Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Nov 22, 2010 12:33:36 GMT -8
Would love to see new ships built here on The Coast, but the cost and resources simply don't make it doable at the current time. Perhaps you should speak to WMG, and tell them to drop their bid for part of the $35 billion project for new naval ships. Apparently you know something they don't, or perhaps you've just been drinking the same kool-aid David Hahn drinks. WMG delivered a 125 aeq vessel to BC Ferries for about $56 million- $24 million less than Washingtonians were soaked for their shiny new Chetzemoka, which is half the size. And they did it despite not receiving a penny of the $700 million in subsidies Davie back east received in recent years. I wouldn't be so quick to write them out of the script.
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Nov 22, 2010 13:51:17 GMT -8
Chet is barely half the size of the Island Sky at 64 car capacity. Island sky also has 4 RAD's, much more expensive than the twin straight shafts with fixed pitch props the Chet has. They both go around the same speed, the Chet may be rated for 750 passengers but that's kind of scary, while the IS has 462 passenger and crew limit.
Chet had an aluminum superstructure as well, even more specialized skills required there.
I think we got a better deal than WSF did, and yes thee is no reason why ships cant be built here. There's still a lot of unemployed folks out there looking for jobs.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Nov 22, 2010 14:42:00 GMT -8
I think the controversy over the Island Sky left a bad taste in the mouth of BC Ferries, and quite frankly, most of us on this forum. A lot of us do not want to experience what happened with the excessively late arrival, and subsequently skyrocketing cost of the Island Sky again. BC Ferries would like to see what most clients would - high quality and low cost. The fact of the matter is, the shipbuilding industry is an international fling now, and as a result, works very differently than it did 20 years ago. But I do not think that it is a fair comparison between the Island Sky and Chetzmoka - these are two very different designs. As well, WSF chose to build the Chetz with three different shipyards, which would obviously drive up the costs of building the vessels. ...but the cost and resources simply don't make it doable at the current time. You are very much wrong. Resources? What? We've been building ferries since what feels like the dawn of time, so I am not sure how a lack of resources is a valid argument. Yes, cost is an issue, but our shipyards do have potential, and certainly do not lack in resources.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Nov 22, 2010 14:53:09 GMT -8
I think the controversy over the Island Sky left a bad taste in the mouth of BC Ferries, and quite frankly, most of us on this forum. A lot of us do not want to experience what happened with the excessively late arrival, and subsequently skyrocketing cost of the Island Sky again. BC Ferries got a fixed price contract from WMG. Any 'skyrocketing costs' were born by the yard.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Nov 22, 2010 15:35:30 GMT -8
I think the controversy over the Island Sky left a bad taste in the mouth of BC Ferries, and quite frankly, most of us on this forum. A lot of us do not want to experience what happened with the excessively late arrival, and subsequently skyrocketing cost of the Island Sky again. BC Ferries got a fixed price contract from WMG. Any 'skyrocketing costs' were born by the yard. Yes, it came as no extra cost to BC Ferries, but it still cost WMG through the nose.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Nov 22, 2010 15:52:35 GMT -8
But I do not think that it is a fair comparison between the Island Sky and Chetzmoka - these are two very different designs. As well, WSF chose to build the Chetz with three different shipyards, which would obviously drive up the costs of building the vessels. I don't think the three yards issue (and in actuality two, as Todd owns controlling interest in the Everett shipyard) drove up the cost nearly as much as that 18 month timeline. The cost between the Chetzemoka and Salish is drastically different largely due to the lack of a similar time constraint on the Salish.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Nov 23, 2010 11:12:11 GMT -8
:)yes, the days when we used to launch whole steel canoes into BC waters, I have just bequeathed a book on BC shipbuilding history to wettcoast's library on what used to be in my lifetime before our good frend Germany seems to have taken over. I think a few of our lost at sea merchant seamen must be doing backflips in the North Atlantic, not to mention how the once mighty Canadian Pacific SS. is now all absorbed into Hapag Lloyd. :)mrdot.
|
|
|
Post by norwegian on Nov 30, 2010 13:46:33 GMT -8
At 98 metres long and 18 wide, there's no way this vessel could carry close to 150 cars, unless it has two vehicle decks, which it doesn't appear to have. The Queen of Chilliwack is about 16 metres longer and has two platform vehicle lanes, and is still only listed as carrying 115- and even that's optimistic for the ' wack. This boat might carry about 90, or 100, tops. Unless they're going to drastically drop capacity on routes 9 or 17, this boat would only be suitable for route 5, or to replace the Bowen Queen on summer route 9A service, or maybe on route 40, assuming the passenger space is adequate. Hello! This ferry has a vehicle deck below the main car deck. This is a rather normal solution in the Norwegian ferry design. An example of this: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/MF_Stavangerfjord_i_Arsv%C3%A5gen.jpg . This ferry operates on the E39-road in Norway, which is a route with much rough weather. Altough she has an "open" car deck, she manages this route(with her sister ship) very well. This ferry uses natural gas as fuel, which is becoming more and more normal in the Norwegian ferry fleet. Greetings from Norway! ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2010 14:09:34 GMT -8
Pictures of all three sister vessel, and more info, can be found at Norsk Skipsfarts Forum at the following link: www.skipsfarts-forum.net/read.php?TID=3434Here is also some photos of the ferry in question, taken by myself when she arrived the outfitting yard in Norway three weeks ago... Photo: © Oddgeir Refvik
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Nov 30, 2010 14:29:34 GMT -8
Hello refvik:
Welcome to our forum, and thanks for sharing the pics and the links. I, for one, love seeing ferries from other parts of the world, and especially this one since BC Ferries is interested in it.
