|
Post by SS Shasta on Mar 1, 2008 15:19:14 GMT -8
Looks like it has been a bad winter season for the Rhody . She is down again with some sort of engine problem.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Mar 1, 2008 15:36:06 GMT -8
Looks like she's heading north...
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Mar 1, 2008 18:09:56 GMT -8
Now she's at the north end of Vashon... last vessel watch update shows her leaving and heading east.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Jun 4, 2008 14:30:11 GMT -8
Is this the first time that the Rhody has worked the Anderson Island route?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 4, 2008 16:39:03 GMT -8
Well, WSF has never owned the Anderson Island route, and this is the first time that the Hiyu hasn't been adequate, so yes, probably.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Jun 13, 2008 10:39:08 GMT -8
Rhody returns to Pt. Defiance - Tahlequah tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Jun 13, 2008 18:26:52 GMT -8
Wonder if she will go back to Anderson Island when WSF begins the upgrades needed on MV Cristine Anderson for her assignment to Port Townsend-Keystone? Too bad they can't assign the Rhody to Port Townsend-Keystone as she served there so well in the good-old-days!
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 14, 2008 6:35:41 GMT -8
Well, I have to admit that would be a simpler solution to the whole mess, but good old days tend only to be 'good old days' because they were long enough ago that we have forgotten the inconveniences. Not that the Steilacoom II is a good answer, either--and thankfully the Steilacoom III was sufficiently expensive and over budget (yes, I'll admit, possibly deliberately) that the political agenda fianlly got swept out to sea (much like the Rhody or Hiyu would do out on that route thanks to the heavy current out there ;D ).
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Jun 16, 2008 7:52:33 GMT -8
Wonder if she will go back to Anderson Island when WSF begins the upgrades needed on MV Cristine Anderson for her assignment to Port Townsend-Keystone? Either WSF loans a boat to Pierce County or Pt. Townsend - Keystone is temporarily shut down while the Christine Anderson goes in for upgrades.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Jun 16, 2008 12:46:10 GMT -8
WOW She does look nice (SS San Mateo photo). Looks like fresh paint. The last time I was on her was about two years ago and her interior cabin was beautiful; brass was polished, cabin was spotless. Even the washroom sparkled! There were historical photographs to enjoy. It's too bad they removed her small food service area during her last rebuild. Her crew must provide the old gal with lots of TLC!!!
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jun 16, 2008 15:24:23 GMT -8
WOW She does look nice (SS San Mateo photo). Looks like fresh paint. The last time I was on her was about two years ago and her interior cabin was beautiful; brass was polished, cabin was spotless. Even the washroom sparkled! There were historical photographs to enjoy. It's too bad they removed her small food service area during her last rebuild. Her crew must provide the old gal with lots of TLC!!! It's easy to do when the cabin isn't all that old. During her "refurb" back in the early 1990's the entire cabin had to be rebuilt from scratch because her steel was so rotten. The state really should have scrapped her at that point, but they'd dumped so much money into her they finished the job. I don't know if the brass is original, but I can tell you nothing else in that cabin is. FYI, they were going to do a similar refurb on the Olympic, but the Rhody proved so costly WSDOT decided to sell it off instead.
|
|
|
Post by In Washington on Jun 17, 2008 12:05:18 GMT -8
What evergreen says about the Rhody is true. I think saying it is not hard to do with a new cabin takes away from the fact that the crews at Point Defiance take pride in "their" boat and keep it shining.
Most crews at WSF have the same pride but some work on two or three boats a week making it hard to have the same pride of ownership.
There is one run that consistently gets bad press (Bremerton) regarding housekeeping and I have never quite figured that out. I have heard the blame put on the riders but don't believe that entirely.
Mukilteo crews keep the cabins on the lemons of the fleet looking great!
