|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 27, 2013 21:33:56 GMT -8
Would 25 knots make a differences in fuel-efficient? Would a six or five knots increase make the boats less fuel-efficient? The piece I linked to above has a more useful answer than I was able to find with the links I posted previously. This does not help with the difference between 20 and 25 knots, however.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Feb 28, 2013 10:45:54 GMT -8
The design doesn't look aesthetically pleasing to me. It would look a lot better if the passenger cabin extended further astern, and even though it's a day boat, passengers would just have a lot more room inside and it wouldn't feel so cramped.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Feb 28, 2013 13:59:01 GMT -8
I agree. Compared with the robust Spaulding style concept we've seen for the last few years, this new design feels a little too minimal. Since this is at the most a 60 Car Vessel though, it does make sense to have a more scaled down passenger cabin. I'd compare it to say... the Powell River Class Vessels, while they do hold about 70 cars, their passenger cabin is quite minimal too. Though it is unfair to compare vessels that operate runs that are in most cases an hour or less compared to these vessels that will operate a run 5 hours long.
If it was up to me though, I'd go with the Original Design. A lot more pleasing to look at and would look great alongside the other vessels in the AMHS Fleet.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 28, 2013 14:07:42 GMT -8
I agree. Compared with the robust Spaulding style concept we've seen for the last few years, this new design feels a little too minimal. Since this is at the most a 60 Car Vessel though, it does make sense to have a more scaled down passenger cabin. I'd compare it to say... the Powell River Class Vessels, while they do hold about 70 cars, their passenger cabin is quite minimal too. Though it is unfair to compare vessels that operate runs that are in most cases an hour or less compared to these vessels that will operate a run 5 hours long. If it was up to me though, I'd go with the Original Design. A lot more pleasing to look at and would look great alongside the other vessels in the AMHS Fleet. I agree with all of this 100%. I just wanted to mention that I think this design is based on the MV Lituya. That is all.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 28, 2013 14:48:15 GMT -8
I was actually thinking this design has merit. There is a lot of glass, and a lot of deck space, and the passenger area is split up in several sections, so it does not have the "bus waiting room" feel that too many short-haul mass transit systems seem to prefer.
That being said, it is worth mentioning that this is a "concept road map" of Coastwise Corporation. I don't know if they are going to get the final bid for the ship, and I don't know what Elliot Bay would do with this concept if they have a hand in it.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Feb 28, 2013 19:52:18 GMT -8
That being said, it is worth mentioning that this is a "concept road map" of Coastwise Corporation. I don't know if they are going to get the final bid for the ship, and I don't know what Elliot Bay would do with this concept if they have a hand in it. So is Coastwise Corporation just another design firm, like Elliot Bay Design Group, right?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 28, 2013 21:57:41 GMT -8
So is Coastwise Corporation just another design firm, like Elliot Bay Design Group, right? They are a design firm, although they have a stable of much smaller projects then Elliot Bay. I believe they designed Lituya, so Mike C is probably not too far off. I am not aware of any vessel larger than Lituya, but she seems to get the job done for the AMHS, so they may well be willing go with Coastwise for the new, smaller version of the ACF. I believe that Coastwise also did the design work for most of the Allen Marine boats built in Sitka.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Feb 28, 2013 22:19:38 GMT -8
Yeah, but at least extend the passenger cabin further astern because right now it looks only "half-built." I really wish it looked more like a Spaulding ship!
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Feb 28, 2013 22:22:52 GMT -8
Yeah, but at least extend the passenger cabin further astern because right now it looks only "half-built." I really wish it looked more like a Spaulding ship! I agree. Maybe just doing a one floor cabin would work. Other option would be to extend the Sun deck behind all over the car deck and to include a solarium just aft of the superstructure.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Feb 28, 2013 22:34:48 GMT -8
Yeah, but at least extend the passenger cabin further astern because right now it looks only "half-built." I really wish it looked more like a Spaulding ship! I agree. Maybe just doing a one floor cabin would work. Other option would be to extend the Sun deck behind all over the car deck and to include a solarium just aft of the superstructure. I've done a screen-grab of the drawing in that PDF and I will modify it to make it look better. I hope that this wouldn't be a copyright violation, even though I'm modifying it...
