lifc
Voyager 
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Nov 9, 2010 9:01:13 GMT -8
Dear Suburbanite,
I hope you come to the open house for the Chetzy this weekend, I wiil be there as I am co Djing a Tango Dance there the night before. I am suggesting we get together at the Bayview Restarant just to the right of the PT Dock.
I appreciate your thoughtful analysis, it is very similar to my ideas. The third KdT ought to at least get a four stroke engines, the EMDs, while not my favorite engines ought to be kept for the 144s, the costs of replacing them will cost much more than buying new four strokes for the last of the KdT's. I am actively promoting getting the last one changed, payout will be about three years. The large 6 cylinder Cat C280-6 would be perfect, max 2700 Hp. same RPM range. The four stoke engines are fuel/Hp proportionate, lower horsepower, less fuel use, the EMD's only approach efficiency at about 80%, below that they are real hogs.
The three new Electee's are all intelligent and the two new Reps are self employed so I think they will have a good understanding of the issues. They are all into expansion of the economy, not Government so I look for wise decisions in these areas. What has happened is that the existing structure only thinks of getting more money, service is secondary, this is going to be different. The past administrations have kept putting the problems into the future, it is now, let's hope we can affect the right changes. They are all over your recomendations already.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by suburbanite on Nov 10, 2010 5:37:24 GMT -8
Lifc
I hope we agree on the need for prompt acquisition of 144s. And I hope you can convince your legislators to proceed with that program. It is the most financially responsible course of action for the State of Washington.
We emphatically disagree on the notion of changing engines on the third KdT. You have touted that idea for quite a while but I can't come up with any evidence to support your claims for any marked increase in efficiency in alternative main engines that could offset the costs associated with changing the design.
My point in comparing the size vs. power numbers on the four classes of ferry was to point out that the KdTs just plain have too much horse power for what they can carry. Going from 6000 EMD horse power to 5400 Caterpillar horse power won't fix the problem. That is akin to saying that the way to make a Toyota sedan powered with a diesel out of a Ford pickup more efficient is to repower it with the engine out of a Dodge or a Chevy pickup. That is too small an incremental approach to a problem that is more fundamental.
At this point there is no good that can come from 11th hour attempts to "fix" the third KdT's propulsion system. None of the KdTs are ever going to be 12 knot, 3000 horse power Deisel-Electrics so they aren't ever going to have the Steel-Electrics fuel economy even with their comparable overall size.
You have repeatedly claimed that the 12-710s are "real hogs" on fuel consumption at low power settings. I can't find data to support that. What I have found is that fuel consumption for the 12-710 is very consistent throughout the power range and varies from 0.33 to 0.35 pounds per horsepower hour from 25% to 100% of rated power. Your favored 2700 horse Cat C280-6 seems to consume about 0.34 to 0.36 pounds/horsepower hour at similar engine speeds and power settings.
The difference between the EMDs and Cats in fuel consumption seems to be very small. However, there will be a larger difference in the responsiveness of the Cats compared to the EMD. To keep maneuverability with a Cat you would need an even higher horsepower engine than you would with an EMD. I would hate to see the maneuverability gains of the CP props in the third KdT offset by the slower response of C280-6 Cats. The skippers of the the KdTs will need all the maneuvering improvement they can get, especially at Keystone. Please don't help further another half baked Olympia scheme that wastes more money just to make safe boat handling more difficult.
Even if there was significant money to be saved on fuel and there wasn't a maneuverability penalty for going away from the EMDs how do you arrive at a three year return for switching to C280-6 engines on the third boat? Please show your math. Now, include the cost of the change orders. How many years out is the pay out now? Now include the cost of stocking spare parts for a one one of a kind boat for 60 years. Or include the cost for additional out of service time and lost revenue and deadheading costs if those unique parts are not stocked. Now include the costs of training on different maintenance and ship handling procedures that are unique to one boat. Where is that payback now? What is really gained? Is there anything in this other than the "joy" of having another class of three boats in which all three are different? That isn't the kind of help our ferry system needs from Olympia.
