|
Post by EGfleet on Oct 3, 2007 14:29:42 GMT -8
According to Evergreen Fleet's website , the Nisqually is rumored to be pretty bad off. It is kind of odd that she was returned to service in the first place if she is in poor shape. During the summer, she had no leaks, and except for one occurence, had no problems. Until the replacement ferries are constructed, I think WSF needs to invest in keeping all of the Steels running. It probably is not wise from an economic standpoint, but when there was a shortage of boats to go around this past year, the Nisqually was needed. After all, the Fleet is not getting any younger and until the State changes it's policy regarding timely replacement of vessels and proper funding of the system in general, they need the extra Steel- E. If WSF rotates all of the Steels on a regular basis, they will all last longer untill they can be replaced. I agree!!!! If something was wrong with MV Nisqually this spring, why did the CG reissue its COI that had expired? According to WSF folks that I talked to at Keystone this summer, MV Nisqually was the most trouble free of the Steels this year. This was the main reason she was serving as the #1 vessel on the route. There were a few minor issues during her first week of operation after being idle for 4 years, but they were resolved quickly. If there was something seriously wrong with the vessel, why did she pass the CG inspection last May? Because they didn't do the in-depth hull inspection back in may like they are now. No one has been certain what is under that concrete until they remove it. You'll remember that none of the Steel E's had this inspection done until recently. It's possibly the concrete is covering up a whole host of hull issues that have not been seen yet.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Oct 4, 2007 7:27:35 GMT -8
If there was something seriously wrong with the vessel, why did she pass the CG inspection last May? From an artitle posted in another thread: Sounds like there were some concerns. Perhaps the fact that the Nisqually sat unused for nearly 4 years had something to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 4, 2007 7:35:05 GMT -8
The Nisqually has a record of being cantankerous, in part because of her Ross Hill propulsion controls (which were replaced with Siemens several years ago). Plus, she was mothballed for several years, as you point out, which isn't good for any boat, and very little maintenance was done to her during that time.
And let's not blissfully ignore that she, like the other three, is eighty years old. You don't expect Grandma to run a marathon, do you?
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Oct 4, 2007 7:50:35 GMT -8
Plus, she was mothballed for several years, as you point out, which isn't good for any boat, and very little maintenance was done to her during that time. The Rhododendron is a very good example of what can happen when a vessel sites unused for years and has little to no maintenance done.
|
|
|
Post by zman on Oct 6, 2007 12:53:39 GMT -8
That is the hard way to find out...after putting all of that $$ into it, only to find out that you have not even "scratched the surface".
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Oct 7, 2007 17:07:22 GMT -8
I am curious to know if the hull inspection report is due this week.
Also, does anybody have any advanced info that might be able to be , er...... leaked? Sorry for the bad pun.
WSF put alot of money and time into getting her back into shape this past year. She did perform well. It would be a shame to see her demise before the other Steels are done.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 8, 2007 7:09:56 GMT -8
I think they'll all go simultaneously.
I don't necessarily mean after the new boats are ready, either.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Oct 10, 2007 12:14:46 GMT -8
WSF put alot of money and time into getting her back into shape this past year. She did perform well. It would be a shame to see her demise before the other Steels are done. I agree with what is being said here. If MV Nisqually was (is) in such bad shape, why was alot of money and time used to place her back in service? If she is in such bad shape, why and how did she pass the USGG COI last May? Why was she allowed to return to service if she is in such bad shape? Should this issue be investigated if she is found to be in such bad shape? On the other hand, she might be in the best shape of those vessels in her class. My guess is that many of these problems with Steel Electrics developed because WSF cut their maintenance budgets to almost nothing following their decision to retire them five or six years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 10, 2007 15:06:43 GMT -8
I agree with what is being said here. If MV Nisqually was (is) in such bad shape, why was alot of money and time used to place her back in service? If she is in such bad shape, why and how did she pass the USGG COI last May? Why was she allowed to return to service if she is in such bad shape? Should this issue be investigated if she is found to be in such bad shape? Haven't we been around about this before? The USCG inspection last May simply wasn't as extensive as the scrutiny received after the crack was discovered in the Klickitat. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Oct 10, 2007 17:02:52 GMT -8
I agree with what is being said here. If MV Nisqually was (is) in such bad shape, why was alot of money and time used to place her back in service? If she is in such bad shape, why and how did she pass the USGG COI last May? Why was she allowed to return to service if she is in such bad shape? Should this issue be investigated if she is found to be in such bad shape? Haven't we been around about this before? The USCG inspection last May simply wasn't as extensive as the scrutiny received after the crack was discovered in the Klickitat. End of story. I was thinking the same thing until I realized that the inspection and COI issue for MV Nisqually took place almost 2 months after the problems and extensive inspection of MV Klickitat.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Oct 10, 2007 18:03:24 GMT -8
Haven't we been around about this before? The USCG inspection last May simply wasn't as extensive as the scrutiny received after the crack was discovered in the Klickitat. End of story. I was thinking the same thing until I realized that the inspection and COI issue for MV Nisqually took place almost 2 months after the problems and extensive inspection of MV Klickitat. The more extensive inspections weren't ordered until late June and the Klickitat hasn't gone through it yet (it's scheduled for November).