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 28, 2013 23:35:52 GMT -8
Yeah, but at least extend the passenger cabin further astern because right now it looks only "half-built." I really wish it looked more like a Spaulding ship! I agree. Maybe just doing a one floor cabin would work. Other option would be to extend the Sun deck behind all over the car deck and to include a solarium just aft of the superstructure. From the report, they seemed very interested in having a semi-open car deck, to reduce the cost of an HVAC system. There is a solarium aft of the structure, just fore of the funnels. It is also worth noting that they are planning on having the car deck accessible while the ship is underway. That may have an impact on how much indoor passenger space they need, though I don't imagine many people will want to hang out in their cars in a mostly inclosed car deck for 5 hours. One thing I like about the half-built look is that it creates a lot more glass in the forward louange. Downstairs, there is 180 degrees of unobstructed view, upstairs there is both a quiet room and a "family" room which means that Mom and Dad can still see the view without having to be relegated somewhere else. One thought is that this vessel can make Juneau to Petersburg in one shift, and then switch crews and go Petersburg to Ketchican. A version of this vessel with somewhat better passenger room (set up for 17 hours on board) could make Juneau-Ketchican in a day.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 1, 2013 12:22:45 GMT -8
I agree with others in that I find the Elliot Bay designs for an Alaska Class Ferry more pleasing than this one. It must be that 'Spauldingesque look' about the EB design.
When people talk about co-operation between our west coast ferry fleets, I see a potential opportunity for BCF with the ACF-EB design. I believe that it might be preferable for the Northern Discovery to be more like that, than a scaled down Norex. A BC 'northern fleet' in my mind might well consist of the NorEx plus two modified ACF-EB type vessels with an AEQ capacity of about 80, and perhaps cabin accommodation for say 50 people. The NorAd, in such a scenario, would be disposed of.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Mar 10, 2013 19:34:30 GMT -8
I agree with others in that I find the Elliot Bay designs for an Alaska Class Ferry more pleasing than this one. It must be that 'Spauldingesque look' about the EB design. When people talk about co-operation between our west coast ferry fleets, I see a potential opportunity for BCF with the ACF-EB design. I believe that it might be preferable for the Northern Discovery to be more like that, than a scaled down Norex. A BC 'northern fleet' in my mind might well consist of the NorEx plus two modified ACF-EB type vessels with an AEQ capacity of about 80, and perhaps cabin accommodation for say 50 people. The NorAd, in such a scenario, would be disposed of. The Elliott Bay design, with a bit of tweaking, could be a good replacement for the Malaspina, Matanuska, and Taku, which are sister ferries built in 1963. The Taku carries 69 cars, and its two sisters each carry 88 cars (they were stretched in the '70s), so one design could work. I agree that it could also work for BCF as two "Northern Class" vessels to replace the Chilliwack and NorAd, as you mentioned. BTW does the NorAd really need to be replaced; is it really that bad? Spaulding spoiled us with good-looking ferries and now these ferries are getting older. Before we know it, they'll be gone . Any replacement for a Spaulding ferry often results in an uglier design (the one exception being the Coastal class ).
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Mar 10, 2013 21:04:23 GMT -8
Here's my rendition of the Alaska Class Dayboat: (hopefully this works) In my design, I extended the main passenger deck further astern, moved the stacks up a level, and put the solarium on the second passenger deck level. In order to continue to have open ventilation to the car deck, I didn't extend the passenger deck all the way back to the stern. Nevertheless, it looks MUCH better! Note: The original design (C) 2013 Coastwise Corporation; my design improvements (C) 2013 Compdude787. Please don't use without my permission.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on Mar 10, 2013 22:46:41 GMT -8
Here's my rendition of the Alaska Class Dayboat: (hopefully this works) In my design, I extended the main passenger deck further astern, moved the stacks up a level, and put the solarium on the second passenger deck level. In order to continue to have open ventilation to the car deck, I didn't extend the passenger deck all the way back to the stern. Nevertheless, it looks MUCH better! Note: The original design (C) 2013 Coastwise Corporation; my design improvements (C) 2013 Compdude787. Please don't use without my permission. Now, that's much better. I would enclose the car deck. It would get frosty otherwise on cold winter days.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Mar 11, 2013 21:52:52 GMT -8
I modified my design more to make the passenger cabin longer and the stack smaller and shorter (I thought it was way too big before): Original Design: (C) Coastwise Corporation Design Improvements: (C) CompDude787
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on May 25, 2013 6:39:56 GMT -8
New shuttle ferry design moving ahead
by Ed Schoenfeld, CoastAlaska News www.krbd.org/author/eds/May 23, 2013 10:40 AM There’s more information on the new shuttle ferries slated to be built at Ketchikan’s Alaska Ship and Drydock. Naval architects working on the design have recommend against uncovered car decks. Marine highway officials earlier said a partially open deck could save construction and operational costs. But Project Engineer Will Nickum said it’s not the best option. “The general recommendation we have is that it should be closed. That that would be the better approach long-term,” he said. He said a closed deck would boost the comfort level and protect equipment. But it would increase construction costs by 1.5 percent. Nickum, of Seattle’s Elliot Bay Design Group, spoke at this month’s Marine Transportation Advisory Board meeting in Juneau. Plans call for two shuttle ships sailing between the capital city, Haines and Skagway. They’re the latest approach to what’s called the Alaska-Class Ferry. (Read about plans for the shuttle ferry.) Nickum said the shuttles’ target length is now 280 feet. That’s 20 percent longer than the small ferry LeConte.
