|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Nov 22, 2011 22:48:45 GMT -8
www.dot.state.ak.us/amhs/doc/reports/amhs_systems_analysis.pdfPage 75 of the 2008 baseline report for the AMHS begins a comparison of the AMHS and BC Ferries, specifically to look for lessons we can learn from you all. I ran across it and figured you might be interested in seeing what it says about your system.
|
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Nov 23, 2011 23:11:41 GMT -8
It is an interesting report. Been a while since I read it, but I seem to remember that it cast the privatization of BC Ferries in a fairly positive light, at the expense of the operations of BC Ferries leading up to privatization.
I would be interested also in some peoples reactions to it.
Bear in mind that it was released in 2008. I believe that they are planning on either gathering a new report or revising the existing one. There are some elements of the report that are already out of date. But it is an interesting analyses of both AMHS and BCF.
|
|
Nick
Voyager 
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078 
|
Post by Nick on Nov 24, 2011 8:22:36 GMT -8
It is an interesting report. Been a while since I read it, but I seem to remember that it cast the privatization of BC Ferries in a fairly positive light, at the expense of the operations of BC Ferries leading up to privatization. I would be interested also in some peoples reactions to it. Bear in mind that it was released in 2008. I believe that they are planning on either gathering a new report or revising the existing one. There are some elements of the report that are already out of date. But it is an interesting analyses of both AMHS and BCF. I just finished reading the BCF section of the report, and yes it did cast the "private" BCF in a very positive light. I think this is somewhat understandable, considering the economic conditions of the time. BCF at the time was reporting profits of $40 to $50 million, had 5 new vessels either here or on the way, and more new vessels planned with financing. Then the economy spiraled downward, and now the BCF model isn't looking quite so sustainable. Reading the report I get the idea that they gleaned a lot of their information from interviews with company executives and upper management, who all have a very positive opinion of the privatization. |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Nov 24, 2011 9:58:37 GMT -8
:)any thing authored by upper end mangmt. or fraser instute led individuals will always put a positive ring on this direction! only ships liverys suffer when politics enter the equasion! ::)mrdot.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Nov 24, 2011 14:33:33 GMT -8
I found it to be very interesting. Places some of the missing pieces of the AMHS into place. I found interesting the aspects of BC Ferries and much it is factually accurate (in peeling away the political aspects). These reports are not done on an annual basis, but more of what can be done to enhance or change services. BC Ferries was used as a comparative as it more closely matches the operations of AHMS than does Washington State Ferries. But it is not equatable 100%. It's not a grade as to BC Ferries doing things better or worse than anyone else, but rather to see what actually works, and what doesnt in terms of transportation management at sea. One thing I did find odd, is that given that AHMS saw first hand as a spectator the plight and plagues of the fast cats why they deicded to go ahead with theirs anyway, only to have the two vessels laid up. AMHS is a great service, and it would be fascinating to take the trips needed to sail from 'Rupert to Dutch Harbour. There was mention of Vancouver for a short term in the report. The facility was actually just south of Fraser Surrey Docks in Surrey. There was not much there other than an adjustable ramp slip. Report is good reading from a management angle. Paul, I suggest you do some more research. AMHS's fast ferries, while they have their share of issues, are NOT laid up and are in general revenue service. They are significantly different in size and scope than the Pacificats, and I'm not sure if I would consider them a valid comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Nov 24, 2011 16:05:01 GMT -8
One thing I did find odd, is that given that AHMS saw first hand as a spectator the plight and plagues of the fast cats why they deicded to go ahead with theirs anyway, only to have the two vessels laid up. As Nick pointed out, both FVF's are still in operation, they do have their staggered layups in the winter along with the rest of the fleet. As for why did AMHS pursue the FVF's in light of the "Fast Cat Fiasco?" Well to start, the plan for the fast ferries can find it's origin as far back as the late 90's when I believe the Fast Cats were just being built, so the "fiasco" had yet to rear it's head. And actually the desire of AMHS for a high-speed ferry can be seen as far back as the mid eighties when they chartered a hydrofoil for a summer to operate between Juneau and Haines/ Skagway. Now as to why proceed with the Fast Ferries once the Fast Cats had their moment of glory? Basically the "fiasco" was viewed as more of a management fiasco that a failure in the concept. So it was felt that if AMHS could avoid some of the same pitfalls the fast ferries could work. How well has AMHS management done in this matter? While some pitfalls were avoided, they did manage to find some new ones.  Generally the Fast Ferries work well when deployed on their routes as originally intended, there are not the greatest winter ferries, but were not designed to be. Which has more to do with management and design choices and not a failure of the design. Although AMHS has no plans to build any more fast ferries in the foreseeable future. |
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Nov 25, 2011 10:13:08 GMT -8
One thing I did find odd, is that given that AHMS saw first hand as a spectator the plight and plagues of the fast cats why they deicded to go ahead with theirs anyway, only to have the two vessels laid up. It's also worth noting that the M/F Fairweather (I don't know enough about the northern waters to comment on the M/V Chenega) has two distinct operational advantages due to her speed. The first is that she can run to and from Sitka at any time, independent of the tides.. The rest of the fleet needs to wait for slack tide, creating 6 hours between windows. The second is that she can run Juneau to Sitka and back on one shift, allowing her to be crewed as a day boat. My understanding is that the Pacicats offered BC Ferries no similar advantages once additional loading time was taken into account. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 25, 2011 10:38:53 GMT -8
One thing I did find odd, is that given that AHMS saw first hand as a spectator the plight and plagues of the fast cats why they deicded to go ahead with theirs anyway, only to have the two vessels laid up. It's also worth noting that the M/F Fairweather (I don't know enough about the northern waters to comment on the M/V Chenega) has two distinct operational advantages due to her speed. The first is that she can run to and from Sitka at any time, independent of the tides.. The rest of the fleet needs to wait for slack tide, creating 6 hours between windows. The second is that she can run Juneau to Sitka and back on one shift, allowing her to be crewed as a day boat. My understanding is that the Pacicats offered BC Ferries no similar advantages once additional loading time was taken into account. Good Points, sir. - the Alaska fast-ferries are on appropriate routes that can be taken advantage of by a fast-ferry. In BC, our fast-ferries were not on an appropriate route that could take advantage (not enough open-strait, "who cares about the wake" distance to speed through). |
|
