|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 5, 2014 18:59:30 GMT -8
That news release make it sound pretty clear now that it will be three vessels of the same capacity at 145 AEQ, and no mention of the 125. Keep in mind that it was a newspaper story (Powell River Peak) that made it sound like it would be "3 x 145." Don't bank on that being true until you hear something straight from BCFS.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,186
|
Post by Neil on Jun 5, 2014 22:17:40 GMT -8
That news release make 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. BC Ferries has already announced that there will be two 145 car vessels, and a 125. I'll go with that over a story written by a 'Peak contributor'.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jun 6, 2014 10:10:58 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. BC Ferries has already announced that there will be two 145 car vessels, and a 125. I'll go with that over a story written by a 'Peak contributor'. I'm tempted to post a comment on the article asking them of their source for that info, but they want to create a user account . Too much hassle?
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jul 3, 2014 11:10:21 GMT -8
Just heard they're LNG, awarded to Poland. First delivery August 2016. I'm sure much more will follow.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Jul 3, 2014 11:42:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 3, 2014 11:55:39 GMT -8
The press release HERE has a lot more information. There is ARTWORK RENDITION of new ferry, near end of this release. ============= Some more excerpts:
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 3, 2014 11:59:29 GMT -8
The news release makes no mention that the 3rd vessel is of a lesser vehicle capacity.
BCF's MD&A report dated June 20 2014 says:
OK, I am now concluding that all 3 ships really will be 145-AEQ capacity.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 3, 2014 12:08:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Jul 3, 2014 12:55:28 GMT -8
I thought the rougher waters of the Georgia straight needed covered car decks. will there be some kind of bow and Stern doors?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 3, 2014 13:06:55 GMT -8
Powell River had it's FAC meeting with Rob Clarke, and here's an excerpt from a news story on that, from the Powell River Peak: - I have underlined a section for my emphasis. An open deck ferry for Route 17? That doesn't seem logical to me given the weather conditions possible in that region. Even on Route 9, a closed car deck would be preferred for the Georgia Strait crossing. You guys, these questions are so "11 months ago." Here's a link to an older post OPEN DECK ISSUE HERE========== And for those joining this thread now, please take a moment to read this thread. Lots of issues (like open deck) have already had plenty of Q&A on this thread, already.To make things even easier, here's the quote from a year ago:
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 3, 2014 13:13:01 GMT -8
Could the 3 new ferries be any uglier? ?? Jeesh!
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jul 3, 2014 14:17:37 GMT -8
I'd caution that the rendering of the Coastal class from the same yard-announcement to the actual delivered product were quite different. My feelings were similar but it seems a bit irrelevant.
Three at 145 AEQ seems like a positive development. Depending on deployment, and willingness to actually sail the third vessel this would be a potentially positive capacity move for Route 9.
Flugel's request to read the whole thread is surely a good one. But I haven't done that yet. So, doesn't this purchase also end the Queen of Chilliwack? And perhaps even Bowen Queen?
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jul 3, 2014 14:26:12 GMT -8
I would have some concerns on aesthetics and I can agree with Dane above.
1) While the passenger capacity would be adequate for Route 17, I would be concerned about the Southern Gulf Islands. What has been the max passenger load for the Queen of Nanaimo during the peak summer season on a typical weekend? She currently has the capacity for 1,000 passengers and crew. Even during the shoulder season a few years ago where a few of us in a group had to go via Swartz Bay due to licensing with the Queen of Tsawwassen which had a rated capacity of 640. Would it perhaps make sense to have an upper passenger deck that could be enclosed to be closed off like the Coastals, the Olympics down in Washington, and now apparently some of the Supers. 2)I am curious to know how large that cabin is going to be from a square foot per passenger size. The Coastals have more than enough room but we don't want to size it like the Alberni.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 14:36:49 GMT -8
As of now, the Burnaby's certificates expire on October 31, 2016. If crew training isn't complete by then, I'm sure that the good old Chilliwack will come to the rescue. If the new vessel arrives on time, that gives the crew a full two months to train on it before entering revenue service.
