Why not use the Tachek?

[Scott]

Ok, the Queen of Oak Bay is out for a week - inconveniencing travellers and BC Ferries. Why wouldn't they consider running the Tachek on the Horseshoe Bay - Departure Bay route? I know replacing a 350 car ferry with a 30 car ferry sounds kinda silly - but if it runs full that means that 240 (four round trips) cars and 500+ people will travel each day who might not have otherwise. Wouldn't BC Ferries make money if the Tachek ran full each way?

I await someone with a little more common or business sense to change my mind:)

[Low Light Mike]

I suppose that the major reason that this wouldn't be done, is that no one at BCFS would think of this as a solution. Either because of some practical issue that we don't know about, or because they haven't considered it.

I wonder if the longer open-water crossing would be a negative; ie. more risky with more potential for problems crossing in rough water. (compared to the shorter strait-crossing on Route 1 or 9.

I agree that something is better than nothing. It would be interesting to see.

[Coastal Canuck]

how about putting the Tachek on the Horseshoe Bay Langdale Run. or even putting her back in the Bowen Queen's spot and putting the Bowen Queen on one of the routes (Langdale or Deaparture Bay)

[Koastal Karl]

Put the Bowen to replace the Nanaimo on route 9 bring back the Tachek to replace Bowen then put the Nanaimo on route 1, or even better would be to just screw Langdale and bring down the Esquimalt. Run the Surrey more on the Langdale run to make up for the Esquimalt!

[Coastal Canuck]

can the Cumberland cross Georgia Strait? If she can why not Cumberland out of Salt Spring then Tachek out of Tsawwassen on Route 9a then Bowen and Mayne out of Swartz to Gulf Islands, Nanaimo doing the Esquimalt's job on route 2 and 3, then Esquimalt on route 1

[Hardy]

As I posted in another thread, the most logical is to drag the Eskie onto Dep-Horseshoe and send Tackek to do suplementary service on the Langdale run. Have her make 4 RT's each day rather than the 2 that the Eskie does. Or 5 even. Whatever it takes. Smaller boat on a shorter run is MUCH more efficient than a longer run. Turn around time is minimal as the load/unload is super quick. You can squeeze in more trips that way to correct for the volume.

Someone correct me on that if I am wrong in my logic.

[Neil]

Not going to say you're wrong, but it seems to me that while the Tachek's 28-30 car capacity made a real difference on the Tsawwassen- Galiano crossing, it really wouldn't make much of a dent in overloads on the Langdale run. 28 more cars from Horseshoe Bay every 2 1/2 to 3 hours, and the expense to do it... not sure there's much point.

[Low Light Mike]

I've just been looking at tonight's current conditions at Langdale terminal: As at 9:00pm, the 9:25pm is full, and the late-night 11:15pm is 75% full too.

So this type of Sunday evening traffic is in the category of needing an extra C-Class trip, re it's 362 car capacity.

Would the 30-car-capacity Tachek make a dent in Sunday evening traffic on this route?

362 / 30 = 12.07. So that's 12 Tachek trips to equal 1 C-Class trip. 12 Tachek return trips would take 24 hours.....so this is obviously not the "big answer" for Sunday night traffic.

Yes, it would make a difference to the 30 cars that got on the Tachek say at 6:00pm and again at 8:00pm and maybe at 10:00pm on Sunday night....but that would still leave 272 or 75% of the overload left-behind on the Langdale pavement.

[ferrytraveller]

well what about the nimpkish, she is in naniamo shipyards, what about using her and the tachek in tandom as supplimental boats for routes 3 or 9 or something?

[Low Light Mike]

As of 10:20pm on Sunday night at Langdale terminal, the 11:15pm last sailing of the night is 100% full, and there is a 2-sailing wait listed for the terminal.

Supposedly that means that approx 600 vehicles will be left behind, most likely sleeping the 7-9 hours in their cars, until they can catch a monday morning sailing.

A combination of Tachek and Nimpkish would be similar to 2 children emptying their Piggy-banks to pay down the National debt.

[Neil]

Well, sure... the Nimpkish.... and while we're at it, how about renting a fleet of water taxis, or maybe even sea-doos for the really adventurous....

