Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Sept 9, 2009 16:31:42 GMT -8
The fuel savings from a cable ferry vs a conventional ship is actually due to the lack of propellers. When a propeller moves a ship forward, it does so by pushing a "jet" of water backward, utilizing Newton's 3rd Law of motion (every action has an equal and opposite reaction).
A propeller is nowhere near 100% efficient at converting an engine's rotational motion into linear motion. Much of the energy is dissipated in cavitation and churning of the water. If you look out the stern of a ship, you see water moving in many directions, not just opposite to the ship's direction. A good portion of the energy is lost from friction as well.
In contrast, an engine running a winch hauling a cable is MUCH more efficient, since the only losses would be friction in reduction gears and bearings, as well as the drag of hauling the cable up from it's resting place.
|
|
|
Post by fargowolf on Sept 9, 2009 20:48:29 GMT -8
Thanks again for the far better explanation Nick. That's far better than my attempt.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Sept 11, 2009 22:36:53 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. At some point in the transcript you hear (I believe) Mark Stefanson mentioning that this meeting had to be held as part of the process of considering a major change to a regulated route. Just in case anyone thought they were doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. It was also mentioned, interestingly, that Martin Crilly had directed BC Ferries to consider cable service on their routes. So, apparently, sometimes they do do what they're told... unlike the reaction to the recent provincial probe into their operations, where the response was, basically, we'll take the results into consideration, but we won't necessarily be bound by them. Because they're a private corporation, you see. This whole concept of consultation is an interesting example of how words morph into different creatures depending on the motivation of the user. A speaker at this meeting stipulated that she wanted her views recorded, and she was assured they would be. Several times it was repeated that BC Ferries valued the input of the public, and, if the demand was there, more meetings would be held. At no point was it ever suggested that the public actually had any tangible say in the project. BC Ferries was adamant, from the start, that they were going ahead with the study, and certainly gave the impression that they would be adopting the cable option if it proved feasible and economical. In the last contract negotiations, my wife's municipal employer won the right to contract out areas of work as long as they gave the union six month's notice. I think that's pretty much the kind of 'consultation' we're seeing in this cable project. Certainly in character for BC Ferries, when you consider that their annual general meetings, which they're obliged to hold, are given the absolute minimum of publicity, and not even mentioned on their website. Under Campbell's ferry set up, there is a facade of public 'consultation' to maintain, and maintain it they do, at least to the letter of the law.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 9, 2009 7:17:24 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by NMcKay on Dec 15, 2009 14:46:08 GMT -8
the big question is... Diesel Electric? or Diesel Hydraulic?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 28, 2009 14:13:38 GMT -8
Here is a BCFS webpage on the proposal: www.bcferries.com/about/public_consult/bcf_pubs/Proposal document for the 8/20/09 open-house. Contains some pictures and drawings. - Click on the hidden HTML link, located directly above the words "Kelly Wheeler, Senior"
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Apr 21, 2010 9:04:25 GMT -8
The April Western Mariner has an article from the president of Capilano Maritime Design, which I assume is working with BC Ferries on the Denman cable ferry question.
A few points from the article:
-As has been pointed out elsewhere, the ferry would have two outboard cables serving as guides, with a central cable winching the vessel back and forth.
-Either of the preferred propulsion systems, diesel hydraulic or diesel electric, would have power plants mounted at the car deck level, on the sponsons. The only machinery below deck would be the winch drums, meaning of course no engine room crew.
-Power requirement for this vessel would be in the range of 450 bhp, giving it the second smallest power plant in the system, after the Mill Bay.
-The weight of the cable trailing the vessel as it approached dock would be heavy enough to propel it forward, requiring some braking.
-Minimum crew of two required, as opposed to the five or six currently. I can't see Transport Canada allowing them to operate with two.
-All battery powered cable ferry a possibility for the future as technology and initial cost becomes more attractive.
-Hull design allows for fewer drydockings.
