Extend the life of the Saanich and Vancouver?

[Hardy]

oceaneer77 said:

I think we are forgetting Transport canada.

These old ships just do not meet an of the new codes...
I think hardy may be on to something with the truck only but still dont think that even with only say 50 passengers TC would wave off the new solas rules (vmax i think)

With all of that said we have no idea about the condition of the hulls and other running gear. Wastage of the hull past 20-25% is the cut figure. If these boats were seriously surveyed (TC and Lloyds would do this if we changed thier class or did extensive modifications) how much would be left? They were never designed to last this long, and with the level of upkeep given to them it is a miricale that they keep going.
BCF is known for Band Aids and Fix ups to keep things runnning.. The V and B class have recived more than thier fair share

I agree and disagree at the same time.

Before any decision should be made regarding keeping any of the boats in service, I fully agree a survey needs to be done. Just like a home inspection prior to purchase, we need to know what it is that we are dealing with. I concede that the running gear (plant) may all be in bad shape (we are aware of the previous band-aid solutions on plant etc and the $10 tune-ups....), but I hazard to guess that the hulls should be fairly decent, barring much plate separation and therefore pocket rusting; they are 40-45 year old boats, and they will not be in "show-room" shape, but there are several precedents for older vessels having lasted a decent time.

Obviously, if an inspection/survey shows that there is serious hull deterioration, or superstructure issues, then there is no reason to pour good money after bad into a money-pit; the cost-benefit analysis must be positive, or the whole operation is a moot point.

With regards to SOLAS/IMO, I will have to go back and read the specs on this again, as well as do some more research as to the grandfathering that has taken place so far. As has been stated, there are several north american operators that are currently grandfathered and operating ships that are quasi-compliant. Keep in mind too, that those regs are mainly aimed at PAX ferries ... if you change the scope of the boat and the service to be COMMERCIAL and not PAX, how does this affect the SOLAS/IMO regs? These are things that I am not completely up to speed on at this point and would need to study up further before I can speak to it on a definitive basis.

[Retrovision]

hwy19man said:

tsawwassenterminal said:

Modified how?

Sorry Tsawwassen, I should have put a hyphen in the word and better grammar.

I meant to say ...would be mid--lifed...

Is that lifed or lowered, or just limb from limb as many surmise will happen?

[oceaneer77]

Hi All

I managed to get my codes confused
Solas 90 not V max
but here is the short version

I am pretty sure that the old ferries do not comply.... and are under a grandfauther clause..

The rules start at 400 passengers.. so a truck ferry would work... but i still think that the ships are just to far gone!

Under the April 1992 Amendments to SOLAS, a slightly modified SOLAS 90 standard was adopted to be phased in for existing ro-ro passenger ships between 1 October 1994 and 1 October 2005, based on the value of a ratio known as A/Amax, determined in accordance with a calculation procedure developed by the MSC to assess the survivability characteristics of existing ro-ro passenger ships. A/Amax is a simplified probabilistic approach attempting to assess the survivability standard of one ferry against another. It assumes a number of simplifications and is a rough guide used because it allowed all countries to carry out relatively quick calculations on a representative number of ferries. It is not a survivability standard as such but enables a hierarchy of vessels to be established.
The most important changes relate to the stability of ro-ro passenger ships in Chapter II-1.

The SOLAS 90 damage stability standard, which had applied to all ro-ro passenger ships built since 1990, was extended to existing ships in accordance with an agreed phase-in programme. Ships that only meet 85% of the standard had to comply fully by 1 October 1998 and those meeting 97.5% or above, by 1 October 2005. (The SOLAS 90 standard refers to the damage stability standard in the 1988 (October) amendments to SOLAS adopted 28 October 1988 and entering into force on 29 April 1990.)

The conference also adopted a new regulation 8-2, containing special requirements for ro-ro passenger ships carrying 400 passengers or more. This is intended to phase out ships built to a one-compartment standard and ensure that they can survive without capsizing with two main compartments flooded following damage.

Further amendments were adopted in October 1988 at a special MSC session requested and paid for by the United Kingdom. The amendments adopted entered into force on 29 April 1990 and have become known as the "SOLAS 90" standard, relating to the stability of passenger ships in the damaged condition. In fact, work on developing this standard had begun following the accident involving the European Gateway, which had capsized following a collision with another ship in 1982, and ended up lying on her side in relatively shallow water with only five lives lost.

IMO has also recognized the need to focus on those ferries which do not come under SOLAS and is working on the development of standards for "non-convention" vessels - those passenger ferries which for reasons of being operated inland or solely on domestic routes are not required to conform with SOLAS. On 20 January 2006, IMO signed a Memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Interferry formalizing the two Organizations' intent to work together towards enhancing the safety of non-Convention ferries by collaborating, through IMO's Integrated Technical Co-operation Programme, on related capacity-building activities within developing countries.

The SOLAS 90 damage stability standard, which had applied to all ro-ro passenger ships built since 1990, was extended to existing ships in accordance with an agreed phase-in programme. Ships that only meet 85% of the standard had to comply fully by 1 October 1998 and those meeting 97.5% or above, by 1 October 2005. (The SOLAS 90 standard refers to the damage stability standard in the 1988 (October) amendments to SOLAS adopted 28 October 1988 and entering into force on 29 April 1990.)


Oceaneer77

[oceaneer77]

Hey where is cascade??? he would normaly be chipping in about here and blasting me on a fine tech point..