Ever hear of the 'law of diminishing returns'?

ps to Mr Horn... I think you might be a tad generous in allowing the Tachek 12 round trips a day to Langdale. We're probably looking at a 70 minute crossing, minimum 10 minutes in dock, for a 2 hr. 40 minutes round trip, absolute minimum. That probably means 6 or 7 round trips in a 16-18 hour operating day.

[Low Light Mike]

hornbyguy said:

ps to Mr Horn... I think you might be a tad generous in allowing the Tachek 12 round trips a day to Langdale. We're probably looking at a 70 minute crossing, minimum 10 minutes in dock, for a 2 hr. 40 minutes round trip, absolute minimum. That probably means 6 or 7 round trips in a 16-18 hour operating day.

Or, to use the stat the way I was presenting it, the required 12 trips of Tachek (required to equal 1 C-Class load), would take 2 days of operations to complete. ie. For 1 full C-Class Load, it would take a ship like Tachek almost 2 full days of sailing to transport 1 C-Class load's worth of vehicles on Route-3. (thanks for Neil's correction that took me from 1 day of sailing to 2 days....even more unrealistic.....)

This number-crunching is just to show the very miniscule effect that Tachek would have had on the Langdale traffic today.

[hergfest]

There is no point in using the Tachek, she would hardly make a dent. The only reason she was used on Route 9a was to help cover reservations.

[Scott]

I guess she'd hardly make a dent. Might have made a couple hundred people happier though. And I don't know if cost is an issue if she's running at capacity... wouldn't she bring in a profit? Or is it impossible to run a small ferry like that at profit?

[Low Light Mike]

Here's a partly-in-jest thought:

In such a situation, they could have used the Tachek, and sold the 30 car spots at an unusually high price. Say $250 per vehicle?

I suppose there are legal issues such as the Act and the Agreement to prevent this type of gouging....so this is likely in the category of "dream on".

But for such a small-dent type of sailing, it might have made a buck.

...but then that small profit from the sailing itself would be but a small dent in the annual operating results of the Route and an even smaller impact on the BCFS annual bottom line.

[Retrovision]

flugelhorn said:

...but then that small profit from the sailing itself would be but a small dent in the annual operating results of the Route and an even smaller impact on the BCFS annual bottom line.

...but would be one large dent in the lead balloon trying to be flown overhead that is the current public persona of BCFSI; small inexpensive steps can go a long way to show regular users of such a publically contentious route that they have not been forgotten and that atleast something, as minor as it may be, is being tried to remedy the situation.

What's more valuable to BCFSI currently, a 'drop in the bucket' cost for adding frivilous yet symbolic sailings to such an historically contentious route, or the positive boost to their tarnished in-recent-times public persona?

[Hardy]

I think that while the comparison of using the Tachek to cover the mathematical numbers presented would be a drop in the bucket, we KNOW that Sunday traffic is heavier than any other day of the week.

Saying that a 30-car ferry would not have made any measureable difference is probably correct. But even the longest journey begins with a single step .....

I've been on board sailings (as a trucker) heading out of full terminals where there have been large spaces between the vehicles, and they could have "tightened" up a bit and got more vehicles on board.

My most recent trip was back from Langdale last MONDAY. From what I could see once I was loaded, we left 3 commercial trucks, 4 overheights and about 30 cars behind.

Quick walk around the vehicle decks had an average of 2' fore and aft between commercial vehicles, sometimes more. I understand that some vehicles need more clearance (ie someone needing to get INTO their load or something), but I came up within 6" of the one in front of me. Just in "wasted" space, we could have gotten most of the overheight traffic onboard.

There were also some SUV's on the MCD that could have gone on the UCD thus freeing up more commercial/OH space.

Up on the Gallery and Upper decks, the spacing of the cars was more efficient than on the Main deck, but there was still room to tighten up the spacing, leaving a walkway every 4th or so.

I dunno what the current norms are, but I remember back in my younger days and they would have us sardined in there a lot tighter than what I am witnessing now.

Is it a load thing, by count, more than space? I cannot see it being a weight concern.

Anyways, just a few more pennies of my thoughts.

