|
Post by Name Omitted on Jun 22, 2021 16:34:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jun 18, 2021 6:26:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jun 15, 2021 16:13:20 GMT -8
Probably because, from what I understand, there's zero interest from the private sector in running a massively money losing system, and Alaska doesn't seem inclined to offer enough of a subsidy to make it worth anyone's while. Thanks, it's just I had the thought occur to me the past 36 or so hours. Adding to what Neil said, our current governor commissioned a study with criteria that all but ensured an outcome in favor of privatization. The result of the study was that only one route could be profitable in private hands (Bellingham). Furthermore, that route would only be profitable if the State retained all the capital replacement liability.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 28, 2021 17:14:02 GMT -8
Would that be around the time they got different bridges from one another? Yes, not to mention solariums. It's weird how toy-like the ships looked without them. On page 3 of this forum you can see Taku aground, and she really does look like a discarded toy made of wood-cut blocks.
|
|
|
MV Taku
May 22, 2021 23:22:26 GMT -8
Post by Name Omitted on May 22, 2021 23:22:26 GMT -8
With apologies if this seems pedantic, but since this is a spotting forum I will add that the Matanuska & Malaspina were not stretched in exactly the same ways. * The Mal has a main and mizzen Mast, the Mat only has the main. * The Mat has funnel wings which the the Mal lacks. * Onboard, the Mat has more cabins, but only a few 4-berth ones. Why did they do extract same project on both vessels like BC Ferries did V/B Class vessels? Why didn’t they lengthens Taku? I can't speak to that directly, the stretches were done in the mid 70's. It does provide slightly different capabilities to the two vessels. The Mal was always a family favorite for my household because of the number of 4-berth cabins, but the Mat's greater number of cabins overall probably made her a better ship for the Seattle/Bellingham run. It could have been as simple as they had a few year's experience with the stretched Mal and decided they wanted to do something slightly different with the Mat.As for Taku, there were several ports in Southeast that she could get into that her stretched sisters could not. She could spot the le Conte and Aurora when one was in for repairs. With the completion of the ACF vessels, that's no longer as needed.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 22, 2021 21:08:18 GMT -8
With apologies if this seems pedantic, but since this is a spotting forum I will add that the Matanuska & Malaspina were not stretched in exactly the same ways. * The Mal has a main and mizzen Mast, the Mat only has the main. * The Mat has funnel wings which the the Mal lacks. * Onboard, the Mat has more cabins, but only a few 4-berth ones.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 18, 2021 21:33:33 GMT -8
Came here to post this. You beat me by 19 minutes. For those of you who face the ADN firewall, a link to the House Speaker's comments on the bill is here. Cliff-notes, it would create a 9 member board with the power to make long-range plans for the system. However, as the last paragraph in the ADN article puts it: So... it's a great step in theory, but there's no teeth. This is nothing like creating a transit authority that is not at the annual mercy of the State's road-builders.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 27, 2021 8:12:27 GMT -8
Actually, there is talk of Columbia being the next to go. The Mat just had her overhaul, and Columbia is too big for year-round service. We want a new mainliner to replace her. One about As large as, say, the Malaspina. Wasn’t MV Columbia to big for the fleet? Isn’t she meant to be used on Bellingham, Washington to Skagway, Alaska route the flagship route of Alaska Marine Highway? As soon as you go into past tense, you confuse things. Columbia was built to replace Wickersham, a 1,300 pax ferry bought from Sweden. But yes, kidding aside, she is big for most everything AMHS does.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 26, 2021 17:22:57 GMT -8
As a point of clarification, ALASKANS, through the legislature, elected to protect AMHS funding at pre-Dunleavy levels. Alaskans, in general, understand the overseeing transportation is one of the primary reasons to have a State in the first place. Unfortunately, the governor has a line-item veto and a willingness to sabotage the workings of government. Whether we can get by with just three mainliners, absolutely we can, but not yet. Part of the idea behind the Alaska Class Ferries is that we can do what we need to do while pushing around less steel and using fewer crewmembers to do it. In the long run, that's true. The mainline concept was built when we had much less reliable airline service than we have now, and innovations in ship design mean we can make smaller vessels reliable. If we would ever get the damned ACF vessels in service, we would be able to test the theory. Then, we can build a few with crew quarters, and we can replace our bigger ships with ships that are more tuned to our average passenger loads in a world with better air service. Columbia is too big for anything but the Bellingham route, and then only in the summer. The Kennecott and Matanuska are much more helpful to the system overall. The last long-range plan I read indicates that we will need a new mainliner around the end of this decade, at which point the Columbia will go away. Of course, that was a plan that was written before our governor decided to burn it all to the ground. This is the SOB that waited six weeks to declare a state of emergency when one of our towns lost its water supply. Private volunteers got them potable water before we were allowed to bring in our National Guard's logistical support. Read that last paragraph again. Every time you try and figure out what the hell we're thinking up here, go back and read that previous paragraph. THAT is what we are dealing with in a governor.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 26, 2021 14:06:11 GMT -8
