3rd 64-car ferry: purchased by BC Ferries?

[Low Light Mike]

Just throwing-out a right-brain idea for discussion:

- Would the 3rd 64-car ferry be an opportunity for BC Ferries to purchase this vessel and use it for a BC Minor route?

Things that might support this notion:
- the 3rd 64-car vessel is likely going to be surplus
- WSF can't cancel it
- BC Ferries needs a new intermediate vessel that can be certified to cross Georgia Strait in winters.
- BC Ferries would be happy to buy a non-Canadian ship.

================

So please add your left-brain logic to correct or enforce this idea of mine.

[Starsteward]

I understand you have just made David Hahn's day!!
Oh....you mean we'd have to 'pay' for it?? Hmmm, ....turns pockets inside out...

[Kahloke]

Mar 2, 2010 13:13:30 GMT -8 Low Light Mike said:

Just throwing-out a right-brain idea for discussion:

- Would the 3rd 64-car ferry be an opportunity for BC Ferries to purchase this vessel and use it for a BC Minor route?

Things that support this notion:
- the 3rd 64-car vessel is likely going to be surplus
- WSF can't cancel it
- BC Ferries needs a new intermediate vessel that can be certified to cross Georgia Strait in winters.
- BC Ferries would be happy to buy a non-Canadian ship.

================

So please add your left-brain logic to correct or enforce this idea of mine.

Under the current plan, the 3rd 64-car vessel is supposed to be deployed at Point Defiance-Tahlequah. I can't say I agree with that, or agree with even building a 3rd one (two are more than enough), but that's how the cards appear to be falling at this moment. So, that pretty much means the 3rd one won't be surplus.

I don't know why WSF can't cancel it. It could be terribly expensive to do so, and may breach contracts, but until the actual construction begins, I don't consider anything "written in stone".

A question for you: does BC Ferries have any cross-strait routes where a 64 car ferry would be adequate to fill the need? It seems like most of those routes need a higher capacity vessel, except for maybe some of the northern minor routes.

Given the choice, I agree with some others on this thread that money should be diverted from the 3rd 64-car ferry to start the 144-car ferry program, which is the size and type of vessel we really need. It doesn't appear that will happen, but that would be the right thing to do, IMO.

[whidbeyislandguy]

Hmmm.. something like this..

[Low Light Mike]

Thanks Kahloke, for your question of capacity needs.

That pokes a big hole in my idea....

BC Ferries capacities for smaller cross-straight ships (say for relief on the Powell River - Comox route) are 115-125 car capacity.

So the 64-car ferry wouldn't be too useful. Even as a Route-9A ship in summer (supplementary ship from Tsawwassen to Salt Spring Island), the little Bowen Queen has a listed 70-car capacity.

ok, so it was a fun idea for a few moments.....

[EGfleet]

Mar 2, 2010 13:28:41 GMT -8 Kahloke said:

Mar 2, 2010 13:13:30 GMT -8 Low Light Mike said:

Just throwing-out a right-brain idea for discussion:

- Would the 3rd 64-car ferry be an opportunity for BC Ferries to purchase this vessel and use it for a BC Minor route?

Things that support this notion:
- the 3rd 64-car vessel is likely going to be surplus
- WSF can't cancel it
- BC Ferries needs a new intermediate vessel that can be certified to cross Georgia Strait in winters.
- BC Ferries would be happy to buy a non-Canadian ship.

================

So please add your left-brain logic to correct or enforce this idea of mine.

Under the current plan, the 3rd 64-car vessel is supposed to be deployed at Point Defiance-Tahlequah. I can't say I agree with that, or agree with even building a 3rd one (two are more than enough), but that's how the cards appear to be falling at this moment. So, that pretty much means the 3rd one won't be surplus.

This was about the names of the boats, but it addresses the quote above...

Haugen and Griffith also both said that naming the second ferry the Squi Qui doesn’t make sense because it will not remain dedicated to the Keystone-Port Townsend ferry route.

The second ferry to be built for the route will eventually be replaced by a third vessel of the same design. The second vessel will then be relocated to another route in the state ferry system.

“This boat will probably end up on the end of Vashon Island,” Haugen said.

www.whidbeyexaminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=3539

[Kahloke]

Whichever way you slice it, it appears that 3 64-car vessels will get built, and one of them will end up at Point Defiance-Tahlequah.

[FNS]

This is an interesting subject created by our musical moderator.

One or more of these would be good addition(s) to BCF's fleet.

One (or more) can be placed on a feeder service up in the northern routes in place of the little NIMPKISH. Nicer lounges with open promenades. And, catered food or vending machine services on these somewhat lengthy trips. More comfortable to ride with a view of the scenery at each end.

Another could do well shuttling between Galiano Island and Tsawwassen et al.

The ends of the BCF versions could be "ISLAND HOME"-ized with doors. Relocate the rescue boats and the liferafts to the Sun Deck and you'll get a few more spaces on the Main Deck for cars. There are quite a few options to implement in a redesigned version for BCF.

