|
Post by EGfleet on Mar 4, 2010 11:24:51 GMT -8
Well. let us at least stop boat 4 and make it into a 144. Considering what's gone on with this project, with all it's flaws, it too is probably a done deal . Discouraging. I wouldn't give up on this part of it. There's a lot of push to make sure we don't get four of them. They can sort of justify three, with two for Port Townsend and one for Tahlequah...it's a lot harder to make any kind of argument to justify a fourth. David Moseley has said repeatedly WSF doesn't want a fourth 64 car boat. So far as I can tell the only one who does is Mary Margaret Haugen, and she's been getting an earful from Kitsap County and the San Juans to drop it and get on with the 144's.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Nov 30, 2010 13:43:51 GMT -8
I still vote for the extended SEII, under 18 million for a 72 car version on a Design/Build contract for Nicholls. Could be built as either a K or H class boat, call it the Tahlegugh
Put on rolling chocks so it does not "bob" around, Cat 3512HD long stroke engines, CP props, would go about 15 knots full speed, burn less than 600 gallons a day at Point Defiance at 12 knots. If it was built as a K, would run with a crew of five, six when fully loaded with Passengers. This thing would run- cheap, might save enough money to keep another out out of mothballs.
I have spoken to the crews that ran the STII, they loved it, the longer length and the rolling chocks would make it much more seaworthy, which is not needed on this route.
I know too simple.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 30, 2010 22:20:58 GMT -8
I have spoken to the crews that ran the STII, they loved it, the longer length and the rolling chocks would make it much more seaworthy, which is not needed on this route. I don't know about that; if I have to run it, I'd prefer that it be seaworthy regardless of which route it is on. But the idea of yet another one-off boat for a specific run... doesn't really sound like a winner to me. The Kennewick (or Chetzemoka, if all the 'shortcomings' are truly heinous as the naysayers would have them) should be adequate for the vehicle traffic at Tahlequah given my anecdotal knowledge about how traffic from the north end would always drift to the south end when a Steel-Electric was sitting in. Plus, we will also have a spare boat for the almighty-bow-and-scrape-don't-you-dare-touch-MMH's-turf Keystone run. If we need to borrow it for Admiralty Inlet, WSF can stick just about anything down there for a bit. Leave Lummi Island out of it for a moment, and consider that WSF has multiple runs to service. It also has a limited number of vessel resources that have to be tooled to be as useful as possible, and there has to be a certain amount of interchangeability. The Steilacoom II is, at best, a stop-gap design that would work on ONE route. That isn't the best use of state funds in my opinion. Sometimes there's more to consider than the bottom line.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Dec 1, 2010 11:37:21 GMT -8
In retrospect, I do not think the lengthened PC design (STII) hull with rolling chocks, would be any less seaworthy as the KdT class. Take some time and go look at the hull profiles. In length they are almost identical, except for the "spine" around the prop shafts and the protection of the props and the lower end support of the Rudder in the SEII v/s the open unprotected configuration of the IH/KdT design. In hull cross-section, they both use similar "Body Plans" (the designer told me so) as described in the Elliot Bay Design writing, "50 Years of Double Ended Ferries". The IH/KdT hull is a bit taller, due to having to carry the larger Passenger Spaces, then the PC design, as well as having the rolling chocks to slow the roll.
So it becomes apparent, by applying the rolling chocks to the PC design, it will also slow the roll of the SEII to a similar or superior degree than the KcT design as it has a lower moment of mass above the hull. The same goes for adding length to the PC design as it will result in a longer moment arm which will again result in less pitching, the longer the length, the less the pitching, it won't be "bob" anymore. A 270 foot, 72 car, lengthened PC design (SEII) with rolling chocks will likely be a better sea boat then the KdT's it will be near identical in hull seaworthiness and have a much smaller wind signature. The more open deck configuration of the PC design would get the cars wetter in extreme weather, but for the most part do just fine. Further, the PC design loads and unloads much better than the KdT design, ask the crews working on deck. Don't believe me, look at it for yourself.
