Neil
Voyager 
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Jan 19, 2017 20:41:44 GMT -8
There's some very strange math going on at BC Ferries.
Look at the fleet page on their website. Pretty much every vessel has had a considerable loss of AEQ capacity. Even the major ones.
I understand how there might be a re-evaluation of capacity with changing vehicle sizes, and some vessels have had a loss of space because of emergency equipment and procedures... but some of this makes no sense.
Bowen Queen now takes 52 cars? I counted 74 this past summer. Nimpkish takes 12? Do we all own Hummers? Queen of Capilano, back to its pre-refit 87? Did the gallery decks disappear? My island's Kahloke, which can take 25-27 regular vehicles, is listed at 21. On and on.
BC Ferries has been accused occasionally of cooking the books in various ways... but this just looks like incompetence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 19, 2017 21:11:23 GMT -8
I can't think of a motivational reason for BCFS to be biased towards lower AEQs for the ships, other than for Howe Sound Queen, so that the Quinitsa replacement plan doesn't look so bad.
I can understand a reduction from old too-high numbers (such as with Spirit platform decks) to current realistic numbers. But, as you've noted, the reduction goes well past what the vessels actually carry currently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahn_C on Jan 19, 2017 21:30:20 GMT -8
Tin foil hat time: Makes all the other replacements look like a bigger service level increase. (Also makes new sailing usage report numbers look higher if they stick with reporting them by % utilization).
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 19, 2017 22:00:00 GMT -8
All three Coastals are listed at 310, 100 fewer than what they continue to list for a Spirit? According to the BCFS fleet page the Coastals have slightly less capacity than all the C class vessels except for the Alberni.
If these numbers are to be believed than BCFS should be spitting out one of those Service Notices that read as follows when they park a Spirit in favour of a Coastal:
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jan 21, 2017 19:30:00 GMT -8
I don't understand why BC Ferries randomly reduce all vessel vehicle capacity, excluding the Spirit Class because they have been at 410 for long time, without explaining the reasoning behind it the reduction in capacity.
|
|
|
|
Post by YoursTruly on Jun 28, 2017 21:31:44 GMT -8
410 is pretty reasonable on a Spirit class with no ramps being used. Its all in the type of traffic received, the capability of the drivers but 410 under heights is legit. The Coastals hold way less. Shrinking ferries seems to be based on a shrinking population with baby boomer die off coming, but people are being displaced out of the lower mainland and now Victoria due to ludicrous housing markets. With more and more online jobs, its possible to live and work from a Gulf Island, so its a bit of an up in the air question based on older information. The new Salish Class holding so much less traffic is based on a year average it would seem instead of being able to maintain current capacity during heavy summer events. Salt Spring Island for example, its population triples in the Summer time. Interesting times we live in, especially with the recent election, new CEO and CFO! Who know's whats in store.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Jun 28, 2017 22:39:58 GMT -8
410 is pretty reasonable on a Spirit class with no ramps being used. Its all in the type of traffic received, the capability of the drivers but 410 under heights is legit. The Coastals hold way less. Shrinking ferries seems to be based on a shrinking population with baby boomer die off coming, but people are being displaced out of the lower mainland and now Victoria due to ludicrous housing markets. With more and more online jobs, its possible to live and work from a Gulf Island, so its a bit of an up in the air question based on older information. The new Salish Class holding so much less traffic is based on a year average it would seem instead of being able to maintain current capacity during heavy summer events. Salt Spring Island for example, its population triples in the Summer time. Interesting times we live in, especially with the recent election, new CEO and CFO! Who know's whats in store. I disagree, in the case of most of the BC Ferries fleet. I look at the board that displays the load on the upper deck at Tsawwassen, and it seems to me that the numbers correspond to the previous capacity figures... and that's with people leaving way too much space in front of their cars. Their numbers seem a bit fluid; when I looked at the Bowen Queen page a couple of days ago, it said 58 AEQ. Today it says 61. It can actually take as many as 74. The average private auto in Canada is not 20', as they're saying. I still maintain they're just trying to make the upcoming 44s look better in comparison with the boats they're replacing. |
|
|
|
Post by YoursTruly on Jun 29, 2017 8:21:37 GMT -8
