|
Post by hullnumbers on Jul 27, 2014 19:32:08 GMT -8
Bringing this up cause I don't think anyone's noticed. So I will bring it up to the table, since constructed and stretched all seven were built identical but then after 4 were lifted and these ferries kept their class name and the Burnaby (B) Class was created for the unchanged ones (later the QoNW was lifted and was similar to the V's) things sort of changed.
What most concerns me is that there is a slight differences in length of the ships and the number of vehicles that can go on the ferries. Why were the ferries different lengths when they were the same size at the end even when the V's and the QoNW were lifted. It makes no sense all were the same size as built and they had a 84 ft (About 25.6m which is closer to 26m) doing the calculation the full size is 129.97 for all the sisters, now subtract the 25.6m and you get 104.37 this would have been the original length, 2m more then the Sidney Class. Was the Victoria Class the same size as the Sidney Class cause this measurement seems wrong and that the stretch would make the size 127m. Can somebody answer this unknown lengthening?
Now for Vehicle and Passenger Capacity what was the original capacity before and after the platform decks. Then what about stretch to lift? If anyone knows can you post the answer, thanks.
Looking back I'm starting to think these sister ferries are harder to understand then the others.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Jul 27, 2014 20:44:06 GMT -8
Bringing this up cause I don't think anyone's noticed. So I will bring it up to the table, since constructed and stretched all seven were built identical but then after 4 were lifted and these ferries kept their class name and the Burnaby (B) Class was created for the unchanged ones (later the QoNW was lifted and was similar to the V's) things sort of changed. What most concerns me is that there is a slight differences in length of the ships and the number of vehicles that can go on the ferries. Why were the ferries different lengths when they were the same size at the end even when the V's and the QoNW were lifted. It makes no sense all were the same size as built and they had a 84 ft (About 25.6m which is closer to 26m) doing the calculation the full size is 129.97 for all the sisters, now subtract the 25.6m and you get 104.37 this would have been the original length, 2m more then the Sidney Class. Was the Victoria Class the same size as the Sidney Class cause this measurement seems wrong and that the stretch would make the size 127m. Can somebody answer this unknown lengthening? Now for Vehicle and Passenger Capacity what was the original capacity before and after the platform decks. Then what about stretch to lift? If anyone knows can you post the answer, thanks. Looking back I'm starting to think these sister ferries are harder to understand then the others. I'm not sure what you're getting at here, because I don't see any notable mysteries involving dimensions or capacities.
All nine vessels, as built, were essentially the same length, although the 'Sidney and 'Tsawwassen were four feet narrower. All nine had vehicle capacities of 100 or 108, depending on what you read. After platforms, capacity was given as 135-140. The seven that were stretched carried 190 AEQ, as the 'Nanaimo does today. The five that were lifted had capacities of 290 or 340, depending on whether they had or used platform decks. All the stretched vessels were, again, essentially the same length. I'm not sure that a foot or two difference is significant.
|
|
|
Post by hullnumbers on Jul 28, 2014 14:31:55 GMT -8
Actually the length is important, think about it 100cm = 1m which is 3.28ft. I don't want to use math but in this cause meters is being used. If the Victoria class was 102.49m long originally (like the Sidney class) then when it was stretched 25.6m it would be 128.09m. The end result (before the retirement) after stretching was 129.97. So there is a problem, the two meters missing the original build could not have been the same size as the Sidney class. The Victoria class would have been built 2 meters longer to meet the length standards of what BC Ferries wrote about on the ferry states on the fleet (website) that retired and the three remaining sisters.
|
|
|
Post by hullnumbers on Jul 28, 2014 14:44:14 GMT -8
Actually here's the math work I did on the sisters (remember, this is in meters)
Sidney Class length to Victoria Class full size
102.49 + 25.6032 = 128.0932
Then my work with 2 meters added
129.97 - 25.6032 = 104.3668
Which is the true length of the Victoria class when they were built.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Jul 28, 2014 20:58:53 GMT -8
Actually here's the math work I did on the sisters (remember, this is in meters) Sidney Class length to Victoria Class full size 102.49 + 25.6032 = 128.0932 Then my work with 2 meters added 129.97 - 25.6032 = 104.3668 Which is the true length of the Victoria class when they were built. According to BC Ferries' stats, all nine vessels were 310' long in the hull. The discrepancy is in the overall length- from tip of the cardeck to the back. The two originals were 335', the seven following were 342'. Not sure why that matters.
