|
Post by c15cat on Aug 7, 2009 20:52:59 GMT -8
I can't see any crew reduction you will still need a engineer to keep a eye on the winch engine and other parts of the ship.
The ship will still need 3 deck hands and some sort of mate to operate the ship.
If they want to make a cable operated ferry they should make it with two ramps one on either end. They can make a boat launch ramp on either island. Ship comes into the beach drop the ramp unload load and go.
I doubt anything will happen but a whole pile of money spent on a feasability study and the route will never change.
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Aug 8, 2009 19:32:57 GMT -8
Think again c15cat....
The last time I checked, the Needles is not a ferry in the eyes of Transport Canada. She is regulated in British Columbia under the railway and tramway legislation, not unlike an aerial tramway. As she is not a boat, she does not require a Captain, a Mate, or deckhand for that matter. She requires Machine Operators. I believe the designation for the Needles within the Provincial Master agreement would be Machine Operator 1 and Machine Operator 2. That's right folks... a two man crew.
Of course it will be cheaper. What does the Quinitsa have? 6 man crew? No Officers wages, etc, etc, etc. No Transport Canada to deal with. Will save tons of money.
There are three cables, the two outboard being guide cables, while the centre is rolled a couple of times on a large wheel, driven through a reduction gear by a main engine. The cables are all coated as there was a belief by the Min of Hwys that there were savings to be had not replacing the cables as often. Chances are a saltwater boat wouldn't have that, but cables would probably have to be changed at least once a year, maybe more.
There is no issue with marine traffic. The vessel pulls itself from one side to the other, picking up cable and dropping the slack behind her. If a boat was going to cut across her bow, the ship simply stops, drops out slack and when the vessel passes, you pick up the slack and go again.
Can't see it happening. The major challenge for cable ferries is wind and tide. Don't think it could happen in the sound.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Aug 8, 2009 22:28:22 GMT -8
I wouldn't argue what you have found regarding the Needles ferry, but I really doubt Transport Canada would let BC Ferries get away with a cable-ferry not being classified as a boat. You still have the same (or very similar) safety issues whether it's a cable ferry or a conventional ferry.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Aug 8, 2009 23:23:34 GMT -8
The last time I checked, the Needles is not a ferry in the eyes of Transport Canada. She is regulated in British Columbia under the railway and tramway legislation, not unlike an aerial tramway. As she is not a boat, she does not require a Captain, a Mate, or deckhand for that matter. She requires Machine Operators. I believe the designation for the Needles within the Provincial Master agreement would be Machine Operator 1 and Machine Operator 2. That's right folks... a two man crew. Can't see it happening. The major challenge for cable ferries is wind and tide. Don't think it could happen in the sound. The Needles most certainly does have Transport Canada registration as a ferry. It's also been pointed out here that there is a cable ferry crossing the entrance to Poole Harbour, in the south of England, which would have the same issues with wind and tide. The ferry is similar in size to the Quinitsa.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Aug 9, 2009 7:11:25 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by blackshadow on Aug 9, 2009 11:24:26 GMT -8
Thanks Neil for the information, this is very useful.
But on other hand Landlocked is correct about the number of crew members. The crew size is base on size and layout of the vessel. As cable ferry will not have washrooms and only have a shelter for walk on passengers there fore number of deckhands/mate with be less. As two or three generators for running lights and electric motor winch thus less horsepower thus lower certificated person required as engineer (Needles ferry only require 4th class verses 2nd/3rd class for Quinitsa). There fore crew size will be reduce to at least 3 crew member per shift, this works out about 9-12 full time employees lost. This is huge saving as biggest costs for BCFS is employess than fuel. There fore cable ferry with reduce both.
What I find truly funny is Tony Law. He and his team started the research into the cable ferry and put it forward to BCFS management. Tony's team dropped the issue only after they discover than it would mean not shuttle service during busy times, slow ferry crossing, ferry would based at Buckley Bay and loss of income for many Denman residents whom worked on the ferry. Because of the Coastal Ferry Act force BCFS to make farther studies into it, thus Tony Law shot is own foot. Sometimes it is best keep one's big month shut. Tony's comments on savings will not be pasted along to passengers, well it he really know what it cost to operate the Quinitsa verses what he really should be paying to cover cost to operate. There will be so much cost saves with the cable ferry there will be some type of saving passed on, how much is the question due to over head.
