On Names and Class

[Retrovision]

I've noticed a lack of discussion about class names, as of late atleast, and will put it to you now in one thread, what does the class of a vessel mean to you, how significant and pertinent to history are our ferries' classes, etc.?

I'm asking in order to hear the opinions of this forum's membership, but personally I have too many questions to take a side. What if court records, for example, off the cuff so to speak , called the the Victoria Class vessels of our fleet 'Vancouver Class' vessels?

Well just this was stated in the Trial Judge's findings of a case against our former fatcat King Clark, in the citation of Ward v. Clark in 2001, under the OCCASION OF PRIVILEGE section...
www.adidem.org/case/ClarkvWard2001BCCA0724.htm

Citation:
Ward v. Clark
Date: 20011219


2001 BCCA 724
Docket:
CA027465

Registry: Vancouver

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN:

ROBERT WARD

PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
(APPELLANT BY X-APPEAL)

AND:

GLEN CLARK

DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
(RESPONDENT BY X-APPEAL)

Before:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Esson


The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury


The Honourable Mr. Justice Hall

Donald A. Farquhar, Q.C.
Counsel for the Appellant

Douglas H. Christie
Counsel for the Respondent

Place and Date of Hearing:
Victoria, British Columbia

November 1, 2001

Place and Date of Judgment:
Vancouver, British Columbia

December 19, 2001

...[37] Expansion was rapid. A total of seven vessels of the "Vancouver" class went into service in the 1960s as did the "Queen of Prince Rupert", running from Northern Vancouver Island to Prince Rupert. Before long, the vessels of the "Vancouver" class were "stretched" by about 100 feet to add more accommodation and several of them later were "raised" to provide an additional vehicle deck. During the 1970s, the five big double enders of the Cowichan class were ordered with the last one entering service in 1981. Many other ferries were built for less travelled routes so that, by the 1990s, B.C. Ferries was operating a total of about 40 ferries.

[38] I have supplemented my own recollection of the birth and growth of B.C. Ferries in those distant times by taking some of the details of matters such as dates and names from Ships of Steel, subtitled A British Columbia Shipbuilder's Story, by T. A. McLaren and Vicki Jensen, published in 2000 by Harbour Publishing Co. Ltd.

...Hence my indecisiveness in forming an opinion.

[Low Light Mike]

I think there is a difference between a common-name for a class, and the official-name.

We the people get to choose common names, and those may change from time to time. Quite often, these common-names for a class might stick the best after-the-fact, in looking back.

ie. the B's vs V's. It's only now in looking back the we see 4 or 5 lifted, and 2 or 3 unlifted (depending on if you cut-off at 1990 or not....).

Warships seem to have class names. Again, I'm not sure if the class noted historically is the same as the official class name at launch.

But I do think it's easy to look back and see a group of ships that historically fit into a class, rather than looking at a current group of ships.

And I do think that the class name is something that's fluid, not static, and is something that we (the people) have some "say" over.

I think that we, the people, choose the enduring class name, as part of an historical look at the ships.

[Hardy]

This poses an interesting quandry, especially for those "not-so-in-the-know". On this forum, we all know (or can infer!) that if someone is talking about the Vancouver class, it includes the V's of the "Victoria" class (if you want to use that moniker). However, outside the forum, or for complete outsiders, I can see how differing class names could lead to confusion.

I would think that the "Super-C" verses "Coastal" class will be the most confusing time for the "general public" in the near term ......

[Retrovision]

flugelhorn said:

I think there is a difference between a common-name for a class, and the official-name.

We the people get to choose common names, and those may change from time to time. Quite often, these common-names for a class might stick the best after-the-fact, in looking back.

ie. the B's vs V's. It's only now in looking back the we see 4 or 5 lifted, and 2 or 3 unlifted (depending on if you cut-off at 1990 or not....).

Warships seem to have class names. Again, I'm not sure if the class noted historically is the same as the official class name at launch.

But I do think it's easy to look back and see a group of ships that historically fit into a class, rather than looking at a current group of ships.

