|
Post by Scott on Jul 4, 2018 19:35:07 GMT -8
By the way, does BC Ferries own the design for Coastal Class so that any shipyard could build more vessels that look similar to Coastal Class vessels, without a lawsuit from Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft? Why would BC Ferries not build 5 more Coastal class? They seem near perfect for the job, replacing vessels during refits would be much easier, and crew training costs would be lower. Just wondering? Yes, BC Ferries owns the plans to the Coastal Class vessels. However, the now nearly fifteen year old design would still need modifications to comply with current maritime standards, not to mention the numerous alterations for increased capacity, fuel source, etc... An RFP that will draw major players in the industry is the smart way to proceed as a new design may very well prove preferable. Sure, there's a chance the Coastal Class plans could be used and modified, but that will certainly depend on what BC Ferries receives during the RFP process.
|
|
dave2
Chief Steward
Deckhand!: Todo: Introduction post (I was born less than 100 feet from the ocean. The tide was...)
Posts: 155
|
Post by dave2 on Jul 4, 2018 20:28:53 GMT -8
Interesting that the Queen of Coquitlam's vehicle capacity is 4 more than the Queen of Cowichan.
|
|
|
Post by vancouverecho on Jul 5, 2018 8:52:26 GMT -8
I doubt that a local shipyard will win the contract to build the replacement ferries; for one, only one yard is capable of the work (and they won't be interested); and the number of ships being built won't sustain a second shipyard that's capable of building large ships. It would be incredibly wasteful to build up a second large shipyard just for this contract, only for it to be idled or dismantled once the final ship is delivered.
|
|
|
Post by Departure Bay on Jul 5, 2018 17:55:03 GMT -8
Replacing the C-class ferries with Coastal-classes would be bad news for those of us who live near Departure Bay. The Coastals generate significantly more vibration and noise than the Queens. The Coastal Renaissance has woken me up every morning this week as she idles at Departure Bay waiting to go out at 6:30 am. I understand that the noise level was a surprise to BC Ferries when the Coastals first came into service and they worked to mitigate some of the noise. Hopefully they learned some lessons from this that they can apply to the new ferries.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Jul 5, 2018 19:27:24 GMT -8
By the way, does BC Ferries own the design for Coastal Class so that any shipyard could build more vessels that look similar to Coastal Class vessels, without a lawsuit from Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft? Why would BC Ferries not build 5 more Coastal class? They seem near perfect for the job, replacing vessels during refits would be much easier, and crew training costs would be lower. Just wondering? Yes, BC Ferries owns the plans to the Coastal Class vessels. However, the now nearly fifteen year old design would still need modifications to comply with current maritime standards, not to mention the numerous alterations for increased capacity, fuel source, etc... An RFP that will draw major players in the industry is the smart way to proceed as a new design may very well prove preferable. Sure, there's a chance the Coastal Class plans could be used and modified, but that will certainly depend on what BC Ferries receives during the RFP process. It's shocking that those plans are now fifteen years old (that is a statement on the passage of time, nothing else). And while the existing plans would need to be modified to meet modern standards and for an increase in the size of ship, the benefits of doing so could be very large. BCFerries struggles, mightily, with operational complexity. Too many ship types, crews that aren't cross-berths, berths that can't be utilized without extensive berth fitting (where are the engineering specs to ensure fit). When problems happen at BCF they are often unable to react or respond, causing major service delays and other issues. When BCF does the analysis that hopefully compares a upgraded, upsized Coastal Class, the values they assign to the value of the operational flexibility they would gain are subjective. When I took a look at the numbers that supported the Cable Ferry, I saw an agency that was looking to support that endeavor, and the final analysis bore it out. That being said, BCF's recent statements about wanting more operational flexibility and a standardized fleet (which may be leading down a pathway of too small ships built for many years in the future on the minor routes) does indicate they are aware of this issue. If they go into this with the right mindset, and really model what the operational cost savings of a more standardized design that is more or less interchangeable with the Coastal Class, we could be surprised. Or they could assign a low value to those operational costs (lower than what is realistic) and we get a clean sheet design. We will see, but I don't think this is open and shut in favor of clean sheet.
