|
|
Post by WettCoast on Sept 8, 2008 17:09:22 GMT -8
My understanding is that the capacity of a Spirit is 400 AEQ + 70, if the platform decks are used, slightly greater than a Coast Boat. These numbers come from another thread somewhere on this forum, exactly where I am unsure.
If the Coast Boats were fitted with hoistable ramps on each side of the main car deck their capacity would top 400. I don't understands why they did not order these vessels with such in place from day 1. Perhaps Mr. Haun and company wanted to be able to throw some crumbs to the BC ship yards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 8, 2008 19:07:43 GMT -8
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. They have the same amount of lanes (6) but I am unsure of the exact configuration of the bow/stern of the two vessels. Assuming that they are similar, that means that we have 7.67m * 6 lanes or 46.02 lane metres ... going back against the AEQ numbers we learned yesterday, that gives us: 46.02m / 5.34m (AEQ value) == 8.61 AEQ's ... So, I would extrapolate that without using the hoistable platforms, that the Spirits carry 9 more cars than the Coastals. Is this math accurate??? |
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 8, 2008 19:22:23 GMT -8
My understanding is that the capacity of a Spirit is 400 AEQ + 70, if the platform decks are used, slightly greater than a Coast Boat. These numbers come from another thread somewhere on this forum, exactly where I am unsure. I'd like to try to find this info, as doing the math above in regards to the length of the Spirits vs the Coastals and the capacities WITHOUT the hoistable decks, I am rather confused. Does anyone know if there are some plans/schematics of the Spirits that show the MCD layout with the lanes marked out or if there are some technical publications that actually states the lanemetres? If the Coast Boats were fitted with hoistable ramps on each side of the main car deck their capacity would top 400. And on what are we basing this?? Their capacity as built is 370 AEQ, so you are saying that each hoistable deck would only hold 15 AEQ's??? The additional capacity would be based on the SIZE of the hoistable platforms ... lets say, for sake of argument, that they would be 40m in length, and provide 2 lanes per platform. This math gives us an additional 160 lane metres; an AEQ is 5.34m, so we'd have an additional 29.96 AEQ's. Of course, if we make the platforms longer, this increases our additional capacity. I don't understands why they did not order these vessels with such in place from day 1. Perhaps Mr. Haun and company wanted to be able to throw some crumbs to the BC ship yards. I believe that we discussed this in the Coastal's thread (one of them!), and the concensus was that the additional loading time for the platforms was more detrimental than the minor additional capacity (and corresponding reduction in OH traffic). |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Sept 8, 2008 20:12:17 GMT -8
The following quote is from the 'Interesting Documents' thread started by Dane a few days ago. The linked document on the building of the SoBC has a listing of the actual capacities per vehicle deck. This info is toward the end of the document. The numbers are 208 deck 2 (MCD), 60 deck 3, & 202 deck 4 (UCD). Obviously, the total without deck 3 is 410. The question, however, is: 'Are these capacities measured the same way as for the Coast Boats?' Now to my point re the missing deck 3 on the Coast Boats: - The capacity would depend on whether these are two lanes wide on each side, or just one. If they had a similar layout as those on the Spirits the capacity would be about the same - 60 - bringing total vessel capacity to 430, or 40 less than the total capacity of a Spirit. - I very much expect the trend toward smaller vehicles to continue, and indeed, pick up steam. Therefore, there will be a need for increased underheight capacity, not less. Many overheights that have to be carried on the MCD on a V class, or Spirit, can be accommodated on the UCD, due to its extra clearance. This should free up space on the main car deck allowing for the accommodation of more underheights under and on platforms. - The Coast Boats have the speed to make up for the extra time required to deploy ramps, so keeping to the schedule should not be an issue. The revenue from 60 extra vehicles aboard should more than pay for the extra fuel cost involved. - BCFS wants to cut costs by reducing the number of sailings offered, especially those last minute 'manager's discretion' type sailings. If you can easily allow for 60 extra vehicles per sailing why not? This seems to me, to be a 'no brainer' type of decision for BCFS to make. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 9, 2008 21:54:57 GMT -8
So comparing bananas to peaches, we could summize that due to the additional height of the UCD on the Coastals, that we could potentially load a HIGHER REVENUE load onto a Coastal sans platforms, than a Spirit with DEPLOYED platforms.
While I agree that we are trending towards smaller vehicles for commuting, we still have trucks and buses for the commercial transportation of goods and pax, as well as RV's, boat trailers, etc for rec use.
I'd want to see some hard (and true) BCFS traffic stats for FY06 onward before I would want to spend money on upgrading the Coastals to have platforms; similarly I would want to extrapolate how many times the Spirits used their platforms versus how much traffic was left behind.
