|
Post by Edmondsguy on May 22, 2018 0:58:18 GMT -8
Good grief, they really need to get those ferries replaced in the next five years. The Supers are in super bad shape and WSF should really not keep them until their 60-year retirement age. I also am posting a comment on WSF's long range plan website emphasizing the need to retire all the Supers by 2025 at the latest. They REALLY should not keep them until 2027. If they do, they will end up spending millions keeping them maintained and repairing them way too often. The Supers require a disproportionate amount of maintenance compared to other vessels in the fleet, so WSF really needs to retire them ASAP to rid themselves of this maintenance headache. Unfortunately compdude787 I have no doubt that WSF would replace them tomorrow if the legislature appropriated funding to do so. WSF may have no choice as to whether they keep the vessels or not as WSF competes for state funds like all other state agencies do when the legislature is in session. Ultimately our politicians decide where our tax dollars go, and some of them don't much care if the ferries are replaced or not.
For example, a legislator from Eastern Washington that may have constituents that have never had the need to ride a ferry in their life may vote to spend money on something more beneficial to his or her area (such as a college or bridge or ). Although some funds are dedicated towards the ferries, it almost always takes some General Fund dollars to fund new ferry construction. Tim Eyeman's Initiative 747 crippled some of the dedicated monies that were allocated to WSF around 2001. So, long story short, WSF can submit budget requests for new vessels, but by law they can't "lobby" as a state agency. They can only hope that enough legislators understand the need and vote in their favor -and- that there is money even available in the first place. Since Wa. state did have about a 1.28 billion surplus this biennium, now is a good time to be asking.
It was Tim Eyeman's Initiative 695. ballotpedia.org/Washington_Voter_Approval_for_Tax_Increases,_Initiative_695_(1999)
|
|
|
Post by R30A on May 24, 2018 9:42:18 GMT -8
Good grief, they really need to get those ferries replaced in the next five years. The Supers are in super bad shape and WSF should really not keep them until their 60-year retirement age. I also am posting a comment on WSF's long range plan website emphasizing the need to retire all the Supers by 2025 at the latest. They REALLY should not keep them until 2027. If they do, they will end up spending millions keeping them maintained and repairing them way too often. The Supers require a disproportionate amount of maintenance compared to other vessels in the fleet, so WSF really needs to retire them ASAP to rid themselves of this maintenance headache. They need to replace them all ASAP, sure. Then they need to keep the Kaleetan and Yakima. The lack of a sufficient spare factor has been crippling the ferry system for more than a decade. It is absolutely insane that the Yakima has to stay in service with a broken propeller for 3 months.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on May 31, 2018 8:10:48 GMT -8
Here is the daily service notice about MV Yakima that will be up on the website until Kaleetan replaces her at the end of July:
Why can't WSF write temporary spring and summer schedules for the San Juan Islands that accommodate Yakima's slower speed? Yes, I realize it's not necessarily a simple thing to do. I know reservations would be impacted, but I'm not talking about eliminating sailings, just adjusting sailing times for Yakima and perhaps some of the other vessels as they get impacted by Yakima's slowdown. I do not know how their reservation system works, but it seems to me that a good reservation system would be able to allow for departure and arrival time adjustments as necessary, and could subsequently notify reservation holders of any adjusted times. Airlines do this. Our United flights back to Washington DC last weekend were modified a couple of times after we booked, and I was notified each time they changed.
Dealing with this situation by simply saying delays will occur, is unacceptable, in my opinion. Yes, I get that there are no vessels available until the end of July. OK, that's fine, but do us all a favor by adjusting the schedule to reflect the current reality!
|
|
|
Post by R30A on Jun 5, 2018 8:39:20 GMT -8
I wonder if WSF has considered placing the Yakima where its speed won't affect service. I think everything could make schedule if you put the Kittitas back to Mukilteo, Chimacum on A-SJ2 and place the Yakima on the inter island run.
