|
Post by timmyc on Feb 26, 2024 21:56:49 GMT -8
Here's the PDF of the Request for [Supplier] Qualifications for future reference in case the previous page link goes down: RFSQ_02-01-2024_-_New_Major_Vessel_Class_-_....pdf (368.58 KB) Procurement timeline: BC Ferries issues this RFSQ 26 February 2024 RFSQ deadline for enquiries 15 March 2024 RFSQ Closing Date 22 March 2024 BC Ferries completes RFSQ evaluation process and notifies qualified Respondents 12 April 2024 BC Ferries issues RFP June 2024 BC Ferries completes RFP evaluation process October – November 2024 Shipyard Contract award December 2024 Dec 2024 for contract award is certainly ambitious. Basically right around the corner! Some interesting notes from what the supplier must be willing to accept: Fixed-price contracts only: That's stiff. I'd be very surprised if anyone but the most mature foreign yards would put in a serious try. Delivery of first vessel November 2028: only 4 years from design to delivery. That's super ambitious if they're providing detailed requirements/prelim designs rather than just letting the bidder choose a design that best fits their yard. Within last 5 years, have delivered at least one 90m, 5000t vessel: vaguely-worded, a respondent could cite conversions rather than newbuilds. Expect this one to get some clarification requests between now and the RFSQ closing date. Regardless, that means Seaspan Shipyards in Vancouver is technically out - they've only delivered the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels to date, and those are just a bit shy of those numbers. Still the larger corporation might be able to bid, with the yard as a subcontractor or something, if the vague wording is clarified in favour of non-newbuilds.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 27, 2024 6:47:52 GMT -8
Some interesting notes from what the supplier must be willing to accept: TimmyC, thanks very much for this. I appreciate your commentary on this.
|
|
Citaro
Oiler (New Member)
Posts: 1
|
Post by Citaro on Feb 27, 2024 8:11:23 GMT -8
I don’t understand why the made the superstructure so much smaller, it’s such an odd look. The masts and funnels also look awful. Dreadful design, I wonder how functional they will be? The world seems to be completely incapable of designing a good looking ferry nowadays… What qualifies as a good-looking ferry? This is an unusual design, but I like that it emulates the Queen of Alberni; it's a nice way to honour her legacy and it will be a good reminder of her when she's gone.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Feb 27, 2024 11:10:50 GMT -8
I don't think anyone has commented yet about this, but it looks like they will be going with pods for propulsion, four of them with two at each end. Presumably these will be very agile and able to transit Active Pass & other 'tricky bits' with ease. Perhaps this means a slight fuel economy penalty as compared to vessels with conventional props? I am hoping someone knowledgeable on this subject can comment ...
|
|
|
Post by Ollie on Feb 27, 2024 11:24:19 GMT -8
The world seems to be completely incapable of designing a good looking ferry nowadays… What qualifies as a good-looking ferry? This is an unusual design, but I like that it emulates the Queen of Alberni; it's a nice way to honour her legacy and it will be a good reminder of her when she's gone. I really like how the Queen of Alberni looks but this “New Major Class” looks nothing like the Alberni to me, more like a big Salish. I think new ferries are designed as unattractive as possible to look different from older ones and to make it obvious that the ferry is “modern”. If they were designed similarly to the older ferries they would look much better in my opinion, but then it would not be obvious that the ferry is “modern”.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Feb 27, 2024 12:48:38 GMT -8
What qualifies as a good-looking ferry? This is an unusual design, but I like that it emulates the Queen of Alberni; it's a nice way to honour her legacy and it will be a good reminder of her when she's gone. I really like how the Queen of Alberni looks but this “New Major Class” looks nothing like the Alberni to me, more like a big Salish. I think new ferries are designed as unattractive as possible to look different from older ones and to make it obvious that the ferry is “modern”. If they were designed similarly to the older ferries they would look much better in my opinion, but then it would not be obvious that the ferry is “modern”. I think a lot of the new vessel designs seem to be prioritizing function over form (aesthetics). I'll leave it up to you whether you think that is good or not. Based on the two conceptual images BC Ferries has just provided, I rather like the looks of these new boats - kind of a Coastal Class (car deck layout) meets Queen of Alberni (passenger decks) with a little Salish Class design thrown in there - very loosely, mind you. The two funnels are a bit strange looking, but if it's more functional from a mechanical standpoint, then so be it. All of that said, it won't surprise me to see the final design change quite a bit from this initial rendering.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Feb 27, 2024 14:47:00 GMT -8
