|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jul 24, 2013 9:31:07 GMT -8
People have crossed the Atlantic in twelve foot rowboats. I have no idea why these vessels couldn't do it. True enough, but it's all about liability, and you wouldn't want something bad happening and one of those boats sinking on the way here. The new SeaBus is going to do this and it is small compared to BC Ferries. The SeaBus will probably get here safely. So, I think these ferries could travel a cross the Atlantic safely if the SeaBus can do that crossing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2013 9:36:36 GMT -8
True enough, but it's all about liability, and you wouldn't want something bad happening and one of those boats sinking on the way here. The new SeaBus is going to do this and it is small compared to BC Ferries. The SeaBus will probably get here safely. So, I think these ferries could travel a cross the Atlantic safely if the SeaBus can do that crossing. The new Seabus is going to be brought over on a heavy lift vessel. Same way the Pacificats were transported to Abu Dhabi.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jul 24, 2013 9:41:28 GMT -8
The new SeaBus is going to do this and it is small compared to BC Ferries. The SeaBus will probably get here safely. So, I think these ferries could travel a cross the Atlantic safely if the SeaBus can do that crossing. The new Seabus is going to be brought over on a heavy lift vessel. Same way the Pacificats were transported to Abu Dhabi. And, if the ICFs are built overseas, they will most likely also be transported by a heavy-lift vessel. But I'm glad that they're considering building the vessels here just to avoid having to transport them over the ocean.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jul 24, 2013 9:42:32 GMT -8
The new SeaBus is going to do this and it is small compared to BC Ferries. The SeaBus will probably get here safely. So, I think these ferries could travel a cross the Atlantic safely if the SeaBus can do that crossing. The new Seabus is going to be brought over on a heavy lift vessel. Same way the Pacificats were transported to Abu Dhabi. Thank you, @sccommuter. I missing that piece of information about how the SeaBus is getting here. Could BC Ferries use a heavy lift vessel to get the boats here too?
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jul 24, 2013 9:44:32 GMT -8
These 3 new vessels would likely be built locally because ships of this size would not be capable of a voyage like the Coastals did from Germany. Mike Corrigan is on Bill Good right now. I am glad that BC Ferries supporting local growth for building new boats compared to TransLink.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Jul 24, 2013 10:25:32 GMT -8
I am glad that BC Ferries supporting local growth for building new boats compared to TransLink. Huh? BC Ferries has done no such thing. Mike Corrigan said BC Ferries will go for the best deal available, whether it's here or overseas. They happily sent half a billion dollars to Germany before- they have demonstrated no commitment to building here at all.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Jul 24, 2013 11:14:05 GMT -8
These 3 new vessels would likely be built locally because ships of this size would not be capable of a voyage like the Coastals did from Germany. Mike Corrigan is on Bill Good right now. People have crossed the Atlantic in twelve foot rowboats. I have no idea why these vessels couldn't do it. Let's not forget, that the Queen of Chilliwack crossed the Atlantic to get to BC. As did many of our other European Vessels.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jul 24, 2013 11:31:32 GMT -8
People have crossed the Atlantic in twelve foot rowboats. I have no idea why these vessels couldn't do it. Let's not forget, that the Queen of Chilliwack crossed the Atlantic to get to BC. As did many of our other European Vessels. So did the Northern Adventure. Both terrifying thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 24, 2013 16:26:39 GMT -8
Let's not forget, that the Queen of Chilliwack crossed the Atlantic to get to BC. As did many of our other European Vessels. So did the Northern Adventure. Both terrifying thoughts. ...and the Lady Sylvia in 1937. (later renamed Lady Rose).
