|
Post by Kahloke on Mar 20, 2010 22:27:04 GMT -8
One of the ideas I have considered is how many 144s should be built in the first group. A group of 4 to 7 144s makes sense to me before shifting to Jumbo (Mk III?) construction in a group of 2 or three. The numbers hinge on how may Jumbos can be used in the system. My question for you more knowledgeable folks is how useful might a Jumbo be in the San Juans? I don't think a jumbo would be particularly useful in the San Juans, or more to the point, it would be under-utilized. However, by the time 4 to 7 144's get built, we'll be into the 2030's, by which time Walla Walla and Spokane will be nearing retirement, and new Jumbos to replace those two vessels will become paramount. I could see building a couple of Jumbo Mark III's with greater passenger capacity than the current Mark II's to replace Tacoma and Wenatchee at Bainbridge. Shift Tacoma and Wenatchee up to Edmonds-Kingston to provide 3-boat service on that run (alongside Puyallup) during the summer and perhaps certain holiday weekends. This, of course, necessitates the relocation of the Edmonds terminal, and addition of another slip at the new location, which is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever. But, we're talking long-term here - like I said above - 2030 and later.
|
|
|
Post by kanaskat on Mar 21, 2010 1:55:54 GMT -8
If WSF can stay on an every other year building schedule with the 144s from 2014 to 2020 they could replace the Hiyu, Rhododendron and all three Evergreens. If that happens the standby boats could be three Supers or two Supers and an Issaquah. In 2022 the Spokane and Walla Walla will be 50 years old. The Supers will be 54 and 55 years old. Vessels built in 2022, 24, 26 and 28 would allow the Supers retired at between 55 and 60 years. One might fudge it a year at either end retire the Elwha first and a more recently overhauled Hyak last. I want t be on Hyak's last cruise, my mom and dad were on her first. In the 2020s the Jumbos should at least be headed for standby status. In 2032 they will be 60 and likely in real need of retirement by then. If nothing else I imagine 645 parts will be getting harder to find. I think the vessel replacement questions for the 20s should center on the timing of the next batch of Jumbos and the usefulness of a Jumbo in the San Juans or in standby. If a Jumbo would still be underutilized in the San Jauns that makes that element easy. A standby Wally or Spokane might come in handy at Bainbridge or Kingston or at least keep Bremerton from getting stabbed. When I said a boat every other year until about 2050 I wasn't kidding. We are talking about the 2030s and haven't even discussed the Issaquahs yet.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 21, 2010 3:42:30 GMT -8
My question for you more knowledgeable folks is how useful might a Jumbo be in the San Juans? It happened in 1973, when the Walla Walla was new. It was only here for one summer; one version of the story was that the wake was too severe for the beaches and that the islands weren't prepared for "such an influx" of cars. The other version was that the Bainbridge Islanders sued WSF to get the second Jumbo on the Seattle-Winslow run because federal funding had been acquired on the basis that the boats would be used on that run. Either way, it won't be back to the islands. Ever. I dunno about the Mark IIs but I assure you they're as wake-heavy, if not moreso, than the old Jumbos.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Mar 30, 2010 20:54:45 GMT -8
WSDOT twitter feed reports that Chetzy will move to Everett on Friday and encourages us to take pics!
But gives no specifics on departure/arrival. Morning and what mid-afternoon in Everett probably?