410 is pretty reasonable on a Spirit class with no ramps being used. Its all in the type of traffic received, the capability of the drivers but 410 under heights is legit. The Coastals hold way less. Shrinking ferries seems to be based on a shrinking population with baby boomer die off coming, but people are being displaced out of the lower mainland and now Victoria due to ludicrous housing markets. With more and more online jobs, its possible to live and work from a Gulf Island, so its a bit of an up in the air question based on older information. The new Salish Class holding so much less traffic is based on a year average it would seem instead of being able to maintain current capacity during heavy summer events. Salt Spring Island for example, its population triples in the Summer time. Interesting times we live in, especially with the recent election, new CEO and CFO! Who know's whats in store. "I disagree, in the case of most of the BC Ferries fleet. I look at the board that displays the load on the upper deck at Tsawwassen, and it seems to me that the numbers correspond to the previous capacity figures... and that's with people leaving way too much space in front of their cars. Their numbers seem a bit fluid; when I looked at the Bowen Queen page a couple of days ago, it said 58 AEQ. Today it says 61. It can actually take as many as 74. The average private auto in Canada is not 20', as they're saying. I still maintain they're just trying to make the upcoming 44s look better in comparison with the boats they're replacing." Referring specifically to the Spirits, we've loaded 216 up top, so its certainly possible that with loading with extra deckhands and pulling up and loading 4 lanes across keeping the load square at all times and the consistency of vehicle size, it is possible. As for the 20' I agree that seems large, but they're looking at quad cab long bed pick up trucks and the days of "boats". It does seem strange it hasn't be updated with a modernized version but then the traveling public is generally in much larger vehicles in the winter than say Autumn. Also it would really cheese off the public if suddenly their 17' vehicle was considered an OS. Don't forget that there is to be space between each vehicle to allow crew to move swiftly between cars to clear the car deck during an emergency, which is largely ignored when you see high car counts. I do agree though that some of the numbers listed on their site are wonky. Take for example the Howe Sound Queen. *Oh... actually I see they've completely updated the numbers. It used to say 70 which was an absolute farce. Its impossible to get that unless you're only loading minis or smart cars. The Bowen Queen's new number is a little low in my opinion unless they've ruled out loading the hatches lanes. We were told to stop loading the hatch lanes, but would fill in the aft ones depending on just how crazy the over load was. The reason behind that is jamming two extra cars abreast meant that it was likely for vehicles to not be able to open their doors which is a danger to the preservation of life in the event of an emergency. Actually now that I look at all these numbers, there's some interesting differences of note. Passenger counts for instance are a little boastful as they're not including the 2% safety margin so we would never actually take as many as stated capacity. Back to the listed vehicle numbers, I'm starting to think that its yearly average. The Queen of Nanaimo's crew for instance would regularly load the crap out of her car deck during weekends and Summers and not as much during week days in the winter months. high 180's and 190's are achieved there all the time. I'm really curious to know the method used for these calculations. Top speeds are also amusing, the Skeena Queen's for example, did this speed with the original high speed engines that were not designed for ship propulsion hence they kept self destructing. The current engines are vastly superior, and out of refit during sea trials with governors removed, she did 17 knots, but that is at full RPM which would be detrimental to the health and life span of the engines. 14.5 is about the top speed under working conditions depending on the tide. Being that this is just tidbits of information for the public its true to say that the information provided is not the most accurate. Going through the ship's manuals, pilot cards, and other legal documents is the only way to determine accurate information. I'm in the opinion that you're correct in that they're trying to make the Salish and the upcoming 44's look more reasonable and less ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 29, 2017 9:51:22 GMT -8
I do agree though that some of the numbers listed on their site are wonky. Take for example the Howe Sound Queen. *Oh... actually I see they've completely updated the numbers. It used to say 70 which was an absolute farce. Its impossible to get that unless you're only loading minis or smart cars. The Bowen Queen's new number is a little low in my opinion unless they've ruled out loading the hatches lanes. We were told to stop loading the hatch lanes, but would fill in the aft ones depending on just how crazy the over load was. The reason behind that is jamming two extra cars abreast meant that it was likely for vehicles to not be able to open their doors which is a danger to the preservation of life in the event of an emergency. I'm thankful that you're here on this forum. I love reading things from people who work on the ships, and learning from them. |
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jun 29, 2017 11:51:03 GMT -8
