|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 30, 2011 15:03:56 GMT -8
Too bad you don't have time for the world's ultimate ferry trip- the Norwegian Coastal Voyage, on Hurtigruten. Six days from Bergen almost to the Russian border, and six back again, on an actual freight and vehicle ferry. Definitely on my bucket list. I took that trip on the MS Kong Olaf when I was 8. 8 years old at the time, and I still remeber it very well.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 30, 2011 11:56:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 30, 2011 10:14:58 GMT -8
S/V Merlin (1889) - Only sort of counts, her "working life" was on the East Coast, she came to Alaska in the early 1980's, so... Sunk by a whale in the '90's, we refloated her, and she ended up heading South to Port Townsend. If anyone knows about what she is doing now, I would appreciate any news. One of the Steel Electrics (can't remember which) M/V Wild Goose (WWII era LCM-3 that hauls goods around Southeast AK) USCGC Woodrush (1944) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCGC_Woodrush_(WLB-407)M/V Chilkat (1957) If we were talking working boats, I could name a half dozen fishing vessels and packers built around the turn of the last century in Astoria, WA. Beautiful work on them. Built to last. I know of at least 2 that are still fishing. Replacing the engine on them is a pain in the... well, everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 28, 2011 8:19:17 GMT -8
Keep in mind that the Klatawa and Kulleet are not designed for open water crossings. Also, The Jones Act prevents them from being used in Alaska, as they weren't built in-state. Small clarification, built in-country, not built in-state. This design as never made good sense to me. When I responded to a DOT request for public impute, I could clearly feel the agency's closed mind to public impute. My main concern was the lack of staterooms which many tired travelers need on this leg of their journey. This lack of staterooms will also limit their use as substitutes for main line vessels. Adding a cabin deck not only adds manpower to run, but it also adds a deck of steal to carry around. Over the lifetime of the vessel, that is a lot of weight that is not needed for a day-boat, and with that, a lot of fuel. They are not looking for a replacement vessel, they are looking to use state operating resources wisely. Like it or not, with more people moving to Southcentral, over the lifespan of this vessel, the political will to maintain the system will decline. These vessels need to be as inexpensive to operate as possible for the future health of the system.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jun 29, 2011 18:40:45 GMT -8
Governor Parnel has released the post veto budget. Highlights for the AMHS include;
$60 M for our new ferry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ferry Vessel Refurbishment, $15,000,000 Fleet Condition Survey Update, $200,000 M/V Columbia Repower and Ship Systems Improvements, $25,000,000 Vessel and Terminal Overhaul and Rehabilitation, $8,000,000 Deferred Maintenance, $3,000,000
Pelican Ferry Terminal Renovation, $3,000,000 Port Lions - City Dock and Ferry Terminal Replacement, $8,000,000
$75,000 for transportation and ferry improvements in Elfin Cove were vetoed. The Ketchikan yards got $2,000,000 of the $6,000,000 that was in the budget before vetoes.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jun 21, 2011 21:45:02 GMT -8
MV Zuiderdam is already through the narrows, and Kennicott is coming down the channel. Next time the discussion comes up on this board about why ferries are more expensive than cruise ships, I'll have to flag this picture and talk about economies of scale.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jun 21, 2011 20:17:39 GMT -8
While it's easy to look at two geographically close ferry systems both building catamaran fast ferries at around the same time and assume they would have similar experiences, they really were built around different economic models.
The Fairweather was designed to be able to do Sitka to Juneau on a set schedule, with enough horsepower to power through a running tide (the rest of the fleet needs to wait on a slack tide. which obviously has major scheduling implications). The high speed cuts a 9 hour trip to 5 1/2 hours, theoretically allowing for a round trip within a 12 hour shift, give or take (Leaves Juneau at 8 AM, gets in at 6 PM, one hour on each side and you have 12 hours). The Pacificats, from what I could tell, gained no such specific advantage from an operational standpoint over a traditional hull.
