|
Post by vancouverecho on Jan 11, 2017 18:26:46 GMT -8
It could be a reflection that average car sizes have been increasing steadily over the years, and the same ship in the 1997 can't fit as many vehicles today in 2017 because of increased vehicle sizes. I have heard people make this claim that the average car size is getting ever bigger, but I would like to see scientifically obtained stats to bear this out. Stats relevant to BC. We do have a lot of big SUV's & pick up trucks around, but there are also lots of little cars about too, especially in the urban areas of BC. One thing I do know is that BC Ferry car decks are rarely 'stacked' the way they once were. One should look at the growth of car sizes being offered today. A 2017 Toyota Corolla is the same length and is wider than a 1998 Toyota Camry.
|
|
|
Post by YoursTruly on Jan 12, 2017 1:00:12 GMT -8
I'm interested to see if they're going to go for a bow visor on this proposed minor vessel. Seems like a nuisance on a shorter run compared to steel gates like on the Bowen and Mayne or Howe Sound Queen. Hydraulic pumps can fail, as is evident on the SOBC, having to manually pump the doors open, and then taking the manual pump in the elevator up to the bow visor to get that open as well. Granted, it doesn't happen very often.
|
|
|
Post by YoursTruly on Jan 12, 2017 1:04:38 GMT -8
Yes, but who would ever expect one of these to operate across Skidegate Inlet, or for that matter, across Hecate Strait, or any other North Coast route? One of this new class would more than double the auto capacity of the Kwuna, and then there are the unique 'berths' on either end of the run to contend with. There are without doubt many benefits to increased standardization across the BCF fleet. But there is also a downside, and that downside may in the long run negate the benefits of standardization. Some of the downside 'issues' that come to mind for me are as follows: - Operating a 'standardized' vessel that is too big or small (in vehicle and/or auto capacity) for the particular route that it is assigned to.
- A one-sized passenger cabin 'fits all' again is less than ideal as it depends on the length of the run, and the number of foot passengers common on that run.
- A vessel designed to operate over rough seas common on some routes (e.g. Quadra - Cortes) will be over-built for sheltered routes, and would probably cost more to build & operate than would be the case with a simpler vessel.
I am sure that there are other significant factors that go against increased standardization.
"I agree. One of these vessels would be absurd on the Alliford Bay run, and I don't recall the last time service to Vesuvius or Thetis was cancelled due to weather, so seakeeping there doesn't seem to be a compelling issue. And are they really saying that a 44 car vessel is not a step down at Vesuvius?
Texada, Cortes, Sointula and Hornby have very challenging seasonal conditions, and require seakeeping abilities. I don't know where Alliford Bay fits in with regard to that, but it seems to require a much smaller boat. Vesuvius is busier but sheltered, and Thetis & Penelakut are more sheltered as well. Perhaps they've crunched the numbers and decided that seven boats from one design are the best bet, but I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually see more variation in this plan."
-The Vesuvius to Crofton run was cancelled do to strong North West winds and heavy chop very recently. Her lack of horsepower means landings are very treacherous as best in those conditions. Once you go sideways to the wind, you can't recover your landing and have to abort. I agree that a 44 car vessel is too small for the Vesuvius to Crofton run. However, there are trips through out the day that have very few cars lending to a statistics point of view that those sailings could absorb more of the vehicles overloaded from before. Really, this is due to the BC Ferries Contract stating being able to take so many vehicles per day and not per sailing. Another unique fault of the Howe Sound Queen, is that despite being able to take up to 65 under heights if loaded well with care, is that it can not take the weight of the heavy commercial traffic in the week day mornings without surpassing her load line limits. We frequently would have to hold back traffic despite having what would appear only a 3/4 full vehicle deck because we where already at our load drafts. Meanwhile in the evenings we would sail across with 6 or less under heights. The Quinitsa is currently slated as her long term replacement because she can take all the heavy weight traffic without a concern, and the rest of the vehicles will be absorbed through out the day.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 12, 2017 10:23:59 GMT -8
The Gulf Islands Driftwood newspaper has an article related to the introduction of these new vessels (or specifically the redeployment of the Quinitsa to the Vesuvius route). I obtained this link from one of Jim A Abram's Facebook pages. gulfislandsdriftwood.com/news/input-requested-on-ferry-retirement/#.WHfB31xbevtUnfortunately only the first part of the article is available. To get the complete thing you would have to pay, it seems.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 1, 2017 12:06:32 GMT -8