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 25, 2013 19:19:44 GMT -8
For those that haven't read this already, here is the Ferry Commissioner's ruling on the application to build 3 new ferries: from here: here....take note of the subject-to conditions, expecially the one about concerns of the open deck design. ================ Here is the link to the Commissioner's detailed findings report re this decision and process: linkExcerpt: Commission's findings on the main issues: ==================== Here is the link to the PWC consultant report on the application: - take note of the "minor concerns" noted by the consultant regarding BCFS' non-response to public questioning of design issues. linkConsultant report excerpt on the open-deck design, further to comment included in the above quote: ============================ If you're interested in these new ships, you should read both of the above linked items.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 25, 2013 20:12:16 GMT -8
...another excerpt from the Ferry Commissioner's report, referenced in my previous post:
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 26, 2013 16:46:55 GMT -8
I've renamed this thread, and we will continue to use it up until the time when we eventually have 3 new ship-specific threads to put into our forum's general page. - ie. we use this here thread until the construction is along fully enough to the point when we start to have ship-specific discussion items.
For now, the discussion items are mainly class-related, so they stay here in this "proposal, design & construction" thread.
Of course, if the shipyard releases in-construction photos, we'd put those into ship-specific threads right away (otherwise, I'd just have to move them later, like we did with the Coastals).
But we're still a long way off from that...
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jul 27, 2013 9:34:47 GMT -8
An update from yesterday has Seaspan expressing support for building the new ships in BC UPDATE: Victoria Shipyards owner Seaspan keen to check out B.C. Ferries’ ships requestThe media are also making waves on the notion that BCFerries is going to be trading in 2 ships on 3, at least that might be the assumption you would make if you just read the overblown headlines and don't know the details of the capacity differences between the ships being replaced and the ships replacing them. Also, projected sailing dates are 2016 and 2017, but both of the Queens would be retired in 2016, which raises the question of addressing capacity once again, until the third ship is at least in service a year later. I also just had another brain storm. Going back to the sample design that BCFerries provided for public review , I realized some interesting design elements. For one thing, if they add gallery decks to it, they show it having a central tunnel on the MCD with two casings on either side, then side tunnels on the outboard sides of the casings , with the gallery decks above those tunnels, but also cutting through to the inboard side of the casings along the central tunnel. This is starting to sound incredibly complex. I can't say for sure how easy or hard it would be to load a cardeck like that, not to mention the issues the Island Sky has with the steepness of the gallery ramps. But this also all sounds very familiar. What has a central tunnel, two side casings with tunnels running on the outboard sides and gallery decks above the tunnels. Four out of five C-Class, and a bunch of WSF ferries all boast this cardeck arrangement. I'm curious now why, instead of building in so many complexities, they might not have looked at designs already done. Specifically, in this case, the new WSF 144s. Even if they weren't exactly the same, BCFerries could still add a bit of beam to their barges to provide to clear lanes to vehicles to park inside the side tunnels and on each gallery deck. This would keep the central tunnel clear from having extra gallery decks overhanging on the inside of it. As each new design proposal comes out and seems to be just that much more complex, it leaves the feeling that the idea of standardization just means they are taking a design that's already deficient and seeing how many other odd bulges they can balloon off from it to make it appear practical. It seems,the idea of clean lines and efficient use of space is something BCFerries may not have paid for when it designed the Island Sky and now the expanded version they hope will be an adequate replacement for the B-class.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 29, 2013 9:56:52 GMT -8
Having taken Mr. Flugel Horn's suggestion of reading the 'links' to the BC Ferry Commission's report, I now need to replace my last supply of Visine, as I can no longer focus out of one or both eyes this morning. Yikes! What a bunch of blob! Indeed, it will be interesting to see where this whole process goes from here. I have just viewed those great shots of the Queen of New Westminster posted ny SolDuc and the video posted my Mr Horn and have arrived at a truly earth-shattering idea! Yes, the BC Ferry Commission said no to used vessels as replacements, but would it not be possible to build two (or three) cut down versions of our beloved old boats? Could they not be designed to integrate LNG fuel systems?. A Queen of Nanaimo version, with side ramps and of course built with all the latest enviro technology etc. We have the plans for these boats, they have a proven track record, we know that this design can be stretched, lifted, etc. with great success so why try to re-invent the wheel as it were? If none of this makes any sense at all, I am, in part, blaming my poor vision (which has affected my cerebral functions as well), on Mr. Horn for my impairment and meanderings Seriously, I 'think' I have a better grasp of this fleet renewal project thanks to Mr. Horn's suggstions.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 22, 2013 19:25:33 GMT -8
The latest official word on the 3 new ships: - from the 2nd Quarter's "Management's Discussion & Analysis" Report, dated Nov.21, 2013.
