Jump to content

Real Inside passage from Seattle


Sunburg1
 Share

Recommended Posts

My understanding is that ships cannot go straight up from Seattle and pass between the East shore of Vancouver Island and the mainland because of a bridge that is too low. Yet I see cruise lines (NCL at least) clearly show routes that do this. seems like fraud to me. Am I wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they go this way? They'd have to pass through Seymour Narrows, which requires careful timing to get the right tides. Most itineraries don't have the time budget to allow for this kind of detour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that ships cannot go straight up from Seattle and pass between the East shore of Vancouver Island and the mainland because of a bridge that is too low.

 

If there is a bridge between Vancouver Island and the mainland, you have to let those of us who are here know where. I'd want to!

 

I think the real reason is cost. Inside Passage may require a pilot for the whole voyage? I'm not certain on this one though.

 

There's the need to call at Victoria to conform to PVSA. That may be the easiest port for Seattle.

 

I did see a Disney ship heading south on the inside passage for Seattle August or September 2015. Was rather surprised by this (where I was staying, I could see the cruise and other ships heading up and down the passage).

 

FWIW, I think the Seymour Narrows tide is a lame excuse. The ships have more than enough time given they all pretty much leave and arrive at Vancouver at the same time. I usually see the ships around Little River (Comox) heading for Vancouver in the evening so they have 7-10 hours to putt down to Vancouver (no even 100-110 km).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No bridge involved. Seattle routes have a mandatory foreign port stop at Victoria (on Vancouver Is.) and in order to get there in time they go west of the island where they can go full speed. Usually the afternoon/night after Ketchikan and then most of the following day. Just did that a couple weeks ago. The round-trip cruises out of Vancouver use the "inside passage" but visit different ports and often no Glacier Bay or Hubbard Glacier stops due to distance. Seymour Narrows is often transited at night depending on tide.

 

Only bridges I can think of anywhere involving Alaska bound ships might be Deception Pass at Whidbey Is. (and cruise ships don't go there) and ships out of Vancouver under the Lions Gate Bridge which is plenty tall for any ships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The round-trip cruises out of Vancouver use the "inside passage" but visit different ports and often no Glacier Bay or Hubbard Glacier stops due to distance.

 

Depends on whether the cruise line can get/want to pay for rights. HAL Nieuw Amsterdam and Volendam go to Glacier Bay out of Vancouver.

 

The HAL ships out of Seattle either do Glacier Bay or Hubbard but not both.

 

Seymour Narrows is often transited at night depending on tide.

 

Given the proximity to Vancouver and ship arrival/departure times, I wouldn't expect any different.

 

Only bridges I can think of anywhere involving Alaska bound ships might be Deception Pass at Whidbey Is. (and cruise ships don't go there) and ships out of Vancouver under the Lions Gate Bridge which is plenty tall for any ships.

 

If you can get a normal size (for these days) cruise ship through Deception Pass, I want to see that!

 

Lions Gate bridge is actually too low at high tide for some really tall ships. Doesnt affect most cruise ships that ply the waters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No bridge involved. Seattle routes have a mandatory foreign port stop at Victoria (on Vancouver Is.) and in order to get there in time they go west of the island where they can go full speed. Usually the afternoon/night after Ketchikan and then most of the following day. Just did that a couple weeks ago. The round-trip cruises out of Vancouver use the "inside passage" but visit different ports and often no Glacier Bay or Hubbard Glacier stops due to distance. Seymour Narrows is often transited at night depending on tide.

 

Only bridges I can think of anywhere involving Alaska bound ships might be Deception Pass at Whidbey Is. (and cruise ships don't go there) and ships out of Vancouver under the Lions Gate Bridge which is plenty tall for any ships.

 

 

The bridge is high enough. If a cruise ship went through Deception Pass, there is a good possibility that the $600 million cruise ship would be destroyed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet I see cruise lines (NCL at least) clearly show routes that do this. seems like fraud to me. Am I wrong?

 

 

There was a thread about a year ago (either the Alaska or the NCL Board most likely) that talked about NCL showing one of it's ships (Jewel I believe) going to the North of Vancouver Island and how that ship does not actually go that way. Lot's of debate of how it might have been fraud/deception etc. if you want to search for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that it's partly a question of traffic congestion in the Georgia Strait and farther north between Vancouver Island and the mainland, plus the longer distance to cover between Seattle and Ketchikan (roughly 100 nm between Seattle and Vancouver.) By sailing outside of Vancouver Island, even with the slightly longer overall route (in nm) the Seattle ships can travel at a higher speed through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and on the open ocean, which means they can keep roughly the same departure and arrival times farther north. But they do so at the expense of the scenery along the eastern "Inside Passage" route past Vancouver Island compared to what passengers on the Vancouver departures see.

 

Regarding the Victoria stops for the Seattle boats, the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA, not the "Jones Act" which applies to cargo ships) requires that round trip sailings on foreign-registered vessels from US ports must call at a "foreign" port, hence Victoria. The PVSA requires that one-way trips between US ports (e.g. Seattle to Seward) must include a stop at a "distant foreign" port, of which there are none in Canada, thus impossible under the law.

 

The same problem faced Hawaii round trips years ago - the Honolulu round trips had to sail huge distances to call at Fanning Island, in the Republic of Kiribati, in order to meet this requirement. NCL responded by modifying some older ships so they could be re-flagged as US bottoms, so they could do the round trips without the "international" portion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that it's partly a question of traffic congestion in the Georgia Strait and farther north between Vancouver Island and the mainland, plus the longer distance to cover between Seattle and Ketchikan (roughly 100 nm between Seattle and Vancouver.) By sailing outside of Vancouver Island, even with the slightly longer overall route (in nm) the Seattle ships can travel at a higher speed through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and on the open ocean, which means they can keep roughly the same departure and arrival times farther north. But they do so at the expense of the scenery along the eastern "Inside Passage" route past Vancouver Island compared to what passengers on the Vancouver departures see.