[lifc]

Sounds like a great idea to me, might work well there, would certainly get it into a more appropriate place..

[Political Incorrectness]

Mar 2, 2010 14:52:36 GMT -8 EGfleet said:

This was about the names of the boats, but it addresses the quote above...

Haugen and Griffith also both said that naming the second ferry the Squi Qui doesn’t make sense because it will not remain dedicated to the Keystone-Port Townsend ferry route.


www.whidbeyexaminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=3539

Now that is worse than the Island Sky for a name

[Neil]

Mar 2, 2010 21:40:14 GMT -8 FNS said:

One (or more) can be placed on a feeder service up in the northern routes in place of the little NIMPKISH. Nicer lounges with open promenades. And, catered food or vending machine services on these somewhat lengthy trips. More comfortable to ride with a view of the scenery at each end.
Another could do well shuttling between Galiano Island and Tsawwassen et al.

As a winter replacement for the Nimpkish on the central coast, these boats would be waaay too big. You have to remember that Ocean Falls only has about 80 year round residents; Shearwater, probably not many more. In the tourist season on route 40, 64 cars might not be enough a lot of the time.

Galiano doesn't have enough traffic to justify its own connection with Tsawwassen- not economically, anyway. Plus, if what we hear is true, these boats might be fuel hogs above 12 knots, so the Bowen Queen looks like a better- not to mention slightly bigger- option for route 9A.

The Chetzemoka is really overbuilt for the number of cars it carries, and probably wouldn't be suitable for any of our smaller islands. Too small and too slow for the Powell River - Comox route, or for Jervis Inlet.

Actually, I can't think of a single route where it would work. The auto capacity would be right for Denman in the summer, but a great hulking two headed beast like the Chetzy would be ridiculous on a ten minute route.

Think we'll have to let WSF keep them.

[stingray]

If the 3rd 65 car ferry is purchased by BF Ferries, I feel it likely going to be used on the Taxada Is.-Powell River route to replace the aging NIP.

[Kahloke]

Not going to happen. I know this has been largely an academic conversation, but WSF will be using all 3 vessels; two at Port Townsend, and one at Point Defiance.

[stingray]

Kahloke's right. Rhododendron is 11 years older then the NIP and looks to be in a worst shape. Washington State would be slightly off it mind to have a new vessel they need to end up in Canada.

[lifc]

I have a feeling that by the time the third one is built, we would be glad to sell it to another entity. Based upon my and others observations and experience, they are not likely to perform as well on the route they were built for as they might somewhere else. They may be a great fit for B.C., let us keep an open mind to this idea.

[Nick]

I honestly can't think of where a 64 car ship with full passenger amenities such as these would be useful in BC. Most of the minor routes that could use a ship like this are better served with more "utilitarian" vessels such as the Quinsam/Quinitsa. For all the other routes these ships would be woefully small.

One of these ships would never meet standards to allow it to serve on the mid-coast, especially in the winter, whether or not it would be suitable.

Also, if half of what Chief has said is correct, Transport Canada would never certify these vessels to serve in BC. Our water is more open than most of Puget Sound, and it would seem that Transport Canada is more strict in general than the US Coast Guard. I know TC is starting to move toward voluntarily adopting SOLAS standards for domestic travel.

[whidbeyislandguy]

Mar 4, 2010 21:24:12 GMT -8 Nick said:

I honestly can't think of where a 64 car ship with full passenger amenities such as these would be useful in BC. Most of the minor routes that could use a ship like this are better served with more "utilitarian" vessels such as the Quinsam/Quinitsa. For all the other routes these ships would be woefully small.

One of these ships would never meet standards to allow it to serve on the mid-coast, especially in the winter, whether or not it would be suitable.

Also, if half of what Chief has said is correct, Transport Canada would never certify these vessels to serve in BC. Our water is more open than most of Puget Sound, and it would seem that Transport Canada is more strict in general than the US Coast Guard. I know TC is starting to move toward voluntarily adopting SOLAS standards for domestic travel.

If half of what was said by some was true it wouldn't be built...

I find it funny that people lost sight of the fact, that the first one, CHETZEMOKA is being built to be used ASAP! Once the other 2, yes, only 2 are done and they are built with the kind of propulsion wanted and need then, and only then will the CHETZEMOKA be made like them. I mean look at the facts and I mean real facts. NO one in their right mind would be reusing the engines from the SE for another ferry in washington state. The list of reasons is very very long.........

Are we happy that this has happened? NO! Should Keystone have been moved? YES! But the fact remains that is wasn't, and the fact remains that WSF needs a boat that will work for there. The STII really doesn't cut it. It is really like putting the Hiyu in the San Jauns as the inter island boat. it can do it but not very well it's something to be done as a last resort.

It doesn't matter if we like the fact that we are stuck with the 64 car boats. they are sure as HELL better then nothing.

I mean what would you rather? a non-existent 144 and a non-existent new dock? Or something that works and gets the Job done!?

