|
Post by markkarj on Nov 24, 2023 12:18:16 GMT -8
I think the existing ferries are good enough to last until past 2029, but getting another old used ferry is a good idea. I would disagree with you on that one. Any time BC Ferries has purchased a used vessel in recent years, it has not gone well for them, and they've ended up spending a ton of money to bring them up to a serviceable condition. Northern Adventure and Northern Sea Wolf come to mind. For that matter, they probably would have been money ahead in building a 4th Coastal back in 2008 rather than refurbishing Queen of New Westminster. If I remember correctly, the cost overruns on that refit were astronomical. Do you recall why the cost overruns on the QoNW were astronomical? I do agree with your point about the refits for the Northern ships. It sounds like the NSW was a special bit of hell: vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-ferries-new-ship-a-nightmare-reno-of-surprises-and-expensesI'm also a bit surprised by the 2029 target time. I thought the coastals were ordered and delivered in a three year time frame. Did BC Ferries release a concept drawing of the new ships and/or a class name? I'm still thinking Coastal MK II, and I know there was a sketch that their marine architect had done up about a year ago... not sure if it has been updated.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 24, 2023 18:25:43 GMT -8
This is a crazy thought I had relating to this it is highly unlikely but one Idea ive conceived is the possiblity of having 3 full vehicle decks (2 ramps still but like a 3rd vehicle deck above or below "the big deck") if that makes sense kinda like the salish class boats. It sounds crazy but i think it could solve some of these problems but it probably would require a few minutes of extra loading time for loading at full capacity. They could give these extra decks a catchy name like "gallery" or "platform" decks. Or, 'Garage Deck' ...
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 24, 2023 18:33:54 GMT -8
I'm also a bit surprised by the 2029 target time. I thought the coastals were ordered and delivered in a three year time frame. Did BC Ferries release a concept drawing of the new ships and/or a class name? I'm still thinking Coastal MK II, and I know there was a sketch that their marine architect had done up about a year ago... not sure if it has been updated. I do not think these new vessels will be any more like the Coastal class than the Coastal class were like the un-super C's (meaning the original C class). BC Ferries has unfortunately dragged their feet a little too much on major vessel replacement & adding additional capacity.
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Nov 25, 2023 15:59:23 GMT -8
the announcement was made td the EOI would expire 2024-12. when they said they were looking forward to partnering with bc shipyards, was that genuine, or just something to hide their preferences w/o pre-empting domestic bids? what is with the reluctance to build more spirit boats? single-ended? everybody loves them too much? i vagely remember seeing something (here probably), the design specs werent owned by BCF. if thats the case, can they not simply pay more to obtain those rights? legal guys: whats the problem with asking shipyards to build exact copies so long as you dont label them as authentic copies? Don't know the legal side, but simple fact is the Spirit class ships are now 30 years old. Just as I'm sure those ships were a leap forward from the Vs and Cs, BC Ferries likely has a list of new needs that wouldn't have been envisioned when the S-class ships were built. I'm sure the plans are an aspect on which BC Ferries would spare no expense given the massive spend on these ships and that they'll have to last decades. I do wonder whether there would be some/any commonality with the Coastals for purchase of spare parts, servicing, and/or crew training.
|
|
|
Post by cbachmeier on Nov 27, 2023 14:10:13 GMT -8
the announcement was made td the EOI would expire 2024-12. when they said they were looking forward to partnering with bc shipyards, was that genuine, or just something to hide their preferences w/o pre-empting domestic bids? what is with the reluctance to build more spirit boats? single-ended? everybody loves them too much? i vagely remember seeing something (here probably), the design specs werent owned by BCF. if thats the case, can they not simply pay more to obtain those rights? legal guys: whats the problem with asking shipyards to build exact copies so long as you dont label them as authentic copies? Don't know the legal side, but simple fact is the Spirit class ships are now 30 years old. Just as I'm sure those ships were a leap forward from the Vs and Cs, BC Ferries likely has a list of new needs that wouldn't have been envisioned when the S-class ships were built. I'm sure the plans are an aspect on which BC Ferries would spare no expense given the massive spend on these ships and that they'll have to last decades. I do wonder whether there would be some/any commonality with the Coastals for purchase of spare parts, servicing, and/or crew training. I do know that about 5 years ago in 2019 I was talking with a crew member in the bridge of one of the spirit class boats and he said that one concept for these new boats was a crossover between the coastal and spirt boats, I wonder if something like that is still being considered 5 years later.
