|
Post by SS Shasta on Mar 27, 2007 21:15:41 GMT -8
What I am is an advocate for a replacement vessel on the Port Townsend/Keystone route--after all, isn't that what the orginal appropriation was for? If replacements are needed for this run, I would hope that there would be 2 vessels rather than a single ferry. It's stupid for WSF management to think that a single vessel can handle the load during the busy summer months. It is also too long for the public to wait during the summer if there is only a single vessel on the route. BTW: Just wondering how much work would be needed at Keystone to make it possible to use the Evergreen State Class on the route?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 28, 2007 7:41:40 GMT -8
I apologize for my post last night, though it is a measure of my frustration. I am not a proponet of Martinac. I believe that their design is inappropriate for Keystone Harbor. Nor am I against the 144 car new-builds. What I am is an advocate for a replacement vessel on the Port Townsend/Keystone route--after all, isn't that what the orginal appropriation was for? I concur wholeheartedly, brassman. I love the Steel Electrics but they are elderly and expensive to operate; they really need to be removed from service. The original proposal was for replacements to the steel-electrics, yes. But the 130-car boats that had been planned wouldn't have fit into Keystone Harbor as designed; Martinac is conveniently overlooking the fact that the new boats were to be concurrent with a new terminal outside Keystone Harbor. Now that terminal relocation has been eliminated, we're pretty much back to square one. However... do you agree that building two (or three, whichever) boats the size of steel-electrics will not only not improve the efficiency of the run, but also saddle WSF with new boats that are fundamentally useless to any run outside Port Townsend (and only their shallow draft would make them useful there)? I mean, let's face it... trying to use a Steel Electric for anything other than supplemental service (such as what transpired at Kingston recently) is a lot like trying to bail out a sinking canoe with a teaspoon.
|
|
|
Post by Brassman on Mar 28, 2007 9:12:54 GMT -8
WSF, in their route proposal options, limited a replacement vessel to 65 cars, although the limiting factor in Keystone is the vessel's draft--not cardeck area.
You could build a boat with 85 to 100 car capacity and fit it in their if you increased maneuverability. No change in Keystone would be needed.
Since Keystone is but a hole in the gravel, you would want a boat that could run up on the beach without damage. The Steels have proved to be very good at this.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 28, 2007 15:35:31 GMT -8
WSF, in their route proposal options, limited a replacement vessel to 65 cars, although the limiting factor in Keystone is the vessel's draft--not cardeck area. You could build a boat with 85 to 100 car capacity and fit it in their if you increased maneuverability. No change in Keystone would be needed. Since Keystone is but a hole in the gravel, you would want a boat that could run up on the beach without damage. The Steels have proved to be very good at this. Fair enough, that. I suppose an additional 20-35 cars per sailing would be useful, easily enough; so a longer boat with a minimal widening would be the ticket--and a really skookum power plant. Like, say, whatever the Issaquahs have... or in a diesel-electric, for preference; whichever would weigh less so as to not deepen the draft.
|
|
|
Post by Brassman on Mar 28, 2007 17:38:24 GMT -8
How about AC electric drive with a tunnel thrusters at each end.
A prefrence for (2) in-line main engines with a tandem mounted altenator on each for ship' service.
|
|
|
Post by Brassman on Mar 28, 2007 18:56:26 GMT -8
A clarification: regular fixed props for fore & aft, the tunnel thrusters are for sideway thrust.
One handed thrust control (which would mean no independant wheel action--that's what the thrusters are for.)
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 29, 2007 6:20:11 GMT -8
Hmm. Sounds mighty complicated to me. Despite the fact that our POFFs Chinook and Snohomish ran on 'joystick' control, that kind of a control system would require a lot of training on a rather unforgiving route. Still, I'm open to options. The point I was badly making was that the Steel-Electrics are limited by the fundamental age of the drive motors, despite all the rebuilding, and there is potential for much greater power with the same type of system than what the SE's have. And burlier steering gear wouldn't be much of a challenge either--the Steel Electrics suffer from small rudders.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Mar 29, 2007 7:15:32 GMT -8
Given that it seems that any new Keystone terminal seems to be dead, and that there is such opposition for dredging or doing any sort of work on the existing terminal that might causes damage to the environment, the only practical solution would be to be to build two vessels for the route.
