|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 5, 2006 19:35:09 GMT -8
You need two Supers at Mukliteo-Clinton, with these new vessels I believe they carry as much as the Supers. The Evergreen State needs to be on shuttle service from Edmonds on Fridays and Kingston on Sundays. I just spotted this, six weeks after the last post (and before I joined): The Supers won't work at Mukilteo-Clinton, because of the turn-around time of offloading and loading those extra 20 cars. The Clinton side (with two slips) can handle it--but Mukilteo can't, with only one. At this juncture, the plan is to build an entire new facility in Mukilteo to make a two-slip terminal on both sides, and rather than replace vessels (hey, doggone it! We need those Supers in the San Juans and Bremerton), they will be able to add a third vessel and maintain the traditional load-and-go schedule. Edmonds-Kingston: nice idea, but with the speed differential between the E/S and the Spokane & Puyallup (what a name!), the mighty Evergreen would perpetually be underfoot. I wish it would work, though; the Evergreen could use the shakedown and Kingston-Edmonds could definitely use the capacity.
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Oct 5, 2006 20:37:34 GMT -8
BC Ferries does the speed differential with the Esquimalt running on Route 2 with the C-Class. She just has to stop after two round trips to let the C-Class pass her.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Oct 5, 2006 21:58:10 GMT -8
You need two Supers at Mukliteo-Clinton, with these new vessels I believe they carry as much as the Supers. The Evergreen State needs to be on shuttle service from Edmonds on Fridays and Kingston on Sundays. I just spotted this, six weeks after the last post (and before I joined): Edmonds-Kingston: nice idea, but with the speed differential between the E/S and the Spokane & Puyallup (what a name!), the mighty Evergreen would perpetually be underfoot. I wish it would work, though; the Evergreen could use the shakedown and Kingston-Edmonds could definitely use the capacity. Would the speed of the MV Evergreen State be a perpetual problem? It seems like part of the problem could be solved because Evergreen can load and unload faster than the Spokane and Puyallup. During the very busy times Evergreen could run empty except for walk on passengers in the slack direction of traffic flow. I remember this was done often in the past when MV Chetzemoka or SS San Mateo were used as the 3rd vessel on the run during the busy summer months.
|
|
|
Post by In Washington on Oct 6, 2006 8:10:43 GMT -8
Re: the Evergreen State running at Kingston during busy times. Sometimes adding a third boat to the mix on a run of that length and traffic volume isn't cost effective based on revenue/added capacity vs fuel/crewing costs. It can also be a headache to manage as an Agent when you get into that position of trying to keep the "normal" boats on schedule. Do you let the Puyallup pass the E-State on the way across? Yikes... In an eight hour watch you don't get as many trips as you would think. In the late 70's we used to have three boats at Mukilteo and keeping a schedule was madness. We would get so far off that we would load and go. Inevitably we would end up with all three boats at Mukilteo just treading water. There are ways to make things like that work but the speed factor of the E-State makes it unattractive as an option on almost any Cross Sound route. An Issaquah 130, or the Sealth, on the otherhand would work out easily. The new boats will likely get spread out between Bremerton (1) and depending on Keystone, to the PT/Keystone run. The E-State woud actually make a good third boat for Mukilteo as those boats rarely run anywhere near full speed on the short crossing. Schedules would have to be tweaked and full staffing to sell the cars fast enough, but I can see a third boat is WSF had one available being a help there on Friday nights and Sunday evenings. Well... That was a lot of words for me!
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 6, 2006 9:21:02 GMT -8
Let's see: the "very busy" times mentioned, specifically, Friday and Sunday, are in terms of car traffic, not foot traffic. The pedestrian loads aren't very big on Sundays, at the very least--and people would then see a boat leaving without any car traffic while the line is backed up all the way to the Hansville/Suquamish traffic light!
Also, neither Edmonds nor Kingston is really set up to load one boat while offloading another. It can be cobbled together at Kingston--two-lane offloading while single-lane loading, or vice versa... either way you go, on short runs like MKC or EDK, you'll end up with all three boats stacked up at one dock or the other. I was involved in three-boat service at Kingston a number of years ago (my second spring with WSF) and we ran with the Hyak, Tillikum, and Klickitat. Hyak ran #1 boat, Tillikum ran #2 boat, and we on the Klickitat were operating without any schedule at all with orders to carry as much as we could without getting underfoot of the scheduled boats. We were in the "meat" position most of the day--sandwiched in between the Tillikum (in front of us) and the Hyak (behind us). It was interesting but I don't think it would work in terms of today's traffic loads.
