|
Post by Charles on Feb 28, 2024 21:04:26 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 Any manufacturing process is "not one ounce better for the environment"...? Batteries yes are quite nasty to produce but with the amount of electricity produced by renewables in BC, removing an entire ferry's power plant is a MASSIVE amount saved, especially over time. They are workhorses, the amount they are used, they will definitely be at a discernible difference in the amount of CO2 emissions compared to straight up Diesel / LNG. Also, what do you mean by hybrid failure? None of the hybrid vessels have failed??? Personally, I'm sick of this ""going greener BS" BS". You should get properly informed on the data (not just from YouTube, someone stands to benefit from your view) before you take a very anti stance. I couldn't open your link, but LEDs have substantial longer lifespan than incandescents as well as CFLs, as well as use less energy. Even considering that however, one LED is not anywhere near comparable to the power plant of a ferry.
|
|
|
Post by 1foot2ships on Feb 29, 2024 15:28:13 GMT -8
hi charles... thnx for the reply and the counter arguments. ide love to continue this debate about technology/ efficiency/ the going green movent..., but im not sure doing it here under this thread is the proper venue for it.
back to the new builds, i see a lot of areas which leave me wanting. besides mandating these be double enders, i dont see disadvantages in just building more spirit boats, or modernised 2.0 versions.
|
|
|
Post by madog222 on Mar 1, 2024 0:58:32 GMT -8
back to the new builds, i see a lot of areas which leave me wanting. besides mandating these be double enders, i dont see disadvantages in just building more spirit boats, or modernised 2.0 versions. It's not possible to build a new spirt class vessel, they're now close to a 40 year old design. Pretty much everything would need to be redesigned to meet current classification society rules. If one managed to do that what would be left is an entirely new vessel design based on a old inefficient hull design that predates current computational fluid dynamics and computer aided design. Much better to have a clean sheet design.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Mar 2, 2024 19:56:22 GMT -8
I really hope the BC Ferries keeps the blue line straight when comes to rescue boat area, it looks odd when I looked at again.
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Mar 3, 2024 9:48:24 GMT -8
back to the new builds, i see a lot of areas which leave me wanting. besides mandating these be double enders, i dont see disadvantages in just building more spirit boats, or modernised 2.0 versions. It's not possible to build a new spirt class vessel, they're now close to a 40 year old design. Pretty much everything would need to be redesigned to meet current classification society rules. If one managed to do that what would be left is an entirely new vessel design based on a old inefficient hull design that predates current computational fluid dynamics and computer aided design. Much better to have a clean sheet design. Agreed. I'd add that I'd like to know about the evolution of thinking when it comes to each design of ship, especially this new class. What do they learn each time that leads to improvements in the subsequent class? For example from what I recall: 1) The spirits had much wider bow doors compared to the Vs and Cs to apparently speed offloading; 2) The spirits have a way to provision the ships' food services through a ramp/crane on the port aft of the ship to avoid impacting vehicle loading or passenger accommodations (I was on the Cowichan in 2022, and a whole passenger section had to be shut down to accommodate re-provisioning); 3) The New West and Coastals had much taller upper car decks to accommodate cube vans; 4) The Coastal design of diesel generators running electric motors was intended to provide in-service maintenance so the ships would need to undergo refits less frequently (not sure if the Coastal Renaissance's woes were related to that decision). Each Coastal ship has four generators, but I believe they can run with three if crews need to work on one. I'm certain they try new strategies or attempt to fix frustrations from previous classes. I wonder what those aspects are with respect to this new class.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Mar 3, 2024 17:55:43 GMT -8
1) The spirits had much wider bow doors compared to the Vs and Cs to apparently speed offloading; 2) The spirits have a way to provision the ships' food services through a ramp/crane on the port aft of the ship to avoid impacting vehicle loading or passenger accommodations (I was on the Cowichan in 2022, and a whole passenger section had to be shut down to accommodate re-provisioning); 3) The New West and Coastals had much taller upper car decks to accommodate cube vans; 4) The Coastal design of diesel generators running electric motors was intended to provide in-service maintenance so the ships would need to undergo refits less frequently (not sure if the Coastal Renaissance's woes were related to that decision). Each Coastal ship has four generators, but I believe they can run with three if crews need to work on one. I'm certain they try new strategies or attempt to fix frustrations from previous classes. I wonder what those aspects are with respect to this new class. Did the Coastals not get wider bow doors for faster loading or unloading? I know the Coastal also got crane re-provision on board vessels. I could possibly see these vessels and more terminal upgrades to allow for crane provision to reduce dwell times at terminals. I could see the upper vehicle deck being similar height to Coastals and Queen of New Westminster.
