|
Post by Northern Exploration on Dec 3, 2008 20:35:36 GMT -8
Haha Oceaneer good analogies. I have wondered your take on some of these things as a hands on engineer, since we haven't heard from you in a bit. Who knows what hemisphere you are in though .
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Dec 3, 2008 22:22:32 GMT -8
Fifteen years from now, when increased population and improved transit connections mean that the Coastals are full of cars, trucks and passengers a lot of the time, we might look back and find all these instant criticisms kind of amusing. Like everyone else, I don't like to wait for a few years to have an opinion on something, but sometimes, we just don't know.
|
|
|
Post by oceaneer77 on Dec 3, 2008 23:08:53 GMT -8
yep time may heal.. but i wonder if the old sechelt Q burned more or less fuel pre passenger?
oceaneer77
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Dec 6, 2008 0:24:23 GMT -8
Numbers and statistics can ALWAYS be "massaged" to gain whatever conclusions one wants to infer or draw from them. It is easy to paint things in a certain light or to only compare aspects of statistics that are favourable to the conclusion that you wish to draw. Again back to what I have been saying in several threads, if we need to compare, then all numbers for each vessel must be on a level footing in the same units and comparing identical criteria. Otherwise all of the numbers are completely and utterly useless ...
"86% of all statistics are made up!"
|
|
|
Post by oceaneer77 on Dec 6, 2008 18:59:19 GMT -8
Yep Hardy i agree
I think fuel use per passenger per identical trip. the only snag with this is you need to be sure that the foot passenger to car traffic ratio is the same as is the truck to car ratio.
oceaneer77
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Dec 10, 2008 11:04:41 GMT -8
For those who are interested, the Dec 11 Island Tides has a very good article by Patrick Brown on the ferries. I have always found Patrick Brown to be well informed and accurate. Go to www.islandtides.com
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 10, 2008 20:12:09 GMT -8
The Patrick Brown article referred to by kerryssi above is the best yet at laying out coherent information on the issues (or alleged issues, if you prefer) with the Coastal class ferries. I would consider it recommended reading for all who are interested in our new big double enders.
An extract:
While Flensburger has considerable experience with Ro-Ro (Roll-on, Roll-off) ships, they have all been single-ended designs; their website lists no previous experience with double-ended ferries. According to the design team: ‘Some of the design requirements put forward by BCF had been very hard to fulfill in the final concept. Most challenging was the demand for extremely low fuel consumption, low wake wash, and very good steering performance that had to be combined with the requirement for a diesel electric power plant. Furthermore, the operational profile of the vessel required a very short acceleration time of the vessel from zero up to full design speed, which is quite high with 21 knots.’
The specifications included: • 370 vehicles, 1500 day passengers on 2 car decks, • Dimensions and deck strake compatible with all mainland terminals, • 21 knot service speed, 20 knots without one prime mover, 18 knots without two prime movers (prime movers are diesel engines; Super-C ferries have four), • Double-ended configuration based on C-Class experience, • Diesel electric propulsion, • High lift rudders for optimum docking performance, • Fast acceleration to service speed, and • Significant turning rate >90 Deg/minute.
BC Ferries’ specifications were based on the actual performance of the existing C-Class double-ended ferries, which were designed and built in BC between 1976 and 1981, and which are still giving satisfactory service.
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Dec 10, 2008 21:22:53 GMT -8
It wouldn't have been that hard to design an updated C-Class boat. Just look at the Jumbo Mark IIs of WSF, they are just updated designs of the original Jumbos.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Dec 12, 2008 5:30:21 GMT -8
I pulled this over from here. Then to cavitation, During all tests, there was no indication of air drawing. To check for the influence of air drawing on the station keeping, additional bollard pull tests were performed. These tests showed that without stern wave, some slight air drawing could be noted.’ Continued with an explanation that amazingly, the ship designers were aware the vessel would often be unloaded. Engineers are getting darn smart these days ;D [rant]I have just one request, let's please stop using the word ' cavitation' to describe the apparent phenomenon occurring during the docking sequence. Cavitation is a specific physical occurrence involving stagnation points in the turbulent flow, and the subsequent formation and collapse of voids due to this. It does NOT describe the drawing of air into the turbulent prop wash.[/rant] Okay, now that I got that out of my system, Dane, I think you have hit a lot of issues square on the head. Legitimately, in the format the Coastals are in right now, fuel efficiency is lower per AEQ transported. But, if the platform decks were installed, the calculation is revised and overall the overall efficiency per AEQ will increase... IF... The ships do appear to be more efficient if you do the comparison of size/displacement vs fuel consumption as you have done. As far as the ingestion of air into the wash while the ships are in berth, this may be mitigated by optimizing the amount of pitch on the propellers. It may be a case of too much thrust (i.e. pitch) being applied while in dock, and further testing will suggest an appropriate balance of thrust vs noise level. One question I have is whether the variable pitch is independent while in Mode 2 (it obviously has to be in Mode 1). Balancing the thrust between propellers to minimize the noise may also be part of testing required. Just "pie in the sky" but I suspect I may be onto something here... One other clarification I think needs to be made. I have seen a lot of comments made about how these ships run their prime movers at full throttle at all times. This is misleading. Even though the engines are running at their working RPM, the fuel consumption is more directly related to the load on the generators. If the ship propellers are in a low thrust mode, the prime movers are consuming significantly less fuel than when they are under full load.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Dec 12, 2008 10:45:21 GMT -8
I doubt that the public cares about a tonnage comparison; nor should they. BC Ferries told us that the new vessels were 'more fuel efficient', and I think most people would reasonably assume that meant in comparison to most of the existing major ferries. It appears BC Ferries was being deceptive, since by pulling the CR off route 2, they've admitted it is too expensive to run except in high traffic periods. At the moment, the Coastals are great huge boats that carry about the same load as the Cs but burn a fair bit more fuel to do it.
