SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Sept 25, 2014 13:59:23 GMT -8
There is a few exceptions under the Passenger Vessel Services Act...like Canadian vessels CAN operate between ports in SE Alaska...so if BC Ferries ever wants to take over the Prince Rupert Service, it could legally. Huh? A BC Ferries vessel could leave Prince Rupert, pick up a car in Ketchikan and let them off in Wrangell? I don't think so... Yeah, they can't do that. But if the BC Ferry was going to Ketchikan, it could technically sail on to Wrangell or any other US port as long as it doesn't pick anyone up for travel between the two US ports.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Sept 25, 2014 20:20:12 GMT -8
Huh? A BC Ferries vessel could leave Prince Rupert, pick up a car in Ketchikan and let them off in Wrangell? I don't think so... Yeah, they can't do that. But if the BC Ferry was going to Ketchikan, it could technically sail on to Wrangell or any other US port as long as it doesn't pick anyone up for travel between the two US ports. In the good old days did Canadian Pacific ships pick up & drop off passengers between Alaskan ports? Or was it strictly a cruise-type operation for CP while in Alaskan waters? Same goes for WP&Y ships moving freight between Vancouver & Skagway - did they handle any inter-port trade within Alaska?
|
|
KE7JFF
Chief Steward
Posts: 106
|
Post by KE7JFF on Sept 25, 2014 20:51:54 GMT -8
There is a few exceptions under the Passenger Vessel Services Act...like Canadian vessels CAN operate between ports in SE Alaska...so if BC Ferries ever wants to take over the Prince Rupert Service, it could legally. Huh? A BC Ferries vessel could leave Prince Rupert, pick up a car in Ketchikan and let them off in Wrangell? I don't think so... Under 46 USC 55121, it sounds like they could: §55121. Transportation of merchandise and passengers on Canadian vessels (a) Between Rochester and Alexandria Bay.-Until passenger service is established by vessels of the United States between the port of Rochester, New York, and the port of Alexandria Bay, New York, the Secretary of Homeland Security may issue annually permits to Canadian passenger vessels to transport passengers between those ports. Canadian vessels holding such a permit are not subject to section 55103 of this title. (b) Within Alaska or Between Alaska and Other Points in the United States.-Until the Secretary of Transportation determines that service by vessels of the United States is available to provide the transportation described in paragraph (1) or (2), sections 55102 and 55103 of this title do not apply to the transportation on Canadian vessels of-
(1) passengers between ports in southeastern Alaska; or
(2) passengers or merchandise between Hyder, Alaska, and other points in southeastern Alaska or in the United States outside Alaska.
( Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1641
However, in that scenario, I think it would require a written statement from AMHS to the Secretary of Transportation. The Jones Act (aka the Merchant Marine Act of 1920) is the one people quote the most here; that applies to mostly cargo vessels while the earlier Passenger Vessel Services Act is used to in conjunction with the Jones Act to clarify what passenger vessels can and cannot pickup/discharge in US waters.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Sept 25, 2014 22:31:18 GMT -8
Huh? A BC Ferries vessel could leave Prince Rupert, pick up a car in Ketchikan and let them off in Wrangell? I don't think so... Under 46 USC 55121, it sounds like they could: §55121. Transportation of merchandise and passengers on Canadian vessels (a) Between Rochester and Alexandria Bay.-Until passenger service is established by vessels of the United States between the port of Rochester, New York, and the port of Alexandria Bay, New York, the Secretary of Homeland Security may issue annually permits to Canadian passenger vessels to transport passengers between those ports. Canadian vessels holding such a permit are not subject to section 55103 of this title. (b) Within Alaska or Between Alaska and Other Points in the United States.-Until the Secretary of Transportation determines that service by vessels of the United States is available to provide the transportation described in paragraph (1) or (2), sections 55102 and 55103 of this title do not apply to the transportation on Canadian vessels of-
(1) passengers between ports in southeastern Alaska; or
(2) passengers or merchandise between Hyder, Alaska, and other points in southeastern Alaska or in the United States outside Alaska.
( Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1641
However, in that scenario, I think it would require a written statement from AMHS to the Secretary of Transportation. The Jones Act (aka the Merchant Marine Act of 1920) is the one people quote the most here; that applies to mostly cargo vessels while the earlier Passenger Vessel Services Act is used to in conjunction with the Jones Act to clarify what passenger vessels can and cannot pickup/discharge in US waters. If you look into that further, you'll see that you are quoting an act that was in force in 1961, before the state of Alaska began providing service to panhandle ports. No longer valid.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Sept 26, 2014 11:34:09 GMT -8
There is a few exceptions under the Passenger Vessel Services Act...like Canadian vessels CAN operate between ports in SE Alaska...so if BC Ferries ever wants to take over the Prince Rupert Service, it could legally. Huh? A BC Ferries vessel could leave Prince Rupert, pick up a car in Ketchikan and let them off in Wrangell? I don't think so... IIRC, the Wickersham was given an exemption by Congress to that law, but they were only able to get it on the grounds that the Columbia was being built to replace the Wickersham.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Oct 2, 2014 17:43:16 GMT -8
It is worth noting that there is no requirement for the OPERATOR to be American. BC Ferries could (although I can not fathom why they would) get a US yard to build them a ferry, maintain the flag in the US, and operate it in Southeast (or Washington, for that matter).
