|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 18, 2006 21:03:59 GMT -8
Perhaps it's time to have a new post about MV Nisqually. In another post, Barnacle asked if anyone had seen MV Nisqually out on sea trials recently?? Good question!!!
I think I saw something a few weeks ago that WSF was requesting bids for yard work on MV Nisqually. One wonders what is going on?? Any ideas???
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 19, 2006 7:19:23 GMT -8
I do believe that Dakota Creek got the job... rumors persist throughout the company that WSF is going to, as time and funding permits, bring the Nisqually back into certification for a couple of reasons: (1) A quick count of available relief vessels is completed faster than you can say "Evergreen State." (2) Even if it doesn't run again, a vessel that is running and up to snuff on the Certificate of Inspection (COI) is much easier to sell and commands a much better price (other than scrap value, for example) than one that isn't. Which was why I wanted to know if anybody had seen the old girl out on the loose recently.
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Nov 19, 2006 9:01:05 GMT -8
So has the Nisqually's damaged drive motor been repaired? I thought that was the reason she was idle and due to the costs, she wasn't going to be fixed. Has WSF secured more funding from the Legislature that we haven't heard about?
|
|
|
Post by zman on Nov 19, 2006 10:03:48 GMT -8
It would be nice to have another extra boat...even if the size and speed are considerably lower...perhaps WSF could do some unheard of super rebuild to the engine and make her move faster...in our dreams. Really though, there are many different practical things that WSF could do...it would be great to have the Nisqually back. WSF says that the bid was awarded 10/20/06 and that it is $103.572.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 19, 2006 16:42:26 GMT -8
I was wondering if WSF was in too much of a hurry to retire MV Nisqually. She was the last of the Steel Electrics to be rebuilt (1987) and has a higher auto deck clearance that the others in her class at 13'9".
Is this auto deck clearance a factor, especially on the Keystone run? MV Klickitat has a clearance of 13'4" and is usually the no. 1 vessel on the run while MV Quinault, the no.2 vessel has 13'2" clearance. Is this a case of 2 inches being 2 inches as MV Quinault has a elevator and MV Klickitat does not? BTW; MV Illahee has the lowest clearance at 12'7" but is usually assigned to the San Juan Islands where vessels with higher clearance are available.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 20, 2006 9:19:45 GMT -8
old_wsf_fan, I don't know anything about a damaged drive motor. The only damaged drive motor I'm aware of was the DM that the Elwha crumped in April. The Nisqually was simply retired and largely taken out of the maintenance loop in a misguided attempt to save money.
The Klickitat used to have a noted clearance of 13'10", which was why they sent out bulletins every time she went away... what happened?
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Nov 20, 2006 19:36:26 GMT -8
Barnacle, I may have the incorrect idea of what is wrong with her but I refer to the post started by Evergreen Fleet entitled "Nisqually fails annual inspection, no COI isssued".
In that post there is reference to the incident back in 2003 up in the S-J Islands when she lost power aand rammed the dock at Lopez Island. It was determined that the Ross-Hill propulsion controls were to blame. I understand that quite a few ferries had them and they were responsible for alot of mishaps.
In another reply in that post, it was written that the Nisqually needed a 3 million dollar drive- motor system and that WSF was not going to put that kind of money into a vessel that age.
Please correct me with the proper terminology and what is really wrong with her. I also heard a rumor that parts were removed from her to fix the other Steel- E's. Rumor or Fact.
