|
Post by chokai on Mar 11, 2012 21:04:18 GMT -8
Oh and this is hiding out in the bill also. This should make a great discussion topic. :-) The joint transportation committee shall convene a series of meetings between representatives of the Washington state ferries and British Columbia ferries services as well as the respective shipyard contractors for new vessel construction for each system. The purpose of the meetings is to explore joint procurement of additional 144-car capacity ferry vessels for use in either ferry system. Benefits from this joint procurement include, but are not limited to, construction savings accruing to both ferry systems due to the economies of scale of purchasing multiple vessels, additional relief vessel capacity available to both ferry systems, and enhanced service on the international route connecting Washington and British Columbia. <edit per Flugel Horn's request> Bill here: apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/2190-S.PL.pdfPage 11.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 11, 2012 21:09:28 GMT -8
A new thread for something interesting posted by Chokai today.
Chokai: - do you have any links to the bill that you mentioned ?
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Mar 11, 2012 22:09:52 GMT -8
This is a really interesting concept, and something I've thought of in the past, but never too seriously, just shoving it off as 'never gonna happen'. How would the company liveries be displayed on the side? Would some of these 'additional' ferries be in BCF livery and others be in WSF livery? 144 cars would be a nice size replacement for the Queen of Burnaby, so if the design was modified to have doors on the ends, it would be perfect, as long as some passenger space could either be eliminated or closed off while operating on our Route 17. I'm guessing that since both ferry lines have their own safety and security measures on-board, as well as their own decor schemes and passenger services, the two systems would need to decide upon a happy medium for some of these. For example, would the café fare change depending on who the ship's sailing with at the given time? Another example, WSF has their wheelhouses very closed off from the public eye, with huge fences barring them from passengers. I'm guessing this would have to be installed on the ships too? And another thought, how would the Jones Act affect the ability of BC shipyards to bid on the construction of the vessels? Would having the vessels registered in Victoria rather than a Washington city eliminate these problems, or would the ships need to be owned by a Canadian Company, or is there some other complicated way of getting around the Jones Act? A whole bunch of ponderings by an excited Viking...
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Mar 12, 2012 1:34:00 GMT -8
This might actually work well for both companies. Seeing as BCF has that lingering problem of not having a suitable replacement vessel for both Route 9 and 17.
Let's say in the not so distant future BCF decides to build their Replacements for the Burnaby and Nanaimo and at the same time WSF is building their 144 Car Vessels. Simply put, an agreement could be made that BCF will split the cost of this vessel with WSF as long as the vessel can be loaned to BCF as a relief vessel. This would allow the vessel to run as a main vessel for WSF in the summer and relieve Route 9 and 17 with BCF in the Winter.
At the same time though, I see this kind of agreement as more of a Spokane/Walla Walla - Queen of Cowichan/Coquitlam type of deal where vessels are made from the same plans with modifications made for the company they run for... (e.g. No Doors and 2 Car Decks for WSF, Bow Doors and 3 Car Decks for BCF)
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Mar 12, 2012 7:19:39 GMT -8
I dunno how far this will go, Canadian shipbuilding standards are MUCH higher than the Americans. I don't think there is a chance in H E DOUBLE HOCKEY STICKS that Transport Canada would have approved the 64 car ferries the Americans just built.
So, the Americans would have to build a much more expensive vessel and its already expensive to build anything down there. Just briefly compare the 64's to the Island Sky, I know its a bit of apples to oranges, but there about the same size.
Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 12, 2012 7:29:05 GMT -8
As far as I can tell, this joint-procurement (not necessarily joint-use of the end product) is just a brainstorming idea that's part of the Washington budget bill.
No indication of any consultation with the Province of BC or with BCFerries on this idea.
So unless I'm not understanding the Washington bill, this is just speculation contained in a preliminary piece of legislation.
...but it is an interesting idea to discuss.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Mar 12, 2012 7:54:03 GMT -8
Very interesting concept.
I'm interpreting the vessel sharing aspect of this to be more like an emergency provision rather than an operational one, most likely stemming from when the Steels were yanked in 2007 and WSF was scrambling to find a replacement. They did approach BCF at that time, but all BCF had as spare was the Klitsa which of course wasn't big enough. In an emergency the goal is to move traffic back and forth... galley service, decorations, livery etc don't really matter.
As far as vessel construction: One of the big problems I see is the Jones Act. If BCF were to collaborate with WSF on construction, the ships would have to be built in a US yard to be able to be used by WSF. As shown with the KdT debacle, Washington yards seem to be more expensive than Seaspan, so any economy-of-scale savings would be negated by the higher cost of the shipyard. I don't think it's fair that BCF would not even have the option of building at home.