Yeah, the inter-Island would be massively overserved, but the Yakima should be able to keep the slower schedule designed for a Steel electric...
|
|
|
Post by Olympic Ferries on Jun 5, 2018 14:57:57 GMT -8
I wonder if WSF has considered placing the Yakima where its speed won't affect service. I think everything could make schedule if you put the Kittitas back to Mukilteo, Chimacum on A-SJ2 and place the Yakima on the inter island run. Yeah, the inter-Island would be massively overserved, but the Yakima should be able to keep the slower schedule designed for a Steel electric... It'd have been much easier if WSF had send the Samish (who just recently joined the SJIs in #3) to replace the Yakima as #2 for the remainder of spring season... seems they haven't really been managing the Yakima issue very well, as the delays just build up.
|
|
|
Post by Cascadian Transport on Jun 5, 2018 18:29:55 GMT -8
It'd have been much easier if WSF had send the Samish (who just recently joined the SJIs in #3) to replace the Yakima as #2 for the remainder of spring season... seems they haven't really been managing the Yakima issue very well, as the delays just build up. The problem with that is that they still need to replace Tillikum for it's Maintanance rotation. The unfortunate fact is that, at least until the end of June, the system only has 18 boats available to run a network that needs 18 to operate at full capacity- in other words, If Yakima is taken out, there is nothing that can replace it. Tillikum needed to go in for that Maintanance period, which has eaten up the systems' standby capacity. ===== Now, that being said, Kaleetan, according to the latest layup board, does go into service relief for two weeks at the tail end of this month. It seems like they could fix Yakima during that period of time, however, if they did that,it would also mean there would be no service relief vessel over the Fourth of July Holiday. Perhaps that's not a risk WSF wants to take... In any case, the Yakima situation is certainly not ideal, though there really is no easy solution to it.
|
|
|
Post by R30A on Jun 6, 2018 8:47:04 GMT -8
The Yakima would replace the Tillikum in that scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 7, 2018 7:10:49 GMT -8
The Yakima would replace the Tillikum in that scenario. And I can already hear the screams about the utter waste of capacity. That is simply not the best use of resources.
Most of these suggestions ignore the fact that there's a lot more to the fleet than just the San Juans. Jay suggested putting the Samish in as ASJ-2 instead of ASJ-3, but didn't provide a replacement for ASJ-3. (Unless he meant to swap the boats, which would be worse because the #2 slot has a tie-up break between shifts a few days a week that allows the Yakima to "catch up." #3 doesn't.) Every boat is committed right now. The only way another boat's going to appear is if somehow the funding shows up to put the Klahowya back in service.
Temporary schedules would be a nice idea, but getting them back out of circulation once the four-bladed propellers are reinstalled and getting everyone back onto the normal schedule... I can see that causing chaos in its own right.
There's also a lot of conversation (not necessarily here) about swapping the Yakima's maintenance time for [insert boat name here]. The problem with that is (a) available drydocks--there's a limited number of drydocks that can accommodate a Super in the Puget Sound region--and bumping another vessel from their given drydock time would cause a maintenance cascade, potentially taking THAT vessel out of service until its legally-required drydock inspection is completed.
Basically, WSF's stuck until the end of July.
|
|
|
Post by spokaneferry on Jun 7, 2018 11:00:06 GMT -8
It’d be helpful if the Klahowya could be recommissioned...all year it’s been bugging me that it’s sitting in EH while the fleet has really needed an extra relief boat lately. Not sure what vessel’s condition is at the moment, but my guess is that she’s still a viable option (provided it was affordable). I’m assuming this is mainly due to finances, because it seemed Klahowya was running pretty well toward the end....
Sort of hoping she will make a comeback like ES did in 2014, but not sure how likely that is now.
|
|
|
Post by Olympic Ferries on Jun 7, 2018 14:12:33 GMT -8
The Yakima would replace the Tillikum in that scenario. And I can already hear the screams about the utter waste of capacity. That is simply not the best use of resources.