BC ferries initially said they would be deciding yay or nay on this project by the middle of this year.
|
|
|
Post by fargowolf on Apr 21, 2010 16:46:49 GMT -8
The April Western Mariner has an article from the president of Capilano Maritime Design, which I assume is working with BC Ferries on the Denman cable ferry question. A few points from the article: -As has been pointed out elsewhere, the ferry would have two outboard cables serving as guides, with a central cable winching the vessel back and forth. -Either of the preferred propulsion systems, diesel hydraulic or diesel electric, would have power plants mounted at the car deck level, on the sponsons. The only machinery below deck would be the winch drums, meaning of course no engine room crew. -Power requirement for this vessel would be in the range of 450 bhp, giving it the second smallest power plant in the system, after the Mill Bay. -The weight of the cable trailing the vessel as it approached dock would be heavy enough to propel it forward, requiring some braking. -Minimum crew of two required, as opposed to the five or six currently. I can't see Transport Canada allowing them to operate with two. -All battery powered cable ferry a possibility for the future as technology and initial cost becomes more attractive. -Hull design allows for fewer drydockings. BC ferries initially said they would be deciding yay or nay on this project by the middle of this year. RE Point 1: The cable setup would be identical to that of the Needles Ferry. Can't remember where the pics are on the board though. RE Point 2: Diesel Electric is the most common, though I'm curious as to why the engines would be mounted on the main deck, rather than below it. I'm guessing it would be because of it's small size. RE Point 3: Because a cable drawn ferry is much more efficient, a smaller engine makes a lot of sense, as Nick pointed out in an earlier post. RE Point 4: Not sure what you're getting at there. The weight of the cables trailing the vessel would act as a brake to some degree as it approached the dock, but I do admit that I'm no expert with ship physics. RE Point 5: I can see a crew of two, though most likely, it will be a crew of at least four. (Captain, First Officer, Deckhand and Engineer) RE Point 6: That's a very interesting idea. I'm guessing once the technology becomes viable/available for general use then it certainly be a distinct and unique possibility.
|
|
|
Post by goldgazelle on Aug 19, 2010 12:38:13 GMT -8
I am a resident of Denman Island and this is what has come to my attention on the matter of the "Proposed" Cable Ferry.
-#1 In the last five years BC Ferries removed the old dock at Buckley Bay and built a new floating dock (opposed to the old pylon dock) and slightly enlarged the loading traffic area of the parking lot. This dock is vary fancy compared to the old dock in that as the tide changes, the loading ramp moves up and down according to the level of the water and doesn't need to be manually lowered and a pin engaged for vehicles to safely drive on it (I am not talking about the part of the ramp that is lowered on to the vehicle deck). Oh, and our ferry, in the last eight years maybe, had a total refit which included and not limited to: nonskid coating and paint on the vehicle deck; a brand new zodiac rescue boat; totally redone lounges and bathrooms; a redone bridge with new navigating systems, with a central navigating console (instead of one at the forward window and one at the aft window); a total new paint job; and I'm sure the list goes on such as new engine room equipment.
-#2 I don't remember the exact price tag that came with that dock and refit, but I do remember at one of the very first meetings on Denman when this whole cable ferry thing came up, one of the islanders (who did know the rough price of the new dock and refit of the ferry) got up and told the BC Ferries representatives that even though this new concept would save money, it would take 20 years before it could pay off what has been spent on the previous refit and new dock.
-#3 CREW: One of the money saving schemes that the BC Ferries representatives actually presented at the first meetings is that the cable ferry wouldn't require as many crew members. I bet that at least 75% (and I'm pretty sure that this is an under estimate) of the crew are Denman Islanders. One of the deck hands who is a family friend has recently started back at work after her maternal leave and would find it very hard to find a new local job while raising a family (considering there aren't many job opportunities on Denman)
-#4 (I think some one else might have mentioned the following in another post) Because of the need for specialized docks on both sides of Baynes Sound, if the cable ferry ever had problems and and needed to be TOWED to Deas Dock, Denman and Hornby islanders would not be able to get to Vancouver Island for food, medication, WORK, etc (yes we have a general store on Denman but they only carry so much).
-#5 Now I don't know if this is actually true and maybe some one could tell me so, but I have heard that this would be the first salt water cable ferry in BC. I have also heard that the longest cable ferry route in BC is 1Km, and I KNOW that this one would be 2Kms. I'm assuming they thought of these things in there feasibility study.