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on Mar 30, 2010 22:54:39 GMT -8
WSDOT twitter feed reports that Chetzy will move to Everett on Friday and encourages us to take pics! But gives no specifics on departure/arrival. Morning and what mid-afternoon in Everett probably? Just read the "twitter" myself. Thanks for the heads up. But, with the radar being installed at Todd as well as the funnel uptakes, will she really be towed up? Or, will she take her "first baby steps" and go there under her own power? Will be an interesting day if it happens, which way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 25, 2010 20:52:54 GMT -8
Here's something that I posted on the BC side of the forum. It's obviously from Washington State, so it might be of interest on this here page too. ========== I was googling "freeboard" today, and I found this paper. It's from Washington State, and it has some good learnin' for anyone interested in understanding double-ended ferries better. Full study-paper here: www.ebdg.com/papers/50_years_double_ended_ferry_design.pdf
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Apr 29, 2010 13:13:21 GMT -8
This seemed to be the best place to put this as it *is* new vessel construction, even if not for WSF. (Moderators can move it if need be.) Islanders in Canada have a very good reason to be concerned. Every alleged low-wake ferry ever tested in Rich Passage has torn up the beach. Gulf Islands politicians urge Ottawa to reject high-speed U.S. ferry trials By Judith Lavoie, Times ColonistApril 29, 2010 The Rich Passage 1, a newly-designed low wake catamaran ferry is slated to be tested in Plumper Sound, between Pender and Saturna Islands, even though it is owned by a U.S transit company will be used on the route between Seattle and Bremerton. Gulf Islanders and environmentalists are questioning why Canadian waters are being used for the tests and raising concerns about the potential for environmental damage . Gulf Islands politicians are demanding that the federal government reject plans to hold high-speed wake tests of a new U.S ferry in Canadian waters. Gary Steeves, Islands Trust trustee for North Pender, said he heard last week about proposals for 390 test runs over 30 days, starting May 25 in Plumper Sound, which runs between Pender and Saturna islands. "I can't understand why Canada would agree to it," said Steeves, adding the Islands Trust is contacting the appropriate agencies asking that the tests not be allowed to proceed. The Rich Passage 1, a low-wake, 23-metre, passenger-only ferry, is being tested by Kitsap Transit of Washington state. If the tests -- at speeds up to 40 knots -- are successful, the ferry is slated to be used on the run between Seattle and Bremerton. The tests are being organized by the Victoria office of Golder Associates Ltd., which has applied for permits from Transport Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. "We hope we'll be getting the green light to move forward soon," said Golder marine biologist Phil Rouget. Although there are questions about an American vessel being tested in Canadian waters, the ferry has a low environmental impact, which is of interest to anyone living in this area, he said. But to Gary Lunn, Saanich-Gulf Islands MP, that's not a good enough reason for testing in an area under consideration as a National Marine Conservation Area. "I have very serious concerns about this. The most obvious question is why are they not testing it in U.S. waters?" he said. Lunn has written to Fisheries Minister Gail Shea and Transport Minister John Baird saying the tests for potential wake damage do not appear to provide any benefit to Canada. Transport Canada spokeswoman Jillian Glover said Golder may not require special permits, however. The area is considered open waters that can be used by American and Canadian vessels as long as they comply with international and Canadian regulations, she said. Phil Osborne, Golder's Washington-based lead scientist on the project, said it's not a matter of Canadian regulations being less stringent than those in the U.S, but a timing and funding problem. As it's a U.S. federally funded project, the tests would require a series of permits and consultation under the Endangered Species Act, Osborne said. "[Kitsap Transit] was not willing to fund the public-consultation process. As a transit agency, they felt it would set a precedent for other ferry [trials], so it became a bit of a problem," Osborne said. "So we said, 'Why not test it in Canada?' " The company plans to hold town-hall meetings on the Gulf Islands but no dates have been set. Osborne said the tests are subject to stringent environmental requirements, with low wake and noise levels. Marine-mammal monitors would be on watch during the tests and disruption of seabirds would be temporary, he said. Those assurances aren't enough for Angus Matthews, executive director of the Shaw Ocean Discovery Centre in Sidney, who is worried about the effect of the vessel's speed on birds and other marine life used to speeds in the 15-to-20 knot range. He's also concerned about four high-frequency underwater monitoring stations, which will be anchored to the ocean floor. Golder should consider conducting the tests at Nanoose Bay, Matthews said. But Lt. Paul Pendergast, Maritime Forces Pacific spokesman, said Nanoose Bay is a joint Canada/U.S naval testing range and has no mandate to contract out to private companies. Glover said the vessel is required to have safety certificates from the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct sea trials, noting Transport Canada has been advised that the ferry does not have a U.S inspection certificate. "Therefore, the vessel cannot enter Canadian waters at this time." Read more: www.vancouversun.com/technology/Gulf+Islands+politicians+urge+Ottawa+reject+high+speed+ferry+trials/2964798/story.html#ixzz0mWdDsWrf
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 12, 2010 16:13:22 GMT -8
Would it make good sense to remove this "build in Washington only" restriction before any additional new vessels are constructed? Any chance of this happening?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 12, 2010 19:24:40 GMT -8
Probably, and probably not. But I don't think re-opening that can of worms here would have much point.