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Nov 30, 2010 17:09:32 GMT -8
AHHH, its aluminum. At least it looks like it is in the construction photo's. From looking at that picture I don't think she is suited at all for the north Coast, I can see water spilling over that low bow. The passenger cabin is tiny, if anything we need a bigger passenger cabin. Ohh and we aren't allowed to use car decks that are under the main deck, at least passengers can't drive their own cars down there.
Lastly it looks to me like any crew quarters she has must be below the waterline, again not allowed in Canada.
I think this was research expedition that someone in Norway took too seriously, at least I hope that's what has happened here.
Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Nov 30, 2010 18:59:20 GMT -8
She has staterooms, I don't see why she wouldn't be okay for our northern routes. Why do you assume that crew quarters are below the waterline?
Personally, I think her interior looks kinda nice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2010 19:18:23 GMT -8
Hi, I'm a Norwegian too, I'm currently a chief mate on a ferry quite similar to the Estonian one, although it's a bit smaller. You can see it here: www.fjordfaehren.de/no_f2/nybygg2_norferjer_2008.htmAs some of you might notice, it's designed by the same company that designed the Estonian ferries, and indeed the BC Ferries people visited the ferry I work on too, as they work on a route just 10 minutes from the Fiskerstrand shipyard. However, I was home on vacation then and didn't have the change to talk with the Canadians. About some of the allegations about European designs, I would say they are untrue and based on skepticism. With all due respect, I'd like to remind the ladies and gentlemen of this forum that the Canadian West Coast is not the only place in the world ravaged by bad weather - we have our fair share in Norway, too. In addition, I would say that some of the BC Ferries like the "Howe Sound Queen" or the "Mayne Queen" would be utterly useless in Norwegian waters, both sheltered and open, due to a lack of bow and stern visors or, at least, ramps in both ends. I must also add that all the Norwegian ferries are built from steel, not aluminium, as someone claimed - but you might find that some of the ferries have an aluminium superstructure. Most of the Norwegian ferries built today are diesel-electric or gas-electric driven, which make them fuel-efficient and indeed quite provident. It is customary to use Schottels or equivalent Pod solutions, which make them very manouverable. I would like to end my post by mentioning some of the most, if not the most modern ferries in the world, the gas-driven sister ferries working on the highway between two cities in the south-western part of Norway: www.fjordfaehren.de/no_f2/bergensfjord2006.htmEach of the sisters carry 212 cars and 589 passengers at a cruising speed of 21 knots. Their route is 37 minutes long, with a 8 minute turnaround time(45 mins altogether). Each of the ferries have a crew of just 8 persons, thanks to highly advanced automation solutions. edit: a few typos
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2010 19:20:38 GMT -8
Oh, and by the way, the crew's quarters are above the waterline, in accordance with SOLAS rules. They are located on the two decks under the ship's bridge.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Nov 30, 2010 19:48:28 GMT -8
In addition, I would say that some of the BC Ferries like the "Howe Sound Queen" or the "Mayne Queen" would be utterly useless in Norwegian waters, both sheltered and open, due to a lack of bow and stern visors or, at least, ramps in both ends. Very good to have some European perspective here. Do you mean to say that visors, or some kind of enclosed car deck, are required even in completely sheltered Norwegian waters? And if so, why?
|
|
|
Post by dofd on Nov 30, 2010 23:40:46 GMT -8
and we aren't allowed to use car decks that are under the main deck, at least passengers can't drive their own cars down there. Cheers, ferriesbc.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=otherna&action=display&thread=7587Quote from the PEI: This is us heading into the ferry, with only one ramp you can see we are about to head down into the fairly large area below the main vehicle deck. Without a second ramp loading and unloading takes a very long time. Is it that cars can not load under the main deck in BC?
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Dec 1, 2010 2:16:08 GMT -8
Looking at the pictures of these vessels, It almost looks like the Tween Car Deck doesn't go below the waterline. Or at the least not completely. Though on a route like the Discovery Coast Passage, they would have the time to use this Tween Deck. Is it any different from the Chilliwack's platforms? The Tween Deck would also make it able to handle heavy traffic on the Powell River-Comox route.
Reviewing some of the interior, the Hiiumaa could easily be a worthy replacement for the Chilliwack or the Burnaby if so be it. I can easily see a Gift Shop, Coastal Cafe, and a lounge that could have a Sitka Coffee Place Style operation.
Here's a few videos of the Hiiumaa's sistership, the Muhumaa.
