NORTHERN SEA WOLF - Photos & Discussion

[gary c]

Hi all...reading with interest this forum.....below is hansard from the spring session (questions to Min Falcon)...about the Queen of Chilliwack...and an answer from David Hahn when I asked him about the vessel at the recent AGM (Aug 27)..
thx
gary
Also ...to see debate/questions etc on ferries in the legislature plse go to
www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/hansindx/38th4th/2008-membrc.htm#mh20

MONDAY, APRIL 14, 2008
G. Coons: I just wanted to confirm that since 2003, '04, '05 and '06 the base amount for the provincial subsidy remained at $91.8 million. There have been other areas that have gone up, but the base amount for, say, the minor routes has remained the same.

The second thing I want to talk about is route 40 and the importance of route 40. There are many concerns with not extending the season for route 40. The Cariboo regional district, the Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association, both Cariboo MLAs — North and South — have had concerns about the economic need and the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars in businesses, restaurants and hotels. It affects Highways 19, 20, 27 and 99.

The ferry advisory committee for the north and the regions... and the people on the central coast have been trying to get information about the Queen of Chilliwack. The minister, unfortunately, the day the Queen of the North sank, in his press release said that the funding was approved for the three new ferries. The minister said it was "several hundreds of millions of dollars."

I'm wondering how much was allocated on that day. What is in the budget as far as hundreds of millions of dollars, and what is the status of the Queen of Chilliwack and the replacement?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member will know that the province, in making an additional $13 million annual investment each and every year towards putting into place the new Adventure, which is now sailing on the waters…. The member will know that was about a $100 million cost.

The Expedition, of course, will increase our annual subsidy by another $22 million — again, demonstrating, I believe, the strength of our commitment to northern, remote communities. That Expedition will come on stream just prior to the summer of 2009. It represents a total investment value of about $200 million, so that's $300 million just between those two vessels.

[1730]

In terms of the third vessel to replace the Queen of Chilliwack, we're still in discussions with the ferry corporation with respect to what that replacement would look like. Those discussions haven't been finalized at this point, so I don't have a nailed-down value on that one for the member.

G. Coons: I guess that also included in there, somewhere, is the $68 million that for insurance purposes B.C. Ferries got for the sinking.

Again, the concern with route 40 is the Chilliwack. As the minister knows, by 2012 it can't be sailing. There was documentation by Capt. Trafford Taylor, who is the vice-president for B.C. Ferries for new vessel construction. He indicated ( at a conference in Sweden in Sept/07)…. "There's a huge competition for yard slots. If you want a ship today, you're not going to get one until 2012 at the earliest, and every year it's going to increase more."

I'm just wondering if the minister is going to commit to having a new vessel by 2012. Some of the documents that I've received here through the core review indicated that route 40 was a candidate to be abandoned. Actually, it says: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, B.C. Ferries may at any time after the first two years of the term abandon route 40 if it's unable to find alternate service."

I realize that they've changed that from two years to the five-year term, but I'm wondering if the minister can commit to two things: a new vessel for route 40 to replace the Chilliwack and that route 40 is not a route to be abandoned.

Hon. K. Falcon: Look, Member. There's no question in my mind. I've seen nothing that would suggest that there wouldn't be continued service on route 40. I have no doubt that there will continue to be service on route 40.

In terms of what the vessel will look like, as I said, that's part of the discussions we're having with B.C. Ferries right now. All the options are on the table in terms of how that service would best be provided.

Again, the member is correct to point out that there is an expiry date in terms of the vessel's eligibility under the SOLAS federal regulations in terms of how long it can operate. This, unfortunately, was a legacy that we were left with. The average age of the ferry fleet is 42 years old.

The ferry corporation has done, I think, a pretty exceptional job of trying to rejuvenate and replace the vessels on this route — right across the ferry fleet, in fact. But it does take time. The member is correct to point that out. We're working hard. We're negotiating with Ferries, and we'll do the best we can to come to an agreement that makes sense for the public, makes sense for route 40 and makes sense for taxpayers.

