Editorial on ferries and politics in B.C.

[Neil]

Cascade, what is the source of this contempt that you have for anything to do with British Columbia? Were you seriously bullied in school, or something?
BC's shipyards have never been large enough to be a serious player on the world market, where as you well know, some of the firms are subsidised in various ways by their governments, and where labour situations are different than here. The industry has atrophied here in recent years, but that does not diminish the record they sported for building a quality, reasonably priced fleet which still forms the bulk of BC Ferries 46 years after it's inception. 'Nanaimo is right. We're not going to change any minds here.

[oceaneer77]

BC has some of the worlds best naval deisgners, Robert Allen, Bill Gardner, Patric Bray, Greg Marshall,to name a few.. the problem with our shipyards is the trade unions, not the quality or design.
How many naval architech can you name of the top of your head cascade??

With people like you Helping bc.............. you get the point

Dylan H

[Scott]

I think the ferries should idealy be built in British Columbia. The only issue I have is the timeline for this new vessel... we need it quick if we can't find a replacement ship elsewhere. So there are two costs to consider... the cost of loss of tourism or the cost of building offshore (taking money out of BC).

I think the government should offer some kind of subsidy... because to an extent it would be worth it keeping all that money in BC.. jobs, taxes, etc. even if they do have to offer some subsidy. There has to be a limit to how much they would subsidize though.

BC has a long history of shipbuilding... and it used to be a lot larger than it is today. The problem? European and Asian governments heavily subsidized their industries in the past. That basically killed BC's shipbuilding industry because our governments wouldn't match them. Also the cost of labour here is way higher than Asia at least. Even if Europe doesn't subsidize their industry anymore (officially)... they still have the infrastructure from when it was subsidized.

[Quinsam]

hornbyguy said:

Although I have to grant that evolution, and survival of the fittest, does not explain the strange, lingering existence of an ill-equipped beast like the Mill Bay. Sorry, Quinsam Teen.

Ill equipped beast? I must say that is the most hurtful line to a ferry I have ever heard, the Queen of Chilliwack, I will accept a line to that, but the Mill bay, a beast? Surely not. Maybe a small beast to Saanich Inlet, because it is the largest boat in there, but otherwise, not a beast and is not ill equipped, if it was Transport Canada would want the vessel to be gone by 2007.

[Neil]

Okay, okay, pardon my insensitivity. Not 'ill equipped beast'. How about... sad little hulk?

[Quinsam]

Not that either, she is happy where she is.

[Doug]

Ugly hunk of rusty steel.

[Neil]

I think the Mill Bay serves a very useful purpose on this forum. Quinsam Teen gets to shower it with affection, kind of like the ideal puppy he's always wanted, and the rest of us get to use it in kind of the same way the Americans used to use that yellow sub they had at Nanoose Bay; you know, for bombing practise. In fact, speaking of dogs, I'm going to suggest a new poll (right up QT's alley); what breed of dog do the various ferries most resemble? For the Mill Bay, I'd say, chihuahua- you know, the kind that's always doing rude things to your arm, and barking relentlessly at bigger dogs because it feels so inferior. Ah, yes... long live the Mill Bay, I say. It's therapeutic.
Sorry... this post doesn't have much to do with 'ferries and politics'. The Mill Bay does that to me.

[Dane]

I think hornbyguy and cascade have been arguing different points. I'd read your statements to read as:

hornbyguy: when we build, we build well (majority)
cascade: there isn't much built so how can you develope a reputation?

I could be incorrect... but it seems like you're not really disagreeing on the same point?

[Neil]

I'd say that we disagree fundamentally on two points; the ability of British Columbia to build new, major vessels for a reasonable cost, and our track record for doing so. Also, some obvious philosophical differences.