|
|
|
Post by suburbanite on Nov 12, 2010 21:25:07 GMT -8
Shasta
The legislature definitely needs to repeal the built in Washington only statute. Doing so is essential to the financial viability of a building program. "Built in Washington" makes WSF construction ineligible for federal transportation funds.
It also has added dramatically to the cost of the three new ferries. Massachusetts paid $32 million for the Island Home in 2007. WSF is paying and average of over $70 million for the three KdTs. With the built in Washington requirement Todd was able to make sure every other Washington yard capable of competing was either committed to other work or took them on as a sub-contractor and submitted the one and only bid for over twice the price Halter charged for the Island Home. And that was with WSF supplying the main engines.
Built in Washington cost us over $100 million for the three KdTs. I can't imagine a can of worms I wouldn't open to save $100 million.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Nov 13, 2010 3:37:56 GMT -8
Shasta The legislature definitely needs to repeal the built in Washington only statute. Doing so is essential to the financial viability of a building program. "Built in Washington" makes WSF construction ineligible for federal transportation funds. Yeah, but this is really a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" scenario. If a legislator votes to keep the law, then they will be accused in the next election cycle of costing the taxpayers too much money. If a legislator votes to throw out the law, they will be accused in the next election cycle of sending perfectly good, family wage jobs out of the state to out-of-state contractors. There is really nothing to discuss here because the choices are clear. You either do or you don't. You value local jobs more or you value lower taxes more. There may be a middle ground here, but we will never know because if the inability those of of either point of view to even acknowledge that the other possible choice is valid. The only question is the inability of our elected representatives to have a rational discussion on the pros and cons of the two available choices. On any issue. And that is probably beyond the scope of a ferry forum discussion (IMHO).
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Nov 13, 2010 8:06:45 GMT -8
The only question is the inability of our elected representatives to have a rational discussion on the pros and cons of the two available choices. On any issue. And that is probably beyond the scope of a ferry forum discussion (IMHO). Definitely beyond the scope of this forum, but then again, this is about the only place a rational discussion could occur.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Nov 29, 2010 20:38:30 GMT -8
This has probably been discussed before, but there are now about 50 plus pages of posts on the new boat program, so forgive me for possibly being redundant.
Looking at the traffic figures, I see the Point Defiance - Tahlequah run carried between six and seven hundred thousand people last year, roughly in the same range as BC Ferries' Swartz Bay - Saltspring run. The thing that struck me was that only 88,000 or so of those people were foot passengers. The rest were in cars, and I'm betting that on a 15 minute run, many if not most of those people stay in their vehicles, if they're anything like folks on the north side of the border.
And yet the plan is to build another of these $65-80 million kwa-behemoths with their huge passenger cabins and multi-thousand horsepower plants for a route that carries, on average fifty people per crossing. That's right. 14,000 crossings, 600,000 plus passengers, equals roughly fifty per load. I know, that can vary wildly, but it just seems nutty to me. You guys must be made of money down there.
I know it's part of the WSF religion that boats should be interchangeable on routes; why, I can't quite figure out. BC Ferries has vessels that haven't moved in twenty years. They fit the routes they're on. What a fifteen minute crossing with minimal foot passengers and a total passenger count like the Tahlequah route needs is a vessel like the Quinsam, perhaps designed a bit larger.