|
|
|
Post by vancouverecho on Jul 5, 2018 20:00:18 GMT -8
Yes, BC Ferries owns the plans to the Coastal Class vessels. However, the now nearly fifteen year old design would still need modifications to comply with current maritime standards, not to mention the numerous alterations for increased capacity, fuel source, etc... An RFP that will draw major players in the industry is the smart way to proceed as a new design may very well prove preferable. Sure, there's a chance the Coastal Class plans could be used and modified, but that will certainly depend on what BC Ferries receives during the RFP process. It's shocking that those plans are now fifteen years old (that is a statement on the passage of time, nothing else). And while the existing plans would need to be modified to meet modern standards and for an increase in the size of ship, the benefits of doing so could be very large. BCFerries struggles, mightily, with operational complexity. Too many ship types, crews that aren't cross-berths, berths that can't be utilized without extensive berth fitting (where are the engineering specs to ensure fit). When problems happen at BCF they are often unable to react or respond, causing major service delays and other issues. When BCF does the analysis that hopefully compares a upgraded, upsized Coastal Class, the values they assign to the value of the operational flexibility they would gain are subjective. When I took a look at the numbers that supported the Cable Ferry, I saw an agency that was looking to support that endeavor, and the final analysis bore it out. That being said, BCF's recent statements about wanting more operational flexibility and a standardized fleet (which may be leading down a pathway of too small ships built for many years in the future on the minor routes) does indicate they are aware of this issue. If they go into this with the right mindset, and really model what the operational cost savings of a more standardized design that is more or less interchangeable with the Coastal Class, we could be surprised. Or they could assign a low value to those operational costs (lower than what is realistic) and we get a clean sheet design. We will see, but I don't think this is open and shut in favor of clean sheet. Perhaps if they decide to build an updated Coastal class ferry, the existing Coastal class ferries could get a MLU when the final new build is delivered so they more closely match the new ships that are delivered.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jul 5, 2018 21:26:39 GMT -8
We have had this discussion before. Yes, there are many good reasons in favour of standardization of the fleet, but there are also many good reasons to keep the diversity. The idea that there will be just five ship types is somewhat preposterous. In the 15 years that BC Ferry services has been in existence there have been three completely unique ships added to the northern fleet ( NorAd, NorEx, and now the NSW). While the three identical Coastal class vessels have been added to the southern fleet, we have also seen at least three other unique vessels added ( Kuper, Island Sky & the BS Connecter). That makes seven unique types of new vessels since 2003.
I do expect the five C class replacements to be substantially different than the existing Coastal class. At the very least they will be powered by natural gas. I hope that they reverse the deck five/ deck six thing that the Coastals have (i.e. make deck 5 the main passenger deck & deck six the auxiliary deck). Perhaps they might even forego adding unneeded passenger space on vessels operating on route 30.
In the end I expect the C class replacements to be more like 'distant cousins' to the Coastal class, rather than 'sisters'.
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Jul 7, 2018 12:28:03 GMT -8
It looks like these ships will be substantially larger than the Coastals or Cs... with an extra 400 passengers and 60 AEQs.
So if the coastal plans were considered, I guess they'd need to be "stretched" to accommodate this new variety
I wonder given the coastals are now a decade old, how much commonality can there be between them and perhaps a "Coastal Mark II" class?
Would they retain the diesel generator/electric motor configuration? Could they run them on dual fuel in that configuration?
|
|
|
Post by yak on Jul 7, 2018 16:49:20 GMT -8
Would they retain the diesel generator/electric motor configuration? Could they run them on dual fuel in that configuration? I can't see why not... that's basically how the thrusters work on the Salish class - dual fuel generators providing electric power to propulsion system.