The higher cost in fuel was to be made up by the lower cost in labor, and the scheduling efficiency of being able to sail the narrows on a running tide, and the passenger accommodations were designed to be quite comfortable for a 6 hour trip. I'm not sure I would want to spend much more time than that on a vessel with so little outdoor space, but when the craft is traveling at 32 knots, I can see why she is not designed with an open promenade.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jun 20, 2011 16:52:53 GMT -8
She was younger than the Taku, Mal, Mat, and Tusty, (all built before 1965, while the Barlett was '69) yet she was retired so much earlier than the others, who are all still in service. She is smaller than anything else we had in service at the time, and her visor made her incompatible with most of the docks in the system, so she was not particularly flexible with regards to re-location. When it came time to spend money to bring her up to spec, replacing the Aurora with a purpose built (and cheap, something like $12m to build and 4 crew to operate IIRC) Lituya and bringing the slightly larger Aurora up to South-Central made more sense.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jun 19, 2011 19:36:43 GMT -8
I would love to see the dome moved to a better spot on the Kennicott, however they did do some modifications to the stack so they could fit the blemish onto it. So it probably won't be moved anytime soon. Perhaps. Does anyone know the reason the dome moved on Columbia? The dome is traditionally white because the equipment inside is susceptible to heat, and so the dome is painted to reflect as much sun as possible. As such, the top of the stack seems an odd place to put the dome in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jun 19, 2011 19:25:35 GMT -8
One word from the true official aesthetician here: Well, the Columbia is a particularly beautiful ship, I myself would actually rank her 3 older sisters, Malaspina, Matanuska and Taku just slightly higher on the podium. Maybe it's just that they are an earlier Spaulding design. I put my vote for the Taku. The Mat and the Mal lost something when they lost their covered promenade.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 30, 2011 17:49:36 GMT -8
Clipper Navigation operated the vessel for a short time, when it was named Princess Marguerite III. So, did Clipper Navigation (a private company) own the vessel at that time, or were they just leasing it from someone? Apparently it was a 5 year lease at $120,000 a year with Victoria Lines as the BC agency that owned her at the time. www.komonews.com/news/archive/3979816.html There is also a picture of the livery and it is... different. I don't own the photo, so will not hotlink. A better picture is here www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=7478, where it appears they kept the lower half of the Union Jack and repainted the funnel. It appears that the initial lease was a lease/purchase arrangement, but the operation still went $2 million in the hole, so she sailed back north. EDIT- a much better picture members.shaw.ca/ve7cgc/pmiii.html While I am partial to blue hulls, I still prefer the blue to be paired with gold.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 30, 2011 10:39:02 GMT -8
Many of these shots have a line of rust on the hull below and just after the Bridge. It almost appears like there used to be an opening to the car-deck, but I can't find any older shots that has something there.
What about the architecture creates that line of rust?
Also, what was the arrangement by which she became the Royal Victorian? Earlier in the thread, it was mentioned that she underwent a $3.5 million dollar refit, and there have been mention a couple of times of her being repurchased by BC Ferries, but why was she sold in the first place, who bought her, and why was she re-purchased? This seems like a very strange situation from a fleet planing perspective.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 16, 2011 13:47:25 GMT -8
Given that the QPR has never ventured into 'deep-sea' territory at any time in her career, I just hope that her trans-Pacific crossing is relatively uneventful and if all goes well How do you prepair a ship for such crossings? Our Aurora and Le Conte were built in Wisconsin, and traveled a lot of unprotected coast to get here, if memory serves, we sent Taku to the Gulf of Mexico for some major upgrade, are there any short term modifications (such as specifically placed ballast) that are made to inside vessels when they venture outside waters?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 9, 2011 23:24:48 GMT -8
Just a added comment.......... I believe that very few of the passenger cabins on MV Kennicott have full facilities. All of the cabins on the Blue Canoes and MV Columbia are fully equipped. A longer voyage from Bellingham to Whittier would likely be uncomfortable at best. For this reason, I have never been on MV Kennicott and I do not know about the quality level of her dining facilities and public rooms. She has fully equipped cabins. The smaller cabins are just fine, if your alternative is a sleeping bag on the solarium. I rather enjoy them, if you can avoid the inside cabins near the stack. Those get rather hot.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 8, 2011 10:03:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 1, 2011 19:32:57 GMT -8
While reading through the documentation from the public comment process of the Alaska Class Ferries, I ran across a question about stretching the M/V Kennicott. The answer to the question implied that there was actual consideration going on in more than the questioner's head. Does anyone here have any more information about this? From the Sitka public comment period www.dot.state.ak.us/amhs/alaska_class/documents/public_input_sit_J06137.04.pdfQ: Is stretching KENNICOTT an option for AMHS in the future?
