timo
Deckhand
Posts: 57
|
Post by timo on Sept 22, 2011 22:59:55 GMT -8
Kennicott was based on a new design, is a much more complex vessel, and came in for USD $80 Million, or around $108 Million in today's prices. While I strongly question the idea of building such a vessel for USD $26 million as that's the price of a small to mid sized civic structure on land, there IS cause to wounder at the estimated price tag, especially if the yards have essentially been chosen before the final ship goes out to bid. Why is she more expensive than the Kennicott. One answer, of course might be that the price of steel was $260 a ton in '98 and is $800 a ton now, but I don't know enough to know if that in itself is the answer. The question is valid, especially as we contemplate what a replacement for Tustimina may cost. Well, inflation is surely a part of the answer. Another thing, a guess really, that comes to mind is the cost of equipment. If there has been major changes in for instance the engine, deck machinery or electronics manufacturing meaning that there has been consolidation in those markets, that could drive up prices. Also as steel prices have jumped that much it will affect the prices of machinery as well. Though, consumer electronics have in fact become much cheaper at least here in Europe, mostly due to increased competition and the production moving to Asia. What it means for instance for engine control programs, or bridge equipment I have really no idea. As for building such a vessel for a low price - Greek, Turkish and Asian yards would certainly match the price. I have no idea of the quality though. I know that the Danish ferry Kanhave was built by a Greek yard for 15 MEUR, and she is a fully covered double ender with larger capacity than this Alaska-class - however the orders for the sisters were cancelled as the owners claimed they were not satisfied with the vessel. This was around 2009 and it might also mean they saw a chance of getting rid of more unnecessary capacity as it really was not needed as traffic volumes were falling. Most likely it was a combination of both, as she did have mechanical issues - though memory escapes me what the trouble was. For sure, the Kanhave would not fit into Alaskan waters well, she is for sheltered seas, not to a service where you need sturdy vessels. The Jones Act itself might be a reason. It comes to supply and demand. I have no idea if there is genuine competition amongst shipyards in the US when it comes to orders of this kind. If there are only a handful of possible interested builders, that might raise prises. Found the Tacoma presented in Designs 98. Her price tag was given as 91,1 MUSD, where as the sisters Wenatchee were mentioned at 79,6 MUSD and Puyallup at 78,0 MUSD. The difference in the price tags was probably mostly caused by the design and planning of production. But if that cost was already over 11 MUSD the, it will be around 15 MUSD or more today. It also shows that design work is apparently more expensive in US than in Europe. So, the repeat vessels might come in at around 100-105 MUSD - as a guess. Still it is a shock that such a basic vessel will cost almost the same as Northern Expedition which in itself was an expensive vessel. Another off topic thought. I know that somebody from Alaska was involved in discussion with Silja Line as they wanted to buy the 1966-built Fennia. This was in the late 1960ies, if I remember correctly, around 1967 or 1968. What I wonder is was this to have been additional to the Wickersham, or if they the chose Wickersham as Silja eventually decided not to sell their flagship. www.vasabatarna.se/fennia/bilder/fennia_langtkort.jpg
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 23, 2011 11:11:24 GMT -8
Just to be clear, if part of the answer to my question is "building capacity and economic development for Alaska," I'm ok with that, especially if it improves logistical access to the southern panhandle for other endeavors.
You know, if they really want to change the relationship, how about a build/maintenance contract with AS&D that would provide the State assurance into the future, and encourage AS&D to build with inexpensive maintenance in mind?
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Sept 23, 2011 13:58:01 GMT -8
I am not against building in Alaska for economic development either, I am just not sold on the idea that ASD is the best way to go, yet. I am open to being convinced though.
|
|
|
Post by darkfred on Oct 20, 2011 17:57:44 GMT -8
ASD could build the alaska class ferry just fine. The issue's with them doing it would be how long would it take , and what quality of a product would you get?
If ASD gets such a contract they will hire a large amount of workers from where ever they can get them. The susitna project they subcontracted the electrical installation out. The contractor they used was from alabama I believe.
Where the real big issue will be is with how close a relationship AMHS engineering shoreside support has with ASD. Will AMHS push quality with ASD? or push for just getting the vessel out and declared operational with lots of problems? I already know the answer to this for I get to deal with the end result. So until there is a regime change in AMHS I would have to say no it is not a ggod idea to have ASD build the vessel.
Even with a highly reputable yard if the purchaser does not do their job ensuring that the vessel is put together correctly you will have problems. If the situation of AMHS I think an outside engineering firm doing the quality assurance would be a good idea. Another good idea would be to make the vessel project at least three vessels . Then you would have better yards making bids because it is a bigger contract. A large part of the funds for the building of the Alaska class is federal funds.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Nov 28, 2011 20:21:50 GMT -8
Time for a new cost estimate for the Alaska Class ferry. Earlier this year, the Legislature set aside $60 million for its next generation of ships. That brought funding to a total of $120 million.
Many thought it would be enough to design and build the first vessel.
“Unfortunately, numbers tend to stick and $120 million is the number that stuck. So everybody believes that’s full funding for the vessel,” says Captain Mike Neussl, who runs the Alaska Marine Highway System.
He says the estimate is several years old and may be low.
“That may or may not be the case because we’re not on contract with anybody for a vessel at that price,” he says. www.ktoonews.org/2011/11/25/alaska-class-ferry-costs-may-rise/
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 3, 2012 6:52:37 GMT -8
Ferry construction fund gets another $50 million Lawmakers put $50 million in the operating budget for the marine highway’s vessel replacement fund.
Senate Finance Committee Co-Chairman Bert Stedman of Sitka says the appropriation could be used for any new vessel. That could include the first Alaska-Class Ferry, or something else.