Most of these suggestions ignore the fact that there's a lot more to the fleet than just the San Juans. Jay suggested putting the Samish in as ASJ-2 instead of ASJ-3, but didn't provide a replacement for ASJ-3. (Unless he meant to swap the boats, which would be worse because the #2 slot has a tie-up break between shifts a few days a week that allows the Yakima to "catch up." #3 doesn't.) Every boat is committed right now. The only way another boat's going to appear is if somehow the funding shows up to put the Klahowya back in service.
Temporary schedules would be a nice idea, but getting them back out of circulation once the four-bladed propellers are reinstalled and getting everyone back onto the normal schedule... I can see that causing chaos in its own right.
There's also a lot of conversation (not necessarily here) about swapping the Yakima's maintenance time for [insert boat name here]. The problem with that is (a) available drydocks--there's a limited number of drydocks that can accommodate a Super in the Puget Sound region--and bumping another vessel from their given drydock time would cause a maintenance cascade, potentially taking THAT vessel out of service until its legally-required drydock inspection is completed.
Basically, WSF's stuck until the end of July.
I don't recall why they said the Hyak had to be removed, but why not have left the Hyak as the Anacortes #3 and placed the Samish as #2?
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jun 7, 2018 15:12:29 GMT -8
And I can already hear the screams about the utter waste of capacity. That is simply not the best use of resources.
Most of these suggestions ignore the fact that there's a lot more to the fleet than just the San Juans. Jay suggested putting the Samish in as ASJ-2 instead of ASJ-3, but didn't provide a replacement for ASJ-3. (Unless he meant to swap the boats, which would be worse because the #2 slot has a tie-up break between shifts a few days a week that allows the Yakima to "catch up." #3 doesn't.) Every boat is committed right now. The only way another boat's going to appear is if somehow the funding shows up to put the Klahowya back in service.
Temporary schedules would be a nice idea, but getting them back out of circulation once the four-bladed propellers are reinstalled and getting everyone back onto the normal schedule... I can see that causing chaos in its own right.
There's also a lot of conversation (not necessarily here) about swapping the Yakima's maintenance time for [insert boat name here]. The problem with that is (a) available drydocks--there's a limited number of drydocks that can accommodate a Super in the Puget Sound region--and bumping another vessel from their given drydock time would cause a maintenance cascade, potentially taking THAT vessel out of service until its legally-required drydock inspection is completed.
Basically, WSF's stuck until the end of July.
I don't recall why they said the Hyak had to be removed, but why not have left the Hyak as the Anacortes #3 and placed the Samish as #2? Hyak is at Bremerton right now. It will be up in the islands as the #5 vessel when the summer schedule commences. Barnacle is right. Every vessel is committed right now. The situation will likely remain status quo, at least for the duration of the spring schedule, which only has 2 weeks left in it anyway. It would be nice, however, if WSF could tweak the summer schedule to account for Yakima's reduced speed for just the month of July, until Kaleetan replaces Yakima. It may not completely eliminate vessels getting behind schedule, but it would help, and it would be less frustrating for reservation holders who still have to show up at least 30 minutes prior to the scheduled sailing time. Like I said previously, I don't know if a schedule adjustment is possible at this point in time, or what challenges they face in doing it, but it would be a good thing to do in lieu of no replacement vessels being available.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 8, 2018 8:58:34 GMT -8
Hyak is at Bremerton right now. It will be up in the islands as the #5 vessel when the summer schedule commences. Don't count on it. Last I heard the Yakima is slated to be #5 because there's a gap of about an hour and fifteen minutes in the afternoon where the Yakima can sort of reset her schedule, whereas the Hyak is doing just fine speed-wise (or at least better than the Yakima).
|
|
|
Post by rwbsparks on Jun 8, 2018 9:25:07 GMT -8
Hypothetically, if the state got their act together and pulled an Evergreen State with the Klahowya, how would that affect things? Would the Klahowya go to FVS and shift Sealth/Issaquah/Cathlamet up to SJI? It’s not something I see happening but it would be handy for WSF to have an additional boat right now.
