|
Post by sunshinecoastkid on Sept 21, 2008 11:28:41 GMT -8
That would be very interesting to see a cruise ship like ferry on route 1! But i think BC Ferries needs to buy or built another ship, or at least train the crew to opperate a C' class ship.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Sept 21, 2008 12:38:34 GMT -8
Could people maybe point out where the $150 million for another boat would come from? BC Ferries is in negotiation right now with the province over the options for the third northern vessel. Funds for 'extra' vessels can't be realized from clam chowder revenue.
For most of the 48 years of BC Ferries history, public or 'private', there never has been any spare major boat sitting around. When one goes out for repairs, there's been a hole in the schedule somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 21, 2008 17:22:38 GMT -8
As it stands right now, there would be absolutely no alternative for a spare vessel to serve Rt 1, given the C's limitations re Active Pass. The only possibility would be to move one of the Coastals to Rt 1. I would hope, that within a reasonable time period (read: off season once we have the CC and IS crews trained up), it would probably be a good idea for BCFS to run either the Cow or Coq thru AP and get a Tsawwassen-based crew familiar with her on that Route -- JUST to have that option available. I use the Tsawwassen based crew as an example here because the CC will be Swartz-based, AND Duke crews are already up to speed on C's. Getting Tsawwassen-based crews trained on Rte-1 would also give the option to have a C outta Tsawwassen run Rte-30 should that situation arise. Of course, swapping the CI to Rte-1 is another option, but then why the mods to the QoNW? It leaves a lot of questions, but I think my scenario would make sense, in terms of not having any new boats available. As has been discussed, the C's thru AP is only an efficiency and crew PROFICIENCY issue, not any TC regulation or "these boats are NOT ALLOWED to transit AP" issue.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Sept 21, 2008 20:29:38 GMT -8
It surprises me that BCFS doesn't cross train it's crews on all similar vessels it would add to the efficiency. Airlines have crews certified on various types of planes which certainly adds to efficiency. Last Thursday & Friday when the QOB had it's sewage problem Why was the COQ not brought in to do at least 1 round trip?
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Sept 21, 2008 20:41:00 GMT -8
My best guess and knowing how BCF operates, is that they probably don't want to spend the money on all the crew training. I personally see it as short-sighted of BCFS as I think it could pay off in the long-run.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Sept 21, 2008 20:46:16 GMT -8
Last Thursday & Friday when the QOB had it's sewage problem Why was the COQ not brought in to do at least 1 round trip? The Coquitlam wasn't used, because she's currently at Deas, undergoing Annual Maintenance. It's typical for the Coquitlam to go for refit during September. The Cowichan will be next for the month of October. The Coquitlam will actually see very little to no use at all this winter. She will likely only be used in case the Queen of Surrey breaks down, or when she goes in for refit in March. Otherwise the Cowichan will be used for MD sailings on route 2, and Route 30 if the CI breaks down, or goes in for refit.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Sept 21, 2008 21:45:58 GMT -8
My best guess and knowing how BCF operates, is that they probably don't want to spend the money on all the crew training. I personally see it as short-sighted of BCFS as I think it could pay off in the long-run. Crews are trained or familiarized for vessels they're reasonably likely to use is my understanding. While I could be mistaken I am fairly confident this is the case. For example, a Spirit crew could hop onto a V, likewise a Langdale crew could operate a C or V in many cases.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Sept 22, 2008 8:15:44 GMT -8
If BCFS wanted to further increase capacity on Route#2 Could they swap the Coq for the Alberni, or does the Alberni have a larger Oversize vehicle capacity than the Coq?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 22, 2008 8:29:25 GMT -8
