|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Apr 13, 2008 20:54:10 GMT -8
There has been much discussion about whether to build a Steilacoom II type boat at all.
I think the boat would be perfect for the Pt. Defiance/Talequah run. All of the other vessels in the fleet are too large, save the Hiyu, and the Rhody really probably has 5 good years left on her.
The capacity is perfect for the run, not too big, not too small. I don't think a Steilacoom II boat would work for the Inter-Island run either. Just not enough capacity for the future.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,947
|
Post by FNS on Apr 13, 2008 21:17:57 GMT -8
There has been much discussion about whether to build a Steilacoom II type boat at all. I think the boat would be perfect for the Pt. Defiance/Talequah run. All of the other vessels in the fleet are too large, save the Hiyu, and the Rhody really probably has 5 good years left on her. The capacity is perfect for the run, not too big, not too small. I don't think a Steilacoom II boat would work for the Inter-Island run either. Just not enough capacity for the future. I think one may be built in a distant future. I've looked at the design of the immediate 50-car vessel on WSF's website. The crew who would operate this would have virtually no proper onboard facility to rest in between docks, except for a 3 or 4 foot wide closet (which is worser than a prison cell). WSF will need to rethink this and rearrange the hull items to properly facilitate a crew lounge which includes lunch room features and a head. Also, space is needed on the Saloon Deck for vending machines for passengers.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Apr 13, 2008 21:25:39 GMT -8
What about future capacity on the Point Defiance run? The Steilacoom II type doesn't carry that many more cars than Rhody, which carries 48 according to EvergreenFleet's website. Granted, a Steilacoom-class vessel has a taller car deck to accommodate overheights, but it's really only a like-for-like replacement in terms of capacity. If two such vessels were built for this route, then there might be a good argument made for this type, but that's now two ships, more fuel, and two crews for a route that seems to do well enough with one boat. When some of the new 144's get built and start displacing other vessels around the system, would it not be more prudent to move one of the Evergreen-Class vessels to Point Defiance, at least for the next several years until those boats get retired?
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Apr 14, 2008 7:19:57 GMT -8
What about future capacity on the Point Defiance run? The Steilacoom II type doesn't carry that many more cars than Rhody, which carries 48 according to EvergreenFleet's website. Granted, a Steilacoom-class vessel has a taller car deck to accommodate overheights, but it's really only a like-for-like replacement in terms of capacity. If two such vessels were built for this route, then there might be a good argument made for this type, but that's now two ships, more fuel, and two crews for a route that seems to do well enough with one boat. When some of the new 144's get built and start displacing other vessels around the system, would it not be more prudent to move one of the Evergreen-Class vessels to Point Defiance, at least for the next several years until those boats get retired? The plan for many years has been to shift one of the Evergreen State class down to Point Defiance--hopefully the Klahowya, so she can end her career where she started it back in '58. See the Port Townsend thread for whether or not a Steilacoom II is going to get built. It is looking increasingly like it is not going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Apr 14, 2008 15:32:48 GMT -8
Consensus within the people who don't count at WSF (those who have to run it) is to scrap the Steilacoom III idea and put the money into the Island Home boats. The 144s will be along soon enough to displace an ES-class boat to south Vashon. The Rhody has a few good years left in her. She should; she's almost entirely a new boat by now. ;D
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Apr 14, 2008 16:20:57 GMT -8
Correct me if I am wrong, but did WSF have a problem running the Evergreens at Talequah because of it being such a short run... something about not being able to keep the engines warm on the short route?
Since the Rhody will have to be replaced at some point, at least there is a design that is readily available, we know it works, and is probably the right fit for that run.
I am not saying that the Rhody and the Evergreens need to be sacked right away, I love all the older boats and they are very much in need, but if we need to plan for their impending replacement someday, I think that the Steilacoom II design fits that run. I just don't think traffic volumes will ever grow to the point of needing a 75+ car vessel on that run.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Apr 15, 2008 6:31:24 GMT -8
I do. Every time a Steel-Electric showed up, traffic shifted from the north run to the south run and the Steel-E usually had full sailings too.