It's bad enough that you're going to have two of these overbuilt, two-headed mini-liners on the Port Townsend run; the average passenger count there is 80 per sailing. It seems positively nutty on a puddle jump like Tahlequah. And when I notice in one of 'chief's posts that the cost of these boats doesn't even include the engines, it's even more unfathomable.
I noticed in a story recently posted that WSF disputes the 'most expensive ferry ever' charge. I think that's sort of skirting around the boundaries of honesty. Not most expensive overall, but probably most expensive ever for size and purpose.
I know that a lot of people on this forum are tired of negative posts about this program, but on the other hand, I think that all the fan delight at riding shiny new boats can sort of disguise a wider view of the value of this whole approach to your state's marine transit needs.
So, an outsider's view, for whatever it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Nov 29, 2010 22:45:06 GMT -8
And yet the plan is to build another of these $65-80 million kwa-behemoths with their huge passenger cabins and multi-thousand horsepower plants for a route that carries, on average fifty people per crossing. That's right. 14,000 crossings, 600,000 plus passengers, equals roughly fifty per load. You guys must be made of money down there. We're most definitely not made of money, as the results of the latest election have proven. The voters were very clear - "we want our cake but we don't want to have to pay for it". Perhaps that's simplistic, but the result is going to be lots of cuts in programs across the state. In any case, the Kwa-di-Tub-Toy boats were rammed down everyone's throats thanks mostly to a certain senator, but also because it was a design that was available, and one that could be built quickly. I didn't really oppose the idea of building one or two for the Port Townsend route, and I'm not saying they are a good design even for that location, but we needed something fast. But, 3 of those boats is a waste of our money. That type of vessel is totally inadequate for the Point Defiance-Tahlequah run. I think the state should have taken the time to come up with a good replacement for Rhododendron that would be more cost effective and move more vehicles. That said, time is running out quickly for Rhododendron, too, so we don't exactly have a lot of time for coming up with her replacement, either. I've said this all along. The boats we need are the new 144's. The sooner we start building those, the sooner we can retire the oldest vessels in the fleet, some of which are fast approaching their newly mandated retirement age of 60 years old. We've got to get a 144 in place by 2014 when Evergreen State is scheduled to be retired, or we'll just lose a boat and cut back service. Tillikum and Klahowya will be next in 2018 and 2019.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 30, 2010 10:34:51 GMT -8
And yet the plan is to build another of these $65-80 million kwa-behemoths with their huge passenger cabins and multi-thousand horsepower plants for a route that carries, on average fifty people per crossing. That's right. 14,000 crossings, 600,000 plus passengers, equals roughly fifty per load. You guys must be made of money down there. We're most definitely not made of money, as the results of the latest election have proven. The voters were very clear - "we want our cake but we don't want to have to pay for it". Perhaps that's simplistic, but the result is going to be lots of cuts in programs across the state. In any case, the Kwa-di-Tub-Toy boats were rammed down everyone's throats thanks mostly to a certain senator, but also because it was a design that was available, and one that could be built quickly. I didn't really oppose the idea of building one or two for the Port Townsend route, and I'm not saying they are a good design even for that location, but we needed something fast. But, 3 of those boats is a waste of our money. That type of vessel is totally inadequate for the Point Defiance-Tahlequah run. I think the state should have taken the time to come up with a good replacement for Rhododendron that would be more cost effective and move more vehicles. That said, time is running out quickly for Rhododendron, too, so we don't exactly have a lot of time for coming up with her replacement, either. I've said this all along. The boats we need are the new 144's. The sooner we start building those, the sooner we can retire the oldest vessels in the fleet, some of which are fast approaching their newly mandated retirement age of 60 years old. We've got to get a 144 in place by 2014 when Evergreen State is scheduled to be retired, or we'll just lose a boat and cut back service. Tillikum and Klahowya will be next in 2018 and 2019. Does it sound reasonable that there will be a pause, perhaps a long pause, in the construction of new WSF vessels after this 3rd ferry is completed? I keep reading about how broke Washington State is and folks down there are very hostile to any more tax increases. There may not be funds to maintain the present level of service, much less build new vessels. I would think that taxpayers/voters would also have something to say about this "60 year retirement plan" that WSF set for itself. Doesn't it sound a bit like a bad case of wishful thinking? Would there be other factors to consider? (1) Why would WSF consider building new 144 Class vessels when their possible service reductions plans call for placing a current 144 vessel in layup? (2) While current Washington State policy eliminates Federal money being used on new construction, it appears that no such restrictions exist for maintenance/repair/overhaul/ painting of existing vessels. Woops, too much politics for one post ;D, but I still love my occasional ride on MV Evergreen State!