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Jun 17, 2008 17:58:32 GMT -8
What evergreen says about the Rhody is true. I think saying it is not hard to do with a new cabin takes away from the fact that the crews at Point Defiance take pride in "their" boat and keep it shining. Most crews at WSF have the same pride but some work on two or three boats a week making it hard to have the same pride of ownership. There is one run that consistently gets bad press (Bremerton) regarding housekeeping and I have never quite figured that out. I have heard the blame put on the riders but don't believe that entirely. Mukilteo crews keep the cabins on the lemons of the fleet looking great! It seems logical that the length of the Bremerton run gives the public "more time to make a mess." Also vessels seem to be assigned to and taken off the Bremerton run more frequently than on other routes. This likely has some impact on day to day maintenance and cleaning.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jun 17, 2008 19:09:39 GMT -8
What evergreen says about the Rhody is true. I think saying it is not hard to do with a new cabin takes away from the fact that the crews at Point Defiance take pride in "their" boat and keep it shining. Oh, I didn't mean it like that. I merely meant that it is easier to keep up when you've got a newer cabin and don't have to fight the ravages of age and keeping the cabin clean. I mean, you take the Sealth, for example, in the days before she had her interior redone...no amount of cleaning and polishing helped that old MM&P cabin. The Mukilteo crews, as you say, always keep sparkling boats, and did even before the Kit and Cat were refurbished...however, still, there was nothing helping those old MM&P interiors. I don't know what the Rhody's interior was like before she was rebuilt, and I know the crews down there have always kept their boats in very nice order, however, it has to be much easier now than dealing with the old cabin that was in very poor condition.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 17, 2008 19:13:41 GMT -8
I can attest that before the refurbs, the Issaquah-class boats were a royal nuisance. The decks beneath the levelling compound (concrete, usually) were rusting and swelling, which lifted up the floors... the upholstery was worn, the bathrooms had always been snake pits... and then some d'd fool at Bremerton got this wild idea that waxing the benches would help to maintain them, never mind that it was hard on the vinyl. And further, some uninitiated on-call ordinary seaman would come along and clean some graffiti off the bench with Ajax, which would grind the wax off in a patch and make all the regulars gnash their teeth. ;D But I did see an awful lot of snowy white mops on those boats (the Sealth in particular) and I got told once, 'kid, you're making us look bad.' I replied, 'I don't think you need any help in that department.' I didn't go back for seven years.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Sept 20, 2008 10:22:50 GMT -8
Did her 1990 rebuild/overhaul prevent MV Rhododendron from being used on the Port Townsend-Keystone route? I remember her as the regular vessel on the route in the 1970's & 1980's along with her somewhat near sister MV Olympic and before the Steel-Electrics were assigned. Actually I rode MV Olympic on the route during her last year of service during the summer of 1993 or 1994.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Sept 20, 2008 10:38:50 GMT -8
Did her 1990 rebuild/overhaul prevent MV Rhododendron from being used on the Port Townsend-Keystone route? I remember her as the regular vessel on the route in the 1970's & 1980's along with her somewhat near sister MV Olympic and before the Steel-Electrics were assigned. Actually I rode MV Olympic on the route during her last year of service during the summer of 1993 or 1994. I'm sure someone else can cite the source if you want, but in a nutshell, the Rhody is not allowed anywhere that is over about a mile from shore. (I think it was 1 nautical mile or some such.) Also, she is not allowed to cross any shipping lanes. That pretty much rules her out for that run.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Sept 20, 2008 13:41:47 GMT -8
I'm not sure when that ruling came into force, although I suspect it was around the time of the rebuild. Somewhere along the way the restrictions governing one-compartment hulls were tightened and the Rhody didn't make the grade.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Sept 20, 2008 16:58:45 GMT -8
I'm not sure when that ruling came into force, although I suspect it was around the time of the rebuild. Somewhere along the way the restrictions governing one-compartment hulls were tightened and the Rhody didn't make the grade. Thanks for the info. Is a one-compartment hull one that has no watertight doors/bulkheads for the entire length of the vessel? Did the Steels have two compartments? Sorry for amateur questions, but I've only been below decks on two WS Ferries: MV Vashon and SS San Mateo. I can't remember any such structure on MV Vashon; SS San Mateo had a watertight door/bulkhead between her boiler room and engine room or engine room and crew's quarters if I remember correctly