I see the State not building any other boats for a while. The KdT's will end up subbing for other larger Vessels, especially the aging Evergreens. They will also be used on routes where larger passenger capacity is needed. This will again leave a Vessel deficit, another inexpensive utilitarian Vessel, like an extended PC type would be welcome.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Feb 22, 2012 10:51:02 GMT -8
I personally would take a middle path. I would, for now keep the two Controllable Pitch prop boats, after all, we do not want to shut the Keystone run down, like what happened in 2007.
I have a quote for a STII at 12-13 million design/build for Nicholls. Every car length extension is about a million each, so if we add three, that's about 16 million, for 72 cars. The hull profile of the STII and the KdT's are almost identical, the KdT's have the roll chocks, add them to the extended version. If we can sell the Chetzy, we'd have enough to buy two extended STIIs.
My choice would be to do a cabin modification to them, extend it some and bring most of the stairs inside the center caisson, like the Rody. This allows more area for the San Juan turnaround (spin). An alternate would be to not extend the cabin as much and keep the outside stairs farther back, after all the T/PD run especially does not need that large of a passenger space and neither do the others. A maximum of 400 Passenger spaces is all the others need.
Further, I would keep the single Pilot House, it's more efficient, and use CAT 3512HD (High Displacement) engine, they turn slower for longer engine life and have a better base fuel use than the standard 3512 or 3508. My fuel use projection, based on the STII's actual fuel burn of 600 gallons a day at Keystone (summer only), is 700 gallons a day there and somewhat less at T/PD, and I-Is. We could pay for one of these boats in only a couple of years on the fuel and crew savings alone.
It would be nice to build the updated SE's, however, the STII platform is already designed, proven and would cost far less in setup to produce, as the design and Computer Programs for their inception are already done. They would also be great spare Vessels, and as of right now we are down two boats from 2007, including the worthless Hiyu. By the time the new 144 gets here the Evergreen and the Hiyu will be done for. Make the new SE's when these get on-line and we find someone else to sell the two other KdT's to.
Your take?
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Feb 22, 2012 12:04:24 GMT -8
I personally would take a middle path. I would, for now keep the two Controllable Pitch prop boats, after all, we do not want to shut the Keystone run down, like what happened in 2007. I have a quote for a STII at 12-13 million design/build for Nicholls. Every car length extension is about a million each, so if we add three, that's about 16 million, for 72 cars. The hull profile of the STII and the KdT's are almost identical, the KdT's have the roll chocks, add them to the extended version. If we can sell the Chetzy, we'd have enough to buy two extended STIIs. My choice would be to do a cabin modification to them, extend it some and bring most of the stairs inside the center caisson, like the Rody. This allows more area for the San Juan turnaround (spin). An alternate would be to not extend the cabin as much and keep the outside stairs farther back, after all the T/PD run especially does not need that large of a passenger space and neither do the others. A maximum of 400 Passenger spaces is all the others need. Further, I would keep the single Pilot House, it's more efficient, and use CAT 3512HD (High Displacement) engine, they turn slower for longer engine life and have a better base fuel use than the standard 3512 or 3508. My fuel use projection, based on the STII's actual fuel burn of 600 gallons a day at Keystone (summer only), is 700 gallons a day there and somewhat less at T/PD, and I-Is. We could pay for one of these boats in only a couple of years on the fuel and crew savings alone. It would be nice to build the updated SE's, however, the STII platform is already designed, proven and would cost far less in setup to produce, as the design and Computer Programs for their inception are already done. They would also be great spare Vessels, and as of right now we are down two boats from 2007, including the worthless Hiyu. By the time the new 144 gets here the Evergreen and the Hiyu will be done for. Make the new SE's when these get on-line and we find