|
|
|
Post by donatotummillo on Mar 3, 2024 18:29:19 GMT -8
I’ve had this in my photo library on my phone for well over a year. Compared to the renders we saw about a week ago now, I honestly thought this was what we were going to see. Forget where I found it exactly, but I remember snapshotting it to help me build some 3D model on Sketchup. Has anyone else seen this? This concept looks much more like a Coastal Class, but, like the recent renders, has windows below the upper car deck (which may be a sign that the new boats may have gallery decks). Personally I think this is what they should have gone with. It’s a much cleaner design. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Mar 3, 2024 20:12:44 GMT -8
I’ve had this in my photo library on my phone for well over a year. Compared to the renders we saw about a week ago now, I honestly thought this was what we were going to see. Forget where I found it exactly, but I remember snapshotting it to help me build some 3D model on Sketchup. Has anyone else seen this? This concept looks much more like a Coastal Class, but, like the recent renders, has windows below the upper car deck (which may be a sign that the new boats may have gallery decks). Personally I think this is what they should have gone with. It’s a much cleaner design. Thanks for sharing - I do recall seeing this rendering and went looking for it during the early days after we received the finalized design from BCF of the new class, but was unsuccessful. I think there have been a couple versions of this "Coastal Plus" that have made the rounds, but this one is one of the sharper looking ones. It looks like an attempt to address some of the issues on the existing Coastals, such as better placement of the bridge, larger crew spaces among other things. One thing I haven't seen much reference to in communications from BC Ferries is how this advances their goal of fleet standardization, which is something that was really emphasized during the introductions of the Salish and Island Class. Making this newbuild program "Coastal Plus", similar to that rendering, would bring this somewhat into alignment with that goal, but it is looking like we are going to end up with a whole new class. Not to really engage in rampant speculation, but maybe the intent is to use this design down the road for replacments of the Spirits, as well.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 3, 2024 22:29:36 GMT -8
... but it is looking like we are going to end up with a whole new class. That is clearly where they are heading, I believe. These new builds will be as distinct from the Coastal class (Super C), as the Super C was distinct from the original C class. The differences are many including being hybrid electric, a fair bit larger, pod driven, three passenger decks (it appears), wheel houses at the proper level, etc.
The attached photo here shows a 2005 rendering of a 'Super C' class vessel a couple of years before they began arriving.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Mar 3, 2024 22:41:18 GMT -8
Why are Coastal bridge so low compared to other vessels in fleet? I do find it an odd design choice from BC Ferries.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 3, 2024 22:53:41 GMT -8
There is also a rendering here (Shippax from 2022). Another recent Shippax article on the February 2024 announcement from BCFS.
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Mar 4, 2024 7:13:55 GMT -8
1) The spirits had much wider bow doors compared to the Vs and Cs to apparently speed offloading; Did the Coastals not get wider bow doors for faster loading or unloading? I know the Coastal also got crane re-provision on board vessels. I could possibly see these vessels and more terminal upgrades to allow for crane provision to reduce dwell times at terminals. I could see the upper vehicle deck being similar height to Coastals and Queen of New Westminster.You're probably correct. I was more trying to indicate that the development of ferries is seemingly an evolutionary process of changes being adopted over time based on the experiences with different ships or new trends in the sector.
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Mar 4, 2024 7:15:27 GMT -8
I’ve had this in my photo library on my phone for well over a year. Compared to the renders we saw about a week ago now, I honestly thought this was what we were going to see. Forget where I found it exactly, but I remember snapshotting it to help me build some 3D model on Sketchup. Has anyone else seen this? This concept looks much more like a Coastal Class, but, like the recent renders, has windows below the upper car deck (which may be a sign that the new boats may have gallery decks). Personally I think this is what they should have gone with. It’s a much cleaner design. So a Super-Super C then?
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 4, 2024 11:03:43 GMT -8
“So a Super-Super C then? “
No. Presumably they will be looking like the most recent renderings …
|
|
Jess
Deckhand
Posts: 59
|
Post by Jess on Mar 4, 2024 19:42:16 GMT -8
I know I'm late to this but here are my thoughts on the new designs for the next major vessels.
They look interesting to say the least. They have a bit of things from many previous vessels, the bridge looking like the bridge on the Spirits and Northern Expedition, the stern and bow windows from the Coastals and the arch and pitch fork decks from the Island Class ferries. The outside stairs that connects decks 5-7 also look kind of similar to the ones on the Salish class ferries. 3 passenger decks is also very good to have and will definitely be an upgrade from the Cs and maybe Queen of New Westminster too.
On the other hand tho, I find that the passenger decks look too small and by the looks of it, it will be a downgrade from the Coastals which really isn't good as they already can't handle the amount of passengers it gets during the summer time. I also find the fact that the decks are so small to make the vessels look pretty ugly. One thing I would change is make the length of the first 2 passenger decks, about the same as the car deck. Maybe Deck 7 would be a little bit shorter for the bridges.
