|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Dec 10, 2013 20:04:58 GMT -8
Seaspan also built three of their newest tugs overseas, specifically by Sanmar in Turkey. They were designed by Robert Allan Ltd. of Vancouver.
Interesting to note, the two support vessels being built by Seaspan for the navy were designed by FSG. More information on the vessels is here.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Dec 11, 2013 15:09:48 GMT -8
Seaspan also built three of their newest tugs overseas, specifically by Sanmar in Turkey. They were designed by Robert Allan Ltd. of Vancouver.
Interesting to note, the two support vessels being built by Seaspan for the navy were designed by FSG. More information on the vessels is here.
Maybe those were a trade with two companies but mostly like no. If you look at the new SeaBus being built overseas to save money; so most likely BC Ferries will go offshore to save money. So I am going to be 75% sure that BC Ferries will go with an offshore build because of the track record of building ships. I would prefer to see the ships being built here because it helps with local economy and gives jobs to people who live in BC. If they choose the local one, the timeframe may have to be lengthen for one of the contacts.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Dec 11, 2013 17:05:52 GMT -8
:)you know, the long and the short of it is that there has been monumental shift in the tectonic plate since my early BC ferry days, and the era when we had the ability to build hi-end tonnage here at home, we have lost that ability and the shipyards have mostly gone! crusty's jobs,jobs,jobs, will be of the 'wall-mart' variety, I'am afraid! :-Xmrdot.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 3, 2014 9:19:08 GMT -8
The next step in approval of the Intermediate ferry proposal has happened. See this quote from the Ferry Commissioner website: --------- Here is the website page for you to click on to see those links: HERE... and here are some excerpts: BCF's confirmation letter to the Commissioner: ------- The Commissioner's response to BC Ferries, re conditions for the approval:
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 3, 2014 9:32:41 GMT -8
The Naval Architect's report from November 2013 is linked here: H E R EIt is an 8-page report and it addresses the concerns for: 1) Fuel efficiency target 2) Sea spray issue ---------- My recommendation is that if you intend to participate in discussion on the design issues of this ship re fuel efficiency and sea-spray, please take a few moments to read this architect's report. (I've tried to make this easy, but showing this link here, in this separate post). -------------------- I will copy/paste the main items as excerpts, and provide some commentary, later today.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 3, 2014 10:51:46 GMT -8
RE the sea-spray issue in the naval architect's report: The Naval Architect's report from November 2013 is linked here: H E R EHere is this item from the architect's above-linked report:
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 3, 2014 11:00:35 GMT -8
Regarding the fuel efficiency target and the naval architect's report: The Naval Architect's report from November 2013 is linked here: H E R EHere is the fuel efficiency item from the above-linked report:
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 3, 2014 12:39:18 GMT -8
So, what have we learned from the recent items posted to the ferry commissioner's website:
The 2 issues of measurable fuel efficiency and sea-spray are big issues for this project. BC Ferries is making sure that the designer/builder will be able to demonstrate compliance for these 2 issues, by making these items specific requirements of the contract.
The sea-spray issue will be mainly addressed by high bulwarks and by visors. - both of these items are non-existent on the Island Sky. So presumably the recent entertaining video of I'Sky I'Spray on the Comox route is not what we will see with these 3 new ships, because of the bulwarks and visors.
However, the naval architect has said that the sea-spray requirement (the 95% rule) is tough to simulate re the design proof of compliance.
BCFS will not cancel any sailing for spray ingress reasons. Instead, they will notify customers if spray is likely for a sailing. - I'm not sure how they'd do that. A service notice on the webpage? A sign at the ticket booth?
---------------
Regarding the fuel-efficiency items, I'm hoping that Nick will have some commentary, especially with how LNG engines are supposedly less efficient (which I presume is then offset by the fact that the fuel is cheaper). - I don't know if I'm understanding this one correctly.
|
|
|
Post by princessofvanfan on Jan 4, 2014 21:38:05 GMT -8
Notify passengers that sea spray onto the car deck is a possibility on a particular sailing!? I'm sure those with high end or newly restored vehicles will be REALLY impressed with that, especially after paying the exorbitant fare to ride on the brand new ship. You MUST be joking. Can you say ENCLOSED CAR DECK!?
