lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 1, 2012 9:36:37 GMT -8
I do not see the STII design being widened, at the point of widening it becomes a different design and the redesign costs escalate. Lengthened, yes, it is a relatively simple change. I think the bilge keels will do the job, they seem to on the KdT's which have a quite similar hull cross section.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 1, 2012 13:49:55 GMT -8
I do not see the STII design being widened, at the point of widening it becomes a different design and the redesign costs escalate. Lengthened, yes, it is a relatively simple change. I think the bilge keels will do the job, they seem to on the KdT's which have a quite similar hull cross section. I haven't been on a KdT underway, so I have no legitimate opinion on that. I only know that without adding beam, you're enhancing the likelihood of the vessel being a "roller." Issaquahs and Evergreens have a length-to-beam (LTB) ratio of 4.2 and they aren't too bad on rolling. Jumbo LTB is 5.1, ditto the JM2s. Supers clock in at 5.2. Steel-Electrics were at 3.5. KdTs come in at 4.3 but have bilge keels which help. At least, you say they do... again, haven't scoped 'em out too closely, so I have no knowledge. Of course, by my argument, the Hiyu is the winner at 2.4. She doesn't roll; she more or less bobs. ;D
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 1, 2012 23:24:47 GMT -8
The STII is four feet wider then the KdT's and the 72 car 276 foot version would be close to the same length. I have ridden the KdT's quite a few times, they sort of wallow along, but are not uncomfortable, I think the Stretch STII ought to be similar with the bilge keels. The longer length ought to keep it from being a bigger Bob, it's ratio comes out at 4.06.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Oct 19, 2012 8:59:47 GMT -8
About a year and a half ago, I spoke with a former Executive from Nichols Brothers. He told me about a of an UN-finalized ferry design concept Keystone run. I believe it was a 80 car design with CP props of a similar width and draft to the Steel Electrics. This was NOT the design that came from Martinac and may have been initiated by the former WSF design staff. I think, it may have been called the Safe Harbor design, but I may be wrong. At the time we were riding on the then new Chetzemoka, and he told me it would have been far less expensive to build and maintain. Do any of you have any information about this design?
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Oct 19, 2012 9:28:21 GMT -8
About a year and a half ago, I spoke with a former Executive from Nichols Brothers. He told me about a of an UN-finalized ferry design concept Keystone run. I believe it was a 80 car design with CP props of a similar width and draft to the Steel Electrics. This was NOT the design that came from Martinac and may have been initiated by the former WSF design staff. I think, it may have been called the Safe Harbor design, but I may be wrong. At the time we were riding on the then new Chetzemoka, and he told me it would have been far less expensive to build and maintain. Do any of you have any information about this design? I thought the Safe Harbor Ferry design did originate from Martinac, but I could be wrong about that. I remember seeing the design, and if I remember correctly, it was a 130-car ferry with tapered ends that would not, in any way, accommodate any of WSF's current overhead walkway ramps. If someone else remembers this, please chime in.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Oct 19, 2012 9:43:07 GMT -8
Would the Safe Harbor design have been the Manoeuvrable Class design that pre-dated the 130 car design?
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Oct 19, 2012 10:58:38 GMT -8
It was smaller than 130 cars, from what I remember it was for Keystone. I believe it was intended to be built by Nichols, while the 144's were to be built by Todd. I do not know any specs about the Maneuverable class, maybe that was the name, all I know was it was about 80 cars with shallower draft.
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Oct 19, 2012 20:55:20 GMT -8
The story I heard was that the draft of the proposed Maneuverable Class was too much for Keystone. It just seemed to disappear, to be replaced by the one-size-fits-all-runs 130 car ferry (now the 144's), and a new Central Whidbey terminal east of the Keystone (oops, Coupeville) dock.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Oct 20, 2012 8:04:53 GMT -8
Although he had a name for the design, the fellow specially mentioned 80 cars. the width and draft of a Steel Electric and they were intended for the current Keystone route. Next time I talk to Matt Nichols, I'll ask him. until then, I guess it's a mystery.
