Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2012 19:39:36 GMT -8
August 20, 2011
Burrard Otter was in service. It's pretty rare for her to see revenue service nowadays, isn't it? I do not think it is rare to see Burrard Otter sailing these days because I have seen her in service today, October 28, and October 20. |
|
|
|
Post by Cable Cassidy on Dec 17, 2012 15:33:32 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2012 17:20:48 GMT -8
How is Translink going to get the new boat to BC? Boat on plane or boat on boat. |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 17, 2012 17:59:16 GMT -8
The decision to go with a European yard will be controversial, coming as it does on the heals of the federal government showing enough confidence in Canadian yards to build at home. Local politicians including our current Premier gushed with enthusiasm for our BC yards when they scored a big piece of the action on the defense contracts.
Aside from the where to build decision I have a couple of other comments:
1 - The press release from TransLink is kind of confusing. It begins by saying that the Burrard Beaver is being replaced, but later states that it is actually the Burrard Otter that will be decommissioned. Here on the WCFF we know what is going to happen, but the general public might very well be confused.
2 - The press release talks a lot about environmental benefits and fuel savings, etc. (Didn't we hear a lot of similar claims from BCFS regarding the Coastal class ships?) At any rate, with all the talk about LNG powered vessels, would not a brand new SeaBus be the perfect opportunity to introduce this technology to BC? The environmental benefits would be much greater than what is possible with a conventional diesel powered system. Perhaps even a fully electrical system could work on this route. The ship is in a terminal every 15 minutes and could easily replenish battery banks that could feed electric RADs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Dec 17, 2012 18:35:41 GMT -8
2 - The press release talks a lot about environmental benefits and fuel savings, etc. (Didn't we hear a lot of similar claims from BCFS regarding the Coastal class ships?) At any rate, with all the talk about LNG powered vessels, would not a brand new SeaBus be the perfect opportunity to introduce this technology to BC? The environmental benefits would be much greater than what is possible with a conventional diesel powered system. Perhaps even a fully electrical system could work on this route. The ship is in a terminal every 15 minutes and could easily replenish battery banks that could feed electric RADs. I was quite honestly, like you, surprised that this was not considered. Seeing as our premier has been going keeners on everyone about the ambitious LNG strategy (you know, the one that's set to rival the oil sands), I would have thought this would be the perfect opportunity to show it's use. The SeaBus is one of the most efficient ferry services in the country (unloading/loading 400 people in 2.5 minutes), with a 15 minute frequency during the daytime, this could be a good chance to test out other technologies, like LNG, Hybrid, or electric as you had mentioned, WCK. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2012 19:06:38 GMT -8
I agree with a different fuel type for the new SeaBus. BC Ferries could do a study with Translink and WSF to see which new fuel type will the best for a new vessel and current vessel.
Will this lead to 10 minute service during the weekdays and Saturday during the late fall, winter, earlier spring schedule and daily during the late spring, summer, earlier fall schedule?
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 17, 2012 19:28:27 GMT -8
Given the cycle times for loading and unloading passengers, coupling the batteries and so forth would consume too much idle time. You'd have only a few minutes to charge, which does not include coupling the electrical link, and disengagement, so it doesn't look practical during scheduled service. It might during overnight, but one has to wonder about the tare weight of the batteries compared to charged LNG tanks. Which is lighter? Pantographs on the top of each end of the SeaBus similar to what you see on electrically powered trains in much of the world (but not, so much, in North America) would be able to start charging the batteries immediately, as the Seabus glides into either terminal. Charging of batteries would not be a huge technical challenge. Perhaps even solar panels on the roof could be considered to generate some power whenever the boat is out in the sun. |
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Dec 17, 2012 19:56:35 GMT -8
I agree with Paul. Hmmm, rare event lol.