|
|
|
Post by R30A on Jun 8, 2018 13:15:06 GMT -8
How I would see that playing out:
Klahowya to A4, Kittitas to M1, Chimacum to B2, Hyak to A2. Yakima out.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jun 8, 2018 13:23:31 GMT -8
Hyak is at Bremerton right now. It will be up in the islands as the #5 vessel when the summer schedule commences. Don't count on it. Last I heard the Yakima is slated to be #5 because there's a gap of about an hour and fifteen minutes in the afternoon where the Yakima can sort of reset her schedule, whereas the Hyak is doing just fine speed-wise (or at least better than the Yakima). If the schedule will not be adjusted, then yes, I agree that Yakima would be better in the #5 position with its 85 minute layover in the afternoon. The #2 boat only gets a 50 minute layover between 1:10pm and 2:00pm, so having Yakima run #5 makes sense. As for the previous comments, Klahowya is not coming back, so I think we can safely rule that out as an option.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jun 9, 2018 6:29:19 GMT -8
It’d be helpful if the Klahowya could be recommissioned...all year it’s been bugging me that it’s sitting in EH while the fleet has really needed an extra relief boat lately. Not sure what vessel’s condition is at the moment, but my guess is that she’s still a viable option (provided it was affordable). I’m assuming this is mainly due to finances, because it seemed Klahowya was running pretty well toward the end.... Sort of hoping she will make a comeback like ES did in 2014, but not sure how likely that is now. The Klahowya is well out of it. Decommissioning for WSF usually also means "stripping all useful parts off said vessel that can be used elsewhere in the fleet."
Last August, WSF said this about her: "The Klahowya was retired this year, but cannot be brought back as a service relief vessel because WSF is not funded to operate it. The boat would need to be dry docked, inspected, then staffed, which requires a 21-day bidding process." (http://www.sanjuanjournal.com/news/the-scoop-on-broken-washington-state-ferries/)
It has now had nearly an additional year of sitting at Eagle Harbor, and if anything it is probably even less able to return to service than it was last August.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Jun 9, 2018 8:57:48 GMT -8
It’d be helpful if the Klahowya could be recommissioned...all year it’s been bugging me that it’s sitting in EH while the fleet has really needed an extra relief boat lately. Not sure what vessel’s condition is at the moment, but my guess is that she’s still a viable option (provided it was affordable). I’m assuming this is mainly due to finances, because it seemed Klahowya was running pretty well toward the end.... Sort of hoping she will make a comeback like ES did in 2014, but not sure how likely that is now. The Klahowya is well out of it. Decommissioning for WSF usually also means "stripping all useful parts off said vessel that can be used elsewhere in the fleet."
Last August, WSF said this about her: "The Klahowya was retired this year, but cannot be brought back as a service relief vessel because WSF is not funded to operate it. The boat would need to be dry docked, inspected, then staffed, which requires a 21-day bidding process." (http://www.sanjuanjournal.com/news/the-scoop-on-broken-washington-state-ferries/)
It has now had nearly an additional year of sitting at Eagle Harbor, and if anything it is probably even less able to return to service than it was last August.
I will point out that, much to our surprise a decade ago, WSF reactivated Nisqually, which entailed doing all of the things they would need to do to Klahowya. Whether that decision with Nisqually was the right one is something we can argue about for the rest of time ...
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 12, 2018 15:10:40 GMT -8
The Klahowya is well out of it. Decommissioning for WSF usually also means "stripping all useful parts off said vessel that can be used elsewhere in the fleet." Last August, WSF said this about her: "The Klahowya was retired this year, but cannot be brought back as a service relief vessel because WSF is not funded to operate it. The boat would need to be dry docked, inspected, then staffed, which requires a 21-day bidding process." (http://www.sanjuanjournal.com/news/the-scoop-on-broken-washington-state-ferries/) It has now had nearly an additional year of sitting at Eagle Harbor, and if anything it is probably even less able to return to service than it was last August.
