|
|
Post by Ferryman on Oct 29, 2007 18:33:00 GMT -8
There are lots of rumours coming out of the rumour mill lately. I think it might be a good idea to lay them out on the table to compare them as time goes on to see if they turn out to be true. I think all of these have been mentioned on the forum before. Here's some of the rumours I'm hearing. - Queen of Alberni is recieving new engines in a future refit. - Queen of Cowichan will have its Gallery decks removed to provide service on Route 30 in the future - Queen of Vancouver will be used as a drop trailer Ferry once the Queen of New Westminster is given her interior facelift and placed on Route 1. - Queen of Esquimalt and Tsawwassen are being sold to something/someone in Turkey - The name of the new 'I'-Class Ferry will be "Inlet Crosser"...   |
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Oct 29, 2007 19:46:15 GMT -8
There are lots of rumours coming out of the rumour mill lately. I think it might be a good idea to lay them out on the table to compare them as time goes on to see if they turn out to be true. I think all of these have been mentioned on the forum before. Here's some of the rumours I'm hearing.... Thanks for publicizing your interest and intrigue here, Chris. Here's one of the rumours I'm hearing, that in fact I was recently "informed of" by an officer on a major route.... -I was informed by this officer: "with the new Transport Canada regulations that are coming next month," "you won't be able to do that," speaking of taking photographs of the interior of the major vessel that I was doing at the time. This officer was passing by while at the end of the 2 hour journey on the soon-to-be majorly renovated Spaulding-designed vessel I was starting to use my tripod to take interior photographs to document before this change. After asking what I was doing, this officer asked me "what for," to which I informed him "for ferry enthusiasts;" he put what seemed like the exact same question but slightly reworded to me again, and this time I followed in kind, I answered that I was taking pics as a "ferry fan" this time. This is when the officer went into what I interpreted as a scripted speech that was given to him as a matter of policy to inform such passengers as I of. A reliable source has assured me that there is no such 'revalation' of such a TC Reg. change in the wind, but then again we all know how fickle the wind is; what may come next? |
|
|
|
Post by Gunny on Oct 29, 2007 20:09:35 GMT -8
I heard about that Inlet Crosser a while ago, I TRIED to warn the forum, but did you listen... no. Thou hath brought doom upon us all.
*puts on sign* The World Ends Tomorrow
Gunny (who is perpetually too lazy to sign in)
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 29, 2007 20:31:10 GMT -8
Another roumour with very little substance:
The newly refurbished Queen of Richmond will soon start service on the HSB to SWB route.
|
|
Neil
Voyager 
Posts: 7,307
|
Post by Neil on Oct 29, 2007 20:38:02 GMT -8
Another roumour with very little substance: The newly refurbished Queen of Richmond will soon start service on the HSB to SWB route. You're right, WCK, that rumour has no substance. In reply to an e-mail I sent, Deborah Marshall informs me that the 'Richmond will in fact be placed on the new Horseshoe Bay- Little River run. And that for the occasion, the Little River Band is re-forming to serenade the ship on her arrival. |
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Oct 29, 2007 20:43:28 GMT -8
Actually, the Queen of Richmond collided with the Queen of Qualicum in central Georgia Strait and they both sank.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Oct 29, 2007 21:50:04 GMT -8
And all this time, I thought that the fabled QoR was part of a larger route re-alignment. Early AM sailing HSB-SWB, followed by SWB-Langdale, Langdale-DP, DP-Earls Cove, Earls Cove-Tsa ....
Staterooms, a buffet, heated pool on the sundeck ...