Of course tho BCFs job is connecting people from point A to B and want vessels that can accomplish that, not ones that look aesthetically pleasing.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 4, 2024 21:06:50 GMT -8
One thing I haven't seen much reference to in communications from BC Ferries is how this advances their goal of fleet standardization, which is something that was really emphasized during the introductions of the Salish and Island Class. Making this newbuild program "Coastal Plus", similar to that rendering, would bring this somewhat into alignment with that goal, but it is looking like we are going to end up with a whole new class. A couple thoughts - I don't think standardized fleet should necessarily mean every broad class of vessel is more or less exactly the same, not necessarily a progressive update of a previous generation design. Rather it's bringing mechanical systems, interior fittings etc into greater commonality. In that regard BCFS seems to have been largely successful if you look back 15 or 20 years since that became a named goal. - the literal decades between major vessel procurement that we experience here almost ensures a clean slate design will more or less be a necessity due to evolution of technology, changes to ridership, how people are moving etc. I think literal standardized fleet assets are of most value when several ships are bought in succession, like the Island class. If seven of these new generation ships are purchased it'll be the largest vessel fleet we have seen that's standardized, the C class probably being the next closest. The seven sisters looked closely related but were mechanically more like cousins once or twice removed.
|
|
|
Post by timmyc on Mar 26, 2024 11:05:13 GMT -8
Here's the PDF of the Request for [Supplier] Qualifications for future reference in case the previous page link goes down: View AttachmentProcurement 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. And illustrating my point about the RfQ basically excluding Seaspan, here's their brand new website with a campaign that basically seeks popular support for changing the requirements to terms more favourable to them: www.buildferriesbc.ca/
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 26, 2024 18:56:31 GMT -8
And illustrating my point about the RfQ basically excluding Seaspan, here's their brand new website with a campaign that basically seeks popular support for changing the requirements to terms more favourable to them: www.buildferriesbc.ca/It looks to me that it is not actually Seaspan behind this website "buildferriesbc.ca", or at least if it is, they are working at arm's length. The Seaspan corporate logo is nowhere to be seen.
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see at least some of this work come home to BC.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 27, 2024 6:52:43 GMT -8
When a company builds their own ferries elsewhere it's a tough sell to me that they're qualified to deliver on the public's contract needs.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 27, 2024 6:54:00 GMT -8
And illustrating my point about the RfQ basically excluding Seaspan, here's their brand new website with a campaign that basically seeks popular support for changing the requirements to terms more favourable to them: www.buildferriesbc.ca/It looks to me that it is not actually Seaspan behind this website "buildferriesbc.ca", or at least if it is, they are working at arm's length. The Seaspan corporate logo is nowhere to be seen.
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see at least some of this work come home to BC. It is Seaspans phone number on the webpage.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 27, 2024 9:27:17 GMT -8
When a company builds their own ferries elsewhere it's a tough sell to me that they're qualified to deliver on the public's contract needs. I think that you also have to consider more than just Seaspan's corporate interest here. For example all the BC based companies that would be engaged as sub-contractors, not to mention all those BC workers. Then there are the arguments re keeping dollars flowing in BC's economy. That does not happen when the spend goes overseas.
|
|
|
Post by jwjsamster on Mar 27, 2024 11:39:38 GMT -8
Here's the PDF of the Request for [Supplier] Qualifications for future reference in case the previous page link goes down: View AttachmentProcurement 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. And illustrating my point about the RfQ basically excluding Seaspan, here's their brand new website with a campaign that basically seeks popular support for changing the requirements to terms more favourable to them: www.buildferriesbc.ca/The last requirement isn't that big of a deal. It is essentially asking for the tenderer to have experience designing and building ships of similar size and complexity as these new ferries. In many ways they are asking for proof that they can indeed handle this kind of work, have the expertise on hand and the team to do it free. This will also most likely be complimented with key CVs, a detailed methodology, and other standard parts of a bid. Out of curiosity, when was the last time that Seaspan delivered a major vessel of this size? Is it just over the five year mark? or are we talking decades ago?
|
|
|
Post by jwjsamster on Mar 27, 2024 11:50:05 GMT -8
When a company builds their own ferries elsewhere it's a tough sell to me that they're qualified to deliver on the public's contract needs. I think that you also have to consider more than just Seaspan's corporate interest here. For example all the BC based companies that would be engaged as sub-contractors, not to mention all those BC workers. Then there are the arguments re keeping dollars flowing in BC's economy. That does not happen when the spend goes overseas. When was the last time that BC managed to deliver a vessel on time and on budget the same way the Germans and the Polish have? If we were to remain competitive in building ships in BC we had to stand out in the 90s and start aggressively marketing abroad. An industry like that can't be sustained with a random BC ferry order every decade.
|
|
|
Post by timmyc on Mar 27, 2024 13:34:55 GMT -8
It looks to me that it is not actually Seaspan behind this website "buildferriesbc.ca", or at least if it is, they are working at arm's length. The Seaspan corporate logo is nowhere to be seen.
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see at least some of this work come home to BC.
The site was linked to in all of their official social media accounts, which are now all pushing it.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 27, 2024 16:25:40 GMT -8
I suppose all that political chatter regarding the ability of BC shipbuilders to build ships is now all forgotten ...
|
|