Has BCF taken a step in the wrong direction?

[Political Incorrectness]

I believe BCF has taken a step in the wrong direction because replacing vessels with ones that can only carry 50 more is not enough. I think that the Super C's should have been Spirit sized. Chris told me about how when the vessel is at full capacity, the lounges are crowded and the only place to sit is the floor. Why not give more capacity to Route 2? They have to run two extra sailings during the summer instead of running a full time third vessel, which I think would help a bit. A fourth vessel would help so that you can have saillings every hour like on route 1.
Any other opinions?

[Mike C]

4 vessels on route one? Yeah I guess that'll work.

[Balfour]

They already have 4 vessels on Route 1. They need 4 on route 2.

[Curtis]

4 Vessels Good. 3 Vessels Not good enough. They should have made more Spirit Class Ferries 2 double ended ones would have worked

[Dane]

Ive posted this before on the forum, the advertised carry carrying capacity BCFS has released is for the actual, realistic capacity of the ships. The advertised capacity for every other ship is based on the best case scenario, that is all mid-sized cars and no trucks or buses. A better way to look at this would be the compartive length of the vessels. There is a term for this, but I have forgotten it.

I do agree ships should be larger, but there is a realistic limit that BCFS has to set, crew issues being a major concern.

The Super Cs have substantially more deck space than the C Class, overcrowding should not be an issue. (Unless they make you pay to go everywhere).

In the summer I agree that Route 2 should have 4 vessels.

[QSaanich]

Now what there is only going to be 3 vessels on route 1 all year after the v class is gone u must be kidding why doesen't bcf build 4 super c class ferries put 2 on route 1 and 2 on route 2.

[Quinsam]

I hope that BCF orders a few 500 car ferries, oooh! That will be exciting
BCF are only putting 1 of the Super C's on Route 1, so that makes 2 new vessels on route 2, making 4, and the V's retirement will make Route 1 go from 4 vessels to 2, and add one Super C makes 3, and a C is coming down here to route one, so that makes 4 vessels on routes 1 and 2.

Problem Solved! ;D

[Curtis]

Yeah it should go like this
(*) Relief/Summer Only

Route 1
Spirit of British Columbia
Spirit of Vancouver Island
Super C #3
*Queen of Surrey

Route 2
Super C #1
Super C #2
*Queen of Oak Bay

Route 3
Queen of Coquitlam
*Queen of Cowichan

Route 30
Queen of Alberni
Queen of New Westminster

Route 2 should have had 4 vessels but that leaves Route 3 out of the picture for a summer vessel and there's no new vessel in sight

[Doug]

That should be correct, although I'm almost certain the relief vessel out of Langdale will also work on the Nanaimo route. And also the Super "C" as a regular out of Swartz Bay won't be needed.

[Ferryman]

I thought the captain of the Oak Bay went in the right direction. Prevented 10s of millions of dollars worth of damage......

On a serious note now...
Time will only tell with what happens. Besides, BCF plans to replace 20 vessels in what is it, 15 year? I'm sure somewhere along those lines, there's at least 2 more Major vessels that they would want to build. So what is it, 11 Minors, 2 Northern, and 3 Majors that they're going to replace, so that leaves room for 4 more vessels that they may (hopefully) build/purchase.

[Curtis]

You might want to make that 11 Minors/Intermidiate 3 Northern and 3 Major

[Mike C]

mainlander101 said:

4 vessels on route one? Yeah I guess that'll work.

I meant route 2.

[Dane]

BCFS has really back off the new vessel train, I suppose some one mentioned too them that they don't have all that much capital! It would seem to me, although I could be wrong, that any movement on the Northern services front has totally stopped. Unfortunatly BCFS doesn't have to say anything until their AGM (September). The government is ussually pretty quite now that BCFS isn't theirs.

There should be a fourth Super C, but I suppose the justification that it would effectivly only be a summer boat is valid.

The third Super C, I have heard informally, may get used on Route 3 during the low periods where Route 1 has only one vessel, this way BCF could maximize their use (and lower fuel consumption).

[Doug]

You would actually be very surprised about those northern vessels Dane....

[Dane]

dougubell said:

You would actually be very surprised about those northern vessels Dane....

Ooooo has doug heard something? lol

[ferryguy]

The car count is actuallty based on something called an AEQ or automobile equviallant. The base is 20 feet = 1 AEQ = 1 car. When you see a claim of 350 cars that is actually 350 AEQ's. A semi is considered 6 a bus 4 and so on. Your right a bus is not 80 feet and a semi is not 120 feet but those vehicles require more width. A computer adds up those numbers and tells the tower how full the ship is as a percentage.

