|
|
Post by glasseye on Sept 24, 2011 17:22:32 GMT -8
There are enough spare ships in the winter months for BCFS to provide a better replacement for the Burnaby. Berth width should not be a problem as the berth at Powell River is single sided and the berth at Comox is the same width as the three berths at HSB. Depth should not be a problem as the 'Wack has a deeper draft than any of the southern ferries. Barring any paperwork problems stemming from route 17's more exposed waters, there's no obvious showstoppers preventing QoNW from being used as a temporary replacement for the Burnaby.
Presumably, however, BCFS did the accounting and concluded that inflicting the Chilliwack on route 17 users was the cheapest option.
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager 
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Sept 24, 2011 20:36:55 GMT -8
QoNW has a bulb, a second car deck and is a thirsty bugger. This all adds up to a ship that will beach itself at little river. I dont see her running route 17 anytime soon.
According to BCF the Chilliwack displaces 1109 tonnes less than the Burnaby, basic physics tells us that displacement is equal to the weight of water displaced therefore the weight of the object that is displaceing the water, so the Chilliwack is 1109 tonnes lighter not heavier at all.
Cheers,
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,302
|
Post by Neil on Sept 24, 2011 22:17:57 GMT -8
This ridiculous tub is unsuitable for any route in the system, and yet they're going to revamp it to keep it going for a number of more years. It's too slow for a lengthy run like the Discovery Coast, and TC requires an elaborate array of doors for it to be deemed seaworthy to cross open ocean, which makes its capacity too small for the Powell River to Comox route. It takes longer to go across the strait than the little Tenaka used to, when she was the Comox Queen. Its passenger layout is terrible, and all the crew space needed for the central coast is wasted anywhere else. It has vehicle loading issues with certain tides. It rolls like the leaden log that it is in moderate seas.
It's a big, ugly, slow, inefficient lemon, and I agree with WettCoast, an entirely unsuitable replacement for the 'Tsawwassen. And we're stuck with it for maybe another ten years. I'm sure the folks in Powell River are delighted.
|
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Sept 24, 2011 22:24:14 GMT -8
Okay issues with the Chilliwack on the Comox route. 3) Chilliwack's service speed is slow and slower get into some bad weather forget it. Burnaby can do 18 knots the Chilliwack is maxed out at 12 on a good day. She was going around 12.5kn on a snowy day with 1nm visibility and approx 2m seas last year on the route, so 'on a good day' is kind of a moot point. Dockings really aren't that slow. No slower than with the Burnaby at Westview. She may not be a good replacement, but it's the best we have, so why complain?  I'm wondering if part of the reason that BCF waits so long to do some real work on the Burnaby is because they don't have a good replacement for her anymore to fill in while she's gone? This ridiculous tub is unsuitable for any route in the system, and yet they're going to revamp it to keep it going for a number of more years. It's too slow for a lengthy run like the Discovery Coast, and TC requires an elaborate array of doors for it to be deemed seaworthy to cross open ocean, which makes its capacity too small for the Powell River to Comox route. It takes longer to go across the strait than the little Tenaka used to, when she was the Comox Queen. Its passenger layout is terrible, and all the crew space needed for the central coast is wasted anywhere else. It has vehicle loading issues with certain tides. It rolls like the leaden log that it is in moderate seas. It's a big, ugly, slow, inefficient lemon, and I agree with WettCoast, an entirely unsuitable replacement for the ' Tsawwassen. And we're stuck with it for maybe another ten years. I'm sure the folks in Powell River are delighted. I want to argue this, but I can't find anything to argue, except that I don't usually hear Discovery Coasters complaining about her. The passenger layout really isn't that horrible either. She could benefit from a little more space inside, but other than that, she's a fine craft. And once again, the two meter seas point, she didn't roll any more than any other ferry would. Probably even less. She doesn't coast over top of the water, she plows through it. And re: Little River, if BCF has such problems with the location, why don't they just dredge the stupid place? Either that or when they replace the berth this coming year, extend the trestle too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2011 22:28:43 GMT -8
The Chilliwack can do some serious damage to either dock there isn't anything that bends on the Wack it plows through anything like a bulldozer. Nobody is looking forward for the Chilliwack being on the Comox/Powell run.
