Koastal Karl
Voyager 
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Sept 15, 2014 18:01:36 GMT -8
I think it is Victoria cause I can see the breakwater on the left of her bow! That would of been a cool sight to see back then.
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 29, 2014 10:15:42 GMT -8
Here is a newspaper clipping from April 1976 re the removal from service of the first Queen of Surrey (aka the North). This was written by Norman Hacking, one-time marine & rail reporter at the Vancouver Province, and author of the book The Princess Story re the CPR's BC Coast Steamship Service. This has been scanned by me from the vast collection of early BC Ferries stuff in my brother's [Mr. DOT] collection.  |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Oct 29, 2014 11:02:07 GMT -8
:)that was some 'apron' or cowcatcher that the first Queen of Surrey sported, and I remember well the public viewing at the frazer-surrey docks, and our scale model float, that the chamber of commerce had me working on! a long time ago, now, and I can remember talking to the onetime CCF leader, mr Stracken, who was Highways minister back then! :)mrdot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 29, 2014 11:33:00 GMT -8
Here is a newspaper clipping from April 1976 re the removal from service of the first Queen of Surrey (aka the North). This was written by Norman Hacking, one-time marine & rail reporter at the Vancouver Province, and author of the book The Princess Story re the CPR's BC Coast Steamship Service. This has been scanned by me from the vast collection of early BC Ferries stuff in my brother's [Mr. DOT] collection. Wow, that article really captures the huge impact that the Coquitlam/Cowichan 1976 arrival had on the fleet. A distinct changing of the guard, entering a new era of purpose built ships for the old BlackBall routes. |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 29, 2014 11:46:18 GMT -8
Wow, that article really captures the huge impact that the Coquitlam/Cowichan 1976 arrival had on the fleet. A distinct changing of the guard, entering a new era of purpose built ships for the old BlackBall routes. Of course the B-class vessels then working route 2 were 'purpose-built' for that run some ten years earlier, and were expanded (stretched) as traffic grew. It is interesting that BC Ferries chose to go with these large double ended new-builds with three car decks on route 2, while opting in the early 1980's to go with further modifications to the V-class vessels (e.g. lifting) rather than new builds to accommodate traffic growth on route 1. I think the choice to lift rather than build was about getting a 'better bang for their buck', so to speak. |
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Oct 29, 2014 14:41:06 GMT -8
Wow, that article really captures the huge impact that the Coquitlam/Cowichan 1976 arrival had on the fleet. A distinct changing of the guard, entering a new era of purpose built ships for the old BlackBall routes. Of course the B-class vessels then working route 2 were 'purpose-built' for that run some ten years earlier, and were expanded (stretched) as traffic grew. It is interesting that BC Ferries chose to go with these large double ended new-builds with three car decks on route 2, while opting in the early 1980's to go with further modifications to the V-class vessels (e.g. lifting) rather than new builds to accommodate traffic growth on route 1. I think the choice to lift rather than build was about getting a 'better bang for their buck', so to speak. Well ... BCF did operate the C-Class when new on Route 1. I don't have the encyclopedic knowledge of the appropriate era planning documents like some on this list ( Dane) do, but was the original intent to operate all of the C-Class full time on the Horseshoe Bay routes, or did they plan on placing a couple of them full time (other than the Alberni) on Route 1? |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 29, 2014 15:01:55 GMT -8
No, the C-class, other than the Alberni, did not operate on route 1 until the Oak Bay was delivered in 1981. Further, the Oak Bay's stint on route 1 lasted only about one year. The Alberni was, of course, dedicated to commercial vehicles & other over-heights such as RV's & campers.
The Coquitlam & Cowichan were operated only on route 2, at least until the Surrey & the Oak Bay came along. The Alberni ceased running on Route 1 in 1981 (I think), once there were two lifted V's and the Oak Bay in service on that run.
