|
Post by pacificcat99 on Jun 10, 2022 15:59:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jun 10, 2022 22:22:21 GMT -8
I like purpose design already the only thing forward end kinda needs some slightly redesign. I wonder if deck 5 will need to be opened all the time compared Coastal Class. I wonder if this will push the Spirit Class to become secondary vessels on route 1?
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Jun 11, 2022 8:30:18 GMT -8
I like purpose design already the only thing forward end kinda needs some slightly redesign. I wonder if deck 5 will need to be opened all the time compared Coastal Class. I wonder if this will push the Spirit Class to become secondary vessels on route 1? I think it looks like an evolution of the Coastal’s, which it’s supposed to be. I do have a couple comments and hopes for the design however. On the Coastal’s, the solarium doesn’t cover the entire forward facing area, I think it’s nice to be able to have some forward looking area not covered by glass, maybe that’s just me. The Coastal’s also have areas in the middle of the superstructure on deck 7. They act as really nice windbreaks and I hope that those can be incorporated into the final design. Finally, the masts are so set back, it’s very odd looking and unappealing, oh and also three tone whistles (preferably ones that sound an E Major ). Obviously these are just personal preferences, they hold no merit but still, I wonder how much the design will change from this preliminary mock-up…
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Jun 11, 2022 9:25:56 GMT -8
I can't comment on the Alberni as I haven't been on a ferry for many years (looking forward to a couple of trips this summer). But in general, I don't think BC Ferries would buy used vessels to get through a few years when new capacity is on its way. Given their troubled refits/renovations with the Northern Adventure and Northern Sea Wolf, it seems a complex and costly exercise to take a vessel from another country and upgrade it to Transport Canada's specifications.
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Jun 11, 2022 9:50:52 GMT -8
Given the Coastal Class was once called the Super-C Class, what should we name this new class of ship?
Options include: -The Super Duper C Class -C-Plus Class -The Extra Coastal Class
Thank you, I'll show myself out :/
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jun 11, 2022 9:55:06 GMT -8
Given the Coastal Class was once called the Super-C Class, what should we name this new class of ship? Options include: -The Super Duper C Class -C-Plus Class -The Extra Coastal Class Thank you, I'll show myself out :/ I could see this class being called Coastal Mark II like WSF did Jumbo Mark II but I do like the classy name of Super Duper C Class.
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Jun 11, 2022 14:42:45 GMT -8
I could see this class being called Coastal Mark II like WSF did Jumbo Mark II but I do like the classy name of Super Duper C Class. Why thank you :-) One question... what is the comparison of lane metres of vehicles to the existing fleet? In terms of passengers, the 2100 they're calling for looks to be about 600 more than than the Cowichan, 500 more than the Coastal Celebration, and on-par with the Spirit of British Columbia. So is it reasonable to presume these ships' vehicle capacities would be up there with an S-class ship? I also notice they're now saying *five* to seven ships rather than the seven planned prior to COVID (initially replacing all the C-class and the Queen of New Westminster, and adding a ship).
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jun 11, 2022 15:04:10 GMT -8
I could see this class being called Coastal Mark II like WSF did Jumbo Mark II but I do like the classy name of Super Duper C Class. Why thank you :-) One question... what is the comparison of lane metres of vehicles to the existing fleet? In terms of passengers, the 2100 they're calling for looks to be about 600 more than than the Cowichan, 500 more than the Coastal Celebration, and on-par with the Spirit of British Columbia. So is it reasonable to presume these ships' vehicle capacities would be up there with an S-class ship? I also notice they're now saying *five* to seven ships rather than the seven planned prior to COVID (initially replacing all the C-class and the Queen of New Westminster, and adding a ship). I posted this yesterday, but the article stated the new ships will have 2200 lane metres, which equals roughly 366 vehicles if you use the 6 metre AEQ definition BC Ferries has adopted. So, yes, that means these new ferries will have about the same capacity at the Spirits.
|
|
|
Post by Ollie on Jun 11, 2022 15:34:47 GMT -8
I also notice they're now saying *five* to seven ships rather than the seven planned prior to COVID (initially replacing all the C-class and the Queen of New Westminster, and adding a ship). If it is 5 ships, does this mean Queen of New Westminster will not be replaced?