|
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Sept 24, 2011 22:47:08 GMT -8
The Chilliwack can do some serious damage to either dock there isn't anything that bends on the Wack it plows through anything like a bulldozer. Nobody is looking forward for the Chilliwack being on the Comox/Powell run. Maybe i'm not understanding, but I don't think anything bends on the Burnaby either... or any other ferry for that matter. All the ferries in our fleet plow like dozers. Remember the Nanny? She didn't bend when she rampaged into Village Bay, or into the dolphin at Tsawwassen last year. Nanny is basically the same as the Burnaby, so I don't see why there's such a huge kerfuffle about safety issues while docking the Wack compared to the Burnaby. In fact I don't remember there ever being any major incidents where the Chilly's taken matters into her own hands and nommed down on a dock. So why are we so worried that she will this time? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2011 22:48:23 GMT -8
Okay issues with the Chilliwack on the Comox route. 3) Chilliwack's service speed is slow and slower get into some bad weather forget it. Burnaby can do 18 knots the Chilliwack is maxed out at 12 on a good day. She was going around 12.5kn on a snowy day with 1nm visibility and approx 2m seas last year on the route, so 'on a good day' is kind of a moot point. Dockings really aren't that slow. No slower than with the Burnaby at Westview. She may not be a good replacement, but it's the best we have, so why complain? I'm wondering if part of the reason that BCF waits so long to do some real work on the Burnaby is because they don't have a good replacement for her anymore to fill in while she's gone? It has to with money it is why the Burnaby has been left in the condition it is in. The only reason why she is getting a refit is structural repairs are required which is all I'am going to say. As for docking the Chilliwack REQUIRES captains with lots of experience with her. The old Chilliwack doesn't handle like a conventional ship. With so much her under the water line she doesn't respond as fast as a ship like the Burnaby. Get going too fast coming into the dock and thinking she will slow quickly isn't going to happen. So many captains with no experience with the Chilliwack get the rude awakening holey crabapple she isn't stopping. Push on the throttle all you want with the front legs turned she isn't going to slow down. You know when a captain is pushing on the throttle the black smoke is belching out the stacks. With the Little River side the water is so shallow the props cavitate really bad they are not getting a good bite in the water. Then it starts to churn up the mud and the whole area around the berth turns brown. They can't power on it because it does undermine the pilings that hold up the dock structure. It will be interesting to see what happens in a couple days from now. |
|
|
|
Post by glasseye on Sept 25, 2011 0:38:18 GMT -8
@quatchi:
According to Transport Canada's vessel registry, the 'Wack has a depth of 10.6m. Both the Burnaby and QoNW have official depths of 5.12m. For comparison, the Coastals have registered depths of 8.09m. Barring serious errors in the registry database, QoNW ought to fit anywhere the Wack will.
The depth data given by the QoNW and Wack's AIS transponders differs from the TC official data, but still indicate that the QoNW has less draft than the Wack.