Item in italics is my own elaboration
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 9, 2013 11:54:44 GMT -8
BCF news release on the bid process for the new intermediate ships: A few key points from this: - 5 shipyards are shortlisted, including Seaspan, and FSG - The ships will be dual fuel capable - Next step is for contract to be awarded, in Spring 2014. -------------------- Times-Colonist story on this announcement: - this highlights the time constraints that Seaspan would face, given their already backed-up shipyard re future work for Coast Guard and Navy supply ships (if those things ever happen). How could Seaspan have time and space to do these 3 ferries in the time frame required? I don't think it's possible, unless the Federal Gov't gets realistic and says that the Navy and Coast Guard ships won't be built anytime soon. from HERE
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Dec 9, 2013 19:19:21 GMT -8
A few key points from this: - 5 shipyards are shortlisted, including Seaspan, and FSG from HEREHow I am not shock that only one Canadian shipyard is on list. I think Seaspan Vancouver Shipyard will be busier if they win the bid to build these ships because they do refits and are build the federal ships.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Dec 9, 2013 19:48:09 GMT -8
I'm not shocked Seaspan is the only Canadian shipyard to bid. Irving has their hands full with the current CG mid shore contract, and gearing up for the arctic patrol vessel, if that ever comes to pass. From what I saw on a shipyard tour last year, they also have a lot more infrastructure renewal to do before they can step up production. I'm not sure what Davie shipbuilding's status is at the moment, but I'm pretty sure they're not ready for BCF's timeline.
Seaspan on the other hand, I think has a chance. The CG contract has the first ship delivery in 2016, but the feds have yet to solidify funding for it. The Diefenbaker has been put off until 2020, and the navy's joint support ships also have funding problems. Meanwhile, Seaspan has been purchasing tooling, training and hiring employees, and securing subcontractors for a job that might be put on hold. I think they might have an extra incentive to secure a good, big job to get their employees and supply chain moving.
Seaspan has a lot of capacity between their Victoria and Vancouver shipyards, and is plenty capable of building more than one project at a time, especially if the dates and schedules are sufficiently staggered.
The Island Sky was built at a time when skilled trades were extremely hard to come by in southern BC. That situation has changed somewhat since then, and Seaspan has put a lot of effort into streamlining operations in the 6 years since.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Dec 9, 2013 21:55:38 GMT -8
I'm not shocked Seaspan is the only Canadian shipyard to bid. Irving has their hands full with the current CG mid shore contract, and gearing up for the arctic patrol vessel, if that ever comes to pass. From what I saw on a shipyard tour last year, they also have a lot more infrastructure renewal to do before they can step up production. I'm not sure what Davie shipbuilding's status is at the moment, but I'm pretty sure they're not ready for BCF's timeline. Seaspan on the other hand, I think has a chance. The CG contract has the first ship delivery in 2016, but the feds have yet to solidify funding for it. The Diefenbaker has been put off until 2020, and the navy's joint support ships also have funding problems. Meanwhile, Seaspan has been purchasing tooling, training and hiring employees, and securing subcontractors for a job that might be put on hold. I think they might have an extra incentive to secure a good, big job to get their employees and supply chain moving. Seaspan has a lot of capacity between their Victoria and Vancouver shipyards, and is plenty capable of building more than one project at a time, especially if the dates and schedules are sufficiently staggered. The Island Sky was built at a time when skilled trades were extremely hard to come by in southern BC. That situation has changed somewhat since then, and Seaspan has put a lot of effort into streamlining operations in the 6 years since. George MacPherson seems pretty pessimistic that WMG will even end up bidding on the actual contract. I imagine he has a reason for his attitude.
