|
|
Post by Dane on Feb 27, 2006 23:29:47 GMT -8
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. R revival of Berth 2 was presented at the last AGM, but it was something like 5 years away or something. There were several smaller projects like that in their long term presentation, I was suprised by the detail. Back on topic, the side loading set up on the Cs seems to garner nothing but complaints, it adds time for no reason. (Hense why they've moved away from that arrangment) |
|
|
|
Post by ferryguy on Feb 27, 2006 23:33:22 GMT -8
If by side loading you mean the gallery decks and tunnels they have gotten away from them but only because they are not versatile like the platforms on the V's and S's.
Ferryguy
|
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Feb 27, 2006 23:35:51 GMT -8
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. The only problem I see with loading the C's, is the fact there's two walls, dividing the deck into 3 areas. But on the V's and Spirits, it's just one wall, with two seperate sections. The only problem with V-Class idea, is that there's only 2 staircases, and it can be pretty crowded trying to get down to the car deck when you're about to come into the terminal. Something I had experienced last week on the New Westminster. I couldn't really ever tell if there was a difference in the doors of the Cow/Coq with the Oak Bay/Surrey, but the Albernis doors seem to be alot wider, seeming they open right up following the sides of the superstructure on tracks. |
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Feb 28, 2006 1:30:05 GMT -8
If by side loading you mean the gallery decks and tunnels they have gotten away from them but only because they are not versatile like the platforms on the V's and S's. Ferryguy That was my point  LOL |
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager 
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Feb 28, 2006 14:32:42 GMT -8
Actually there are three staircases on the V's. By the forward lounge, the mid ship staircase and the one by the Cafeteria. The V's can get really crowded which is why I wait till like 5 mins after they call you to go down to let and rush of people get down. The car deck on the V's seem really cramped too.
|
|
Doug
Voyager
Lurking within...the car deck.
Posts: 2,213
|
Post by Doug on Feb 28, 2006 17:13:43 GMT -8
If the "C" Class ferries had versatile ramps going up into the Gallery Decks rather than that stupid configuration they have now, where you have to turn sharp to get into the tunnels, I'm sure the "C" Class would load a lot easier...just lift the ramps when loading the tunnels and lower them when loading the galleries.
|
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Feb 28, 2006 21:59:13 GMT -8
WSF doesn't seem to have any problems with the C-Class type configuration, and their new boats will also be this way.
|
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Apr 15, 2006 0:19:50 GMT -8
4 Vessels Good. 3 Vessels Not good enough. They should have made more Spirit Class Ferries 2 double ended ones would have worked Wait a minute... Didn't I hear that it's unfeasible to run double-enders through Active Pass nowadays, after the grounding of the Queen of Alberni in the pass a long time ago? |
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 15, 2006 9:52:56 GMT -8
This has been debated for quite sometime, the Super C's have azipods, giving the double enders more manuverability to transit Active Pass without any problems, however, putting a C class on there you must be cautious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Apr 15, 2006 17:03:01 GMT -8
4 Vessels Good. 3 Vessels Not good enough. They should have made more Spirit Class Ferries 2 double ended ones would have worked Wait a minute... Didn't I hear that it's unfeasible to run double-enders through Active Pass nowadays, after the grounding of the Queen of Alberni in the pass a long time ago? C Class vessels continued to run through the pass after the grounding. It's an internet generated half-truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Apr 15, 2006 18:45:53 GMT -8
Wait a minute... Didn't I hear that it's unfeasible to run double-enders through Active Pass nowadays, after the grounding of the Queen of Alberni in the pass a long time ago? C Class vessels continued to run through the pass after the grounding. It's an internet generated half-truth. So what half is true? I'm honestly curious about the actual reasoning for the obvious drop-off in C Class transiting Active pass after the grounding of the Queen of Alberni. |
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Apr 15, 2006 20:41:12 GMT -8
C Class vessels continued to run through the pass after the grounding. It's an internet generated half-truth. So what half is true? I'm honestly curious about the actual reasoning for the obvious drop-off in C Class transiting Active pass after the grounding of the Queen of Alberni. They're not fuel efficient vessels, but I've heard they're better suited on Rte2 where they are on Mode 1 most of the trip, as opposed to Mode 2 used through active pass. When the C Class went to Rte 2 they also displaced 3/4 vessels running an almost 1 hour turn (or alternating 1/2 hour is 3 were used). The C Class can also complete a two hour turn. The V's cannot, as you know. The drop off isn't a drop off.... the didn't just stop running them. There was an initial halt as there generally is when an accident of any kind occurs. C Class aren't as well suited for Active Pass as the shallow hull V Class, but vessels like that are few and far between now because they're useless... The argument that a C Class will run aground on rocks is valid, my sailboat will run aground too. Hense why there is training and well laid nautical routes to follow. The Captain was at fault in the incident and was rather explicit about it. The Queen of Prince Rupert ran aground very near where the Queen of the North sank, in 1985, but service continued. Perhaps one of the Pods will one day be ripped off a Super C in active pass and we'll label them as 'dangerous.' |
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Apr 15, 2006 20:42:59 GMT -8
Forgot to add:
THe Queen of Alberni ran aground in August '79 I do believe. The Queen of Oak Bay and Surrey were assigned to Route 1 for several years after they were built. Seeing as they were not built until 1981, it goes against the 'drop off' argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Apr 15, 2006 22:13:23 GMT -8
According to Biff's (Now Deleted) Photo Page on the Oak Bay The first month and a half of the Oak Bay and Cowichan's life was on Route 1 then they were moved to route 2 then I guess the first V Class was lifted after that
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Apr 15, 2006 22:15:19 GMT -8
The Surrey lasted until '84 I believe... it was there longer than the Oak Bay for whatever reason.
|
|
LOL