Assuming the Jones Act problems can be dealt with, there's the other problem of construction standards. As far as I understand, the KdTs have no propulsion system redundancy except for the ability to turn the vessel around and use the other end. By my understanding, this would not be allowed in Canada, as there has to be the ability to move the ship in the event of an engine malfunction.
Here's a question: In the US, I understand vessel standards are determined by the Coast Guard. Does the CG defer to classification societies like ABS, Det Norske Veritas or Lloyds for their vessel standards, or do they do everything in-house? Also, by my understanding in order to get insurance on a ship, it must meet the class requirements for it's type of ship. Who is WSF's insurance underwriters? Does WSF even carry insurance on its vessels? BCF insures its vessels through Lloyds of London, and all their ships either meet DNV, ABS or Lloyds construction standards.
An interesting topic of discussion to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Mar 12, 2012 8:08:32 GMT -8
As far as I can tell, this joint-procurement (not necessarily joint-use of the end product) is just a brainstorming idea that's part of the Washington budget bill. No indication of any consultation with the Province of BC or with BCFerries on this idea. So unless I'm not understanding the Washington bill, this is just speculation contained in a preliminary piece of legislation. ...but it is an interesting idea to discuss. Joint design might also have some cost saving, that is if the two systems could ever agree on one. Kind of Coho/Sidney/Tswwassen style. Joint procurement would save a whack (I am sure Flugel uses that term all the time in his audits) of money as long as the customization of the ships didn't get out of hand. It is working very well for some of the regional bus companies who are opting into large orders of the same bus, and obtaining better pricing in the process. The more common the buses the more savings. In other words if they all use the same seats and fabric with just colour changes and other fitting out materials. Due to the Auto Pact, parts and supplies cross back and forth across the border a couple of times before they get assembled into a car in either country. So a Chrysler 300 assembled in Brampton, ON, subparts that were made in Canada, shipped to a US Plant, assembled into a larger part, then shipped back to Canada to be put in the final car. Sometimes a couple of border crossing is required. It is almost impossible to determine what percentage of the car is actually done in each country unless you get down to checking out individual fasteners. So in shipping, subparts and parts could do the same thing and perhaps up to making complete modules, as long as the Jones Act wasn't triggered. A question I have is that if a vessel was deemed to be 51% manufactured in the US, would that be sufficient to get by the Jones Act?
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Mar 12, 2012 9:07:26 GMT -8
As far as I can tell, this joint-procurement (not necessarily joint-use of the end product) is just a brainstorming idea that's part of the Washington budget bill. No indication of any consultation with the Province of BC or with BCFerries on this idea. So unless I'm not understanding the Washington bill, this is just speculation contained in a preliminary piece of legislation. ...but it is an interesting idea to discuss. You are essentially correct. This was contained in the Supplemental Transportation Budget passed a few days ago that is due to be signed by the gov shortly. All it does is order the state legislatures transportation committee to look into the matter. Nothing more, and of course the extent of that discussion/invesigation could vary. I was curious as to who stuck this provision in, but I couldn't find anything, it was stuck in by the committee, so I'd have to go through thier minutes I suspect. But I have my suspicions given who is on said committee. www.leg.wa.gov/JTC/Pages/default.aspx
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Mar 12, 2012 9:27:49 GMT -8
Ahh ok, fishing in the dark and throwing out ideas. That reminds me a bit of the Idea of BCF subcontracting out routes, its amazing how well that has worked out! Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by oceaneer77 on Mar 12, 2012 11:59:23 GMT -8
This could be interesting
As for the Jones Act and Class.. Here is where the real mud can start to fly.
As far as I remember the Jones act says that no ship shall sail between 2 American ports that is foreign built. As for foreign built that means Keel not laid at a US Shipyard.
Nothing in the Jones act says that major sub parts cannot come from overseas, but the fit out and keel laying has to be US.
You could build the superstructure, engineering modules, bridge, all as components in Canada. Then Barge then to WA and weld them all up.
(if I am wrong please let me know as its been a long time since reading the act)
Now on the USGC rules and LLOYDS In canada we have Transport Canada, our ships must be built to Transport canada standards We call these the FLAG STATE standards. We also build to a classification society. We can use allot of different ones Lloyds DNV German Lloyds ABS -American bureau of shipping ( not USCG) Rina BV and lots more
In the US they build to USCG as the flag state Then to a classification society or some times only to USCG, but im not to sure how this works as i have never worked on one.