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Dec 1, 2023 20:10:32 GMT -8
I do know that about 5 years ago in 2019 I was talking with a crew member in the bridge of one of the spirit class boats and he said that one concept for these new boats was a crossover between the coastal and spirt boats, I wonder if something like that is still being considered 5 years later. Oh, do tell... what did they want from both classes in that kind of crossover/hybrid?
|
|
|
Post by cbachmeier on Dec 2, 2023 0:05:04 GMT -8
Oh, do tell... what did they want from both classes in that kind of crossover/hybrid? Theres not a lot I remember specifically other than that they wanted the bridge to be higher up because the coastal bridge is so low which has been "troublesome" from what I remmeber hearing and I believe this is still the plan but they wanted the vessels to be equal in size to the current spirit class boats maybe even bigger. Other than those things it was just a concept on the BC Ferries employee webstie nothing more and this was almost 5 years ago so thats all I can remember specifically.
|
|
QoNW Fan
Voyager
Queen of New Westminster fan!
Posts: 263
|
Post by QoNW Fan on Dec 3, 2023 19:50:56 GMT -8
I hope major route vessels will continue to have names that are easy to pronounce. It's awesome that BC Ferries is using indigenous names for ships in smaller routes, but personally I am not so much of a fan of the names because it makes them really hard to remember. That's not to say I don't respect the reason behind the names.
Is there a certain thread where we discuss names for the ships? Or would this topic just be discussed here?
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Dec 4, 2023 7:20:46 GMT -8
As a reminder, this link was posted on page 7 of this thread: www.shippax.com/en/news/lmg-marin-assigned-design-agent-for-bc-ferries-new-major-vessels.aspxIt shows an early rendering of what the new major vessels could look like. The concept shown here looks like a Super-C, or Coastal Class vessel, on steroids. It does appear to move the bridge up one level, but I'm not putting too much faith in this drawing representing what will actually get designed and built. It does seem to confirm that BC Ferries is wanting to build vessels with the same vehicle/passenger capacities as the Spirits. The article in the link provided indicates 2200 lane metres for vehicle capacity which is roughly 366 cars per BC Ferries 6 metre AEQ standard. I kind of like the design shown in this initial rendering, but I expect significant changes in what eventually will be the final design.
|
|
|
Post by donatotummillo on Jan 13, 2024 0:20:42 GMT -8
What are the chances these “Coastal Mark II’s” get gallery decks like the C-Class’ they would be replacing?
Personally I would’ve loved to see the original Coastal’s go with that design.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jan 13, 2024 0:40:23 GMT -8
What are the chances these “Coastal Mark II’s” get gallery decks like the C-Class’ they would be replacing? Personally I would’ve loved to see the original Coastal’s go with that design. I would highly doubt that they would get Gallery decks because they are going to be used on route 30 which requires the main deck for over height traffic.
|
|
|
Post by Ollie on Jan 13, 2024 0:42:28 GMT -8
What are the chances these “Coastal Mark II’s” get gallery decks like the C-Class’ they would be replacing? Personally I would’ve loved to see the original Coastal’s go with that design. I would highly doubt that they would get Gallery decks because they are going to be used on route 30 which requires the main deck for over height traffic. Why are they going to be used on route 30? I thought they are supposed to be the C Class replacement and not a Coastal replacement.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jan 13, 2024 0:57:36 GMT -8
I would highly doubt that they would get Gallery decks because they are going to be used on route 30 which requires the main deck for over height traffic. Why are they going to be used on route 30? I thought they are supposed to be the C Class replacement and not a Coastal replacement. The Coastal Class where Victoria Class replacement and only one is on route 1 permanently. BC Ferries will put them will they feel best suited. I wouldn’t be shocked if route 1 gets two new vessels and route 30 get other three vessels.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 18, 2024 13:15:41 GMT -8
BC Ferries was wanting standardization such that any new major vessel could operate efficiently on any of the main routes (1,2,3 & 30). I am thinking that the needs of route 1 versus the other routes, may mean that cookie cutter double-enders that work well on routes 2,3 & 30 may not be ideal for route 1.
Why am I thinking route 1 is different? These factors: - capacity demand - more than half of Vancouver Island's population is best served via route 1. It is the busiest run in the BCF system by any measure. - the high volume of foot passengers on route 1 (versus other routes) - the mix of vehicle types - I am not sure about this but I think route one has more under height traffic as a percentage of total vehicle demand. - Navigational requirements for operating through Active Pass. We have been told some time ago by David Hahn (former CEO) that C class can't do route 1. Judging by the past year, neither can the 'Super' C class. BCF could route all sailings via Boundary Pass but that would be a mistake as it would mean ~5 hour round trips. They need to have reliability & redundancy so that they can always use the shorter route.
-------------------------------------
Something else I have been thinking about is a 'Jumbo Salish class' with a capacity for 375 AEQ that might work for the major routes (even route 1). Is their anything operating elsewhere in the world that is a sort of Jumbo Salish that might work here?
