Kam
Voyager
Posts: 926
|
Post by Kam on Jan 12, 2012 10:10:39 GMT -8
The more I think about this the more I suspect the fail safe or backup systems may have in fact worked as designed. As I understand it, the VPP wound not respond from a “neutral” thrust position, and by the time this was noticed by the bridge crew it was to late to engage any backup systems. The reason I say the backup systems may have worked is that the VPP stayed in the neutral thrust position rather than pitching ahead or astern. I'm going to guess that any safety mechanism would be designed to keep the VPP in neutral if control is lost.
The issue my actually be in how backup systems are managed and engaged. It sounds to me like the backup systems require manual intervention and there just wasn’t enough time between recognizing the problem and the ability to take appropriate corrective action.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 13, 2012 9:26:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 13, 2012 23:49:35 GMT -8
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Jan 16, 2012 12:38:10 GMT -8
This is a good article from the Nanaimo Daily News, describing the nuts and bolts aspect of moving Duke Point operations temporarily to Departure Bay. Sometimes, when a ship or terminal is temporarily out of commission, you'll hear members of the public ranting about why-can't -those-dummies-do-this-or-that, and I get the impression that many people are totally unfamiliar with the complexity of operating a modern transportation system with the mandated safety provisions of the current times. www.canada.com/Ferries+scrambles+ensure+smooth+sailings+after+crash/6001744/story.html
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 19, 2012 13:44:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by glasseye on Jan 19, 2012 16:24:44 GMT -8
RBI currently shows the CI returning to service on Jan 25th.
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Jan 25, 2012 14:00:26 GMT -8
RBI currently shows the CI returning to service on Jan 25th. Which is tonight. She will resume service with sailing #3013 at 8:15 pm.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Feb 19, 2012 20:35:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Feb 19, 2012 23:06:19 GMT -8
Departure Bay currently doesn't have enough capacity for Route 2 alone during summer. Duke Point is a necessary terminal. While it is a major inconvenience for walk-on passengers, it diverts the large trucks off of city streets which can free up capacity. At the end of the day, Duke Point and Departure Bay will still exist as BC Ferries has just spent millions a few years ago to expand and upgrade the Departure Bay terminal. To expand it out would make some if not almost all of those investments all for none. There will still be the issue of queueing of drivers arriving and not enough service attendents to take care of the traffic in a timely manner.
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Feb 20, 2012 1:32:32 GMT -8
And Stewart Avenue cannot be widened to add a few lanes simply for holding ferry traffic on busy days. The only measure I can see to keep Stewart Avenue accessible for all of the businesses there is to mark boxes on the road which queued-up ferry traffic must not be permitted to block.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Feb 20, 2012 11:20:16 GMT -8
Let us not forget that back in the 1990's Departure Bay was handling both routes full time summer and winter. In the summer of 1996 the volume of traffic (both vehicles & foot passengers) would have been considerable, and without doubt greater than the levels of the last few years brought on by BCFS's never ending fare increases. Recognizing this I find the above quote to be somewhat mystifying.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Feb 20, 2012 15:04:11 GMT -8
Let us not forget that back in the 1990's Departure Bay was handling both routes full time summer and winter. In the summer of 1996 the volume of traffic (both vehicles & foot passengers) would have been considerable, and without doubt greater than the levels of the last few years brought on by BCFS's never ending fare increases. Recognizing this I find the above quote to be somewhat mystifying. I'm not sure how it is now, but in 2006 or 2007, trying to get to Horseshoe Bay from Departure Bay, I spent 6 hours waiting outside of the terminal on Stewart Avenue before even getting into the compound. Sometime In July or August, I believe. At that time, it definitely didn't have enough capacity for route 2 alone. EDIT: Actually, the Queen of Oak Bay had been out of service all morning that day, so maybe that's why the wait was so long.
|
|
|
Post by hwy19man on Feb 20, 2012 17:58:30 GMT -8
I wonder if the Nanaimo Regional Transit system will improve bus service to and from the Departure Bay ferry terminal with more foot passengers coming through the terminal? BC Transit doesn't serve Duke Point do they?
I doubt there will be a rush to serve something that wasn't served before - partiuclarly on a fairly foot traffic lite route. Time will tell though. Maybe having 30 out of Departure Bay may re-adjust some travel habits for some? People I know in the Nanaimo area have said the transit buses to and from Departure Bay are busier now that route 30 is operating from there. I contacted BC transit Nanaimo and was told the same thing. Extra buses have been used due to the peak demand and additional scheduled trips will be added in the March schedule.
|
|
|
Post by hwy19man on Feb 20, 2012 18:09:29 GMT -8
The other noticeable traffic movement are vehicles on hwy 19 south not using exit 29 but using exit 28 (Aulds Road) and exit 21 (Northfield Road) to get to Departure Bay Terminal.
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Feb 20, 2012 20:41:59 GMT -8
The exit 28 traffic is possibly those people who misinterpreted the signage for exit 29, and the exit 21 traffic knows about the secret shortcut.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 25, 2012 13:33:10 GMT -8
Here's the current summary of the event, from the BCFS official quarterly report.