A new document released on the Ferry Commissioners website, regarding the Minor-44 project: HEREThe 2 new Minor-44 ferries are approved, with the following conditions: ----------------- Here's some more detail:
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 1, 2017 12:32:35 GMT -8
Some of the public comments and the BC Ferries response to the comments:
|
|
|
Post by articulated on Mar 1, 2017 19:22:19 GMT -8
Some of the public comments and the BC Ferries response to the comments: There are some very detailed responses to the questions asked. I applaud BC Ferries for providing such detailed answers to the public, which shows they actually did do their homework and thought out the vessel movements and their implications. While they may not always be so transparent in many of their dealings, I hope to see more of this type of response in the future. The answer to question #2 finally provides an answer to the question of why so many vessels had their capacity significantly decreased at the beginning of the year - they introduced new loading dimensions that were larger than previous years. Kind of what was expected, but good to see it confirmed in writing.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,196
|
Post by Neil on Mar 1, 2017 20:25:19 GMT -8
Some of the public comments and the BC Ferries response to the comments: There are some very detailed responses to the questions asked. I applaud BC Ferries for providing such detailed answers to the public, which shows they actually did do their homework and thought out the vessel movements and their implications. While they may not always be so transparent in many of their dealings, I hope to see more of this type of response in the future. The answer to question #2 finally provides an answer to the question of why so many vessels had their capacity significantly decreased at the beginning of the year - they introduced new loading dimensions that were larger than previous years. Kind of what was expected, but good to see it confirmed in writing. I strongly disagree about BC Ferries being deserving of any applause for their 'detailed' responses, in particular with regard to route six. This was, to my mind, an elaborate spin job to explain the short sighted and ineffective replacement of the Howe Sound Queen with a smaller vessel. The remarks about excess capacity were utter nonsense- the 'excess' was found in averaging out capacity utilization, completely ignoring the reality that like any other transit system, you have periods where traffic is very high in one direction, and much lighter in the other. They also made much of the 'extra' sailings to be added, when in fact there is only one round trip, replacing one that was cancelled in the cutbacks, in the slackest part of the afternoon. The only thing they said that I buy was in regard to the Quinitsa having a higher load limit. The new capacity figures for many vessels are absurd, and can't be relied on to show whether service is actually increasing or decreasing. Now that traffic figures have begun to edge back up system wide, it's insane to cut back capacity anywhere, particularly to an island with the largest population of any in the Salish Sea, and one that is growing. If the Coastal Ferry Services Contract allows them to do this, then that's more evidence of the lack of concern that the provincial Liberals had for coastal communities when they set the whole thing up- and proof that their attitude hasn't changed.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Mar 1, 2017 22:41:56 GMT -8
I strongly disagree about BC Ferries being deserving of any applause for their 'detailed' responses, in particular with regard to route six. This was, to my mind, an elaborate spin job to explain the short sighted and ineffective replacement of the Howe Sound Queen with a smaller vessel. The remarks about excess capacity were utter nonsense- the 'excess' was found in averaging out capacity utilization, completely ignoring the reality that like any other transit system, you have periods where traffic is very high in one direction, and much lighter in the other. They also made much of the 'extra' sailings to be added, when in fact there is only one round trip, replacing one that was cancelled in the cutbacks, in the slackest part of the afternoon. The only thing they said that I buy was in regard to the Quinitsa having a higher load limit. The new capacity figures for many vessels are absurd, and can't be relied on to show whether service is actually increasing or decreasing. I agree with what Neil has said here regarding Route 6. My understanding is that this route (like many others) sees a fairly dramatic increase in patrons during the summer months - I would say that it is unreasonable for said patrons to experience what is an enormous downgrade in both passenger facilities and overall capacity. The only scenario that would allow the success of the Quinitsa is an increase in frequency, and I'm not sure that's realistic given that she isn't exactly the Usain Bolt of the seas (I know, I took a ride to Saltery Bay on this ship last year). Perhaps there are others that can speak to this with greater levels of experience, but I did pay a visit to the Quinitsa at Crofton after she had been in service for a few days. She experienced overloads at each end, and she was operating approximately 45 minutes