I don’t understand why the made the superstructure so much smaller, it’s such an odd look. The masts and funnels also look awful. Dreadful design, I wonder how functional they will be? You are reading far too much into concept designs. Further, the same comments could have been made in the past when we saw concept images of what the Coastal class might look like, or maybe any of the ferries before that ... Maybe yes, but why pay for such a high quality render if it’s not what they’re planning on building? I think that this design is pretty close to what is planned. The Coastal designs back in the day also were much more conventional, and pretty true to the actual built ships… Of course, this is all subjective. The funnels are hideous but if they’re more practical it only makes sense that they’d do that. I like the idea of the promenade deck but wish it wasn’t fully covered, a window in the wall of windows would be nice, as well as wind breaks at either end of the promenade so that it’s not freezing to walk through when it’s cold. The large forward scale I still think is odd, why so much real estate for outer deck space when most of the double ended ferries we have now need more interior passenger deck space… At least there is space properly considered for outer deck areas. Also the top navigational deck, I wonder if that will be accessible by passengers (the deck area not the bridge of course)? Also I did notice the pods for propulsion (forgot to mention it). I wouldn’t say they’re completely proven in the sense that the Coastal’s design was relatively without issue until the past few years but hopefully they will prove reliable!
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,192
|
Post by Neil on Feb 27, 2024 15:37:46 GMT -8
I think this is a pretty nice design, for double enders. Someone said there was some Salish class in them, but I don't see that at all; the Salish class is too tall for their length... they look ridiculously top heavy when you look at them end on.
This design is nicely proportioned, and the angled stepback of the passenger decks is sleek. Much better looking than the Coastals, particularly with the wheelhouse returned to it's proper location, on the top deck. And three decks will allow BC Ferries to easily cordon off areas not needed on light passenger sailings.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Feb 27, 2024 16:03:38 GMT -8
Beauty is surely in the eye of the beholder ...
One gentleman on Shipspotting.com had this to say about one of our west coast classics:
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Feb 27, 2024 16:29:57 GMT -8
I think this is a pretty nice design, for double enders. Someone said there was some Salish class in them, but I don't see that at all; the Salish class is too tall for their length... they look ridiculously top heavy when you look at them end on. This design is nicely proportioned, and the angled stepback of the passenger decks is sleek. Much better looking than the Coastals, particularly with the wheelhouse returned to it's proper location, on the top deck. And three decks will allow BC Ferries to easily cordon off areas not needed on light passenger sailings. I agree that the bridges are finally in the correct spot but they look too close to each other. If the forward scale deck space was smaller and passenger superstructure lengthened, there would be more passenger space that will be used more frequently (larger majority of passengers stay inside on the vessel(It is also quite cold for a lot of the year when these vessels will be in operation)). The bridges could also be further apart, meaning more outside passenger space between the bridges (assuming that is a space where passengers can be), which would also negate the need for such a defined gap between the forks. I’m assuming it’s so pronounced due to the bridges being so far back, I could be wrong though, it could just be a design style, an odd one IMO. I also don’t understand the need for the bridge connecting structure between the forks. They’re present on the Island class as well as the Malaspina Sky and Selena Queen just to name a few. Are they structural, navigational or just there for style? I’ve always wondered that. Anywho, I genuinely think the modifications I’ve suggested would be more functional and look better, I wonder what the delivered product will actually look like…
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Feb 27, 2024 16:37:04 GMT -8
Beauty is surely in the eye of the beholder ...
