|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 15, 2017 15:29:03 GMT -8
Really? Um... does anyone know if we have moved forward with building a birth that the Tazlena can nose into yet?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 23, 2017 10:37:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by darkfred on Sept 24, 2017 15:27:58 GMT -8
On Schedule? Ha....not even close. This from an engineering stand point. This is a new class of vessel. Hence it will need to do new vessel class testing after vessel is complete. Vessel is currently maybe 75% built at most. Structure is not complete. Outfitting is not complete. Testing will take a good four months if there are no issues. The last vessel built at this yard was 1/4 this size and had big issues. Ended up being delivered late by about four months. If I remember correctly original delivery was beginning of 2018 for first vessel. Now official statement is October 2018 and project is on schedule? If you keep on revising schedule it will always be on schedule.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 16, 2017 19:01:52 GMT -8
MV Tazlina under construction in the Ketchikan Shipyard. Follow this link to a construction photo on the AMHS Facebook page
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 7, 2017 13:12:55 GMT -8
The State of Alaska has released new photos of the Tazlina. Alaska Class Ferry ProjectClick on the diagram that says "In Place" over and over again for a slideshow.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jan 17, 2019 19:01:23 GMT -8
Why didn’t state design these vessels to install crew sleeping at quick, easy and cheap retrofit to the vessels? I am asking because these projects seems to get good idea to being with then become boondoggle when the plan failed.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Feb 15, 2019 20:34:46 GMT -8
One speculation is that Black Ball might tag onto the order for ferries by the Alaska Marine operation. It seems their vessels are coming in a variety of lengths and capacity. That would solve the costs of design and satisfy the built in America necessity. Does the state have options on more vessels in this class, if so what could be different length?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 16, 2019 8:44:57 GMT -8
Does the state have options on more vessels in this class, if so what could be different length? The initial contract for the ACF was for the two hulls, no options. That being said, ownership of the blueprints lies with either the State or Elliot Bay Design, not with Alaska Ship and Drydock. The State can take the plans to any Jones-Act compliant builder they want to build more. As for length, per memory, the plans are built with one section that would be relativity easy to add a plug in. I could well be wrong, I have read a lot of documents over the years that describe three fairly major revisions of the ACF concept. If true, Elliot Bay certainly could modify the plans to suit. Most of our long-range plans imagine that we would need more of this class of ship, but it's assumed that some minor changes will be made once AMHS has real-experience with the ships themselves. Now, long-range plans don't actually mean anything for an organization that is so susceptible to a shift in the political winds, but the design of these ships reflect that as well.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Feb 18, 2021 23:21:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 20, 2021 14:38:13 GMT -8
No. Boondoggle implies incomitance. This is deliberate sabotage. The ships are good. They are efficient, and the right size for what we need. However, they came on-line at the same time as we got a governor who is torching the economy in an attempt to prove that the government cant's function... at doing something the government has more or less successfully done for 50 years. They are being kept in port least they prove they can be successful.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Feb 21, 2021 16:15:07 GMT -8
No. Boondoggle implies incomitance. This is deliberate sabotage. The ships are good. They are efficient, and the right size for what we need. However, they came on-line at the same time as we got a governor who is torching the economy in an attempt to prove that the government cant's function... at doing something the government has more or less successfully done for 50 years. They are being kept in port least they prove they can be successful. Maybe Alaska should join with the several other states currently undertaking 'recall' procedures eh?
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Feb 21, 2021 18:08:06 GMT -8
No. Boondoggle implies incomitance. This is deliberate sabotage. The ships are good. They are efficient, and the right size for what we need. However, they came on-line at the same time as we got a governor who is torching the economy in an attempt to prove that the government cant's function... at doing something the government has more or less successfully done for 50 years. They are being kept in port least they prove they can be successful. I agree with you. But while any govern will utilize them in the right way as a day boat? Will these vessels be used on any route in the near future? Will these two vessels ever be used on routes they brought for?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 23, 2021 23:00:42 GMT -8
No. Boondoggle implies incomitance. This is deliberate sabotage. The ships are good. They are efficient, and the right size for what we need. However, they came on-line at the same time as we got a governor who is torching the economy in an attempt to prove that the government cant's function... at doing something the government has more or less successfully done for 50 years. They are being kept in port least they prove they can be successful. Maybe Alaska should join with the several other states currently undertaking 'recall' procedures eh? Way ahead of you there. We've been working on the recall drive for awhile. A global pandemic got in the way. It adds difficulty to gathering signatures for a petition.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 23, 2021 23:05:52 GMT -8
I agree with you. But while any govern will utilize them in the right way as a day boat? Will these vessels be used on any route in the near future? Will these two vessels ever be used on routes they brought for? I think it will. Unlike other times when ships were purchased and then never actually used on the route they were designed for (Fairweather), the Lynn Canal route is the most politically protected route in the system. They'll get their chance, although without the nose-in berth in Haines, they will be less effective then designed. Even if not, the crew quarters are already designed, and could be added easily. Then, you'd have a slightly more capable le Conte or Aurora. God knows those two pull well more then their share in the system. Having two more of them would be useful. Eventually, I expect to see a couple more ACF vessels, with crew quarters, essentially operating as our winter fleet.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Feb 24, 2021 23:31:38 GMT -8
I agree with you. But while any govern will utilize them in the right way as a day boat? Will these vessels be used on any route in the near future? Will these two vessels ever be used on routes they brought for? I think it will. Unlike other times when ships were purchased and then never actually used on the route they were designed for (Fairweather), the Lynn Canal route is the most politically protected route in the system. They'll get their chance, although without the nose-in berth in Haines, they will be less effective then designed. Even if not, the crew quarters are already designed, and could be added easily. Then, you'd have a slightly more capable le Conte or Aurora. God knows those two pull well more then their share in the system. Having two more of them would be useful. Eventually, I expect to see a couple more ACF vessels, with crew quarters, essentially operating as our winter fleet. You never know that the next Governor might use these vessels on intended route with nose in berth in Haines. Would they keep the existing berth in Haines? I think they should add the crew quarters because it provides much more opportunity for vessels and possibly future vessels.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 25, 2021 7:19:29 GMT -8
You never know that the next Governor might use these vessels on intended route with nose in berth in Haines. Would they keep the existing berth in Haines? I think they should add the crew quarters because it provides much more opportunity for vessels and possibly future vessels. Ain't that the truth. We won't have a sane system until we can divorce it from the short term goals of the administration. Our railroad would be a good model, except AMHS would not have the real estate business to float it, and it will never be the cargo backbone that the railroad is. The nose-in berth in Haines was set to be south of the existing terminal. It's possible that there was some problems with the design, the Walker administration did not get it built, and the Dunleavy administration seems to have dumped it entirely for a new $27 Million summer-only structure in Cascade Point that does not even have a building for walk-on passengers to wait for the ferry in. But, it would involve the State moving (and rebuilding) the Goldbelt dock for them so at least there's that. I suspect they will get the crew quarters eventually. The Walker administration found the $27 Million it would cost to do the modification but the Dunleavy administration decided, rather suddenly, that the money would be best spent elsewhere. Hm... $27 million. Why does that number look familiar? Oh. Yes. We get the new summer only terminal 30 miles out of town instead of 2 fully capable ships that could have been used in any sheltered waters in the system.
|
|