To say the federal shipbuilding contracts have funding problems is putting it mildly. Although the Harperites were praised to the heavens in some quarters for the supposedly pristine fairness of the tendering process, it's now been reported that the numbers thrown around were pretty much conceptual, and the actual contracts may end up being vastly higher. As Nick says, portions of the navy work has been pushed back with regard to time line, and it has been scaled down as well. It doesn't seem to matter whether we're talking helicopters, fighter planes, submarines or conventional ships, the feds, be they Liberal or Conservative, are incompetent at shepherding any renewal of our armed forces. They use the military for political gain, as evidenced by the crowing over the tendering process, and the rather pathetic sop to traditionalists in re-introducing the 'Royal' aspect.
WMG might be more aggressive in going after the ferry contract if they get a real sense that the military work is less certain than they had originally expected. By the same token, BC Ferries and the Clark Liberals might use the military work as an excuse to send several hundred more millions of dollars overseas. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 9, 2013 22:58:10 GMT -8
Not so long ago Premier Christie Clark had this to say about ship building in the province she leads...
We know she said lots during the election campaign about her BC Jobs Plan. Soon we shall see if she really means any of this.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Dec 10, 2013 12:24:42 GMT -8
:)soon we shall see if the jobs,jobs,jobs, will be here or on distant shores, and no 'olymic shrink wraps' can mask this one! :)mrdot.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 10, 2013 16:12:39 GMT -8
Here are two of my Facebook posts from the discussion there yesterday:
I made a third post which was already copied two posts above this one.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 10, 2013 18:26:26 GMT -8
Perhaps BC Ferries time line has been deliberately written to make it all but impossible for a BC yard to compete. The time line could easily be altered if there was a will. And lets not pretend that BC Ferries is really a private company. Their owners still call the shots & do so with great regularity. The ball is in Christie's court. She was bubbling with enthusiasm about BC ship building not so long ago re the federal (might happen someday) contracts. Now, lets see what she has to say about ferries & the 'BC Jobs Plan'. One of the problems might be that even if there was political will to build the 3 ships in BC at a lengthened timeline, there might not be the option of keeping the 'Burnaby & 'Nanaimo operating until the new ships are ready. And current political will can't change the realities of the expiry dates on the Inspection Certificates for those 2 old ships. The past three years or so have shown us the penny-wise & pound-foolish impact of delaying replacement of the Queen of Burnaby and the Queen of Chilliwack. Both ships received an extraordinary amount of repair & refit dollars in the past three years, just to keep their soon-to-expire certificates open for only a few more years. These types of recent band-aid solutions have left us in our present circumstance of having little wiggle room regarding the timelines of ship replacement. I think that the best chance for BC Shipyards to rejoin the BC Ferry newbuild program will be for replacements that aren't so timeline-sensitive (if there ever will be such a scenario). Unfortunately, the uncertainty of the Federal possible newbuilds for Coast Guard ships and Navy supply ships might leave Seaspan unable to commit to a tight or even a lengthened timeline. Will the phantom federal ships be a curse to Seaspan, rather than a blessing?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 10, 2013 18:50:05 GMT -8
This here newbuild topic is a good chance for us to see how the forum does in discussing potentially divisive issues. How tolerant can we be for opposing viewpoints? How quickly will friendly discussion and respectful debate turn into hotheaded name calling? One of the things that I think has always differentiated this forum from other platforms such as newspaper reader-comments and social media chat is that we strive to maintain respectful discussion. At times this has caused us criticism for being too sanitized, but I always appreciate this place being a safe place to share and learn, and not get beaten-up over saying the "wrong thing." --------------------------- Ok, let me try this out: I think that the current BCF situation of requiring 3 new ships on a quick timeline means that a known shipyard such as a FSG is the best choice. BCF and FSG have an existing relationship, the shipyard has ample government support (yes, both from Berlin and from Victoria ) FSG is a known player to BC Ferries and this makes it easier for BCF to assume the risk of awarding this type of quick-timeline multi-ship contract. Sure