One gentleman on Shipspotting.com had this to say about one of our west coast classics:
Eh, I think that angle just doesn’t do them justice. Your shot of the Nanny in dogwood colours in Howe Sound should be enough to convince people of their beauty. They’re not properly indoctrinated into believing the Spaulding ferries are the best looking of their kind, unfortunately 😔.
|
|
|
Post by Ollie on Feb 27, 2024 16:44:50 GMT -8
With their current concept design half the outside deck space is completely useless when the ferry is moving as it would be far too windy for it to be enjoyable. The Coastals and the C’s with their big solariums on each end are really well designed because they block all the wind and make it nice and warm outside. The outside spaces on the “New Major Vessel” look like they will be just like the Salishes, completely exposed to the wind and rain with no protection at all.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Feb 27, 2024 16:54:35 GMT -8
With their current concept design half the outside deck space is completely useless when the ferry is moving as it would be far too windy for it to be enjoyable. The Coastals and the C’s with their big solariums on each end are really well designed because they block all the wind and make it nice and warm outside. The outside spaces on the “New Major Vessel” look like they will be just like the Salishes, completely exposed to the wind and rain with no protection at all. I think you're partially wrong. Yes the forward facing areas are exposed, but the deck below the navigational deck is actually a covered promenade. You're still outside, yes it's not the same as just having a railing, I think the massive windows are unfortunate, a railing would be much nicer, but it is a covered outdoor space for the VERY few people who enjoy being outside on the ferry when it's raining because let's be real here, unless you're wearing $1000 in Arc’teryx, are a ferry fan, or just are extremely outdoorsy, you wouldn't want to be outside on the ferry at all when it's cold or raining.
|
|
|
Post by Ollie on Feb 27, 2024 17:19:49 GMT -8
With their current concept design half the outside deck space is completely useless when the ferry is moving as it would be far too windy for it to be enjoyable. The Coastals and the C’s with their big solariums on each end are really well designed because they block all the wind and make it nice and warm outside. The outside spaces on the “New Major Vessel” look like they will be just like the Salishes, completely exposed to the wind and rain with no protection at all. I think you're partially wrong. Yes the forward facing areas are exposed, but the deck below the navigational deck is actually a covered promenade. You're still outside, yes it's not the same as just having a railing, I think the massive windows are unfortunate, a railing would be much nicer, but it is a covered outdoor space for the VERY few people who enjoy being outside on the ferry when it's raining because let's be real here, unless you're wearing $1000 in Arc’teryx, are a ferry fan, or just are extremely outdoorsy, you wouldn't want to be outside on the ferry at all when it's cold or raining. I guess I’m one of the very few people who enjoys being on the outside of the ferry when it’s cold and raining! Still, those covered bits on the side are completely open ended to let wind flow through them, unless they have those wind blocking walls like at the forward end of the V’s.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Feb 27, 2024 18:02:57 GMT -8
Maybe yes, but why pay for such a high quality render if it’s not what they’re planning on building? I think BCFS is under a lot of pressure from the travelling public to show that they are moving on new vessels for the major routes. Producing high quality renderings of what might be coming in five years might sooth some of the public's displeasure with the company's perceived foot dragging. I expect that the new vessels will actually offer plenty of outside deck space*, and exactly what they will have for horns is not likely accurately shown in these renderings.
I do, however, expect that the new vessels will look a lot like these renderings.
Edit: Added an SoBC concept rendering from BC Ferries' Dolphin magazine (November-December 1989)
*The area directly under the wheelhouses looks like its sheltered 'outside' space a bit like WSF's 'Shelter Decks', or the top deck solariums on the Coastals.
Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by credmau5 on Feb 27, 2024 19:18:05 GMT -8
Maybe they added it to the Route One list in case they have continued Coastal trouble and are desperate for a third or fourth vessel for the route. Tsawwassen crews routinely operate the Alberni, but not Swartz Bay crews. Are the route 1 Coastals Swartz Bay based? I don't know how that would work then since if the Coastal is replaced by the Alberni, the Spirit of VI would be the only Swartz Bay based ferry and the other 3 are Tsawwassen based. If you scroll through the newest one, you'll see a heck of a lot more than just the Alberni has been added to many routes. Almost every route has had additional ferries added to the listings that were not listed on previous versions of the contract, ships that have never been used on those routes, (for example the Skeena Queen is listed for any Gulf islands route, even up North, the Alberni is listed for Langdale run, and Departure Bay run, and Salish for Fulford Harbour....etc etc). Nonetheless it looks like BC Ferries wanted the flexibility to use any ship anywhere they can, which I suppose maybe they weren't "allowed" to before under contract even if it were physically possible...? Hmmm...