By the sounds of it, the Nanaimo will get another major refit to keep her going past 10-31-2016. She's in much better shape of course, so I'd expect that it's a downhill road for the Burnaby from here, besides the bare minimum to keep her compliant with Transport Canada.
|
|
|
Post by Cable Cassidy on Jul 3, 2014 14:52:35 GMT -8
I'd caution that the rendering of the Coastal class from the same yard-announcement to the actual delivered product were quite different. My feelings were similar but it seems a bit irrelevant. Three at 145 AEQ seems like a positive development. Depending on deployment, and willingness to actually sail the third vessel this would be a potentially positive capacity move for Route 9. Flugel's request to read the whole thread is surely a good one. But I haven't done that yet. So, doesn't this purchase also end the Queen of Chilliwack? And perhaps even Bowen Queen? I don't recall any mention of a third vessel retirement, but retiring the Chilliwack would make sense once the third ICF arrives.
The Bowen will probably survive, she's quite versatile as a relief boat.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 3, 2014 15:04:21 GMT -8
doesn't this purchase also end the Queen of Chilliwack? And perhaps even Bowen Queen? Q-Chilliwack was ending in 2017 anyways, when her certificate expires. The timing of the 3rd Solidarity-Class ferry's arrival should match the Chilliwack's departure.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 3, 2014 15:22:09 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). -------------------- Just bumping this old post, in case it's relevant to people reading this thread today.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Jul 3, 2014 23:57:43 GMT -8
I'm glad this contract has finally been awarded, though I'm also quite surprised that Remontowa was awarded the Contract over Flensburger which had a good track record with BC Ferries already and Fiskerstrand which has experience with vessels similar to what BC Ferries was looking at with the ICFs. Considering how long the bidding process took though, I'm sure a lot of thought went into this choice. Remontowa isn't an out of the blue choice though as they were the only Foreign Shipyard shortlisted for the Island Sky's contract in the Mid-2000s. Also, considering that the Powell River Class vessels and the Howe Sound Queen are likely due for replacement in early 2020s the ICFs might just be the start for Remontowa. (Though I wouldn't count Seaspan or Allied out of that yet) We'll see what happens though.
At a first glance, the concept looked pretty weird to me, it's slowly starting to grow on me though. I personally think it looks better than the first concept drawing we saw. The news release does leave a lot of unanswered questions though. We still don't know specifications such as what the service speed of these vessels is going to be, nor do we know if the Route 17 and Route 9a/Relief vessels will have a Coastal Cafe or just a Coastal Express. (Route 9's will no doubt have a Coastal Cafe) There's also things like what Flugel mentioned above, is the third vessel now 145 vehicles or was that just a typo? These questions will be answered in good time though, but hopefully an information session will be held soon so we can get answers for these questions.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 4, 2014 5:28:17 GMT -8
I'm glad this contract has finally been awarded, though I'm also quite surprised that Remontowa was awarded the Contract over Flensburger which had a good track record with BC Ferries already and Fiskerstrand which has experience with vessels similar to what BC Ferries was looking at with the ICFs. Considering how long the bidding process took though, I'm sure a lot of thought went into this choice. Remontowa isn't an out of the blue choice though as they were the only Foreign Shipyard shortlisted for the Island Sky's contract in the Mid-2000s. Also, considering that the Powell River Class vessels and the Howe Sound Queen are likely due for replacement in early 2020s the ICFs might just be the start for Remontowa. (Though I wouldn't count Seaspan or Allied out of that yet) We'll see what happens though. At a first glance, the concept looked pretty weird to me, it's slowly starting to grow on me though. I personally think it looks better than the first concept drawing we saw. The news release does leave a lot of unanswered questions though. We still don't know specifications such as what the service speed of these vessels is going to be, nor do we know if the Route 17 and Route 9a/Relief vessels will have a Coastal Cafe or just a Coastal Express. (Route 9's will no doubt have a Coastal Cafe) There's also things like what Flugel mentioned above, is the third vessel now 145 vehicles or was that just a typo? These questions will be answered in good time though, but hopefully an information session will be held soon so we can get answers for these questions. To answer Curtis regarding service speed of these new vessels, there are service speeds listed on page 3 of the 3GA report: SOR-16 Endurance and Fuel Efficiency. SOR -16-1 Utilization Profile 30% - transit mode - 13.5 knots 25% - transit mode - 15.5 knots