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Jul 8, 2018 4:38:27 GMT -8
Two other questions:
1) I notice the Queen of New Westminster isn't mentioned. Would BC Ferries simply not replace her?
2) I thought I'd read elsewhere that BC Ferries was/is contemplating two ships to serve Horseshoe Bay to Langdale. Would Coastals or Coastal Mark IIs be too large for that route? I also thought I'd read that a "super Salish" may be better suited.
|
|
|
Post by hwy19man on Jul 8, 2018 14:09:20 GMT -8
In the end I expect the C class replacements to be more like 'distant cousins' to the Coastal class, rather than 'sisters'.
Could they be half-sisters?
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jul 8, 2018 18:11:55 GMT -8
Two other questions: 1) I notice the Queen of New Westminster isn't mentioned. Would BC Ferries simply not replace her? 2) I thought I'd read elsewhere that BC Ferries was/is contemplating two ships to serve Horseshoe Bay to Langdale. Would Coastals or Coastal Mark IIs be too large for that route? I also thought I'd read that a "super Salish" may be better suited. I am assuming that the New West would be replaced by two new medium sized vessels for Route 3? I don't know this, it's just the only figurative whole in their current procurement plan.
|
|
|
Post by vancouverecho on Jul 9, 2018 3:39:28 GMT -8
Two other questions: 1) I notice the Queen of New Westminster isn't mentioned. Would BC Ferries simply not replace her? 2) I thought I'd read elsewhere that BC Ferries was/is contemplating two ships to serve Horseshoe Bay to Langdale. Would Coastals or Coastal Mark IIs be too large for that route? I also thought I'd read that a "super Salish" may be better suited. I am assuming that the New West would be replaced by two new medium sized vessels for Route 3? I don't know this, it's just the only figurative whole in their current procurement plan. Reading the last FAC documents for Route 3, the plan is to keep the Queen of Surrey on Route 3 to 2030, and she should be joined by the Queen of Oak Bay year round in 2024 (dependent upon the Queen of Oak Bay being released from Route 2 with a replacement). Both ships are scheduled to be replaced by New Major #6 and #7.
I don't think pair of Super Salish is going to work on Route 3; the overloads are getting worst every year per the FAC report (29.6% in 2018 already compared to 22.9%), so a pair of smaller ships won't cut it when BC Ferries is going to be assigning a pair of C-Class ferries to the route year round.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jul 9, 2018 10:42:13 GMT -8
It was my interpretation that the intention was to replace the Cow, Coq, Alberni along with the New West at the same time, possibly replacing the 4 ships with 5. The extra vessel would allow a second vessel full time on route 3. The 2 newer C class were to be replaced a few years later.
I've been scouring the BCF website and news releases for further information on this request for proposals. I can't find any more detail other than what Low Light Mike posted above.
I'm wondering if the whole "replace the C-class" thing is a media oversimplification? It's really "replace the older 3 C-class plus the New West".
I am glad that they are entertaining the notion that we need an increase in capacity. More Spirit sized vessels will help with overloads significantly. Maneuvering at Horseshoe Bay might get interesting though...
|
|
|
Post by vancouverecho on Jul 9, 2018 20:49:44 GMT -8
It was my interpretation that the intention was to replace the Cow, Coq, Alberni along with the New West at the same time, possibly replacing the 4 ships with 5. The extra vessel would allow a second vessel full time on route 3. The 2 newer C class were to be replaced a few years later. I've been scouring the BCF website and news releases for further information on this request for proposals. I can't find any more detail other than what Low Light Mike posted above. I'm wondering if the whole "replace the C-class" thing is a media oversimplification? It's really "replace the older 3 C-class plus the New West". I am glad that they are entertaining the notion that we need an increase in capacity. More Spirit sized vessels will help with overloads significantly. Maneuvering at Horseshoe Bay might get interesting though... I imagine that a new build ship would be A: double-ended, and B: be faster than the existing C-class ferries which should allow then to maneuver in Horseshoe Bay without having a need to swing the nose around, and allows them to use the extra speed to make up for lost time during overloads if necessary.