someone else to sell the two other KdT's to. Your take? I think WSF will try to keep Chetzemoka at PDT if at all possible. But, if it proves to be too cost prohibitive to make the necessary fixes allowing the vessel to operate on such a short route, then who knows what will happen. I agree with others here who have said these boats are here to stay. There's been too many $$$ invested, too many politicians reputations at stake, etc., to admit this project was a mistake, and that we need to start over. Let's hope that the 144-car ferry project goes better. That said, if I was going to throw my hat into the armchair quarterback debate here, this is what I would do (keep in mind, this has no basis in reality than anything else being thrown up here): 1. Build a new 50-car ferry identical, or similar to, Steilacoom II to replace Chetzemoka on the Point Defiance route, and draft up a vessel swap arrangement with Pierce County to get STII up there when the new one is out for maintenance and inspection. Yes, 50 cars is not as much as Chetzemoka's 64 AEQ capacity, but once the 144-car ferries start to hit, eventually, capacity on the north end of the island should bump up. 2. Sell Chetzemoka, as you suggested, and use those funds for the 50-car ferry new-build. Granted, the selling price of Chetzemoka will likely be far less than what the state built her for in the first place, but it might be enough to cover the cost of a new 50-car boat, especially since it's a template that has already been designed and built.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Feb 22, 2012 14:30:36 GMT -8
I have a quote for a STII at 12-13 million design/build for Nicholls. Every car length extension is about a million each, so if we add three, that's about 16 million, for 72 cars. Your take? Folks, are you looking for that perfect, brand new, low cost open decked car ferry? Then look no further! BIG AL’s DISCOUNT FERRIES has this AMAZING sixty car model for only THIRTEEN MILLION DOLLARS! That’s right folks- THIRTEEN MILLION DOLLARS! You’d expect to pay FORTY or FIFTY million at a regular shipyard, but while this amazing television offer lasts, you can make the buy of a lifetime, and amaze your ferry buying friends AROUND THE WORLD! How do we do it? Well, plywood, Elmer’s Glue-all, and inexpensive Nicaraguan labour, and we pass the savings on to you! But wait, folks, THAT’S NOT ALL! Call within the next thirty minutes, and we’ll throw in a SECOND FERRY AT NO EXTRA CHARGE! That’s right, folks, an AMAZING eighty million dollar deal, yours for the LOW LOW price of only THIRTEEN MILLION DOLLARS! Need something bigger? That’s only an extra million per car length! Just check the box on the order form! CALL NOW!! This offer is not available in stores!Sorry, lifc, I couldn't resist. You don't have a quote- you have what some guy in a shipyard told you. There's been no tendering, and no response, so the numbers are meaningless. The figures don't bear up to scrutiny in comparison to at least fifteen years of newbuilding and rebuilding experience on both sides of the border. The Steilacoom II cost $12 million five years ago, with cheaper steel, Island Sky $45 million, kwa-boats $60-70 million, rebuilding of BC Ferries's Kuper $11 million, Skeena Queen $21 million, fifteen years ago. Thirteen million dollars is fanciful, and isn't the basis for any realistic discussion of WSF's service options. (as a ps... two and a half years ago, Pierce County stated that estimates on building another Steilacoom II vessel came in at $26 million... for a boat the same size.)
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Feb 22, 2012 15:03:55 GMT -8
Maybe it's time to dust off the Hybrid Hyak Project proposal, get some white-out, and change the name to the Hybrid Chetzemoka Project.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Feb 22, 2012 15:21:25 GMT -8
I have been in touch with Lake Champlain about getting on of their now smaller boats for us to replace the aging Whatcom Chief. They just built a 215' X44' car ferry for 7.5 million dollars at Eastern Marine. If it was built here, maybe 10% more?, if the local yards are forced to be competitive. So I think my cost estimate holds, so what if a 72 car version costs 20-25 million, still cheap in light of what we have.
These 64 car things are going to "sink" the system, sorry, the Taxpayers are shortly going to demand accountability , it's either that or the system cuts way back, which will result in much less tax revenue and the money spiral continues.
