They should have done that with the Fast Cats, and it appears, also, with the
Coastals.
I can certainly understand, with the power of retrospection why building one Fast Cat makes sense, but why do you say one Coastal? Lots of people on the Board appear to think these vessels are not successes, and I think they're really missing the boat on this one.
BC Ferries not running new ships when they come online and making various allocations of vessels is not new, but it's the first time we're able to actively see it first hand.
There have been several issues drawn out with the new vessels, many lacking any real information other than second hand accounts from sources we don't actually seem to know. Seems like a great way to get information
The issues, as addressed in several threads seem to break into several categories, and most of them are silly, or rectified.
WashObviously these ships have a more substantial wash. So did the Spirits when they came online. So did the C's when they came online. Obviously there's the Fast Cat's. There was a lawsuit resulting from wash and wake from the Oak Bay and Surrey, as well as the Fast Cats. That has been avoided so far. Again BC Ferries history replays itself in the same old predictable away with residents complaining until they adopt the vessels as their own and wonder how they ever got by without them.
All four major terminals received preemptive upgrades with the C Class coming online because on increase wake. BC Ferries not doing that in this case may suggest poor planning or expectations on their part, but isn't a design fault of a vessel.
SoundHere we actually had an issue. The vessels
were loud, to the point it was unpleasant to stand in the rear Deck 7 observation lounge. This has been rectified. Now the issues seems more or less mute, and the last vessel is receiving this upgrade now with mufflers (the CI).
There doesn't appear to be any complaints about the CC with respect to this issue, gathering from the
Island Tides article, which focused on the pre-conversion experiences of Route 2.
"Helicoptering"There are two issues it appears here.
1. The efficiency of the vessel is reduced if the prop isn't fully submerged. I know nothing about engineering, physics, or anything to do with "numbers" but this does seem like a reasonable critique, at least from outset. I am curious how often this is a big issue though, as it was most noted when the CR was traveling around empty for tours, and then the CC was running empty out of Swartz Bay.
2. The noise issue associated with the chopper sound has also been criticized. I have three responses to this. First, the noise in addition to the initially overwhelming sound of the vessels as too much to take together. Secondly, with the advent of the mufflers the combination no longer exists, to the third point that you really can hardly notice the sound that much anymore.
I am NOT saying it doesn't exist, but I am saying a majority of the commentators on the issue are never around the vessels, or ride on them. I have been
lucky enough to have sailed on a Coastal
about 50 times.
Fuel ConsumptionSure we don't have any accurate numbers, but let's assume that the SoF numbers are correct.
www.saveourferries.com/vessel%20comp.html . Having looked at fuel consumption numbers from other sources the numbers for the Oak Bay and Cowichan are certainly within an air of reality. We see that the CR burns about 25% more fuel. The CR is much bigger than 25%, both in physical size, and GT. BC Ferries mislead with respect to fuel consumption in absolute terms, which was stupid, but these vessels by any other measure are clearly more efficient than the two C Class vessels. Moreover, as has been posted by others in the past, the C Class also run auxiliary generators which the Coastals do not.
It is also noteworthy to add that, from BC Ferries own 1994 data, the Coquitlam burns about 15%-20% more fuel than the Cowichan. So given the option of the Coq to the CR, the difference is presumably negligible.
CavitationI don't even know what this word means, and Wikipedia just confused me more. I have decided, however, that since the evidence is that the fore and aft end of Deck 6 shake slightly when in Mode 2 that it might not be the best theory ever. The Queen of Tsawwassen shook so much she was redecorated everytime she backed out of a terminal, but she doesn't have cavitation? I also just find it hard to buy that a company like FSG, which isn't some random shipyard, would build vessels under an extensive warranty, that won awards for design, would have an issue that could be as fundamental as this. Sure, I could be wrong because I don't even know what cavitation actually is, but I feel comfortable with the work of FSG.
The wrong ships for the routesHere I think there is a good argument that can be made against BCFS management, but again not the vessels.