And I do think that the class name is something that's fluid, not static, and is something that we (the people) have some "say" over.

I think that we, the people, choose the enduring class name, as part of an historical look at the ships.

I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Horn sir.

hardy said:

This poses an interesting quandry, especially for those "not-so-in-the-know". On this forum, we all know (or can infer!) that if someone is talking about the Vancouver class, it includes the V's of the "Victoria" class (if you want to use that moniker). However, outside the forum, or for complete outsiders, I can see how differing class names could lead to confusion.

I would think that the "Super-C" verses "Coastal" class will be the most confusing time for the "general public" in the near term ......

Good point, Hardy, I actually hadn't thought of it that way; thanks.

[Northern Exploration]

In the case of warships - often the lead ship becomes the name of the class. If some of the ships are modified in some significant way they are lumped under a new class. IE. stretched or armaments changed. Or another grouping is used. In Canada we have used whatever is convenient. The Iroquois Class was named after the first ship and each of the ships had an aboriginal nation as the individual ship's name. The latest batch of frigates are called the City Class. Each ship is named after a city in Canada but not named after the first ship of the series.

The Alberni should be a class of one. Someone could argue the C Class should be split in two because there are two pairs of almost identical ships. It is for convenience that ships are grouped and there are no hard and fast rules - just a general guideline that major differences should constitute a new class.

[Low Light Mike]

An interesting comparison / contrast to ship class names, is a model name for cars /trucks:

ie. Ford F150, Ford Taurus

Each are a class of vehicles, which various modifications / differences within the class. ie. crew cab, extended cab, 4x4, hatchback, 2 door, 4 door, etc etc.

So there is a group of similar cars with same name. ie. coupe, hatchback & wagon all with same basic model name as a common thread.

However, I think the major contrast to our ships, is that with cars/trucks, the naming scheme is a marketing tool for sales of the product.

With ships, it's more of an internal classification. I suppose that BC Ferries can "promote the brand" using a class name. The Pacificats were a great example of such promotion. I suppose the Spirit class is also used for brand power, because of the extra amenities that those ships have.

[Hardy]

pnwtraveler said:

In the case of warships - often the lead ship becomes the name of the class. If some of the ships are modified in some significant way they are lumped under a new class. IE. stretched or armaments changed. Or another grouping is used. In Canada we have used whatever is convenient. The Iroquois Class was named after the first ship and each of the ships had an aboriginal nation as the individual ship's name. The latest batch of frigates are called the City Class. Each ship is named after a city in Canada but not named after the first ship of the series.

The USA is the best one to use for this comparison -- as you are stating, if we are talking submarines, we have the "Los Angeles-class" (SSN-688) which was 2 generations ago of nuke attack subs. The improvements of that were the "Improved Los Angeles-class" -- or SSN-668-I's) -- I forget what the lead of this class was ... as it is never really referred to by it's name (was it Newport News??) -- anyways, I have always just heard them called "Improved 688 class" or "Improved LA class". And in this case, it was a MAJOR upgrade -- they had VLS (vertical launch silos) installed for the UGM-109/Tomahawk cruise missiles -- the older class ships just launched these out of their torpedo tubes. Yet a new class name was not chosen for them, as the hulls of the ships (with the exception of the VLS hatches) were still identical.

The follow-on class to these were the Seawolf-class (SSN-21). Again, there were Block-I's and Block-II's of these, but they still shared the same class name.

We can also do this with the Ticonderoga class cruisers (CG-47) and the follow ons from Bunker Hill forward. Again, they had the straight dual arm missile launchers replaced with VLS systems, but the class name remained the same, despite a fairly major difference.

pnwtraveler said:

The Alberni should be a class of one. Someone could argue the C Class should be split in two because there are two pairs of almost identical ships. It is for convenience that ships are grouped and there are no hard and fast rules - just a general guideline that major differences should constitute a new class.

As per my above, using USN warships as examples, even with some fair differences, a class-name change is not warranted. I would leave Alberni clumped in with it's C-class sisters, as the basic hull-form and design is similar.