You're right, however. The Klahowya and Tillikum had problems with the engines coking up because they never really got warm. Why that wasn't a problem between Vashon and Southworth is beyond me. (Probably because of the longer hop from Vashon to Fauntleroy.)
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Apr 15, 2008 6:37:39 GMT -8
You're right, however. The Klahowya and Tillikum had problems with the engines coking up because they never really got warm. Why that wasn't a problem between Vashon and Southworth is beyond me. (Probably because of the longer hop from Vashon to Fauntleroy.) Could it be because the engines weren't going at full blast? I know both the Tillikum and Evergreen State weren't running at full speed when they were down there.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Apr 15, 2008 6:45:28 GMT -8
That, I don't know. For all I hear about Vashon Island runs from within the system, it might as well be in a different hemisphere. The only reason I know the island itself is still there is because you keep posting. ;D
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Apr 15, 2008 8:09:41 GMT -8
You're right, however. The Klahowya and Tillikum had problems with the engines coking up because they never really got warm. Why that wasn't a problem between Vashon and Southworth is beyond me. (Probably because of the longer hop from Vashon to Fauntleroy.) Could it be because the engines weren't going at full blast? I know both the Tillikum and Evergreen State weren't running at full speed when they were down there. Both MV Tillikum and MV Evergreen State needed major engine overhauls/repairs before they were assigned to the route. Seems logical that was part or most of their problem down there??
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Apr 15, 2008 8:20:14 GMT -8
Well, I didn't know for certain that the Evergreen was having the same problems that the Tillikum was. I was more under the impression that since the schedule didn't demand the full speed, they were taking it easy on the engines and reduction gears (not to mention the fuel bill).
That having been said, it's certainly a possibility. It wouldn't surprise me if that were part of the issue if not all.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 13, 2010 17:25:01 GMT -8
I personally would have rather seen the new 64s have newer more efficient engines, keeping the big EMDs for future 144s. In fact I would have rather seen the third boat to be a 144.
From what I understand, the third 64 will be for Point Defiance-Tahlequah. For these waters, the lengthened Steilacoom II platform, as drawn by in this forum by FerryNutSeattle would be far less expensive and do the job just as well, and as said, it would work great for summer Inter-Island run, I really am quite taken with this idea. As a person who likes vintage Ferries, just imagine if the superstructure and pilot houses were rounded like that of the wooden-house Steel Electrics, would not that be elegant?
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,947
|
Post by FNS on Jan 13, 2010 20:44:09 GMT -8
I personally would have rather seen the new 64s have newer more efficient engines, keeping the big EMDs for future 144s. In fact I would have rather seen the third boat to be a 144. From what I understand, the third 64 will be for Point Defiance-Tahlequah. For these waters, the lengthened Steilacoom II platform, as drawn by in this forum by FerryNutSeattle would be far less expensive and do the job just as well, and as said, it would work great for summer Inter-Island run, I really am quite taken with this idea. As a person who likes vintage Ferries, just imagine if the superstructure and pilot houses were rounded like that of the wooden-house Steel Electrics, would not that be elegant? Nice comments on my efforts! I have just did some tweaking on my design tonight and here it is: This is based on the design of the STEILACOOM II. I take the 216 foot base design and cut it in half. An 84 foot mid section is added amidships. The result is a 300 foot ferry capable of carrying about 74 cars and seating 250 passengers in the Saloon Deck cabin. Three elevators, two outside stairways, and two inside stairways provide access to the Saloon Deck from the Main Deck. There are cabins with spacious lounges on the Sun Deck for the crew. There is no galley in this design, but I have made room for up to five vending machines at End Number Two. Better heads are included in this design, and there is a ship's office at End Number One. Like the STEILACOOM II, this would be a 12 knotter. But, who is asking for that speed when the ferry on the Tahlequah run hardly reaches or exceeds 10 knots on that short crossing. I came up with this design as soon as it was announced that the RHODODENDRON was to be replaced. It's a very simple design specifically for the Tahlequah run with a simple passenger cabin, simple efficient passenger access, and no stanchions or obstructions in the Main Deck tunnels. There are two rescue boats rather than one that's aboard the 216 ferry, and there are four MES stations. Although the actual ferry may not be given this name, I simply name boarded this MV TAHLEQUAH as this would be known as the "Tahlequah Class" for the Tahlequah run.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jan 13, 2010 21:19:28 GMT -8
That's actually a pretty cool design, Ferrynut!