And after all the description of why it would be tough at Kingston, the real weak point in three-boat service at EDK is Edmonds. The loading setup is awkward, having the holding lot a block away from the actual dock, through a traffic light and a major thoroughfare. I wish they'd get on with the new terminal down that-a-way, too. ;D
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Oct 6, 2006 11:36:38 GMT -8
Guess I am slow (slower than MV Evergreen State) in understanding this issue. It seems to me that the most urgent problem facing WSF is the long backups of traffic on the Edmonds-Kingston route, especially during the summer week ends. There can be two or three hour waits (Edmonds on Fridays and sometimes Saturday mornings, Kingston on Sundays).
Adding a third vessel of smaller size seems to be a logical solution to me. Part of the problem seems to be caused by the long time it takes to load/unload the large vessels. The third vessel, if smaller, could be loaded/unloaded faster and would not need so much dock time. If necessary, the smaller vessel could go empty of vehicles in the direction of less traffic. I think it could still handle walk ons in both directions as they take little time to load/unload. My thought was that MV Evergreen State would be just about the right size for the 3rd vessel assignment. MV Sealth would likely have better speed, but would likely be needed in the islands or on another route. A vessel like MV Issaquah would likely be too large and need too much loading-unloading time.
Other factors such as a train blocking the dock at Edmonds, a traffic accident, or stalled vehicle on the car deck cannot be prevented and will result in backups from time to time. One more question, with the long summer backups, does it really matter if a vessel keeps to a printed schedule?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 6, 2006 13:20:30 GMT -8
Believe it or not, yes it does. Here's the deal: the turn-around time for unload/load planned in each schedule considers an average of 70% capacity loads, which is about what we move. On that basis, the boats will never be "ahead" of schedule, because (a) if the boat leaves early and half-empty, you can hear the screaming a mile away because By God, It's In The Schedule, and (b) if it takes longer for the boat to load than the 70% allotted, it's going to be late. If the boats get late enough that the only way to recover the schedule is to drop a trip, WSF will do that if the traffic allows it because everything knits together better the closer the boat is to scheduled departure time. Don't forget that on several runs, the boat's departure/arrival times are tied in to other transit modes (i.e. Metro, RTA, CT and the like. I have no idea what Kitsap Transit is up to ;D). The tripping point here isn't the size of the vessel; it's the speed. Something that would be capable of making a speed slightly closer to the other vessels on the run wouldn't be a problem. It's just that the Evergreen State (currently the only contestant available) is mind-bogglingly slow. And the gratitude of the public regarding WSF's effort at putting on a third vessel really evaporates when they get passed by the other vessel on the run, ungrateful wretches that they are.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Oct 20, 2006 19:11:05 GMT -8
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Oct 20, 2006 21:37:58 GMT -8
Not being familiar with the design process of boats on your side of the border, it seems odd to me that WSF doesn't have complete say on the design of their boats. How much input do they actually have? I would have thought that the reason that all the 1960s and newer WSF ships look so similar (basically bigger or smaller versions of each other, to my untrained eye) was because builders were told to produce pretty much the same model. Also, how many yards are usually involved in the bidding? Are they always local, or have yards in Louisiana and elsewhere ever submitted bids?
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Oct 20, 2006 22:34:04 GMT -8
The same naval architect designed all of the WSF vessels prior to the Issaquah Class vessels, which is probably why they look alike.
Only in-state shipyards are being allowed to bid on the current project (WA state laws states that only in-state shipyards can bid). The only ferries built for WSF by out-of-state shipyards were the Super Class vessels (San Diego), Hiyu (Portland), and the Skagit and Kalama (New Orleans).
This whole thing is a bloody mess and the fact that Todd Shipyard (who built both version of the jumbos and did the mid-life refit on the Yakima, Tillikum, Evergreen State, and Rhododendron) is protesting should be an indication that something is seriously wrong.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Oct 21, 2006 11:31:04 GMT -8
:DWell, we can look on the bright side. This mess might extend the service life of our revered "Steel Electrics." Hope they are given a special honor next year as they begin their 80th year!!