-#6 Now this last thing is a very strange and creepy discovery and I want you to know that it is second generation info (one of my family members got this info from the person who experienced it) and not a rumor that is floating around the Island (yet): A resident of Denman noticed in our Denman/Hornby Island Grapevine paper at the very end of an article, titled "Denman Island Rate Payers Association Report", that there was a meeting being held at our community hall in regards to the "Proposed" Cable Ferry. So she decided to go and see what decisions had been made, what new things had come up, and what kinds of questions would be asked and what the answers would be.
(Now, I would like to make clear that this meeting was held on a week day at around 2 o'clock in the afternoon which is when most of the people that are effected by this "Proposal" are at work, and for a majority of them work is located off island).
Due to the lack of advertising and common sense towards who can attend at such a time of the week and day, there were only TWO Denman islanders, including the person I am talking about, and SEVEN BC Ferries representatives at the meeting. One of the questions asked at this meeting was, "Why is this meeting held at such a ridiculous time, when the people who are most effected by this change are at work?" And one of the BC Ferries representatives answered, "Because it is a convenient time for us."
(I would like to state that when this "Proposal" first came up a year or so ago, the meetings that had been held then were very strongly attended with very strong, and reasonable, opposition because of the advertisement and the convenient time for the Islanders that they were being held. Supposedly, the most recent meetings that have been held have been as poorly advertised and as poorly attended as the above meeting. As you may have noticed I have been using the term "Proposed" in quotations. This is because of the fact that recently these meetings have been so poorly attended that BC Ferries has decided to go through with the project and it is now officially "A Go" due to the "lack of Islander opposition".)
When the above anonymous person (who attended the poorly attended meeting) asked, outside of the meeting, the Denman Island BC Ferries Advisory Liaison (who unfortunately for him is a Denman Islander) "Why have these meetings been so poorly advertised and held at such an inconvenient time?". His very rude and disgusting reply to that question was that he stuck out the palm of his hand in front of this very respectable woman's face and simply turned and walked away without saying a word of response.
I would like to thank every one who has taken the time to read my post. I know it is very long but we must get the truth out there. I would just like to repeat that point #6 is 100% fact and it will not go unnoticed. These issues that I have brought up are in no particular order. This is all the info I have at the moment but hopefully there will be more to share with you. Thank you again and please don't hesitate to reply to my post.
GoldGazelle
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Aug 19, 2010 13:47:15 GMT -8
Hey, GoldGazelle, interesting story!
Do keep in mind though, that none of us are BC Ferries representatives. If you wish to get this to BC Ferries, you must do so by contacting them through their website.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Aug 19, 2010 14:10:53 GMT -8
Hey, GoldGazelle, interesting story! Do keep in mind though, that none of us are BC Ferries representatives. If you wish to get this to BC Ferries, you must do so by contacting them through their website. Hey, I.L.O: I think the poster realizes that. GoldGazelle: When I heard about this proposal, it struck me as more than slightly odd that, as you say, it came so soon after the major capital projects at Buckley Bay and on the Quinitsa. I agree; it's inconceivable that BC Ferries would make back the cost of those alterations, as well as the cost of more new docks, and a new cable ferry, for many, many years. The logic of this thing is somewhat baffling, at least in the short (twenty years?) term. I seem to recall that BC Ferries stated that it was ferry commissioner Martin Crilly who directed them to take a look at options such as this one, so I wonder if perhaps this is an 'exercise' just to show that BC Ferries is indeed open to new ways of providing service. I don't suppose Denman or Hornby Islanders would have any objection to this plan if service was to be at least at the same level as now, and as dependable. But as you say, when this cable ferry is out for refit, there will be no replacement. And there certainly will not be the option to bring the Hornby ferry around if need be, as happened with a dock mishap at Gravelly Bay a while back. BC Ferries 'consults' with locals when it suits them, or when issues are minor enough that they don't matter. They displayed an almost contemptuous attitude toward northerners when they were seeking approval for their alteration to the Port Hardy - Prince Rupert ferry, and I think it was only the cool reaction of the province that stalled their plan. If they are set on this cable ferry, it will happen, whatever the local reaction may be. As a Hornby property owner and part time resident, I'm ambivalent about the issue. I don't want to see job losses among the Denman crew, and I don't want service to be impacted. Environmentally, it's hard to argue against a cable option. In terms of feasibility, the distance is a bit long for cable, but it's doable. Still, the proposed savings pale in relation to money already invested and what would need to be invested in building this.