 

Regarding the Victoria stops for the Seattle boats, the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA, not the "Jones Act" which applies to cargo ships) requires that round trip sailings on foreign-registered vessels from US ports must call at a "foreign" port, hence Victoria. The PVSA requires that one-way trips between US ports (e.g. Seattle to Seward) must include a stop at a "distant foreign" port, of which there are none in Canada, thus impossible under the law.

 

The same problem faced Hawaii round trips years ago - the Honolulu round trips had to sail huge distances to call at Fanning Island, in the Republic of Kiribati, in order to meet this requirement. NCL responded by modifying some older ships so they could be re-flagged as US bottoms, so they could do the round trips without the "international" portion.

 

Thank you for posting this - good information. There is always confusion regarding cruising in our region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on watching Emerald Princess for most of a couple days (and overnight) that particular Seattle r/t itinerary returns south outside the island. We, on Oosterdam, as well as NCL Pearl were all together with Emerald Princess (relatively speaking) and in sight of each other most of the last days to Victoria. Not sure about other Princess itineraries. We did however pass inside the Queen Charlotte Islands (Haida Gwaii) on the way south from Ketchikan but then went outside Vancouver Is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on watching Emerald Princess for most of a couple days (and overnight) that particular Seattle r/t itinerary returns south outside the island. We, on Oosterdam, as well as NCL Pearl were all together with Emerald Princess (relatively speaking) and in sight of each other most of the last days to Victoria. Not sure about other Princess itineraries. We did however pass inside the Queen Charlotte Islands (Haida Gwaii) on the way south from Ketchikan but then went outside Vancouver Is.

 

Here is the route shown for the Emerald Princess:

AST070lg.jpg

 

The route in my previous post is for the Ruby Princess next summer. Even the one for the Ruby princess this summer is different than the one for next summer. Here is the Ruby one for this summer:

 

ASG070lg.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Would be nice if they all could go inside. We had a lot of rough water both ways outside Vancouver Is. and due to needing to "make miles" and go full speed the captain was reluctant to use stabilizers. Maybe Carnival is re-routing it's fleets (HAL and Princess) for smoother water. But HAL's 2018 maps all show "outside" routes. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I think the Seymour Narrows tide is a lame excuse. The ships have more than enough time given they all pretty much leave and arrive at Vancouver at the same time. I usually see the ships around Little River (Comox) heading for Vancouver in the evening so they have 7-10 hours to putt down to Vancouver (no even 100-110 km).

It's not the tides, it's the currents created by the tides. http://www.dairiki.org/tides/daily.php/sey If there's a 10-knot current due to the tides and the ship is going 18 knots, it's only proceeding at 8 knots and that's going to make things very dicey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tide or current, same effect. There is enough slack.

 

Here's a hint, as I've already mentioned, as to why the Inside Passage isn't used.

 

http://www.professionalmariner.com/December-January-2010/BC-pilot-boat-navigates-rocky-waters-and-narrow-passages-during-cruise-season/

 

Not one but TWO pilots!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am bewildered by the posts I have seen in response to my original one.

 

So far I have seen there is no bridge, and that there is a bridge that is too low for the big ships.

 

I have seen that that the currents are too dangerous and that ships leaving from Vancouver go this way every day.

 

What I was getting at was that advertising a route that you have no intention of following, and Princess at least do is fraud.

 

Someone said “why would they?” to me it is a far more scenic and smooth way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ships leaving Vancouver have an itinerary with enough slack built into the schedule to manage the tides through Seymour Narrows. I realize someone else has told me twice that I'm wrong about the severity of the tides, but the captain made an announcement about the tides so I'm inclined to believe him. Ships leaving Seattle have a far more time-constrained itinerary, so detouring through the scenic route and having to adjust for Seymour Narrows currents would result in a need to burn fuel at an excessively high rate (which means dollar$) to make up the time, or it's quite likely that they could not possibly make up the time whatsoever.

 

A couple years ago, on a Seattle RT, we were on our way back from Skagway to Victoria. Even though it was a 49-hour travel and over a thousand miles if I remember correctly, if the ship were delayed more than 3.5 hours in Skagway, the only way it could make Victoria on time would be if the currents were generally favorable for more than half of the way. 8.5 hours delay would jeopardize an on-time arrival into Seattle the next day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am bewildered by the posts I have seen in response to my original one.

 

So far I have seen there is no bridge, and that there is a bridge that is too low for the big ships.

 

I have seen that that the currents are too dangerous and that ships leaving from Vancouver go this way every day.

 

What I was getting at was that advertising a route that you have no intention of following, and Princess at least do is fraud.

 

Someone said “why would they?” to me it is a far more scenic and smooth way to go.

1. There is no bridge to worry about anywhere on the route between Seattle and Alaska, regardless if the ships were to travel on the west or east sides of Vancouver Island.

 

2. There are currents that can slow ships down, making the extra distance between Seattle and Alaska ports of call harder to cover while still allowing maximum times in ports (Seattle is a hundred miles farther from Alaska than Vancouver.) There may also be pilotage fees that the Seattle cruise lines can avoid since they're not transiting Canadian inland waters on the open-ocean portions.

 

3. There have been maps published by cruise lines or travel agencies that are inaccurate on the actual route the ships take. This might be a simple error or intentionally misleading, but I doubt that it rises to "fraud." If it's important to you it should probably be part of your due diligence before you spend a lot of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...