I don't think it's accurate to dismiss all the problems as 'teething issues'. The noise problem was not going to go away with time. It was a design flaw that had to be rectified. Also, I'm not sure you can claim these vessels are a success just because the crews are happy with them (if indeed that is the case). People living in neighborhoods near the terminals may have a different perspective. Hopefully all their concerns will be addressed.
In assessing the Coastals, there is a middle ground between those who get out their prayer mats five times a day and prostrate themselves in the direction of Flensburg (no, that's not you, Dane), and those who insist that all ships built overseas are the bane of our existence. It's too early to tell what the verdict will be, but the fuel figures and articles such as the Island Tides one are helping to give us more of a 'spin free' perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Dec 13, 2008 5:26:05 GMT -8
Excellent discussion points and a well thought out discussion.
From what I have read and what my understanding is, platform decks have not really every been seriously considered either in the deployment of nor the initial design of the Coastals. Whether or not BCFS tried to skew or mislead by representing that the Coastals were more fuel efficient, I disagree that the only yardstick to measure against is fuel burn per AEQ. Quite the contrary, I think that on the corporate level, the numbers were measured against the displacement/tonnage to generate their numbers. That said, I do believe that the amount of oversight or glossing-over of things in BCFS is huge, especially in terms of their PR/marketting. Even if they are aware of a problem, they tend to mis-mange/mis-spin it -- look no further than "You cannot sail C-class vessels thru Active Pass" -- I am pretty sure that we (a forum WE) will hold Dave Hahn's feet and those of the BCFS press release team TO THE FIRE for quite a while on this re-packaged and widely broadcast mis-speak/blunder.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Dec 13, 2008 8:52:50 GMT -8
Markus told us at one point the Coastals were engineered for platform decks in the future. I would imagine drawings exist even for them or at least for the "mounts" and strengthened areas.
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Dec 13, 2008 17:13:42 GMT -8
Seeing as though they have a "Deck 3" I would assume they were designed for platforms.
|
|
|
Post by cobblehillian on Dec 15, 2008 13:23:48 GMT -8
It is interesting to note that Marine Atlantic, in the announcement of their long term charter of the Atlantic Vision, a vessel originally built for Baltic Sea service, states that the ship burns 34% less fuel per AEQ (automobile equivalent) than their current vessels.
It appears that they did some calculations on costs per vehicle transported in their existing fleet as compared to the ships they shortlisted for possible charter. I wonder if BCF did this before committing to the FSG specifications.
What is really amazing is the top speed of the Atlantic Vision, 27 knots. Somehow I doubt they are saving 34% at that speed. Cruise speed is probably much less, perhaps 20-22 knots. (See thread Marine Atlantic: New Charter Vessel)
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Dec 15, 2008 21:15:32 GMT -8
The Tyee has another article about the Coastals
Apparently 11 out of 36 households surveyed through the (Depparture Bay residents assoc) say the are bothered by the noise produced by the new ships.
It also quotes some things that Marcus made on the forum
I thought the mufflers that have been installed the Coastals had solved alot of the noise, and the vibration problems had been greatly reduced as well.