I also think, if we are inclined to build the 50 car STII, why not spend the three million more and get the 72 car version. Actually, when our illustrious Governor was trying to foist the State Ferries off on the Counties, they had discussed Pierce county backing up T/PD, I think it might not be a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 25, 2012 16:36:39 GMT -8
So here's that new thread, for what I'm calling the "SPF-72" type of ferry. - and there are over 70 posts that I've found about SPF72 that I've moved here.
(Stretched Pierce Ferry - 72 cars)
|
|
|
Post by dasgeneral on Feb 27, 2012 11:56:14 GMT -8
Has anyone thought about formally drawing up these plans and submitting them to the state of Washington? I would assume that given the current budget crisis and the fact that Chetzy's "teething problems" are being exacerbated on the Point Defiance run, someone at the state level must be trying to find a way to work this problem. Hell, even if someone could get them to accept out of state bidding on new ferry construction, that'd be a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by Cascadian Transport on Feb 27, 2012 16:58:42 GMT -8
I have an idea. Convert the Sealth. Make her hull so that less is underwater. Then replace her current propellers with VPP (Variable Pich Propellers.) Finally, replace the huge open car deck ports with smaller ones like the Rhody had. Build two more of those, than sell the KDT class to BCF. While 90 cars may be a little bit of overkill, it might be enough to let Port townsand get away with just one ferry during summer. Combination of more efficiant vessels and one less operational vessel will save our system lots of valubale $$$. The only reason I said a third boat would be needed was because I might be wrong, but I think Port townsand would like to keep their run in service whenever there boat breaks. And the Islands might want to get there hands on the third boat. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 27, 2012 17:56:34 GMT -8
I have an idea. Convert the Sealth. Make her hull so that less is underwater. Then replace her current propellers with VPP (Variable Pich Propellers.) Finally, replace the huge open car deck ports with smaller ones like the Rhody had. Build two more of those, than sell the KDT class to BCF. While 90 cars may be a little bit of overkill, it might be enough to let Port townsand get away with just one ferry during summer. Combination of more efficiant vessels and one less operational vessel will save our system lots of valubale $$$. The only reason I said a third boat would be needed was because I might be wrong, but I think Port townsand would like to keep their run in service whenever there boat breaks. And the Islands might want to get there hands on the third boat. ;D You proceed under the false assumption that BCF would even want to buy the KDT class. As has been stated before, they are too small to be useful on any of our main routes, and too overbuilt to be used on minor routes. I'm curious how you think they will "Make her hull so that less is underwater."? Magic?
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 27, 2012 18:24:42 GMT -8
I have an idea. Convert the Sealth. Make her hull so that less is underwater. Then replace her current propellers with VPP (Variable Pich Propellers.) Finally, replace the huge open car deck ports with smaller ones like the Rhody had. Build two more of those, than sell the KDT class to BCF. While 90 cars may be a little bit of overkill, it might be enough to let Port townsand get away with just one ferry during summer. Combination of more efficiant vessels and one less operational vessel will save our system lots of valubale $$$. The only reason I said a third boat would be needed was because I might be wrong, but I think Port townsand would like to keep their run in service whenever there boat breaks. And the Islands might want to get there hands on the third boat. ;D When I mentioned what we would do with three ridiculous 64-vehicle ferries, I was kidding. I also don't understand what you mean by the Sealth's hull being less underwater. Or having "smaller ports like the Rhody's." Please explain.
|
|
WettCoast
Voyager
Posts: 7,454
Member is Online
|
Post by WettCoast on Feb 27, 2012 20:58:51 GMT -8
I really see no possible uses for the KDT class in BC, although one idea has occurred to me as a big maybe. That idea is that BC Ferries could eliminate route 9 (Tsawwassen - Southern Gulf Islands). In its place Salt Spring passengers would connect via a Swartz Bay 'throughfare'. Throughfares, I believe, are actually quicker, arguably more convenient, and there are at least seven possible connections daily.