|
|
|
Post by fargowolf on Aug 19, 2010 17:09:05 GMT -8
As has been pointed out, the environmental benefits of running a cable ferry to Denman, can't be beat. The same can be said for the bottom line, for the Finance Dept. A cable ferry is a lot cheaper to operate than a regular ferry. I look at it this way: What it costs to construct won't be cheap. However, the savings as a result of the of being able to maintain, or even expand capacity, at a much lower cost... Money that would have been spent on the operation of a regular ferry, would be used to pay off the expenses quicker. I feel that the existing docks would remain, so that a substitute vessel could be brought in if the cable ferry is out of service, or, for what ever reason, a lot of extra capacity is required. I'm not sure about job losses, either. Skill/qualification upgrades, and the opportunity to transfer should mitigate any job losses. Also, crew rotation could be done in such a way, so as to mitigate any potential job losses. At least in theory...
|
|
|
Post by goldgazelle on Aug 19, 2010 20:18:22 GMT -8
As has been pointed out, the environmental benefits of running a cable ferry to Denman, can't be beat. The same can be said for the bottom line, for the Finance Dept. A cable ferry is a lot cheaper to operate than a regular ferry. I look at it this way: What it costs to construct won't be cheap. However, the savings as a result of the of being able to maintain, or even expand capacity, at a much lower cost... Money that would have been spent on the operation of a regular ferry, would be used to pay off the expenses quicker. I feel that the existing docks would remain, so that a substitute vessel could be brought in if the cable ferry is out of service, or, for what ever reason, a lot of extra capacity is required. I'm not sure about job losses, either. Skill/qualification upgrades, and the opportunity to transfer should mitigate any job losses. Also, crew rotation could be done in such a way, so as to mitigate any potential job losses. At least in theory... Are you sure it would be an environmental benefit to build two new docks, scrap the two old ones (one of which is about five years old), and build a whole new ferry? There would probably be more of an environmental impact in order to mine all of the ore and create all of the plastics and materials (most of which come out of an oil well) to build this project compared to making the existing ferry run on diesel electric engines. And this cable ferry would still have to consume some form petroleum in order to keep it running. Fargo Wolf, you should be on BC Ferries' finance committee (that is if you aren't already). As for your opinion on having the old docks remain, I wish that the people in charge of this project felt the same way as you. Unfortunately, the BC Ferries representatives that attended the last "very secretive" meeting held on Denman Island told the two islanders who attended (if you want to know why only two islanders showed up, read my previous post) that the two current docks would be dismantled after one year. This is very touchy, considering if the cable ferry did experience problems it would be either during that year (which we would hope), or just after they dismantle the docks when the cable ferry is broken-in. And sadly, for our resident and non-resident BC Ferries employees, the BC Ferries representatives openly stated that one of the cutting cost features of the new cable ferry would be that they could "permanently" reduce the number of crew members.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Aug 19, 2010 21:39:04 GMT -8
As for your opinion on having the old docks remain, I wish that the people in charge of this project felt the same way as you. Unfortunately, the BC Ferries representatives that attended the last "very secretive" meeting held on Denman Island told the two islanders who attended (if you want to know why only two islanders showed up, read my previous post) that the two current docks would be dismantled after one year. This is very touchy, considering if the cable ferry did experience problems it would be either during that year (which we would hope), or just after they dismantle the docks when the cable ferry is broken-in. I share some of your reservations about this project, but lets not make things more Machiavellian than they really are. This dismantling of the existing docks wasn't announced at any 'secret' meeting; it was in my summary (post #47, this thread) of the initial Denman meeting, which was well advertised and well attended. I would suggest- in fairness to BC Ferries (or perhaps to play devil's advocate, depending on your point of view) that the reason for poor attendance at any subsequent meeting may be that most people got the answers they were seeking from the first meeting. Everything to do with docks, operations issues, and reduction in crew was brought forth there. Granted, it wasn't what people necessarily wanted to hear.
