|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 6, 2008 19:29:10 GMT -8
For proper maintenace of the cables of the platform decks, it is something that either the first or last sailing of the day should deploy and test on a daily basis to ensure that things are kept moving. Yeah, you think they could do maintenance while underway on a quiet Wednesday night or something. Even once or twice a week is probably all you would need to keep it running smoothly. And of course everything is going to break down eventually... so why wasn't the problem addressed during the last refit? |
|
|
|
Post by farout on Sept 6, 2008 21:11:35 GMT -8
So what would be the problem of having a C-Class as relief vessel on rought one? Didn't they serve the run before at one point?
|
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Sept 6, 2008 21:19:41 GMT -8
So what would be the problem of having a C-Class as relief vessel on rought one? Didn't they serve the run before at one point? Decades ago; There might not even be any of the same crew members still employed as crew working out of one of the major terminals any longer. |
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Sept 6, 2008 22:29:35 GMT -8
For proper maintenace of the cables of the platform decks, it is something that either the first or last sailing of the day should deploy and test on a daily basis to ensure that things are kept moving. Good points. Would it really cost so much in labour to keep them active even just once a week or however many times a week necessary? I can partly understand, though, other than not running them just for the sake of upkeep, that they don't run them too often in regular service considering the delays their use implies. - I've created a "BC Ferries - Photos" thread for the sake of platforms, found here: ferriesbc.proboards20.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=photos&thread=4201...Including pics and vids of the SoVI and vids of the Queen of Tsawwassen and Queen of Chilliwack. |
|
Quatchi
Voyager 
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Sept 7, 2008 0:48:37 GMT -8
Regarding Platforms, I know from structural works like bridges and other load bearing cable applications that steel cables that carry a load and are in motion loose their tensile strength very quickly. They probably need replacing and BCF hasn't had the time to do it or they just don't want to.
Replacing these cables could be a major job. The ship would have to be out of service for a while and the ramps would have to be supported from below with jack stands before the cables can be replaced.
I do find it interesting that they let them deteriorate enough for TC to condemn them, they should have know the life of the cables and replaced them in a winter refit before they expired.
Or it could just be as simple as the cable fraying for some reason in the last few months and BCF didn't want to take her out of service to repair some thing they barely ever use.
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Sept 7, 2008 8:01:41 GMT -8
The first in the class also tend to be inferior to the second, third etc... I don't know if I'd use the word 'inferior.' But they do tend to be a bit of a prototype, and some changes and improvements usually happen between the first of the class and subsequent issues. And Cadmunkey has hit all the issues of maintenance on the ramps right on the head of the nail. I don't want to sound like a know-it-all or anything, but I think sometimes some of you forget that something like replacing the cables that operate those ramps is a bit more elaborate, time-consuming, and dangerous than re-lacing your shoes. From what little I've seen of those decks, it's a lot like trying to replace a lace in a seven-ton shoe while the lace is tying the shoe to the ceiling and, more importanly, the shoe is upside-down.Oh, and you're standing underneath it. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 7, 2008 9:02:36 GMT -8
Above well informed posts notwithstanding, anything with moving parts that you leave in one spot and don't move at all, ever, tends to deteriorate faster than something that is moved at least once in a while. True that usage puts stress and strain on the cables etc, but if you have a moist (don't tell me that there is no humidity or vapour on the car decks!) cable resting in one place, static, on a pulley, where do you think that the oxidation will take place?? ??
As for deploying the platforms while under way, unless you had the MCD empty or loaded on one side only (not good for seakeeping performance!), it would be hard to do this. Do it before the first sailing of a given day, or after the last sailing of a given day when there is no revenue traffic on the boat.
Wanna see about oxidation yourself? Place a few pennies next to any sink that you use. Don't move them for a week. Use the sink as you normally would. Then lift up the pennies and see what you can see.