|
|
|
Post by hullnumbers on Jul 28, 2014 22:55:24 GMT -8
BINGO, YES XD So the Victoria Class was a little longer. Ha ha (Sorry, laughing happily lightly due to my suspicion to myself here also excused with a week of thinking about this) I was right but the hulls were the same, it was the length that was different. This makes sense now and the two differences. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by hullnumbers on Aug 8, 2014 21:49:58 GMT -8
Heres some new information I found:
All four Victoria (Lifted) Class vessels could carry 376 vehicles. Queen of New Westminster can carry 286 vehicles. The V Class had platform decks while New West had none. If we do the math 376- 286= 90, so the platforms on the V class could carry 90 vehicles. Here is the other thing if we divided 286 we get 143 which both the main and upper vehicle decks could carry the same amount.
For the B Class the main deck could carry 143 and platforms were 90. In total that's 233. The current capacity is 192, this is much lower unless transport Canada thought 233 would be to much.
Thirdly, 84 ft addition. 9 cars could fit on one lane. there was 8 lanes in total 72 on the main deck while platforms carried 18. The before stretch was (Ironically with platforms) 143 while stretched was 233.
Lastly if we subtract 36 with 143. The platforms before stretch was 36 so if we subtract 36 from 143 we get 107, in doing this 107 is the original number of vehicles carried on the secondary (Successor of the Sidney Class also known as the Victoria Class) generation of the fleet of BC Ferries.
So as a Hypothesis the Sidney Class carried 106 vehicles at 102 meters long. The Victoria Class when built carried 107 vehicles at 104 meters long so there was a slit difference between the two class's even though they were similarly built.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Aug 9, 2014 19:36:13 GMT -8
Where on earth did you find those figures?
As far as I can remember, the only V-Class that was capable of even coming close to 376 vehicles was the Queen of Esquimalt. She had platform decks that spanned pretty well the entire beam of the main car deck, allowing for a total of 8 lanes worth of platform deck. The other three V's, from what I recall, only had two lanes of platform decks on either side of the center casing, totalling 4 lanes of platform deck. They were able to carry as many as 338, which I still find to be a bit of a stretch. However, I've never had the chance to work on those vessels so I'm just going by BCF stats.
Now the ships that I can definitely speak for based on personal experiences of loading, are the Burnaby and Nanaimo as the lonely Deckhand guiding each and every car around the stern on some full loads. Those ships show up as being able to carry 192 on the BCF Website. However, these days it's more like 180 at best. Back in the day, I've heard of a record of as many as 200 cars being loaded, but it would have been extremely tight with absolutely every square inch of space being maximized and having the perfect world situation with 100% cars/pickup trucks. Those days are gone, because there are more restrictions on where cars can and can't be parked due to safety reasons, escape routes being the biggest reason. I know the Main Car deck can hold about 130 to 140 cars, and the platform decks can hold about around 45-50 cars depending on the stow. As a rule of thumb on Route 9, if there are 110/120 reserved to come aboard, the Chief Mate will deploy both flaps on the platform decks in order to try and help guarantee space for the last minute people who never bothered to reserve a spot. Keep in mind, reservations are free on Route 9 in order to better strategize the loading arrangement on the car deck.
I'm not sure why you look so closely into the difference in size of the Sidney/Tsawwassen vs. the Seven sisters. I think it's quite obvious there was a difference in size all along. One can assume that there certainly were "lessons learned" with the design and construction of the Seven Sisters following the Sidney/Tsawwassen.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Aug 9, 2014 21:25:22 GMT -8
Chris, 'Ferryman', is right. 'hull' has some seriously skewed 'numbers'.
All nine original 'major' vessels had a capacity of about 108... the 'Sidney and Tsawwassen's slightly smaller car decks simply meant a bit tighter fit. After platform decks were installed, capacities rose to about 140, which meant that that platforms held about 32 cars.
After lengthening by 80', capacity rose to 192... supposedly. BC Ferries calculates capacity by assigning roughly twenty feet per car per lane length, which takes into account the distance left between cars. So the 80' foot addition brought the main deck capacity to about 144, and the platform decks to about 48, over four lanes in total.