Passengers to other islands would connect with Swartz Bay-based SGI vessels at either Galiano or Mayne. BC Ferries would use a modified KDT in shuttle service between Tsawwassen and either Mayne or Galiano, maybe both. I say maybe because at 12 knots the KDTs are probably too slow. A KDT ought to be able to make at least four round trips daily on this routing. The vehicle capacity is probably too low, even if Salt Spring traffic is no longer handled (as per route 9). In the summer, two KDT's might be needed to have adequate capacity. The car deck would have to be completely enclosed and made weather-tight for cross strait service during the fall & winter months.
I have some other suggestions for what you could do with these boats: 1 - Sell them to AMHS. They would certainly make fine replacements for their aging 'Blue Canoes'. ;D 2 - Take all 3 KDT's and lash them together, end-to-end so as to make a bridge between Point Defiance & Tahlequah. If the combined length of the 3 boats isn't enough, go to the middle east and buy BC's old fast cats. The 6 vessels together should give you your floating bridge. ;D
In all seriousness, however, I believe you will have them in the WSF fleet for years to come. Hopefully they will find a niche where they fit in - sort of.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Feb 28, 2012 5:34:50 GMT -8
I have an idea. Convert the Sealth. Make her hull so that less is underwater. Then replace her current propellers with VPP (Variable Pich Propellers.) Finally, replace the huge open car deck ports with smaller ones like the Rhody had. Build two more of those, than sell the KDT class to BCF. While 90 cars may be a little bit of overkill, it might be enough to let Port townsand get away with just one ferry during summer. Combination of more efficiant vessels and one less operational vessel will save our system lots of valubale $$$. The only reason I said a third boat would be needed was because I might be wrong, but I think Port townsand would like to keep their run in service whenever there boat breaks. And the Islands might want to get there hands on the third boat. ;D FYI--the Sealth and all the Issaquahs already have variable pitch propellers. They were built that way.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Feb 28, 2012 15:00:02 GMT -8
I have an idea. Convert the Sealth. Make her hull so that less is underwater. Then replace her current propellers with VPP (Variable Pich Propellers.) Finally, replace the huge open car deck ports with smaller ones like the Rhody had. Build two more of those, than sell the KDT class to BCF. While 90 cars may be a little bit of overkill, it might be enough to let Port townsand get away with just one ferry during summer. Combination of more efficiant vessels and one less operational vessel will save our system lots of valubale $$$. The only reason I said a third boat would be needed was because I might be wrong, but I think Port townsand would like to keep their run in service whenever there boat breaks. And the Islands might want to get there hands on the third boat. ;D "Make the hull so less is underwater." Got any special plans in mind, or are we talking of the invocation of Archimedes' Principle here? The latter is simple enough... since the weight of the water displaced is equal to the weight of the displacing object, it should be simple enough to remove some weight. Except the design can't get any lower in vertical clearance on the auto deck, or narrower to accomodate traffic... "Replace her current propellers with Variable Pitch Propellers." I'd rather keep the controllable pitch propellers, thanks. ("Variable pitch" technically means the blades can be adjusted, but it has to be done in drydock and a fair bit of wrenching is required. I admit the terms are often used interchangeably.) Seriously, though, the Sealth has--as EGFleet pointed out--had controllable pitch propellers since her construction. "Finally, replace the huge open car deck ports with smaller ones like the Rhody had." Adds more weight, counter to Archimedes' Principle expressed in objection number one. (And would you please fix the spellings of the retired boats that we're supposed to be remembering? Thank you. ;D)
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Feb 28, 2012 16:20:24 GMT -8
"Make the hull so less is underwater." Got any special plans in mind, or are we talking of the invocation of Archimedes' Principle here? The latter is simple enough... since the weight of the water displaced is equal to the weight of the displacing object, it should be simple enough to remove some weight. Except the design can't get any lower in vertical clearance on the auto deck, or narrower to accomodate traffic... (And would you please fix the spellings of the retired boats that we're supposed to be remembering? Thank you. ;D) A hearty amen to that last point. No less than six ferry names misspelled, post after post, doesn't look good on a ferry forum. With regard to the former point, the only thing that comes to mind might be sponsons. I've just posted an article on a 1989 sponson addition to the Howe Sound Queen, in that thread.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Feb 28, 2012 16:47:36 GMT -8
Sealth is a good boat just as it is right now. I know the discussions in this thread are largely academic, so I'm not taking anything said in here too seriously, but Sealth, its single car deck with a 15+ foot clearance, and 90 car capacity, is a good fit for the San Juans in the winter time, and also at F-V-S. Ultimately, I can see it becoming the permanent inter-island ferry when the Evergreen Class gets retired and we have a few 144-car ferries built. Sometimes I wish they had left Chelan in its original configuration, too. Once the Evergreens are gone, we won't have any more single car deck "medium-size" ferries anymore except for Sealth. There is a need for that size of vessel.