WSF's dream of a standardized fleet is decades away anyway. The Keystone route needs replacement vessels now. Well, ten years ago, actually. So build them now and solve the problem.
If WSF doesn't want to run two vessels that will require additional training, drop the route and let either Island or Jefferson county run it.
|
|
|
Post by Brassman on Mar 29, 2007 7:33:07 GMT -8
WSF had consided the installatoion of tunnel thrusters on the Klick about 10 years ago. Would have require seperate engines.
If everything is driven for the asme buss, it all cotrolled by transitors.
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Mar 29, 2007 21:25:57 GMT -8
I think if the military and tourism are as dependent on this run as described, then a workable solution or compromise will eventually be reached.
The most effective and least costly solution is to dredge and modify Keystone Harbor to accomodate deeper draft vessels, whatever class they might be.
Not a popular option, but one that does allow for retirement of the Steels and the use of larger, newer ferries.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Mar 30, 2007 2:49:27 GMT -8
As was pointed out by Evergreenfleet, there is an environmental issue. Keystone Jetty is an underwater reserve area, and, therefore, protected from development. The area is very popular with the diving community and regularly draws people from Seattle and Vancouver. Any impact on this area is subject to environmental review prior to start of work which can be (and usually is) a major undertaking.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 30, 2007 8:04:21 GMT -8
And, as PoliticalRebel pointed out, sooner or later a solution is going to have to be reached and no matter what, someone's nose is going to get bent.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Apr 1, 2007 15:25:48 GMT -8
I haven't responded to this topic yet because I've been really busy with work. Instead of replying to all the individual posts, here are my thoughts.
This is obviously a hardball response by the state to the blocking efforts of moving this project forward by those on Whidbey and at Martinac. In reality, the state needs to reevaluate how it funds WSF. I was all in favor of raising the tariffs for ferry travel over the last few years. Those that chose to live in a ferry dependent world shouldn't have their lifestyle subsudized by everyone else. That being said, the fares are getting awfully high and seem to be getting higher still. At some point, enough is enough, and the fares should only go up to keep up with inflation. The state legislature is controlled by democrats who are about to sign a huge spending bill. Why aren't they spending more money on WSF?
I can understand the feelings of those on Whidbey who have been opposed to the terminal relocation. I think the whole plan has been botched from the get go. WSF is trying to shove a solution down a community's throat, and its not the solution they want. Its like the viaduct vs. tunnel debate. Maybe there is a third way.
I believe that third-way is what Brassman has suggested. Lets go back to the basics. What is the maximum width and draft that ferry needs to get in and out of Keystone Harbor at all but the most extreme tides? What kind of propulsion system is best suited for maneuverability and can withstand the occasional beaching? What design features can be learned from the Steel Electrics.
These are the reality of operating at Keystone Harbor. Since they terminal isn't going to be relocated any time soon, WSF needs to figure out what it'll take to make working at Keystone Harbor work long term. Shutting down the route should not be an option, period. This is the state highway system after all. How else are you going to get from northern Washington State to the Olympic Peninsula?
A vessel with the capacity of about 100 cars would probably be about right for the Keystone-PT route. Let's build two of them - they can run tandem in the summer time. Some have suggested that in the winter, this would mean the other boat would sit. But I disagree. What's stopping a 100-car ferry from doing just what the Quinault (and Illahee before her) does now in the winter. Relieve the Tahlequah - Pt. Definate boat (projected to be a similarly sized Evergreen Boat), relieve the San Juan interisland boat, relieve the primary Keystone boat, and go in for her own maintenance. Looks like a pretty busy year round schedule to me.