If BCFS wanted to further increase capacity on Route#2 Could they swap the Coq for the Alberni, or does the Alberni have a larger Oversize vehicle capacity than the Coq? To clear this up: - Route #2 is Departure Bay to Horseshoe Bay. - The Coquitlam works as the #2 ship on Route#3 (Langdale) during summer, and is the spare-C in the winter - The Alberni works on Route-30 (Duke-Tsawwassen). So swapping the Coq for the Alberni doesn't affect Route-#2 directly. re your capacity question: - The 'Alberni does indeed have a larger overheight capacity than the 'Coquitlam. This is because the entire width of the 'Alberni's main car-deck is overheight capable, while the 'Coquitlam only has overheight on the centre portion of her main car-deck.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Sept 22, 2008 8:58:37 GMT -8
oops I meant Route Route #30
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Sept 22, 2008 10:31:41 GMT -8
I agree two coastals on route 1 would be more efficient. And if the SOBC keeps on having difficulties in the future, BC Ferries is going to be sorry and alot of people are going to be mad. For some reason BC Ferries is never really sorry about these things except for in press releases, or in free food on the SOBC if you happen to be on the sailing where one of her engines blows up. It's easy to say you're sorry in a news release, but BC Ferries should actually start showing that they are sorry. If their mandate is to operate the company, then they should actually operate it in a way that ensures the ships and infrastructure are kept in inoperable condition. Not left to rattle apart when a propeller cracks showing nothing but contempt for the equipment that they are given to use, not to mention the money that the people of BC paid to build it. The Spirit of BC should have been pulled from service the minute the propeller issue was discovered and kept out of service until the problem was resolved which could have prevented all the damage they are now trying to repair. If they are too scared to run a C-Class through active pass, they should have brought a Coastal down to route 1 to fill in, since they already have crews who know how to run a Coastal. Of course, BC Ferries has also made itself the enemy of the crews, too, so it would have taken a lot of extra effort and courtesy to ask some of the crews to serve on a different route for a short time. Basically, BC Ferries is not going to be sorry, except for the fact that the Spirit of BC didn't cooperate in letting them get away with poor operation of the vessels this time (dumb ship... what does it know about how it's supposed to be run). So, yeah, a lot of people might get mad, but they'll fix that by sending out a deluge of press releases and fake apologies.
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Sept 22, 2008 14:51:54 GMT -8
The SOBC has to run around East Point when there is anything more then a 4 kt tide in active pass. So running at a reduced speed and going east point, add lots of time to route 1. IF BCFS is smart, they would run a C class on route 1 outta Tsawwassen, along with the Vancouver. Yes i know what your all thinking, C class Ferries can't run through Active Pass unless in mode 2, but how much time and extra fuel does that really amount to??
But this is my proposal, Running a C class ferry at about say 20 or 21 knots around East Point on Route 1 would add what, maybe at most 5 mins to the crossing. You;d have a boat running 4-5 knots faster then the spirit when its down on 3 engines.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Sept 22, 2008 15:23:44 GMT -8
I think Ferryman mentioned earlier in this thread that there isn't a C Class boat available right now. Coquitlam is in at Deas for its Annual Inspection, and Cowichan will be next. At this point, I agree with Mill Bay. Pull SOBC out now and take the time to fix it properly! If that means 3 boat service on Rte 1 with SOVI, QSaanich, & QVancouver, then so be it. In the long term, I think it would be better to do that than making SOBC's problems worse.
|
|
|
Post by Canucks on Sept 22, 2008 15:34:42 GMT -8
I would agree with Orcasnative that three boats in the end of September should be fine. The might be some waits on the weekends but it will only be a matter of time before the remaining stressed engines break too. Knowing the "ferry law" as I like to call it this will probably happen on a Friday.