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jan 18, 2024 13:37:05 GMT -8
Something else I have been thinking about is a 'Jumbo Salish class' with a capacity for 375 AEQ that might work for the major routes (even route 1). Is their anything operating elsewhere in the world that is a sort of Jumbo Salish that might work here? Boknafjord is probably the largest "Salish" type vessel operating today. It has a 242 vehicle capacity. Mind you, that's probably European standard. Apply BCF's 6 metre AEQ to the equation and I imagine that capacity number would be somewhat less. But, Boknafjord is essentially the same type of design as the Salish boats - upper main vehicle deck with garage below, and a central bridge dead smack in the middle of the boat. In any case, it's still much smaller than what Route 1 requires. gcaptain.com/meet-mf-boknafjord-worlds/I do have one question regarding the Coastals: why have they become so unreliable on Route 1? They've run for years on that route and now they seem to be developing problems.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jan 18, 2024 14:12:25 GMT -8
I think once the Coastal Class get new driver motors they be reliable as every very other major vessel. Look at what Washington State Ferries Issaquah Class where causing a lot problems within first 15 years and now they are most one of versatile and reliable class of vessels in the fleet.
|
|
|
Post by Ollie on Jan 18, 2024 14:18:25 GMT -8
Something else I have been thinking about is a 'Jumbo Salish class' with a capacity for 375 AEQ that might work for the major routes (even route 1). Is their anything operating elsewhere in the world that is a sort of Jumbo Salish that might work here?
I think the reason the smaller double ended ferries can go through Active Pass perfectly fine is because they are much smaller and slower. A “Jumbo Salish” would have to be bigger and faster to work on route 1, so it would probably have similar problems as the large double enders.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 18, 2024 14:40:35 GMT -8
I think the reason the smaller double ended ferries can go through Active Pass perfectly fine is because they are much smaller and slower. A “Jumbo Salish” would have to be bigger and faster to work on route 1, so it would probably have similar problems as the large double enders. You are probably right ...
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Jan 20, 2024 17:59:13 GMT -8
I think the reason the smaller double ended ferries can go through Active Pass perfectly fine is because they are much smaller and slower. A “Jumbo Salish” would have to be bigger and faster to work on route 1, so it would probably have similar problems as the large double enders. You are probably right ... Does the fact that they are double ended have that big of a determining statement that they cannot go through the pass? Scale up the Salish Class, sure you could do that, but why? Why not just use the propulsion system from the Salish Class? If the Coastal Class had Azipods and a similar Generator / Main Engine set up to the Salish class, could the new class of ships not just be a Coastal 2.0? Also, the Coastal Class have been proven for just over a decade. Obviously the exact parts they used have not faired well, but who’s saying that the Salish Class won’t have a similar issue? Maybe the C Class have been ruled out of Active Pass, but aren’t they banned from Active Pass for more pragmatic reasons than actually being unable to go through the pass? The design of the C Class was not optimized properly for Active Pass, sure, but they still did it after the Alberni was grounded, am I correct? I’m just confused in the sense that there’s a rhetoric being repeated that the C Class cannot go through Active Pass due to fundamental issues with the vessels design, and now the Super C’s are being added to it. I’m not saying that the events that have occurred are completely erroneous, BCFerries definitely made changes to procedure after the Alberni’s grounding, but everything after that I don’t think leads to a conclusion that double ended ferries are just unusable (at least up to a certain point) in Active Pass. To me, this seems like either circumstance that these parts are failing, because every single vessel has parts that are failing (and for a major part of their careers, they are not on Route 1, so I don’t think it’s logical to assume that Route 1 is a “double ender killer”), meaning the parts selected had faults in them, OR there is a fundamental issue with the way the ships are designed, putting stresses on parts in ways that weren’t envisioned and need to be accounted for in a future design, meaning that no, double ended ferries are still usable in Active Pass, but maybe not the ones we currently have. I still find that to be troubling though, every single Super C has had issues, some common some not, so how could it be that purely Route 1 is this killer? I want to reiterate, I could see the point that no matter what, they all served on Route 1, and that there is a correlation, but that just doesn’t make sense logically? The Super C’s all had these issues happen within a very short time frame, so with A TON more hours on Route 1, the Coastal Celebration lasted a lot longer on the route before it had similar issues to its sisters. In my opinion, it just comes down to common parts shared between the vessels that are clearly faulty and need replacing, similar to how car X (Assuming car x has a known common fault) will at some point, have that fault. It may take longer, it might come sooner, but it will surely have that fault. Who knows though, I’m not in a position to say what’s what, that’s just my TedTalk of a thought process when it’s come to these boats.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 20, 2024 18:45:15 GMT -8
It was the former top guy David Hahn who said that the old C class could not do Active Pass. We do know that the Alberni, when new, was on route one for about four years. We also know that it suffered one particular nasty incident in Active Pass during that time. I always considered the main cause of that incident to have been a navigational error rather than simply saying it should not have been in Active Pass, period.