Here are few issues BCFS will have to deal with:
1. Cable ferry will still require to be remove from service for maintenance once in 4 years. As BCFS would only have one cable ferry then what vessel will be in place? Do BCFS maintain two different marine structures to support relief vessel and should Hornby ferry docks have issues. It has happen.
2. Size of the cable ferry. Do to stretching of the cable the ferry isn't able to speed along fast thus not shuttle service. Quinitsa's lift off is too small most busy times thus a larger lift off size is needed due lack of shuttle service. Then cable ferry is too large in winter months.
3. Can BCFS justify the costs of new cable ferry, marine structures and terminal updates verses keeping existing service in operate. Maintain two marine structures?
4. Shell fish operations stuff find their way in the path of the ferry and for most part the ferry is able to avoid them but all the time. Where as the cable ferry cables will meet up this and find way into to the winch thus stopping in crossing until stuff is freed.
For the interest members here, Mark Collins V.P. of Engineering for BCFS has told ship's crew that if he had is way the cable ferry would be in service tomorrow. At this point the earliest for cable to be in operation will be two years.
Thanks guys for research keep it up, I look forward to your comments.
|
|
|
Post by Nucksrule on Aug 9, 2009 15:37:19 GMT -8
Could the Kulleet and Klatawa be viable options for re modeling into cable ferries?
I have also been on the Needles -Fauquier ferry and noticed very little marine traffic. I believe Nakusp has a small marina, but other than that it is just summer trailer boaters. The cables they used looked to me like thick hoses.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Aug 9, 2009 21:29:32 GMT -8
What I find truly funny is Tony Law. He and his team started the research into the cable ferry and put it forward to BCFS management. Tony's team dropped the issue only after they discover than it would mean not shuttle service during busy times, slow ferry crossing, ferry would based at Buckley Bay and loss of income for many Denman residents whom worked on the ferry. Because of the Coastal Ferry Act force BCFS to make farther studies into it, thus Tony Law shot is own foot. Sometimes it is best keep one's big month shut. Tony's comments on savings will not be pasted along to passengers, well it he really know what it cost to operate the Quinitsa verses what he really should be paying to cover cost to operate. There will be so much cost saves with the cable ferry there will be some type of saving passed on, how much is the question due to over head. Tony Law is not opposing this venture per se, but he is raising some very justified concerns about the impossibility of meeting traffic needs with a Quinitsa sized vessel operating on the schedule. Hornby and Denman have 60% of the extra runs in the entire system. I will be very surprised if, at the public meeting, it turns out that BC Ferries has not taken into account virtually all of the concerns raised here. I would think this has gotten well past the point of David Hahn sitting in his office staring out the window with his hands behind his head, musing, "Hey, how about a cable ferry to Denman Island..." It's probably safe to assume that this proposal does not involve expensive re-building of docks or an expensive new vessel, which would negate any fuel and manpower saving.
|
|
|
Post by Nickfro on Aug 10, 2009 14:22:25 GMT -8
Could the Kulleet and Klatawa be viable options for re modeling into cable ferries? Good thought, and don't exclude the Klitsa here. The problem with that in my mind is that they are smaller than the current Quinitsa. You aren't going to reduce capacity on a continually growing run. Also, if it were to become a cable ferry, will that mean that they could only run one ferry at a time? I'm assuming so, otherwise they'd have to run two lines, doubling the amount of cable, and may also need two berths at each end. The costs are adding up. If you could have 2 running at the same time, doing some sort of setup like having 2 K barges could make a little bit of sense. I don't support the cable ferry notion. It just seems to me that they would be restricting their options if something were to break down. They currently have spare vessels that can fill in (albeit smaller than the Quinitsa) but perhaps not so in the cable scheme. I think the Denman route is too busy for a cable ferry solution.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Aug 11, 2009 21:02:56 GMT -8
Luke Posting mid-vacation in Prince George:
Wouldn't the tides also affect the cables? they would stretch at certain tides, and during extreme tides they could maybe snap, unless they find a way to keep lots of slack on the cables at all times... And about that 'loading ramp attached to ferry' (kwuna style), they can load and unload so much faster that way; I like it better that way.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Aug 11, 2009 21:34:13 GMT -8
Welcome back Luke...I was wondering why you were showing no activity for the last few weeks...now then. Wouldn't the tides also affect the cables? they would stretch at certain tides, and during extreme tides they could maybe snap, unless they find a way to keep lots of slack on the cables at all times. This really depends on how the job will be done. If they made the cable drop below the surface this wouldn't be a problem. Not to mention marine traffic might be able to pass. But if it is along the surface the only solution I see is having a fixed or floating platform dock (where the ramps aboard the ferry would rest on) that is attached to the cables the dock platform and cables would have to be adjusted though. And there's no guarantee the dock on the other side is the same height as the other...unless technology has made it possible to adjust both ramps to the same height at the same time. And about that 'loading ramp attached to ferry' (kwuna style), they can load and unload so much faster that way; I like it better that way. Can't argue with that. Would also make the route faster since it will go in a straight line.