“So it wasn’t intended, at least as far as I’m concerned, for targeting the first ship, but to continually add to the replacement fund,” Stedman says. “So when the governor wants to execute construction, the funds will be sitting there available for him.” www.krbd.org/2012/05/01/alaska-class-ferry-gets-another-50-million/
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 4, 2012 19:18:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 4, 2012 22:10:16 GMT -8
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Dec 4, 2012 23:52:33 GMT -8
I don't quite understand. Is the issue that the Ketchikan yard simply can't build a 350' ferry? I don't understand how they could get two boats for the same price and in the same time frame, unless they are vastly smaller.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 5, 2012 0:59:03 GMT -8
Or one of them was the surplus Prince of Whales form the IFA. That being said, $160 million is a rather shocking number. In 2003, the Stikine cost the IFA just over $13 million.
At one point, Elliot Design Group was recommending a Stikine class vessel for Ketckikan to Prince Rupert, and a le Conte class for the Lynn Canal. Perhaps Governor Parnell is looking at that study.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 5, 2012 19:48:39 GMT -8
Does anyone know who actually owns the drawings for the Le Conte and Aurora? Is the design owned by the state of Alaska? Did Elliot Bay buy them when they bought assets from Nickum and Spaulding Associates? Does Elliot still own the drawings for the Stikine and POW?
How does such intellectual property ownership tend to work in this industry?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 10, 2012 19:00:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 11, 2012 18:29:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by dofd on Feb 13, 2013 22:05:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Feb 16, 2013 20:24:37 GMT -8
So basically, they're just going back to the drawing board with the Alaska Class ferries due to the fact that the cost to build them just kept going up and up?
Another question: Will these Alaska Class ferries allow for other old ferries to be retired, or will other ferries have to be built to allow the aging Malaspina, Matanuska, and Taku to be retired? (I know the Tustumena's replacement would have to be a special ferry that is certified for ocean-going trips)
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 20, 2013 20:34:58 GMT -8
I think the answer is a big unknown. What we now know about the AK Class ferry is very little. They will not replace the mainliners on a one for one basis, they can't have their crews away from port for more than 12 hours, but if they are the leading edge of a new system design, they may make one of the hulls no longer necessary.
From what I can tell as a laymen, without crew quarters, to do the Lynn Cannal in 12 hours (with room to spare for scheduling issues) they may need a rater fast ship. Do any of the BC or Washington double enders maintain a cruising speed of 18 knots?
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Feb 20, 2013 21:26:43 GMT -8
Do any of the BC or Washington double enders maintain a cruising speed of 18 knots? Yes, BC ferries double deckers sail somewhere around 20 kn and WSF's Jumbos (Mark I&II) both sail at 18kn (or more if necessary).
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Feb 20, 2013 21:38:25 GMT -8
Do any of the BC or Washington double enders maintain a cruising speed of 18 knots? Yes, BC ferries double deckers sail somewhere around 20 kn and WSF's Jumbos (Mark I&II) both sail at 18kn (or more if necessary). BC Ferries' Coastal Class can sail at 23 knots, and the single ended Ugly Class (oh yeah, it's called the "Spirit Class") can sail at 19.5 knots. The Northern Adventure and Expedition can sail at 19.5 and 21 knots, respectively.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Feb 20, 2013 21:49:36 GMT -8
I think the answer is a big unknown. What we now know about the AK Class ferry is very little. They will not replace the mainliners on a one for one basis, they can't have their crews away from port for more than 12 hours, but if they are the leading edge of a new system design, they may make one of the hulls no longer necessary. From what I can tell as a laymen, without crew quarters, to do the Lynn Cannal in 12 hours (with room to spare for scheduling issues) they may need a rater fast ship. Do any of the BC or Washington double enders maintain a cruising speed of 18 knots? Yes, it is a big unknown about what ferries it will replace, if it will replace any. By the way, I think there are plans to make a "Juneau Access Road" extending north from Juneau along the east side of Lynn Canal up towards Haines and Skagway. The road will stop directly east of Haines and from there, there's going to be a triangle route between that new ferry terminal, Haines, and Skagway. See this article for more info and a map. www.ktoo.org/2012/12/24/juneau-access-funding-in-govs-proposed-budget/ This would be a HUGE change in the ferry system!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2013 21:53:45 GMT -8
Yes, BC ferries double deckers sail somewhere around 20 kn and WSF's Jumbos (Mark I&II) both sail at 18kn (or more if necessary). BC Ferries' Coastal Class can sail at 23 knots, and the single ended Ugly Class (oh yeah, it's called the "Spirit Class") can sail at 19.5 knots. The Northern Adventure and Expedition can sail at 19.5 and 21 knots, respectively. The Spirit Class must have a slower speed because of Active pass, I think they only do 18 knots for most of sailing excluding the 15 knots thru active pass. The Coastal Class's never go past 21 knots on route 1, 2 and 30 excluding when they are behind schedule. I think the Northern vessels should be able to go at 25 knots to make the sailing quick.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 20, 2013 21:59:04 GMT -8
I think the Northern vessels should be able to go at 30 knots to make the sailing quick. ..and then they'd make the Pacificats look fuel-efficient.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2013 22:12:24 GMT -8
I think the Northern vessels should be able to go at 30 knots to make the sailing quick. ..and then they'd make the Pacificats look fuel-efficient. Would 25 knots make a differences in fuel-efficient? Would a six or five knots increase make the boats less fuel-efficient?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 20, 2013 22:40:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 27, 2013 10:33:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 27, 2013 10:47:59 GMT -8
This is a really interesting document, that I encourage all us members to read. - it's not just particular to Alaska. It highlights issues that are common to all our systems (WSF & BCFS & AMHS), or at least of-interest to all us ferry fans.
|
|