I have heard anything about MV Columbia being retired from the fleet. Actually, there is talk of Columbia being the next to go. The Mat just had her overhaul, and Columbia is too big for year-round service. We want a new mainliner to replace her. One about As large as, say, the Malaspina. More later, when I have a keyboard.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 25, 2021 8:35:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 13, 2021 17:31:16 GMT -8
Good. Never should have been in Alaskan waters anyway. Fairweather ships (pun not intended) and not suitable for Lynn Canal. I agree although I was caught up in the excitement at the time. I do wish Fairweather was given a chance to prove herself on regular Sitka-Auke Bay. When the fast ferry was sold to us, the intent was to overnight in Sitka with a daily round-trip to Auke Bay, there and back on a single crew shift. The high fuel cost was to be offset by the lower crew cost. Additionally, the ship had the power to keep a schedule regardless of the tide through the straits. Meanwhile, the mainliners would no longer need to stop in Sitka since passengers could transfer at Juneau. It was an easy story to get excited over. But, Knowles gave way to Murkowski, and we never tried to use the ship that way. Knowing what we know now, it's not clear that she would have been successful. It is clear that purchasing a $60 million asset and then ignoring all of the studies that lead to purchasing it is a strong indication that we need a better management structure. And, of course, we see history repeat itself with the Alaska Class Ferry. Built explicitly for the Lynn Canal, they are currently tied up because a new administration did not build the nose-in pier in Haines. Yet another administration wants to build a new port in Berners Bay
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 1, 2021 13:44:39 GMT -8
Now if I can just get a ride on the Tustumena out to Dutch Harbor before she is retired that would be great! Yeah... the speed at which things are going, you probably still have 5 years or so to make that happen. I was re-reading this thread, and the date on this post caught me. 6 years on, and we have not started cutting steel yet. Or, really, sourcing steel. Or... you know... put out a bid for construction.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 27, 2021 22:28:36 GMT -8
Name Omitted , do you know if they have started construction on this vessel? I am wonder because they hasn’t because there hasn’t been update in while. As far as I know, we are still waiting on some necessary "buy American" waivers for parts that are not made in America. The Trump Administration did not fully staff the office that could have approved the waivers, and the Biden Administration has not gotten to it yet. I suspect we'll have some news fairly soon.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 25, 2021 7:19:29 GMT -8
You never know that the next Governor might use these vessels on intended route with nose in berth in Haines. Would they keep the existing berth in Haines? I think they should add the crew quarters because it provides much more opportunity for vessels and possibly future vessels. Ain't that the truth. We won't have a sane system until we can divorce it from the short term goals of the administration. Our railroad would be a good model, except AMHS would not have the real estate business to float it, and it will never be the cargo backbone that the railroad is. The nose-in berth in Haines was set to be south of the existing terminal. It's possible that there was some problems with the design, the Walker administration did not get it built, and the Dunleavy administration seems to have dumped it entirely for a new $27 Million summer-only structure in Cascade Point that does not even have a building for walk-on passengers to wait for the ferry in. But, it would involve the State moving (and rebuilding) the Goldbelt dock for them so at least there's that. I suspect they will get the crew quarters eventually. The Walker administration found the $27 Million it would cost to do the modification but the Dunleavy administration decided, rather suddenly, that the money would be best spent elsewhere. Hm... $27 million. Why does that number look familiar? Oh. Yes. We get the new summer only terminal 30 miles out of town instead of 2 fully capable ships that could have been used in any sheltered waters in the system.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 23, 2021 23:05:52 GMT -8
I agree with you. But while any govern will utilize them in the right way as a day boat? Will these vessels be used on any route in the near future? Will these two vessels ever be used on routes they brought for? I think it will. Unlike other times when ships were purchased and then never actually used on the route they were designed for (Fairweather), the Lynn Canal route is the most politically protected route in the system. They'll get their chance, although without the nose-in berth in Haines, they will be less effective then designed. Even if not, the crew quarters are already designed, and could be added easily. Then, you'd have a slightly more capable le Conte or Aurora. God knows those two pull well more then their share in the system. Having two more of them would be useful. Eventually, I expect to see a couple more ACF vessels, with crew quarters, essentially operating as our winter fleet.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 23, 2021 23:00:42 GMT -8