It should not be all that hard to meet USCG and Transport Canada as well as a major class socitey. All of the rules are supposed to be harmonized and all fall within the IMO (international maritime organization-Read UN) regulations. You can all laugh here as its a big SUPPOSED, some additional safety items can and are asked by each flag but the minimums are all similar.
As for nicks comment Assuming the Jones Act problems can be dealt with, there's the other problem of construction standards. As far as I understand, the KdTs have no propulsion system redundancy except for the ability to turn the vessel around and use the other end. By my understanding, this would not be allowed in Canada, as there has to be the ability to move the ship in the event of an engine malfunction.
This all depends on the interpretation of the rules by the surveyor. And I think you will find that in Canada the same standards would be allowed by a surveyor. The vessel would not be allowed to leave the dock in this condition but could safely (ish) return to dock
Thanks Oceaneer
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 12, 2012 14:40:37 GMT -8
Each company would want its own safety equipment on board, so as to eliminate having to spend training $$ on cross-training. And its own key-and-lock system. And, potentially, bi-lingual signage.
This idea is more far-fetched than the immediate removal of service of the Kwa-di-Tabils for re-engining, and I'll stop there.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Mar 12, 2012 16:33:23 GMT -8
After mulling it at work this afternoon I kinda concluded (same as Barnacle) that any idea of "sharing" loaner boats between the systems is a non starter for the reasons he listed plus about 100 others that he didn't. But the idea of joint aquisition either as just hulls or hulls + propulsion systems and related equipment might work and if done correctly could have an economy of scale benefit for both systems. The interior finish work, details of evacuation systems etc could be left to the system depending on thier needs.
I'll be curious to see if this goes beyond some "it'd be really cool if" thing a representative threw in a bill.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 12, 2012 18:50:26 GMT -8
While the specific idea put forward that suggestions the literal vessel could be swapped out - I am less cynical about a "platform" sharing idea. Even if the elementary design of a ferry is shared, I am thinking hull, elements of the superstructure, and engines, there is a very substantial opportunity for sharing and economies of scales to be accomplished. As Curtis pointed out we have two vessels requiring replacement that are, in very general terms, appropriate fr a 144-AEQ vessel. In reality, to the untrained eye, the Washington fleet shares a great resemblance to certain aspects of the BC fleet. WSF just has a more standard design element across their fleet.
Several NATO countries are examining a common hull form for frigates/destroyers with modularized above-water components of superstructure. Beyond that, the rest is left to the country.
If I were BC Ferries I would not want the procurement of my vessels to be potentially mingled in the state's procurement/legal system.
If I were WSF I would not want the procurement of any of my vessels to be designed Canadian regulations where a similar standard did not apply in the US.
|
|
|
Post by dasgeneral on Mar 12, 2012 23:29:25 GMT -8
I don't think that everyone should write off having BC shipyards participate in any new ferry construction. If Senator McCain can push the repeal of the Jones Act through the Senate, there might be a chance for foreign shipyards to bid on American contracts for coastal vessels. The argument is pretty sound for McCain: The Jones Act is causing far too much economic strain on coastal communities dependent on shipping, and companies cannot seek out foreign competition for contracts for coastal vessels in American waters going between American ports, and the act is totally obsolete in the 21st Century. Hell, it was obsolete in the 1960s. If that repeal goes through in the next few years, BC could participate and pool resources with Washington State on the new ferries.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Mar 13, 2012 11:05:35 GMT -8
Now to further expand this concept, why just the Sidney Anacortes route? To make this viable, I would extend this concept to include joint route projects such as Victoria/Seattle, Victoria/Port Angeles, and perhaps Vancouver/Seattle in order to expand the number of applicable vessels and make such a project worthy of serious consideration. I believe because that route could use internationally flagged boats. Hence the specific interest. WSF has had a token proposal up on their website for several years seeking a foriegn flagged vessel for use on the route so such a boat could be shared with BCFerries being the idea I believe. www.wsdot.wa.gov/Ferries/Business/Contracts/DisplayPDF.aspx?contractdocid=2341
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 13, 2012 12:32:40 GMT -8
From reading today's responses in this thread, and based on what I read in the initial post, I think that there are 2 separate issues:
1) Joint procurement re the Acquisition of vessels
and
2) Possible joint-use of vessels.