|
|
|
|
Post by BrianWilliams on Oct 29, 2007 22:55:31 GMT -8
" ...'You won't be able to do that,' speaking of taking photographs of the interior of the major vessel that I was doing at the time ... " I'm not sure if you are kidding? Geez, if so, it reminds me of travelling in Communist Czechoslovakia 20 years ago. It's not a country well-served by ferries (like, none), but I'm also a train enthusiast and we travelled by rail. No gummint guy stopped me, but approaching the border from Austria I was hanging out the compartment window snapping away. A fellow passenger nudged Jeannie and said "Tell man put away camera, pliss, not allowed. Poliz come, trouble for you." Sure enough, the "poliz" gave us a thorough search crossing the border into the Workers' Paradise, including a look at my two SLR 35mm cameras. A stern warning in Czech and German was given - I didn't catch the drift, but our new pal helped. "No pictures of train, building or state property allowed. That means everything. He says put cameras away, take nothing." Obediently, I zipped the big cameras into our bags. The pocket size Olympus XA-2 wasn't noticed, so I continued shooting all the way to Prague. Pics of the border crossing, passing trains, stations along the way, and the Bohemian spring countryside are still safe on 35mm slides. Not impressive, but a law-breaking pic: our Austrian diesel (R) cut off the train, and a Czech loco with Red Star prepared to take us to Prague  |
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 30, 2007 0:07:50 GMT -8
What are they going to do? Stop people from taking photos of their friends and family on the ferry? I could pretend to take a photo of my daughter and just move my camera an inch and get an interior shot. I don't think Transport Canada has any jurisdiction whatsoever over whether someone can take a photograph on a ferry, although someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Oct 30, 2007 3:54:42 GMT -8
" ...'You won't be able to do that,' speaking of taking photographs of the interior of the major vessel that I was doing at the time ... " I'm not sure if you are kidding?Geez, if so, it reminds me of travelling in Communist Czechoslovakia 20 years ago. It's not a country well-served by ferries (like, none), but I'm also a train enthusiast and we travelled by rail. ... No gummint guy stopped me, but approaching the border from Austria I was hanging out the compartment window snapping away.. You bet I was not kidding. What are they going to do? Stop people from taking photos of their friends and family on the ferry? I could pretend to take a photo of my daughter and just move my camera an inch and get an interior shot. I don't think Transport Canada has any jurisdiction whatsoever over whether someone can take a photograph on a ferry, although someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Whatever the jurisdiction of our nautical oversight, we must uphold standards. Where are the mechanisms of change for the better? |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,307
|
Post by Neil on Oct 30, 2007 9:00:17 GMT -8
BC Ferries doesn't need Transport Canada's okay to forbid picture taking on ferries. They would be within their rights to do so, just like any private company or government agency. It would be incredibly stupid, and gain them huge ill will, and they would deserve a very nasty backlash from customers, but they could do it. I doubt very much that they ever will. They know they're in the tourist business.
|
|
|
|
Post by kylefossett on Oct 30, 2007 11:09:06 GMT -8
what i could see them doing is asking people taking pictures of the interior, through employee only doors, and in engine rooms not to take them. if you are taking a picture of your wife on the deck then that would be ok. there is a lot of security issues to look out for
|
|
|
|
Post by hwy19man on Oct 30, 2007 14:23:48 GMT -8
Here's some of the rumours I'm hearing. - Queen of Cowichan will have its Gallery decks removed to provide service on Route 30 in the future - Queen of Vancouver will be used as a drop trailer Ferry once the Queen of New Westminster is given her interior facelift and placed on Route 1. I have heard that the Queen of Coquitlam was subject to have the gallery decks taken out be the #3 boat on route 30. The Queen of Saanich would follow the same fate as the Vancouver once the German vessel arrives. |
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Nov 5, 2007 22:05:57 GMT -8
BC Ferries doesn't need Transport Canada's okay to forbid picture taking on ferries. They would be within their rights to do so, just like any private company or government agency. It would be incredibly stupid, and gain them huge ill will, and they would deserve a very nasty backlash from customers, but they could do it. I doubt very much that they ever will. They know they're in the tourist business. Granted, but this is one heckuva hot potato. If they stop me from taking photographs in public areas, barring crew-only areas being in the frame, and they don't do the same for tourists, then my Charter rights are undermined and I would have no problem challenging such a potential rule on this basis. Who are they to take the word of a "tourist" who will likely capture much of the interior, intended or not, in the frame of even a relatively closeup portrait within the vessel and not mine if I assure them of my good intentions and sensitive personal policy when it comes to what broadcasting such photos to the world via the internet? I know boundaries in these matters and even though I do push them on occasion - no sarcasm intended, I'm now diligent in this day and age in this regard - our charter rights are fundemental and are not to be taken lightly as that officer aboard the ' New West apparently did that day recently when he apparently lied about either the actual supposed upcoming TC regulations to be implemented or just the timing, though he was extremely polite and diplomatic about it and I could only blame policy and never crew in such cases. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Nov 5, 2007 22:24:34 GMT -8
I can see how this could be an interesting "test case" before the judiciary. There must be a concerned civil rights attorney that would LOVE to dig their teeth into this little tid-bit, should it ever come to that ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 6, 2007 18:50:31 GMT -8
A source of info re some of these and other rumours might be this website: ferryworkers.com/main.htm- It's the Nanaimo union local website, and I stumbled onto it while googling (if you type "ferryworkers", it's the first hit). There's a blog on this site, and there's some nerd-candy there. See if you can find the item about the Coastal-Class vibrations..... |
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Nov 6, 2007 19:24:23 GMT -8
I also noticed the mention of some changes at Duke point to prepare for the possibility to handle drop trailer traffic and take on Seaspan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gunny on Nov 6, 2007 19:43:19 GMT -8
It will be interesting to see if increaseing competition in the drop trailer service will encourage Seaspan to expand its services to ferries as well, seeing as they still have 3 pacificraps that are waiting for Scrapping.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Nov 6, 2007 21:17:51 GMT -8
Thanks muchly, Mr. Horn, for the heads up about this new blog, etc.