I'm not in love with the current procurement program at WSF. They are restricted to who can build the boats by state law. If Martinac goes under, that leaves Todd has basically having a monopoly on future WSF vessels. Come on... Keeping jobs local does not outweigh the increased purchase costs of having essentially no competition bids. Also, back in the old days, WSF hired a naval architect to design the boat, then let the ship yards bid on building the design. Why don't they do that now? Why do they let the shipyards hire the architect and come up with their own design? Wouldn't there be better fleet standardization if WSF controlled the design internally?
My dream would be for 2 new 100-car ferries that can operate into and out of Keystone Harbor successfully put out to bid along with 3 of the 144-car variety that WSF has tried to get built for a few years now. Build them on the same contract - let the same person/firm design them, and keep as many of the components as possible the same to keep the training to a minimum and maximize interchangability.
Folks - if there's a will, there's a way. WSF can figure out how to operate in Keystone Harbor for many years to come. They just don't want to. I think they should reevaluate their plans.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 1, 2007 15:33:01 GMT -8
What leaves the monopoly with Todd Shipyard is because of the Jones Act, you eliminate that and BC might be calling. First off, Whidbey Island says they want easier service due to customer demands if I am not mistaken right? So if you have huge demand during summer time, yet they want the terminal in the same location which is completely unrealistic to occur. Specialized vessels would not make sense, it would be better if you could use an Evergreen or Issaquah when necessary. WSF does not do that now to keep costs down. Fleet standardization I have no problem with to a certain degree to where vessel designs are nothing different, purpulsion the same but that's it. (and perhaps hull) If WSF does not want to do the route, why reevaluate?
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Apr 1, 2007 15:56:55 GMT -8
What leaves the monopoly with Todd Shipyard is because of the Jones Act, you eliminate that and BC might be calling. The Jones Act says the ferry must be built in the United States. The State has restricted that further to only Washington State. There are other state with good, quality shipyards, that Todd should be competing against. Why can't specialized vessels make sense? Didn't I just lay out how it could work? What are your issues? WSF is playing hardball. Can't you see that? I think they are picking the wrong battle and have chosen the wrong approach. For whatever Mary Margaret Haugen's motives, she seems to be representing her constituents quite well. They want continued PT-Keystone service - but they don't want a lot of changes to it, including a new terminal. None of the choices for a new terminal were very good ones. Sad to say and hard to believe, but given the political and environmental realities of the situation, Keystone Harbor may be the best spot for a ferry to land. To me, the way WSF has pursued the whole process has been very ham-handed. I would not expect to see the route eliminated in my life time. It IS that important to transporation in the state.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Apr 1, 2007 16:14:26 GMT -8
Well, let's see:
PoliticalRebel, you have part of Whidbey's service demands correct. I've seen a similar one in the San Juans... "I want better service but not greater numbers of people coming across my island."
In terms of specialized vessels, I think what might be a good thing to do is to go back to the 1958 edition of the Evergreen State-class plans and update them. They're fairly shallow hulls and they're about the size that would work well in Keystone. "Blister" the hulls for added buoyancy if necessary to get her draft shallower. (I say the 1958 edition of the plans because, while I do love the old Evergreen State dearly, it's patently obvious to me that she is a prototype.) I'll begrudgingly concede that Martinac is right in suggesting that the Keystone route, barring the optimal solution of relocating the terminal, specialized boats are necessary. I just think their proposed design stinks. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 1, 2007 19:27:07 GMT -8
As I said northwesterner, specialized vessels do not make sense 1. When it breaks down, there is no replacement. 2. One route and one route only, not meant for other routes 3. Maintenance is not very cheap when it comes to specialization
If there was a way to get vessels just for specific regions it might work but having specialized vessels for one route does not make any sense since if you had a break down you could not use the vessel unless it was dire or during off season it collects dust in eagle harbor. Somehow, one side will have to budge or we'll never change anything. Please elaborate on the choices not being good. I would like your personal opinion on that matter. I might be totally wrong but I think you are just trying to stand up for the little guy, but I like it.
|
|