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jun 11, 2022 18:52:48 GMT -8
I also notice they're now saying *five* to seven ships rather than the seven planned prior to COVID (initially replacing all the C-class and the Queen of New Westminster, and adding a ship). If it is 5 ships, does this mean Queen of New Westminster will not be replaced? I think Queen of Surrey and Queen of Oak Bay will stay in fleet for longer. I could see four from start and three more being order once the first one is about to enter service. Wouldn’t be cheaper and efficient to order all six or seven right away?
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Jun 11, 2022 22:36:22 GMT -8
If I recall, the pre-2020 plan was to build 5 vessels to replace 4. (New Westminster, Coquitlam, Cowichan, Alberni) The additional vessel would free up the Oak Bay and allow her and the Surrey to operate on Route 3 year-round. The 81 ‘C’s would then be replaced by vessels 6 and 7. Probably 5 years later give or take when they’d be similar in age to their 76 counterparts.
If we look at the updated timeline of 2029 to replace the 76 ‘C’s, (and New West) the 81 ‘C’s wouldn’t be replaced until at least 2034 based off my previous estimate. I wouldn’t doubt this timeline gets accelerated, but I think it would be a little too ambitious (and expensive) to build all 7 one after the other. Maybe an initial 2 or 3 so they can at least retire the New West? (Which will be pushing 65 in 2029) Or maybe the original plan of 5 and 2 is still on the table? Or they split it evenly at 4 and 3 like Blue Bus Fan suggested.
|
|
|
Post by lightningwolf206 on Jul 16, 2022 14:08:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jwjsamster on Jul 17, 2022 6:11:57 GMT -8
That is not a good look... I really hope that they refine this a lot more before it is built, it is somehow boxier than the current Super Cs...
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jul 17, 2022 6:21:40 GMT -8
That is not a good look... I really hope that they refine this a lot more before it is built, it is somehow boxier than the current Super Cs... I was thinking the renderings make the vessels look kind of sleek. Overall, I like the design. I would like to see them add windows, or portals I guess, to the upper car deck, like the Coastals have, but I do like that they moved the bridge up one level. As you said, it will be refined a lot more before final build plans are released, so who knows how much of what we see in this rendering will actually come to fruition.
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Jul 19, 2022 11:29:46 GMT -8
A couple of questions on this prelim design and others...
1) Does anyone know why BC Ferries has now apparently settled on double-ended ferries? It seemed they started with singles for the Vs and Bs, went to doubles for the Cs, back to singles for the S-class, and now back to doubles for the Coastals and now Coastal Mark IIs.
2) To Kahloke's comment, what advantage/disadvantage does a higher wheelhouse have? It seems the Coastals have very low wheelhouses, but they're also very close to the ends of the ship. I'd imagine a higher wheelhouse would be a key requirement for a ship like the Alberni as the superstructure is set quite back from the ends of the ship.
3) I was under the impression that deck four would be set up to relatively easily convert into a passenger deck from a vehicle. Again to Kahloke's comment, I wonder if the final design includes some portal sections if they eventually make that conversion.
4) Would the ships come with platform decks pre-installed?