[lest69]

pnwtraveler said:

The latest batch of frigates are called the City Class. Each ship is named after a city in Canada but not named after the first ship of the series.

I beg to differ. It is extremely rare that this class is referred to as the "City class". They are almost always referred to as "Halifax class". Internally within the Canadian Forces, they are always referred to as "Halifax class". Maybe when they were originally planned, they were referred to as City class, much in the same way the Coastal class was once the Super Cs.

[Nick]

The City/Halifax class frigates were originally called the City Class when the names of the ships had not yet been chosen. After which, as said above, they were named after the first ship to be launched (even though HMCS Vancouver was technically the first to be launched).

[Hardy]

lest69 said:

pnwtraveler said:

The latest batch of frigates are called the City Class. Each ship is named after a city in Canada but not named after the first ship of the series.

I beg to differ. It is extremely rare that this class is referred to as the "City class". They are almost always referred to as "Halifax class". Internally within the Canadian Forces, they are always referred to as "Halifax class". Maybe when they were originally planned, they were referred to as City class, much in the same way the Coastal class was once the Super Cs.

Well, you got me. Internally, I am sure that there is a specific term of reference. JANES has them listed as "City-class", and I have heard them referred to as such in more than one circle. Common-speak would most likely refer to them by the lead ship (Halifax) although it would be funny to call them Vancouver-class ....

I believe the other post nailed it, saying that City may have been a "working" name while the actual names were not decided upon. I think that the names were decided on fairly quickly though when the class was announced.

[Low Light Mike]

re Minor vessels:

- The vessel MV Quinitsa might fall into the established "K Class", and not just because her shape/style is similar to the K's (Kuper, Klitsa, Kulleet, Klatawa, Kwuna, Kahloke), but also because of the name.

But wait, you say that Q does not match K ?

I stumbled across some references to "Kwinitsa", and this is a name relevant to an historical train station in Prince Rupert, and also to a current Via train stop at a location somewhere east of Prince Rupert.

So, depending on your spelling, the ship Quinitsa might be a "K Class" because of her name, as well as her look.


Does anyone know if the words "Quinitsa" and "Kwinitsa" are interchangeable, and refer to the same place on Highway 16? I couldn't find any reference on the internet to "Quinitsa", other than the ferry ship references.

I'm guessing that Quinitsa and Kwinitsa are 2 spellings of the same geographical feature. I wonder why the BC Dept. of Highways chose to use the Q-spelling when naming their ferry. It would have made more sense to use the K-spelling, so that she'd fit into the naming scheme.

[Retrovision]

flugelhorn said:

- The vessel MV Quinitsa might fall into the established "K Class", and not just because her shape/style is similar to the K's (Kuper, Klitsa, Kulleet, Klatawa, Kwuna, Kahloke), but also because of the name.
...
I wonder why the BC Dept. of Highways chose to use the Q-spelling when naming their ferry.

I disagree, though only as a layman, that the Quinitsa is more like a 'K' Class vessel than what I assume is the only other 'Q' Class vessel. As an admirer of ship designs - ferries in particular - I can only see obvious similarities to the Quinsam and not to the 'K' Class vessels other than maybe the general hull design. Like the Quinsam, the Quinitsa has a larger-than-K hull, 4 RADs and and a wheelhouse that bridges the vehicle deck - the only 'K' Class vessel with this feature (so-far?) is the Kuper, but there the similarities still seem to end as all the other 'K's have a wheelhouse on one side and only 2 RADs as does the Kuper, let alone much smaller hulls, other than the slightly larger Khaloke. If anything I would make the argument that the Khaloke seems more like the Quinistsa.

Personally I think this is exactly why they took the liberty of modifying the original geographic name to include a 'Q', and logically that seems to imply the connection to the other 'Q' Class, the Quinsam.

[Low Light Mike]

Good points, Retro. I appreciate you filling in the details / analysis that I hadn't thought of. Good discussion.

One thing that I didn't mentioned earlier: I checked the in-service dates on the 2 Q ships. Quinitsa came first, in 1977. Quinsam arrived in 1982.