The 'Burnaby and 'Nanaimo never had a capacity of 233, as hullnumbers proposes. It has nothing to do with Transport Canada.
The added upper car deck brought the total capacity up to about 330-340, as Chris mentions.
Hullnumbers... BC Ferries has a habit of exaggerating capacity. They might have said that the Vs could carry 376, but take into account that they say the Quinitsa can take 50, the Kahloke 30, and Tenaka 30 as well. Next time you're on the 'Alberni, notice the car counter for the upper deck... the deck is usually full at 145, and the 'Alberni is thirty feet longer than the Vs were, with the same eight lanes. You need a new calculator, and a little less faith in published figures.
One last thing, for those who might argue that cars are bigger today, skewing past capacity figures. Yes, we have Hummers and Escalades, but in the '70s, land yachts like my Impalas were very common, and currently common little cars the size of Honda Fits, Kia Rios and the like, were almost unknown. Not much has changed in that regard, overall.
|
|
|
Post by hullnumbers on Aug 10, 2014 14:59:08 GMT -8
Hmmm, Ok. Could someone put it in list form
Like this for car capacity changes
Queen of Sidney Original Capacity: Platform Addition:
Queen of Tsawwassen Original Capacity: Platform Addition:
Queen of Victoria Original Capacity: Platform Addition: Stretch Addition: Lift Addition:
Queen of Vancouver Original Capacity: Platform Addition: Stretch Addition: Lift Addition:
Queen of Saanich Original Capacity: Platform Addition: Stretch Addition: Lift Addition:
Queen of Esquimalt Original Capacity: Platform Addition: Stretch Addition: Lift Addition:
Queen of Nanaimo Original Capacity: Platform Addition: Stretch Addition:
Queen of Burnaby Original Capacity: Platform Addition: Stretch Addition:
Queen of New Westminster Original Capacity: Platform Addition: Stretch Addition: Lift Addition:
And if someone knows the year when the change occurreded could put it on, this part is extra.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Aug 10, 2014 20:28:46 GMT -8
Chris, 'Ferryman', is right. 'hull' has some seriously skewed 'numbers'.
Hullnumbers... BC Ferries has a habit of exaggerating capacity. They might have said that the Vs could carry 376, but take into account that they say the Quinitsa can take 50, the Kahloke 30, and Tenaka 30 as well. Next time you're on the 'Alberni, notice the car counter for the upper deck... the deck is usually full at 145, and the 'Alberni is thirty feet longer than the Vs were, with the same eight lanes. You need a new calculator, and a little less faith in published figures.
One last thing, for those who might argue that cars are bigger today, skewing past capacity figures. Yes, we have Hummers and Escalades, but in the '70s, land yachts like my Impalas were very common, and currently common little cars the size of Honda Fits, Kia Rios and the like, were almost unknown. Not much has changed in that regard, overall. BC Ferries of old really exaggerated capacity for sure - but it seems that in the late 1990s they came online with the Automobile Equivalent (AEQ) standard measure, and started posting more realistic figures for their vessels as they came into service. The last major exaggeration ships were the Spirits, but everything there after seems to be a more reasonable proximity of the truth. Additionally BC Ferries always posts the best-possible capacity, so includes deployable ramp-style gallery decks even where they have not been used in years. I believe it has been over a decade since a Spirit deployed a gallery deck, but the posted AEQ continues to include them.
An AEQ is 8’-6” wide x 17’-6” long. That is generally a standard unit of measure, but some companies do vary. Not sure what WSF is using these days, but they used a smaller measure for years.
When determining AEQ the most-efficient use of deck space is also the baseline. So on a V / B it assumes that there are four lanes of traffic. With large vehicle and trucks there is often only three lanes of traffic. The New West even has two sets of lines on the main car deck, one for three lane parking, and one for four.
hullnumbers, are some of those numbers from Bannerman's Ships of British Columbia? Because they generally seem to match and many people use that book as a historic ferries reference. While it is a great read and is filled with a lot of very enjoyable stories the more technical, date-specific and measurement oriented parts of the book are generally incorrect. In fact with a close read even parts of the book contradict itself (for example, the V Class car capacity).