|
|
|
Post by dofd on Jul 20, 2022 2:04:55 GMT -8
A couple of questions on this prelim design and others... 1) Does anyone know why BC Ferries has now apparently settled on double-ended ferries? It seemed they started with singles for the Vs and Bs, went to doubles for the Cs, back to singles for the S-class, and now back to doubles for the Coastals and now Coastal Mark IIs. 2) To Kahloke's comment, what advantage/disadvantage does a higher wheelhouse have? It seems the Coastals have very low wheelhouses, but they're also very close to the ends of the ship. I'd imagine a higher wheelhouse would be a key requirement for a ship like the Alberni as the superstructure is set quite back from the ends of the ship. 3) I was under the impression that deck four would be set up to relatively easily convert into a passenger deck from a vehicle. Again to Kahloke's comment, I wonder if the final design includes some portal sections if they eventually make that conversion. 4) Would the ships come with platform decks pre-installed? Well as someone in the "not know" group. (1) My guess will be a single engine to charge a lot of batteries. So bow in would be quicker. (2) I would think wheelhouse is depends on location of the design. You will need know the new design. (3) (well wanted this (?) and got that) (4) No platform decks, asking for more problems. And the Trucking and RV traffic is common. It has been a long time since a post. Did I hit any Truth?
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jul 21, 2022 13:15:31 GMT -8
4) Would the ships come with platform decks pre-installed? I could see design for gallery decks because they don’t take to set up and take down. I don’t see any future new building getting platform decks but gallery decks.
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Jul 21, 2022 14:43:16 GMT -8
4) Would the ships come with platform decks pre-installed? I could see design for gallery decks because they don’t take to set up and take down. I don’t see any future new building getting platform decks but gallery decks. It sort of fascinates me that the Bs and Vs have/had platform decks, the Cs went to gallery decks, and the Ss brought them back (but I understand they no longer function). Are the platform decks that much of a pain in the posterior to justify gallery decks instead?
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Jul 21, 2022 15:36:15 GMT -8
I could see design for gallery decks because they don’t take to set up and take down. I don’t see any future new building getting platform decks but gallery decks. It sort of fascinates me that the Bs and Vs have/had platform decks, the Cs went to gallery decks, and the Ss brought them back (but I understand they no longer function). Are the platform decks that much of a pain in the posterior to justify gallery decks instead? The fact that they haven't been used on the Spirits in ages should answer that question.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jul 21, 2022 17:21:48 GMT -8
I could see design for gallery decks because they don’t take to set up and take down. I don’t see any future new building getting platform decks but gallery decks. It sort of fascinates me that the Bs and Vs have/had platform decks, the Cs went to gallery decks, and the Ss brought them back (but I understand they no longer function). Are the platform decks that much of a pain in the posterior to justify gallery decks instead? There are in fact four options as follows:
1) No 'mezzanine' decks as is the case with the Coastal class right now. 2) Fixed 'gallery' decks where there is nothing to be raised or lowered. Examples are four of the five 'C' class vessels, and the Q of Capilano. 3) Fixed mezzanine decks with hoistable/lowerable ramps at the ends. Examples were all of the Spaulding single-enders at one time (and still was the case with the Nanaimo & Burnaby at the time of their retirements. 4) Entire ramp is hoistable/lowerable as was the case with the Spirits & still is with the Q of Cumberland.
I guess we could consider the Salish class as a fifth type.
At present BCFS is 'hung up' (IMHO) on being 'on time' which does not allow time to deploy any option other than type 0 or 2. On the other hand fixed gallery decks offer no flexibility in permitting increased number of over heights versus maximizing how many standard sized vehicles can be accommodated.
I remember a Thanksgiving weekend a few years back where one of the Spirit class ships was down due to a fire and Route 1 had to make do with just three ships on a busy holiday weekend. If those ships had all had functioning hoistable ramps the loss of one ship could have largely been made up by maximizing the number of vehicles that could be accommodated on the three remaining vessels. Of course the schedule would have gone out the window, but under the circumstances that would be totally acceptable.