|
|
|
Post by Nucksrule on Aug 14, 2009 16:47:08 GMT -8
And about that 'loading ramp attached to ferry' (kwuna style), they can load and unload so much faster that way; I like it better that way. Yes definitely more effective. Both ferries on the arrow lakes have what is similar to a steep boat launch on either side and they just pull up to it and lower the ramp.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Aug 14, 2009 23:55:43 GMT -8
And about that 'loading ramp attached to ferry' (kwuna style), they can load and unload so much faster that way; I like it better that way. Yes definitely more effective. Both ferries on the arrow lakes have what is similar to a steep boat launch on either side and they just pull up to it and lower the ramp. sadly, the problem arises that some ferries have keels that run too deep below the surface to allow for pull-up-to-land docking operations. My solution would be to put a normal ferry dock out over the water, and have a boat laucnh-style slope into the water about 60 feet out, attached to it. It would need to withstand the force of the ferry banging into it with each docking too, though. EDIT: I sorta made two diagrams of how they could bypass the deep-keel problem. They could potentially use this docking method for every ferry with only one vehicle deck. The big truck might have problems on the steep ramp though. Diagram of the dock: NorAd or NorEX docking stern-in at a terminal, with the dark brown line sticking out of the ship being the loading ramp (same style as that of the Kwuna): P.S: maybe we could start a separate topic for Kwuna-style docking systems)
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Aug 15, 2009 10:59:44 GMT -8
NorAd or NorEX docking stern-in at a terminal, with the dark brown line sticking out of the ship being the loading ramp (same style as that of the Kwuna): Look again, ha-ha. That style of berth would not work for the Norad or Norex at all. While there are many various and sundry ferries around the world that load and unload with stern ramps lowered onto a dock, I have never seen a conventional propeller driven vessel use a ramp like that. This is because, in order to get close enough to the ramp to drop a shipboard ramp down onto it, they'd run out of water depth first, and easily remove their prop shafts, and I'm assuming no one really wants to do that to the Norex. Any ship like the Norad or Norex draws a certain amount of water, which usually means they have to stay well off the actual edge of the shore to avoid grounding. Any berthing system I have seen that accommodates shipboard ramps either uses a floating platform like BCFerries, or a man made 'shore' constructed with vertical walls dropping straight down into the water providing enough water depth very close to the water's edge that a ship can approach safely, butt up against the edge of the pier and drop its own ramps directly down on the ground. The Kwuna can use the type of system it does because it is not driven by propellers running along below the ship on long shafts, but instead by the infamous RAD system where the shafts stick straight down in the water and are apparently set far enough back along the hull, that approaching close in in shallow water does not damage the drives which still remain in the water. The Arrow Lakes ferries either use a ramp on the ship itself that is long enough to span the distance from ship to shore, or there is also a fixed ramp anchored on the shore ramp that the ship lowers it's ramp onto to maintain a safe distance and keep it from approaching so close to the shore ramp that it grounds out. The interior lakes ferries also don't have to be concerned with tide changes, and the cable ferries don't have to be concerned about machinery that extends too far below the surface.
|
|
|
Post by NMcKay on Aug 15, 2009 11:41:06 GMT -8
The kwunas RADS are hydraulically swung, just like the kulleet used to have, you can retract the rads into the hull if need be. That's why a couple of years ago when the kwuna ran aground, they re floated her, and nothing was worse for wear.(minus the obvious checking hull for leaks.) remember, the K-Barges only draw 6 feet of water.