late for most of the day. Informally chatting with others indicated that this was the norm, at that point, for the Quinitsa on Route 6. There were likely other factors at play, notably that this was the first time the Quinitsa had ever paid a visit to Vesuvius, and so there could be considerations such as unfamiliar load patterns and operations that the crew was still adapting too. But it still seems unacceptable, even with these anecdotal considerations, that BCF would consider this to be a success and therefore a viable alternative for the replacement of the Howe Sound Queen. I think there are better alternatives, such as working on a newbuild replacement for the HSQ at the time of the Mayne/Bowen/Powell River Queen replacements. EDIT: I just wanted to add that I felt that the other responses that BCF gave were fairly reasonable. It is indeed rare for a public agency to be forthcoming about the questions they've received, and how they would respond, and with the exception of that nonsense about Route 6, both the questions asked and answers given were fairly well explained. That one at the end about cable ferries on other minor routes was kind of weird, though.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 2, 2017 7:19:18 GMT -8
EDIT: I just wanted to add that I felt that the other responses that BCF gave were fairly reasonable. It is indeed rare for a public agency to be forthcoming about the questions they've received, and how they would respond, and with the exception of that nonsense about Route 6, both the questions asked and answers given were fairly well explained. That one at the end about cable ferries on other minor routes was kind of weird, though. I didn't show most of the questions in my quoted excerpt, because they were all answered by BCFS as "Refer to Item #2 above." Lots of questions complaining about the Quinitsa shuffle and about the confusion of AEQ numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 15, 2017 6:28:24 GMT -8
Deborah announces what is presumably the missing-link class, between the smaller "Minor 44" and the larger Salish class ships:
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Mar 15, 2017 7:12:01 GMT -8
Very interesting. I'm curious as to what the design will be. They've already got a pretty good template for a 100-car "shuttle-style" ferry with Skeena Queen. My initial preconception is this could be similar in design to the Century Class design with accommodations for LNG, or perhaps an expanded version of the Minor-44 class.
The article mentions building "several" of these. It's too early to say how many, but I can see Routes 4, 6, 19, and 23 getting this class, ultimately retiring Quinitsa and Quinsam, and possibly making Skeena Queen a relief vessel. Granted, I'm talking quite a few years out here.
Although, my personal belief is that Route 4 should get a vessel with a proper above-deck passenger cabin, something along the lines of Island Sky. How is it that Bowen Island, a 20 minute crossing, rates an I-Class vessel with a real passenger cabin, and Saltspring gets a "shuttle" ferry with meager car-deck passenger lounges (Skeena Queen) for a 35 minute crossing? I'm not knocking Skeena Queen. It's a fine ferry, but I AM suggesting the length of the Fulford Harbour-Swartz Bay run warrants a vessel with better passenger accommodations.
|
|
|
Post by futureferrydriver on Mar 15, 2017 7:50:34 GMT -8
Very interesting. I'm curious as to what the design will be. They've already got a pretty good template for a 100-car "shuttle-style" ferry with Skeena Queen. My initial preconception is this could be similar in design to the Century Class design with accommodations for LNG, or perhaps an expanded version of the Minor-44 class. The article mentions building "several" of these. It's too early to say how many, but I can see Routes 4, 6, 19, and 23 getting this class, ultimately retiring Quinitsa and Quinsam, and possibly making Skeena Queen a relief vessel. Granted, I'm talking quite a few years out here. Although, my personal belief is that Route 4 should get a vessel with a proper above-deck passenger cabin, something along the lines of Island Sky. How is it that Bowen Island, a 20 minute crossing, rates an I-Class vessel with a real passenger cabin, and Saltspring gets a "shuttle" ferry with meager car-deck passenger lounges (Skeena Queen) for a 35 minute crossing? I'm not knocking Skeena Queen. It's a fine ferry, but I AM suggesting the length of the Fulford Harbour-Swartz Bay run warrants a vessel with better passenger accommodations. I'm not sure about Saltspring, but I know that Bowen has a lot of foot traffic. Especially during the school year when there is a large number of of student "commuters." My guess would be that the large majority of them are walk ons, and I can see there being safety issues (as well as parents complaining) if all these kids were running around on the car deck. This might be a factor as to why Bowen gets better passenger accommodations.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,196
|
Post by Neil on Mar 15, 2017 13:42:16 GMT -8