As I see it, all it would take is a change in management philosophy with regard to 'on time' performance, for hoistabe decks to again be a 'thing' permitting increased flexibility.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Jul 21, 2022 21:12:19 GMT -8
It sort of fascinates me that the Bs and Vs have/had platform decks, the Cs went to gallery decks, and the Ss brought them back (but I understand they no longer function). Are the platform decks that much of a pain in the posterior to justify gallery decks instead? There are in fact four options as follows:
1) No 'mezzanine' decks as is the case with the Coastal class right now. 2) Fixed 'gallery' decks where there is nothing to be raised or lowered. Examples are four of the five 'C' class vessels, and the Q of Capilano. 3) Fixed mezzanine decks with hoistable/lowerable ramps at the ends. Examples were all of the Spaulding single-enders at one time (and still was the case with the Nanaimo & Burnaby at the time of their retirements. 4) Entire ramp is hoistable/lowerable as was the case with the Spirits & still is with the Q of Cumberland.
I guess we could consider the Salish class as a fifth type.
At present BCFS is 'hung up' (IMHO) on being 'on time' which does not allow time to deploy any option other than type 0 or 2. On the other hand fixed gallery decks offer no flexibility in permitting increased number of over heights versus maximizing how many standard sized vehicles can be accommodated.
I remember a Thanksgiving weekend a few years back where one of the Spirit class ships was down due to a fire and Route 1 had to make do with just three ships on a busy holiday weekend. If those ships had all had functioning hoistable ramps the loss of one ship could have largely been made up by maximizing the number of vehicles that could be accommodated on the three remaining vessels. Of course the schedule would have gone out the window, but under the circumstances that would be totally acceptable.
As I see it, all it would take is a change in management philosophy with regard to 'on time' performance, for hoistabe decks to again be a 'thing' permitting increased flexibility.
That's a really good point, Jim, about flexibility. I think of long weekends in summer, where commercial traffic is minimal, and decks could be reconfigured to take the maximum amount of private, underheight vehicles. Of course... if it was route one, more cars on hoistable decks might put the pax load over capacity, negating the benefit. I do get how the 25 minute dock time on route one just didn't allow for raising and lowering decks on the Spirits.
|
|
|
Post by inputrain on Apr 12, 2023 23:09:01 GMT -8
I gotta ask how is BC Ferries gonna afford almost 3 billion to get 7 new builds for the C class and Queen of new westminster?.
|
|
|
Post by markkarj on Apr 30, 2023 14:00:42 GMT -8
I gotta ask how is BC Ferries gonna afford almost 3 billion to get 7 new builds for the C class and Queen of new westminster?. You think the ships are going to be north of $400 million? You may very well be correct... I don't know what new ships of that size cost. I suppose it'll be a combination of on-going fare increases and debt, cognizant of the increases in the cost of borrowing. I presume they'd get a bit of a maintenance holiday when new ships replace older ones, but that would be short lived at best.
|
|
|
Post by inputrain on Apr 30, 2023 19:46:40 GMT -8
I gotta ask how is BC Ferries gonna afford almost 3 billion to get 7 new builds for the C class and Queen of new westminster?. You think the ships are going to be north of $400 million? You may very well be correct... I don't know what new ships of that size cost. I suppose it'll be a combination of on-going fare increases and debt, cognizant of the increases in the cost of borrowing. I presume they'd get a bit of a maintenance holiday when new ships replace older ones, but that would be short lived at best. I was using a ruff estimate as I assume if they build ships similar to the coastal class It would be 400 mill per 3 ships so I guess 3 billion is a bit exaggerated so I would estimate a cost of 900 billion for 7 ships if they are coastal class like and that is most likely what could happen or it could look like the Salish but either way it would probably be 100 million less if it was more Salish. Also a proposal I have is if bc ferries built some more sisters of northern expedition but larger with another car deck inside the car deck would need to be larger same with the passenger lounge Some things I think that would be good in the passenger lounge could be swimming pool and hot tub on the outside deck and lots of kid zones outside and also I think in terms of interior they should have a restaurant style similar to the pacificats because there was snack bars all around the cats and if they had small rentable stands similar to the cats like this: Because in a way they could make extra money by having these stands around the ship And one thing about the hot tub and pool is it could be located on the same deck as the funnel Anyway that is my proposal.
|
|
|
Post by paulvanb on Nov 22, 2023 9:39:40 GMT -8
|
|