G. Coons: Again, I go back to the press release. It says that the government approved funding for three new vessels. I want to highlight the concern of getting it out in the tendering line so that it's ready by 2012. The concern up and down the coast is that this route will not have a new vessel by 2012 and that it's a candidate for abandonment, so I'm glad the minister has made the commitment that there will be a vessel out there by 2012.

At Agm.....I asked David H about the new " info" (in the Annual report) of the replacement coming in the 3rd performance term...after 2012....as all previous BCFS info said it would be replaced by 2011 and the Minister said by 2012.
Due to the 'damaged stability regulation' the vessel was supposed to be out of service after the 2003 summer season and retired...but got a special dispensation or exemption to sail till 2012. NOW ....David H says they appaently received another exemption till 2013 (or beyond?).....I have contacted Transport Canada about the application for an extension...I will be after more information about this from Min. Falcon and the Board of Directors of BCFS...as well as many other questions from their annual report.

[rt1commuter]

Well, the rumors are flying. Anyone want to speculate on what exactly BC ferries has in mind? I check the used ferry listings and I didn't really see any great candidates.

[Starsteward]

I doubt that BC Ferries knows exactly what they want the route 40 vessel to look like, given their schizoid marketing approach to not only route 40 but the entire northern service.
The BC Ferries mandate is to provide a transportation link between the mid-coastal communities and that means the movement of locals, freight and other intangibles that make up day to day service in the route 40 service area.
Secondly, the BC Ferries mandate does not, I believe, state that they must develop any sort of 'tourism' delivery system although as we have seen, the area MLA's and business owners would very much appreciate a solid commitment to do so. Therfore, the "what do we really want to accomplish" attitude exists in settling on a vessel that would meet, first of all, the needs to fulfill the primary mandate and secondly what an optimum vessel design would be in order to expand the tourism part of the question.
To cite an example, on my recent round trip on the Queen of Prince Rupert there were some 45 kyackers with kyacks, back-packs etc. loaded at Port Hardy heading to Shearwater and the loading and unloading of both passengers and kyacks was cumbersome and time consuming from an operational standpoint.
In order to provides some comforts to passengers, a new vessel should include some cabins, including some multi-berth units, all equipped with sink, toilet and shower. There should also be well-appointed public facilities and much better personal storage facilities. Perhaps too 'over the top' for the folks at BCFS Inc. but why not some sort of public coin operated laundry where our eco-tourism friends could actually wash and dry their gear. My point be, is that if you are going to attempt to cater to a particular type of tourist, then please provide user friendly ammenities!
As I have read and also mentioned in one of the forum threads, that bringing the QPR up to current standards would be cost prohibitive, that vessel, with some modifications, ie. a sliding side door at some spot along the car deck or some sort of stern launch pod for small craft of various kinds would be a great start. The Rupert is the right size and handles the seas well but alas, there may be cheaper and perhaps more functional vessels for sale abroad.
IF, BC Ferries could ever come up with a building plan for a new ship, and given the current economic turndown in the world-wide economy there may well be a ship yard or two that could offer very competitive bids.
Ahh, now if I could just win the lottery

[Mill Bay]

No, any vessel intended for route 40 needs to be designed from the start with the route in mind. An updated version of the QPR could do it and still be able to do routes 10/11 together in the off season, as long as it was seaworthy enough. I'm wondering if they have ever done wet launches from the QPR, and it seems likely they have, but if the new vessel at least had a stern ramp, hinged at the bottom, as opposed to the QPR's stern door which raises up and out, then the launching of kayaks, etc, would be a great deal easier.

The adequate passenger space would achieved by additional passenger cabins, which means, moving all the unused tweendecks space above deck, so the new vessel would need to have at least one more deck of accommodations to fit both crew and passenger cabins. If you're going to go higher up in the superstructure, then it would also be better to balance the ship out by being slightly longer and a fair bit wider than the QPR to avoid a center of gravity that is too high up.

The sticking point is that, none of the ships currently in service has been specifically designed with route 40 in mind, nor inter-operation ability for routes 10/11, not even the Chilliwack... one look at her #2 end will tell you that, but it does sound like they have something rather specific in mind, and if it does come to fruition let's hope we are pleasantly surprised to get a new ship that has as much rugged character and ability to handle to sea and the route as the retiring one does. (I'm sure that the northern fleet superintendent will make it his personal obligation to provide nothing less.)