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Oct 20, 2012 15:28:37 GMT -8
Not really a mystery. The outboard profile of the Maneuverable Class ferry was posted on the bulkhead in the Klickitat's engineer's dayroom in the late '90's. The captains on the run were the ones who said the draft was to much for Keystone. Eighty cars sound about right.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Oct 20, 2012 15:52:16 GMT -8
It may have been a variant, the guy said it was shallow draft.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 25, 2012 6:35:12 GMT -8
It may have been a variant, the guy said it was shallow draft. There was only one version of the "Safe Harbor" design that I was aware of. Given how far down the Z-drives stuck in the conceptual drawings, it must've been REALLY shallow draft if it actually fit into Keystone. But I also remember the severely sloped houses... it looked like the butt-end of the Kalakala, only more extreme. I heard from someone within WSF that while the design was unable to accomodate the overhead walkways, it had many more (and larger) problems than that. Just because someone can draw it out on a napkin doesn't automatically make it feasible.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on Oct 25, 2012 10:23:18 GMT -8
It may have been a variant, the guy said it was shallow draft. There was only one version of the "Safe Harbor" design that I was aware of. Given how far down the Z-drives stuck in the conceptual drawings, it must've been REALLY shallow draft if it actually fit into Keystone. But I also remember the severely sloped houses... it looked like the butt-end of the Kalakala, only more extreme. I heard from someone within WSF that while the design was unable to accomodate the overhead walkways, it had many more (and larger) problems than that. Just because someone can draw it out on a napkin doesn't automatically make it feasible. This must be the design you folks are discussing: Researched photo. From the WorkBoat website. www.workboat.com/imagedetail.aspx?id=14419
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Oct 25, 2012 10:34:37 GMT -8
This must be the design you folks are discussing YES! That's the one I saw on their website several years ago. I never saw this cool model, only the 2D profile view, but this looks to be the same ferry. I believe this proposed ferry was supposed to carry 130 cars, but I may be mistaken. In any case, it's definitely the Safe Passage Ferries design. Thanks, Ferrynut, for finding this.
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Oct 25, 2012 11:51:05 GMT -8
I believe that's the boat design that Martinac was attempting to build for WSDOT during the Steel Electric crisis. WSDOT's "Maneuverable Class" design preceded that design by five to ten years, and was much more conventional, and had no azimuthing thrusters, as did the Martinac design.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Oct 25, 2012 12:33:52 GMT -8
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Oct 30, 2012 11:04:19 GMT -8
I guess the described boat is a mystery. I must say the Safe Passage does not look as bad a I thought it, which of course is not a reflection of how well it may have worked.
So, we know the KdT design does not work well, I think they ought to be sold off. How about we try to "design" a concept of one here using our knowledge and intentions. Here is my criteria, feel free to add to it:
Length 270-280 feet Width 72-76 feet 7 lanes Center divider/stairway, 3 lanes on one side, 4 on other 80 + Cars 500 Passengers 11 foot Draft Rudder and Propeller protected with Skeg Reduction Gear Drive 4 stroke Diesel (x2) Power Controllable Pitch Propellers Passenger Space set inward from rail for outside narrow passenger walkways
I know this feels a lot like a Steel Electric, however, only in approximate size, this boat would be a simpler and less expensive Vessel to build and operate. I'd draw one up, if I knew how, let's see what you can do. I still vote for the State also buy an extended SteilacoomII for a replacement for the Hiyu, a spare, and for use at PD/T and summer at Keystone. Ferrynut has a great drawing he did for us here on Lummi Island when we thought we might have to run to Bellingham. It's a 276 foot 72 car version with a single pilot house, looks absolutely wonderful. because it has a smaller Passenger Space, the stairs are farther inward, which would facilitate better Inter-Island Spin. Maybe he will post the drawing.
Jim
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2012 20:22:11 GMT -8
efore moving to the construction of Jumbo MK IIIs.
Would the Jumbo Mark III's replace Jumbos'? Would the Jumbo Mark III's be bigger or smaller than the Jumbo Mark II's? How many would be built?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Nov 13, 2012 20:29:13 GMT -8
There was only one version of the "Safe Harbor" design that I was aware of. Given how far down the Z-drives stuck in the conceptual drawings, it must've been REALLY shallow draft if it actually fit into Keystone. But I also remember the severely sloped houses... it looked like the butt-end of the Kalakala, only more extreme. I heard from someone within WSF that while the design was unable to accomodate the overhead walkways, it had many more (and larger) problems than that. Just because someone can draw it out on a napkin doesn't automatically make it feasible. This must be the design you folks are discussing: Researched photo. From the WorkBoat website. www.workboat.com/imagedetail.aspx?id=14419I really don't see that design being all that practical for WSF primarily because of the tradition of having pickle-fork decks at each end, and two, it looks like a futuristic version of the Issaquah-class, right down to the lack of exterior deck space.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Nov 14, 2012 5:30:01 GMT -8
I really don't see that design being all that practical for WSF primarily because of the tradition of having pickle-fork decks at each end, and two, it looks like a futuristic version of the Issaquah-class, right down to the lack of exterior deck space. Which is one reason, I suspect, that it was never seriously considered.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Nov 14, 2012 9:23:43 GMT -8
efore moving to the construction of Jumbo MK IIIs.