|
|
|
Post by fargowolf on Aug 15, 2009 17:58:30 GMT -8
The Kwuna can use the type of system it does because it is not driven by propellers running along below the ship on long shafts, but instead by the infamous RAD system where the shafts stick straight down in the water and are apparently set far enough back along the hull, that approaching close in in shallow water does not damage the drives which still remain in the water. The Arrow Lakes ferries either use a ramp on the ship itself that is long enough to span the distance from ship to shore, or there is also a fixed ramp anchored on the shore ramp that the ship lowers it's ramp onto to maintain a safe distance and keep it from approaching so close to the shore ramp that it grounds out. The interior lakes ferries also don't have to be concerned with tide changes, and the cable ferries don't have to be concerned about machinery that extends too far below the surface.[/quote] The Upper and Lower Arrow Lakes ferries do use a dock to keep the vessel based ramps fairly short. Both these docks can be raised or lowered as the water level in the Arrow Lakes system can vary substantially, due to the hydro-electric dam at Castlegar. The Needles Ferry cable system will be set up for these potentially dramatic changes in water level. They kinda look like this one that the ferry I worked on used. Again, they can be winched up or down the bank depending on the level of the river: i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo311/FargoWolf/Ferries/7-FerryArrivingOnShaftesburySide.jpgBut they are all steel. Ferrynutseattle: That kind of setup wouldn't be practical, given that the channel is a navigable waterway. As I mentioned in a previous post in this thread, it would be a cable setup like the Needles Ferry (refer to Queen of Naniamo's pics of the Needles ferry in this thread). Several perfect examples of similar operations can be found in southern England and Wales. Several of these "chain" (steel chains are used instead of steel cables) operate across navigable waterways including one used by the large ferries going to/from the Isle of Wight (pronunced "White") c15cat: There would be a reduction in crew, as there would only be the Captian, a deckhand (maybe two), the engineer and an engine room assistant. Blackshadow: In regards to the shellfish operations, regulations would prohibit such operations within a given distance of the ferry. As for the stuff that is floating free, most of it is a non issue, but stuff like nets and ropes would be dealt with by the crew from a small boat if required (Best guess). Klatawa Teen: The Kwuna did not run aground. The tide went out halfway through loading at Skidegate (Insert a loud "D'oh!!!"). The crew just waited for the tide to come back in and got the ferry off the concrete slipway. =============== moderator modification to change 1,024px wide pic to a link. I think our limit is something like 800px wide.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Aug 18, 2009 21:53:30 GMT -8
Because of urgent family concerns, I've had to cut short my visit to Hornby, and I won't be able to attend the cable ferry meeting on Denman on Thursday. Hopefully there will be some sort of news release, or perhaps coverage in the Courtenay area papers. Can't say I have a lot of interest in all the guessing and speculation- I'm waiting for some real information.
|
|
|
Post by fargowolf on Aug 20, 2009 18:13:08 GMT -8
moderator modification to change 1,024px wide pic to a link. I think our limit is something like 800px wide. Woops.... My bad in regards to the pic.
|
|
|
Post by stvfishy on Aug 24, 2009 14:58:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Queen of Nanaimo Teen on Aug 24, 2009 23:37:02 GMT -8
I listened to the whole meeting off of that website. Very interesting!! Great way to waste an hour and 45 minutes of your time!!! Lots of different issues regarding the idea are discussed.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Sept 8, 2009 16:38:13 GMT -8
For those with some interest in this story, but not enough to listen to the 105 minutes of the meeting, here's a summary of some of the more salient points, as they came up.
-Cable ferries of more than .9 km length are rare. This proposal is over approximately two kilometres.
-Summary of advantages: less costly, more basic vessel, fuel savings, less emissions and noise, labour cost savings.
-some environmental damage from cable scouring.
-buoys can be used to mark ferry route. Consultation with marine operators has been done- no significant objections raised. Warning lights can also be used when cable is up.
-research using weather buoy to gather wind and wave data has been done; data has been extrapolated to predict extreme conditions and effect on ferry. Results satisfactory. Model used was internationally recognized one in predicting offshore conditions.
-Quinitsa and existing docks would be left in place for up to a year after cable ferry's start, as a back up.
-Several examples of other cable operations given, in varying sea conditions, remarks made on the time tested nature of cable ferries and their dependability.
-BC Ferries does not yet have an actual design of the ferry, so could not give details on passenger facilities. It was referred to at one point by BC Ferries spokesman as a 'barge'.
-Crewing level not known yet.
- Mark Stefanson displayed shocking ignorance of the Denman route when he said that there was normally little shuttling. In fact, Denman has by far the most extra trips of any route in the system.
-Cable rests on the bottom, ferry picks it up, cable settles again. Cable scouring on sea bottom estimated to affect an area twice the width of the ferry.
-It was claimed the ferry could maintain similar speed to the Quinitsa, with quicker docking because of cable operation on a direct route. This in response to concerns about the need for service above contracted level. Ferry would be 50 car capacity.
