|
Post by SS Shasta on Oct 27, 2006 10:39:56 GMT -8
First, there is no point in upgrading the Evergreen State's propulsion system because she is due to be retired very soon. She is over 50 years old now. A "early retirement" for MV Evergreen State would be a serious error in my opinion. She is a much newer vessel than the "Steel Electrics" when they were upgraded during the 1980's. Her size is very good for several routes and her speed is the same as the other two vessels in her class. As someone mentioned, her slower speed the other day on the Vashon/Southworth run was likely the result of having a quarterly CG inspection taking place at the same time. With the planned use of two "Evergreen Class" vessels for many more years, it only makes good sense to have the third as a back-up during annual maintenance, etc. They could likely fit into the role currently filled by the "Steel Electrics." Retirement of MV Evergreen State would be a very stupid decision in my opinion. She needs more TLC!!!
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Oct 27, 2006 11:02:45 GMT -8
I agree. If they dredged out Keystone Harbor a bit, it would be a good (if temporary) solution to the problem. However, at the moment she's our only viable relief boat (I think we can pretty much discount the Hiyu), so we have to hold on to her in reserve. Would just dredging the harbor be enough? I seem to recall reading something long time ago that vessels entering the harbor have to get into there quickly so as to not get caught by the currents. With a larger boat, there may not be enough room to slow the boat down quickly enough after getting through the harbor.
|
|
|
Post by Electric Thunderbird on Oct 27, 2006 11:54:27 GMT -8
First, there is no point in upgrading the Evergreen State's propulsion system because she is due to be retired very soon. She is over 50 years old now. A "early retirement" for MV Evergreen State would be a serious error in my opinion. She is a much newer vessel than the "Steel Electrics" when they were upgraded during the 1980's. Her size is very good for several routes and her speed is the same as the other two vessels in her class. As someone mentioned, her slower speed the other day on the Vashon/Southworth run was likely the result of having a quarterly CG inspection taking place at the same time. With the planned use of two "Evergreen Class" vessels for many more years, it only makes good sense to have the third as a back-up during annual maintenance, etc. They could likely fit into the role currently filled by the "Steel Electrics." Retirement of MV Evergreen State would be a very stupid decision in my opinion. She needs more TLC!!! I tend to agree. If they got 75 years out of the Steel Electrics, they can get another 25 years out of the Evergreen Class vessels.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 30, 2006 19:48:34 GMT -8
Couldn't Evergreen's propulsion system be upgrade for faster speed? That depends on your definition of "upgraded." If you mean replaced, yes. But until the reduction gears are removed, the old girl's pretty much at her limit.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 30, 2006 19:52:20 GMT -8
Would just dredging the harbor be enough? I seem to recall reading something long time ago that vessels entering the harbor have to get into there quickly so as to not get caught by the currents. With a larger boat, there may not be enough room to slow the boat down quickly enough after getting through the harbor. Well, I hate to say this, but... you never know until you try. Seriously, though... the Evergreen could slow down to Steel-Electric speed, say, 1/4 mile outside the harbor, and frankly the Steel-Electrics don't slow down (reverse) worth beans, IMHO. The Evergreen class can slow just as quickly as the SEs can. I'd like to try it, myself, but I have *zero* experience getting into Keystone. None the less, I think the Evergreens would be feasible out there.
|
|
|
Post by qoa on Nov 19, 2006 8:33:14 GMT -8
We need new ferries glad they are coming
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Nov 19, 2006 9:11:08 GMT -8
So is there any new info about the lawsuits involving the new ferry designs? Does anybody have a timeline on when the new boats might hit the water? I know the lawsuits haven't even got to court yet, but could we be talking another two, three or five years before the new boats arrive?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 20, 2006 9:12:49 GMT -8
If the contract were signed tomorrow, the first boat would hit that water in 2009 sometime.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Nov 20, 2006 13:39:43 GMT -8
That lawsuit is over lost buisness from what I have seen. Martinec is just being stupid and that lawsuit should be thrown through the window and be squashed like a bug.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Nov 23, 2006 23:47:04 GMT -8
The fall newsletter (mentioned in a previous post) has the following:
Four vessels in the fleet are more than 80 years old, and should be retired.
More than 80? They won't even be 80 until next year.