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 29, 2014 16:59:05 GMT -8
I am quoting a post I made back in 2010 to show a couple of newspaper items from when the Stena Danica was purchased (1974), and how the government of the day saw the future ahead for BC Ferries, and in particular, route 2. I am browsing through some of Mr. DOT's collection of stuff relating to the Stena Danica (aka Queen of Surrey I; Q of the North) and found the following newspaper clippings fron the Vancouver Sun & The Province. Both items are from 10 June 1974.   Note the text surrounded in red regarding why the government at the time bought the ship and what they saw her future to be. |
|
|
|
Post by princessofvanfan on Oct 29, 2014 19:30:13 GMT -8
Wow, that article really captures the huge impact that the Coquitlam/Cowichan 1976 arrival had on the fleet. A distinct changing of the guard, entering a new era of purpose built ships for the old BlackBall routes. Of course the B-class vessels then working route 2 were 'purpose-built' for that run some ten years earlier, and were expanded (stretched) as traffic grew. It is interesting that BC Ferries chose to go with these large double ended new-builds with three car decks on route 2, while opting in the early 1980's to go with further modifications to the V-class vessels (e.g. lifting) rather than new builds to accommodate traffic growth on route 1. I think the choice to lift rather than build was about getting a 'better bang for their buck', so to speak. I believe the Cowichan and Coquitlam were originally built for use on the proposed Iona Island - Gabriola route. It was pretty much a done deal, until canned at the "11th hour", so to speak, after construction on the new double enders had already begun. That's why those ships had such small cafeterias, as the crossing they were originally intended for would have only taken 40 minutes. The seating area for the caf now encompasses the stairs leading up to the solarium (originally called "muster stations"), while before it was well in behind those stairs. |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,302
|
Post by Neil on Oct 29, 2014 22:23:02 GMT -8
Of course the B-class vessels then working route 2 were 'purpose-built' for that run some ten years earlier, and were expanded (stretched) as traffic grew. It is interesting that BC Ferries chose to go with these large double ended new-builds with three car decks on route 2, while opting in the early 1980's to go with further modifications to the V-class vessels (e.g. lifting) rather than new builds to accommodate traffic growth on route 1. I think the choice to lift rather than build was about getting a 'better bang for their buck', so to speak. I believe the Cowichan and Coquitlam were originally built for use on the proposed Iona Island - Gabriola route. It was pretty much a done deal, until canned at the "11th hour", so to speak, after construction on the new double enders had already begun. That's why those ships had such small cafeterias, as the crossing they were originally intended for would have only taken 40 minutes. The seating area for the caf now encompasses the stairs leading up to the solarium (originally called "muster stations"), while before it was well in behind those stairs. I think this is a bit of a ferry 'urban legend'. I don't believe there were ever any serious engineering studies done on proposed Iona and Gabriola terminals. The property acquisition, usage permits, dredging and construction of terminals, approaches and highways would have taken so long that I have a hard time accepting that these vessels were seriously designed for what was in essence a fantasy crossing... and it would have been more than forty minutes, as well. Although, having written this, I have the apprehension that this might provoke yet another go round of a notion that's best left to teen fans and comedians...  |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 22, 2015 13:22:16 GMT -8
Here's something that a buddy sent to me, from a friend of a friend of a friend.....  9 years today. I still miss her. |
|
|
|
Post by princessofvanfan on Mar 22, 2015 22:19:29 GMT -8
I believe the Cowichan and Coquitlam were originally built for use on the proposed Iona Island - Gabriola route. It was pretty much a done deal, until canned at the "11th hour", so to speak, after construction on the new double enders had already begun. That's why those ships had such small cafeterias, as the crossing they were originally intended for would have only taken 40 minutes. The seating area for the caf now encompasses the stairs leading up to the solarium (originally called "muster stations"), while before it was well in behind those stairs. I think this is a bit of a ferry 'urban legend'. I don't believe there were ever any serious engineering studies done on proposed Iona and Gabriola terminals. The property acquisition, usage permits, dredging and construction of terminals, approaches and highways would have taken so long that I have a hard time accepting that these vessels were seriously designed for what was in essence a fantasy crossing... and it would have been more than forty minutes, as well. Although, having written this, I have the apprehension that this might provoke yet another go round of a notion that's best left to teen fans and comedians... Well, we had a cabin on Mudge Island in the 70's , and we had to pass through Dodd Narrows in our boat to get there, and I remember my Mom telling me that that was where a new bridge was going to be built from Van Island, over to Mudge, then over False Narrows to Gabriola to the new ferry terminal. It was no fantasy, it was pretty much a done deal. I remember many people talking about and being very opposed to it, Mudge and Gabriola landowners especially. |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,302
|
Post by Neil on Mar 23, 2015 10:03:14 GMT -8
I think this is a bit of a ferry 'urban legend'. I don't believe there were ever any serious engineering studies done on proposed Iona and Gabriola terminals. The property acquisition, usage permits, dredging and construction of terminals, approaches and highways would have taken so long that I have a hard time accepting that these vessels were seriously designed for what was in essence a fantasy crossing... and it would have been more than forty minutes, as well. Although, having written this, I have the apprehension that this might provoke yet another go round of a notion that's best left to teen fans and comedians... Well, we had a cabin on Mudge Island in the 70's , and we had to pass through Dodd Narrows in our boat to get there, and I remember my Mom telling me that that was where a new bridge was going to be built from Van Island, over to Mudge, then over False Narrows to Gabriola to the new ferry terminal. It was no fantasy, it was pretty much a done deal. I remember many people talking about and being very opposed to it, Mudge and Gabriola landowners especially. ...and I live on Hornby island, where I also hear all sorts of rumors that have little basis in reality. Sorry, but you're mistaken. It was never a 'done deal', it was simply a proposal that islanders were understandably very concerned to hear.