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jan 14, 2010 5:25:07 GMT -8
You know, that's a very interesting design. I honestly wish I had the know-how to run the stability calculations, draft calculations et al on it... I think you would actually have a pretty viable vessel there, FerryNut. The ONLY potential problem I see is the crew's quarters might add too much weight up topside... make them (and possibly the passenger cabin) out of aluminum maybe. (A third elevator might also be adding unneccesary weight.) Overall, I like it. It appears to be functional as well as addressing some of the Steilacoom's, shall we say, aesthetic issues?
|
|
tom98250
Deckhand
Life doesn't get better than this...
Posts: 85
|
Post by tom98250 on Jan 14, 2010 7:02:06 GMT -8
I have just did some tweaking on my design tonight and here it is: I like this design; it kind of reminds me of a mini version of the original Queen of Alberni...
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 14, 2010 9:55:15 GMT -8
As you know here on Lummi Island, we are faced with the possibility that we might have to move out mainland terminal from where it has been for almost 100 years, on the Lummi Reservation. None of the alternate sites are good at all. When I saw this design, I started thinking. As all the stretching would be in the middle, there would be no loss of car/deck space due to bulwark taper and the car addition would be immediate and simply calculable. From my math, at 18 feet per auto x 6 lanes, Ferrynut’s design cones out to over 82 cars, probably over 400 passengers, wow! What a cost-effective package.
The closest off Reservation site is 6.5 nautical miles from the Island, the poor old Whatcom Chief would be totally inadequate, the Christine Anderson/Steilacoom II, as built, are on the low margin. I was thinking about a Steilacoom II with a 36 feet addition, or 66 cars. We would not need the crew sleeping quarters, it’s home every night, I think it’s perfect. With the way the local crew stacks cars on the Chief, they could probably get 70+ on it.
As the addition would be in the middle, with no taper, the hull would result in a better load ratio with some possible increase of freeboard, all things being equal. Further the increase of water line length ought to result in an increase of speed, especially with some increase of engine size. This design just keeps looking better and better, I wonder if any of the powers-that-be have ever considered this? I do realize this would not be a blue water ferry, and only for protected waters. Up here, with the exception of the extremely rough Bellingham Bay, it would work fine, the Steilacoom II really does not do that badly at PT/Keystone.
Ferrynut, could you draw up one with a 36 foot addition? I would love to see how this looks. Jim
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,947
|
Post by FNS on Jan 14, 2010 11:04:17 GMT -8
As you know here on Lummi Island, we are faced with the possibility that we might have to move out mainland terminal from where it has been for almost 100 years, on the Lummi Reservation. None of the alternate sites are good at all. When I saw this design, I started thinking. As all the stretching would be in the middle, there would be no loss of car/deck space due to bulwark taper and the car addition would be immediate and simply calculable. From my math, at 18 feet per auto x 6 lanes, Ferrynut’s design cones out to over 82 cars, probably over 400 passengers, wow! What a cost-effective package. The closest off Reservation site is 6.5 nautical miles from the Island, the poor old Whatcom Chief would be totally inadequate, the Christine Anderson/Steilacoom II, as built, are on the low margin. I was thinking about a Steilacoom II with a 36 feet addition, or 66 cars. We would not need the crew sleeping quarters, it’s home every night, I think it’s perfect. With the way the local crew stacks cars on the Chief, they could probably get 70+ on it. As the addition would be in the middle, with no taper, the hull would result in a better load ratio with some possible increase of freeboard, all things being equal. Further the increase of water line length ought to result in an increase of speed, especially with some increase of engine size. This design just keeps looking better and better, I wonder if any of the powers-that-be have ever considered this? I do realize this would not be a blue water ferry, and only for protected waters. Up here, with the exception of the extremely rough Bellingham Bay, it would work fine, the Steilacoom II really does not do that badly at PT/Keystone. Ferrynut, could you draw up one with a 36 foot addition? I would love to see how this looks. Jim I'll do that. Give me about a week or so to do this. A lot of things have to pour into my thinking cap before executing them into my drawing phase. ;D Lummi islanders would do well in having a bigger and better ferry with a nicer cabin for a Fairhaven - Lummi run. And, with the landing at Fairhaven, these folks would get DIRECT access to Amtrak, inter-city bus lines (Greyhound et al), and Whatcom Transit besides access to Alaska via AMH.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 14, 2010 11:12:01 GMT -8