Lastly, just as a fun V Class aside, the number of vehicles is not regulated as Jim mentioned. Passenger capacity is. In the Queen of Vancouver's final weeks she became non-compliant with Transport Canada regulations for passenger safety (specifically, evacuation) and had her passenger license seriously downgraded and the number of crew serious upgraded. I do not have specific numbers in front of me but it was aprox 40+ crew for 750 passengers, so the vessel would sail with main car deck-only loads when foot passenger demand was high. Was very interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2014 20:58:02 GMT -8
I can agree with what Chris and Dane have said.
The Spirit car capacity has been updated in recent years to reflect the loss of the platforms. It used to be 470 and it now indicates 410.
|
|
|
Post by hullnumbers on Aug 22, 2014 17:09:35 GMT -8
I can agree with what Chris and Dane have said. The Spirit car capacity has been updated in recent years to reflect the loss of the platforms. It used to be 470 and it now indicates 410. Why would BC Ferries lower vehicle capacity? What was the reason and who?
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Aug 22, 2014 21:12:25 GMT -8
Some old documents for you. The Queens of Saanich & Esquimalt were both listed in 1982 as having auto capacities of 394. They were both provided with hoistable ramps suspended above the main car deck (MCD) that at least theoretically permitted a 396 vehicle capacity. The Vic & Van had only partial hoistable ramps and as such had capacities listed at around 325 (IIRC, need to check documents from that time). It was found that having two of the four sisters with more over height room on the main car deck, and two with full sets of ramps better matched the mix of traffic seen at that time. The QoNWM, on the other hand, had no MCD ramps at all (post lifting) hence its capacity listing of less than 300. It was intended to serve on the 'Mid-Island Express' route where a greater percentage of over height capacity was deemed necessary. I think that the lower listed capacities of the older BC Ferries that are generally accepted today reflect changes in regulations (that, for example, don't allow cars to be 'parked' anymore on the hoistable portions of the ramps). They also reflect much slacker loading practices, in general (i.e. too much space left between vehicles; fewer deckhands available to ensure load is 'stacked').
|
|
|
Post by ferryfanyvr on Aug 22, 2014 21:26:19 GMT -8
Some old documents for you. The Queens of Saanich & Esquimalt were both listed in 1982 as having auto capacities of 394. They were both provided with main car deck full width ramps that at least theoretically permitted a 396 vehicle capacity. The Vic & Van had only partial hoistable ramps and as such had capacities listed at around 325 (IIRC, need to check documents from that time). It was found that having two of the four sisters with more over height room on the main car deck, and two with full sets of ramps better matched the mix of traffic seen at that time. The QoNWM, on the otherhand, had no MCD ramps at all (post lifting) hence its capacity listing of less than 300. It was intended to serve on the 'Mid-Island Express' route where a greater percentage of over height capacity was deemed necessary. I think that the lower listed capacities of the older BC Ferries that are generally accepted today reflect changes in regulations (that, for example, don't allow cars to be 'parked' anymore on the hoistable portions of the ramps). They also reflect much slacker loading practices, in general (i.e. too much space left between vehicles; fewer deckhands available to ensure load is 'stacked'). I can remember seeing these articles when the lifting process was being planned, however the Victoria ended up not having the retractable platforms installed post-lifting. I'm not sure what the reason was. And as Ferryman mentioned previously, the Saanich had only partial platforms like the Vancouver as opposed to the full casing-to-outer-wall platforms of the Esquimalt. So in fact the 4 V's in post-lifted condition had 3 different configurations of platform decks resulting in 3 different vehicle capacities. From lowest to highest AEQ was Victoria, Vancouver and Saanich (tied), and Esquimalt
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Aug 22, 2014 21:41:52 GMT -8
No, post lifting in 1982 the Saanich & Esquimalt were both listed at 396. The Bannermans' book The Ships of British Columbia, indicated that this was the case in the mid 1980's when that book was written. I suspect that the Saanich was down-graded later in a manner similar to the loss of capacity on the Spirits. A few years ago the two Spirits were listed as having different capacities (410 vs 470) simply because the hoistable ramps on the SoBC had been condemned while those on the SoVI were still officially 'in service'. The ramps on both Spirits are now out of service & both have listed capacities of 410.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Aug 22, 2014 21:45:33 GMT -8
I can agree with what Chris and Dane have said. The Spirit car capacity has been updated in recent years to reflect the loss of the platforms. It used to be 470 and it now indicates 410. Why would BC Ferries lower vehicle capacity? What was the reason and who? As Dane mentioned above, it has been over a decade since the Sprits have used their platform decks. I recall conversation on this board about the problems with the system installed in the Spirits probably about six years ago; I don't remember all the details myself. Suffice it to say, given the time it took to operate those ramps, and the sheer volume of cars to load in a finite turnaround time, they were rarely used even when the vessel was new. Eventually BCF quit maintaining them, and they are no longer certified to carry a load. Are they even still physically in place?