[hergfest]

From my experience, WSF is much better at using car deck space. You almost always have a deck hand helping you get close to the car in front. The last few times I have been on a BC Ferry, the deck hands don't help you. It would clear up quite a bit of space if they did. Of course, this includes the trip on the Burnaby with less than ten cars...lol

[Northern Exploration]

In the good old days the deckhands would always direct you to move closer and when to stop. I can remember bumpers being so close your pant legs would get damp from squeezing between on rainy days. Being guided would be especially helpful for the SUV's. Due to wanting to put a pile of relatives or friends in one vehicle, I have often rented SUV's at YVR when I landed and then took the ferry over to the Island. Even though I have driven them lot's it is relatively difficult to gauge the distance to the car in front. It looks like you are about to climb up on the trunk of the car in front.

Hardy has a good idea about parking more of the cars closer and only leaving gaps for walking between every so many cars. I wonder if there is a Transport Canada rule on that for quick egress etc. in the event of an emergency.

I also remember not being able to get out of one side or another of car because of large vehicles. I am not sure if I have ever mentioned it here but on one visit back to BC for summer holidays we were on a stretched but not lifted B or V class. Beside us were transport trucks for a circus. They opened ventilation doors at the back and sides of the trailers. The elephants kept sticking their trunks out and and you could hear a tiger or lion roaring from time to time. One elephant could reach the top of a pickup with a tall cap on the back. It kept tapping on it with his trunk. The kids inside the truck were squeeling with delight. The doors were closed just as we approached the Island. One of the circus staff stayed with the animals and to especially keep everyone away from the trailer with the big cats. We obviously exited the and re-entered the car from the passenger side. Thankfully the rental car was big and didn't have a centre console.

[Hardy]

pnwtraveler said:

In the good old days the deckhands would always direct you to move closer and when to stop. I can remember bumpers being so close your pant legs would get damp from squeezing between on rainy days.

This is what I grew up with too. This would come in handy on the crowded sailings, as a lot of people who drive these days, are not quite aware of the dimensions of the vehicle they are "aiming" Even if each sailing squeezes 10-15 more cars on, that is still meaningful -- especially for those that make it on as one of the last cars!

Memory from the past of my mom and I heading from Tsa up to Black Creek (before Rte30) to visit family and squeezing on her VW Rabbit, darn near sideways on the top car deck of a "V", in the winter (2 hour sailing schedule).

Terminal worker: "It's pretty tight, I think we can squeeze you on."
Mom: "It's a small car, I'll get on!"
Deckhand: "You'll have to back off, ma'am, there's not enough room, unless you want to try to wiggle it in sideways."
<some movement of cars a few inches ahead, followed by a nice parallel parking display>
Mom: "Told you I would fit."
Deckhand: "Nice driving..."
<as the Rabbit is parked 90degrees across the end two lanes of traffic, with a pylon holding the metal deck gates off the driver's side mirror>

pnwtraveler said:

Hardy has a good idea about parking more of the cars closer and only leaving gaps for walking between every so many cars. I wonder if there is a Transport Canada rule on that for quick egress etc. in the event of an emergency.

Seeing that all pax are supposed to be above decks during transit, I don't think that there is too much concern about this. I think it comes down to more common sense than anything else. My way of thinking would be to have 4-5 cars tight to each other, then leave an 15-18" gap for access. Stagger the gaps across the adjacent lanes. Try to keep larger vehicles (ie: wide Hummers, or ones with large mirrors) in non-conflicting alignment, so that no one gets pinned in their cars. This is where active deckhand control during the loading procedure is vital. I've noticed that even in their new "hands off" approach, they do fairly well on this concern. I would like to see them keep the loads tighter to get more capacity on each sailing, but that would require greater effort - maybe they just don't have that hard work ethic anymore -- dunno.

[Ferryman]