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Oct 6, 2014 5:33:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Oct 8, 2014 14:48:47 GMT -8
I'm not going to hotlink, but there is a pretty nifty 3D conceptual drawing of the new vessels on the AMHS page. There are also some slightly revised plans here.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Oct 9, 2014 4:56:19 GMT -8
I'm not going to hotlink, but there is a pretty nifty 3D conceptual drawing of the new vessels on the AMHS page. There are also some slightly revised plans here. Nice looking vessels! No open car deck space which makes total sense given the more severe weather they may encounter on Alaska runs. The rather minimal outdoor space for passengers is a bit of a negative but overall AMHS looks to have a winning design.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 14, 2014 10:22:32 GMT -8
Shipyard starts work on two new ferries Continues here.
|
|
|
Post by paulvanb on Jan 15, 2015 22:33:25 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 20, 2015 10:19:55 GMT -8
The following article will go a long way to getting anyone who is late to this thread caught up on the Alaska Class Ferry (in it's current configuration) Taming the Arctic, One Ferry at a Time
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jan 21, 2015 6:46:09 GMT -8
The following article will go a long way to getting anyone who is late to this thread caught up on the Alaska Class Ferry (in it's current configuration) Taming the Arctic, One Ferry at a Time While this is, in itself an interesting article, I managed to find another little story buried near the bottom of the page. Scroll down to the 3 part section: Maritime Safety / Arctic Operations/ Ferries. Under the 'Ferries' section, the third article under this heading reads: "Ottawa Bars Use of 'Buy America' Rules at Ferry Project in Canada" The actions taken by the Harper 'Conservatives' underlie the rather frosty relations that exist between Ottawa and Washington, D.C.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jan 22, 2015 6:30:02 GMT -8
According to CBC News this morning, the state of Alaska has cancelled the new ferry dock project in Prince Rupert.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Oct 15, 2015 5:48:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 5, 2016 21:19:26 GMT -8
The time has come to name the ferries. We are once again doing it with an essay contest for kids, and following law the ferries must be named for a glacier. If you know of any kids who might want to try their hand at writing, it might be fun for them to name a vessel with a 60 year expected lifespan. Not that I would want to influence any of the creative people who would write, but I have always thought the M/V Portage would be a fine and cheeky name. Perhaps the ship slated fro service between Haines and Skagway should be named for the Cul-de-sac Glacier...
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on Jan 6, 2016 4:27:01 GMT -8
If I had my way, I would name one of them MV MENDENHALL. This well known glacier is located near Juneau, a port that these new ferries are slated to serve. For the other ferry, name that one after a glacier in its namesake bay near Haines and Skagway. However, we'll leave the naming task to the newer generations of Alaskans. My thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 23, 2016 6:14:32 GMT -8
It's been awhile since we've checked in on the Alaska Class Ferries. For starters, they now have names, chosen by an essay contest for Alaskan school-children. Tazlina, Ahtna Athabaskan name meaning “swift river,” and Hubbard, one of our relatively few advancing glaciers. Additionally, there are construction photos and some new renderings of passenger spaces. It's not immediately obvious how to get to the photos, they are slide-shows under the progress diagrams.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on May 23, 2016 15:09:43 GMT -8
It's been awhile since we've checked in on the Alaska Class Ferries. For starters, they now have names, chosen by an essay contest for Alaskan school-children. Tazlina, Ahtna Athabaskan name meaning “swift river,” and Hubbard, one of our relatively few advancing glaciers. Additionally, there are construction photos and some new renderings of passenger spaces. It's not immediately obvious how to get to the photos, they are slide-shows under the progress diagrams. Great to see the two new Alaska class ferries coming along so well and also know complete with very significant names. Love the overall design of the ships, especially the twin funnels, and the walk around deck space below the bridge. Interesting to note that AMHS has adopted the bow and stern loading doors and done away with the side load doors. The interior design appears modest yet utilitarian, very serviceable layout etc. for day boats. Forgive me for digging out my old 'wish list' but wouldn't this type/size of vessel be useful for a rejuvenated route 40? or for that matter as a winter vessel for route 11? With a few design changes, couldn't passenger cabins be added for overnight services as well? ..just sayin'
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 27, 2016 9:09:09 GMT -8
Interesting to note that AMHS has adopted the bow and stern loading doors and done away with the side load doors. This is not quite true; the ACF design still has a side door to the aft and port, which will make them compatible with all existing ramps in the system. The current plan is to not modify the dock at Skagway, as the Haines-Skagway route would not benefit from the time-savings of a bow or stern load. It is worth noting that one of the great advantages cited by this design is that by moving the side door aft, this vessel can do away with the sponsors forward that get slammed by waves in heavy weather, improving her sea-handling up and down the Lynn Canal.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 25, 2016 13:22:47 GMT -8
AMHS has issued another update on the Alaska Class Ferry. As with the previous update, if you click on the construction diagram, it will push you through to a slideshow where you can see the outline of the vessels taking form.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 26, 2016 10:39:25 GMT -8
New ferries on schedule, on budgetAdditionally, from the above: - The design for the Tustimena is coming under budget, it should be completed in January at which point the system will seek federal funding to proceed with construction.
- Still no solution for the acquisition of steel for the Prince Rupert rebuild.
- The lack of SOLAS compliant vessels may become a problem for Prince Rupert service, as some of the vessels that are to be retired are the ones that have been upgraded to SOLAS, and the system does not have the funds to upgrade other vessels.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Nov 25, 2016 8:43:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 4, 2017 12:34:35 GMT -8
The AMHS has an update to their Alaska Class Ferry website. If you click on the diagram of what has been built, it will take you through to a slide-show.
Apropos, it appears that the bow thruster is aimed in one direction, which makes sense from a mechanical point of view. Is there a difference between that prop in "forward" or "reverse?" Can a pilot on this board tell me if bow thrusters on ships have a tendency to work better going starboard of port (depending on how the thruster is installed on the specific ship)?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 14, 2017 18:44:49 GMT -8
And now they have names (almost officially): - Hubbard - Tazlina News story HERE
|
|