Basically, right now, if a Spirit-class ferry falls behind schedule, it continues to stay behind or falls even further behind schedule throughout the day, while the Coastal's can usually make a very good effort in making up for any delays enroute. I double BC Ferries will get another single-ended ferry again for Routes 1, 2, and 3 again.
|
|
|
Post by vancouverecho on Oct 7, 2018 0:22:14 GMT -8
Expression of Interest has been issued: www.timescolonist.com/news/local/b-c-ferries-going-on-building-spree-at-least-5-large-vessels-1.23454471Confirmed is at least five vessels to replace the Queen of Alberni, Queen of New Westminster, Queen of Cowichan and Queen of Coquitlam, plus an additional vessel. Options for two to three more of the same class are also on the table. The new class is expected to be as big as the Coastal's and Spirit's, with a planned capacity of 1,600 and 2,100 passengers and crew, and 310 to 358 cars. They are as I expected, to be double-ended. The new ships are also expected to have some flexibility; it was mentioned that BC Ferries would like to have a convertible car deck that can be turned into a passenger deck if demand for on-board vehicle space drops.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 7, 2018 6:18:39 GMT -8
Expression of Interest has been issued: The new ships are also expected to have some flexibility; it was mentioned that BC Ferries would like to have a convertible car deck that can be turned into a passenger deck if demand for on-board vehicle space drops. A re-issued expression of interest, following the first issue in July 2018. Maybe this is really saying "We're still waiting to hear if any local shipyards are interested." The convertible deck is an interesting idea. It shows that they are now planning traffic-uncertainty into parts of the ships.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Oct 7, 2018 17:47:11 GMT -8
It's encouraging that the new vessels are to have a capacity of perhaps 360 AEQ, because by BC Ferries' current skewed standards, that actually means about 400, in terms of the real mix of passenger vehicles on the road. That is probably as big as ferries here can be, given the time allowed for unloading and loading.
Seems that we're entering a 'golden age' of ferry construction for BC Ferries. Hopefully some of that will actually be here; I feel confident that this government will actually explore ways to make it happen, if possible. The current strong state of the provincial economy, and the now certain boom from LNG revenue, means they have the resources to renew the fleet without looking irresponsible. After a long period under the Liberals where the ferry system seemed to be regarded as an annoying and very costly drain on the public purse, it seems that the coast is going to get the investment in transportation infrastructure that has long been needed.
Mixed blessings for ferry fans. Lots of new boats, but decreased variety. Quirky old ships retired in favor of interchangeable, sometimes utilitarian ones. The elimination of single ended vessels. But for people who actually depend on ferries to help their communities thrive, there's been a fair bit of good news recently. Let's hope that filters through to our shipyards, as long as those yards can step up to the plate with sound construction bids.
|
|
|
Post by vancouverecho on Oct 8, 2018 1:39:37 GMT -8
It's encouraging that the new vessels are to have a capacity of perhaps 360 AEQ, because by BC Ferries' current skewed standards, that actually means about 400, in terms of the real mix of passenger vehicles on the road. That is probably as big as ferries here can be, given the time allowed for unloading and loading. Seems that we're entering a 'golden age' of ferry construction for BC Ferries. Hopefully some of that will actually be here; I feel confident that this government will actually explore ways to make it happen, if possible. The current strong state of the provincial economy, and the now certain boom from LNG revenue, means they have the resources to renew the fleet without looking irresponsible. After a long period under the Liberals where the ferry system seemed to be regarded as an annoying and very costly drain on the public purse, it seems that the coast is going to get the investment in transportation infrastructure that has long been needed. Mixed blessings for ferry fans. Lots of new boats, but decreased variety. Quirky old ships retired in favor of interchangeable, sometimes utilitarian ones. The elimination of single ended vessels. But for people who actually depend on ferries to help their communities thrive, there's been a fair bit of good news recently. Let's hope that filters through to our shipyards, as long as those yards can step up to the plate with sound construction bids. I highly doubt that unless a new, large shipyard opens in BC from scratch, or we greatly expand a existing, smaller shipyard quickly, these ferries will be built elsewhere.
