|
|
Post by waynem on Dec 18, 2008 8:58:35 GMT -8
I think that this ship is without a doubt the biggest waste in the entire fleet. Why in hell would you build a new ship then use it for a couple of sailings a week ? I think it is time to move this vessel to a run where it will be put to some use. Even the CR a least gets used to replace the CI on RT 30 from time to time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Dec 18, 2008 9:15:13 GMT -8
I would expect CC will get used more as time goes on. I imagine she will be the replacement vessel when SOVI is out for maintenance, plus she will be used every day for the summer and summer shoulder schedules, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 18, 2008 9:29:22 GMT -8
Why in hell would you build a new ship then use it for a couple of sailings a week ? Ask the question again, at end of Labour-Day 2009, after the summer season. |
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Dec 18, 2008 9:30:12 GMT -8
Accordong to RBI she will get a fair bit busier in the new year.
i would suspect she will also be the replacement for the SoBC whrn she finally gets her ailing 4th engine fixed.
|
|
Kam
Voyager 
Posts: 926
|
Post by Kam on Dec 18, 2008 10:54:17 GMT -8
We expect these ships to be around for about 40 years or more... Perhaps a little more long term thinking is in order. I somehow think that they will have plenty of running time in the near future.
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Dec 18, 2008 11:54:39 GMT -8
This is a general note to the readers as a whole not specific individuals.
I think too many people on this forum and in this province are forgetting this is the SLOW SEASON. NO MONEY IS MADE. Right now the fleet is completely oversize for the demand, yet come a long weekend or the SUMMER SEASON it will become to small in a matter of weeks or even hours. Line ups, 2 sailing waits, and god forbid a ship breaks down.
Everyone has to quit the ____ Whining, at least we got something before the old ships were condemned ie. WSF Steel Electrics.
I have no respect for whiners who don't think before they open their traps ie. big news, article writers, and some posters on this forum.
Thats all, Good day whiners,
|
|
|
|
Post by hwy19man on Dec 18, 2008 14:10:15 GMT -8
Accordong to RBI she will get a fair bit busier in the new year. i would suspect she will also be the replacement for the SoBC whrn she finally gets her ailing 4th engine fixed. |
|
|
|
Post by hwy19man on Dec 18, 2008 14:11:38 GMT -8
This is a general note to the readers as a whole not specific individuals. I think too many people on this forum and in this province are forgetting this is the SLOW SEASON. NO MONEY IS MADE. Right now the fleet is completely oversize for the demand, yet come a long weekend or the SUMMER SEASON it will become to small in a matter of weeks or even hours. Line ups, 2 sailing waits, and god forbid a ship breaks down. Everyone has to quit the ____ Whining, at least we got something before the old ships were condemned ie. WSF Steel Electrics. I have no respect for whiners who don't think before they open their traps ie. big news, article writers, and some posters on this forum. Thats all, Good day whiners,  |
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Dec 18, 2008 14:24:22 GMT -8
A few years ago the fact that the BC Ferry fleet was aging at a very rapid pace and there had not been a major building program in place for many years, especially in regards to major vessels become painfully apparent.
BC Ferries undertook a major rebuilding program that has brought us 3 well-built super C's as well as a replacement for the QPR and several smaller vessels.
Folks, we should be overjoyed that the average age of the fleet is rapidly decreasing and that there have been other improvements made to the fleet as well.
The new ships are built! The money in 2005 dollars has been spent! We have new resources at our disposal. There is no ' best-before' date on the new ships! They will serve a purpose as time progresses.
Let's be glad we have them. Our ferry fleet is amoung the finest in the world. Yes, we could do with some fine tuning here and there, but, plueeeeze people, lighten up:)
Shake off the doom and gloom of the current world economic situation and refocus on the reality that things will improve, times will be better, ferry traffic will grow again, people will travel again and we'll be ready to move them in safety and comfort with our new ships!
|
|
|
|
Post by waynem on Dec 18, 2008 22:31:22 GMT -8
I apologize I didn't want to come across as a whiner. I myself get sick and tired of hearing people complain about BC Ferries. Our ferry system is awsome and so are it's employees. I was simply wondering if the CC could be better utilized on other runs over the winter season ?
|
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Dec 18, 2008 23:35:06 GMT -8
The CC has a Pacific Buffet. Top brass says PBs can only be used on SWB-TSW.