The 3GA Marine - Technical Specifications document makes interesting reading, however the report could well be titled the 'Swiss Cheese Diaries' - More on this in a separate offering.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 4, 2014 7:16:57 GMT -8
The 3GA Marine Technical Report which speaks to several sections of the SOR (Statement of Operational Requirements)outlines several 'specific' requirements as presented in the BCFS application provisions. While 3GA Marine speaks to many of the BCFS application provisions (SOR's), the review appears to offer up a disturbing number of: A particular BCFS -SOR requirement means the target is X, but 3GA Marine counters with: well it may be X, but X cannot be totally or properly tested, therefore the final performance of X is left dangling in the wind. A good example of this can be found throughout section 3.3 pages 6 and 7. There appears to be wiggle room for a lot of: we want X, but there are no reliable tests to ensure that X may in fact meet specific requirements. The acceptance of 95% sea spray free decks and related operational objectives does not take into account an unaddressed issue that I find very relevant to the maintenance costs of the vessel's interior spaces, ie. car decks, bulkheads, deckheads, piping and electrical components. Primarily, the downside of open deck configurations can be spelled out in one word: RUST! Rust remediation is a costly item on any vessels' annual refit budget. ( If there are any of our learned members from Deas Pacific Marine that could offer up some specific 'painting costs' relevant to rust remediation, please wade in and enlighten us). I can live with open deck configurations on smaller vessels on minor routes but what the rush is to utilize open deck configurations on larger vessels that operate in more exposed sea conditions leaves me bewildered! Lest I get labelled a member of the 'Raging Grannies', I'm reluctantly onside with the double-ender design, the vehicle capacities, and the diesel/LNG fuel concept, (even though the jury is out on fuel consumption. (3GA Marine Report: Page 5,Section 3.1 last paragraph). The total interior and exterior passenger spaces appear to be somewhat questionable, especially for route 9. While not expecting any of the café amenities to include any white table cloth service, I share Curtis's concern as to what operational design might rear its ugly head aboard these new vessels. I conclude my 'non Raging Grannies' defence with a thumbs up for the offshore building contract award, guaranteed delivery dates which include well defined penalties for non performance works for me. I'm not budging from my thumbs down position on the overall design of the new trifecta of vessels: UGLY!
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 4, 2014 7:18:57 GMT -8
In the latest drawing, the new "Solidarity-Class" ship looks like a steam iron.
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Jul 4, 2014 9:44:50 GMT -8
In the latest drawing, the new "Solidarity-Class" ship looks like a steam iron. ...to be built by Remontowa or Rowenta?
|
|
grk
Chief Steward
Posts: 227
|
Post by grk on Jul 4, 2014 14:22:01 GMT -8
Does anyone know whether the propulsion motors will be electric? Or is this going to be a geared drive direct to the main engines? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 5, 2014 9:22:49 GMT -8
Does anyone know whether the propulsion motors will be electric? Or is this going to be a geared drive direct to the main engines? Thanks Haven't been able to dig any answers to those questions. I suspect that information is buried away somewhere within the engineering specs. My first response to your questions was, no blessed idea, then got thinking about why you might have asked those questions as I'm guessing there is some connection to the fact that the engines are going to be of the hybrid type using both LNG and Diesel fuels. Sadly, engineering is at least a couple of pay grades above me so we will have to leave the answers to your questions to those within our learned membership who possess engineering acumen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2014 9:53:32 GMT -8
I have to chime in on these new ships.
An open deck design is stupid, absolutely stupid.
Time for the people in charge of the ferry system to be fired and have people that have even 1 percent common sense to take charge.
A cable ferry across part of an ocean?
3 open deck ferries on wide open seas?
A lot of people at bc ferries need to get their heads out of their a***s and quick.
|
|