|
|
|
|
Post by chinook2 on Sept 7, 2008 12:47:51 GMT -8
So what would be the problem of having a C-Class as relief vessel on rought one? Didn't they serve the run before at one point? Decades ago; There might not even be any of the same crew members still employed as crew working out of one of the major terminals any longer. Gotta be a crewing issue--C's are perfectly operable on route 1. Surrey and Oak Bay spent their first year plying the route, and a C was used as 5th boat for a couple of summers in the early 1990s. |
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Sept 7, 2008 13:26:30 GMT -8
I think we are approaching a new record for the same discussion happening over and over again  . Should be an automatic feature on the forum that when anyone types Active Pass or Route 1, and C Class in the same sentence - fireworks go off  . Seriously new people can't be expected to search the archives for such things before they post, so it is understandable. And as the forum grows it is always good to have new members and posters all the time. It happens on other forums as well. But maybe a premanent locked post of some sort that sums it up so people can be directed there or find it easily on their own. A citing of Hahn saying the C's can't be operated in Active Pass like was recently posted is what I|have in mind. *Does anyone else make edits only to find that they disappear on posting? Last sentence came out quite muddled with two versions run into each other. I trust you understood anyways . The missing word however was economically. So it should have read "operated economically". |
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Sept 7, 2008 13:50:41 GMT -8
I think we are approaching a new record for the same discussion happening over and over again . Should be an automatic feature on the forum that when anyone types Active Pass or Route 1, and C Class in the same sentence - fireworks go off . Seriously new people can't be expected to search the archives for such things before they post, so it is understandable. And as the forum grows it is always good to have new members and posters all the time. It happens on other forums as well. But maybe a premanent locked post of some sort that sums it up so people can be directed there or find it easily on their own. True enough that a growing forum such as ours can't expect every new member to know all and be caught up on such things, let alone have the time to even skim over our *entire* massive archive. A citing of Hahn saying the C's can't be operated in Active Pass like was recently posted is what I|have in mind. He did eh? I think I'm a good example of even seasoned members, let alone newbies, having difficulty keeping up to date with everything said after being around here a lot for two or three years and then having to focus on other aspects of my life for even just a few months and now coming back having to manage what ammount of time I devote to going through recent archives of the discussions I've missed while ballancing that against keeping up and active with current discussions. - Re: 'C' Class and Active Pass, other than what I haven't heard on the matter from Hahn, and I know others will help clarify, but this is in a nutshell they do not transit the pass because of two things today: 1 - The Queen of Alberni grounding in AP way back before she was lifted had BC Ferries change policy to make all 'C' class vessels transiting the pass do so at a slower 'mode', thereby making it far less efficient to have those otherwise faster ferries wasted on Route 1 through AP; 2 - Crews at both Tsawwassen and(?) Swartz Bay are not trained in the chutes that the 'C' Class utilize. The Coastal Celebration will of course we based at Swartz Bay, so this will do nothing for training Tsawwassen crews for chutes. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 7, 2008 14:18:35 GMT -8
I think we are approaching a new record for the same discussion happening over and over again ..... A citing of Hahn saying the C's can't be operated in Active Pass like was recently posted is what I|have in mind. I'll jump in and echo what Retro had to say (by the way, "Welcome back, Retro"): I think that the C-Class in Active-Pass problem is that Transport Canada requires the C-Class to go into "Mode 2" or something like that as they transit the pass. I think that means slow speed. So that time of slow-speed makes the C's less-efficient on Route-1 re travel-time. Keep in mind that the 'Alberni's grounding was in 1979, and so C-Class did sail on route-1 after that...presumably with those Mode-2 regulations in effect. Unfortunately, Dave Hahn's AGM comment was poorly worded. If he had explained himself further (assuming that he had the knowledge to do so re this specific item), he could have prevented this forum's confusion on the issue. I think he should have explained that the TC regulations make it difficult to operate a C-Class efficiently on Route-1. There, I've given some specifics. Please correct any of my specifics with your own specifics. (unless you're one of those forum people who are specifics-averse.... ;D). |
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 7, 2008 14:45:27 GMT -8
Mode 2 though AP for the C-class is the same configuration that they use for docking/undocking, where both propellers at opposite ends of the ship are engaged, essentially one pushing, one pulling. It is not speedy nor fuel efficient, but it increases the maneuverability of the vessel dramatically.
Any additional time spent actually transitting AP in Mode-2 would be offset by the fact that the C's do not need to spin around at one end of their round trip.
Hahn did, at the presser, say that C's are unsuitable for Rte-1, but as Flugel stated, it was probably more of a poorly worded statement than a well informed one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Sept 7, 2008 15:11:08 GMT -8
Mode 2 though AP for the C-class is the same configuration that they use for docking/undocking, where both propellers at opposite ends of the ship are engaged, essentially one pushing, one pulling. It is not speedy nor fuel efficient, but it increases the maneuverability of the vessel dramatically. Any additional time spent actually transitting AP in Mode-2 would be offset by the fact that the C's do not need to spin around at one end of their round trip. Hahn did, at the presser, say that C's are unsuitable for Rte-1, but as Flugel stated, it was probably more of a poorly worded statement than a well informed one. Mhmm, granted the time would be made up by the fact that they're double ended, but we know BCFS - or more importantly private corporations in general - and their mandate to put cost savings above basically anything else. In this case that extra fuel used through Active Pass is way too far for them to go for the sake of almost any other benefit; I could actually see them cancelling sailings before they do that. |
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Sept 7, 2008 18:21:03 GMT -8
Flug I as sort of aluded to in my corrected statement above, the economical part also relates to the fact that Mode 2 burns considerably more fuel. So while some of the time is made up not turning around and heading straight into the dock, it only comes to bear on the Swartz Bay side. I am not sure enough time would be made up at the one end to offset two transits of Active Pass on a return trip. It would be very hard to maintain the depart on the hour schedule.
