequently work on the 3 major routes in the Summer when these routes are running at or near capacity many times with sailing waits (does route #1 not run hourly between 6 AM & 9PM) Does any one know what the break even point on the Coastals are? Good point, and the same goes for the 4th major route, route 3. Just so you know, route 1 runs hourly from 700h to 2200h on the summer weekends.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 26, 2008 20:07:03 GMT -8
The link to the Tyee's source document is: thetyee.ca/News/2008/11/24/fuel_2008-06.pngAmong the interesting tidbits: - S class round trip on Route 1 consumes ~8300 litres diesel - V class round trip on Route 1 consumes ~4780 litres diesel conclusion - per vehicle carried the V class are much better. Maybe we should keep them. I expect the CCel to come in somewhat lower than an S class, but on a per vehicle basis likely the Spirits will be better. Compare fuel consumption for the QPR and Northern Adventure. Overall conclusions: - the heavier the boat, the greater the consumption - the faster the boat, the greater the consumption - the newer the boat, the greater the consumption I expect that there are many exceptions. Give me the July & August data. As an 'owner' I feel entitled to this information.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Nov 27, 2008 15:51:44 GMT -8
It's an interesting question as to why BC Ferries doesn't make this information known.
We're pretty spoiled when it comes to the data available to us about our ferry system. If you want to take the time to go through the annual reports, you can get figures on pretty much anything- try doing the same on Washington or Alaska ferry operations. You can see how much they're saving on overtime, what kind of interest costs they're incurring on capital projects, how much each route is bringing in from food and gift shop sales, how often boats are late. Kerryssi tells us that BC Ferries loads administrative costs on to the smaller routes, distorting their expenses, yet if you look in the annual report, you see that administration only takes 8% of their budget, so I'm dubious about that assertion. In any event, there's not a lot about BC Ferries that's secret, which is one advantage of their being 'private' and having to issue reports.
We know how much they've paid for fuel, and the annual reports tell us how they're doing at conserving, and the extent to which they're moving to cleaner fuel. Yet they don't publish the figures for consumption per boat.
I agree with WCK- we're entitled to this information, especially since we've been paying hefty fuel surcharges. The Coastals might be efficient for their size , and we have to keep in mind that the larger upper car deck complicates a straight one for one AEQ comparison with other ferries. Do some sort of equitable charting so that we're not comparing apples to oranges in terms of capacity and route, and give us the figures.
|
|
|
Post by cobblehillian on Nov 28, 2008 9:27:24 GMT -8
I agree with Neil on most counts, BCF does produce a lot of good operational information. and we are entitled to more detailed fuel purchase and consumption information since we've been paying the surcharges.
Additionally, I assert that BCF needs, as most corporations are required, to provide board/executive compensation and detailed management cost information. BCF's legislated "private" status has allowed them to escape this requirement. If their shares were traded this information would be required. All we have is some very outdated information from the documentation assembled for a bond issue several years ago.
Now, back to the fuel consumption questions
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Nov 28, 2008 9:39:43 GMT -8
Neil...you are taking BCFS reports at face value. What you are seeing is what they allow the public to see. According to BCFS own figures the HSQ will cover all its costs with an average load of 22 to 24 cars. It will carry 60 and is frequently overloaded even in the winter. It makes a profit but then the costs for 10 managers, all their offices, staff etc is charged to it. Now there would be even more managent costs. Those figures are from years ago and since then traffic on the route has grown considerably. Costs have remained about the same except for fuel. Wages have not increased by much in the past 10 years, unlike the size of management and their costs. Management costs used to be available but are now hidden in other areas such as operational costs which includes the ships. The last real management cost figures I saw are now out of date but they were about $100,000,000.00. Divide that out among the ships and you can claim any route is not making a profit. The formula for assigning management costs to the routes was ( I don't know if it still is) Length of run x number of passengers carried in the month of august x times the number of trips. That was explained to me by management. An example of how the company can manipulate this formula is when the company was trying to eliminate rt9. It makes 2 round trips per day of about 56 miles. The company claimed it was 8 routes which gave 16 trips per day. Saltspring to Pender, Pender to Maine, Maine to Galiano, Galiano to mainland and return. This meant that a passenger getting on at LH for TSA was counted 4 times before he got there. This greatly increased the management costs assigned to the ship. Another point is that all revenue from through fares (TSA/SWB/FUL) get credited to rte 1 while the passengers on the SWB/FUL portion get counted as part of their load and add to the management costs even though the revenue goes to rte 1 The whole system needs to be revised with head office and management overhead shown as such instead of added to the ships costs. The company will never allow that, it would be too embarassing. This is of course all just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Nov 28, 2008 10:42:24 GMT -8
By small ferries I mean Queen of Naniamo size. The Sidney, Tsa and Nanny were rarely tied up because of weather. The Sidney could relieve almost anywhere. Very useful ships. The Cumberland can not cross the gulf except in dead calm conditions. The S class can not get in or out of dock at TSA in winds over 40 kn. I think we need more "usable" ships and fewer "decorative" ones.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Nov 28, 2008 23:53:42 GMT -8
Kerryssi: You raised a number of points in your post one back, and rather than derail this thread I thought I'd address them in the "Business Truth" thread in 'General Discussion'....
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Nov 30, 2008 16:56:21 GMT -8
I came across these figures you may find interesting.
Queen of Cowichan Built 1976 Victoria overall length 139.29 m maximum displacement 6,508 tonnes car capacity 362 passenger capacity plus crew 1500 service speed 22 kn ( I presume when new) horsepower 11,860
Coastal Celebration built 2008 Germany overall length 160 m maximum displacement 10,034 tonnes car capacity 370 passenger capacity plus crew 1,600 service speed 21 kn horsepower 21,444
I do not know if these are entirely accurate but I believe they are. what I find interesting is the horsepower figure. As any hot rodder knows, horsepower costs fuel, more horsepower requires more fuel.
|
|
rt1commuter
Chief Steward
JP - Overworked grad student
Posts: 167
|
Post by rt1commuter on Dec 1, 2008 12:02:01 GMT -8
Curious -- what about beam and draft figures? I'd like to see a comparison of those.
Horsepower only costs fuel if you use it all. Ultimately it's mass, drag, speed and drive train efficiency that cost fuel.
|
|
|
Post by oceaneer77 on Dec 3, 2008 20:14:36 GMT -8
the heavier the boat, the greater the consumption - the faster the boat, the greater the consumption - the newer the boat, the greater the consumption.
I love this especialy the last one as i see it all of the time.. Why do we need bigger ships with more horsepower to do the same job as older ones with less of each? Our vessels are getting more and more inefficent... in our more and more modern world.. the question is why? lots of new diesels burn more fuel to make them meet the emisson requirements.. this keeps the enviro whackos happy and feeling good.. My new generators on my present vessel are the case and point. Use more fuel and way more parts, turn faster and break down at regular intervals. The old ones were great but were not as green seeing that they did not burn quite enough fuel.
Horsepower only costs fuel if you use it all. Ultimately it's mass, drag, speed and drive train efficiency that cost fuel.... yes but you do need to feed the horses even if they are not working..
The german ships are great ships, built very well and on time/budget. But you dont use a 747 when a dash 7 will do the job... and having a 747 with an extra top deck for no real purpose is just inefficent.
oceaneer77
|
|