We would also, in the interest of a level playing field, want to examine the training that the deckhands receive for making sure that they load the ship TIGHTLY when required; proper loading can help manage overflow on busy sailings more so than deploying the platform decks (assuming a normal mix of traffic ....)
In those traffic stats (which I am almost sure we'd never really get), I would also want to see what the breakdown between OH, commercial and car traffic was to see what the OPTIMAL loadout configuration of the vessel(s) would be.
Lots of questions, not so many answers, but I want everyone to have enough food for thought to chew on before we start making assumptions and second guessing on operational and planning issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Sept 11, 2008 9:24:27 GMT -8
It would be nice to think you could just steer around the logs but these ships are not that maneuverable. It is very difficult to see a log even in dead calm waters. As they absorb water they sink lower, often there is only about 4 inches showing and a 5 inch ripple on the water will hide it. Once I was out in my sailboat when I saw a stick about 4 inches in diameter bobbing up and down, then I noticed another one about 40 feet away keeping time with it. I had been aimed between them, I slowed right down and eased up to a log about 4 feet in diameter floating about 18 inches under the water. When they are that waterlogged it is like hitting a huge chunk of lead. I was on the wheel of the Nanaimo when we hit two logs in a row. It was a dead calm day. The logs had been floating a few feet under the water. No possible way to know they were there. No damage done, that time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2008 16:25:54 GMT -8
I believe the term is deadhead.
why cant they use the c class on route 1 and whats mode 1 and 2?
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager 
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,887 
|
Post by Mill Bay on Sept 11, 2008 16:31:56 GMT -8
It would be nice to think you could just steer around the logs but these ships are not that maneuverable. It is very difficult to see a log even in dead calm waters. As they absorb water they sink lower, often there is only about 4 inches showing and a 5 inch ripple on the water will hide it. Once I was out in my sailboat when I saw a stick about 4 inches in diameter bobbing up and down, then I noticed another one about 40 feet away keeping time with it. I had been aimed between them, I slowed right down and eased up to a log about 4 feet in diameter floating about 18 inches under the water. When they are that waterlogged it is like hitting a huge chunk of lead. I was on the wheel of the Nanaimo when we hit two logs in a row. It was a dead calm day. The logs had been floating a few feet under the water. No possible way to know they were there. No damage done, that time. My dad has said that we have seen logs and deadheads that get hit by the propellers of tugs and are driven under, and then shoot straight up out of the water like torpedoes, several feet in the air in some cases. The forces involved could easily sink a smaller boat, especially one with a fiberglass hull... Another story I have heard relates one of the old tow-boats that lost both propellers to logs on one crossing, so they rigged it with blankets and such and sailed it down the straight instead, still towing it's boom. |
|
|
|
Post by farout on Sept 14, 2008 9:38:41 GMT -8
I just read on the service announcements email notification thingy the BC Ferries has that the SOBC is having problems again. They have canceled the 11 am sailing from Tsawwassen and the 1 pm sailing from Swartz Bay. Didn't they get the problem with the ship fixed the last time or was it a get done in a rush job?.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080
|
Post by Nick on Sept 14, 2008 9:49:15 GMT -8
All they did was disconnect one engine from the shaft. They are attempting to rebuild the engine while the ship is in service.
|
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Sept 14, 2008 9:51:50 GMT -8
Deadhead is the term for a log which is floating vertically with little of it showing above the water. Many times I have seen logs and deadheads be driven under then shoot back up.
The ferrys do not slow down in Active Pass because that is when you need the steerage most. Steerage is provided by the water moving over the rudder, more water equals more steerage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Canucks on Sept 14, 2008 9:53:06 GMT -8
She didn't use Active Pass.  |
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 14, 2008 17:33:59 GMT -8
I just read on the service announcements email notification thingy the BC Ferries has that the SOBC is having problems again. They have canceled the 11 am sailing from Tsawwassen and the 1 pm sailing from Swartz Bay. Didn't they get the problem with the ship fixed the last time or was it a get done in a rush job?. It was a half-arsed job, just like most of them seem to be lately. They seem to be afraid to pull her out of service and do it right, instead choosing to just "chewing gum and baling wire" it together. They need to take her out for proper repairs (2-3 days?) rather than just splicing her together.  What I don't get, is that this is supposed to be one of the flagships of the fleet. They need to do something to get the repairs done properly. Even if it means running 3-boat service with the SoVI and the QoVan/QoSaa running a funky schedule for a few days. They have "boats that work" not running right now, and taking 2:30 to do Rte-1 because you have to sail around Active Pass makes just as much sense as saying that a C-class cannot run Rte-1. If I were the people stranded at either SWB or Tsa, I would be screaming bloody murder by now, with the QoCoq sitting at Deas, and CC still awaiting training and crewing. Never mind the never ending QoNW refit..............  Right now there is a 2 sail outta SWB with the 1800 not departed yet, and looking at the positioning thingy, the SoBC is not keeping speed to keep her schedule very well either.... * edit to take the QoVan outta Deas, where I thought she was.... * |
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 15, 2008 6:49:06 GMT -8
Monday morning update: 07:46 and she left on time and is in the proper position half-way thru her initial journey: IE: no service notices, no problems (yet!!). I guess they put a full stock of Wrigleys and DrawTite onboard last night.