|
|
|
Post by Cascadian Transport on Feb 28, 2012 16:50:27 GMT -8
Okay. It would require an extensive rebuild of the vessel's hull. And the rest of the thing. Scrap that idea. instead, build three efficient vessels that can get into Keystone harbor that have a capacity of at least 70 cars that have a superstructure design of the Issaquah and Super class.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 28, 2012 17:13:58 GMT -8
Kahloke is absolutely correct. In all ferry-served regions, there are notable routes that have increased overheight ridership. In BC, we have one route that is designed specifically for trucks and overheights, and vessels with increased clearance. The Sealth is an ideal design in many aspects, and serves her purpose well. Okay. It would require an extensive rebuild of the vessel's hull. And the rest of the thing. Scrap that idea. instead, build three efficient vessels that can get into Keystone harbor that have a capacity of at least 70 cars that have a superstructure design of the Issaquah and Super class. How difficult would it be to remove the "saddle lounges" (as they are referred to in BC) on the KDT class for added overheight capacity, or conversion to vehicle gallery decks? You're stuck with the KDTs.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Feb 29, 2012 11:51:21 GMT -8
I think this thread ought to be renamed --- "Envisioned Washington State Ferries".
The Stretched STII is only one of several designs that out to be brought forth. It is however, a really nice design and could be built quite quickly and relatively inexpensively. There is an envisionment of a 276 foot long version that can hold over 72 cars that could either be built K or H class. With the addition of rolling chocks, the "72" would be much more seaworthy than the original . For efficiency, I would suggest the single Pilot House and Cat 3512HD's for power. In an 18 hour day, fuel use would be about 700 gallons a day.
Oh, the KdT's can go up to 16 knots, they have a whop of power, although I'd be afraid to see the fuel burn, but, it might not be any worse per car load as more trips could be made. When they were doing their sea trials, they were often run over 16 knots.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Feb 29, 2012 12:41:31 GMT -8
I think this thread ought to be renamed --- "Envisioned Washington State Ferries". That's a good idea. I renamed the thread "Future Ferry designs for Washington - your ideas" and moved it out of the other Washington Ferries Sub-Board into the general Washington State board. This way it will be more inclusive and it can be for any of the ferry companies/operators in Washington State.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Feb 29, 2012 14:42:46 GMT -8
Sounds good to me,
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Feb 29, 2012 14:44:24 GMT -8
The Stretched STII is only one of several designs that out to be brought forth. It is however, a really nice design and could be built quite quickly and relatively inexpensively. There is an envisionment of a 276 foot long version that can hold over 72 cars that could either be built K or H class. With the addition of rolling chocks, the "72" would be much more seaworthy than the original. I'd need to see some more detailed drawings than what we've seen here on that stretch design, but I'll grant that the artist's concept at least looked nice. Would you plan on widening the beam too, or just hope the bilge keels would keep it from rolling like a Super or Jumbo?
|
|