During this passed weekend, I got to witness the two Spirit Class Ferries being filled up to the max for vehicular capacity, meaning both of the platform decks were being used. Graham and I thought for sure we weren't going to get on the 1pm out of Tsawwassen, after arriving at Tsawwassen at 10:40. Of course the Queen of Vancouver broke down, so the traffic in line for the 12:00pm was put behind the traffic for the 1:00pm. 5 very long holding lanes at Tsawwassen made it on to the SoVI, and we were in the last line to board the Ferry. Deckhands were making sure we were being sardined in there. On the return trip for me back to Tsawwassen, there was a two sailing wait by 6:35pm when I arrived. 2 and a half loads, worth of vehicles took up the main Route 1 holding lanes, and I was put into the overflow lanes on the east side of the Lands End Cafe, just behind the Gulf Islands holding lanes. This was where 50% of the traffic for the 9pm was held. The SoVI seemed like she took the minimum amount of cars, and Jordan, who was on the sailing, said the Platform decks weren't being used. For the 8pm sailing, the Queen of Saanich barely made a dent in the amount of traffic backed up in the terminal it seemed. But I watched the SoBC practically deep throat the remainder of the vehicles sitting in the terminal, and the Platform decks were being used, which causes a delay as well. I was standing at the stern watching the cars board the ship, and once the upper car deck was full, I heard one of the deckhands ask the Terminal Attendant running the upper car deck ramp of how many cars had gotten on. I can't remember the exact amount that I heard, but it was upwards of around 220 cars. All that was left in the terminal once the Ferry was finally full, was 4 RVs. As we left the terminal, the Captain came over the PA, announcing the usual "Welcome Aboard the Spirit of British Columbia...". He also included, "We're sorry for the 25 minute delay, as we had to take on as many cars as possible so the small and old Queen of Vancouver wouldn't be overloaded". I tell ya, it was quite the crammed sailing. The Cafeteria had been well picked through once I had finally got there, as there was no more bread garden sandwhichs and deserts, and what have you left, except for a few weird named vegetarian things that I didn't want to risk having.

Anyways, my point is, BC Ferries does a good job at cramming when they have to, and this past weekend was a good example I thought.

[Hardy]

ferryman said:

Deckhands were making sure we were being sardined in there.
...

The SoVI seemed like she took the minimum amount of cars, and Jordan, who was on the sailing, said the Platform decks weren't being used.

...

Anyways, my point is, BC Ferries does a good job at cramming when they have to, and this past weekend was a good example I thought.

So 2 kudos and 1 thumbs down?

I just wanted to clarify ... I agree that every once and again, they get it right and stuff'em tight. More often than not though, in my observation, they don't worry about how tight the load is EVEN WHEN THERE ARE heavy loads.

I'm not worried when it is a loose load on a 315pm Duke Point sailing which is only like 45% full ..... however, when you have sailing waits, or overheight issues, then I think they need to jump all over it EVERY TIME.

Again, just a few pennies worth of my input.

[Barnacle]

I haven't been involved in a good boat-stuffing in a while. What with all the retro-fitted safety gear like the evacuation slides, and the engineers (rightfully) getting shirty about being able to escape the engine room and not having their doors blocked, we can't get that 175 cars on a Super class vessel like we used to... on a good day we can get 162, and the mix needs to be right, like a Yugo convention--there's also the fact that people have largely traded their Honda Civics in for SUVs, and they can't figure out why we can't get as many vehicles on the vessel as we used to. (Because the cars are, on average, three feet longer? Go figure...)

The best load on a Super I was ever involved in was 178 vehicles. And that number was arrived at by assuming motorcycles took up 1/2 a car space, which is a little generous.

The Supers were rated at 160 cars for years; currently I think WSF calls them 144-car ferries. We can almost always achieve 152, but we have to put cars in little nooks and crannies that aren't actually designated as 'lanes.'

[Hardy]

barnacle said:

I haven't been involved in a good boat-stuffing in a while. What with all the retro-fitted safety gear like the evacuation slides, and the engineers (rightfully)
...
but we have to put cars in little nooks and crannies that aren't actually designated as 'lanes.'

What is the typical "spacing" that WSF has between vehicles? Is there a pattern that is followed, or just stuff em til she's full? Just curious.

You are right though, with regards to vehicles being larger on average than even a few years ago. It does mess with the stated car capacity. This is why I like the Euro way of stating lane-metres (and car equivalents)

Thanks for your insight Barnacle.

[Nick]

Anyone been on the mill bay recently? it's rated for 16, but I remember one sailing with us being the 21st car on! (last sailing of the day) there was no room to move between the cars anywhere, you had to walk to the bow or stern and then back in order to get to the stairs.

I think that the reason there seems to be less care going into getting as many cars as possible on a sailing is the bonus each captain gets for "on time performance". I know one captain on the SOVI is particulary attached to his extra 30 grand. This one captain wanted to leave with 1/2 capacity, even though there were still 3 lanes in the lot to be loaded. Eventually in this case the terminal tower didn't give him clearance to depart, but I'm told there was quite a standoff.

One note about the platforms, don't forget that they cannot be used if there is any overheight traffic underneath them. So sometimes cars get left behind because they can't lower the platforms.