Ferryguy

[ferryguy]

1. The problem with building a larger ferry on route 2 is threefold. Downtown Nanimo struggles when a C class discharges 350 AEQ's. If a S class was to deliver 450 it would be a disaster.

2. The docks in Dep. and HSB are not large enough for a S class. Retrofitting would be a huge cost and brings up point one anyways.

3. The crew work an 8 hour day at straight time. If you had to load an additional 100 AEQ's the work day would lengthen and the schedule would suffer. It is not so good right now! Longer day is not presently possible under the collective agreement.

The concept behind the 3 fastcats is they would have done three round trips delivering more total AEQ's for the day in smaller pulses (200 AEQ's). This would have meant less disruption to downtown Nanaimo.

Ferryguy

[Political Incorrectness]

It maybe worth it so that you do not have to get more vessels and instead get larger capacity, I am thinking that someday, the marsh near Duke Point will become a superterminal for Naniamo traffic and Departure Bay will no longer be in exsistance. It would be to complicated to make remote lots for vehicle traffic during the peak summer crush.

[ferryguy]

It does seem silly to have two major terminals 15 minutes apart. I would wonder how many condos one could put in departue bay to pay for some new ships and a few new berths in Duke Point.

Ferryguy

[Dane]

Many routes actually include a 30 minute overtime period on top of the straight 8 hours. Moreover a big problem with the current C Class is they aren't the easiest beasts in the world to load, as you likely know. The more open design of the S Class, which is to be adopted on the Super C should allow faster loading/unloading of the vessel. It also gives a lot more flexibility in terms of trucks/buses.

Frankly Nanaimo should (and does, really) bare all responsibility for the costs of increased infastrucure to handle the ferries. We can't just say "well they can't handle the cars" and reject them more service. It's going to be a neccessity in the next 10-15 years.

Although the S Class can't operate in HSB, DB the Super C are physically larger vessels than the C Class I do believe.

[Doug]

Yes I have heard something...but that's for you to find out because I'm not 100% on the story yet.

As for the terminal at Duke Point...building a causeway (which would be needed in the Nanaimo Estuary) is a bad idea...Departure Bay could be expanded easier than that. What is a better idea is Departure Bay is linked directly to the Island Highway with a freeway, no traffic lights, no hassle. That would also include an expansion of Departure Bay...which is now possible...another story for Dane to research.

[Scott (Former Account)]

ferryguy said:

1. The problem with building a larger ferry on route 2 is threefold. Downtown Nanimo struggles when a C class discharges 350 AEQ's. If a S class was to deliver 450 it would be a disaster.

2. The docks in Dep. and HSB are not large enough for a S class. Retrofitting would be a huge cost and brings up point one anyways.

3. The crew work an 8 hour day at straight time. If you had to load an additional 100 AEQ's the work day would lengthen and the schedule would suffer. It is not so good right now! Longer day is not presently possible under the collective agreement.

The concept behind the 3 fastcats is they would have done three round trips delivering more total AEQ's for the day in smaller pulses (200 AEQ's). This would have meant less disruption to downtown Nanaimo.

Ferryguy

There is major plans currently being finalized on the issues with Dept. Bay terminal and traffic congestion in the surrounding area. I will not release any of the data, but they are VERY MAJOR plans that are currently being finalized...

[Dane]

Sort as a side note but isn't Departure Bay about the exact same capacity as a C Class?

That's sort of a random observation I've been trying to confirm over the last few summers. It seems like one ship can take the terminal plus a few of the short out of terminal lines. It's a nice size, easy to tell if you're on or not. I have no idea at HSB since it has changed.

[Ferryman]

Funny thing is, I don't ever remember Departure Bay being all that busy back in the early 90s when route 30 operated out of Departure Bay as well. Although I do remember having to park in the parking lot across from the terminal where the boat ramp and outdoor mall is, and then walking on to the ferry.

[ferryguy]

Cross traffic is the big problem in Dept. Bay when route 30 was there. Each day at 13:00 two ships were in and it caused nothing but backups.

The C's load easy the difference is the larger ramps in TSA and SWA which allow two lane loading of big stuff. By the by did anyone ever notice the Coq and Cow doors are two feet narrower than the Oak Bay and Surrey.

Supers C's will fit into the existing docks I don't know of any plans to upgrade the ramps in HSB and Dep but it would be a good idea for the future.

Ferryguy