Would the Jumbo Mark III's replace Jumbos'? Would the Jumbo Mark III's be bigger or smaller than the Jumbo Mark II's? How many would be built? Yes if we do a 1 to 1 replacement 2 jumbo sized boats would be needed around 2032 to replace the Spokane and Walla Walla if WSDOT sticks to thier 60 year schedule they claim to want to follow now. Replacements for the JMII's would not be needed until the 2050's. I'm not going to speculate about the specifics of what might be needed in terms of size/capacity so on as to much could change by then both in where and how people live but also technology itself. Perhaps they'd want 3 or 4 smaller boats to offer more frequent service or something else. Who knows!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Dec 4, 2012 19:11:14 GMT -8
Heh, I was born in '79, too. I remember when the Sealth and Chelan were on the run for a brief time. Went to elementary school in Purdy and took the Chelan back from Seattle on a field trip.
God how I remember that ferry being cramped on that early-evening run.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Mar 12, 2013 9:15:06 GMT -8
Steve Rosenow got me thinking about the future of the WSF fleet in his post yesterday in the Seattle-Bremerton thread. This is what he said: I think personally we should start planning for the future instead of living in the "now"... As I see it, auto ferry service out of Bremerton isn't going anywhere and at the moment ridership is increasing on that route, and it could be 10 years, or 10 years, before even a 144-car ferry may be obsolete. While I think the JMII vessels would be overkill for Bremerton, at least in the foreseeable future, I definitely agree with him that Bremerton needs a capacity boost, and that WSF, in general, should look at building larger vessels in the future rather than maintaining status quo. So, here are my ideas for future newbuilds and fleet deployment projected out to 2032, when Spokane and Walla Walla should be retired. Yes, I've done this in other threads, but I've changed things up a little bit for this one: by the year 2020:- build a 3rd Olympic Class vessel in the first wave of newbuilds - retire Evergreen State, Hiyu, and Klahowya - do a life extension on Tillikum to keep it around for another 7-8 years as a backup vessel (limit work to mechanical and structural) - start re-engining of the Kwa-Di Tabils to make them more fuel efficient, 1 per year during the off season2020 Fleet Deployment for a summer schedule scenarioPD-T: ChetzemokaFAU-VSH-SOU: Issaquah, Kittitas, KitsapSEA-BRE: Kaleetan, Walla WallaSEA-BAI: Tacoma, WenatcheeEDM-KIN: Puyallup, SpokaneMUK-CLI: Cathlamet, TokitaePT-KEY: Kennewick, SalishANA-SJI: N144-3, Samish, YakimaANA-SID: ChelanINT ISL: Sealthstandby: Elwha, Hyak, Tillikumretired: Evergreen State, Hiyu, Klahowya by the year 2028:- Build one more Olympic Class vessel to replace Cathlamet at Mukilteo - shift Cathlamet to F-V-S - build 4 extended Olympic Class vessels: extend vessel design by 20 feet to accommodate 11 more vehicles, bumping capacity to 155 cars. These new vessels will replace the Supers at Anacortes and Bremerton, and get auto capacity back closer to the Super Class's original 1967-era 160 vehicle AEQ. - retire The Supers and Tillikum (5 vessels total) - make MV Samish SOLAS compliant and assign to the Sidney route 2028 Fleet Deployment for a summer schedule scenarioPD-T: ChetzemokaFAU-VSH-SOU: Cathlamet, Chelan, KittitasSEA-BRE: N155-3, N155-4SEA-BAI: Tacoma, WenatcheeEDM-KIN: Puyallup, Walla WallaMUK-CLI: N144-4, TokitaePT-KEY: Kennewick, SalishANA-SJI: N144-3, N155-1, N155-2ANA-SID: SamishINT ISL: Sealthstandby: Issaquah, Kitsap, Spokaneretired: Elwha, Hyak, Kaleetan, Tillikum, Yakima by the year 2032:- Build two Jumbo Mark III vessels to replace Walla Walla and Spokane, and place at Bainbridge Island, subsequently bumping the JMII's to Kingston. A large increase in vehicle capacity over the JMII's is probably not necessary, so I envision the JMIII's getting a slight increase in auto capacity but a significantly larger increase in passenger capacity. If you were to extend the JMII design by 20 feet, that