[Neil]

In his zeal to slag Canadian marine design capabilities, Cascade has erroneously referred to several designers named in Oceaneer77's post above, as just tug boat builders. In fact, Robert Allan, Patrick Bray, and Greg Marshall have a large body of work between them on many varieties of marine craft, tug boats being in the minority.
Cascade also instructs us to pick either "crap design, (s)crap building, or (s)crap maintenance" to characterize what he sees as intrinsic operating problems in the fleet.
I think we need to be clear about something here. Part of the reason that we're faced with what seems like a massive re-building program is that we were lulled into a sense of complacency by a ferry fleet which, on the whole, has served dependably for decades. Virtually no catastrophic breakdowns, and with some tweaking and lifting and stretching the fleet has adapted to changing times, and has been a testament to sensible design. When the Queen of Victoria or Queen of Sidney were retired, it wasn't because they were disasters waiting to happen, it was because they were naturally aging, and for right or wrong reasons, didn't fit in with management's plans.
The ships built here have been good ships, but even good ships get old, and that's all that's happening. Nothing for British Columbia to be ashamed of, and no need to choose from Cascade's list of "craps".
It is true, as Cascade notes, that you don't see a sister of the Queen of Coquitlam sailing the English Channel or the Baltic. A sign of bad design? Hardly. There aren't any Yakimas or Sealths in Europe, either; but ferries can be designed to local specifications, and for local needs, without any denigration whatsoever to the reputation of the designer, or builder.

What is it with "scrap"? This little censorship thing is annoying.

[Curtis]

hornbyguy said:

What is it with "scrap"? This little censorship thing is annoying.

Put something on the end to beat the word censor system like Crap*

[BrianWilliams]

Very good discussion so far, fellas, prompted by the thoughtful tyty editorial.

Should BCF be aggressively exploring a strategy to buy or lease existing ships -one or perhaps two?- to enter Northern service by early 2007; and still commit to new construction ready for 2009 or whenever feasible?

I realize that the stop-gap vessels may not be fully compatible with our docks. Could we keep their modifications to a minimum while our BC-spec boats are being built; then decide if we want to keep them, return them ex-lease, or resell them?

Yes, the cost implications are frightening. Reflagging a passenger ship for short term service on our coast may require lots of changes to meet CG standards; perhaps it is not affordable.

BC does need to restore full service to our Northern ports very quickly. Long ago (1960) we chose to unite all of coastal BC with a reliable service. It's a shame that we lost the private operators along the way.

Union Steamships, CPSS, Northland, Coast Ferries and Black Ball were not driven out of business by BC Ferries; but it's true that we hastened their exit by running gov't services on the highest volume routes.

[Neil]

Union Steamships was gone by the time BC Ferries started up, Black Ball sold us their boats, Canadian Pacific wasn't willing to modernize, and Northland Navigation and Coast Ferries provided such minimal service to the north and central coast, that better service was imperative. Governments, federal and provincial, had subsidized most of the coastal companies for decades, and still they couldn't make a go of it. Our coast is just so under populated, for the most part, that publicly run service is pretty much a given.
I think your suggestion, Brian, of a bought or leased ship to tide us over until we can build new ones, might be the best idea. We have to get something soon.

[nolonger]

[BrianWilliams]

"So what are the delays.....the press are saying it is finding the vessels .....well that is not the actual true answer...it is the terminals ..."

I hope it is possible, Cascade, to find a seaworthy ship or two quickly. Automobile loading may seem important to we south coast people; but the north coast folks are more concerned with exporting fresh fish and live shellfish; and importing groceries.

For sure, truck-hauled commodities need ramps to get the trailers on board, but what's inconvenient for tourist car drivers may be less of a problem for professional truckers.

We have to try to maintain as much of the tourist trade as we can this year, but the industrial traffic should be our main focus.

It's easier to load under adverse conditions.

Perhaps WAC Bennett was wrong when he conceived BC Ferries as the sole operator in coastal shipping.

Whatever, the 1960 vision was endorsed by governments ever since; and we British Columbians are now committed to providing service.

Though it's a moral and political promise, in hard terms, people will lose their livliehoods without BCF service.

[BrianWilliams]

"BUT - would they fit into the terminals? ... not the length - but the width midships - the BC Ferries fleet are 'fat'. "

If our time-charter candidates are narrower in beam than the late QofN, and QPR and QofC; can we employ floating timber buffers in the few northern service terminals? Perhaps it's not as simple as I think, 'cause we need to provide for the surviving BCF boats, too.

Still, ex-Stena Danica (Baltic) and ex-Basto II (Norwegian coast) were Europeans.