We also know that the Queen of Oak Bay, when new, was assigned to route 1 for about a year. I am not aware of any incidents that happened to it while operating through Active Pass during that time.
We also know that other C class vessels have operated on route 1 after 1980, but not any time in the last 30+ years I think.
Right now BCFS could have assigned a C class to Route 1 and sent a Coastal to Route 2. I think that would be better than having the Inspiration having to make 50% of its voyages via the long route around East Point. Why is that not an option?
As for the Coastals (i.e. 'Super C') on route 1. What are the issues now that are causing the trouble? Why all three vessels? Why can the Inspiration go through the Pass in one direction but not the other. It would be nice if BCFS was a little more forthcoming with information. From what I have read it is not just drive motors that are causing the trouble.
Has Transport Canada changed some regulations that are contributing to this situation?
I note pods are being used on those new English Channel double ended ferries being operated by P&O Ferries.
So many questions and few answers.
|
|
|
Post by Ollie on Jan 20, 2024 19:10:59 GMT -8
It was the former top guy David Hahn who said that the old C class could not do Active Pass. We do know that the Alberni, when new, was on route one for about four years. We also know that it suffered one particular nasty incident in Active Pass during that time. I always considered the main cause of that incident to have been a navigational error rather than simply saying it should not have been in Active Pass, period.
We also know that the Queen of Oak Bay, when new, was assigned to route 1 for about a year. I am not aware of any incidents that happened to it while operating through Active Pass during that time.
We also know that other C class vessels have operated on route 1 after 1980, but not any time in the last 30+ years I think.
Right now BCFS could have assigned a C class to Route 1 and sent a Coastal to Route 2. I think that would be better than having the Inspiration having to make 50% of its voyages via the long route around East Point. Why is that not an option?
As for the Coastals (i.e. 'Super C') on route 1. What are the issues now that are causing the trouble? Why all three vessels? Why can the Inspiration go through the Pass in one direction but not the other. It would be nice if BCFS was a little more forthcoming with information. From what I have read it is not just drive motors that are causing the trouble.
Has Transport Canada changed some regulations that are contributing to this situation?
I note pods are being used on those new English Channel double ended ferries being operated by P&O Ferries.
So many questions and few answers.
Queen of Alberni is the only C class listed as suitable to use on Route 1 currently. I think they should test it out on route 1 now to see if it works any better than the Coastals, even though it has less passenger capacity. I wonder if the Alberni would also do the route around Saturna, or if it is suitable to go through Active Pass now.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 20, 2024 19:43:36 GMT -8
Queen of Alberni is the only C class listed as suitable to use on Route 1 currently. I think they should test it out on route 1 now to see if it works any better than the Coastals, even though it has less passenger capacity. I wonder if the Alberni would also do the route around Saturna, or if it is suitable to go through Active Pass now. Where do you get that info from? It is my understanding that BCFS will not allow any of the C class can be used on route 1.
|
|
|
Post by Ollie on Jan 20, 2024 19:56:06 GMT -8
Queen of Alberni is the only C class listed as suitable to use on Route 1 currently. I think they should test it out on route 1 now to see if it works any better than the Coastals, even though it has less passenger capacity. I wonder if the Alberni would also do the route around Saturna, or if it is suitable to go through Active Pass now. Where do you get that info from? It is my understanding that BCFS will not allow any of the C class can be used on route 1. It's in the "Coastal Ferry Services Contract Schedule A, Appendix 1 - Route Overview". The Spirit class, Coastal Class, Queen of New Westminster, and Queen of Alberni are on the page for route 1.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 20, 2024 20:15:18 GMT -8
Where do you get that info from? It is my understanding that BCFS will not allow any of the C class can be used on route 1. It's in the "Coastal Ferry Services Contract Schedule A, Appendix 1 - Route Overview". The Spirit class, Coastal Class, Queen of New Westminster, and Queen of Alberni are on the page for route 1. Thanks for the reply. I'm still baffled, however.
|
|
|
Post by Ollie on Jan 20, 2024 20:22:51 GMT -8
It's in the "Coastal Ferry Services Contract Schedule A, Appendix 1 - Route Overview". The Spirit class, Coastal Class, Queen of New Westminster, and Queen of Alberni are on the page for route 1. Thanks for the reply. I'm still baffled, however.
It seems to show the ferries suitable for each route and in what order.
|
|