I felt some relief about us delving into this blog for fear of it being closed to us upon reading this...
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 6, 2007 21:37:41 GMT -8
I'm happy to find that blog too. I'm not looking for dirt or scandal on that site. I'm just looking for info on ships that I find interesting; things like ship movement (such as Alberni to become Tsawwassen-based), etc.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,887 
|
Post by Mill Bay on Nov 7, 2007 11:39:14 GMT -8
Here is some speculation: B.C. signs landmark infrastructure funding agreement www.trucknews.com/issues/ISArticle.asp?id=76066&issue=11072007The federal and provincial governments just announced a seven-year $2.2 billion funding program for upgrading BC's roads, bridges, tunnels, ports and transit. So do you think this will have any impact on the ferries? |
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Nov 7, 2007 19:54:41 GMT -8
I sure hope there's an impact on the ferries, but of course every aspect of BC's Infrastructure needs improvement, we need better roads in order to improve transit. Personally I'd like to see the government spend it equally between all aspects of infrastructure. Hopefully this can help increase the subsidy to BCF and delay any more fare increases.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Nov 8, 2007 6:27:05 GMT -8
How many projects are half-completed, or still being studied (to death)?
Widening of Hwy-10 from Scott Rd eastward
Widening of 176th between Hwy-1 and the border
SFPR to pull traffic off River Road/Nordel Way
Reconfiguring north end of Queensborough
Let's not forget that we finally got the Howes Street overpass onto the 91-91A, which was only about 12 years overdue. I know that these things are in the works, but with regards to ALL of them, they have been started or being "piddled away at" for the last 10 years.
Just like most other projects, they were good on the planning boards, but once they are completed, they will be completely at capacity and essentially obsolete. As I have stated, most traffic planning seems to be in 4-year chunks even though most projects take at least 6-8 to complete. No one looks at the flows and capacity for the completion date, and then these multi-million boondoggles end up being "underpowered" for their intended use anyways.
Case in point, the current Port Mann bridge is at or above it's designed capacity approximately 17 hours out of every 24 hour period. Factoring in peak loads, I think the analysis that I read had it being at 130-140% of it's daily capacity when the numbers averaged out for weekday traffic. When it finally gets it's Twin, I have seen an analysis that says, even as a toll-route, that it will be at or near 85-90% of capacity UPON COMPLETION! Boy, that 10-15% margin should take all of what? 4 months to have this bridge system all bunged up again?
|
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Nov 8, 2007 12:19:17 GMT -8
Vancouver could have taken an opprotunity with the Olympics and gotten some road projects done. If any of you have been to Salt Lake City in the past few years, they upgraded all of their freeways before the Olympics and they did a really nice job.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Nov 8, 2007 14:59:40 GMT -8
Unfortunately, as I have had to explain to several Easterners, Metro Vancouver has a rather unique geography - it's not as easy to get around here as just about any other place. I have worked in Calgary, and Seattle and several other locations, and Vancouver has to be one of the most &^$@-ed up. Too many "obstacles" (rivers, mountains, oceans, etc). What works in Salt Lake City or Calgary or Saskatoon does not work here. Our population is hemmed in by mountains to the north, America to the south (where we do not have Mud or Boundary Bays to contend with) and separated by the Fraser, Alouette and numerous other rivers, as well as bays, penninsulas, marshes, bogs and wetlands.
The only way to get an effective highway system here would be to pretty well knock everything down and start again. We have such narrow rights-of-way that effective highways are impossible. Take Hwy-99 thru Vancouver - it is OAK Street! Great highway -- a few too many on and off ramps though! We finally got the lights off Hwy-91/91A ... only 10 years ago, we had lights on Hwy-1 at Westview! Metro Vancouver was never designed really well as far as major infrastructure goes, and we are paying the price for that now. Urban planning did not take into account transportation. Our distribution facilities are not central to our residential development. Truck and rail heads are not near our urban centres.
Contrast this with the network of highways in Metro Toronto, or the ring roads around Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg etc.
Let's not even compare to our southern neighbour where we have an interstate system where a small low capacity section has a minimum of 6 lanes. We still call the two-lane goat path thru Ladner "HIGHWAY-10" ....
But we are stuck with what we have. There are ways to plan our way out of it, but it is going to be a whole lot of expensive to retrofit this poorly designed and layed out hodge-podge that we have to work with.
|
|