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Feb 17, 2014 20:26:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Feb 17, 2014 21:23:07 GMT -8
Reading between the lines - the work will go overseas. Tough luck BC companies & BC workers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2014 0:06:17 GMT -8
Just an idea for the design for the route 9 and 17 vessels.
What about the Kennewick that WSF built a few years ago?
Looks about the right size for these routes although I don't know the vehicle capacity on it but looks like BCF could copy the design fairly easily perhaps making them longer if need be and put doors on the ends.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 18, 2014 7:30:53 GMT -8
Just an idea for the design for the route 9 and 17 vessels. What about the Kennewick that WSF built a few years ago? Looks about the right size for these routes although I don't know the vehicle capacity on it but looks like BCF could copy the design fairly easily perhaps making them longer if need be and put doors on the ends. Any thoughts? Those are 64 car vessels, and BC Ferries has indicated interest for 125 and 145 AEQ. I don't think the KDT design really fits in well anywhere in BC Ferries. There is fairly extensive discussion earlier on in this thread about using the WSF Olympic Class design, but ultimately, they have different needs and different standards than we do. This forum has taught me that making a vessel operable in heavier seas requires a lot more than sticking bow doors on the front. It would be nice to share a design from a cost savings perspective, but not realistic from a design standards perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 27, 2014 10:05:07 GMT -8
Seaspan has dropped-out of the running for bidding on the 3 Intermediate class ships.
They are now at full capacity for the Federal contracts and with the new Cable-Queen contract.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Feb 27, 2014 12:50:24 GMT -8
I just posted in the Cable Queen thread when it probably should have been here.
Anyways, to repeat myself with some greater detail...
It seems today's developments are good news all around with respect for the circumstances (I still think the cable ferry is bizarre).
Seaspan gets work to fill the yard and keep skill sets up. This could be of value for future ferry orders.
I still have reservations about local yards ability to deliver a quality vessel on-time after the Island Sky. This will be an opportunity for a local yard to hopefully demonstrate some redemption.
Lastly, Seaspan came with the lowest bid for the cable ferry. This is purely speculation, but the European yards likely would / are bidding lower for the intermediate ferries. With a local yard now unavailable, this is a win for BC Ferries as the cost vs local employment argument is avoided, at least partially.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 1, 2014 9:13:26 GMT -8
I will take the risk and post some thoughts here, regarding the drop-out of Seaspan from the Intermediate-ship competition.
For me (hey, I wouldn't dare speak for anyone else on this sensitive issue) I can look at this situation through 2 different lenses:
1) Based on current realities (whether I like those realities or not) - The local shipyards are small, and could be at capacity if the Federal contract happens. - Seaspan knows that it can't provide the guarantees (for price & time) that BC Ferries is demanding for these 3 ships. - Seaspan makes a smart decision in bowing out. Penalties in not fulfilling the BC Ferries contract could kill the yard.
or
2) Based on what we would prefer the current realities to be (whether it's going to happen or not, and the May 2013 election told us something about the likelihood of current realities changing) - It would be great if the Government would work with the shipyards to provide an environment where a series of shipbuilding opportunities (ie. new ferries) could be given to local yards, with the understanding that the learning-curve is beneficial to all concerned.
-------------
But in a situation where BC Ferries has expiring certificates on 2 old ships, and has the requirement of constrained criteria (demanded to only look at price and timeline), then it is clear that Seaspan can't do this job; not with the prior faux-commitment for Coast Guard & Navy ships tying their hands. And maybe not even if they didn't have the faux-federal commitment. Seaspan is not in a position to take on the risk that the BC Ferries contracts would bring.
So in the lens of current reality, the Seaspan decision to bow-out makes sense. Whether you think the current reality makes sense is another matter.
....on that last note, when these ships are eventually constructed and we follow the progress of their design / construction / launch / delivery / introductions-to-service, etc, I hope that we don't continually get bogged down in this other issue of what the current reality could have been or should be.