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Aug 22, 2014 21:51:25 GMT -8
Some old documents for you. The Queens of Saanich & Esquimalt were both listed in 1982 as having auto capacities of 394. They were both provided with hoistable ramps suspended above the main car deck (MCD) that at least theoretically permitted a 396 vehicle capacity. The Vic & Van had only partial hoistable ramps and as such had capacities listed at around 325 (IIRC, need to check documents from that time). It was found that having two of the four sisters with more over height room on the main car deck, and two with full sets of ramps better matched the mix of traffic seen at that time. The QoNWM, on the other hand, had no MCD ramps at all (post lifting) hence its capacity listing of less than 300. It was intended to serve on the 'Mid-Island Express' route where a greater percentage of over height capacity was deemed necessary. I am having a really hard time visualizing the differences between these vessels. Of the four Vs, I only ever travelled on the Queen of Saanich, and that was as a walk on so I never observed the car deck configuration. Let's go through this methodically. As built, the seven sisters had platform decks over the inner lanes of the main car deck (attached to the casing) with flaps covering an additional outer lane. These are the same decks still in place on the Nanaimo and Burnaby, correct? When stretched, those decks were expanded. When lifted, the Saanich and Esquimalt recieved what you describe as hoistable ramps above the main car deck. Were these full width decks (yes?) and when not in use, they were pulled up to the ceiling of the main car deck (similar to what is on the Cumberland?). The Vic and Van had partial hoistable decks... were these just simply the same as the original configuration still seen on Nanaimo and Burnaby or a different configuration?
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Aug 22, 2014 22:21:58 GMT -8
See my answers below ... in red<abbr data-timestamp="1408773085000" class="time" title="Aug 22, 2014 22:51:25 GMT -7">Aug 22, 2014 22:51:25 GMT -7</abbr> northwesterner said: I am having a really hard time visualizing the differences between these vessels. Of the four Vs, I only ever travelled on the Queen of Saanich, and that was as a walk on so I never observed the car deck configuration. Let's go through this methodically. As built, the seven sisters had platform decks over the inner lanes of the main car deck (attached to the casing) with flaps covering an additional outer lane. These are the same decks still in place on the Nanaimo and Burnaby, correct? No, as built there were no ramps of any sort. All space was available for what we now call 'over heights'. Capacity was listed at 106 vehicles. Mezzanine decks (aka 'platforms') accessed by hoistable ramps came in the mid to late 1960's and increased auto capacity to 150. When stretched, those decks were expanded. Not exactly... The platforms were extended 84 feet to match the ship's 'stretching operation. Four lanes on the platforms plus eight lanes on the MCD were extended 84 feet each. Capacity post stretching on all seven of the Spaulding sisters was listed as 192 (which is still what BCFS lists as the capacity of the Burnaby & Nanaimo today.When lifted, the Saanich and Esquimalt recieved what you describe as hoistable ramps above the main car deck. Were these full width decks (yes?) [Yes, you are correct] and when not in use, they were pulled up to the ceiling of the main car deck (similar to what is on the Cumberland?). Yes, again, just like on the Cumberland or the way the Spirits were.The Vic and Van had partial hoistable decks... were these just simply the same as the original configuration still seen on Nanaimo and Burnaby or a different configuration? Here it gets complicated because it seems the Victoria was never fitted with any ramps of any sort post lifting (though prior to lifting it was the same configuration as the Burnaby & Nanaimo). The Vancouver did have partial hoistable ramps at the time of its retirement though they had not been used in many years. I have a photo or two in which the ramps are visible, though I don't ever recall seeing them in use. The Esquimalt & Saanich both had full width hoistable ramps which did theoretically give them both vehicle capacities of close to 400. Again, I never saw these in use and I am pretty sure that all such ramps on all the V's were condemned/ out-of-service at the time these ships were retired.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Aug 22, 2014 22:59:30 GMT -8