|
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Sept 15, 2008 10:00:18 GMT -8
Me and Scott were on the 10:15am sailing from Duke Point and we saw the SOBC at Tsawwassen in berth 3 and the Vancouver was in berth 5. The SOBC left at about 12:05pm with no passengers and the Vancouver right behind her. then we were able to come in and dock in berth 3. The SOBC went out towards active pass turned and headed south for a bit then came back to the terminal where she arrived around 2:15pm as we passed on her the 2pm sailing to Swartz Bay. But again later in the day she ended up being about 45min late!
|
|
|
|
Post by corporalrabbinoff on Sept 16, 2008 13:16:39 GMT -8
2:15pm Sept 16, 2008
Weird, the Spirit of BC is currently south of South Pender Island in Boundary Pass heading for Tsawwassen I would persume. According to Sitech and the BC Ferries website.
|
|
Kam
Voyager
Posts: 926
|
Post by Kam on Sept 16, 2008 13:51:42 GMT -8
Hmm... looks like she took the long way around active pass and only moving at 18 Knt... wonder whats up..  |
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 16, 2008 14:16:41 GMT -8
Must be the same problem they had previously, as they had to go "the long way" over the weekend too. I go back to my previous statements that they should just pull the sick ailing boat and repair her properly rather than trying to McGyver her together. Enough is enough already!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gordon on Sept 16, 2008 14:24:00 GMT -8
why is The SoBC seemingly the only major vessel that has so much trouble with deadheads (at least as far as being knocked out of service?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 16, 2008 14:31:48 GMT -8
why is The SoBC seemingly the only major vessel that has so much trouble with deadheads (at least as far as being knocked out of service? I'm sure that she and others constantly head flotsam and jetsam, but I suppose that she took it in a "tender" spot which has caused this neverending problem. Maybe the SoBC feels jealous of the QoNW and wants to have an ongoing issue too ... ?? I would think that it might be just bad luck, but I suspect that it is also a matter of certain fixes/repairs being put off and put off and put off that are finally catching up to the SoBC specifically, and the fleet in general. It goes along with the old addage "Pay me now, or pay me a LOT MORE later" |
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 16, 2008 14:45:59 GMT -8
No service notice on this yet, but the QoV has replaced the ailing SoBC on Rte-1 this afternoon starting with the 1500 out of Tsawwassen. This only makes sense as the SoBC was running at reduced speed and maneuverability and avoiding Active Pass again today (see the posting from 14th as well!) and was continuing to lose time. Finally a good decision by someone at BCFS; hopefully they can get her fixed PROPERLY this time so she lasts more than a half a day on her return!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Sept 16, 2008 20:31:14 GMT -8
Well from my sources, one engine has been completely down for several days now. It requires a complete rebuild, or complete replacement in order to be fixed. The engine oversped, (doubled its rated RPMs), and cooked itself after the automatic shutdown failed to initiate.
I can only speculate that after it ran on that gimped propellar (missing blade?) for a while, that it messed up the engines on the starboard side. Although I'm no qualified expert of course, it would only make sense from a casual standpoint.
|
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Sept 16, 2008 21:13:54 GMT -8
Whoa! Completely fried an engine??? Cooked it to a crisp???
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Sept 16, 2008 21:27:31 GMT -8
Hmmm, a BBQ'd engine would definitely seem to explain the issues the SoBC has been having. How the braintrust at the QoFS would see fit to keep operating her in that condition, though, is darn near criminal.
I would be looking for heads to roll if we can get confirmation of this.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080
|
Post by Nick on Sept 16, 2008 21:54:54 GMT -8
I have heard the same rumours. Actually, the version I heard was so close to what Chris heard that I have a very hard time doubting it. From what I have heard, they are trying to rescue the block of the engine. I would agree with Chris' assessment that this is a result of running for an extended period of time with an out-of-balance propeller.
|
|