That issue of current reality and "what could have been" or "what might be possible" will always be stuck to any BC Ferry newbuild. But lets try to keep it clear that those "what could have been" issues are separate from other issues concerning specific design, construction, launch, delivery, etc.
Many of us are going to be very interested (dare I say "passionate") in these intermediate newbuilds, wherever they are built. I hope that our enthusiasm over these new ships is not constantly met with the dampening comments of what could have been.
Please be clear in hearing that I'm not suggesting or demanding that we ignore those legitimate "what if we had done it differently?" concerns. If we don't desire change on bigger issues, then our society/province won't ever get those bigger changes that we need. So it is important to keep the "We could have done this differently?" thought alive, otherwise it will die out with the generation that last saw it happening.
So we need a balance here where we can allow ourselves to be interested, enthusiastic and passionate about the intermediate newbuilds, while still being aware of the long term missed opportunity. I think that this forum, more than other places, is intelligent enough to understand the short-term constraints that make overseas newbuilds necessary, while also understanding that the desired "We should build it here" thought would actually require a major change in Government thinking, and that major change can't be done in time for this round of newbuilding. We're smart enough to understand both aspects of this, and to know the difference.
The unqualified "We should build them here" comment is about as useless as a comment can be. Industry, business and government are not that simple. I prefer a "We should build them here" comment that is qualified by an acknowledgement of the challenges to immediately building things here, and that has a dose of reality included. There are many changes that need to happen if we are to ever be able to "Build them here."
I'm not sure that those changes will ever happen. But I do know that we're getting new ships in the next few years.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Mar 1, 2014 10:32:40 GMT -8
Mr. Horn, you have expressed what has been on my mind since the beginning of this discussion, something I, myself, could not put into words.
Well said. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Mar 1, 2014 11:46:22 GMT -8
Yes Mr. Horn, I concurr with MileagePhoto's high praise of your bang-on epistle! Nicely done. With reference to the Federal ship building contracts that have been awarded but may or may not ever see the light of day, one wonders what the implications of yesterday's major engine room fire aboard the HMCS Protecteur 600 miles off the coast of Hawaii might entail? "Protecteur" is supposedly being towed back to the U.S. Naval Base at Pearl Harbour with early spectulation that the fire damage done is so major in scope that repairing this venerable old ship may not be feasible. This leaves our West Coast Maritime Command with NO supply vessel. What now?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Mar 1, 2014 13:20:00 GMT -8
Mr Horn, much more often than not, I find myself agreeing with your sentiments, but not this time.
I don't think there is any danger of this thread getting swamped with negativity, over the long run. I would guess that this forum is probably 80-90% concerned with the fan aspect of ferries, or at least, non-controversial aspects, especially when you include the photography. Once these vessels start getting built, there will be detailed discussion of every aspect of the construction, including photos, and once they're launched, everyone will be out in force taking trips and photographing every square inch from every conceivable angle. Discussions and complaints about contracts and local shipbuilding will be virtually invisible.
We've been in a period here on the coast where the nature of our ferry system has been very much in question. Where boats are built is an integral part of that discussion. I have no difficulty separating 'what is' from 'what should be', but that doesn't mean that 'what should be' has a lesser place in the discussion. For some time, many people, including our own now departed Mr Keenlyside, maintained that any discussion of building here was dead, and pointless to pursue. Then the feds awarded -sort of- the navy contracts, and suddenly west coast shipbuilding became viable, even to previous naysayers like the provincial Liberals. WMG invested in infrastructure to improve their capabilities. It's now very much an open question as to how many BC Ferries vessels might get built here in the future, as the pathetic record of the feds in renewing the military in general generates uncertainty about just how many navy vessels actually get built. A topic worthy of debate and discussion, as is the historical question regarding the reasons and/or blame for the decline in capacity here.
My initial comments in this segment of the conversation were prompted by Dane and MileagePhoto expressing enthusiasm for the awarding of the cable contract, and related remarks. I had a different perspective, which I continue to believe is valid. People may think that there has been too much re-hashing of things that can't be changed, but I think that there are really very few things that should be relegated to the conversation vault... even the fast ferries still figure in our current discussions about building local, since there are those, in particular some of those in power, who have let perceptions about that project affect their thinking about shipbuilding capabilities in general.