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Oct 11, 2007 5:51:43 GMT -8
When you get right down to it, it's a moot point.
These boats need to go, period!
They are 80 years old and hopelessly outdated, and let us not forget the do NOT meet safety standards that have been in place since the 1950's.
That's over 50 years folks. The painful truth of the matter is those boats probably never should have rebuilt in the 80's to begin with. Were it not for the well documented teething problems with the Issaquah Class, they probably wouldn't have.
I am all for boat preservation and nostalgia but lets be a little realistic!
|
|
|
Post by Electric Thunderbird on Oct 11, 2007 11:42:15 GMT -8
Beginning to think that WSF will take the easy way out and shut the route down. They could've built new ferries for the run when they setup the last constuction deal, but no, they choose not too.
If they are not going to build new ferries, then they need to get back to moving the Keystone terminal.
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Oct 11, 2007 18:46:06 GMT -8
Back when they signed the last construction deal, they were still relocating the Keystone dock and were going to use one of the new boats or an Issaquah 130 on the route.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 12, 2007 8:01:40 GMT -8
And looking at it from the big picture (which users of individual runs of WSF seem unable to do), that's still the best plan on paper. As for feasibility of actually relocating the terminal, I don't know. After all, if the state were to make noise about buying out property somewhere close by on Whidbey, all the properties along there would go on sale at stiff prices, assuming that the state has deep pockets.
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Oct 12, 2007 10:08:58 GMT -8
They actually had a "alternative E" in the Keystone study where they did all the design work for a new Keystone dock south of the jetty with direct access road to the highway, I think WA-525?
|
|
|
Post by guest1 on Oct 12, 2007 10:27:57 GMT -8
The original plan was to build vessels for the run, as is. Then it was decided to build 130 car ferries and move the ferry dock to the east end of Keystone spit. This move was stopped because of the political reaction to the local opposition. Then the plan was changed to extensive modifcation of the existing Keystone Harbor--which engendered a much wider opposition. As this plan sunk, the size of the new-builds was increased to the 144 car ferry.
Plan E was then proposed. This plan would move the ferry landing farther south and east to the main part of Whidbey Island, and would require the constructoin of a new road spur in addition to the landing (probably the most expensive option).
Now, at the end of what is appoarching a ten year effort, there is no plan
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Oct 12, 2007 12:29:33 GMT -8
I'm with Barnacle, plan E makes the most sense, even if it is the most expensive. It also reduces the risk to WSF by not landing at Keystone Harbor, and would eliminate the tidal cancelations.
|
|
|
Post by guest1 on Oct 12, 2007 12:55:30 GMT -8
In my opinion, moving the landing to the east end of the spit made the most sense. Being that that plan was abandoned (seemingly without any protest by WSF), building for the current infrastructure makes the most sense.
Plan E would require a large amount of funding and years of permiting, and would significantly lengthen the crossing time.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 12, 2007 13:50:38 GMT -8
Well, I don't necessarily think it would lengthen the crossing time, because we'd be able to use boats that travelled faster than eleven bloody knots, but it's all moot at this juncture anyway.
Wait a minute... can a starting point also be a juncture? 'Cause that's where we're back to. Never mind...
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Oct 12, 2007 17:44:30 GMT -8
Any news on the Nisqually's hull inspection? I am sure once it is released, quite a discussion will commence. I very curious to know what has been found.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Oct 12, 2007 18:52:38 GMT -8
Lemme see, an argument that a "transportation" department could understand:
So, we have a road that has served it's purposes for a long time. It was perfectly useful back in the days when the farmer got to market in a horse-drawn wagon. It is still useful as a road, but only because the farmers on the road are still driving 80-year-old trucks that were built to the same specifications as the wagon that proceeded it.
So, we have two options. Option one is to provide the farmers with replicas of their 80-tear-old trucks so that they can still use the road. Option two is to improve the road so that we could drive most any truck down the road. Oh, yes. and growth on this road is such that there will need to be many more truck trips on this road in the future.
It seems obvious that we would just improve the road to modern standards.
So....... if we say that the truck in this example is a ferry boat, and that the road is the Keystone Ferry Terminal, then how does that make the story different. It IS part of the state highway system, isn't it? It seems obvious if we call it a growing part of the state highway system.
Solution: Just improve or move the existing terminal. It would be as cheap in the long run to be able to use most of the same ferries that are used elsewhere in the system.
............... unless the whole point is to run a ferry museum system instead of a real ferry system.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Oct 12, 2007 20:33:12 GMT -8
Any news on the Nisqually's hull inspection? I am sure once it is released, quite a discussion will commence. I very curious to know what has been found. Does WSF do this work at Eagle Harbor or at a commercial yard? Isn't the removal of concrete part of this task? Would a drydock be needed to complete the hull inspection?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 14, 2007 20:15:38 GMT -8
I suspect it will be a necessity, as it's damn hard to check those underwater stern tubes otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Oct 18, 2007 16:46:29 GMT -8
Any news about the Nisqually's condition yet? Her inspection is probably not a priority since WSF has enough vessels to go around right now. As I have said before, I am just curious.
|
|