[Neil]

BC Ferries has never had three fully ocean capable northern vessels, and traffic increases don't really justify it now.

Route 40 handles a comparatively miniscule volume of traffic and loses tons of money, so designing a 'Rupert type vessel would seem to be serious fiscal overkill. I've suggested before that they ditch the Port Hardy leg of the route, service Bella Bella on route 10, with the Northern Adventure making one trip a week south to augment, if needed. Service the central coast stops as they do now in the winter, with a much smaller vessel, connecting at Bella Bella. In that case, the new Northern Discovery would need to be considerably bigger than the Nimpkish for summer traffic.

If they do keep the full extent of route 40, then they need another 'hybrid' vessel, capable of doing routes 7 and 17 during refit time in the winter, since they don't have any plans at this time for a new southern-specific boat. Again, a 'Rupert type boat wouldn't really be suitable.

Interesting quandary for BC Ferries. I'm intrigued to see how it will pan out.

[Ferryman]

Whatever boat they decide to get, they should at least make it so it can operate on other routes. It needs to be able to fill the shoes of the Queen of Burnaby and Queen of Nanaimo in the off season. Or at least the Queen of Nanaimo anyways, so that they don't need to do a three boat swap just to replace one.

[Starsteward]

I chuckle reading all the comments my fellow 'learned' forum members have put forward regarding this whole mid-coast, north-coast service, for it seems Neil has labelled the whole mess quite correctly as a "Quandry"
And again, for what it's worth, part of the reason we have a 'quandry' on our hands is because BC Ferries has yet to untangle it's 'schizoid' ideas of what the heck they really want to operate or develop in that part of their operation.
But hey, it is good to hear the various opinions being voiced and maybe someone will get struck like old Benjamin Franklin did many years ago and suddenly exclaim from the mountain-top, EUREKA I have the solution. Poor old Ben

[oceaneer77]

yep quandary is a good one..
One more point is that the new boats are very big and in the winter/ shoulder season when empty are going to burn big fuel..
So a boat that could do the winter runs and burn much less fuel would be welcome.

oceaneer77

[Nick]

So, I was talking with a friend the other day about the future of the northern runs, and we started talking about the NorDisco, and wondering what it might look like if it was a QPR style boat.

I sent him one of my shots of the NorEx, and he doctored it to show what a shorter version might look like.

Here's the NorEx


and the conceptual NorDisco


I measured this ship and scaled it, and I figure a total length of 120m, bow to stern, which might be a little big still. The QPR was around 95m.

[Political Incorrectness]

That would not be too bad, I think Alaska might want the design though just because it looks good and is smaller.

[Curtis]

Really nice. I like the idea of a Baby-NorEx, reminds me of the LeConte for some reason. Would make a more appropriate QPR replacement. To be perfect, we'd need another one that is in between the size of the other two to act as MV Northern Adventure 2.0.

[Kahloke]

Speaking of Alaska, I wonder if a vessel similar to the new Alaska Class ferry currently being designed by Elliott Bay Design Group would be a better fit for Route 40, if BCFS is looking for an ocean going type of vessel that can also do the Inside Passage in the winter-just a thought.

[rt1commuter]

Actually, I wonder how much it would actually cost for BC Ferries to 'piggy-back' on the Alaska class ferry design here. Could there be cost savings for both AMH and BCF if BCF ordered another Alaska class ferry?

[Kahloke]

The only issues I can see with the Alaska Class ferry are size (it may be too small for BC Ferries), and the forward side loading doors. BC Ferries would need a bow visor similar to Norex. But, a design similar in layout, only slightly larger, and with a bow visor could perhaps be a good fit?

Here's the link to the Alaska Class Ferry discussion:
ferriesbc.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=nwf&action=display&thread=7081

[Mill Bay]

Sept 17, 2009 6:30:28 GMT -8 Kahloke said:

Speaking of Alaska, I wonder if a vessel similar to the new Alaska Class ferry currently being designed by Elliott Bay Design Group would be a better fit for Route 40, if BCFS is looking for an ocean going type of vessel that can also do the Inside Passage in the winter-just a thought.