I would also question whether it's appropriate to be 'passionate' about ferries, at least in regard to the vessels themselves. It's a marine transit system, and how communities are served, as well as where these very expensive boats are built, holds far more import than the vessels themselves, at least to the province in general.
You state your preference for balance in the discussion, but I don't think there's any chance of that. Over the long run, this thread will be overwhelmingly fan oriented. There will be a few days here and there where grumpy opinions about ship building and contracts will creep in and dominate. I really think that people can deal with that.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 1, 2014 14:31:14 GMT -8
Mr Horn, much more often than not, I find myself agreeing with your sentiments, but not this time That's ok. I just wanted to express that I am enthusiastic that we will be getting new ships. And I am passionate about the ships themselves (If I'm an oddball in that regard, I've got company). I tried my best in my previous post to say that I'm not trying to shut down any critical discussion. Hey, I'm an advocate for all sorts of discussion here (remember when I took a bunch of heat for confronting that angry Whidbey Island guy about his demand to remove critical discussion about the KDT ferries?). I just wanted to make it clear that lots of us will be very interested in these new ships, and that in spite of concerns and convictions about where the ships are built, I am still going to be following their construction very keenly. As you've said Neil, there will be plenty of fan discussion about the new ships. That doesn't mean that all of the enthusiastic fans are unaware of the "Build in BC" issue. I just wanted to be clear that those of us who are going to be gushing keenly about the new ships won't need to be confronted about why we are so interested in them. Being interested in the new ships does not mean that we automatically love every aspect of them. I fully expect that we'll find things that we don't like about them, and we'll be critical of those things. The KdT WSF ferry thread showed us that fan-gushing without regard to critical issues is a poor thing. We saw KdT fans who were unable or unwilling to even answer thread questions about why they were so pleased with the tub-toy ships, when someone would question something. I don't think we'll have that problem here for our discussion on these new BCF ships. Most of us are willing and able to answer thread questions about why we like or don't like something about a ship. I think we've learned a lot from that KdT thread, about the need to be able to be critical of things that we also are excited about. We can be fans who aren't afraid to answer questions about why we like something. This is a time in BC (and on this forum) where there are some people who are really angry at things. In that context, I want to be sure that my enthusiasm for the new ships will be understood. Enthusiasm doesn't mean blind acceptance of the situation. But in this current context of so much controversy caused by the BC Government concerning ferries, it might seem odd to some that we can still be keen about new ships. Trust me that I've got a lot of ferry & transportation issues to be angry about. And I'm frustrated by what's been happening from the Transportation Minister's office. But I'm also excited about the new ships. And I think the point of my post was to defend why I'm excited about the new ships, in spite of those other issues. -------- ps: if the back-and-forth discussion we've had today is any indication on the state of our forum, I'd say it's good that we're able to discuss these things.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Mar 1, 2014 15:26:54 GMT -8
I just wanted to be clear that those of us who are going to be gushing keenly about the new ships won't need to be confronted about why we are so interested in them. I have no right to tell anyone that they shouldn't be interested in the new vessels, nor would I suggest they put their cameras away on the first day. I'm quite sure I'll be riding Cablestein as soon as it's in service, whether I hate it or not. But when it's suggested that the contract situation is a "win, win, win", and "good news on all fronts", that invites a response from us more contrary types. It's that old red flag and the bull thing, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Mar 1, 2014 19:25:36 GMT -8
Well, I can tell you that at least one person told me that (s)he is favouring not building them at all over not building them here.
That's not me, though. I wouldn't mind putting my "tracker" title back to work again.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 3, 2014 20:31:19 GMT -8
This post from Neil came from the Cable Queen thread, where I accidentally split discussion onto this topic. I wanted a key board to reply so I waited until I got home as I was in BC using a smartphone at the time of the contract awarding. I definitely disagree with the sentiments expressed by MileagePhoto and Dane, above. This news is something to note, not celebrate.
