|
|
Post by Scott on Nov 18, 2005 22:45:33 GMT -8
Maybe I should start a new topic for this question, but can anyone tell me how the engine setup on the Bowen Queen and the Queen of Capilano are different... and how come the older ferries seem to be more maneuverable, even though they both have four props?
|
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Nov 18, 2005 22:48:20 GMT -8
Doesn't the PRQ class have four Z-Drives at the four corners?
|
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Nov 18, 2005 22:55:32 GMT -8
I know that the PRQ Class (including the Bowen Queen) had the Z-Drive installed years ago, which, as far as I know, is either similar to, or the predecessor of the modern RAD... but I could be wrong. I was at the library today and decided to photocopy some pages from Lloyds Register; I didn't get info on the Cappie, but here's what I got on the Bowen:
"4 oil engines dr geared to sc. shafts drifing 4 directional propellers 2 fwd and 2 aft
Total Power: 4,472 kW (6,080 hp)
Caterpillar
4 x Vee 4 Stroke 12 Cy. 170 x 190 each - 1,118 kW (1,520bhp) (new engine 1998)
Caterpillar Inc. -Peoria, Illinois
AuxGen: 2 x 75kW 450V 60Hz"
|
|
|
|
Post by Engineer on Nov 19, 2005 0:04:21 GMT -8
Maybe I should start a new topic for this question, but can anyone tell me how the engine setup on the Bowen Queen and the Queen of Capilano are different... and how come the older ferries seem to be more maneuverable, even though they both have four props? The Bowen, Mayne & QPR each have four Mariner legs. Each leg is driven by a Diesel engine threw shafting to the leg. between the engine and the leg is a gear box and a fluid coupling. The Cap and Cumbie are Diesel electric, they have three Bergen Diesel gen sets, that supply high voltage power (4160 Volts) threw cables to the Electric motor (900 HP)that drives each leg.(Ulstein) |
|
|
|
Post by Engineer on Nov 19, 2005 0:05:16 GMT -8
When I say legs I mean (RAD)
Right Angle Drives...
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Nov 19, 2005 0:16:42 GMT -8
Would you say that the PR Class and the Capilano/Cumberland are similar in their manoueverability? I was always under the impression that the older ships were better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Nov 19, 2005 0:19:12 GMT -8
well the PR class is slightly smaller, but the Cappy and Cumbie have newer technology. They seem to manoever much the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Nov 19, 2005 0:26:47 GMT -8
I know when the Bowen Queen replaces the Cappy on the Bowen Island route, they have to adjust the schedule as it takes longer for the Bowen Queen to do the crossings.
I find that Bowen Class interesting as they've been modified so many times. Like when they got lengthened, and had their rudders welded, and then they installed those RADS. Plus with the Powell River Queen obviously having the deck layout change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Engineer on Nov 19, 2005 2:01:28 GMT -8
Would you say that the PR Class and the Capilano/Cumberland are similar in their manoueverability? I was always under the impression that the older ships were better. yes the Mayne queen have fixed pitch props while the Cumbie has variable pitch props. |
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Nov 19, 2005 14:27:51 GMT -8
"I find that Bowen Class interesting as they've been modified so many times. Like when they got lengthened, and had their rudders welded, and then they installed those RADS. Plus with the Powell River Queen obviously having the deck layout change"
As well as the Mayne Queen (being one of the few, if only BCF ship) having had side loading ramps originally.
Speaking of those, does anyone know where the Mayne Queen was intended to use those side ramps? At Ganges before Long Harbour was build for the Queen of the islands and route 9?
|
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Nov 19, 2005 14:29:23 GMT -8
err ...BCF ships)
err ...was built for...
|
|