The article doesnot say when the survey was taken.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Dec 15, 2008 21:48:32 GMT -8
Here's a link to the story gordon has mentioned... www.thetyee.ca/News/2008/12/15/NoisyFerry/There seems to be a group of people forming against the Coastals, to make a fiasco out of it. However, the fact may be true, but I continue to feel that they're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Dec 16, 2008 13:53:10 GMT -8
Hmmm the articles are successively poorer and poorer, and dig deeper and deeper for content - and a Coastals, sadly, rarely even run out of DB right now, something that's been true for over a month now.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Dec 16, 2008 14:02:18 GMT -8
I wonder if the Tyee is having trouble finding new topics & content so they are dredging up an old issues that they felt had some interest.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Dec 17, 2008 10:09:31 GMT -8
Hardy, define smaller, when I talk of "smaller" vessels I mean vessels like the Nanaimo. The TSA and SID could, and did, travel in all weather. The newer large ferries cannot get in and out of dock at TSA in anything over 40 kn winds. The larger ferries necessitate larger parking areas, more highway in and out of the terminal with all the attendant traffic problems and costs, more shore crew, more foot passengers, and foot passenger pickups, more buses, more ticket booths etc. By using "smaller" 200 or so car ferries with less windage and more maneuverability you keep the sailings going and you have a stream of traffic instead of a block. The added benefit is that when a ferry "goes mechanical" you loose a smaller part of the service. The smaller ferries can also cover more routes making relief for refit much more available. With more ships on the main routes in the summer the extra ships could be used for relief on smaller routes in the winter. The big ferries save a bit on crew costs but that is countered by the need for more shore crew. These are just some of the "extras" to be considered when building ferries. Unfortunately BCFS seems locked into the "Bigger is better" mantra. Also unfortunately the management has seen fit to take over making all decisions themselves rather than allowing the captains to make their own decisions. The captains used to be supported by management, now they are on their own, if anything happens the captain is on his own. This tends to make them very cautious about sailing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2008 21:16:13 GMT -8
Fuel efficiency is certainly an important factor in the ferry business but it's only a part of the total picture. When they built the Spooks and the Fast Cats ( both big time fuel guzzlers ) I couldn't understand why they didn't stick with a proven design. If they had built 4 or 5 ( or however many they need ) of the Alberni style .... open main cardeck for the big trucks .... we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. There are a lot of high costs associated with the "new breed" that require a long payback time. Import duties, travel overseas for the BCF Executives and politicians, delivery costs ... including fuel ... , crew training and familiarization on yet another class with different lifesaving and evacuation gear, and rebuilding of terminals and berths to name a few. The "C " size vessels could cover any of the major routes and fit into any of the major terminal berths and while they do burn fuel, they don't have to be full to pay for it. High season or low they just keep running and provide what the people that are paying for them want ... a reliable and reasonably cost efficient transportation system.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Dec 19, 2008 5:03:37 GMT -8
Kerry: regarding sailing and docking in more weather conditions - I remember being on several sailings when I was younger (and therefore didn't get vessel names, it would have been early-mid 80's) across Rte-1 and "bracing myself" during docking. There was a lot of "running them hard into the dock" back in those days -- we always got there, but there was often times a JOLT at the end of the journey. I do remember that during better weather the dockings were more gentle, and that the worse the weather generally was, the harder the bump.
I also remember some of the trips over to see my relatives up island and sailing in conditions where my mom and I would see who could keep walking on a pitching deck the longest without grabbing a wall or a railing. I do not think that BCFS generally sails in rough conditions now where pax comfort is affected to a large degree -- they just cancel the sailing and say tough luck.
In the new era of being concerned more for safety and comfort, I doubt the old school ways would still be in favour.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Dec 21, 2008 11:59:19 GMT -8
Hardy....it all depends on how much you want to get to where you are going. The main reason for not sailing in rough weather now, if the ship can get in and out of dock, is to avoid lawsuits when someone falls down. The captain would be held accountable for sailing. Yup...it's a lot easier to dock in calm weather. I remember being on the wheel of the Nan when we would aim for the east end of the breakwater at TSA in order to hit dock 2. We would be coming in at a 40-45 degree angle and then at the last you let the bow fall off and hit the wing walls and slide up the middle. No bow thruster then. I was on the Salty one time on the VES-Croft run when we had a bad nor'easter. We missed the dock in Ves and spent a half hour fighting back out one shiplength to get it into the dock. The waves swept the deck clean. We tied up and I went up to the parking lot to tell the car drivers we would not be going out. They all replied "Thank Goodness for that" and went home. The next morning I was sweeping large rocks that had been carried up from the sea bed off the car deck.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Dec 23, 2008 4:54:18 GMT -8
Exactly my point --- these days, the "sue-happy" crowd has made the rough-weather sailings a lot less likely than the old days. 'Back in the day' when you fell over, you didn't know how to stand properly or have your "Sea-legs". Nowadays, as you quote, it's a phone call to a barrister and a writ of summons to follow. So the easiest way to avoid that potential lawsuit (or two or three...) is to stay tied to the dock; might anger some people, but they cannot sue over a lack of service, all they can do is complain and that is free.
|
|
|
Post by electrotech on Dec 29, 2008 11:07:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Dec 29, 2008 12:09:25 GMT -8
Thanks Electro that is an interesting document. Anything that gives some of the background on the decision making is great.
|
|