I'm in the opinion that you're correct in that they're trying to make the Salish and the upcoming 44's look more reasonable and less ridiculous. That could be true, but the on the fleet page, which, for now, only lists Salish Orca, they've lowered the AEQ for that vessel down to 138; It was originally 145. I think their new "average" vehicle length of 6.1m (20') is too big, which may be why it seems like the older numbers they used were more accurate. Sure, you're always going to have a mix of long and short vehicles, but outside of big rigs, I think 5.5m (18') is a more realistic average for a standard car length, and that is actually the standard that Washington State Ferries uses. It seems like that is the standard BC Ferries was using too, until recently (more or less, anyway). Washington's newest ferries, the Olympic Class, are listed as having an AEQ of 144, about the same capacity as the Salish Class trio. I was on MV Samish once from Orcas to Anacortes, and I overheard the deck crew say they got 156 cars on board. That was with very few oversize vehicles, so I believe the 144 number holds pretty true, and I suspect that BC Ferries original 145 capacity for the Salish Class will likely be close, as well. |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jun 29, 2017 16:13:26 GMT -8
I once agian have two vehicles, both 17 feet long. One I consider small (a chevy Volt), and the other I consider big (a Ford Escape). The major difference between them is their heights. Both of my vehicles will occupy almost exactly the same amount of ferry deck space. I submit that BC Ferries 'average' car size of 20 feet is 'rediculus'. AMHS measures their boats' vehicle capacities by how many 'standard sized Alaska' vehicles can be squeezed on. I wonder how 'Alaska sized' is defined. Name Omitted? There are international standards for car deck measurements but it seems no ferry operators on the North American west coast use them. I believe they measure 'lane-metres'. They are now listing the Spirits as having a vehicle capacity of 358. |
|
|
|
Post by dofd on Jun 29, 2017 18:30:16 GMT -8
I once agian have two vehicles, both 17 feet long. One I consider small (a chevy Volt), and the other I consider big (a Ford Escape). The major difference between them is their heights. Both of my vehicles will occupy almost exactly the same amount of ferry deck space. I submit that BC Ferries 'average' car size of 20 feet is 'rediculus'. AMHS measures their boats' vehicle capacities by how many 'standard sized Alaska' vehicles can be squeezed on. I wonder how 'Alaska sized' is defined. Name Omitted ? There are international standards for car deck measurements but it seems no ferry operators on the North American west coast use them. I believe they measure 'lane-metres'. They are now listing the Spirits as having a vehicle capacity of 358. 20 ft is really high. My F-150 Super Cab with a 6.5 foot bed is 5.9 m (19.3 ft). I think 17 ft for a Volt and Escape must be a little high. (A 2017 Ford Escape is listed at 14.8 ft / 4.5 m.) |
|
|
|
Post by yak on Jun 29, 2017 19:46:47 GMT -8
Not a big fan of "AEQ" but I know that capacities have to be measured somehow, especially with a run like Route 9 where 100% of deck space reserved isn't uncommon. The Queen of Nanaimo has been run with a reserved AEQ of 180 and I've had loads where 170 cars have felt tight and I've had loads where I've nearly gotten 200 vehicles on after standbys. The flaw with AEQ on a boat like the Nanaimo is that length is only one important consideration. Height is really important too but a major factor on a full load is width. For 180+ to fit as advertised the ship needs the right mix of traffic. There are 20ft reserved vehicles that may be campers but count the same as a Mini or a Smart car as far as AEQ is concerned. Four lanes of traffic across on either side of the center casing is essential to achieving a full load but this is only possible if there is the right ratio of wide and narrow vehicles and a really good Deckhand splitting traffic at the stern of the vessel. Anyway, another reason for a shrinking AEQ other than the way in which the calculation is done is that some spaces are no longer used on a deck. For example, on the Queen of Nanaimo there was a time when the lane space on the adjustable ramps to Deck 3 were included as parking areas. Now cars are no longer parked on them (unless the C/O is cheating a little with an axle parked "over the hinge"...  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jun 30, 2017 8:25:06 GMT -8
As part of planning work in the Local Government context, we regulate things like parking spots per square footage of retail space, how big those parking spots should be, etc. There are fairly basic minimum standards that each municipality sets out, and that is largely based on the average size of vehicles in that geographic area. At the nearby Fort St. John Walmart, for example, my Honda CRV takes up roughly half the length of a total space. In Vancouver, it would be considered a "larger" vehicle and not fit properly into many of the small car spaces that exist there. When parking spots are stagnant and land is readily available, granting additional space for lifted pickups and excessively large vehicles is not a problem, however the challenges that BCF faces when dealing with a wide variety of vehicles in varying conditions is definitely apparent.
On routes where reserved space is at a premium, I can definitely understand the challenges with determining precisely the number of vehicles that will make it on board. However, when it comes to determining actual capacity for the ship, I think we can conclude that trying to pin-point down an exact number is pretty much impossible - it depends on conditions, types of vehicles on board, weight/displacement capacities, varying regulations on ships as to where vehicles can be parked on the deck, etc.