But seriously new technology is a terrible idea for the SeaBus. Reliability and conservative decisions in operations is what has created the dependable, reliable service that we all know and love. I see it as simply as that. Further, Translink is not in a fiscal place to build needless new infrastructure. Other technologies outside the norm (CNG) have been forced on TL in the past from political levels and it has been an expense exercise in futility.
Where I do disagree with Paul is with respect to the release and the vessel names. Just looks like sloppy drafting.
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 17, 2012 20:10:51 GMT -8
I would envision a system where the principle charge occurred overnight with 2-3 minute charging sessions between voyages supplementing that.
I was not really serious about the solar panels, but a top surface covered with solar panels could provide significant generation of electricity through much of the year when Vancouver sees a lot of Mr. Sun.
Remember too that Vancouver is intent on promoting itself as a 'green city'. A green SeaBus would certainly help in that promotion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Dec 17, 2012 20:13:51 GMT -8
Well, after what inspired the first name...  ...the second vessel in the series will be Burrard Crisp Waters...  ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2012 20:16:53 GMT -8
I would envision a system where the principle charge occurred overnight with 2-3 minute charging sessions between voyages supplementing that. I was not really serious about the solar panels, but a top surface covered with solar panels could provide significant generation of electricity through much of the year when Vancouver sees a lot of Mr. Sun. Remember too that Vancouver is intent on promoting itself as a 'green city'. A green SeaBus would certainly help in that promotion. Vancouver is going to be greenest city in world by 2020. I could see solar panels being used during the summer and sun days in Vancouver. I agree with you about the batteries and electric to power the new SeaBus. Why not go Hybrid with the new SeaBus? |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 17, 2012 20:23:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 17, 2012 21:05:02 GMT -8
But seriously new technology is a terrible idea for the SeaBus. Reliability and conservative decisions in operations is what has created the dependable, reliable service that we all know and love. I see it as simply as that. Further, Translink is not in a fiscal place to build needless new infrastructure. Other technologies outside the norm (CNG) have been forced on TL in the past from political levels and it has been an expense exercise in futility. Dane, would you call LNG 'new technology'? We are almost certainly going to retrofit older vessels that are currently running on diesel. I think that the time has come for new ships to be built to run on LNG, especially boats that never venture too far away from shore. Your reasoning sounds like the guidance practiced by Canadian Pacific management in the late 1940's when they ordered new steam locomotives & steam ships. They chose to stick with reliable & proven technology. Those steam locomotives all had very short service lives of about 10 years...
PS: I think that this is the type of discussion that 'Oceaneer 77' says is lacking on this forum at the present time. He is right, too much into ship pics and not enough discussion. Then again, there has not been so many 'issues' of late, at least on the BC side of this forum. |
|
Mayne
Voyager 
I come from a long line of sinners like me
Posts: 289 
|
Post by Mayne on Dec 17, 2012 22:13:54 GMT -8
I was expecting this conversation was going to be more on the being built off shore instead of a local build but I am much more interested in what WCK proposed.
The technology of battery's has been huge in the last few years. Actually the idea of only charging the battery's for a very short time then sending it off again has been around for years in other applications. I think this would be a fantastic place to run a battery powered ship, it gets its main charge over night and can get its opportunity charge when loading/unloading.
They have also gotten a lot lighter, they are not only the old lead acid weigh a ton pigs they once used to be.
To the nay sayers, its not that its an unproven technology, just no one has done it on a boat before.
Don't get me wrong I love diesel motors, I have them in everything I drive but I also feel battery power has a lot of potential in some applications, and in this day and age fuel prices are only going to get higher and we need to fined ways to run everything in a more cost affective way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2012 8:26:54 GMT -8
I agree with Dane here.
Translinks financial situation is a mess right now, and they don't have the disposable capital to build, operate and maintain an LNG facility from scratch. They have more pressing issues to get to, such as the urgent need for rapid transit expansion in Surrey and to UBC, as well as maintaining existing service levels on conventional bus routes. Not to mention the Evergreen Line, which is being marred in political roadblocks. Remember when they told us it would be in service by fall 2011? I could go on and on...