The CC is a good fit on Route 1, it's a shame she is secondary but that has been the plan for several years by BC Ferries own statements, it's too bad we don't have the old Yahoo! Group to pull that information out of. So this allocation wasn't actually a suprise, just to those that pay no attention and then declare themselves SME's.
The CI should not be a route 30. I don't agree with Neil's assessment, although it is compelling. The CR and CI should be the full time vessels on route 2, 7 days a week, 365 days a year minus refit and break downs of course!
The Queen of New WestminsterBC Ferries decisions surrounding the QoNW are questionable, at best, and has lead to somewhat of the vessel deployment gong show we currently have. The lack of over height capacity has indeed made the CI a necessity on Rte 30, but this situation shouldn't have arisen. With that $50 mill, and another $50 mill from
somewhere we could have just gotten a fourth vessels such as the much discussed toned-down Coastal for the route.
We hope to replace the Queen of New Westminster shortly, David Hahn, April 2003. Harbour & Shipping.
BC Ferries got it rightThe Coastals, despite erroneous claims on the forum, operate with effectively the same crew levels as the vessels they're replacing.
It will actually lead to a very slight ( 2 people) decrease of crew required to operate the route 1 in the summer from Swartz Bay, and I have a feeling the QoNW will require one or two less people than the Queen of Vancouver. Crew levels will be identical in the summer for the CR as with the Queen of Cowichan.
With this slight decrease or same amount of crew comes a greater pax capacity, which looks like will be more and more important as the only traffic growth area appears to be walk ons. The green in me also supports people not driving onto a vessel, it seems silly in so many ways for many to take their car for the day trip to Victoria... but that's another topic.
The food services are superior on the Coastal Class, and I am sure we will see, if the numbers are ever broken down that the secondary revenues will increase as a result. It also means that crew are being used
"more efficiently", particularly on the CC. Previous the Queen of Saanich would run many summer days with 34-36 crew members, and only a Cafeteria and hit and miss Snack Bar. Obviously the CC features the lovely buffet, which must be profitable particularly given she only runs during peak times right now. This buffet is run with the same compliment of people that were on the Saanich, and a decrease of 2 crew for maximum license.
And despite our sentimental feelings (our excludes me) towards the V Class they are relics of another time and were not the best vessels anymore. For those of us on Route 1 for the start of the CC service the comments were universally positive. More space, more to do, and just generally more pleasant. Having a "real" roof is also a big plus.
The car decks are more flexible than anything else in the fleet with the larger Deck 4 clearance and nice open Deck 2 space as is very successful on the Spirit class vessels.
I am sad that BC Ferries doesn't believe it's economical to run the CR full time on route 2, and without secondary revenues really increasing and an additional 2000 litres of fuel being burned they certainly have a good point. I don't want to trash BCF too much for cost savings measures, as it is wise to do and service isn't really impacted all that much. I am sure when (if) fuel prices calm down, and when the vessels have been in service longer they will find their niche in the fleet and excel.
It's a shame that the status quo of British Columbians is to complain about ever new ferry.
The Coastal class vessels appear to have been very successful so far, and have had relatively insignificant, and cheap teething issues. The critiques advanced so far I believe are erroneous, unfounded, unsupported, inaccurate, or a combination of those factors.
AND REMEMBER! There were many ferries that entered service with genuine issues that caused a lot of problems, yet we sweep those under the carpet because the vessels have since served relatively problem free. V Clas engine gong show, C Class clutches, Skeena Queen's multiple engines, K Class under powered, on and on....
during the sea trials it was found out that the ships were exactly performing as predicted by all our calculations and model tests, which confirmed the design as such as well the calculations."The ships were optimized to approach the dock as quickly as possible, berth her with both propellers and stop the engines when moored. That was why we spent much of the design work to achieve fast stopping and acceleration times."From the Tyee
thetyee.ca/News/2008/12/04/Ferries/
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.
