|
|
Post by Esquimalt Queen on Dec 19, 2011 10:15:13 GMT -8
The removal of the solarium will be rather unfortunate; I'm glad that I had the chance to enjoy it with my lovely WCFF friends. At least there are plenty nooks and crannies on that ship, and I look forward to using those strange spaces to set up camp  |
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Dec 19, 2011 10:58:51 GMT -8
Sorry to go back to this.... But as ugly as she is, I must admit that she did look much better in this configuration. I prefer this format with the bow doors she used to have, and how they would fold down into the deck. I don't like how it's layed out today.  |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 19, 2011 10:59:11 GMT -8
The removal of the solarium will be rather unfortunate; I'm glad that I had the chance to enjoy it with my lovely WCFF friends. At least there are plenty nooks and crannies on that ship, and I look forward to using those strange spaces to set up camp I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but the old nook in the recliner lounge (in the front centre, by the TV screens) is now filled-in as a life-jacket locker. - this was a popular Bella Bella 1st-nations camping area on the ship.... The quiet nook areas are slowly disappearing, but there are still some.  |
|
|
|
Post by Esquimalt Queen on Dec 21, 2011 11:04:55 GMT -8
It's a good thing I wasn't considering that spot; I don't know how anyone could fall asleep near those TVs. I guess I'll just have to do a trip on this peculiar vessel to see what type of sleeping arrangement nonsense I can get into. |
|
Mill Bay
Voyager 
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,887 
|
Post by Mill Bay on Dec 21, 2011 18:53:00 GMT -8
Can we settle this argument once and for all?  Never get into a debate over something this subjective. ;D (same concept as "never argue with a 13 year old"). There's no chance of anything productive coming from it, haha. That's never argue with a 6-year-old, and Luke's choices definitely take top honours for ugliness. As for removing the solarium, that won't really detract, or improve her appearances, because if it is replaced with crew cabins, that likely won't improve her looks, either. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 15, 2012 14:17:00 GMT -8
Does any one know where the 'Chilliwack is currently?
- She's not showing-up on SiiTech in North Vancouver, at Esquimalt or at Deas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 15, 2012 14:19:52 GMT -8
Does any one know where the 'Chilliwack is currently? - She's not showing-up on SiiTech in North Vancouver, at Esquimalt or at Deas. My commuter bus home this afternoon will be traveling past Deas, so I will make a mobile post. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 15, 2012 14:31:34 GMT -8
Does any one know where the 'Chilliwack is currently? - She's not showing-up on SiiTech in North Vancouver, at Esquimalt or at Deas. I remember seeing her at Deas a few weeks ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 15, 2012 15:49:46 GMT -8
The Queen of Chilliwack is currently at Deas, as seen from Hwy 99.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 15, 2012 15:50:41 GMT -8
The Queen of Chilliwack is currently at Deas, as seen from Hwy 99. Thanks Mike and Mike. Mike |
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Feb 15, 2012 17:04:21 GMT -8
The Queen of Chilliwack is currently at Deas, as seen from Hwy 99. Thanks Mike and Mike. Mike Like I said earlier, so many Mikes... -Not Mike |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 25, 2012 14:27:17 GMT -8
From the BCFS quarterly Management Report for 12/31/2011
I'm thankful that there is no mention of building new crew-accomodations where the solarium was. Either this means it's not going to happen, or it just wasn't significant enough to mention in that report...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on May 13, 2012 16:24:24 GMT -8
Queen of Chilliwack at Deas, and almost ready for service up North.  |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 13, 2012 20:02:32 GMT -8
Queen of Chilliwack at Deas, and almost ready for service up North. I'm happy that the solarium is still there. I was worried that they might remove it to make room for more crew accommodations. |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on May 13, 2012 20:50:42 GMT -8
I'm happy that the solarium is still there. I was worried that they might remove it to make room for more crew accommodations. Sorry Mr Horn but due to financial constraints at BCFS the solarium now is the crew accommodations... |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 13, 2012 21:10:11 GMT -8
I'm happy that the solarium is still there. I was worried that they might remove it to make room for more crew accommodations. Sorry Mr Horn but due to financial constraints at BCFS the solarium now is the crew accommodations... haha, good one. As long as I can still camp in my corner, it will be good. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on May 22, 2012 21:23:25 GMT -8
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,298
|
Post by Neil on Jun 7, 2012 18:13:58 GMT -8