there are always monetary penalties and rewards to help protect against late-delivery, but a penalty won't fix an already late ship problem. So BCF takes a risk, no matter which shipyard it commits to. Is Seaspan a greater risk to BCF, than FSG is? Yes, I think so. Lets be clear on this: The predecessors of Seaspan's shipyards are not the current workforce nor the current infrastructure or current experience of the yard. The workforce, infrastructure, technology and experience that built the "greatest ferry building boom ever in BC" in the 1960s and 1970s is no longer a reality. They are but ghosts; only the location and the big infrastructure is the same. We need to look at the last 10 years of experience in the local shipyards. For ferries, the local yards have done the rebuilds of Sonia and John Atlantic Burr, and have done the Island Sky newbuild. The Island Sky newbuild was late and over-budget. Seaspan is not a known or proven player when it comes to producing 3 ferries on a strict timeline. So if we are debating the present situation of building these 3 new ferries under the current circumstances, then the above is my position. We can change some parameters for the sake of discussion, but then it wouldn't necessarily change the current reality. To build ferries in BC would take 2 things: 1) A change of political will 2) A lengthened timeline. We can debate the merits of BC builds all we want (I believe in those economic benefits of building locally), but these 2 constraints are the big impacts on this particular 3-ship newbuild decision.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Dec 10, 2013 20:03:22 GMT -8
Ok, let me try this out: I think that the current BCF situation of requiring 3 new ships on a quick timeline means that a known shipyard such as a FSG is the best choice. BCF and FSG have an existing relationship, the shipyard has ample government support (yes, both from Berlin and from Victoria ) FSG is a known player to BC Ferries and this makes it easier for BCF to assume the risk of awarding this type of quick-timeline multi-ship contract. Sure there are always monetary penalties and rewards to help protect against late-delivery, but a penalty won't fix an already late ship problem. So BCF takes a risk, no matter which shipyard it commits to. Is Seaspan a greater risk to BCF, than FSG is? Yes, I think so. Lets be clear on this: The predecessors of Seaspan's shipyards are not the current workforce nor the current infrastructure or current experience of the yard. The workforce, infrastructure, technology and experience that built the "greatest ferry building boom ever in BC" in the 1960s and 1970s is no longer a reality. They are but ghosts; only the location and the big infrastructure is the same. We need to look at the last 10 years of experience in the local shipyards. For ferries, the local yards have done the rebuilds of Sonia and John Atlantic Burr, and have done the Island Sky newbuild. The Island Sky newbuild was late and over-budget. Seaspan is not a known or proven player when it comes to producing 3 ferries on a strict timeline. So if we are debating the present situation of building these 3 new ferries under the current circumstances, then the above is my position. We can change some parameters for the sake of discussion, but then it wouldn't necessarily change the current reality. To build ferries in BC would take 2 things: 1) A change of political will 2) A lengthened timeline. We can debate the merits of BC builds all we want (I believe in those economic benefits of building locally), but these 2 constraints are the big impacts on this particular 3-ship newbuild decision. Thanks, FH, for this. Good thoughts and well said, I think. The only thing I'd add (and something I restated in the reference Facebook conversation) is this: When comparing FSG's product quality with what we got from WMG, there is no question that the better product came from FSG - on time and on budget, vs. late and over-budget. And BCFS, given the cash-strapped situation that it currently finds itself in, won't likely want to roll the dice. But a question I have been asking myself more recently (especially after the SeaBus contract left BC), is that would WMG have produced a better product if BCFS was more consistent with ordering ships from them? One would think so. In my eyes, sending the SeaBus to Shanghai was a mistake, given the fact that the Pacific Breeze was a high quality build (so there is a precedence of quality, unlike the Island Sky), and the seemingly nominal $2-something million would be made up in economic benefits for my city. So the real question then becomes: what do we want as a future of shipbuilding in BC? Do we hand it off to Germany and become exclusively maintenance, or can we rebirth the legacy of quality that we had for so many generations? One has to remember that once we start making a habit of sending contracts overseas, it's difficult to bring that work back home. Both arguments have merit, I think.
|
|