We definitely need changes in Olympia to get a more efficient and reliable Washington State Ferry System. We need a much better procurement system than the one that produced $70 million, 6000 horsepower (or even 5400 horse power) 64 car ferries. We need nationally bid 144 car ferries. We need operations personnel that are asked what they need to do the job safely, efficiently and reliably and are put in a position to see that they get it. We need a lot fewer people in the organization in positions that control spending that don't know anything about operations. And we could sure use the cost reduction that would come by having an all G-E FDM and EMD powered fleet by the end of the decade.
But if you are going to be the champion of one off boats and further micromanaging by Olympia you can count me out. If nothing else I don't want to be one of the guys responsible for giving a captain a less responsive boat that goes aground at Keystone. Where would the "payback" be then?
We need to clear a few more deadheads out of Olympia. We don't need to simply replace them with different deadheads. We need reasonable people who will pass laws with the intention of doing the most for the citizens as a whole, not using the public's money to benefit a few special interests. Above all else that means repealing the built in Washington law to get competitive bids on a multi-boat contract for 144s. The lack of competitive bidding likely cost Washington tax payers $100 million for the three tub toys. Even with the three over priced boats we will still need four 144 car ferries by 2020 to avoid having ferries over 60 years old again.
If you are ready to get over your Cat Scratch Fever and support the 144 program we have a common cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Nov 10, 2010 8:14:09 GMT -8
For a medium speed trunk engine, if you got the room, use an inline 4-stroke. Though, I thought this thread was about WSF ferry funding.  |
|
|
|
Post by suburbanite on Nov 10, 2010 8:43:43 GMT -8
Rusty
I think that it is helpful for the financial health of the system to avoid one of a kind propulsion systems.
If you have an idea on a more economical approach to building new ferries than an all FDM and EMD powered fleet please say so. If you have a Tier 2 or Tier 3 compliant powerplant that you think is a good candidate for the 144s lets hear about it.
Most of all I'd like to do something as a citizen that gets the people in WFS who know how to operate and maintain the ferries in charge of designing them. The elected folks in Olympia should provide oversight, not laws that dictate the design and the builder. One of these days I would like the citizens and the elected officials to have good reason to trust that we are getting good boats at fair prices. That should help to avoid financial management from crisis to crisis like we are experiencing now.
|
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Nov 10, 2010 8:50:37 GMT -8
suburanite,
Open a new thread on engine selection, and I will.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Nov 10, 2010 10:52:38 GMT -8
I did this a while ago, so I am working from memory, but here is how I came to he fuel use figures. I based my calculations for the power use on calculations of 1200 Hp for the push engine which ought to result in 12-14 knots of speed, which the WSF projected 12 knots for Keystone. Then I checked the actual fuel use of several Caterpillar powered boats against the published "P" curve in the specs and found it to be quite accurate. In fact several Cat engine horsepower V/S fuel rates were almost identical at 1200 HP output. Then I checked empirical "P" curve testing of the EMD 12-710 and found it to burn almost twice the fuel at 1200HP, it was some better at full power.
Currently, the Steilacoom II burns about 600 gallons a day at Keystone, as the KdTs are larger and heavier, they will use more fuel, however the economies of scale, with propulsion and waterline length efficiency should only increase the fuel use abbot 15%, I rounded to 700 Gallons, all things being equal. The WSF projection for the KdTs at 12 knots is 1200 Gallons per day, about what the testing indicated, we’ll see shortly. That’s where I got the additional 500 gallons a day. My friends in the Tugboat Industry have pulled every EMD and replaced them with almost exclusively Cats , on fuel use alone. They have updated the older Cats with the newer electronic injection systems for even better fuel use.
For all intents and purposes, the KdTs likely need no more than 2000 Hp per engine. Both the 3000Hp EMD and 2700Hp Cat are larger than needed, I advanced the Cat due to its similar RPM range so the gears would not have to be changed. The three year payout is what the engines would cost to buy V/S the reduction in fuel use, just simple math. I believe the fuel use of the KdTs will mandate eventual future engine change, let us do the one under construction now. I really do not think the WSF Engineering staff having to learn something new is a factor, life goes on, things change.