A fuel efficient, marine diesel fuel Seabus will do just fine. The ball is in BCF's court for bringing LNG to ferries on the West Coast.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2012 19:22:00 GMT -8
For those who are interested (and I might add want to complain and whine) there were two other bids received for Seabus No. 2. One was from Allied Shipbuilders (North Vancouver), the other from Nichols Boat Builders (Whidbey Island, Washington State). It surprises me a bit that they didn't go with Allied. But I guess with all the labour disputes and politics that tend to happen here, it was probably cheaper for Translink to build the new seabus overseas, and by signing the contract with a European shipyard probably gives them advantageous guarantees and warranties. They probably got a guaranteed delivery date (and penalties to the shipyard for late delivery of the product). Perhaps the Harper gov't will waive the duty fees, because this is a public corporation? I'm not saying they have to with public corp's., but this government has in the past, nor am I saying that they should in this case. Waiving duty fees every time a major capital project is built abroad shows carelessness for the Canadian economy as a whole. |
|
Mayne
Voyager
I come from a long line of sinners like me
Posts: 289
|
Post by Mayne on Dec 19, 2012 19:17:40 GMT -8
After hearing Michal Smith this morning on CKNW and hearing both sides of the off shore build, I understand both sides of the argument and think no matter what trans link did they would be criticized. Ether wasting tax dollars and build local or the situation we now have.
A no win in my eyes but I would have preferred to see them build the ship here. (Even though we would probability seen cost over runs and it would most likely been finished late)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2012 20:56:28 GMT -8
After hearing Michal Smith this morning on CKNW and hearing both sides of the off shore build, I understand both sides of the argument and think no matter what trans link did they would be criticized. Ether wasting tax dollars and build local or the situation we now have. A no win in my eyes but I would have preferred to see them build the ship here. (Even though we would probability seen cost over runs and it would most likely been finished late) Yeah. I would like to see the New SeaBus built in BC. But, I would not want to pay more taxes to see it build here. |
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Dec 21, 2012 9:04:39 GMT -8
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,309
|
Post by Neil on Dec 21, 2012 12:01:55 GMT -8
The BC jobs plan. Singapore starts here.
Unbelievable. Allied's bid was less than 10% higher than that of the Dutch company that will be building this boat in Asia, and with that 10% premium would have come all the shipyard jobs and ancillary benefits... and don't forget that the first steel cutting for the new military vessels- if they still all get built- is a long way away.
Disgustingly short sighted. Penny wise, pound foolish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Dec 21, 2012 13:02:25 GMT -8
I would say that press release is loaded with political baloney, but once you sift through all the crap, there is an important point. TransLink can't afford any monetary mistakes, and if this tariff poses a threat to a money-conscious decision, then I would agree with Neil that this is incredibly short sighted.