would net you 12 additional car spaces for a total of 214, while significantly increasing the passenger cabin space. - Build a new 50 car vessel similar to Steilacoom II. Place at the new Vashson-Southworth direct route. - Break up the F-V-S triangle and initiate direct Seattle to Southworth service, as well as direct Vashon to Southworth service. This will require additional dock space at Colman Dock, as well as an additional Slip at Southworth. Fauntleroy will then serve Vashon Island only, which should help alleviate some of the traffic back-ups currently experienced on Fauntleroy Way. - retire Spokane and Walla Walla2032 Fleet Deployment for a summer schedule scenarioPD-T: ChetzemokaVSH-SOU: N50FAU-VSH: Cathlamet, IssaquahSEA-SOU: Chelan, KittitasSEA-BRE: N155-3, N155-4SEA-BAI: N214-1, N214-2EDM-KIN: Puyallup, WenatcheeMUK-CLI: N144-4, TokitaePT-KEY: Kennewick, SalishANA-SJI: N144-3, N155-1, N155-2ANA-SID: SamishINT ISL: Sealthstandby: Kitsap, Tacomaretired: Spokane, Walla Walla
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Mar 12, 2013 14:42:09 GMT -8
By the year 2032:- Build two Jumbo Mark III vessels to replace Walla Walla and Spokane, and place at Bainbridge Island, subsequently bumping the JMII's to Kingston. A large increase in vehicle capacity over the JMII's is probably not necessary, so I envision the JMIII's getting a slight increase in auto capacity but a significantly larger increase in passenger capacity. If you were to extend the JMII design by 20 feet, that would net you 12 additional car spaces for a total of 214, while significantly increasing the passenger cabin space. - retire Spokane and Walla Walla
SEA-BAI: N214-1, N214-2 EDM-KIN: Puyallup, Wenatchee Why would they build two new 214 car vessels? I think they need to build three new 230 car vessels put two of them on the Seattle to Bainbridge Island and one on Edmonds to Kingston with the Puyallup.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Mar 12, 2013 17:18:36 GMT -8
By the year 2032:- Build two Jumbo Mark III vessels to replace Walla Walla and Spokane, and place at Bainbridge Island, subsequently bumping the JMII's to Kingston. A large increase in vehicle capacity over the JMII's is probably not necessary, so I envision the JMIII's getting a slight increase in auto capacity but a significantly larger increase in passenger capacity. If you were to extend the JMII design by 20 feet, that would net you 12 additional car spaces for a total of 214, while significantly increasing the passenger cabin space. - retire Spokane and Walla Walla
SEA-BAI: N214-1, N214-2 EDM-KIN: Puyallup, Wenatchee Why would they build two new 214 car vessels? I think they need to build three new 230 car vessels put two of them on the Seattle to Bainbridge Island and one on Edmonds to Kingston with the Puyallup. My thinking behind an incremental increase in size over the current JMII's is that we don't need vessels dramatically larger than the JMII's. What we do need are vessels that have greater passenger capacity for the commuter-heavy Bainbridge route. The JMIII design could accomplish this by extending the JMII platform an additional 20 feet, and building out more enclosed passenger cabin areas on the sun deck. The JMII's vehicle capacity of 202 cars is already pretty good. A 20ft longer ferry would bump that number to 214. I guess if you lengthened the vessel by 40ft instead of 20, that would bump capacity to 226 cars, which is much closer to the 230 number you came up with, but that would be a 500ft vessel at that point. I'm not sure we will ever need something that big. This is all pretty far out in the future at this point, and we're a long way from even thinking about what we will replace Spokane and Walla Walla with. Who knows what the state of the ferry system will be then, or even what the demand will be, or where the demand will be. Right now, Bainbridge Island has the highest passenger volume out of any run in the system. By 2032, that may or may not be the case. This little scenario I came up with is based on traffic patterns staying consistent, and even growing respectively, not necessarily shifting.
|
|