As for one off boats, I believe the best design for the route ought to be procured, not a forced one size fits all with that inherent inefficiency. Now, I believe that for short routes the KdTs ought to have never been built, they really do not fit anywhere and do allow for any future increase of rider ship. A couple of low draft 80 car boats for Keystone and Inter-Island, and a couple of cheap extended 72 car StIIs for Point Defiance and Summer at Keystone would have been better choices for the small boats. Yes, I like the 144s for the mid size boats, they ought to be built next.
I totally agree with your procurement views. Yes, things have to change.
|
|
|
|
Post by suburbanite on Nov 12, 2010 22:22:06 GMT -8
Lifc
I found 12-710 data at 25% (750 HP) and 50% (1500 hp) that showed fuel consumption at 0.34-0.35 pounds per horse power hour. That is very close to your C280-6 at the same power. There might be a 5-10% difference between a 710 and a Cat but not 50-100%. If you based your 3 year payback on reducing fuel use by half I think your numbers will be way, way, way off.
And if you are going to calculate any savings you must take into account the cost of a change order. That will not be cheep. The Chetzamoka's rub rail change order cost WSF $330,000. A main engine change order would be much more expensive. It will involve redesign to the engine mounts, fuel, exhaust, electrical systems, etc.
While there are a lot of old EMDs in marine service that have been replaced with newer more fuel efficient engines that doesn't necessarily shed a lot of light on the current issue. WSF isn't putting 40 or 50 year old Roots blown EMDs in the KdTs. The 710 is a very refined, modern, fuel efficient, low emissions, turbocharged, electronically controlled engine. That is why the 12-710 has been used in quite a few new vessels calling for 3,000 HP main engines.
The 710 does have faster throttle response than a 4 stroke engine of comparable horse power. As I said before, I don't think a 3,000 horse engine was chosen based on the requirement for hull speed but for maneuverability and throttle response. Go to a 4 stroke of equal horse power and your hurt maneuverability. Go to a 4 stroke of lower horsepower and you hurt maneuverability even more. The people operating the KdTs don't need any changes that will hurt maneuverability.
If you are going to be talking to legislators about ways to help the ferry system I urge you to drop the KdT engine change campaign. That would be a very expensive proposition and I don't think that your numbers will stand up to rigorous challenges. There are a number of issues where significant money can be saved. Open bidding is the big one. Stick to the black and white big ticket issues and I think you and your legislative friends can have the greatest positive impact.
|
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Jan 29, 2012 11:00:52 GMT -8
So did anybody else see the Kiro news report of cutting certain runs within the system. They dispatched a newsteam to Point Defiance to interview passengers on their thoughts of elimination of that route and upwards of 5 runs, but did not go into specifics. I do not know what to make of this "story" other than we all know stable funding sources need to be found.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,169
|
Post by Neil on May 23, 2012 11:32:31 GMT -8
Can someone who follows the financial aspects of WSF confirm for me if in fact the current operations subsidy is around $47 million a year? That is what is stated in this document: www.governor.wa.gov/priorities/budget/creating_partnerships_ferries.pdfAre there other non-fare sources of financing beside that subsidy? If not, it seems that Washingtonians are getting extremely good value for their tax dollars, considering that you are carrying more passengers than BC Ferries for a quarter of the cost, and at lower fares. |
|
|
|
Post by lavalamp on May 23, 2012 13:51:40 GMT -8
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on May 23, 2012 13:56:36 GMT -8
:)the difference between WSF and our BCF is the top end help is less than a quarter of ours but we had a helmsman that had the mind of conrad black, and thot he was entitled! we in Canada have a mindset of remuneration of our top end public officials that is comparable to top free enterprise officials down south, but these guys are double dipping out of the puplic purse! :omrdot.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078 
|
Post by Nick on May 23, 2012 15:05:45 GMT -8
Can someone who follows the financial aspects of WSF confirm for me if in fact the current operations subsidy is around $47 million a year? That is what is stated in this document: www.governor.wa.gov/priorities/budget/creating_partnerships_ferries.pdfAre there other non-fare sources of financing beside that subsidy? If not, it seems that Washingtonians are getting extremely good value for their tax dollars, considering that you are carrying more passengers than BC Ferries for a quarter of the cost, and at lower fares. I believe that WSF's subsidy only covers operating losses. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all capital expenditures like terminal construction, vessel acquisition etc is all extra on top of the overall subsidy. In contrast, BCF pays all costs associated with its operation out of it's annual subsidy. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Feb 4, 2013 18:02:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 4, 2013 18:27:32 GMT -8