It did surprise me that this went to a foreign contractor - I would have thought it would be more practical for a vessel of that size to be built locally. Seeing as the Pacific Breeze has been a relative success in terms of newbuilt ferries, I would have imagined that would have set a precedent in terms of how TransLink would execute the construction. I'm also a little concerned about the quality of product we will be receiving, as Singapore, as far as I can tell, does not have the same reputation for quality, as say, FSG.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nickfro on Dec 21, 2012 13:25:21 GMT -8
There were some issues with the Burrard Pacific Breeze that had to be addressed. One of them was the fact that it sat higher on the water than originally estimated. However, with the issues identified and hopefully resolved, you would think that the same contracting company would be able to build another sister more effectively and build on what was learned during the BPB build. I'm ok with contracting jobs outside of BC if there are considerable advantages for doing so. This one, however, doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Dec 21, 2012 13:52:17 GMT -8
There were some issues with the Burrard Pacific Breeze that had to be addressed. One of them was the fact that it sat higher on the water than originally estimated. However, with the issues identified and hopefully resolved, you would think that the same contracting company would be able to build another sister more effectively and build on what was learned during the BPB build. I'm ok with contracting jobs outside of BC if there are considerable advantages for doing so. This one, however, doesn't make sense to me. Exactly. I can only think of that one issue with the Breeze (besides the fact that is an incredible abomination to aesthetic ferry design), and that was addressed quickly with a roof modification, that would be no less equivalent to dolphin movements to accommodate for a new BC Ferry. |
|
Mayne
Voyager
I come from a long line of sinners like me
Posts: 289
|
Post by Mayne on Dec 21, 2012 17:52:10 GMT -8
There were some issues with the Burrard Pacific Breeze that had to be addressed. One of them was the fact that it sat higher on the water than originally estimated. However, with the issues identified and hopefully resolved, you would think that the same contracting company would be able to build another sister more effectively and build on what was learned during the BPB build. I'm ok with contracting jobs outside of BC if there are considerable advantages for doing so. This one, however, doesn't make sense to me. BPB was approached by trans link and they did not want to bid on the build due to the new federal government builds. I don't blame trans link for this, they are working with extremely limited funds that are cutting service just to try and keep the numbers working. 2 million dollars can buy quite a few buses. Do we make it like down in the U.S where the ships have to be made in our country? At what dollar amount do we say its worth keeping the build local or not. The build cost must they are quoting must include the tariff or trans link needs to get some better number crunchers on the pay roll, or do they just expect the feds to wave the tariff? Don't get me wrong I think the ships should have been built and the government should have stepped up and covered the 2 million as it would have been a good investment. Epic fail Liberals!  |
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Dec 21, 2012 18:19:13 GMT -8
I would say that press release is loaded with political baloney, but once you sift through all the crap, there is an important point. TransLink can't afford any monetary mistakes, and if this tariff poses a threat to a money-conscious decision, then I would agree with Neil that this is incredibly short sighted. It did surprise me that this went to a foreign contractor - I would have thought it would be more practical for a vessel of that size to be built locally. Seeing as the Pacific Breeze has been a relative success in terms of newbuilt ferries, I would have imagined that would have set a precedent in terms of how TransLink would execute the construction. I'm also a little concerned about the quality of product we will be receiving, as Singapore, as far as I can tell, does not have the same reputation for quality, as say, FSG. The shipyard building Seabus No. 2 is not located in Singapore, it's actually Holland. and how would you be "concerned" about the quality of the product? Would you have been "concerned" when the Island Sky was completed on its quality? When it was completed, the ferry geeks here were complaining about the name, the shape of the vessel, almost everything even though she was built at Vancouver Shipyards. There was very little champagne about the completion, but the fine whines were flowing. The Island Sky had quality assurance issues, most visibly, the vehicle deck coating began to peel early (as was noted here). It doesn't surprise me it went overseas. In fact Seaspan took delivery of two new tugs that were completed overseas. It does come down to cost and time of delivery. I'm actually surprised the local shipyard that build Seabus No. 1 (The Pacific Breeze) did not file for bid this time around. Translink and other companies that get into projects of this size do place the projects out for competitive bid. Wow. You're lack of knowledge prior to posting has motivated me to respond from the bus. The boat will be built in Singapore as outsourced by the Dutch shipyard. I am concerned about the quality of product produced by an outsourced shipyard. Is that not a valid concern? Yes, the Island Sky was a complete disaster, which was a provoking example why our shipyards have fallen behind in a global market. I didn't say that we should have built it here, I'm saying we should build it in a place that has a solid reputation and where the taxpayer is getting the best quality product for the best value. I am not sure if you actually read any of the preceding posts in this thread or not, but the Pacific Breeze demonstrated that our shipyards are not completely incapable of producing a good quality product, and if that is the best deal for us, then I say we should spring for it. The SeaBus can afford zero downtime. You're basically saying that our shipyards should just be discounted altogether, even in cases where they have built not just a similar product, but IDENTICAL product in the past, at a high quality. |
|