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Sept 22, 2008 15:41:21 GMT -8
What i am saying is the Coquitlam will be out of Deas by the middle of October. So she wouldn't be of too much use now, but in future she is a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Canucks on Sept 22, 2008 15:59:36 GMT -8
Would the route be busy enough in October to require the Coquitlam? The Winter schedule starts October 15 except for a few extra sailings on the weekends.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 22, 2008 17:52:41 GMT -8
Last Thursday & Friday when the QOB had it's sewage problem Why was the COQ not brought in to do at least 1 round trip? Notwithstanding the fact that she was at Deas, a ferry is not like a car. Not even like a truck. You need to do more than "jump in and turn the key". Even with a truck, to do a proper pre-trip inspection (up to CVSE/MOT standards) takes 45mins. I would imagine that "pre-flighting" a ferry takes about 1-1.5 hours to make sure all the plants and systems are coming on line and working properly. You throw that much time into bringing an off-line vessel on-line, and you might be able to "hotfix" the problem you already had! Just my two cents on this, and I am sure that some of the more savvy veterans here can espouse further on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 22, 2008 17:54:17 GMT -8
My best guess and knowing how BCF operates, is that they probably don't want to spend the money on all the crew training. I personally see it as short-sighted of BCFS as I think it could pay off in the long-run. I couldn't agree more with this -- they certainly seem not to be able to see past the tips of their noses sometimes -- penny wise and pound foolish, as it were.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 22, 2008 18:12:07 GMT -8
For some reason BC Ferries is never really sorry about these things except for in press releases, or in free food on the SOBC if you happen to be on the sailing where one of her engines blows up. Pretty poor customer service, to be sure. Especially in THIS case where it is a TOTALLY preventable service failure -- pull the damn boat and repair it properly. Hit the people with the Service Notice and sailing schedule modifications, instead of making them deal with suddenly cancelled sailings, or "3-hour tours" when she blows up and has to go the LOOOOONG way at 14 kts. What BCFS is doing is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD!!! In the trucking industry, no driver worth his/her salt would run damaged equipment, unless it was to "baby" it to the repair shop or home terminal. It is CRIMINAL to keep running damaged equipment. If their mandate is to operate the company, then they should actually operate it in a way that ensures the ships and infrastructure are kept in [in] (edit) operable condition. Not left to rattle apart when a propeller cracks showing nothing but contempt for the equipment that they are given to use, not to mention the money that the people of BC paid to build it.
The Spirit of BC should have been pulled from service the minute the propeller issue was discovered and kept out of service until the problem was resolved which could have prevented all the damage they are now trying to repair. ** APPLAUSE ** Well said, can't add anything other than my kudos to that statement If they are too scared to run a C-Class through active pass, they should have brought a Coastal down to route 1 to fill in, since they already have crews who know how to run a Coastal. Of course, BC Ferries has also made itself the enemy of the crews, too, so it would have taken a lot of extra effort and courtesy to ask some of the crews to serve on a different route for a short time. There's nothing other than crew-training preventing them from really running C's thru AP. Coquitlam sitting at Deas could have her refit forestalled due to this exigent circumstance and be done after the Cowichan's (or bump them both back a week or so). BCFS is playing silly games with the Provincial residents and travellers, and in my eyes, endangering lives by running a vessel with a known defect in revenue service.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 22, 2008 18:15:46 GMT -8
Anyone thinking that the SOBC is not a sick ship should check out today's CurCon. She's been behind since her first sailing and never did any better until the venerable old Vancouver took over her spot. I am now SURE that BCFS is hell-bent on destroying the SoBC and pissing off the travelling public; their actions are nothing short of completely reckless and irresponsible. They are now culpable in endangering lives and wantonly running a damaged vessel into an even deeper state of disrepair. They need to be held accountable for this completely negligent action.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Sept 22, 2008 21:45:48 GMT -8
Anyone thinking that the SOBC is not a sick ship should check out today's CurCon. She's been behind since her first sailing and never did any better until the venerable old Vancouver took over her spot. I am now SURE that BCFS is hell-bent on destroying the SoBC and pissing off the travelling public; their actions are nothing short of completely reckless and irresponsible. They are now culpable in endangering lives and wantonly running a damaged vessel into an even deeper state of disrepair. They need to be held accountable for this completely negligent action. Good grief. Take a deep breath, Hardy. Looking back over this entire thread, the only actual information I can see is that the ship's propeller had an encounter with a log. Exactly what the current problem is seems to be a matter of two or three second hand rumors, and some idle speculation. Even Matthew Begbie wouldn't be stringing David Hahn up on the strength of what we've heard here.