Quoted from an older thread entitled 7 Sisters Discussion7 Sisters vehicle capacities - then and now... As built all were rated at 106. With MCD platforms added all were rated at 150. Stretched and including MCD platforms all were rated at 192. The Nanaimo and Burnaby are still listed as such on the BCFS official web site. Then we come to the lifted versions... The Bannerman book says this: Vic & Van = 284; Esq & Saan = 400. The difference is no platforms on the former & a complete full width set of platforms on the latter. The other unlifted sisters were listed at 192. Jump forward to today... The official listing on the BCFS website shows these numbers: Esquimalt - 376; Saanich - 360; Vancouver 338 There is of course no info for the Victoria as she left the fleet quite some time ago. The current listing for the QNWM is 270, though I believe it was listed as 286 just a short time ago. Why is their so much disparity in the listings for the lifted sisters? As far as I know the Esquimalt and Saanich had identical car deck configurations so why is it that one can carry 16 more vehicles than the other? How is it that the Vancouver is listed at 338. I assume this means it had (has?) ramps with a capacity to carry 54 vehicles? I understand that the ramps on the sisters with them have not been used in years. So, in reality, these vessels' real vehicle capacity must be the same as that now listed for the QNWM - i.e. 270. What is the real capacity for the two unlifted sisters - 175 or 185? The Victoria must never have had any ramps post lifting. At the time of its retirement it was listed as having an auto capacity of 286. Did the Esquimalt or Saanich ever get 400 vehicles aboard? I somehow doubt it. Even today the numbers put out by BCFS re vehicle capacity are not exactly precise. Regarding the Spirit class vessels they currently state this: "410 (w/o platforms) including 34 semis" If 34 semis were on board the capacity for other auto equivalents might be about 220.
|
|
|
Post by ferryfanyvr on Aug 23, 2014 20:17:15 GMT -8
Here's a pic of the Saanich's platform decks just before she was retired, clearly showing them not going all the way across Esquimalt-style...just 2 lanes on each side of the casing. So if she did at one time have full platforms, the outer lanes must have been removed sometime during her service life.
I do remember once when the Esquimalt had close to 400 cars on board. She was helping out on route 2 in the mid-'90's on a very busy summer Sunday. There was at least a 3-sailing wait at Departure Bay and because she was behind schedule she was being loaded at berth 3 at the same time one of the C-class was loading at berth 2. I was in the terminal as I had just arrived from HSB on the Esquimalt and was hanging around down by the berths watching them load before I left. I also had my radio scanner tuned in to the terminal frequency. The tower and bridge crew decided to go to full platform configuration and they ended up funnelling all the traffic towards the berths where an attendant would cherry-pick the cars to go on the Eskie. So all overheights and larger vehicles went to the C-class and all the smaller and mid-sized cars went on the Esquimalt. Final vehicle count was 380! Ok, so 20 shy of 400, but when that poor old girl groaned out into Departure Bay she was sitting so low in the water I was kind of relieved I wasn't on board. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a pic of the Queen of Vancouver's platforms for comparison. According to my notes on the back of the photo, this was taken on the 4pm sailing from Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen on Thurs Apr 20, 1989.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Aug 23, 2014 20:46:21 GMT -8
Here's a pic of the Queen of Vancouver's platforms for comparison. According to my notes on the back of the photo, this was taken on the 4pm sailing from Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen on Thurs Apr 20, 1978. 1978? Is that a typo? She was not lifted until 1981, three years later.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Aug 23, 2014 21:13:48 GMT -8
Here's a pic of the Queen of Vancouver's platforms for comparison. According to my notes on the back of the photo, this was taken on the 4pm sailing from Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen on Thurs Apr 20, 1978. 1978? Is that a typo? She was not lifted until 1981, three years later. Well, weren't the MCD and the platforms there before the lift happened?
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Aug 23, 2014 21:29:13 GMT -8
Well, weren't the MCD and the platforms there before the lift happened? Yes, but they were fixed platforms with hoistable ramps at either end exactly the same as what you still see today on the Burnaby & Nanaimo.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 23, 2014 21:31:12 GMT -8
1978? Is that a typo? She was not lifted until 1981, three years later. Well, weren't the MCD and the platforms there before the lift happened? No, prior to being lifted, the V's had fixed gallery decks identical to what the Nanaimo and Burnaby have. They were removed, and platforms added when they were lifted. edit: WCK beat me to it.
|
|