This is surprising, given that the province and BC Ferries have shown little interest in increasing capacity anywhere, and this announcement would seem to indicate that Quadra, Gabriola, and possibly Vesuvius would get a significant improvement. Perhaps they're also thinking about a replacement for the Mayne Queen. Might be bad news for Bowen, if the Mayne is retired, and the 'Capilano gets shifted to route five, with a new shuttle class boat placed at Snug Cove.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Mar 15, 2017 13:49:35 GMT -8
This is surprising, given that the province and BC Ferries have shown little interest in increasing capacity anywhere, and this announcement would seem to indicate that Quadra, Gabriola, and possibly Vesuvius would get a significant improvement. Perhaps they're also thinking about a replacement for the Mayne Queen. Might be bad news for Bowen, if the Mayne is retired, and the ' Capilano gets shifted to route five, with a new shuttle class boat placed at Snug Cove. Thinking long-term, and a little bit of a sidebar here, would Island Sky ever go to Bowen, and a future Salish Class vessel go to Saltery Bay? They've discussed building more of the Salish Class boats, and Route 7 (Saltery Bay) seems like a logical placement for one of those vessels. It would certainly be a nice capacity boost there. Capilano would then get paired with its sistership, Cumberland, on Route 5. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Mar 15, 2017 22:43:58 GMT -8
Thinking long-term, and a little bit of a sidebar here, would Island Sky ever go to Bowen, and a future Salish Class vessel go to Saltery Bay? They've discussed building more of the Salish Class boats, and Route 7 (Saltery Bay) seems like a logical placement for one of those vessels. It would certainly be a nice capacity boost there. Capilano would then get paired with its sistership, Cumberland, on Route 5. Just a thought. Looking at the current situation on Routes 7 and 8, I would say no. Considering the money they just spent to improve the Capilano for Route 8, I think it will be a long time before you see her redeployed anywhere... Unless of course Bowen Island is destined to get the second or third Shuttle Class over say Route 5 or 19. As for Route 7, as much as I'd like to see the Island Sky redeployed, she's the perfect size for year-round service on Route 7. In summer she can see overloads, but in the off-season you don't often see vehicles on the gallery decks. If they ever did consider using a future Salish Class vessel on Route 7, it would have to be exclusively in the summer since that capacity would be overkill any other time of year. A couple vessels would have to be shuffled around to make that kind of arrangement work though. The future Salish Class would bump the Island Sky from Route 7 to 8, and then the Sky would bump the Capilano from Route 8 to 5. The question I have is what vessel smaller than the Cap would operate on Route 5 in the off-season? On top of that, what would the future Salish Class be doing in the off-season? Maybe if you threw a Shuttle Class into that mix things might sort themselves out, but we don't even know if the design of the Shuttle Class will be like a smaller Salish Class, a bigger Minor-44, or something completely different.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Mar 16, 2017 11:20:35 GMT -8
As for Route 7, as much as I'd like to see the Island Sky redeployed, she's the perfect size for year-round service on Route 7. In summer she can see overloads, but in the off-season you don't often see vehicles on the gallery decks. Thanks for your observations. Powell River is your home turf, so you likely know the ins and outs of ferry operations there better than any of us, or at least better than me. I've only been up there a few times. The last time I used Route 7 was a few summers ago, and that sailing did leave quite a few cars behind, but it was the 17:30 departure out of Earls Cove, and it was the summer, or one of the summers, that they chose to eliminate the mid afternoon sailing (15:15?) on most days, leaving a large gap in the afternoon schedule - likely why the 17:30 was so full, and why we needed to be at Earls Cove 2 hours in advance to make that sailing. I see they have reinstated that mid afternoon sailing for this year's summer schedule - wise choice. This got me thinking about the suitability of the size of the Salish Class vessels. Based on what you said, and other routes that have similarly sized vessels now, how many routes would a 145 car ferry be "right-sized" for, in addition to Routes 9 and 17? It makes me wonder if future Salish Class newbuilds should be slightly smaller than Orca, Eagle, and Raven - maybe something that has an AEQ of +/-125 instead of 145. That would make it more like the size of Island Sky, which would then make it a good fit for Route 7, or Routes 4, 5, & 8. ...but we don't even know if the design of the Shuttle Class will be like a smaller Salish Class, a bigger Minor-44, or something completely different. You're right. We don't really know what kind of design form the Shuttle Class will take. The term "Shuttle", however, makes me think it will be basic, something along the lines of the Minor-44 Class, or Century Class, vessels: passenger lounges on the car deck w/ limited amenities and perhaps a sun deck above. Such a design would be cost effective for constructing and crewing. This type of a vessel is ideal for short crossings, like 30 minutes or less, and on routes that have small numbers of walk-ons.