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Feb 27, 2024 20:00:28 GMT -8
I think BC Ferries is aiming at having the largest double ended ferries in the world again as that record was taken by, don’t quote me on this, P&O Ferries in the UK(?). I remember seeing a photo of that particular vessel and it looks kind of similar to this. Also, 2100 passengers, these are Spirit Class big. While these ferries may be comparable in some ways to the new P&O ferries on the English Channel they are in fact much smaller and BCFS will not be able to reclaim the largest double-ender crown. Length overall is 230.5 m (P&O) versus 172 (BCF new major class). Car deck total lane metres is 3600 versus 2200.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Feb 27, 2024 20:21:15 GMT -8
A model of what the original C-class was supposed to look like - circa 1974. Notice any differences ...
|
|
|
Post by Ollie on Feb 27, 2024 20:27:12 GMT -8
A model of what the original C-class was supposed to look like - circa 1974. Notice any differences ...
Looks almost identical to the actual C class, except the bridge is slightly narrower and there's stairs connecting the forks on the outside!
|
|
|
Post by donatotummillo on Feb 28, 2024 1:24:06 GMT -8
I think BC Ferries is aiming at having the largest double ended ferries in the world again as that record was taken by, don’t quote me on this, P&O Ferries in the UK(?). I remember seeing a photo of that particular vessel and it looks kind of similar to this. Also, 2100 passengers, these are Spirit Class big. While these ferries may be comparable in some ways to the new P&O ferries on the English Channel they are in fact much smaller and BCFS will not be able to reclaim the largest double-ender crown. Length overall is 230.5 m (P&O) versus 172 (BCF new major class). Car deck total lane metres is 3600 versus 2200. I knew the P&O’s were big, but didn’t think they were that massive.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Feb 28, 2024 6:16:32 GMT -8
A model of what the original C-class was supposed to look like - circa 1974. Notice any differences ...
Everything from the passenger deck up looks to be identical, or nearly identical, to Spokane and Walla Walla, which is not a surprise as those boats were the design template for the C-Class. They did end up differentiating the passenger deck superstructure more than what is seen in this model, and so ended up with not exactly a carbon copy of the Jumbos, but it's still pretty close to what the final build looked like. Thanks for sharing that.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 28, 2024 9:22:13 GMT -8
A model of what the original C-class was supposed to look like - circa 1974. Notice any differences ...
Sharp looking livery for the C’s. I like the coat of arms on the side and would have added some nice accents to the light blue / white. Might have looked a little wonky on other ships, though.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Feb 28, 2024 10:10:58 GMT -8
A model of what the original C-class was supposed to look like - circa 1974. Notice any differences ...
Sharp looking livery for the C’s. I like the coat of arms on the side and would have added some nice accents to the light blue / white. Might have looked a little wonky on other ships, though. You will notice above the coat-of-arms a life boat, one on each side. These boats were delivered without those. The photo below (taken on 6 April 1977) shows the Coquitlam as delivered.
|
|
|
Post by 1foot2ships on Feb 28, 2024 13:03:31 GMT -8
wow. awesome find! thnx for sharing! getting access and heads-up to stuff like THIS is exactly why i joined this forum 1. BBF said (on the 26th), the top most deck could be crew spaces. i saw something yd, but didnt think to take a copy of it (it was on print) but, from what i saw, it mentioned many times there would be more space for crew functions. this would explain it. 2. i too am looking forward to another hybrid/ battery powered failure. personally, im sick of all this "going greener" BS. after everything is calculated, u are substituting one fossil fuel for another equally destructive fuel type. although electricty is not a fossil fuel, there are lots of studies and things on YT documenting the imputs required to manufacture these drivetrains are not one ounce better for the environment. case study: www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-dominique-spragg-electric-aviation/incandescents vs CFLs vs LEDs
|
|
|
Post by inputrain on Feb 28, 2024 20:11:00 GMT -8
Will these new vessels have a new style of interior or is it gonna be the same as in the C class and V class?
|
|