I do not like the idea of going to Fairhaven, it is however better than some of the alternatives. Fairhaven is 10 nautical miles, and we would have to go through the area known as the triangle, by Eliza Island where three water systems colide. I have seen over 8 footers, short 8 footers there, and it comes up right now. I would prefer the end of Slater Road by the refineries, 6.5 nautical miles, better weather, although still not great. It could also serve as a jumping off point to the San Juans, the lengthened platform would be perfect for it. I hope we can get it worked out to stay where we are, 3/4 mile trip. Jim
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 21, 2010 0:18:53 GMT -8
Last Friday, I went by Freeland to take a look at the "launching of the houses' for the Chetzemoka. While there I had a nice conversation with Matt Nichols. From what I came away with is that they could build 3 ,stretched by 40 feet, 66 car, Steilacoom II platforms, with rolling chocks for less than one of the new 64s. These upsized vessels would work fine for Point Defiance and San Juan Inter-Island in the summer and actually be more stable than the 54 car size. While the new class 64s will likely be fine vessels, I think the taxpayers money could be better spent by buying two 64s, two of the stretched Steilacoom IIs, and applying the balance toward a 144. I real terms, the Steilacoom II does not do all that badly at Keystone, a stretched version would do even better and could have been ready in less than a year and already in service. I know the state did not want to buy the Steilacoom IIs in 54 car size, I agree, I do not think the idea of a stretched one was ever explored.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,947
|
Post by FNS on Jan 21, 2010 9:32:56 GMT -8
As you know here on Lummi Island, we are faced with the possibility that we might have to move out mainland terminal from where it has been for almost 100 years, on the Lummi Reservation. None of the alternate sites are good at all. When I saw this design, I started thinking. As all the stretching would be in the middle, there would be no loss of car/deck space due to bulwark taper and the car addition would be immediate and simply calculable. From my math, at 18 feet per auto x 6 lanes, Ferrynut’s design cones out to over 82 cars, probably over 400 passengers, wow! What a cost-effective package. The closest off Reservation site is 6.5 nautical miles from the Island, the poor old Whatcom Chief would be totally inadequate, the Christine Anderson/Steilacoom II, as built, are on the low margin. I was thinking about a Steilacoom II with a 36 feet addition, or 66 cars. We would not need the crew sleeping quarters, it’s home every night, I think it’s perfect. With the way the local crew stacks cars on the Chief, they could probably get 70+ on it. As the addition would be in the middle, with no taper, the hull would result in a better load ratio with some possible increase of freeboard, all things being equal. Further the increase of water line length ought to result in an increase of speed, especially with some increase of engine size. This design just keeps looking better and better, I wonder if any of the powers-that-be have ever considered this? I do realize this would not be a blue water ferry, and only for protected waters. Up here, with the exception of the extremely rough Bellingham Bay, it would work fine, the Steilacoom II really does not do that badly at PT/Keystone. Ferrynut, could you draw up one with a 36 foot addition? I would love to see how this looks. Jim And, here's your request! This one has a 36 foot addition in the design and a 252 foot overall length. Like the ST2, this has two stairways to the Saloon Deck. There would be seating for 155 people in this cabin. Large heads, a ship's office, and four vending machines are included. There are three elevators for maximum ADA accessibility, the central one serves the Sun Deck. The Sun Deck has an ADA head, a captain's quarters, a chief engineer's quarters, two crew quarters, a crew lounge, an emergency generator room, and a fan room for the cabin ventilation and winter heating. I made this vessel as pleasant one as possible for the longer run to Fairhaven if this would be the new mainland terminal. Depending on rail traffic on the BNSF line, a streetcar could be running between the Amtrak station and downtown Bellingham. A lot of though has gone into creating this vessel, which I would name MV LUMMI CHIEF. Enjoy!