|
|
|
Post by fargowolf on Aug 20, 2010 15:32:46 GMT -8
As has been pointed out, the environmental benefits of running a cable ferry to Denman, can't be beat. The same can be said for the bottom line, for the Finance Dept. A cable ferry is a lot cheaper to operate than a regular ferry. I look at it this way: What it costs to construct won't be cheap. However, the savings as a result of the of being able to maintain, or even expand capacity, at a much lower cost... Money that would have been spent on the operation of a regular ferry, would be used to pay off the expenses quicker. I feel that the existing docks would remain, so that a substitute vessel could be brought in if the cable ferry is out of service, or, for what ever reason, a lot of extra capacity is required. I'm not sure about job losses, either. Skill/qualification upgrades, and the opportunity to transfer should mitigate any job losses. Also, crew rotation could be done in such a way, so as to mitigate any potential job losses. At least in theory... Are you sure it would be an environmental benefit to build two new docks, scrap the two old ones (one of which is about five years old), and build a whole new ferry? There would probably be more of an environmental impact in order to mine all of the ore and create all of the plastics and materials (most of which come out of an oil well) to build this project compared to making the existing ferry run on diesel electric engines. And this cable ferry would still have to consume some form petroleum in order to keep it running. Fargo Wolf, you should be on BC Ferries' finance committee (that is if you aren't already). As for your opinion on having the old docks remain, I wish that the people in charge of this project felt the same way as you. Unfortunately, the BC Ferries representatives that attended the last "very secretive" meeting held on Denman Island told the two islanders who attended (if you want to know why only two islanders showed up, read my previous post) that the two current docks would be dismantled after one year. This is very touchy, considering if the cable ferry did experience problems it would be either during that year (which we would hope), or just after they dismantle the docks when the cable ferry is broken-in. And sadly, for our resident and non-resident BC Ferries employees, the BC Ferries representatives openly stated that one of the cutting cost features of the new cable ferry would be that they could "permanently" reduce the number of crew members. The new "docks" wouldn't be the familiar bridges/aprons that are there now. Rather they would be like a boat launching ramp, which is actually quite common in the UK, as well as several places here in BC and AB (Alberta). "If" docks were to be used, they would be along the lines of what is in place on the Needles/Faquier (spelling?) ferry, here in the interior (Pics somewhere on the boards). As I pointed out, the existing docks would remain, so that service to the Island would be guaranteed. HOWEVER... Should the existing docks be dismantled, the new one for the cable ferry MUST be wide enough to accommodate BOTH cable ferry and barge at the SAME time, in order to assure service to Denman (police, fire and ambulance service MUST be maintained). The Needles Ferry has two slipways. One for the cable ferry and one for a replacement service. As has been stated earlier in the thread, the cable ferry would actually be a huge money saver. The existing ferry has to really throttle up in order to move away from the dock. With the cable setup, power is applied gradually, ONLY to pull the vessel away from the slip. After that, the captain would reduce power. The KEY difference here is, is physics. The existing ferry has to apply full throttle (or very close to it) in order to provide sufficient thrust to move away from the dock. With the cable ferry, throttle is gradually applied to take up tension on the cables and thus pull the ferry away from the slip. This is all done at a MUCH lower engine speed. Even away from the dock, the current ferry has to run at a higher engine speed, whereas the cable ferry could achieve a similar speed, but with reduced engine power AND on a far more direct route. No. I'm not on BC Ferries Finance Committee. I'm just a ferry lover/former defacto captain of a (insert swear words here) ferry in Alberta. I'm just giving my opinion/view on this topic. As for the potential job losses, that's why I mentioned the skill upgrades/transfers. In a perfect world, these losses wouldn't happen and I DO HOPE that BC Ferries would be able to accommodate any crew member/terminal staff who would be displaced as a result. I have no idea how the crew rotation works on that route, perhaps it could be as simple as changing the days on /off. (IE: 4 on, 4 off type thing) If that's not possible, then, like you, I hoping that they can be accommodated elsewhere in the system, most likely at the busier terminals. I can't really add any more to this, as I'm going on what's been posted on this thread, as well as EXTREMELY limited knowledge. I'm just trying to give an unbiased opinion on the subject, but, Islanders, being islanders.... There is no such thing it seems...
