|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 27, 2013 10:33:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 20, 2013 22:40:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 20, 2013 20:34:58 GMT -8
I think the answer is a big unknown. What we now know about the AK Class ferry is very little. They will not replace the mainliners on a one for one basis, they can't have their crews away from port for more than 12 hours, but if they are the leading edge of a new system design, they may make one of the hulls no longer necessary.
From what I can tell as a laymen, without crew quarters, to do the Lynn Cannal in 12 hours (with room to spare for scheduling issues) they may need a rater fast ship. Do any of the BC or Washington double enders maintain a cruising speed of 18 knots?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 14, 2012 11:23:59 GMT -8
Looks good.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 12, 2012 21:41:54 GMT -8
I'm plotting the Alaska Marine Highway routes on OpenStreetMap, but I have a bit of a dearth of information. I'd like to know the exact route the ferry between Sitka and Juneau uses. Does it pass to the west of Kruzof Island; go through the Olga, Neva and Peril Straits; or loop around the southern tip of Baranof Island? East of Kruzof, up Neva Strait, cutting across Salisbury Sound (this part is way too short on a nice day, and WAY to long in bad weather), up Surgius Narrows and and Peril Straits, and into Chatham just south of Florence Bay on Chichagof. With the exception of the Fast Ferries, our ships can't do Surgius on a running tide. If they miss the tide, they wait, and it is sometimes difficult for the system to make up time. I have heard the Kennikot occasionally has gone south of Baranoff to avoid the tide altogether, but she is the only ocean rated ship that sails the Southeast for AMHS, and so is the only vessel that could do that.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 11, 2012 18:29:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 10, 2012 19:00:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 7, 2012 16:37:44 GMT -8
I asked this over in the AK section, but was hoping to spread the net further to get a response.
Who generally "owns" plans for a ship after the ship is built? If a company takes possession of a ferry and then choses to modify it, going to a third party architect, do they have to get a separate as-built commissioned for the new architect to work from, or do they have rights to the original plans?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 5, 2012 19:48:39 GMT -8
Does anyone know who actually owns the drawings for the Le Conte and Aurora? Is the design owned by the state of Alaska? Did Elliot Bay buy them when they bought assets from Nickum and Spaulding Associates? Does Elliot still own the drawings for the Stikine and POW?
How does such intellectual property ownership tend to work in this industry?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 5, 2012 0:59:03 GMT -8
Or one of them was the surplus Prince of Whales form the IFA. That being said, $160 million is a rather shocking number. In 2003, the Stikine cost the IFA just over $13 million.
At one point, Elliot Design Group was recommending a Stikine class vessel for Ketckikan to Prince Rupert, and a le Conte class for the Lynn Canal. Perhaps Governor Parnell is looking at that study.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 4, 2012 22:10:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Dec 4, 2012 19:18:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 1, 2012 1:03:02 GMT -8
A almost throw-away paragraph in the Alaska Dispatch could tell of a potentially important change in AMHS funding into the future, providing more stability for the system. The Alaska Marine Highway will receive an increase in funding because of greater importance to be placed on route miles. Rep. Young was also able to secure guaranteed funding for Alaska’s ferries by ensuring that ferry funding come from the Highway Trust Fund instead of being subject to the annual congressional appropriations process as the Senate-passed bill indicated. www.alaskadispatch.com/article/don-young-credited-saving-alaska-railroad-drastic-cuts
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 19, 2012 9:29:02 GMT -8
That's assuming there was nothing mechanically wrong with the vessel at the time. Judging by how fast it resumed service, it doesn't really appear that anything was really wrong with the vessel? Sorry, I have been remiss... "The U-S Coast Guard says Monday’s ferry accident in Petersburg was not caused by a mechanical problem. What did cause the Matanuska to run bow-first into the Ocean Beauty Seafoods dock was still under investigation as of Thursday morning, according to Coast Guard spokesperson Lt. Ryan Erickson." www.kfsk.org/2012/05/10/coast-guard-rules-out-mechanical-problem-in-ferry-accident/
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 19, 2012 9:10:30 GMT -8
Does three or four knots really matter . . . Let's play the oversimplification game. The Mat is 408 feet long, and draws 16 feet. 6528 square feet on a side below the water line. I don't know where to begin to guess at her true dimensions, so let's make that 6,000 square feet. Sea water is about 1,000 kg per cubic meter. 3 knots of current equal around 1.5 meters a second If I am not completely off my rocker (which I could well be), from that we get 1,125 Pascels of pressure [(1,000(1.5*1.5))/2=1,125] which translates to something like 0.16 psi. 6,000 square feet becomes 864,000 square inches * 0.16 PSI = (I think) 138,240 pounds of pressure exerted on the hull, in the neighborhood of 69 tons of pressure. Obviously there are a lot of other forces at play, such as the water on the other side of the vessel, and most importantly the fact that this is not a closed system (I haven't a clue how that affects the math), but it is a Saturday morning, and I am hoping that someone who knows fluid dynamics will rip my math apart and teach me how it's really done.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 7, 2012 21:29:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 6, 2012 17:15:14 GMT -8
Huh. On second thought, maybe I'm glad that the NCL DIDN'T re-furbish the SS United States. I would hate to see the graphics they put on her.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 6, 2012 9:59:27 GMT -8
Titanic resonates with people to an extent far beyond any other passenger vessel in history. This project may not come to fruition, but if it does, it has a far better chance of being commercially viable than any other rebuild or recreation. Titanic resonates for many reasons, some of which would be very difficult for the monied interests behind any such venture to control. Yes, she was grand, and yes, she has had untold stories told and re-told about her, and even songs sung. Some of those songs sung are sung by children in Bible camps that talk of God's hand smiting the ship for the hubris surrounding her. Stories are told of the class system that let the rich get off while the poor drowned (not empirically true, as I posted earlier, but still the stories that are told). Stories are told of a ship not 10 miles off that could have saved more passengers, but didn't. I grew up on stories of the heroic efforts of her crew, working class seamen, who organized the evacuation, of a band that played while the ship sank, of of clergy calmly performing last rights on the afterward. Above all, her stories are about how she sank. The pride of White Star, more than 2 years in the building, sank four days into her maiden voyage as the Master sailed her at full steam into an ice field. This is the dilemma that will be faced by any modern ship-owner. Aside from a morbid curiosity for her maiden voyage, will the Titanic II receive positive attention after she survives? Can they control a story that is so ingrained into so many levels of our society? For several different ventures, the answer was "probably not."