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jan 21, 2010 9:44:24 GMT -8
Nice design Ferrynut. Question: are 3 elevators required? That seems like overkill for a ferry of this size, and a lot of additional weight.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,947
|
Post by FNS on Jan 21, 2010 9:50:09 GMT -8
Nice design Ferrynut. Question: are 3 elevators required? That seems like overkill for a ferry of this size, and a lot of additional weight. I can cut the end elevators and keep the central one if so desired. There are lots of options in what to do and place in a preliminary design phase.
|
|
Jody
Chief Steward
Ferry Foamer
Posts: 152
|
Post by Jody on Jan 21, 2010 10:20:17 GMT -8
ferrynutseattle,
First of all, huzzah on the drawings and concepts. I've been following along since before I became a member, and have been fascinated by them. Your descriptions and knowledge would seem to indicate that you possess a little bit of background in the industry. Since I'm new to the board, it may seem redundant or obvious, but what is your background and qualifications? It's not meant as an accusation, so please don't take it that way. I am legitimately curious.
As for the discussion of the new Lummi Island ferry, I find the shift to such a large boat a little surprising. The 93-foot-long Whatcom Chief has, what, about a 20 car capacity? Does the route really need a new ferry with 3.5 times the capacity? I know that moving the mainland terminal would reduce the number of runs, but does this ferry actually run at capacity right now? Again, I'm not knowledgeable enough with the situation, and am curious. The size difference surprised me.
Jody
|
|
Jody
Chief Steward
Ferry Foamer
Posts: 152
|
Post by Jody on Jan 21, 2010 10:49:34 GMT -8
From what I came away with is that they could build 3 ,stretched by 40 feet, 66 car, Steilacoom II platforms, with rolling chocks for less than one of the new 64s. Is there really that much of a cost disparity between the two? I thought the bids for an STII copy were well higher than 1/3 of the Chetz. And that's for an existing design... I must have missed something. I guess I'm rethinking my opinions expressed prior, as I had imagined the costs to be a lot closer together, and thus wasn't thinking in terms of multiples of the Stretch Steilacooms. I'll stand by my original thought though, and that's that we need to get the mucking about over little boats over with and get back to building 144's. If the cost difference is so great, and the prep time so little, I think I'd probably advocate eliminating even the second Kwa-di Tabil (probably too late for that, though, isn't it?) building two or three Stretch Steilacooms instead, and saving the additional funds to commission the first two 144's. (Issaquah Mk. II's?) I real terms, the Steilacoom II does not do all that badly at Keystone, a stretched version would do even better and could have been ready in less than a year and already in service. Seriously? It seems like the STII is getting parked a lot here lately when the wind blows and the seas whip up. Did this happen with the Steel E's too? It would seem like the more substantial structure of the Chetzemoka would be beneficial. That said, it's a lot more likely to be a problem during the winters than any other time of year, correct? And for that matter, when there were two Steel E's available for the route, did they run two year-round? This question comes from a 1 year resident of Bremerton. I was in Colorado and Oregon before that, and barely paying attention to the state's ferry system. I guess the reason I'm asking is, if a second boat would only be used in the spring/summer/maybe fall times, it might make more sense to build 2-3 Stretch Steilacooms in place of the second Little Boat. That way, you've got a fair weather second boat out of Port Townsend, an immediate replacement for the Rhody, and a boat to run the interisland routes as needed. With that, the St. II could be returned, the PT-Keystone run could be brought back to full capacity, and the Rhody and Evergreen State could be given a graceful retirement party at last. OK, I'm starting to get the idea now. Hmmm. Jody
|
|