“Comfort needs to be better than the LeConte-class vessels and approach that of the Taku. That is a serious requirement and we have to look at length to make sure we can meet that particular thing,” he said. Comfort refers to the ride, especially in high winds and seas. Designers continue to work with some earlier assumptions:The ferries will not have staterooms or crew cabins. Food service will be limited. And they will be easily maneuverable for quick loading and unloading. But there will be a few amenities. “We think it makes sense to have a family and children space. We’d have a work space or quiet room. That would be the library space. We’d also have the traditional forward observation lounge,” he said. And that space may be on a level above the main passenger deck. Nickum said the shuttles will also have a small theater, similar to some other ferries. State officials in 2011 selected Ketchikan’s Alaska Ship and Drydock as the construction manager and general contractor for the new Alaska Class Ferry. The shuttle is the most recent version of that design. A draft report on the latest vessel plans will be out for public review on June 13th. Marine Transportation Advisory Board member Cathie Roemmich of Juneau expects some battles. “You have a handful of people in a couple communities that are just going to give you negativity. They don’t like it and they don’t want it. I hope the public process is very swift and you guys can move on with the job,” she said. Advisory board members also asked about a proposed bow-door system. And some worried whether the ships would be compatible with ramps and docks outside Lynn Canal. Former board chairman Dave Kensinger of Petersburg urged designers to consider staffing as well as construction. “I think the most important thing you do on whatever else you build is you make for sure it’s as cheap as possible to operate,” he said. “We did an exercise quite a few years ago and if you look at the life-cycle cost of one crewmember on one boat, it’s astounding.” www.krbd.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2-27-13-Shuttle-ferry-Road-Map-Vessel-Sheet-2-cropped.jpg
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on May 28, 2013 21:15:42 GMT -8
There is a " Frequently Asked Questions" webpage on AMHS' website that will answer many of our questions about the new ACF dayboat ferry design. In particular, one of the questions answered is something that has been a concern for many of us on this forum: "What is the purpose of building a ferry with an open deck, it sounds unsafe and problematic for winter travel?" Unfortunately it does not have an answer for the question "Why do these ferries have such an ugly design?"
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on May 29, 2013 13:44:03 GMT -8
Alaska State ferries have an interesting idea for the day boats. From the Alaska Class document.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Jun 1, 2013 20:58:29 GMT -8
A couple of questions, from my reading of the 'Alaska' class concept document, which maybe one of our northern correspondents might be able to answer.
It states that AMHS vessels generally have two hours in port on the panhandle runs. How can it possibly take two hours to unload and load vessels that take less than 90 cars? (except for Columbia.) Part of the reason, perhaps, is that it also states that AMHS policy is that no one is allowed on the cardeck until the ship docks... why not? Why don't drivers and passengers return to their vehicles prior to arrival, so they can disembark as soon as the ramp goes down?