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Oct 13, 2010 14:47:37 GMT -8
Application notice at the Buckley Bay terminal. (It was a lot clearer before I put in in Photobucket.)
|
|
|
Post by fargowolf on Oct 24, 2010 6:01:51 GMT -8
Thanks for the pic Neil. It does confirm what I had mentioned in my earlier posts about the routing of the cable ferry, should it be constructed.
|
|
|
Post by fargowolf on Oct 29, 2010 15:47:13 GMT -8
Updatage: 10. New Minor Vessel – Cable Ferry 429 BC Ferries has determined that it is technically feasible to replace the conventional ferry service on Route 21 (Buckley Bay – Denman Island) with a cable ferry. A preliminary financial analysis has forecast the cable ferry service to yield a 40-year net present value that is more favourable than conventional ferry service. This is due to a combination of anticipated capital and operational cost savings (labour, fuel, and maintenance). The detailed business case in support of this project is still under development. The operational environment in Baynes Sound has been determined to be conducive to the safe and reliable operation of a cable ferry. An environmental impact assessment has been conducted. In addition, consultations have been conducted and are ongoing with regulatory agencies such as Transport Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Integrated Land Management Branch; and stakeholders such as Baynes Sound user groups, First Nations groups and customers of Routes 21 and 22. The proposed scope of this project would include procurement of a 50-car cable ferry for service on Route 21, including required modifications to the terminals at Buckley Bay and Denman West. The introduction of the cable ferry is expected to result in the following vessel redeployments: Cable ferry is deployed to Route 21, replacing the Quinitsa The Quinitsa is deployed to Route 22, replacing both the Kahloke and Tachek The Tachek is deployed to Route 24, replacing the Tenaka which is retired without replacement The Kahloke becomes the full time relief vessel. Regulatory approval for this project has not yet been obtained. Should this project not proceed for regulatory or other reasons, significant elements of the capital plan will need to be revisited. Got the info from: British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. Performance Term Three Submission to the British Columbia Ferries Commissioner September 30, 2010 Linky: www.bcferrycommission.com/PT3_Document_with_Duty_Updates_-Clean.pdf
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Oct 30, 2010 8:36:00 GMT -8
I'm having trouble understanding their time line for this... If this is a capital project that they want to implement as soon as possible, how does that scale out with the relocation and retirement of the affected vessels? Particularly the Tenaka which apparently just had a life-extension refit. Why then, rearrange all these minor vessels and push her into retirement so suddenly? Certainly not the best allocation of resources to refit a ship, thereby extending its service life, only to retire it before the full value of that refit is ever fully used.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Sept 30, 2011 11:24:38 GMT -8
www.canada.com/Cable+ferry+plan+upsets+Denman+Islanders/5480927/story.htmlCable ferry plan upsets Denman Islanders By Spencer Anderson, Comox Valley Echo September 30, 2011 B.C. Ferries is moving towards implementing cable ferry service between Buckley Bay and Denman Island, despite concerns from Denman residents. The corporation has been looking at a proposal to replace the current operating vessel, the Quinitsa, with a cheaper cable-drawn alternative for the past two years, stemming from a suggestion to study the option from the B.C. Ferry Commission (an independent regulatory body). However, B.C. Ferries has now secured approval for cable ferry service from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. It now only needs approval from its own board of directors and senior administration, Transport Canada and the Provincial Integrated Land Management Bureau. Later this fall, the company also plans to call for proposals from alternate service providers - private companies - to "design, build, and/or operate" the cable ferry service on behalf of B.C. Ferries. If no alternate service provider were found, B.C. Ferries could proceed on its own. Denman residents were given details of the proposal at public meetings on Sept. 23 and 27 (Tuesday). Hundreds attended, and residents spoke very clearly and uniformly against cable ferry service, said Tony Law, chair of the Denman Island/Hornby Advisory Committee to B.C. Ferries. Law has written to B.C. Ferries CEO David Hahn and asked that the corporation put the brakes on the proposal. He noted that the last public meeting on the issue took place in 2009, when a cable ferry was merely being considered. Public response to the idea was lukewarm even back then. Now, he said, it seems like a "done deal," and that has many residents feeling nervous. "It's not a hugely exposed route, so I think B.C. Ferries engineers have done a fair amount of diligence in terms of assessing the conditions and looking at other cable ferries [elsewhere]," he said. However, he added, the corporation