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Nov 30, 2010 11:27:43 GMT -8
From my take is that things need to be reformed in system, but, I do not see the will to do so in the currently re-elected political climate. I see nothing being done in the near future, other than hearing how wonderful the three new boats are, while they do not do the job up to expectations. From now on it will likely be patch-up. I do not see any boats being mothballed, everything will be run somehow, the customers will demand it.
Hate to change the subject, but I was talking to one of the crew from the Keystone run and he mentioned the Maneuverable class that was drawn up several years ago. I think he said they were about 80 cars and shallow draft. I can find nothing about the specs of these "Envisioned" Vessels. Does anyone know more about this?
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Nov 30, 2010 11:45:38 GMT -8
(1) Why would WSF consider building new 144 Class vessels when their possible service reductions plans call for placing a current 144 vessel in layup? There are multiple boats that need replacement and the existing 144's (Supers) are technically not first in line, that's Evergreen State an 87 car vessel. The Supers are I believe (4,5,6,7) now that a KdT will replace Rhody. They might buy some time through the mothballing and shuffling boats but all to soon the need to simply maintain capacity even with reduced service levels will catch up with them necessiting a new boat. WSF is a long long long ways behind on boat replacement. The other thing to consider here is the lead time on the new boat, the current schedule is that the final design drawings will not even be done until June of 2011. That would likely put the earliest the boat would see the water as being sometime in 2013. More likely I'd say 2014, which is I think technically when Evergreen State should be retired. By that time we are two full budget cycles ahead of where we are now and the economic situation might have vastly changed. There is no indication that the reduction in service, if it even happens, would be permanent, it merely reflects the economic necessities of reducing the budget short term.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Nov 30, 2010 12:51:14 GMT -8
I've said this all along. The boats we need are the new 144's. The sooner we start building those, the sooner we can retire the oldest vessels in the fleet, some of which are fast approaching their newly mandated retirement age of 60 years old. We've got to get a 144 in place by 2014 when Evergreen State is scheduled to be retired, or we'll just lose a boat and cut back service. Tillikum and Klahowya will be next in 2018 and 2019. But with regard to replacing the Rhododendron, it just blows me away that there appears to have been no thought given to spending less than the $65 million or so that the third kwa-boat will cost, to end up with a vessel that's completely inappropriate for the route. This question should be outside of the debate over kwa-boats vs. 144s. You have a fifteen minute run on sheltered waters, with an average of six foot passengers per trip and most of the vehicle passengers likely staying in their cars. You have limited public funds with seemingly little leeway to indulge whims about accepted designs. For probably half of what the third 64 car boat will cost, something that resembles the boat pictured under this post- albeit somewhat larger- could quite adequately serve the route's needs, and $30 million or so could be put to better use elsewhere. Why that isn't even a part of the discussion at the decision makers' level, I can't figure.
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Dec 1, 2010 9:51:57 GMT -8
I, for one, would not reject a route specific boat if it made better economic sense. It is of supreme irony that WSF's intent to build a universal ferry begat the KdT's.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 1, 2010 10:21:30 GMT -8
It is of supreme irony that WSF's intent to build a universal ferry begat the KdT's. Touche.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 1, 2010 13:26:17 GMT -8
I don't see them subbing for the Evergreens. Despite their age, the Evergreens have a pretty tidy service record. But that's just my 'ignorant at best' two cents' worth.
|
|
|
Post by steamfan on Dec 1, 2010 14:25:32 GMT -8
Touch wood here, but the Evergreens are remarkably reliable. They are good examples of the success of diesel-electric propulsion. Even the Steel Electrics were mechanically reliable with 80 year old drive motors and other equipment, despite structural issues.