The problem with that idea is that BCF can't operate without either of those ships while they'd be in-refit for 12 months or so. Unless they wanted to use the Chilliwack permanent for a year or more on the Comox route.... The only real problem with the Chilliwack is that the people don't like her, plus she can't keep the schedule. So change the schedule for the time being and let the people suck it up. They had to deal with far worse ferries than the Wack in the past. Tell me you're joking. Please. BC Ferries recently went to the very expensive extent of adding the North Island Princess to the Comox route because the Queen of Chilliwack was inadequate for the service. There are issues with tides, capacity, and speed. I've ridden the 'Chilliwack in rough weather as well. I'm not impressed. For the era they served, the Sechelt Queen, Princess of Vancouver, Queen of Sidney, and now the ' Burnaby are all considerably better suited to the Comox run than the ' Chilliwack. Even the duo of the then Comox Queen and Queen of The Islands were, for their time, a better fit. In other words, there has never been a less suitable vessel for the route. Customers should "suck it up"? Ferries are there to serve the communities that need them. And the ' Chilliwack does not do that very well on the Comox run. |
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jun 7, 2012 18:21:01 GMT -8
The only real problem with the Chilliwack is that the people don't like her, plus she can't keep the schedule. So change the schedule for the time being and let the people suck it up. They had to deal with far worse ferries than the Wack in the past. Tell me you're joking. Please. BC Ferries recently went to the very expensive extent of adding the North Island Princess to the Comox route because the Queen of Chilliwack was inadequate for the service. There are issues with tides, capacity, and speed. I've ridden the 'Chilliwack in rough weather as well. I'm not impressed. For the era they served, the Sechelt Queen, Princess of Vancouver, Queen of Sidney, and now the ' Burnaby are all considerably better suited to the Comox run than the ' Chilliwack. Even the duo of the then Comox Queen and Queen of The Islands were, for their time, a better fit. In other words, there has never been a less suitable vessel for the route. Customers should "suck it up"? Ferries are there to serve the communities that need them. And the ' Chilliwack does not do that very well on the Comox run. I edited that post before I saw your reply. |
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jun 7, 2012 18:54:06 GMT -8
Good old times of necessary infrastructure falling apart. Just on the other side of the 49th today. During the middle of the rush hour. WSDOT decided to shut down two lanes of northbound Interstate 5 at the Ship Canal Bridge, only a few miles from downtown Seattle. Why do I mention this? The same thing is happening to the ferries. They are being ran down until they need a replacement and the operators are trying to get by until the very last possible moment. That is when it becomes even more expensive to maintain where as if it had been maintained at a certain point in the life of the pavement, the closure would not have been required.
Vessels are going to need replacing but where is the money for that? How much can be allocated? It really brings back the point that the privatization model for 100% farebox recovery and enough dollars to maintain vessels properly and replace them within a reasonable time span is not sustainable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 16, 2012 8:54:19 GMT -8
An excerpt from BCFerries annual MD&A report, released yesterday:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2012 13:58:45 GMT -8
Here are a couple photos of the Chilliwack at Langdale, taken by a friend of mine...   |
|
|
|
Post by paulvanb on Jun 18, 2012 18:50:53 GMT -8
This may be a little off-topic, but why has there never been a "Queen of Richmond" which houses Deas Dock? Yet there is a Queen of Chilliwack to which this day, the closest it will ever get to ferry service is Queen of Sidney rusting away on the Fraser River.  |
|
|
|
Post by Queen of Nanaimo Teen on Jun 19, 2012 9:47:05 GMT -8
paulvanb - During BC Ferries's last 15 years as a corporation, they were tending to get away from the traditional naming scheme. It seems like most of the names of Ports where ferries served were already used, so they began turning to other places. In addition, when new ferries were built, they would traditionally be named after the harbor or city where they were serving. For example - Queen of Cumberland: She never has, nor never will serve a route in the Comox valley. So the 2 ferry names "Queen of Chilliwack" and "Skeena Queen" are more examples of more random place names that were chosen. Does anyone know if there was some politics involved with the naming of the Queen of Chilliwack?
|
|
|
|
Post by paulvanb on Jun 19, 2012 14:38:36 GMT -8
I'm familiar with the scheme as I rode my first ferry in 1963. It would've been nice to see names like Richmond, Mapler Ridge, Courtenay, Duncan, etc. Can't say I have warmed to any of the coastal class or the lego barge serving Earls Cove. I do appreciate your entry to this.
|
|