So if Quinitsa was named as a "Q" in anticipation of a new class, this happened 5 years before her Q-sister appeared. In hindsight the Q-names make sense, as the the Quinitsa is a "mini-Quinsam", but I wonder if that was the plan when Quinitsa was launched and named.

[Mill Bay]

Just to be facetious though... how much does the Kuper really look like the other K class vessels...
maybe it's related by name only, but it's more like an in-law to the family.

[Retrovision]

Unfortunately the most-recent version, I'm guessing the last including coastal services, of Frank A. Clapp's 1981 book "Ministry of Transportation and Highways - Inland and Coastal Ferries" was published a year too early to include the Quinsam, but it does include limited information about the Quinitsa, including:

From Page 60 (Re: Gabriola Island Ferry)

...In 1972 because of the increased loadings the Ministry placed the new 26-car Klatawa on the route. The traffic continued to grow as an increasing number of people took up residence on Gabriola Island and commuted to their places of work on Vancouver Island, By 1973 it became necessary to put the still larger 30-car ferry Kahloke in service but, after a few years she also had to be replaced by the even larger Quinitsa, a 50-car ferry with presently serves on this route. It too is to be replaced by a 70-car vessel now under construction [Quinsam] for the route.

Then on Page 77 in Appendix 6 - Details of Certified Coastal Ferries

Quinitsa

Gross ~ Tonne / Ton - 1004 / 1107

Registered ~ Gross Tonne / Ton - 963 / 1061

Built - 1977

Builder - Vancouver Shipyards Ltd.

Place - North Vancouver

Lengh ~ Metres / Feet - 74.68 / 245.0

Breadth ~ Metres / Feet - 19.51 / 64.0

Depth ~ Metres / Feet - 3.05 / 10.0

Engine Make - Caterpillar

Horsepower - 1440

Service Speed ~ Knots - 12

Passenger Capacity - 294

Vehicle Capacity - 50

Overhead Clearance - Highway Limit

And finally, on Page 79, from Appendix 7 - The meanings of names for past and present ministry-owned ferries

Quinitsa - old spelling for present Kwinitsa (River) - Indian word meaning "place of the beaver".

[Mill Bay]

Never argue with Graham... he's the one with all the documents and resources...

for further reference check out...

Museum of Northern British Columbia - Kwinitsa Railway Station
www.museumofnorthernbc.com/pages/05kwinitsa/05index.html

And for all your questions about place names of BC, try and find the book.
British Columbia place names
By G.P.V. Akrigg and Helen B. Akrigg.
Published Vancouver : UBC Press, c1997.

[WettCoast]

Kwinitsa is/was a railway station on CN's North Line about half way between Prince Rupert and Terrace. It was there that the old station building now on the Prince Rupert waterfront was originally located.

Kwinitsa was a manned train order station until the advent of 'centralized traffic control' (CTC) between Prince George and Prince Rupert in about 1980. Today there is a long passing siding at this location. The station in turn was named after the nearby creek/river that empties into the Skeena River. The area is wild and beautiful, and in the winter often an area of significant avalanche danger to both the railway and the Yellowhead Highway.

[lest69]

coxnnick said:

...even though HMCS Vancouver was technically the first to be launched.

Where did you hear this? Halifax was the first to be laid down, launched, and commissioned. Vancouver was the second to be laid down, second to be launched, and the third to be commissioned (Toronto was the second, early).

[Nick]

lest69 said:

coxnnick said:

...even though HMCS Vancouver was technically the first to be launched.

Where did you hear this? Halifax was the first to be laid down, launched, and commissioned. Vancouver was the second to be laid down, second to be launched, and the third to be commissioned (Toronto was the second, early).

Yes, Halifax was the first laid down, but the Vancouver was laid down shortly after to be constructed at the same time. For some reason, after the hulls were complete, the Halifax hull had some building issues. Rather than face penalties for delivering the vessel late, the shipyard switched hulls and launched the Vancouver's hull as the Halifax.