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 5, 2012 9:41:23 GMT -8
Why even rebuild? The SS United States is sitting at the ready on the East Coast, and she would be the perfect fit for a renovation. I used to dream of rebuilding her, and running her from the West Coast to Hawaii and back, a run for which there would be almost no possible competition (might as well get something positive out of the Jones Act). Then, NCL bought her with the intent of adding her to their American flagged fleet. At the end of the day, her running gear, as amazing as it is, can't match the economics of a modern hull. No matter what a re-creation of an earlier ship looks like above the water-line, it will likely be a modern hull below the water-line, possibly sharing the weird constanzi stern with the QM2. Aside from a re-positioning trip to New York, I am guessing the SS United States will never sail again.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 5, 2012 9:05:29 GMT -8
I hope this works out; I'd love to see the return of the grand old liners, and I think there might be a market for at least one. I think the QM2 is the closest we are going to get, unless there is a dramatic change in resource allocation (some sort of environmental tax on aircraft). The first I remember hearing about a re-created Titanic was when I was in high school in the early 90's. I can think of at least 3 versions that have come and gone since then, all for generally the same reason. Nostalgia has a value, and that value is somewhat less than the cost of a ship. Nostalgia is of limited utility when any recreation would be dramatically different anyhow. SOLAS aside, few people would pay for a steerage crossing on a holiday. For the sake of argument, however, let's assume that someone does build a replica of one of the great liners. Why Titanic? Let's rebuild the Queen Elisabeth.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 3, 2012 6:52:37 GMT -8
Ferry construction fund gets another $50 million Lawmakers put $50 million in the operating budget for the marine highway’s vessel replacement fund.
Senate Finance Committee Co-Chairman Bert Stedman of Sitka says the appropriation could be used for any new vessel. That could include the first Alaska-Class Ferry, or something else.
“So it wasn’t intended, at least as far as I’m concerned, for targeting the first ship, but to continually add to the replacement fund,” Stedman says. “So when the governor wants to execute construction, the funds will be sitting there available for him.” www.krbd.org/2012/05/01/alaska-class-ferry-gets-another-50-million/
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Apr 29, 2012 15:46:09 GMT -8
Thank you kindly! It is a grand day.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Apr 28, 2012 19:04:50 GMT -8
Several. It started with the 747-100 prototype in the late 60's, followed by the 747-200, then the stretched 747-300, even more stretched and modernized 747-400, which is what you mostly see today commercially. They also made a really short version, dubbed the 747-SP, which saw service with a few commercial operators. There's also some military variants like Air Force One and the modified NASA one which carried the Space Shuttle on its back. Now, the 747-800 is ushering in the next generation of the venerable line with better avionics, lighter materials, more room, and better fuel efficiencies, and probably longer range, too. The 747-8F is the freighter version, and the 747-8i is the passenger version. There is also a domestic version of the -100 and -400 which has less fuel capacity and a higher takeoff weight for more people in economy, a combi version of the -200 and -400 that provides significantly increased cargo capacity at the cost of passenger capacity on the main deck, and a whole host of variants that tweak range and performance. Least you be curious, the 747-500 and 747-600 were in house models that never made it to production. IIRC, the -500 was a long range aircraft and the -600 was a very long stretch. I remember reading about them in the 90's, before the Sonic Cruiser came and went. I am on really thin ice here, the but I think the 747-700 was a long range vessel that could carry the same number of passengers as the -400 an additional 700 miles, with better high weight performance for full loads at extreme ranges. It became the 747-400XQLR (Quiet Long Range) and never directly made it to production. The research that went into the -700 program created the 747-400ER, and was then folded into the -8 program.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Apr 28, 2012 10:07:37 GMT -8
Now that Horizon is being rebranded with the Alaska brand, does anyone know how much longer the special liveries (all the university liveries) will fly the Horizon nameplate?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Apr 28, 2012 9:32:49 GMT -8
747- 800 intercontinental. The i differentiates beteween the passenger version and the (f)reight version. It's Boeing's shorthand. The 737-700 becomes the 73G to differentiate it from the generic 737.
|
|