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Dec 31, 2006 12:30:14 GMT -8
I was going through some old Seattle Times articles today and in a transportation article it said the first boat will be in service June 2009.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Dec 31, 2006 13:08:26 GMT -8
The last newsletter about the new ferries said the 1'st one is scheduled to enter service in fall 2009. The way things are going, I wouldn't be suprised if the first one doesn't enter service until next decade.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 31, 2006 14:01:32 GMT -8
June of '09 is feasible... if we sign the bloody contract within the next few months.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Dec 31, 2006 15:04:58 GMT -8
martinec should just drop the lawsuit and get over it, you lose contract, then try try again, NOT GO SUING!
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jun 14, 2007 18:30:54 GMT -8
At last! Some good news!
ublished: Thursday, June 14, 2007
Rival boat builders to join forces in bid for new ferries
By Jerry Cornfield Herald Writer
OLYMPIA - Rival boat builders informed state officials today that they intend to join forces in hopes of building Washington’s next generation of ferries.
Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp. of Seattle, J.M. Martinac Shipbuilding Corp. of Tacoma and Nichols Bros. of Freeland on Whidbey Island submitted a proposal outlining the formation of a joint venture for building four new ferries sought by the state.
Under the agreement between the companies, Todd will be the prime contractor with Martinac and Nichols as subcontractors.
“We entered into these discussions hopeful of reaching agreement, but knowing it could be difficult because the yards have often competed against each other,” Steve Welch, Todd’s chief executive officer, said in a prepared statement.
Joe Martinac Jr. said his firm entered the negotations with cautious optimism.
"To my knowledge this joint-build proposal is the first of its kind for building ferries in the state's history," he said. "Understandably we are proud to be a part of this. Washington needs new ferries and we look forward to working with Todd and Nichols in building these boats, on time and on budget."
State ferry officials will spend the next two weeks reviewing the proposal and if it is deemed complete will restart the process of designing and building boats.
“There is still a lot of work to do to get from a joint proposal to construction, but we are moving in the right direction,” Mike Anderson, executive director of the Washington State Ferry system said in a statement issued this morning.
The state Legislature put money for new ferries in the biennium budget that begins July 1. Money for the other two boats would be appropriated in a future budget. The value of the contracts could reach $342 million.
The Legislature authorized building of the ferries in 2001 then first allocated money for construction in 2003.
State decisions on the ferry design, propulsion systems and the bid process led to discord and delay.
The state is hoping the first of the new boats can be launched in 2009.
|
|
|
Post by Emory Lindgard on Jun 16, 2007 6:35:41 GMT -8
Nichols Brothers Cam camera has been turn off for about a month. Only photos can be found of the Tug Boat that they just finished painting. The photo page is not up to date either. Here a picture of engine being installed. Great view of Holmes Harbor. Emory
|
|
|
Post by Emory Lindgard on Jun 16, 2007 6:37:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jun 16, 2007 16:34:12 GMT -8
I don't understand why they cannot make them like the Super's in a ways with the 2nd passenger deck. Wouldn't that make them more effective or would that be too many crammed on the boat?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 17, 2007 10:51:49 GMT -8
It has nothing to do with passenger capacity, Dan--the Supers are remarkably top-heavy and are required to keep a certain minimum amount of fuel in the fuel tanks for ballast. The upper cabin is the problem, of course. I need to remember to take a magnet with me to work and check a few structural details--like that I think the roof of the upper deck, crews quarters, and pilothouses are actually aluminum for weight considerations... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jun 17, 2007 11:21:57 GMT -8
Stability is the reason then is what you are getting at. That's understandable.
|
|
|
Post by shipchandler on Dec 11, 2007 15:55:38 GMT -8
Really? I thought it was a pretty decent design, given that the fundamentals of it are more than 30 years old... to my untrained eye, it's far more attractive than, say, the Coastal Class. but at least the coastal class is is actually ahh ................ BUILT
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 12, 2007 16:10:50 GMT -8
So is Seattle's "Experience Music Project"... it doesn't make it any more attractive to my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by shipchandler on Dec 14, 2007 17:57:29 GMT -8
So is Seattle's "Experience Music Project"... it doesn't make it any more attractive to my eyes. i actually like the emp,i think its one of your city`s most interesting attractions, we could use something like it here in van
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 14, 2007 18:48:05 GMT -8
Take Seattle's. Please.
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Dec 14, 2007 19:43:06 GMT -8
I agree with Barnacle Please take it.. it looks awful.
|
|