I am sure someone will comment that the ferry could operate at higher speed for the non-active pass portions of the trip to also make up time. In another post recently I commented that in the booklet, "Your Guide to BC Ferries Inside Passage", that the QoftN going from 18 knots to 22 knots literally doubled the fuel burn from 1100 litres/hr to 2200 litres/hour. Extra speed really burns fuel fast once you go past the most economical design speed. So add the extra fuel burned in Active Pass and any other extra fuel used to make up time, and the potential for the ferry to run behind, it becomes very clear it just won't work.
What we are missing is a comparison of fuel burned by a Spook compared to a C Class.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Sept 7, 2008 18:34:51 GMT -8
You can find fuel burn comparison which is not overly detailed but nonetheless interesting in BC Ferries' Mid-Island Service Report available at the Vancouver Public Library's Business Section at the Central Branch. It would allude to the C's being uneconomical on Rte 1 for a very different reason - they didn't take in enough secondary income.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Sept 7, 2008 19:36:14 GMT -8
...It would allude to the C's being uneconomical on Rte 1 for a very different reason - they didn't take in enough secondary income. As in retail or what exactly? I'll have to take another look at booklet at VPL Central Branch when I get the chance. Wouldn't the Mid-Island Service Report refer to the Mid-Island Express, and if so wouldn't it not report on fuel consumption through Active Pass, or is that just a title and not referring specifically to Route 30? |
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 7, 2008 20:05:39 GMT -8
While I don't claim to be an expert on fuel burn or speeds of vessels or anything like that, from what I have managed to glean off this forum regarding transit of AP, and mode-2 operations and all of that, the additional time spent during the AP transit part of the voyage is negligible, unless the speed drop is significant. I cannot find any documentation on what the speeds on Mode-1 vs Mode-2 are. That being said, taking into account capacity of V's versus C's, schedule distruptions and everything else, I would hazard that running a C through AP would be preferable to not running proper service on the "flagship" route. Remember we are talking all hypotheticals here anyways.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 7, 2008 20:06:34 GMT -8
On a separate note, SoBC is again having "mechanical difficulties with vessel" departing late for her 1900 at 1918. Her corresponding 2100 departure this evening has been given away to the Vancouver who is sailing in her place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Sept 7, 2008 20:25:54 GMT -8
- OT -
Now I'm confused: The Actual Departures page says that the 'Vancouver left Swartz Bay at 21:05 and yet the more accurate Siitech.com shows her sitting at Tsawwassen...
Does BCFS have the gaul to cancel all sailings from 8pm and after from Swartz Bay on a summer Sunday? I guess we'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 7, 2008 20:34:36 GMT -8
-Does BCFS have the gaul to cancel all sailings from 8pm and after from Swartz Bay on a summer Sunday? I guess we'll see. I had missed those retrovian interpretations of ferry happenings. Just give me small doses to build up my immunity once again..... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Sept 7, 2008 20:39:38 GMT -8
Just for you, Mr. Horn, I'll dole it out in chewable flinstones form as prescribed. - All fun over the top election season rhetoric aside though, the SoBC popped back up on SiiTech.com and is in fact pulling the late 9pm herself. |
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Sept 7, 2008 21:04:13 GMT -8
As in retail or what exactly? I'll have to take another look at booklet at VPL Central Branch when I get the chance. Wouldn't the Mid-Island Service Report refer to the Mid-Island Express, and if so wouldn't it not report on fuel consumption through Active Pass, or is that just a title and not referring specifically to Route 30? It is the study that more or less set BC Ferries in the direction of building Duke Point. I can't remember the exact year it was published but Rte 30 existed and was serving Departure Bay, but no decision had been made on constructing Departure Bay. Secondary revenue was the cafeteria, snack bar, and newsstand as it then was. The report also goes on to state, that at the time, the C's were the only vessels that had a chance of making the schedule with suitable capacity, thus taking the Queen of Alberni and New West out of the running. At the time remember BC Ferries was also dealing with a huge traffic infusion and not a lot of extra lift capacity. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 7, 2008 21:45:28 GMT -8
Don't the V's and Spooks slow down in Active Pass as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by cohocatcher on Sept 8, 2008 9:06:23 GMT -8
Dumb question. I've looked at several sources and can't find an answer. The SOBC is listed as having a capacity of 470 AEQs. Is this with or without the lifts? What are the AEQs for each situation?  |
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Sept 8, 2008 12:49:19 GMT -8
Dumb question. I've looked at several sources and can't find an answer. The SOBC is listed as having a capacity of 470 AEQs. Is this with or without the lifts? What are the AEQs for each situation? With the lift. Not sure on the liftless capacity but if we take the Coastal's length of 160m with a capacity of 370 AEQ and the Spirit's length of 167.67m, I would imagine its only slightly higher. |
|
. Should be an automatic feature on the forum that when anyone types Active Pass or Route 1, and C Class in the same sentence - fireworks go off 
.