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Sept 22, 2008 22:03:01 GMT -8
Neil, the SOBC has a engine in pieces. Pieces of the engine are at deas, this isn't rumors. ITs fact ! So the are running on 3 engines while fixing the 4th, they don't want to lose the capacity of the SOBC. Once the CC is done with crew training, the SOVI might come tsawwassen and then the SOBC would go for repairs.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Sept 22, 2008 22:18:05 GMT -8
Neil, the SOBC has a engine in pieces. Pieces of the engine are at deas, this isn't rumors. ITs fact ! So the are running on 3 engines while fixing the 4th, they don't want to lose the capacity of the SOBC. Once the CC is done with crew training, the SOVI might come tsawwassen and then the SOBC would go for repairs. That's not the point, ferrytraveller. Ships have run at less than full engine capabilities before. Allegations about "wantonly running a damaged vessel", and being "culpable in endangering lives' is another matter.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 23, 2008 2:29:18 GMT -8
That's not the point, ferrytraveller. Ships have run at less than full engine capabilities before. Allegations about "wantonly running a damaged vessel", and being "culpable in endangering lives' is another matter. Neil: the Spirits are designed to have FOUR engines. They can run on 3 functional without any significant degradation in operations. On two engines they can run at reduced speed and "other" capacity. The prop shaft issue has been "jury-rigged" together and not fully repaired yet. It is, and this is a direct quote: "good enough until a full fix can be implemented". What we have now is a ship with NO SAFETY MARGIN. Because they are trying to "hotfix" the SoBC, they are running her on 3 engines, and at times when they are working on the down engine, the adjacent engine cannot be operated at full power. Add to that the fact that the propeller issue could still raise it's ugly head, and you are really messing with fate. A quick scan of the CurCon's shows that the initial sailing on Monday took over 2 hours to reach destination, by way that they had to go (again) the long way around, because the ship did not have sufficient power to traverse Active Pass with 2 1/2 -- 3 engines, and a "sometimes" prop - they just can't generate enough flow over the rudders to steer correctly. Is that not a safety concern? Abating it by taking a different route is a half-assed measure at best. "Hey Neil -- one of the tires on your car is losing air, and another has a bulging blister which causes it to wobble. Don't get either repaired or replaced, just drive slower. Oh and by the way, don't go on Highway-1 or Highway-99 or Highway-17 because those all had trucks loaded with nails spill part of their cargo." This is what BCFS is doing, when you boil it all down. Would you do something like this in a real life situation?? Ask yourself.
|
|
|
Post by PCL Driver on Sept 23, 2008 8:11:09 GMT -8
Latest from BCFS Service Notice - Temporary Vessel Replacement Posted Saturday, September 20, 2008 Print Version Note: This Service Notice applies to the following route(s): - Vancouver (Tsawwassen) - Victoria (Swartz Bay) The Spirit of British Columbia will be removed from service periodically on the Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay route from Sunday, September 21 to Wednesday, October 8 for maintenance. When the Spirit of British Columbia is pulled for maintenance the smaller Queen of Vancouver will be the replacement vessel. There may also be temporary schedule changes during this period so please visit www.bcferries.com for the most up to date schedule information before you travel. Maintenance dates for the Spirit of British Columbia · 3:00 pm on Monday, September 22 until 3:00 pm on Thursday, September 25 · 3:00 pm on Monday, September 29 until 3:00 pm on Thursday, October 2 · 3:00 pm on Monday, October 6 until 3:00 pm on Wednesday October 8 For reservations or additional sailing information, visit www.bcferries.com or call 1-888- BCFERRY (223-3779). In other words....these are the days they know the tides are fast, and can't go through Active Pass...
|
|