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Sept 20, 2008 17:22:21 GMT -8
I believe one compartment means that the vessel will stay afloat if only one compartment is flooded. Here's a picture of the Rhody's USCG certificate... Edited to replace link as Imageshack is being a pain in the bloody arse again
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Sept 21, 2008 9:33:34 GMT -8
Thanks for the info. Is a one-compartment hull one that has no watertight doors/bulkheads for the entire length of the vessel? Did the Steels have two compartments? Sorry for amateur questions, but I've only been below decks on two WS Ferries: MV Vashon and SS San Mateo. I can't remember any such structure on MV Vashon; SS San Mateo had a watertight door/bulkhead between her boiler room and engine room or engine room and crew's quarters if I remember correctly At the risk of sounding like an old crank, we've been over this rather heavily before in the "Queen of the North sinks..." thread. A "one-compartment" vessel is one that can remain afloat safely with one watertight compartment in the hull open to the sea (flooded). It has nothing to do with the number of watertight divisions in the hull... the QotN had a great many, but it couldn't have more than one flooded. (As an aside, I'm still stunned that they were even building one-compartment boats in 1969, but there we are.) The Steel-Electrics were called "one and one-half compartment" boats by some, with the explanation that one compartment and one shaft alley could flood and the boat would remain afloat. I don't know what the official COI said regarding the Steel-Electrics, but I would be very reluctant to even try the one-compartment theory on them. I certainly wouldn't be tremendously trusting of the watertight divisions in the hull after so many modifications.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Sept 21, 2008 9:34:53 GMT -8
I believe one compartment means that the vessel will stay afloat if only one compartment is flooded. Here's a picture of the Rhody's USCG certificate... [pic deleted for space!] And you'll note that the edict defining her service was issued on 24 May 1990 if you read all the way down... ;D
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Sept 21, 2008 17:43:07 GMT -8
I believe one compartment means that the vessel will stay afloat if only one compartment is flooded. Here's a picture of the Rhody's USCG certificate... [pic deleted for space!] And you'll note that the edict defining her service was issued on 24 May 1990 if you read all the way down... ;D Interesting Certificate restriction as early as 1990. Was this issued after her rebuild/overhaul? Just thought that the rebuild might have been related to the restriction as her somewhat sister MV Olympic apparently had no such restriction. MV Olympic was working Port Townsend-Keystone as late as the summer of 1993 or 1994, her last year of service.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Sept 22, 2008 8:28:33 GMT -8
I would suspect that was when the restriction was attached. The Holy Oly was probably grandfathered, or given a waiver, since there really wasn't much in the way of spare vessels until the JM2s were built.
Although I don't remember the Olympic working out at Port Townsend anytime after about 1989, when a plugged fuel line put her adrift for about four hours. Every time I went out there to get boat photos, it was always the Klickitat and Illahee. I think the fuel line incident pretty much put the Oly on WSF's restricted list if not the USCG's. The Olympic headed for Point Defiance not long after that, with the Hiyu going up to the inter-island slot.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Sept 22, 2008 8:50:21 GMT -8
I would suspect that was when the restriction was attached. The Holy Oly was probably grandfathered, or given a waiver, since there really wasn't much in the way of spare vessels until the JM2s were built. Although I don't remember the Olympic working out at Port Townsend anytime after about 1989, when a plugged fuel line put her adrift for about four hours. Every time I went out there to get boat photos, it was always the Klickitat and Illahee. I think the fuel line incident pretty much put the Oly on WSF's restricted list if not the USCG's. The Olympic headed for Point Defiance not long after that, with the Hiyu going up to the inter-island slot. I just checked my new article archives... Olympic appears to have last been on Port Townsend-Keystone in the summer of 1990. By fall of that year she was at Point Defiance-Tahlequah while work continued on the Rhody, which had been in mothballs since 1984. After the Rhody went in and out of service in 1991 the Oly filled in at Pt. Defiance until all the problems were fixed. She was officially mothballed in 1993.
|
|