would be operating the longest cable ferry route in the world. He also said the proposed design, made from a lighter aluminum hull than conventional ferries, would also expose passengers to rougher crossings and uncertain service delivery. "I think the apprehension is that this is a little bit of a guinea pig, a little bit of an experiment, that there's nothing comparable to this operating in the world in terms of the scale that's been proposed." Law said residents were also concerned on impacts to the local economy, as B.C. Ferries is seeking a cable ferry crew of three, half of what current crew levels are for the r oute. Law acknowledged that a cable ferry service would be cheaper to operate - it uses about a third of the fuel as the Quinitsa does, according to B.C. Ferries, resulting in savings for the system. However, those savings would be diluted across other routes, leaving Denman residents bearing the burden with little to show for it. B.C. Ferries spokeswoman Deborah Marshall disagreed that the cable ferry service would be experimental - she noted that similar ferries are used in 11 other routes in B.C. She also said it would be less costly to build and operate, and that the use of alternative fuels - such as liquid natural gas - could shave down fuel consumption to one ninth of current levels. True, she added, cost savings would be spread out over the entire B.C. system. But on the other hand, the capital cost of implementing the new service would also be spread out. Cable ferries also have a lesser impact on the environment, she said. Marshall would not disclose the estimated cost savings from the change, or price tag to build the new boat, as those could affect forthcoming bids from contractors. Transport Canada is going to be involved in the design of the vessel, and necessary approval from key government agencies is expected "shortly," Marshall said. If all goes according to plan, construction of the vessel would take place next summer, and the ferry would be put into service beginning November 2013. "We heard the concerns of the residents, but we're trying to save money here," said Marshall. "The whole objective here is to try and mitigate fare increases." spanderson@comoxvalleyecho.com © Copyright (c) Postmedia News
|
|
|
Post by Nickfro on Sept 30, 2011 13:23:07 GMT -8
I question the concept of using a cable ferry in salt water versus fresh water. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all 11 cable ferries in BC operate in fresh water environments. So in addition to this potentially being the longest cable ferry run around, it might not have the proven track record of longevity in a salt water situation.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Sept 30, 2011 14:28:11 GMT -8
I question the concept of using a cable ferry in salt water versus fresh water. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all 11 cable ferries in BC operate in fresh water environments. So in addition to this potentially being the longest cable ferry run around, it might not have the proven track record of longevity in a salt water situation. There are a number of salt water cable ferries around, though not in BC. I believe this would be the longest in the world, and at a mile long, is considered to be at about the limit for such operations.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Sept 30, 2011 14:45:25 GMT -8
If the cable were to, say, snap or come off it's track somehow, would the ferry then be let adrift, or would it have some method of alternative propulsion?
|
|
|
Post by glasseye on Sept 30, 2011 18:03:06 GMT -8
If the ferry comes off the cable, the ferry would be adrift until one of WMG's finest can come and get it.
Maybe not a good idea to be aboard that thing in anything other than dead-calm conditions until all the bugs get worked out and there's ample evidence that BCFS is doing better maintenance than it did with the Queen of Oak Bay a few years back. CFB Comox is close, but that's small comfort of the ferry hits something solid and goes down like a rock....
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Sept 30, 2011 22:12:14 GMT -8
If the ferry comes off the cable, the ferry would be adrift until one of WMG's finest can come and get it. Maybe not a good idea to be aboard that thing in anything other than dead-calm conditions until all the bugs get worked out and there's ample evidence that BCFS is doing better maintenance than it did with the Queen of Oak Bay a few years back. CFB Comox is close, but that's small comfort of the ferry hits something solid and goes down like a rock.... Feeling a bit apocalyptic this evening, are we? Were you watching the Poseidon Adventure on the Cheesy Disaster Channel? Fortunately, there are few Gil Island style, hull shearing rock outcroppings along the ferry route in Baynes Sound, so CFB Comox can probably stand down. Cable ferries virtually never come off their cables, and as I understand it, the proposed vessel does have some propulsion, so it might be able to get itself out of danger before it drifted down to Nanaimo. More of a concern is that the proposal is for another 50 car vessel, when summer traffic justifies a step up, and the fact that every refit would mean a disruption in service with no back up.
|
|