And what is this doing in the Queen of The North thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by princessofvanfan on Mar 24, 2015 22:59:45 GMT -8
Well, we had a cabin on Mudge Island in the 70's , and we had to pass through Dodd Narrows in our boat to get there, and I remember my Mom telling me that that was where a new bridge was going to be built from Van Island, over to Mudge, then over False Narrows to Gabriola to the new ferry terminal. It was no fantasy, it was pretty much a done deal. I remember many people talking about and being very opposed to it, Mudge and Gabriola landowners especially. ...and I live on Hornby island, where I also hear all sorts of rumors that have little basis in reality. Sorry, but you're mistaken. It was never a 'done deal', it was simply a proposal that islanders were understandably very concerned to hear.
And what is this doing in the Queen of The North thread?
Yeah, good question. Back on topic, this reminds me, I need to write Mr. Lilgert and see how he's holding up (my mother and him dated from 1979-82, and we're all good friends to this day). He's a good man, despite what's been written in the press about him. Smart, funny guy. And, yes, I, too miss Q.o.t.N terribly. I sailed on her 3 times - twice as Queen of Surrey and once as the North. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 25, 2015 6:36:54 GMT -8
I need to write Mr. Lilgert and see how he's holding up (my mother and him dated from 1979-82, and we're all good friends to this day). He's a good man, despite what's been written in the press about him. Smart, funny guy. And, yes, I, too miss Q.o.t.N terribly. I sailed on her 3 times - twice as Queen of Surrey and once as the North. Do you have any idea why the good man wouldn't tell the families of Foisy & Rosette (and the courts) what actually happened on the bridge, during the time when he was supposed to make the course-change at Sainty Point light? |
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Mar 25, 2015 20:13:27 GMT -8
Do you have any idea why the good man wouldn't tell the families of Foisy & Rosette (and the courts) what actually happened on the bridge, during the time when he was supposed to make the course-change at Sainty Point light? Presumably whatever Mr. Ligert was doing on the bridge that night took his attention away from his job duties. If he were to admit to those activities, it would be self-incrimination. Do Canadians have protection from self-incrimination in your legal system? |
|
|
|
Post by princessofvanfan on Mar 25, 2015 20:39:34 GMT -8
Do you have any idea why the good man wouldn't tell the families of Foisy & Rosette (and the courts) what actually happened on the bridge, during the time when he was supposed to make the course-change at Sainty Point light? Presumably whatever Mr. Ligert was doing on the bridge that night took his attention away from his job duties. If he were to admit to those activities, it would be self-incrimination. Do Canadians have protection from self-incrimination in your legal system? I agree, missing that course change and not realizing it for 18 minutes or however long it was is in no way excusable, especially in light of how many times Mr. Lilgert had made that trip in his years working that route. Just doesn't add up, all KNOWN facts considered. But I refuse to speculate - he's paying the price for what happened - that's it. |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Aug 6, 2015 8:45:25 GMT -8
A newspaper advertisement from May 1980, after the first Queen of Surrey had been transformed into the Queen of the North... This clipping comes from The Province newspaper, an item in my brother's (Mr. DOT) vast collection. Scanning was done by me. Note that the photo at the top was 'retouched' presumably by air brushing (that is what was done before the digital photography age came upon us.) Here is a link to the original. 
Queen of the North newspaper ad - May 1980
Mr. DOT collection, clipped from The Province by JST, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 6, 2015 9:09:01 GMT -8
A newspaper advertisement from May 1980, after the first Queen of Surrey had been transformed into the Queen of the North... This clipping comes from The Province newspaper, an item in my brother's (Mr. DOT) vast collection. Scanning was done by me. The scheduled stop at Ocean Falls interests me. I think that back in 1980, Ocean Falls potential revitalization was still a possibility, and there were still enough people living and working there to warrant a scheduled stop by the big boat. |
|
|
|
Post by princessofvanfan on Aug 7, 2015 7:13:32 GMT -8
I spent the month of August 1980 and '81 on Digby Island in Rupert, and remember going down to the wharf every other day at around noon to watch the gleaming, newly refurb'd Q.o.t.N's departure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 5, 2015 10:34:47 GMT -8
Harbour Publishing still lists Colin Henthorne's upcoming book as being due for release in November 2015. Link HERE |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 21, 2015 11:21:18 GMT -8
Harbour Publishing still lists Colin Henthorne's upcoming book as being due for release in November 2015. Book publishing date has been pushed to March 2016 - ironic timing HERE |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 11:55:41 GMT -8
Might be due to this FOI by Harbour Publishing.. "A copy of all notes and recordings taken during the interviews of [three named individuals] during the Divisional Inquiry into the grounding and sinking of Queen of the North on March 22, 2006."
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 21, 2015 15:28:47 GMT -8
Harbour Publishing still lists Colin Henthorne's upcoming book as being due for release in November 2015. Book publishing date has been pushed to March 2016 - ironic timing HEREOh, sorry, its my fault, I sent them the pictures late ... |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 25, 2015 22:33:40 GMT -8
It seems that I, along with everyone else here on the WCFF, have been unaware that there is already a book out on the sinking of the Queen of the North. The book Farewell to a Queen by Don Douglass was apparently released in March of 2014. www.amazon.com/Farewell-Queen-Don-Douglass/dp/1934199044 |
|