-Cable would be changed every two years. Change can be done overnight.
-Two new berths, aligned facing each other. Dolphins possibly needed to alleviate wave action on berthed vessel.
-No possibility of Hornby ferry diverting to Denman West or Buckley Bay in the event of problem at Gravelly Bay, which has happened in the past, as existing docks would be removed after the trial period.
-No answer yet as to service during refit of cable ferry.
-Three cables, 1.25 inches in diameter.
-Fuel consumption reduced to one third of present level.
-As for the saving to users; Martin Crilly said any saving would be divided up between all the 'minor' route group. Therefore, would be negligible on any one route.
-Service could be sub-contracted, but there are at present no interested parties.
-Full capital cost: No idea, except that it would be less than $40 million figure suggested.
-Feasibility study budget cost $675,000. Half of that cost built into minor route fare structure.
-Detailed design expected by fall 2010, implementation by summer 2012 at latest.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The attitude of the meeting was mostly polite, but dubious. One speaker eloquently pointed out the the advantage of this proposal was all BC Ferries', with Denman and Hornby residents, at best, holding their own. Denman/Hornby Ferry Advisory Committee chair Tony Law emphasized at the end the importance of maintaining the current contract-plus service, since the size of the vessel would be the same as the Quinitsa.
BC Ferries promised further 'consultation', but it is pretty clear that they will be doing this if they feel it benefits them, despite reservations residents might have. They said there would certainly be no referendum, as someone asked for.
If they can deliver at least the same service as at present, with minimal marine degradation or hindrance to traffic, and provide assurances about service during vessel refit, I think most of the concerns raised will be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by fargowolf on Sept 9, 2009 9:01:22 GMT -8
Very interesting points Neil. Wish I could have been there. Most of my points here will be based on what you have pointed out in your post, as well as the Needles and Adams Lake ferries.
Personally, I don't think the length of the route would be an issue as that would be factored in. Cable length really isn't an issue.
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there will be an economical benefit, as cable ferries use far less fuel, and need a smaller crew. (Don't know what the current crew compliment is on the current ferry.) Crew would likely consist of the following: Captain, deckhand (possibly two), engineer and an engine room assistant.
I'd be curious about the cable scouring. So far as I know, the cables would only be resting on the concrete slipways and not on the ocean floor.
The only changes in terms of marking the route, would likely be updating charts to show the cable ferry. Buoys would likely only be installed close to the slipways. I know on the Adams lake ferry, that there are (or were as I haven't been on it for a while.) large signs mounted on the ferry that read "Cable Ferry"
Not much I can add to weather and wind data bit. To my knowledge, the route is quite sheltered.
Crew level would be smaller, as mentioned out in my second point
Not sure about the cable resting on the bottom. I'm guessing that the wide area, is taking into account, the effects tidal action, in addition to other variables such as wind.
Service speed could easily be maintained and the crossing time would be reduced from 10 min, to about 5 min as the cable ferry wouldn't have to travel in a large arc like the current ferry does. As an example, the Needles/Faquier Ferry route is about 2 Km in length at highest water level (Basically to the treeline). The crossing takes about 5 min, and the ferry has a vehicle capacity of 40
All maintainence would be done when the ferry is normally not in service, but that's pretty much a given.
Dolphins wouldn't be practical, or required, as the ferry would be held to the dock like the Needles ferry does (If dock built/required) or just pull up onto the slipway. I'm guessing that there would be brakes on the cable drums to control speed in addition using the engines as a brake and something akin to a "Parking Brake" while the ferry is at dock.
The current loading bridges could be left to serve as a back up, as a replacement vessel could use them. If they are removed, they could be replaced with concrete ramps to allow a tug/barge service if/when the cable ferry is not running during service hours.
I'm not sure about the cable diameters. I think that they would be a bit thicker, but I'm no expert. The cables would be coated in a rubber like material to protect them from the effects of salt water. Pics of the Needles ferry are a good example (The orange color of the cables) Fuel consumption would indeed be reduced as the cable allows the vessel to reach service speed without really having to run the engine at much higher RPMs (Think of it as driving conservatively vs. aggressively)
You wouldn't happen to know if there's a contact E-Mail would you, or if there's another meeting scheduled? I'd love to learn more.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Sept 9, 2009 9:45:52 GMT -8
The information from the meeting was fairly clear with regard to scouring, cable diameter, dolphins, and other issues you've raised.
Quinitsa currently has a crew of six.