A: The KENNICOTT is too small for its existing service. Stretching this vessel is definitely an option as it will increase its capacity and efficiency as a mainline vessel.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 1, 2011 19:24:59 GMT -8
I've spent a lot of time in the last few days reading the documents that were produced from the public process of developing the Alaska Class Ferry, available at www.dot.state.ak.us/amhs/alaska_class/docs.shtml. They go to great lengths to say that while the fleet does need revitalization, the first Alaska Class would not lead to a retirement, but to re-allocation of the Mal as a mainliner. They also take great pains to point out that actual fleet deployment is not within the purview of Elliot Design Group, and they are simply designing the ship. The plan is to have the first Alaska Class vessel take over for the Mal, and to keep the Fairweather on summertime day service between Sitka and Juneau. In one of the forums (I don't remember which), they mentioned that even with the Mal back on as a mainliner, there would likely still be only a single trip a week to Bellingham. Total ridership between one trip and two was not significantly different, and not worth the time or expense of sending more than one ship that far south. There is also a few comments about being able to provide more year-round service, which would imply to me that they are thinking that with the Mal as a mainline vessel again, they may have the capacity to better stagger maintenance layups to provide better winter service. We may not see that many more sailings, just more consistency throughout the year. Ultimately, they are looking at 3 Alaska Class to run the Lynn Canal, from Ketchikan to Prince Rupert and South-central, so no, no overnight trips. As for speculation as to which of the Sisters would be the first to be retired, there are, I believe, some places the Taku can get into that the Mat and Mal can no longer go as a result of their stretch. I don't know how big a deal getting into Angoon in overall system planning, but it may have a hand in when a ship gets retired. If the next "class" of ship that is designed ends up replacing the now larger Mat and Mal, they may need to keep the smaller Taku around a bit longer.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Apr 29, 2011 9:28:41 GMT -8
krbd.org/modules/local_news/index.php?op=sideBlock&syndicated=true&ID=1753A couple of weeks old, especially since our legislature is still in special session, but discussion of State money for the improvement of the yards in Ketchikan, along with an Alaska style re-allocation of funds in order to get money from the Federal Government without the normal strings attached, so we can give preference to local build bids for the Alaska Class ferry. I'm still a little surprised at the expected $120 million to build, which is $40 million more than the larger, ocean going Kennicott 13 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 23, 2011 11:59:16 GMT -8
There is more on the inside of her than the outside! WHERE is the passenger lounge? Any chance someone could sketch up a rough plan?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 23, 2011 9:01:54 GMT -8
What is the bright orange on the top deck behind the windows both for (and aft?) of the funnel? In one picture it was blue.
While we're at it, it very much looks like a modification of the original design (and some of the early pictures bear that out), is that something done by the Swedes, or BC Ferries?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 14, 2011 17:22:15 GMT -8
That link also has an interesting summary of the "highest tsunami ever recorded" in Alaska. Its height was well over 500 meters, however it was largely contained within a fjord and was caused by the combination of an earthquake, landslide, and glacier breakoff. Lituya Bay, 1953, a 524 m wave, or just about 30 meters shy of the CN Tower's height. The real crazy thing is that there is local speculation, based on the elevation of the really old trees in Lituya bay, that there may have been an even bigger wave around 250 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 17, 2011 22:43:27 GMT -8
This shot is just so weird now. The flat top to the funnel, the lack of a solarium, the lack of a visor on the bridge, and of course the lack a stretch in the middle, it looks like an incomplete kids toy.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 10, 2011 22:22:51 GMT -8
Not a fan of the Chilkat, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 7, 2011 10:45:41 GMT -8
How about "Separated Sisters," 2 or more ships that started out as sisters, who have been modified differently, or who are in the livery of a new line in the same photo?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 16, 2011 15:03:39 GMT -8
As you wish.
And thank you, everyone, for so much information.
|
|