AMHS vessels apparently operate at a service speed of just under sixteen knots, which I can understand, from a fuel consumption standpoint. What has never been explained to me is how a vessel such as Kennicott, at more than 380 feet long and 85 feet wide, can take only eighty cars. It seems to an admittedly uninformed observer that there are operational and capacity oriented issues that make the AMHS system less efficient than it could be.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jun 1, 2013 21:42:16 GMT -8
A couple of questions, from my reading of the 'Alaska' class concept document, which maybe one of our northern correspondents might be able to answer. It states that AMHS vessels generally have two hours in port on the panhandle runs. How can it possibly take two hours to unload and load vessels that take less than 90 cars? (except for Columbia.) Part of the reason, perhaps, is that it also states that AMHS policy is that no one is allowed on the cardeck until the ship docks... why not? Why don't drivers and passengers return to their vehicles prior to arrival, so they can disembark as soon as the ramp goes down? AMHS vessels apparently operate at a service speed of just under sixteen knots, which I can understand, from a fuel consumption standpoint. What has never been explained to me is how a vessel such as Kennicott, at more than 380 feet long and 85 feet wide, can take only eighty cars. It seems to an admittedly uninformed observer that there are operational and capacity oriented issues that make the AMHS system less efficient than it could be. Neil, a lot of good questions. Because AMHS boats are almost all side & stern loading they have some area on the car deck right up at the bow that is not used for cars (storage of all sorts of stuff, but not cars). This knocks down their auto capacity a bit. Also, the three 'Blue Canoes' are all based on the Coho design, as was our Sidney/ Tsawwassen. Unlike us southerners, however, AMHS has never pretended that you can have four lanes of vehicles on either side of the central casing. They talk about having to accommodate Alaska-sized vehicles; sort of like all the big pick-up trucks I see around Kitimat & northern BC in general. On the Kennicott some car deck area is lost to space required for that ship's other role in emergency preparedness (re earth quakes, oil spills). They have a giant elevator & ramp assembly - it takes space on other decks as well. You are right about relaxed in-port schedules. They could tighten them up a lot. It seems to me that in the larger ports the ships stay put for two or three hours. Part of the reason for this is the complexity of dealing with vehicle space for multiple ports along the route. The Taku & Matanuska when leaving Prince Rupert will have vehicles aboard for Ketchkan, Wrangell, Petersberg, Juneau, & perhaps also Sitka, Haines & Skagway. Alaskans seem to be accustomed to these relaxed schedules. There are benefits. The one time I was on the Kennicott it stopped in Sitka for more than three hours. We lucked out on a tour of Sitka, once the Capital of Russian Alaska. We also had time for a pizza restaurant lunch. In ketchikan stopovers, I have had enough time to go into 'down town', see all the shops the cruise boat passengers see, and have a good meal ashore (as opposed to food in the AMHS cafeterias. I think the side loading also slows down thing a bit as opposed to our bow/stern double-ended loading on most BC/WA ferries.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jun 3, 2013 19:49:40 GMT -8
It is also worth remembering that while our boats are stern and side loading, most of our ports are side loading. This means that there is a lot of vehicular backing up and turning around that takes awhile.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 17, 2013 7:45:17 GMT -8
Elliot Bay's Design Study Report on the smaller ACF day boat is here. It is very interesting text of general interest to people on this board I think. They talk about types of bow doors, about open vs. closed car decks, a bit about hull speed vs. propulsion, and overall design. The last appendix is a draft deck-plan. Overall, I think I like it. I have some issues, but will withhold my opinion until some of the more knowledgeable members of this board have chimed in.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jul 17, 2013 22:07:34 GMT -8
Finally, something to discuss. I like Elliott Bay's design much more than the Coastwise design. I particularly like how the bow is curved like the LeConte and Aurora's bows are. It continues the Spaulding legacy of nice-looking ships in AMHS' fleet! One thing that may be a concern is that there's only one elevator, and it's on the starboard side of the vessel. If you have all this weight on one side, might this give the ferry a list like the Kwa-di Tabils (also designed by Elliott Bay)? Also, if the elevator is out of service (as is often the case on ferries) then disabled people have no other way to get up to the passenger decks. On many WSF's there's a freight elevator that disabled people could use when the regular elevator is out of service, but I don't even see that on this ferry design. I also find it interesting that they are considering having a clamshell-type bow door that opens in two pieces instead of a bow visor like the Bartlett and all of BCF's northern vessels have. Having a clamshell bow door (I think I'm making up this term but that's what they call this type of freight loading door found on the nose of an airplane) would mean that the forward view from the pilothouse wouldn't be hindered, so I think it's a good idea. So those are my comments. What do others think?
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jul 17, 2013 22:19:26 GMT -8
I also find it interesting that they are considering having a clamshell-type bow door that opens in two pieces instead of a bow visor like the Bartlett and all of BCF's northern vessels have. Having a clamshell bow door (I think I'm making up this term but that's what they call this type of freight loading door found on the nose of an airplane) would mean that the forward view from the pilothouse wouldn't be hindered, so I think it's a good idea. The NorAd , of course, has no bow visor. It loads/unloads only via the stern. A bit of a handicap, I'd say. I am fairly sure that clam shell bow doors are not uncommon in Europe, and they do refer to them as 'clam shell' doors, I believe.
|
|