As with SS Shasta, I rode quite a few of the old fleet and remember those boats fondly and will miss them when they are gone. If you ride those old boats and pay attention to how they feel and ride, you will note that there is a lack of vibration in that class of boat, and how durable they really have been over the years.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Nov 20, 2006 20:06:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 20, 2006 20:50:06 GMT -8
Barnacle, I may have the incorrect idea of what is wrong with her but I refer to the post started by Evergreen Fleet entitled "Nisqually fails annual inspection, no COI isssued". In that post there is reference to the incident back in 2003 up in the S-J Islands when she lost power aand rammed the dock at Lopez Island. It was determined that the Ross-Hill propulsion controls were to blame. I understand that quite a few ferries had them and they were responsible for alot of mishaps. In another reply in that post, it was written that the Nisqually needed a 3 million dollar drive- motor system and that WSF was not going to put that kind of money into a vessel that age. Please correct me with the proper terminology and what is really wrong with her. I also heard a rumor that parts were removed from her to fix the other Steel- E's. Rumor or Fact. As with SS Shasta, I rode quite a few of the old fleet and remember those boats fondly and will miss them when they are gone. If you ride those old boats and pay attention to how they feel and ride, you will note that there is a lack of vibration in that class of boat, and how durable they really have been over the years. The Nisqually is currently without a Certificate of Inspection, which means she can't carry passengers. She rammed a dock at Lopez in... well, couldn't have been later than 1996 because I have worked for WSF since 1997 in the San Juans and I would've heard about it. The Ross Hill equipment may have been to blame for that event, but the system was replaced sometime between 1999 and 2001 with Siemens controls (rock solid equipment, by the way). The three-million dollar drive motor... I don't know anything about that. The other Steel-Electrics have been receiving funding to keep them going, so "age and capacity" really isn't a factor; it's just that the thin argument was advanced that we didn't need four very small boats and the former CEO and political pirate Mike Thorne found another way to cut costs by letting the venerable Nisqually die at mooring. Parts pillaging: fact. They've usually been returned once the official replacement parts arrive, has been my understanding. I don't think there's been a huge amount of outright acquisition by the other Steel-Electrics; as I hear it, the Nisqually's more of a parts "library." I haven't spent much time working on the old Steelies; seven days on the Klickitat, a month on the Illahee, a few weeks on the Nisqually and Quinault... but I understand the fondness for them. The week I spent on the Klickitat running as #3 boat at Edmonds in 1998 was one of the most fun I'd worked.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Nov 20, 2006 21:16:22 GMT -8
She rammed a dock at Lopez in... well, couldn't have been later than 1996 because I have worked for WSF since 1997 in the San Juans and I would've heard about it. According to this site, it was 1995 when she rammd the dock at Lopez. I managed to find a couple of sites with pics of the Nisqually. Inside the wheelhouseDocked at Kingston
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Nov 20, 2006 21:44:06 GMT -8
Guess I should read posts more closely. I cannot believe that they would take a perfectly good vessel offline like that when they certainly don't have the luxury of spare vessels. I can think of a few times where the Nisqually could have filled in for another Steel- Electric when they went down. Sure would have saved alot of headaches and boat shuffling.
According to the WSF website, when she was going in for her recent repairs, she was to be towed to and back after her stint in the yard. Has she actually been out on the water under her own power?
I think if she is going to return to service she could probably fill in for the Klickitat, that boat needs a little tlc.
|
|
|
Post by zman on Nov 21, 2006 7:57:04 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Nov 21, 2006 12:27:20 GMT -8
The Klickitat used to have a noted clearance of 13'10", which was why they sent out bulletins every time she went away... what happened? I've always wondered why the overhead clearances were shrunk. Was it because of USCG or other regulations or were there problems with trucks banging up stuff on the car deck ceiling? One thing I've notied with the revised clearances is that not all vessels in the same class have the same clearance now. One fleet guide I read (not sure if it was the one on the WSF web site or the one I mentioned in another thread) listed the Klahowya as having a higher clearance than the Evergreen State.
|
|
|
Post by In washington on Nov 21, 2006 13:33:17 GMT -8
The Evergreen was jacked up to meet current truck heights in her refurbishment. Originally designed when maximum truck height was about 12' when she hit the water the state increased the height to 13'6". She was in the San Juans because of that height limit. The Tillikum and the Klahowya were built to accommodate the higher truck heights.
The Steel Electrics were 13'6" for years then after their refurbishments something got missed and sprinkler heads were getting knocked off by trucks.
I have heard the WSF has had a staff on the Nisqually getting a handle on what she needs to be re-certified. There is a lot to do just in replacing electronics alone from what I understand.
|
|
|
Post by zman on Nov 21, 2006 16:40:34 GMT -8
I know that they also need to work on installing the evacuation slides, and by the looks of things, she could use a little scrubdown. I noticed that after the Klahowya and Tillikum got done with the security modifications and repainting, there is a steel cover that runs the entire length of the car deck that is painted yellow because it sticks out and reduces clearance on one side...I will have to get a pic to show it, as I am not good at explaining things like that.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 21, 2006 18:09:38 GMT -8
The Evergreen State's clearance is, without looking, likely listed as 13'7", which is accurate for the wings. The tunnel is still good to about 14'10", I think... the WSF site will list the lowest spot for safety. Though if they were truly consistent, they'd list the Kaleetan at 14'5" because the emergency generator exhaust hangs out into the tunnel on the edge. I suspect the gennie may have been installed backwards, but that is neither here nor there...