We're having this very conversation about our transit system. The concepts of vehicle levies, increase in property taxes, and regional tolling have gotten mixed reviews, with no sign of secure funding in sight. I have stated before on this forum, and I'm sure I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but legislation over the past fifteen years has decreased or axed completely secure sources of funding for transportation infrastructure, when in fact it is the lifeblood of our economies. Rather than spending years sitting on the streetcorner asking for money hoping to be able to carry over to the next year, we need to find a reliable, constant source of funding to keep these transportation systems moving, and economic development growing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 18:39:15 GMT -8
The Interstate highways should go to federal government just like Trans Canada Highways are federal founded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Feb 4, 2013 18:42:27 GMT -8
The Interstate highways should go to federal government just like Trans Canada Highways are federal founded. Washington State Ferries is not an interstate highway. They are an extension of the Washington State Route system. Again, comparing apples to oranges. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 18:45:35 GMT -8
The Interstate highways should go to federal government just like Trans Canada Highways are federal founded. Washington State Ferries is not an interstate highway. They are an extension of the Washington State Route system. Again, comparing apples to oranges. I do not think you know what I'm talking about. |
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Feb 4, 2013 18:48:47 GMT -8
The Interstate highways should go to federal government just like Trans Canada Highways are federal founded. Well, that would not help much and nothing would really be changed, except that all interstate Taxes would go into the federal taxes rather than the state. Would not give anything more to the ferries. The $5 fee seems reasonable, as most people do not own more than 2/3 cars and that it only has to be payed once. Much better than several hundred dollars for just renewing a licence plate tab. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 18:49:34 GMT -8
I got love the comments you use it, you pay for it." While does that get you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 4, 2013 18:54:36 GMT -8
I got love the comments you use it, you pay for it." While does that get you? Not sure what you're trying to say, since that doesn't make any sense.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 18:54:53 GMT -8
Why does the state ferries go semi private like a BC Ferries? Which has got BC Ferries any where.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 4, 2013 18:56:12 GMT -8
Washington State Ferries is not an interstate highway. They are an extension of the Washington State Route system. Again, comparing apples to oranges. I do not think you know what I'm talking about. Actually, I'm pretty sure he does. WSF does not operate any interstate routes, and is therefore not under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Ferries operate state transportation routes and are state mandated. I got love the comments you use it, you pay for it." While does that get you? I feel like the meaning of the phrase has bypassed you completely. Yes, users should pay for it. However, these transportation networks are considered to be a state responsibility, therefore the state has an obligation to provide the service at a rate that provides the highest benefit for those who use it (the equilibrium between best level of service and highest ridership, i.e. supply/demand). Why does the state ferries go semi private like a BC Ferries? Which has got BC Ferries any where. I really tried my best to interpret this, but my brain now hurts. See this video:
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Feb 4, 2013 18:58:11 GMT -8
Why does the state ferries go semi private like a BC Ferries? Which has got BC Ferries any where. I don't want to have green slugs, thank you very much. And Washingtonians have experience with that privatized ferry system. Remember why WSF was formed back on June 1st, 1951? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 19:00:03 GMT -8
I do not think you know what I'm talking about. Actually, I'm pretty sure he does. WSF does not operate any interstate routes, and is therefore not under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Ferries operate state transportation routes and are state mandated. I know if the DOT in Washington state send the bill to the federal Government for all the interstates routes in would achieve funding for the fleet. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Feb 4, 2013 19:02:17 GMT -8
Why does the state ferries go semi private like a BC Ferries? Which has got BC Ferries any where. Have you even bothered to read up on the history of Washington State Ferries, at all?  Washington State Ferries was born from the failures of Puget Sound Navigation (a private entity) and public demand and union strikes forced the state to take over in 1951. That's as short as it gets. |
|