As an aside, it's discussions like these where I am definitely thankful for the tremendous amount of insight and variety of viewpoints this forum has to offer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 30, 2017 18:26:16 GMT -8
Excerpt from the BCFS "Management's Discussion & Analysis" report for the year ended March 31, 2017, released today:
|
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 19, 2017 14:45:13 GMT -8
AMHS measures their boats' vehicle capacities by how many 'standard sized Alaska' vehicles can be squeezed on. I wonder how 'Alaska sized' is defined. 10' by 20'. It is larger than most private vehicles, but smaller than freezer vans. I don't know how they came to that designation, but there is a footnote in the Day Boat ACF study that indicates that the Alaska Class was looking at having narrower lanes (2@8', 2@8.5' and one @10'). |
|
|
|
Post by ragingpotatoyt on Aug 27, 2017 21:33:45 GMT -8
It's interesting cuz 5 years ago The spirt class capacity was 430 (give or take a few) but now it's only 30 more than that of the super c class ferries plz explain someone!
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 27, 2017 21:49:37 GMT -8
It's interesting cuz 5 years ago The spirt class capacity was 430 (give or take a few) but now it's only 30 more than that of the super c class ferries plz explain someone! A clue to help you: What did the Spirit ferries used to have on their main car deck, but that isn't operational anymore? |
|
|
|
Post by ragingpotatoyt on Aug 27, 2017 21:50:51 GMT -8
It's interesting cuz 5 years ago The spirt class capacity was 430 (give or take a few) but now it's only 30 more than that of the super c class ferries plz explain someone! A clue to help you: What did the Spirit ferries used to have on their main car deck, but that isn't operational anymore? They had platform decks that totally passed my mind |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 27, 2017 22:09:02 GMT -8
A clue to help you: What did the Spirit ferries used to have on their main car deck, but that isn't operational anymore? They had platform decks that totally passed my mind Well done, young spud. Next week, we will explain the comma. |
|
|
|
Post by ragingpotatoyt on Aug 27, 2017 22:11:08 GMT -8
They had platform decks that totally passed my mind Well done, young spud. Next week, we will explain the comma. My point was that even though the platforms were barley used in years leading up to their all together removal the spirits capacity was way bigger than a majority if not all the fleet |
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Aug 28, 2017 18:40:57 GMT -8
Well done, young spud. Next week, we will explain the comma. My point was that even though the platforms were barley used in years leading up to their all together removal the spirits capacity was way bigger than a majority if not all the fleet "Barely" used... Where they used at all? |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 28, 2017 19:23:00 GMT -8
My point was that even though the platforms were barley used in years leading up to their all together removal the spirits capacity was way bigger than a majority if not all the fleet "Barely" used... Where they used at all? Where? On the Mayne car deck, of course. |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Sept 20, 2017 13:48:47 GMT -8
Another note on how silly the new AEQ figures are...
The cable ferry's capacity is listed as 45. Yesterday, they had 57 on board, and to my eye, it was a pretty representative mix of various sized cars, SUVs and pick ups. 57 is apparently the record, but the deckhand said they've reached it on a number of occasions. The true AEQ capacity would be no less than 52, not 45.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Jan 14, 2019 21:26:06 GMT -8
So... I chose the wrong day for a ferry excursion today. Hadn't been on the Spirit of British Columbia since its Polish renewal last year, and when I looked at the schedule a few weeks back, she was the number one boat out of Tsawwassen, with a departure at 11am. I was planning on a trip today, but when I checked, I saw she wasn't in service; the Coastal Renaissance did that departure. Phooey.
Anyway... it looked nice and sunny outside at my place in Surrey, so I decided to go. Driving down to lower ground, the fog set in. I hoped it would lift as the day progressed.
Well, it didn't, really. Until we were about ten minutes out of Swartz Bay. Lovely and warm there, and it burnt off a bit more so that the first half hour or so on the return journey was clear. Active Pass, though, was invisible, other than Helen Point.
Still, it was a novelty being on a Coastal with everything open, since I'm usually on route thirty. The chocolate cake was good... I don't usually have the opportunity these days, either travelling at brunch time, or too close to dinner. Idle ferry fandom has its advantages.
Anyway, again... I'm posting in the 'shrinking ferries' thread. I counted the cars exiting at Swartz- 172 from the top deck. There looked to be room for maybe five more. So that gives an AEQ capacity of 354, or close to the original claimed capacity of 360. Given the wasted space where the deck crew no longer pull vehicles up tight behind each other, I think the Coastals could easily have an effective capacity of 380. The website says 310.
I still don't get that formula. We all like the shave years off our age or add points to our IQ. Maybe after a couple of glasses of wine, Deborah Marshall might share why BC Ferries insists on making themselves smaller than they are.
|
|
)