Nothing new, but this is the message that they're telling their investors and shareholder.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Feb 26, 2012 8:25:19 GMT -8
Here's the current summary of the event, from the BCFS official quarterly report. Nothing new, but this is the message that they're telling their investors and shareholder. It is really quite remarkable just how easily BCFS passes of this 'incident' as 'no big deal'. Not withstanding what the latest Morfitt report said, the safety culture in this company looks rather poor.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Mar 1, 2012 13:18:40 GMT -8
To follow this article up with a news report
|
|
KE7JFF
Chief Steward
Posts: 106
|
Post by KE7JFF on Mar 3, 2012 14:52:25 GMT -8
You know, of all the weird BC Ferries incidents that have occurred in recent years, this one I think tops the weirdest. Its one thing to sink a vessel or accidentally crash into a marina, but to crash the ship into the dock resoling in the entire terminal to be closed for repairs for like 4 months is quite a whopper in the wallet. I don't even want to know what whopper of an incident will occur next!
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Mar 3, 2012 20:15:29 GMT -8
You know, of all the weird BC Ferries incidents that have occurred in recent years, this one I think tops the weirdest. Its one thing to sink a vessel or accidentally crash into a marina, but to crash the ship into the dock resoling in the entire terminal to be closed for repairs for like 4 months is quite a whopper in the wallet. I don't even want to know what whopper of an incident will occur next! Bear in mind that the only reason the terminal is closed is because it only has one berth. Any other terminal in the system would have been fine, just would have that particular berth out of commission for a while.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 3, 2012 22:36:49 GMT -8
You know, of all the weird BC Ferries incidents that have occurred in recent years, this one I think tops the weirdest. Its one thing to sink a vessel or accidentally crash into a marina, but to crash the ship into the dock resoling in the entire terminal to be closed for repairs for like 4 months is quite a whopper in the wallet. I don't even want to know what whopper of an incident will occur next! Bear in mind that the only reason the terminal is closed is because it only has one berth. Any other terminal in the system would have been fine, just would have that particular berth out of commission for a while. Bear in mind that the primary reason the terminal is closed is that the ship smucked the berth but good. The fact that there is only one berth is a contributory cause to this situation. Why is there only one berth at this terminal? Why is there only one double decked berth at Langdale? If this same sort of berth collision happened at Langdale service to the Sunshine coast would be seriously messed up. BC Ferries decision (or non-decision) to have at least two fully functional berths at each terminal is questionable, I think.
|
|
Mayne
Voyager
I come from a long line of sinners like me
Posts: 289
|
Post by Mayne on Mar 3, 2012 23:12:00 GMT -8
I think the one berth thing is a very large conversation, at least Vancouver island has several terminals. With all the islands that only have one berth total and no other option, a berth being out of commission for 4 months is catastrophic. I don't think having multiple berths are needed at all terminals, just to look on the bright side that it could have been a lot worse.
|
|
KE7JFF
Chief Steward
Posts: 106
|
Post by KE7JFF on Mar 4, 2012 2:04:08 GMT -8
Yeah, the whole one berth thing is part of the problem too. Knowing the history of Duke Point, I'm surprised it's not two berths.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2012 17:14:37 GMT -8
Bear in mind that the primary reason the terminal is closed is that the ship smucked the berth but good. The fact that there is only one berth is a contributory cause to this situation. Why is there only one berth at this terminal? Why is there only one double decked berth at Langdale? If this same sort of berth collision happened at Langdale service to the Sunshine coast would be seriously messed up. BC Ferries decision (or non-decision) to have at least two fully functional berths at each terminal is questionable, I think. I'm not sure how 'seriously messed up' you mean. i.e a 4 month closure? Sure, service would be messed up to a degree but this is why we have ramps on the C Class. Of course, there would only be 7 sailings a day (as it was during the November closure), but the money is hard to come by to justify such an upgrade....Mike Corrigan that "to take Langdale to the next level is probably going to cost upwards of $50 million"[Coast Reporter, December 16th 2011] I guess I could be ignoring the issue since it's never happened before on the Sunshine Coast, however, I think BC Ferries would probably hire more manpower to get the docked fixed quickly if a similar incident happened in Langdale. Correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems they are 'taking their time' to repair the berth at Duke Point.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 4, 2012 18:29:19 GMT -8
If they were forced to use Langdale's reserve single level berth as the 'primary berth' for an extended period of time, they could do it. I do believe that it would be a royal pain, however. Am I right in believing that only the Cowichan & Coquitlam have the internal ramps? If the Surrey (& Oak Bay) do not have these than vessels would have to be transferred around. How much more 'port time' would would be required to unload/load a C class at Langdale using the single level berth? How many round trips might be lost over the day as a result?
I believe that each of the major terminals on the south coast ought to have at least two fully functional berths. With BCFS admitting to a dozen hard landing per year, this would seem to be a prudent course of action.
|
|