@neil:
Go ahead, tell us what you really think. :-)
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Sept 25, 2011 10:03:43 GMT -8
@quatchi: According to Transport Canada's vessel registry, the 'Wack has a depth of 10.6m. Both the Burnaby and QoNW have official depths of 5.12m. For comparison, the Coastals have registered depths of 8.09m. Barring serious errors in the registry database, QoNW ought to fit anywhere the Wack will. The depth data given by the QoNW and Wack's AIS transponders differs from the TC official data, but still indicate that the QoNW has less draft than the Wack. @neil: Go ahead, tell us what you really think. :-) Glasseye, I was hoping you would catch me on that. My Ship Construction Instructor at the Canadian coast Guard College taught me that "Depth" is the distance from the "freeboard deck" to the "baseline", it is not the "draft" of the vessel. Lets define these secondary terms I've mentioned. "Freeboard deck" is the uppermost continuous exposed deck which has permanent means of closing all openings to be watertight. "Baseline" an imaginary reference plane drawn at the upper surfface of the keel plating. "Draft" the vertical distance from the summer load line to the lowest projection part of the hull. So, why is the Chilliwacks "Depth almost" twice that of the QoNW. Simple. The chilliwacks Freeboard Deck is the main PASSENGER DECK, she has proper watertight doors and NO unprotected openings on her car deck walls. The QoNW's freeboard deck is the MAIN CAR DECK, she does not have watertight doors and has many unprotected openings in her car deck walls. Now The Coastals have the same status as the QoNW their freeboard deck is the MAIN CAR DECK, they do not have watertight doors either, but they are a wee bit better and dont have unprotected openings. Non the less they still have 8.9m from the main car deck to the baseline. I know for a fact, because im looking at a set of ships plans for the wack right now that the distance from her main car deck to the baseline to make a fair comparision is 4.7m. to the Burnabys 5.12m. Cheers, |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 25, 2011 13:14:37 GMT -8
My Ship Construction Instructor at the Canadian coast Guard College taught me that "Depth" is the distance from the "freeboard deck" to the "baseline", it is not the "draft" of the vessel. Cadet-Brett: thanks for that great explanation. I apreciate the education.  |
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Sept 25, 2011 13:23:43 GMT -8
Officer Cadet !
Its fun to learn all the technical stuff!
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
Post by glasseye on Sept 25, 2011 13:32:08 GMT -8
FWIW, the AIS transponders of the Burnaby, Chilliwack, QoNW and Coastal Renaissance report drafts of 4.1, 5.1, 4.3 and 5.6m respectively. Unless these are wrong....  Quatchi, did you finish the model of the Chilliwack that you were building? |
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Sept 25, 2011 13:52:16 GMT -8
Glasseye,
I Don't know enough about how AIS transponders are interfaced to know wheather the drafts they give are anywhere near accurate, but if the the Chilliwack were to have a draft of 5.1m her car deck would be flooded by about 2 feet.
As for the Queen of Chilliwack Model. She has been put on hold, I am now unable to do much work on her for the next 4 years. I now live at the canadian Coast Guard College now, I have 40 hours of class a week plus homework and duties. There also isnt really anywhere for me to work on or store my model, my "Cabin" is 8' x 10' and is inspected regularily, so I cant make a mess whatsoever. So, for the forseable future im an working on the RADs and control systems to be fitted into the hull later.
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacob on Sept 25, 2011 18:26:37 GMT -8
As I was reading though these recent posts, and as I have wondered before, As another option for the Comox-Powell river route, what about the Q of Coquitlam? She has far more capacity than the the Chilliwack, or even the Burnaby for that matter, and with her ramps, can load all decks from a single level ramp such as exist there... Also she seems to have more idle time than the New Westminster does... Plus she is far faster than either Chilliwack or Burnaby and could easily make up the time lost loading the upper deck when necessary... Obviously though there still exists the fact it's a larger and presumably costlier ship to operate... If they could put her there in the summer maybe and put a smaller vessel as the secondary route 3 vessel perhaps?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Sept 25, 2011 18:43:13 GMT -8
As I was reading though these recent posts, and as I have wondered before, As another option for the Comox-Powell river route, what about the Q of Coquitlam? She has far more capacity than the the Chilliwack, or even the Burnaby for that matter, and with her ramps, can load all decks from a single level ramp such as exist there... Also she seems to have more idle time than the New Westminster does... Plus she is far faster than either Chilliwack or Burnaby and could easily make up the time lost loading the upper deck when necessary... Obviously though there still exists the fact it's a larger and presumably costlier ship to operate... If they could put her there in the summer maybe and put a smaller vessel as the secondary route 3 vessel perhaps? The C-Class have a deeper draft than the V's and B's, so she would probably run aground in Comox. |