I will point out that, much to our surprise a decade ago, WSF reactivated Nisqually, which entailed doing all of the things they would need to do to Klahowya. Whether that decision with Nisqually was the right one is something we can argue about for the rest of time ... The Nisqually took MONTHS of reconditioning, drydocking, adding liferafting, and general catch-up; even then it wasn't guaranteed that she would be allowed into service. It had been stripped of parts and generally ignored for a prolonged period of time. The. Klahowya. Is. Not. Coming. Back.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Jun 12, 2018 20:07:34 GMT -8
Uh oh....
"For Tuesday, June 12, the M/V Yakima is having maintenance issues with its #2 propulsion generator. To allow our staff to troubleshoot the issue, the Yakima will tie up early tonight and the M/V Samish will complete Yakima's final round trip, departing Anacortes an estimated 60 minutes behind schedule for the 8:25 pm to Lopez and Friday Harbor. This also delays the Friday Harbor 10:05 pm return to Anacortes. Updates will occur as more information becomes available."
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jun 13, 2018 7:44:37 GMT -8
I am quite happy to read this: "Coast Guard vessels are retired at age 30, she added, noting that she recently had a conversation with the head of one of Norway’s premiere maritime organizations, which retires its vessels at 20.
“I want to challenge the notion we should even expect our boats to make it to 60,” she said."
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jun 13, 2018 10:00:31 GMT -8
I am quite happy to read this: "Coast Guard vessels are retired at age 30, she added, noting that she recently had a conversation with the head of one of Norway’s premiere maritime organizations, which retires its vessels at 20.
“I want to challenge the notion we should even expect our boats to make it to 60,” she said."
That's a bit of an overstatement. See USCGC Elderberry ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCG_inland_buoy_tender). Commissioned in 1954 and in active service. There are several other USCGC vessels that are in active service that are older than 30 years by a considerable margin. Polar Sea/Star (Whichever one they reactivated a few years back... I can't remember) comes to mind.
As someone who works in the field of marine engineering, I think 60 is optimistic. Not that it can't be done, but as components become obsolete and difficult/impossible to source serviceable parts for, the cost effectiveness of attempting to keep an old vessel in operation disappears. 40 years is a good compromise, in my mind. Particularly for the sheltered waters of Puget Sound.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 13, 2018 13:24:57 GMT -8
I am quite happy to read this: "Coast Guard vessels are retired at age 30, she added, noting that she recently had a conversation with the head of one of Norway’s premiere maritime organizations, which retires its vessels at 20.
“I want to challenge the notion we should even expect our boats to make it to 60,” she said."
That's a bit of an overstatement. See USCGC Elderberry ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCG_inland_buoy_tender). Commissioned in 1954 and in active service. There are several other USCGC vessels that are in active service that are older than 30 years by a considerable margin. Polar Sea/Star (Whichever one they reactivated a few years back... I can't remember) comes to mind.
As someone who works in the field of marine engineering, I think 60 is optimistic. Not that it can't be done, but as components become obsolete and difficult/impossible to source serviceable parts for, the cost effectiveness of attempting to keep an old vessel in operation disappears. 40 years is a good compromise, in my mind. Particularly for the sheltered waters of Puget Sound.
I agree... 40 years is reasonable for a Washington State ferry. The Supers seem to have had the aches, pains, and arthritis start in right around then. Mind you, if the Jumbo Mark I's are having issues, I've not been hearing about them.
|
|
|
Post by rwbsparks on Jun 13, 2018 19:13:22 GMT -8
Occasionally something will happen but Walla Walla and Spokane seem to be very reliable as of late. I haven’t seen anything that would make me believe otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by rwbsparks on Jun 15, 2018 18:39:35 GMT -8
Spokane has replaced Tacoma at Bainbridge this evening. Anyone have more information?
|
|
|
Post by PeninsulaExplorer on Jun 15, 2018 21:27:41 GMT -8
Spokane has replaced Tacoma at Bainbridge this evening. Anyone have more information? According to the WSF twitter page, the Spokane replaced the Tacoma so she could get some TLC before the summer season begins next week.
|
|