Ooops! forgot to answer old_wsf_fan... the vessel is apparently capable of moving under her own power; WSF has somehow decided that it is cheaper to have the vessel towed to and from dock rather than pay a crew to move it. I don't know about the costs of towing, so I can't comment on that... I halfway suspect it was a policy instituted to annoy the deck personnel.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 21, 2006 20:12:29 GMT -8
According to the WSF website, when she was going in for her recent repairs, she was to be towed to and back after her stint in the yard. Has she actually been out on the water under her own power? According to the contract issued to Dakota Shipyards, MV Nisqually will be available on 4 December 2006. Would this indicate that she is still at Eagle Harbor? Also the reference in the contract to having the vessel towed to and back from the yard has been deleted according to Addendum 1 of the contract.
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Nov 21, 2006 21:41:06 GMT -8
I read the contract for maintanence on the Nisqually and it seems pretty indepth work and costly for a ferry that will just go back in the yard and sit. Has WSF had a change of mind since a new CEO is incharge. I hope she doesn't remain in tie up for good. It just makes good sense to have as many available back-up vessels as possible, in order to maintain the rest of the fleet and not end up short a vessel . It has happened more than once.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 22, 2006 7:17:11 GMT -8
It's nice to hear the towing portion of the contract seems to have been deleted... that indicates, among other things, that it is a runner. The Nisqually is most likely sitting at Eagle Harbor until the evening of Dec. 3 or the early morning of Dec. 4. And, old_wsf_fan, with the ferry system putting that kind of money into the boat, you can bet they won't be shy about breaking her out if they really need her. Speaking of (not to distract the subject), I see on this morning's vessel watch that the mighty Evergreen is home for Thanksgiving. (Yay!)
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Nov 24, 2006 14:11:39 GMT -8
I was wondering what is required to get her back into operation. I know that she needs her COI issued by the CG before she can carry passengers. Are there any other regulatory documents that a ferry needs?
Has she been worked on for quite a while? If she is to be ready in early Dec., she must have been worked on this past summer?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 24, 2006 16:40:44 GMT -8
She won't be "service ready" this December; she'll be on her way to Dakota Creek Industries shipyard in Anacortes. I'm sure Evergreenfleet and I will go take pictures while she's here. There are a handful of other regulatory documents required, though the only one I can think of is the FCC radio station license (easily renewed for a smallish fee)... there's one about a certificate of financial responsiblity in the event of a pollution incident, I think. A fistful, to be sure. Not to mention all the documentation concerning the certification of any inflatable liferafts, getting all the navigation charts and publications corrected... sometimes it seems like each boat kills a tree every year.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 24, 2006 17:43:37 GMT -8
Oh, Please take some photos of the old girl!!! I am wondering if the WSF management finally decided that she will be needed next summer to help with the busy summer loads? That would certainly be a step in the right direction if it is true.
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Nov 26, 2006 18:57:53 GMT -8
Since we have the idea on what the Nisqually needs to get her back into "ship-shape", does anyone have a clue when she might be ready for service? Are we talking possible relief work for other Steel-Electrics during the off season or will she be in ready relief as the Evergreen State seems to be?
I would think that the other heavily used Steel-Electrics could use a little break. Both the Klickitat and the Quinault could use some much needed paint work and probably basic maintenence that requires yard time at Eagle Harbor.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Nov 26, 2006 19:16:20 GMT -8
Since we have the idea on what the Nisqually needs to get her back into "ship-shape", does anyone have a clue when she might be ready for service? Are we talking possible relief work for other Steel-Electrics during the off season or will she be in ready relief as the Evergreen State seems to be? From what was mentioned in the other thread, she would need at the very least evacuation chutes and a tracking device before she would be allowed to carry passengers again. I would think that the other heavily used Steel-Electrics could use a little break. Both the Klickitat and the Quinault could use some much needed paint work and probably basic maintenence that requires yard time at Eagle Harbor. The Quinault definitely needs paint work. I did notice some recent repainting on one end on the car deck adjacent to a ventilator.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 28, 2006 16:12:15 GMT -8
Looks like WSF has posted another IFB contract request for dockside work on MV Nisqually. Something must be planned for her; wonder if she is coming out of retirement ?
|
|