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Sept 25, 2011 19:31:53 GMT -8
As I was reading though these recent posts, and as I have wondered before, As another option for the Comox-Powell river route, what about the Q of Coquitlam? She has far more capacity than the the Chilliwack, or even the Burnaby for that matter, and with her ramps, can load all decks from a single level ramp such as exist there... Also she seems to have more idle time than the New Westminster does... Plus she is far faster than either Chilliwack or Burnaby and could easily make up the time lost loading the upper deck when necessary... Obviously though there still exists the fact it's a larger and presumably costlier ship to operate... If they could put her there in the summer maybe and put a smaller vessel as the secondary route 3 vessel perhaps? The QCoq just has TOO much capacity for the route. All they need is the Burnaby. Even she's overbuilt for the route. |
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Sept 25, 2011 19:39:01 GMT -8
Another issue to consider is the manning of larger ships. Larger ships means larger crew. I have no idea of what the Licensing is like on the New West and Chilliwack, but the Queen of Nanaimo "A" License is 27 crew, while the Burnaby's "A" License is 25. The Burnaby has a different evacuation system two DBC twin chute systems while the Nanaimo has four LSA slides. Another example between the Nanaimo and Burnaby for crew was that extra crew on the Nanaimo means just a bunch of more Catering Attendants. On the Burnaby, there's an extra Deckhand added, as well as an extra Engine Room assistant plus the added Catering staff.
The point I'm getting at: The New Wests "C" License is probably equivalent to something like a Burnaby's "A" License. Obviously not cost effective having an "A" license equivalent expenditure of crew wages, plus the added fuel consumption. So, definitely no go on that one.
The Chilliwack is the ONLY option that is feasible for the time being.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Sept 25, 2011 21:12:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 26, 2011 15:02:00 GMT -8
Artsy photo of the Queen of Chilliwack, from the 1996 Discovery Coast brochure  |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 27, 2011 11:43:44 GMT -8
Chilliwack at Westview. - courtesy of the Powell River Peak newspaper's webcam Entering the berth - she did her spin just outside the berth, as evidenced by the wake. - back in May 2009, she did her spin a ways out in Malaspina Strait  Showing that she's docked stern-in, the solarium-end being the non-watertight stern.  |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 28, 2011 11:48:36 GMT -8
Today is day-3 for Chilliwack on Westview-Comox route. Her results so far:
day 1: 3 of 4 round-trips canceled by bad weather. This was bad weather for any route and any ship.
day 2: Behind schedule all day, at least 60 minutes behind schedule by end of day, maybe more. Traffic delays is what was reported.
day 3: Behind schedule all day so far, approx 45 minutes behind as of noon.
- I'll get a first-hand family report, later today. I'm curious if the delays are because of the McGregor-doors on the main car deck.
I'll let you know what I find out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 28, 2011 15:38:25 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 28, 2011 19:46:33 GMT -8
Here are some Chilliwack shots at Westview today, courtesy of Mrs. Horn, who had the pleasure of traveling on this fine ship. ;D 'Chilly making her way to Westview for her noon sailing:  - with North Island Princess in the background  - just before she does her spin. The #1 end is still in front...  In the berth with her #2 end (solarium) at the berth. - this shows how poor the visibility from the bridge is at this end. How can they see the berth? Likely with a deckhand at the end of deck-4 with a radio to the bridge.  Chilliwack in the berth at Westview.  One of the platform decks  |
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Sept 28, 2011 19:56:29 GMT -8
In the berth with her #2 end (solarium) at the berth. - this shows how poor the visibility from the bridge is at this end. How can they see the berth? Likely with a deckhand at the end of deck-4 with a radio to the bridge.  There are Nav controls in the sheltered flying bridges on the sides. They offer better visibility. So unless they're still closed due to asbestos, they could just take the controls in one of them. |
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Sept 28, 2011 20:03:00 GMT -8
Why are stupid people complaining about overloads? it's a smaller ship of course there are going to be overloads. Ships need to go into refit so they should learn to deal with it.
|
|