As to the state not building new vessels for a while, I think you are right. There was a comment from David Mosely in response to the study recommendations a few weeks ago that said the state does not expect put out bids for a new vessel until 2025 or so.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Dec 1, 2010 14:46:02 GMT -8
Touch wood here, but the Evergreens are remarkably reliable. They are good examples of the success of diesel-electric propulsion. Even the Steel Electrics were mechanically reliable with 80 year old drive motors and other equipment, despite structural issues. As to the state not building new vessels for a while, I think you are right. There was a comment from David Mosely in response to the study recommendations a few weeks ago that said the state does not expect put out bids for a new vessel until 2025 or so. That's not entirely correct. He was referring to the next build cycle after at least one or two 144's are built. The 2025 date was for the boats beyond the Tub Toys and two other boats--with WSF's preference being for two 144's. Here's what was brought up... The Legislature could have changed the law to permit that last session, and didn’t, Moseley said. The contract for the first five new boats has already been awarded to Todd Shipyards, and the next round of building won’t start until 2025, when he suggests the issue be revisited.
“We’re not prepared to break those contracts,” Moseley said.(taken from the Kitsap Sun) The contract for the 144's has already been awarded to Todd. There was a question as to weather or not that the next boat after the Kennewick was going to be another 64 car or a 144...I'm fairly certain that the idea of another 64 car boat is dead. So sometime between now and 2025 there is the hope that two of those 144's will be built. I read somewhere that the plans for the 144 will be finalized about April of 2011. Hopefully when the economic picture for the state looks better the 144's will get off the ground sooner than later. Here's the whole article link: www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/nov/30/southworth-riders-leery-of-getting-a-smaller/
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Dec 1, 2010 17:15:27 GMT -8
To quote from the WSF web site:
"The time line for construction of the 144-car ferries is dependent on the availability of funding."
If Moseley thinks that he can commence building of new vessels without the funding of such projects by the State Legislature and approval of the Governor, he is likely and hopefully wrong. From the sound of things down there, it will be several years before the current financial crisis is solved and new vessels funded. Hopefully financial conditions will improve before 2025
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Dec 3, 2010 0:43:04 GMT -8
(via the Kitsap Sun...) So sometime between now and 2025 there is the hope that two of those 144's will be built. I read somewhere that the plans for the 144 will be finalized about April of 2011. To quote from the WSF web site: "The time line for construction of the 144-car ferries is dependent on the availability of funding." If Moseley thinks that he can commence building of new vessels without the funding of such projects by the State Legislature and approval of the Governor, he is likely and hopefully wrong. From the sound of things down there, it will be several years before the current financial crisis is solved and new vessels funded. Hopefully financial conditions will improve before 2025 I'm really looking for a way to say this without getting all political, but..... Our state (and our ferry system) are trying to deal with a growing population in the Puget Sound Area and a need to replace a seriously aging ferry fleet. The plan for doing this is to start building boats that will be ready in 2025. I'm sorry, but we are telling them that we need a reliable way to get to work in the morning, and that it needs to be maintained in a way that meets our needs. The answer is that we will get the boats that we need, starting fifteen years from now. What??? I'm not an old man by any means, but what these "leaders" are saying is that they will get us that ride to work, at about the time I will be thinking about retirement age. What kind of solution is that? Or to put it another way, our "leaders" have just told us that the project will be deferred to a time when they will have certainly moved on to other jobs or will have retired themselves. Then it will be someone else's problem. What's the difference between "We are deferring the project for 15 years" and "We plan to not maintain our fleet"? Not much. My kingdom for a legislator who is not afraid to actually make a decision! ;D
|
|