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Oct 21, 2006 14:27:58 GMT -8
The same naval architect designed all of the WSF vessels prior to the Issaquah Class vessels, which is probably why they look alike. Close, but not quite. The Evergreens and Supers were desgined by W.C. Nickum. (And, for the record, loosely based on the hull design of the Vashon.) The Jumbos were a Spaulding design. MP&E designed the Issauqah Class, largely based on the Evergreens--in fact for a time they were being called the "New Evergreen Class Ferries." The Mark II's were simply updated versions of the Jumbos....right down to the vibration which they managed to copy into the Mark II's. Somewhere out there are the W.C. Nickum's plans for the "Super Super Class" which were alluded to in Demoro's The Evergreen Fleet From the folks who have seen them (I believe WSF still has them) they looked like longer, fatter Supers, with the same 2 deck configuration.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 22, 2006 10:21:24 GMT -8
:DWell, we can look on the bright side. This mess might extend the service life of our revered "Steel Electrics." Hope they are given a special honor next year as they begin their 80th year!! Well, the Nisqually's been officially declared "retired," so nothing doing there... the service years of the Steel Electrics will have to be extended by definition, but remember there's also a regulatory body (USCG) that will get fed up eventually. As far as all our boats looking alike, well, there's really only so much you can do with a true double-ended ferry. Have any of you taken a good look at a Jumbo (Spokane/Walla Walla) and the upper half of, say, the Queen of Cowichan (handy photo!)? Same bloody boat. A loonie says without even looking up the details that Spaulding & Associated designed it.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Oct 22, 2006 10:45:38 GMT -8
Well, the Nisqually's been officially declared "retired," so nothing doing there... the service years of the Steel Electrics will have to be extended by definition, but remember there's also a regulatory body (USCG) that will get fed up eventually. Things will really be a mess if the steel-electrics get pulled out of service before the new boats go into service (whenever that happens). At the very least no service on the Pt. Townsend-Keystone route and one less reserve vessel (I assume the Evergreen State would end up the regular on the inter-island route).
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 22, 2006 10:49:27 GMT -8
Oh, I agree that it would be a tremendous mess. I can just forsee a day when it might happen if we don't get some keels laid, that's all. It would indeed bring our reserve vessel count down by one... to zero. (Actually, it would bring it down by two, because the Quinault is techincally a reserve boat; it just has a designated position four months a year.)
It would be interesting if that happened... it might actually mean we'd have to make some moves to come up with Edmonds-Port Townsend service again, but we'd be more likely to have to increase capacity at Edmonds-Kingston somehow.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Oct 23, 2006 20:51:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Oct 23, 2006 21:05:19 GMT -8
What a bunch of morons, they'd be better off suing someone else. I can see this match now "and the winner is THE LAWYERS!" ;D
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Oct 23, 2006 23:34:58 GMT -8
I don't blame either shipyard. Looks to me like WSF wants to design the boats, then make the shipyards take all the risk. If WSF screws up, the shipyard has to pay up.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 24, 2006 5:20:39 GMT -8
Why not sue the state, PI? They're the deep pockets. Besides, I can see the shipyards' point. However, the shipyard would be really poor at its own job if it didn't review the plans carefully and say, "hey, *this*, *this,* and *that* will cause a problem."
|
|
|
Post by zman on Oct 24, 2006 6:54:01 GMT -8
Going back to the "Evergreen at Kingston" topic: We had a perfect example on the F/V/S route 10/18. The Evergreen holds about 30-40 vehicles less than the Issaquah. She took over that position for the day, and despite the reduction in loading time, ended up being 25-30 minutes down. She just cannot compare when it comes to the speed. At Kingston, the Puyallup can do the trip in 20-25 minutes. The Evergreen would make it longer...alot. I know that the Puyallup and Spokane both take a long time to unload and load full sailings. I do not think that the Evergreen would be very practical because of the lower speed, lower capacity, and the increased crossing. I love that boat, but she needs something that she can take without putting the other boats schedule at risk.
If Keystone were deeper, I think that she would be a prime candidate right now. It is a small increase from the S/Es, but is is much needed.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 24, 2006 7:28:25 GMT -8
I agree. If they dredged out Keystone Harbor a bit, it would be a good (if temporary) solution to the problem. However, at the moment she's our only viable relief boat (I think we can pretty much discount the Hiyu), so we have to hold on to her in reserve.
|
|
|
Post by Electric Thunderbird on Oct 24, 2006 12:14:33 GMT -8
Couldn't Evergreen's propulsion system be upgrade for faster speed?
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Oct 25, 2006 19:16:51 GMT -8
I have a question. If the State has a particular design in mind for the new vessels, why is there a problem? What makes it different from the last new boats built in the 90's? I know the last ferries built are larger versions of the Jumbos, but why was there not a problem getting those vessels built?
In any multi-million dollar venture there is always risk involved for both parties. What makes this project different from any other that the State has ever had.
Is the State forcing more responsibility on the ship yards if the ferries do not turn out the way WSF wants?
I think the State just wants to avoid another debacle like the Issaquah-class construction contract back in the 70's and 80's.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Oct 25, 2006 19:31:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Oct 26, 2006 0:10:19 GMT -8
First, there is no point in upgrading the Evergreen State's propulsion system because she is due to be retired very soon. She is over 50 years old now. Second, there were problems with the Jumbo Mark II boats. Todd went way overbudget with them, and it ended up costing the state a bunch on money. Which is one reason they want the shipyards to take some risk.
|
|