WMG has won a contract to build a $15 million barge, a vessel which by its very nature will eliminate eight to ten well paying jobs in a small community that very much needs them. And in winning the contract, WMG has removed themselves from contention to build the three intermediate ferries, because they are 'at capacity'. So, once again, this province will be flushing most likely in excess of $300 million into the German economy, or maybe to Poland or Korea, or south of our own border... without a single job being created for British Columbians. And yet people talk about the savings and efficiency. How? Where?
Partly due to the policies of the feds and the province- the feds in neglecting a timely renewal of our naval fleet and coast guard, and the province in allowing (directing?) BC Ferries to build overseas- our shipbuilding industry has been allowed to atrophy, to the extent that WMG can only handle a small naval vessel and a barge ferry. And we're supposed to be happy because our industry is 'at capacity', with such a meagre workload?
Twenty years ago, several yards participated in building the Spirits. Even little Vito in Delta played a key role. No more, despite Stevie and Christy lately finding religion about the wonders that shipbuilding can do for the economy. Of course, that vaunted massive spate of contracts that Harper announced for the navy may never happen in its entirety, or if it does it will be decades late... but it won him some political points just to announce it.
I also don't understand the ongoing criticism of the Island Sky project. Do people actually think that when you build one ferry every ten years you're going to have the efficiency and economy of scale of a Flensburger? Regular work begets quality results, and in any event, the Island Sky was a fixed price contract- the delays and over runs cost BC Ferries nothing.
The cable barge will provide work for BC shipyard workers. But what would it have said about WMG if they couldn't have won a project of such modest scale?
"Win, win, win"? "Good news on all fronts"? Really, guys? Is the bar set that low these days? I am going to answer the questions in reverse order, and will to an extent say the same things as Flugel. To the "win, win, win.... is the bar set that low?" Yes, it is. Flugel pointed out in part that we have to face the following realities: - a BC Government that has not demonstrated a concern with these projects being local; - a yard system that will hopefully be at near capacity with minimal ability to quickly or easily grow due to both skills and economies of scale, including real property; - a "private" BC Ferries with no mandate (or desire) to support local; and - a damaged reputation based on recent deliveries, including the I Sky. The Island Sky's quality is BC Ferries problem, and a guaranteed price contract doesn't minimize that. I recently experienced this on a much, much smaller scale at work where I could not replace my Crown Victoria police cars because the contractor was having issues with my new cars. While work and equipment on the new cars was guaranteed price, I was stuck sinking very finite financial resources into my old cars. BC Ferries, with a big boat using a larger crew, would have had the same issues. Additionally longer delivery times and ongoing warrantee work requirements would have an element of time requirement and administration for BC Ferries. Just because the baseline cost may not rise means little. I am sure even negotiating penalties was an expensive process since a lawyer charges thirty dollars to blink. On the subject of local yard quality, I actually tried to respond to this thread on my smart phone last Friday. Specifically the locally built Burrard Pacific Breeze which was over-cost, delivered very late, and sat too high in the water requiring considerable investment to make the five Sea Bus berths usable. It also suffered reliability issues on delivery, which appear to have been resolved. However, I agree there is damage in not awarding contracts locally. Skill fade, no secondary economic benefits, and an overall lack of planning stability. But I also see no point getting wrapped around this specific contract when it is clear that local yards were essentially a no go. The choice was $15 million barge for local yards, or nothing. So the barge is a success. At the macro level I agree with every point Neil has made. But, I will save that for discussing BC's next election.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 4, 2014 18:01:12 GMT -8
Powell River Peak story on some news from the 5/28/2015 Ferry Advisory Committee meeting for Sunshine Coast - North: from H E R E
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jun 5, 2014 13:17:49 GMT -8
That news release made it sound pretty clear now that it will be three vessels of the same capacity at 145 AEQ, and no mention of the 125, and with a rating for five meterseas! . Does that rating actually cover keeping the seas out of the open cardeck, though, or just the hull itself being watertight? I was going back through the thread and looking at the design proposal, and it made me think they could maybe help keep the cardeck at lot dryer if they used storm gates at the cardeck ends, and removed the lower row of windows on the main cardeck.
|
|