The only real design element that might not make the Alaska class a good fit is the lack of overnight accommodations. Certainly for overnight service on the inside passage during the winter months, and if they are actually looking to upgrade services on route 40 if it continues, they would need to add some overnight cabins. You never know, though... maybe FSG could come up with a good hull form to support a shorter version of the NorEx.

The shrunken NorEx would probably be a better fit, with all the proper fittings to bow loading, but for a Northern Discovery, they might want to consider taking off the uppermost deck of houseworks, lowering the bridge to the deck below of crew cabins, because once you shorten the ship, having that extra deck up there might make a little bit top heavy.

[Nick]

Sept 17, 2009 11:49:20 GMT -8 Mill Bay said:

The shrunken NorEx would probably be a better fit, with all the proper fittings to bow loading, but for a Northern Discovery, they might want to consider taking off the uppermost deck of houseworks, lowering the bridge to the deck below of crew cabins, because once you shorten the ship, having that extra deck up there might make a little bit top heavy.

Obviously, this is just meant to be a representation of what a ship like this might look like. I'm not suggesting taking the NorEx design and cutting it. Doing that would wreak havoc with the efficient hull design FSG put so much effort into. Also, as Mill Bay has so eloquently put, there will be some stability issues without a major re-design.

While slicing and dicing worked well in the days of the V class and Alaska's Blue Canoes, I don't think it would pass muster to do the same thing to today's ships. Stability and safety requirements are just too high to support that.

[Nick]

My friend shortened it a little bit more. I figure a length of 114m for this one. To compare, the NorAd is 117m, and the QotN was 125m. I think it still needs to be a little bit smaller, but that will be difficult to do while retaining the aesthetics. Chopping a third of the length of a ship out is somewhat difficult.

[WettCoast]

A modified 'Alaska class' design might suit BC North Coast services very well. The major change that I see for BC vessels would be that they would have to have some state rooms, and we would want them to have loading via the bow and be compatible with our docks. Such a vessel (2 vessels, I think) would handle routes 40 & 11, as well as the Inside Passage in the off season.

The Northern Expedition may be well suited to summer tourist season on the Inside Passage, but is much too big and plush for the other two thirds of the year. Its size, however, would be welcome at Christmas, Spring Break, and in February around the time of the ANBB tournament in Prince Rupert.

This would really leave no role for the Northern Adventure. As it is, the NorAd is bigger than what is needed for summer service to QCI, and also bigger than what is needed most of the time the rest of the year. Factor into that what we have heard about the expense to operate her (she is reported to be very thirsty on fuel), her 'troubles' with rough seas, her stern only loading and finally her reliability, and you have a vessel that has no role.

The Alaska class are handsome looking and appear to me to be very much 'kin' to earlier Spaulding designs. I assume that they are designed to handle rough sea conditions well which should make them good for our (BC) needs on Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. They appear to be small enough to get into our small mid-coast locations like Shearwater & Klemtu, so no need to go to the trouble & expense of having an extra vessel like the Nimpkish providing a feeder service.

Most of the winter one vessel would provide all service. At busier times like Christmas & Spring breaks, the second vessel could be added, allowing the Inside Passage route not to be impacted by weather delays on the QCI route.

Such Alaska class vessels would not make suitable replacements on the two Powell River routes. BCF's needs to have some other solution for that, like maybe a mini Coastal class.

[Nick]

WCK, I'm wondering how you figure one ship is able to handle both routes 11 and 40? Or are you assuming/suggesting that BCF purchase/build more than one of these modified Alaska vessels.

Cabins are a much needed amenity on the Discovery Coast. If cabins were available, I can see that route being almost as popular as the inside passage, as long as it's marketed properly. If it has the amenities people expect for a multi-day trip, I see no reason why that route can't at least break even during the summer.

[WettCoast]

Sept 17, 2009 22:39:27 GMT -8 Nick said:

WCK, I'm wondering how you figure one ship is able to handle both routes 11 and 40? Or are you assuming/suggesting that BCF purchase/build more than one of these modified Alaska vessels.