|
|
|
Post by roeco on Apr 6, 2017 7:18:43 GMT -8
That artist rendering is pretty ugly looking
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Jun 6, 2017 8:55:52 GMT -8
Damen Shipyards have officially won the bid to build the new 44 AEQ minor class ferries. They will be built in Romania. I'd imagine they'll be transported via a heavy lift ship. They'll also be a diesel-electric hybrid vessel. This is actually a nice little design. www.bcferries.com/bcferries/faces/attachments?id=1043829
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jun 6, 2017 9:08:47 GMT -8
Damen Shipyards have officially won the bid to build the new 44 AEQ minor class ferries. They will be built in Romania. I'd imagine they'll be transported via a heavy lift ship. They'll also be a diesel-electric hybrid vessel. This is actually a nice little design. www.bcferries.com/bcferries/faces/attachments?id=1043829I agree. That is quite a nice design. I think it actually looks more streamlined than the Salish Class vessels. It appears they are going to provide sheltered solariums on both sides of the vessel, in addition to the car deck passenger lounge(s), if the artist renditions have any credibility, that is. Damen built Newfoundland's latest ferries, MV Veteran and MV Legionnaire, so they have some experience with Canadian customers. I still think the new "Northern Discovery" should have been based off that Newfoundland ferry design, rather than this used "Mr. Shoppy One", or whatever its name is, but that's a discussion for a different time and different place.
|
|
|
Post by futureferrydriver on Jun 6, 2017 11:44:31 GMT -8
Is that a gallery deck I'm seeing hidden on the inside edge of the second rendering? Interesting to see a design with a gallery deck on only one side like that (if it is in fact a gallery deck).
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jun 6, 2017 12:37:13 GMT -8
Is that a gallery deck I'm seeing hidden on the inside edge of the second rendering? Interesting to see a design with a gallery deck on only one side like that (if it is in fact a gallery deck). Looks like gallery decks on both sides. Perhaps some of this new class will get extra capacity by the use of gallery decks, & some won't, depending on the needs of the run each vessel will be placed upon. The artists rendering makes them look pretty nice, better IMHO, then the Salish class.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,196
|
Post by Neil on Jun 6, 2017 13:33:35 GMT -8
Is that a gallery deck I'm seeing hidden on the inside edge of the second rendering? Interesting to see a design with a gallery deck on only one side like that (if it is in fact a gallery deck). Looks like gallery decks on both sides. Perhaps some of this new class will get extra capacity by the use of gallery decks, & some won't, depending on the needs of the run each vessel will be placed upon. The artists rendering makes them look pretty nice, better IMHO, then the Salish class. I don't think the picture shows gallery decks- certainly not on the far side. Can't see that design working on a boat this small- the space you gain up top would be cancelled out by the lost space under the ramps.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jun 6, 2017 13:46:27 GMT -8
I agree with the above comments. Definitely glad to see this design over what was proposed - this is more of a modern-day Osprey 2000, if anything, which is a highly functional and great looking vessel - one of BC's 'best buys' in terms of value for aesthetics and functionality. The modern take on the livery will help these little boats look sleek.
|
|
|
Post by articulated on Jun 6, 2017 16:23:04 GMT -8
Looks like gallery decks on both sides. Perhaps some of this new class will get extra capacity by the use of gallery decks, & some won't, depending on the needs of the run each vessel will be placed upon. The artists rendering makes them look pretty nice, better IMHO, then the Salish class. I don't think the picture shows gallery decks- certainly not on the far side. Can't see that design working on a boat this small- the space you gain up top would be cancelled out by the lost space under the ramps. I agree - it looks like the two renderings are showing the same side of the vessel, just from different angles. In the bottom rendering you can see straight through to the opposite wall, and it's just a solid piece. These Minor-44 renderings look nice, looking forward to seeing how they look after construction in 3 years. To be honest I was a little unsure how they would turn out with the original renderings from the RFQ? looking quite boxy and ugly.
|
|