No. Boondoggle implies incomitance. This is deliberate sabotage. The ships are good. They are efficient, and the right size for what we need. However, they came on-line at the same time as we got a governor who is torching the economy in an attempt to prove that the government cant's function... at doing something the government has more or less successfully done for 50 years. They are being kept in port least they prove they can be successful. Maybe Alaska should join with the several other states currently undertaking 'recall' procedures eh? Way ahead of you there. We've been working on the recall drive for awhile. A global pandemic got in the way. It adds difficulty to gathering signatures for a petition.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 20, 2021 14:38:13 GMT -8
No. Boondoggle implies incomitance. This is deliberate sabotage. The ships are good. They are efficient, and the right size for what we need. However, they came on-line at the same time as we got a governor who is torching the economy in an attempt to prove that the government cant's function... at doing something the government has more or less successfully done for 50 years. They are being kept in port least they prove they can be successful.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 8, 2021 13:36:36 GMT -8
Her hull was cut down to the main-deck and her bridge moved aft as part of the renovations. I'll try and find a picture. If you look closely at a part of the roll, you can see it. She was very heavily modified. She was, but those mods took place over a year ago. Well over a year ago. The link I provided was to a post in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 15, 2021 20:05:19 GMT -8
Thanks to a May 27, 2015 post by Barnacle, I contacted Lovric Sea-Craft just to check on the status of the Chilkat. I think they sensed the sentimental tone of my note and were kind enough to respond with the following: "The vessel is in our yard under going a conversion to fishing tender/landing craft. She is owned by Atlantic Cape Fisheries. She is still alive." Lovric posts frequent photos of some of their high quality restorations and modification projects on their Facebook page. In some of the stills and videos, you can see the reconfigured Chilkat (cut down 3/4 of the way back to expose the open auto deck, with bow ramp intact and the bridge section moved back to the stern). Sad it can't look the same, but just knowing that the reconfigured Chilkat will continue to work on the water made me very happy. BTW, the latest satellite image on Google Maps of the Lovric yard also clearly shows the Chilkat. (Gotta love the Internet) From earlier in this tread. Note the location of the bridge, and the complete lack of superstructure forward of what was once the afterdeck.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 15, 2021 20:03:02 GMT -8
Breaking free of moorings is one thing, but how fast she rolled over and sank hasn't been explained. I'm guessing that her car deck had been opened up and/or the hull was compromised by whatever alterations her owners were doing. Bathtub toys don't go down any quicker. Her hull was cut down to the main-deck and her bridge moved aft as part of the renovations. I'll try and find a picture. If you look closely at a part of the roll, you can see it. She was very heavily modified.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 15, 2021 19:46:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 15, 2021 19:43:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 9, 2020 12:56:13 GMT -8
You have causality backward. Alaska's Constitution does not allow for independent funds. Everything gets re-allocated by every legislature. They have rutinized the process so it does happen with an omnibus bill that re-fills some of the accounts on July 1st with the amounts the accounts had on June 31st, but that is still an active action of the legislature.
Generally, this is a good anti-corruption tool, as it makes it much harder for a non-elected official of the government to create a fiefdom separate from the government at-large. However, it means that everything that spends money in Alaska starts as political unless it has been specifically removed from the political process. We have (4?) quasi-entities that are somewhat analogous to your Crown Corporations. We have the Alaska Housing Finance Agency and Alaska Industrial Development Agency, which underwrite loans so must be able to act beyond a single year. We have the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, which administers a USD 60 Billion fund (think Alberta's Heritage Fund). Finally, we have the Alaska Railroad, which was purchased lock, stock, and barrel from the Federal Government with enough real estate holdings to make a small operational profit if it was left intact and alone, so we did.
AMHS started out as a division of the Department of Transportation and has never been removed. Therefore, we didn't "let" the politicians hijack the system or take over, they never gave up that control. As for maintenance, the AMHS actually does a pretty good job all told. We have a fleet of 40-year-old and older steel hulls that ply saltwater 24/7 for 10 months a year. There is only so far you can expect maintenance to go, and having one mainliner in the water with the rest laid up does not provide the redundancy that the age of the fleet requires.
That being said, I do look forward to your suggestions. Everything is on the table at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 6, 2020 21:41:47 GMT -8
She's heading South to the yards at Ketchican now.
No mainline service until at least March.
|
|