If you read carefully what I wrote (perhaps it is not as clear as I thought it was) I was talking about a design that would essentially be a 'modified Alaska class vessel' being suitable for both routes 40 & 11, as well as route 10 in the off season. Obviously they would have to have two of them in order to serve both routes in the summer. I would think it quite possible to modify the Alaska plans to meet our needs. Furthermore, I think such might well be better suited to what is needed then a scaled down NorEx.

Or maybe I just want a ferry that has nice old fashioned curvature, not container ship boxy with hard chines like the NorEx.

[lmtengs]

Sept 17, 2009 16:48:07 GMT -8 Nick said:

My friend shortened it a little bit more. I figure a length of 114m for this one. To compare, the NorAd is 117m, and the QotN was 125m. I think it still needs to be a little bit smaller, but that will be difficult to do while retaining the aesthetics. Chopping a third of the length of a ship out is somewhat difficult.

I think the funnel should be a tad smaller...

[Nick]

As I was saying earlier, I'm not advocating chopping the NorEx design up and using that. I was just thinking that it would be interesting to see what a new Northern Discovery-sized ship would look like.

I was thinking about the Alaska Class more and more last night, and was looking at the preliminary drawings on AMHS's website, and I think that would be a very good option for BCF. I think, if the stability requirements will allow more cabins to be added on the bridge deck. These would be for the crew, with the current crew cabins on the sun deck being available for passengers.

[lmtengs]

Maybe our NorDisco could look something like this:
www.refvik.info/images/attachments1/114.jpg
www.refvik.info/Forum/Utsira.jpg
It's Utsira, a newish ferry in Norway.
A two page thread on this ship, on a Norwegian Ferry forum. Use Google Translate to translate the site. Just copy and paste the page's URL into the translate spot, and it will translate the entire page for you.
I'm thinking we could use something like this, but a little bit bigger. This ship holds only 22 vehicles, and I'm thinking we'd need at least space for 30, maybe 40.
Overheight space is quite limited too, but with some minor design-changes, we could fix that problem. Just lengthen her a bit, and we're good to go!

[Quatchi]

A ship to replace the Chilliwack on route 40 would ultimately have to be about the same size. Possibly would need the same or bigger vehicle capacity and a few passenger state rooms. It doesn’t need to be double ended, and probably would prefer a single ender. Maneuverability of RADs can’t be matched with straight shafts and thrusters but it would probably be sufficient.

I think, along with a few others, that a QPR clone would probably work quite well of course a few changes would have to be made including modernizing the hullform and propulsion system, but the basic concept of the design I think is solid.

The Chilliwack does get quite crowded on route 40 and the vehicle deck does fill up on the daycruise, the milk run on the other hand is where she has problems. I wouldn't be surprised that if BCF could toss the milkrun and just do the daycruise on a newer ship with less crew they might actually be able to make some money, but of course then the whole point of route 40 is gone.

Cheers,

[lmtengs]

I know it's more of the same, but I was interested in seeing if I could scale down the NorEx even more for a potential NorDisco model. My results are shown after the results Nick's friend got:

Northern Expedition: 150m

Sept 16, 2009 21:44:33 GMT -8 Nick said:

Shortening 1: ~120m

Sept 16, 2009 21:44:33 GMT -8 Nick said:

Shortening 2: ~114m

Sept 17, 2009 16:48:07 GMT -8 Nick said:

My shortening (3): ~105m


I did a little bit more than just shortening on this one:
-Shortened the ship by removing two windows-length of the Aurora Lounge and the everything including and below the solarium and the windows directly in front of it.
-Scaled down and moved the funnel
-Scaled down and moved the mainmast
-Removed entire Bridge deck aft of wheelhouse
-Realigned and rescaled the hull crease (that's what I'm calling the abrupt curve in the hull below the Aurora Lounge.
-Redesigned the stern of the ship above deck 5.
-Scaled down the BCF logo on the side.
-Realigned small sections of the passenger decks to be more appealing.

So, here are the measurements of actual ships, for comparison with the ships above.
QPR was 95m.
QoChilli is 115m.
NorAd is about 117m.
QotN was 125m.
NorEx is 150m.