Mark Stefanson promised further consultation. but on the tape, I didn't get a source that anyone can access for ongoing information.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Sept 9, 2009 10:25:00 GMT -8
Sounds like BCFerries is taking their usual one-sided approach with this in terms of the impressions you get from the let's not hold a referendum to get honest feedback on the proposal, and let's make a lot of vague generalizations about the nature of the route to satisfy our own assumptions without actually observing the reality of how it normally operates, by deliberately ignoring the info about the number of extra runs the route sometimes requires.
But, hey, they're a private company after all, guess we have to be satisfied with what they give us and be happy with it. We can't express doubts or concerns about it, because you never know, they might find some other way to make the service even less effective and less appealing just to serve us right for voicing any opposition. They have certainly mastered the techniques of turning a deaf ear to their actual customers: the traveling public who they are providing the service to, and that must have been quite the feasibility study at $675,000. I wonder how many of the island residents they actually talked to. Also the wonderful tactic of, don't release the full figures of the capital cost even though they probably know quite well what a reasonable estimate would be.
And the other tactic to make sure that once the operation is up and running, and maintaining the appearance that it can manage the service levels, they will then make sure that even if anyone expresses further doubts or concerns nothing can be done because all the other infrastructure will be conveniently removed. In addition, they can screw two islands for the price of one, if traffic to Hornby is disrupted because there is no alternative route for that ferry to take in harsh conditions. There would probably be a very short trial period, likely during a light traffic season, they will summarily decide the service is adequate and remove any other alternatives so that even if their idea proves to be flawed, they can just throw their hands up in mock dismay and claim they can't do anything about it now.
It just seems to me that the points coming out of this meeting indicate a little bit of bullying and intimidation tactics by the company, with regard to the fact that you get the impression they've already made a decision and now they are just telling you about it, but they don't really have any interest in your opinions or concerns. Maybe the cable ferry will turn out to be a better operation, maybe it won't, but at the very least they should still give people the choice, especially since the customers are the ones paying the fares, instead of just saying they have a proposal, but implying it's already a done deal as long as it suits them.
I also can't fathom the idea of the cable resting on the bottom the whole way across. That would mean a whole lot of extra cable length that would need to be drawn up all that way to the surface to run through the drums, then fall back down to the bottom again. I wonder about fuel efficiency because it would take a lot of extra energy to haul in all that length of cable. Besides, the whole concept of the cable-ferry is that the ferry draws itself along the cable as it moves, not that it reels it up from the bottom. We've already discussed the fact that the channel there is fairly deep, so to reach the bottom would take an awful lot of cable length.
You might as well attach crab pots to it and go fishing because if it is going all the way down to the bottom, you will have the cable falling off at potentially sharp angles in front of and behind the ferry. How can it be pulling itself along the cable, when it first has to pull the cable up from the bottom, vastly increasing the actual amount of cable it has to pass through the drums. At the same time it is not covering any more actual distance along the surface and may be taking a lot longer to cover the distance because it can't move forward as quickly when it has to be constantly pulling the cable up to every location along the line, instead of having a fairly level cable for it to run along freely. That seems a little backwards in concept.
|
|
|
Post by fargowolf on Sept 9, 2009 12:32:35 GMT -8
The information from the meeting was fairly clear with regard to scouring, cable diameter, dolphins, and other issues you've raised. Quinitsa currently has a crew of six. Mark Stefanson promised further consultation. but on the tape, I didn't get a source that anyone can access for ongoing information. Thanks for the info Neil. In reply to Mill Bay's post, I don't think there was any bullying. At least to me there wasn't. As for the cable issue, you should make a trip to the Needles ferry. The same issue you raised in your post, also happens there. The cables don't sit on the bottom for the whole length. That's just not at all practical. If I may... Look at it this way... Next time you're out and about, have a look at the lines up on a power pole. See how they sag a little bit. The same principal applies for the Needles Ferry and, if built, the Denman Island Ferry. There is one spot on the Buckley Bay side where at low tide, the cables will likely be resting on the bottom. As for the fuel efficiency, look at it this way. Next time you go for a ride to Vancouver Island, sit at the aft end of the ferry. As it leaves the terminal, notice the increased vibrations? That's the engines screaming to spin the props at high speed, jut to get the vessel moving. A cable ferry doesn't have to do that. The Captain merely puts the ferry into gear and gradually increases power accordingly. Since the engines don't have to work all that hard, they consume less fuel, and thus are far cheaper to run.
|
|