|
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Dec 19, 2008 7:48:30 GMT -8
The CC has a Pacific Buffet. Top brass says PBs can only be used on SWB-TSW. However, it is fairly easy to convert the Pacific Buffet on the CC into a Sitka Coffee Place. Bear in mind that these ships were designed to serve on multiple routes. |
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886 
|
Post by Mill Bay on Dec 27, 2008 8:12:28 GMT -8
The CC has a Pacific Buffet. Top brass says PBs can only be used on SWB-TSW. However, it is fairly easy to convert the Pacific Buffet on the CC into a Sitka Coffee Place. Bear in mind that these ships were designed to serve on multiple routes. I would also imagine that the buffet is walled off separately as it is on the Spirits... couldn't they just keep the walls up and the doors closed to the buffet if she was on another route? Sure people wouldn't have access to viewing areas or services at one end of the ship, but anyone not going to the buffet wouldn't anyway. There would still be the cafeteria and you can still get coffee there, too, even if it isn't fancy stuff that the Sitka would have. |
|
|
|
Post by Taxman on Dec 31, 2008 12:51:18 GMT -8
I imagine this would impact the emergency planning and evacuation plans. I believe muster "A" is at that end and closing off that section would block the muster station. Therefore signage, open areas and evacuation planning would have to be redrawn for that licence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Dec 31, 2008 15:01:42 GMT -8
I imagine this would impact the emergency planning and evacuation plans. I believe muster "A" is at that end and closing off that section would block the muster station. Therefore signage, open areas and evacuation planning would have to be redrawn for that licence. Newsflash: doors can be unlocked, and several ships travel with areas closed off at various times. While it may affect overall general emergency planning, so do things like maintenance and breakdowns; in the unlikely event of an emergency, if the signage still points to a closed off area, you have a crew member prominently stationed there that would redirect passengers and other crew to the appropriate area. I cannot for a minute believe that if there was a need for the CC to run on a route other than -1, that it would sit idle, Pacific Buffet or not. Moreover, while we can all sit back and arm-chair quarterback things from a distance, as has been pointed out, we ARE in the (s)low season right now (with a few days exception), and there is also this funny thing called an economic slowdown/recession/depression/what-the-heck-ever which is negatively impacting all non-essential travel (not to mention snow storms and ice and wind...). We cannot evaluate the operational practices of any of the new vessels until things are back on an even keel. Either that or I'll start: "The QoOB is underutilized on Rte-2!!! We should un-retire the QoT and bring her back to serve Rte-2 in the winter-time as she is much more efficient to operate!!" Bah, humbug. |
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Dec 31, 2008 17:57:56 GMT -8
....in the unlikely event of an emergency, if the signage still points to a closed off area, you have a crew member prominently stationed there that would redirect passengers and other crew to the appropriate area. We hope that this would be the case, although I don't think there's much reason to question whether having part of the ship closed would prevent proper evacuation plans. Either that or I'll start: "The QoOB is underutilized on Rte-2!!! We should un-retire the QoT and bring her back to serve Rte-2 in the winter-time as she is much more efficient to operate!!" Bah, humbug. I would go for that... I'd love to see her in HSB and go back and forth on route 2 a few times. |
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Dec 31, 2008 22:50:01 GMT -8
I would personally 99.99% guarantee that if an area of the ship is closed off for any reason other than spur of the moment, in the middle of a sailing issues, that closure will in no way affect the lifesaving system, exiting patterns, or escape paths. If the evacuation system is in any way impeded the vessel should not leave the berth, let alone board passengers. If it is not so, I am very surprised.
People should be able to direct themselves to the evacuation station by themselves without any crew helping them. You cannot rely 100% on the crew in an emergency. What if something happens and 15 crew members are injured/killed? It would be most prudent in safety design to make everything simple enough that in an emergency Joe Blow could, if necessary, evacuate the ship.
I will use the Spirit class as an example. You will notice that there are instructions on how to use all lifesaving equipment on the vessels in plain sight. The equipment may be locked but there is always an anterior method of access. For example on the Life raft storage racks the steel lines holding the barrels in place are held in place by clasps. These clasps have a padlock on them, yet where the lines go into the clasps it is rope. In a situation where a crew member is not available to help a passenger could read the instructions posted on the rack and cut the lines with a knife. I have not looked to closely at the other vessels, but I am assuming it is a similar situation. It is designed so as someone would have to go out of their way to activate it in normal operation, but in an emergency could easily do so.
Of course we all wish that an evacuation system/plan never has to be used/tested in a real life situation, but I seriously doubt that the design would be flimsy enough to allow for an evacuation item to be in an out of bounds area.
In this argument I am using my experience in architectural design as a guide. I do not know what Transport Canada requires/regulates, but I am assuming it is equal to or greater than the BC Building Code.
Cheers,
|
|