And Chief Don't start in saying how it won't get a Job done and how we should have kept the SE's a while longer.......

Deal with the here and NOW!! not the should of, could of, would of!!!!

[FNS]

With that, let's close the book on this discussion and this thread.

It was a nice thought, though, and to see the comments on this thread our musical moderator has created.

The three ferries stay here. Hopefully named CHETZEMOKA (already officially named), KEHLOKEN, and KLAHANIE.

[Deleted]

I am going to jump into this discussion and thread again to give my thoughts. I have to say first off I really like the idea of the next ferry to be the Klaanie and I also like the idea of the Kahloken. I have always liked the name Klahanie for a ferry and really like the idea of the three sisters being named after the original three Wood Electrics. If the Kahloken is not a good idea for a name because of the sad duty she had to perform then perhaps we can have another Quillayute. I agree with you ferrynut let's close the book on this discussion and this thread and we all know the three new ferries will stay in our waters.
It's also true that if half of what is being harped on is correct these new boats would have never been built! The first new boat of any new class of ferry is going to have some bugs and shortfalls that is part of the game. I know that the Tacoma and the Issaquah (ok so the Issaquah had alot more gremlins, lol.) both had things that needed to be worked out but look at them now they are both reliable workhorses of the fleet. It is a fact that the Chetzemoka is being built ASAP on a fast track and once the other two are built she may end up back in the yard for some additional work to get some things ironed out but that doesn't make her a bad ferry or mean that she will never become a reliable addition to the fleet. Yes, I agree she all three of these news boats are a little small but as it was stated "they sure as HELL are better then nothing."
Personally I agree I don't want to hear again how the Chetzemoka will not get the job done, how the SE's could've been kept awhile longer or what a poor design the new boats are or how we should only be building two not three new ferries. I think most if not all of us our tired of hearing this now as there is only so much one can complain before people don't want to hear it anymore. So Chief.... give it a rest!!

[Neil]

Apologies in advance to Mr Horn for this diversion.

Note to "effluo" and others:

Since "Chief" has joined this forum, there have been about 348 posts in the threads where he participates. He's done 23 or so of them. That's about 6%.

If you guys can't tolerate that much dissent from the party line, then maybe you're living in the wrong country, and participating in the wrong forum. If you disagree with a reasonably thought out opinion, you can express it. If you think it's been said before, you can ignore it. But quit trying to shut someone down because they don't have a sufficiently sunny attitude toward every ferry that floats.

[Kahloke]

Thank you for saying that, Neil. You're absolutely correct. Everyone has the right to voice their opinion on this board so long as it doesn't resort to name-calling and personal attacks. Chief has offered us some different points to consider. You may or may not agree with him, but that's what this forum is all about.

[Queen of Nanaimo Teen]

Haha!! Finally somebody agrees with an awesome name for the new ferries!! I have been advocating for Kehloken for the longest time, I think it's an awesome name, and should definately be reincarnated ;D Klahanie is good too, but not nearly as cool as Kehloken!!

[Barnacle]

I don't have an issue with "Kehloken" as long as the Japanese-American community is okay with it. It could actually be a teaching experience.

[lmtengs]

I skimmed through this thread, so I didn't read every single word posted, so if I'm repeating somebody else's ideas, then i'm sorry.

Since the third ferry hasn't even been built yet, couldn't BCF buy it before they start building it, and quickly make some changes to the official deck plans to increase the vehicle capacity and reduce the passenger amenities at the same time, adding watertight doors to each end of the cardeck while they're at it?

They could remove the lower passenger deck and turn it into a gallery deck for cars by putting in raisable ramps (like those seen on the V's and spirits) from the main car deck. That would probably effectively increase automobile capacity by at least 15 cars on each side, turning it into a 94 car ferry...

That's not an educated opinion, but I think it could be plausible to try something similar.

[Scott (Former Account)]

Mar 6, 2010 11:09:08 GMT -8 @lmtengs said:

Since the third ferry hasn't even been built yet, couldn't BCF buy it before they start building it, and quickly make some changes to the official deck plans to increase the vehicle capacity and reduce the passenger amenities at the same time, adding watertight doors to each end of the cardeck while they're at it?

It's too late to make changes, Luke. The contract has been signed and fabrication has begun.

Mar 6, 2010 11:09:08 GMT -8 @lmtengs said:

They could remove the lower passenger deck and turn it into a gallery deck for cars by putting in raisable ramps (like those seen on the V's and spirits) from the main car deck. That would probably effectively increase automobile capacity by at least 15 cars on each side, turning it into a 94 car ferry...

Platforms interfere with overheight traffic and add to the time the ship remains in the berth. BC Ferries would prefer a ship to have a large vehicle capacity without the need of using platforms constantly. These Kwa-di Tabil class vessels are not designed to accommodate platforms, not to mention that the off-centred casing would likely cause balance issues with the ship when the platforms are loaded.

BC Ferries would have no permanent use for these ships; they are too small and too slow...