In Rough Seas (has a bit of a Queen of Chilliwack style rocking motion to it)
Tour of the Various Areas Aboard the Vessel
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Dec 1, 2010 12:14:48 GMT -8
Hahaha, wow all my comments were defeated. They must have small crews in Norway it doesn't look like there is much room on those decks below the bridge for a big crew, that is why I assumed the crew was below the waterline. I always though that BCF didn't use the tween deck parking on the Norad or install tween deck parking in the Norex in that empty space because they weren't allowed to. I guess the PEI ferry proves me wrong. norw, I know Norway gets some rough stuff. I didnt deny that, but I am thinking that some of the stuff that's on the north coast might of BC might outdo you, Last year we had a ship go through report 10m waves, obviously not on purpose, but that's what we have to watch for. As for all Norwegian ships needing bow visors that makes sense, or south coast where all the ferries you stated runs is considerably farther south than Norway, but if you go up our coast the requirement for bow visors does come into play. Good to have you here norw, nice to hear something from the other side of the pond. Cheers,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2010 15:06:19 GMT -8
Here you can see how it can be on the west coast of Norway .. Often it is the same as this sea along the Norwegian coast in the winter ... Bow and enclosed ferries are needed ..
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Dec 1, 2010 16:18:32 GMT -8
I would also add, that, judging from the videos, the visors and bulwarks at the cardeck level, are entirely sufficient to combat wind and wave conditions. These ships seem to be able to rise over the waves to a large extent, or roll off of them (seasickness anyone?), instead of plowing through them as the Queen of Prince Rupert did. We also cannot base expectations for any new northern vessels on the sea keeping abilities of the Northern Adventure. She was simply not designed for northern waters. These vessels are.
Also, an interesting appraisal of shape and form. Although the Estonian ferry has essentially the same design to her superstructure, as the Island Sky, the simple design element of adding sloped faces to the passenger and crew decks immediately gives the ship and much more pleasing appearance that seems to flow naturally. Instead of square off boxes, if only they could have slope the front faces of the superstructure decks on the Island Sky, it might actually be something worth looking at and admiring.
Who knows? Maybe they could have saved some materials costs with a few less pieces of steel to cut, or a few less corners to form. Maybe sloping the superstructure might even have added enough aerodynamics to the ship to offset her fuel consumptions costs a fair bit. I'm all for just replacing the Island Sky with this ferry from Estonia.
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Dec 1, 2010 16:57:36 GMT -8
Here you can see how it can be on the west coast of Norway .. Often it is the same as this sea along the Norwegian coast in the winter ... Bow and enclosed ferries are needed .. Yep, that's what about 4-5 hours of the Chilliwacks run is like on a daily basis, she is exposed to the Pacific in Queen Charlotte Sound. Although, all of her ports of entry are quite protected. How long is the ship in that storm movie? I still think a completely enclosed car deck would be preferable, and the passenger/ crew space still seems small, smaller than the Queen of Chilliwacks, and she gets tight at times. Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by glasseye on Dec 1, 2010 20:50:22 GMT -8
Here you can see how it can be on the west coast of Norway .. Yes, that's fairly bad. What's the typical Beaufort force for storms off the the west coast of Norway? The north coast of BC sees force 10 conditions every few weeks in the winter and force 11 conditions at least once a year. BCF won't sail into seas over 3.2m but the northern ferry used for winter service did run into 14m seas by accident last year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2010 1:34:17 GMT -8
Here you can see how it can be on the west coast of Norway .. Often it is the same as this sea along the Norwegian coast in the winter ... Bow and enclosed ferries are needed .. Yep, that's what about 4-5 hours of the Chilliwacks run is like on a daily basis, she is exposed to the Pacific in Queen Charlotte Sound. Although, all of her ports of entry are quite protected. How long is the ship in that storm movie? I still think a completely enclosed car deck would be preferable, and the passenger/ crew space still seems small, smaller than the Queen of Chilliwacks, and she gets tight at times. Cheers, The crossing is about 20 minutes.. Ferries in Norway's far smaler than BC's largest ferries.. But the lounges are big when the capacity of the ferry is 110 cars and about 500 passengers .. The wind here in Norway is around 20-25 meters per second in the video .. If it blows more its difficult to get the ferry in the dock.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Dec 2, 2010 15:52:45 GMT -8
The wind here in Norway is around 20-25 meters per second in the video .. If it blows more its difficult to get the ferry in the dock. Just FYI for those who might not be familiar with metres per second, 25 m/s is equal to 90 Km/h, or about 50 knots. For reference, the Spirit class vessels are required to cancel sailings when winds at Tsawwassen exceed 50 kts.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 2, 2010 18:28:05 GMT -8
The wind here in Norway is around 20-25 meters per second in the video .. If it blows more its difficult to get the ferry in the dock. Just FYI for those who might not be familiar with metres per second, 25 m/s is equal to 90 Km/h, or about 50 knots. For reference, the Spirit class vessels are required to cancel sailings when winds at Tsawwassen exceed 50 kts. I assume the reason for this is difficulty in docking and/or departing Tsawwassen rather than the sea keeping characteristics of these vessels in mid Georgia Strait.
|
|