The only large shipyard in BC that is theoretically capable of building these ferries (Seaspan in North Vancouver) is tied up for at least 2 decades with federal government work. With the requirement that the first ship be delivered in 2023, with each subsequent ship being delivered every 6 months, I doubt that even Seaspan is capable of building ships at that rate.
A shipyard capable of that rate of production is required to have the capability to have multiple ships under construction at roughly the same time at various stages of construction. The only Canadian yard that isn't tied up with federal work to my mind that is capable of this is probably Chantier Davie in Quebec, but I'm not sure about their willingness to take on this contract.
Personally, I'm expecting this to go offshore again.
|
|
|
Post by jwjsamster on Oct 8, 2018 10:18:39 GMT -8
I think if it were to at least stay within Canada it would be good. I would personally make some more trips up to Quebec city to scout out these new builds.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on Oct 8, 2018 13:52:11 GMT -8
Here's an idea:
A Seattle area shipyard could build the hulls. A BC shore based company, like the one in Tacoma, could build the superstructure in sections and placed on barges. All could be mated in Seattle and floated out. Then finish, outfit, and test the completed vessels in BC at the same shore based company.
This would be better than going overseas. Representatives of the contractors won't have too far to travel.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Oct 8, 2018 14:22:20 GMT -8
Here's an idea: A Seattle area shipyard could build the hulls. A BC shore based company, like the one in Tacoma, could build the superstructure in sections and placed on barges. All could be mated in Seattle and floated out. Then finish, outfit, and test the completed vessels in BC at the same shore based company. This would be better than going overseas. Representatives of the contractors won't have too far to travel. Given what I have heard from the Ferry Advisory Committees, I have significant doubts of that occurring. What was posted in the long-range plan I find difficult yet impossible to believe Vigor would even open the Olympics contract again.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Oct 9, 2018 18:03:29 GMT -8
Here's an idea: A Seattle area shipyard could build the hulls. A BC shore based company, like the one in Tacoma, could build the superstructure in sections and placed on barges. All could be mated in Seattle and floated out. Then finish, outfit, and test the completed vessels in BC at the same shore based company. This would be better than going overseas. Representatives of the contractors won't have too far to travel. I could see that plan happening in Canada but BC could do what they did to build the Spirit Class sending them to different shipyards for different tasks. But BC Ferries could have three built in Vancouver and two in Victoria like the C-class.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 9, 2018 19:15:20 GMT -8
Here's an idea: A Seattle area shipyard could build the hulls. A BC shore based company, like the one in Tacoma, could build the superstructure in sections and placed on barges. All could be mated in Seattle and floated out. Then finish, outfit, and test the completed vessels in BC at the same shore based company. This would be better than going overseas. Representatives of the contractors won't have too far to travel. I could see that plan happening in Canada but BC could do what they did to build the Spirit Class sending them to different shipyards for different tasks. But BC Ferries could have three built in Vancouver and two in Victoria like the C-class. Except that some of the shipyards that helped build the Spirits no longer exist, and the rest have no space to build large ships for BC Ferries.
|
|
|
Post by vancouverecho on Oct 10, 2018 0:02:06 GMT -8
I could see that plan happening in Canada but BC could do what they did to build the Spirit Class sending them to different shipyards for different tasks. But BC Ferries could have three built in Vancouver and two in Victoria like the C-class. Except that some of the shipyards that helped build the Spirits no longer exist, and the rest have no space to build large ships for BC Ferries. And Victoria shipyards is primarily a repair and refit facility, not a build yard. I think the biggest self-propelled ships Victoria has built in recent memory are the RCN's Orca PCT's...
|
|