I think that the joint-procurement for acquiring vessels (with no cross-operation of particular ships) is the more likely scenario. ie. sharing designs. sharing in a new-build contract for the basic hulls.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Mar 13, 2012 12:36:02 GMT -8
Very interesting. It is dated from 2009. In order to fulfill this requirement, under the Jones Act, two US ports and one foriegn (Canadian) port would need to be met. This would figure a sail from Anacortes to Sidney and then to Seattle, since two US ports are considered A and B, and not A to C and then back to A (C beng Sidney). I believe you could just stop at Friday Harbor to meet that requirement. If I recall correctly the international route stops there already.
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Mar 13, 2012 18:27:51 GMT -8
One item not brought up on our side of the Border is the US Dept. of Homeland Security. Would they allow a scenario of shared designs, purchase, and use of any ferry between our two Countries?
I think any plan might not get past the discussion stage without their "approval", and I don't see that happening.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 13, 2012 19:05:43 GMT -8
US Homeland Security is a fantastic example of contemporary paranoia, however, even they shouldn't have an issue with a shared ferry design template. What's the threat?
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Mar 13, 2012 19:59:33 GMT -8
US Homeland Security is a fantastic example of contemporary paranoia, however, even they shouldn't have an issue with a shared ferry design template. What's the threat? Well they cant risk a bunch of Canadian Engineers and Mates knowing where ALL the heads are on the ship now can they. Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 14, 2012 14:05:10 GMT -8
Honestly. It's more a matter of needing to build vessels of a certain size, which on your side of the line has the funky extra auto deck configuration, and our infrastructure can't support. Even if we did reconfigure our docks to accommodate the used of said vessel design, it would only be practical at Seattle, Winslow, and Bremerton--where the roads to and from the terminal are already overburdened.
Non-starter.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 12, 2012 21:27:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 31, 2012 18:31:09 GMT -8
Thanks to Mr. Kahloke for finding this item. I just saw something really interesting in WSF Chief David Mosely's Weekly Update, a presentation from BC Ferries on their Vessel Replacement Program, dated August 30, 2012. It was presented to the Washington State Legislature Joint Transportation Committee. Apparently, the Joint Transportation Committee, WSF, and BC Ferries have been meeting to discuss possible oppourtunites between the two ferry systems. They met on August 30th where WSF presented their new ferry program (i.e. the 144's), BC Ferries presented their ferry replacement program plan, and both discussed the possible use of LNG in their fleets, since both operators have been studying that option.
Anyway, I thought I would post the link to BC Ferries presentation. For the first time,it shows a couple of renderings of what some of the replacement vessels could look like. That's not to say that this is what they will end up with, of course, but it's the first time I have seen any pictures linked with possible new-builds. This document is a fascinating read, and rather than extract bits and pieces from it, I am posting a link to it so you can read it in its entirety. www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/5BC81CC2-B8FE-4E4A-9C0C-72DB27354CB4/0/BCFerriesPresentationVRP_083012.pdf -------------------- I'm only copying this post here, to complete the idea started in this special thread. For any BCF replacement vessel discussion, please continue to use the following thread: ferriesbc.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=newferries&thread=8355&page=2#147252
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Mar 7, 2013 14:42:35 GMT -8
An interesting article from News 1130 from a couple of days ago... I thought this deserved it's own thread, as there is a lot of discussion potential with this idea. I'm most interested in what our friends to the south have to say on this issue.
Original Article: www.news1130.com/2013/03/05/minister-open-to-bc-ferries-wa-state-partnership/?cid=dlvr.it Minister open to BC Ferries / WA State partnership
Mary Polak points out, however, that the idea has failed in the past[/ul][/div] VICTORIA (NEWS1130) – Could BC Ferries save money by teaming up with Washington and Alaska state ferries? It’s an idea that has been floated by the Evergreen State’s newest governor. During his recent campaign, Washington State Governor Jay Inslee said in a policy brief that a partnership between BC Ferries and Washington State Ferries could somehow look at vessel sharing or other cost reduction measures, given how close the systems are. BC Transportation Minister Mary Polak held a teleconference this afternoon. She says she’s open to the idea, but ultimately BC Ferries would have to be on board. Polak adds talks in the past never saw the idea set sail. “There were discussions through the Northwest Economic Region around potential for integrating some travel options between the Alaska, Washington State, and BC Ferries service but it successful in the end,” Polak says. “It’s something that I think people are always open to. Nevertheless, it is an operational decision and BC Ferries would have to address that themselves.” Her comments come with the release of a report today from two thousand public submissions on how BC Ferries could cut $26-million in costs and run more efficiently. The public’s two greatest concerns: High fares and maintaining existing service.
|
|