|
Post by SS Shasta on Sept 9, 2007 14:20:43 GMT -8
Has MV Klickitat received her intensive USCG inspection yet? Can't remember if she received it during her lengthy yard period last spring. Also wondering if she had the cement ballast that the other 3 in her class have had? Her rebuild took place several years before the others and had several design differences.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Sept 9, 2007 17:05:29 GMT -8
Has MV Klickitat received her intensive USCG inspection yet? That's supposed to happen in November according to one of the articles posted in the maintenance thread.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Sept 10, 2007 10:24:11 GMT -8
TWO INCHES DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE During my recent travels on MV Klickitat and MV Nisqually I was surprised how the 2 inches of additional car deck clearance makes so much difference in the loading of vehicles. Watching the MV Klickitat load 3 large vans at Port Townsend, there was not even 1/2 inch to spare. None of these vans would have fit onto the other three vessels in her class.
It's interesting to note that this issue developed with the most recent rebuild of these fine vessels. All four vessels had a higher auto deck clearance BEFORE their 1980's rebuild (13'10"). At the time this clearance was the same as clearance on MV Tillikum and MV Klahowya and almost a foot higher than MV Evergreen State.
This must certainly be the reason that MV Klickitat has the year round assignment to the route.
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Sept 10, 2007 19:35:36 GMT -8
It was interesting to read another Engineers' comments in favor of the Steel-E's, as opposed to the Engineer who made the news recently condeming the boats as unsafe.
Seems as though the media struggles to explain both sides of a given story continously.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Sept 11, 2007 18:01:14 GMT -8
The media also thinks that the stern tube is part of the steering system. The Klickitat is built slightly different than the other three Steel Electrics... she has an extra set of stanchions (defining the center lane) holding up the new house. On the other three they were removed to facilitate "spinning" the traffic on multi-destination sailings (FVS/SJI), but that necessitated the rather burly steel arch at the ends of the boat, which makes the clearance lower.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Sept 11, 2007 18:40:21 GMT -8
The Klickitat is built slightly different than the other three Steel Electrics... Does MV Klickitat have the cement ballast that the CG has been concerned about?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Sept 11, 2007 18:44:34 GMT -8
That I don't know, but I would suspect so. It may have even been added in the fifties to compensate for the hiking-up of the house.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Oct 18, 2007 19:04:45 GMT -8
Oh, those Wonderful Steel Electrics: With the heavy wind and rain storm hitting Puget Sound area today, the Seattle television news had some excellent views of MV Klickitat riding the waves and landing at Keystone this afternoon. Wish I could have been there for the return trip to Port Townsend.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 18, 2007 20:45:28 GMT -8
Were they highlighting the storm headlines, or waiting to catch footage of the bugger cracking in half and sinking?
Media hounds will do anything for a story. ;D
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Nov 10, 2007 21:22:14 GMT -8
Does MV Klickitat have the cement ballast that the CG has been concerned about? The IFB for drydock work (12/03 - 12/28) specifies concrete removal, so apparently she does have it. The stern tubes are going to be replaced.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 11, 2007 8:07:55 GMT -8
They may need more than three weeks to do so, given how long it seems to have taken with the others. On the other hand, I should think most surprises are over with by now, at least with working out a method of fabricating new stern tubes.
Poor old boats.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 12, 2007 15:41:04 GMT -8
Does MV Klickitat have the cement ballast that the CG has been concerned about? The IFB for drydock work (12/03 - 12/28) specifies concrete removal, so apparently she does have it. The stern tubes are going to be replaced. Sounds like this removal of concrete takes place in a commercial yard. Would the inspection of MV Klickitat then take place to determine what hull repairs are needed? Does this indicate that removal of concrete on MV Nisqually has not yet started? The CG made a big issue of removing her from service on 10 September, three weeks before the end of the summer schedule, apparently for concrete removal and inspection. Wonder why MV Klickitat has been allowed to continue to operate with this concrete in place? Where is the logic?
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Nov 12, 2007 17:43:41 GMT -8
My thinking is that the Nisqually is probably in the worst condition of the four Steels, so she may be repaired or she may not be. I hope that she is not that bad, as last spring/summer proved that with the age of the fleet, every vessel is an asset right now until some new vessels come along. If nothing else, the Nisqually could be used in regular vessel repair rotation on the routes that still use the Steels. As for the Klickitat, she is probably in better condition. As for the logic of it all, I have no answer!
|
|
|
Post by guest1 on Nov 12, 2007 21:35:50 GMT -8
In answer to Shasta: Klickitat had minimaul concrete, just a few inches deep, in a limited location. The Nisqually, as I understand, had the stern tubes buried in the stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 13, 2007 7:21:42 GMT -8
Hadn't thought of that, Guest1--it stands to reason, really, if you look at the houses. The Klickitat doesn't have the crew's quarters up on the Texas Deck like the other three, and thusly shouldn't need as much ballast to counter for them.
Planets have to really be aligned for the fourth steel-electric to come into play. In the summer, one boat has to have a service failure AND the Evergreen State has to be committed to working somewhere else (otherwise the Illahee would pop down to Keystone); any other time of year, the two vessels in year-round service have to have service failures, or the Rhody has to be out for maintenance with another vessel having a service failure (and the Evergreen State is committed to service elsewhere).
But there was some good planet watching this summer, I'll grant you that... ;D
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 13, 2007 16:37:55 GMT -8
Did I read somewhere, that a couple of WSF vessels used old engines/ or parts of old engines as ballast? Perhaps this method could be used again instead of concrete, if WSF decides to re-engine the Steels ;D ;D ;D. Seriously, does anyone remember which vessels had this type of ballast?
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Nov 13, 2007 17:35:13 GMT -8
Did I read somewhere, that a couple of WSF vessels used old engines/ or parts of old engines as ballast? Perhaps this method could be used again instead of concrete, if WSF decides to re-engine the Steels ;D ;D ;D. Seriously, does anyone remember which vessels had this type of ballast? It was the Steel Electrics. Peabody did that back in the 40's. When the boats were overhauled in the 50's and sponsoned out, the old (ballast) engines were pulled out. WSF isn't going to re-engine the Steel E's. They're trying not to spend any more than they have to on them right now, much less putting new engines in them.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Nov 13, 2007 19:16:33 GMT -8
WSF isn't going to re-engine the Steel E's. They're trying not to spend any more than they have to on them right now, much less putting new engines in them. They probably wouldn't be able to replace the engines w/o making the necessary modifications to bring the vessels into compliance with current safety standards if the USCG considered this as "extending the life" of the vessels.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 20, 2007 11:28:15 GMT -8
Isn't it the 2inch factor rather than a survey of her condition that saves the mighty MV Klickitat from retirement? She is one of two WSF vessels that is not ADA compliant, but she has two additional inches on the car deck that allows her to handle higher vans than other vessels assigned to the Townsend/Keystone route.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Nov 20, 2007 11:39:35 GMT -8
Isn't it the 2inch factor rather than a survey of her condition that saves the mighty MV Klickitat from retirement? She is one of two WSF vessels that is not ADA compliant, but she has two additional inches on the car deck that allows her to handle higher vans than other vessels assigned to the Townsend/Keystone route. No, nothing, I repeat, nothing is going to save these boats from retirement. They are all going to be destined for the scrap heap at some point in time (save possibly for the houses, which aren't original anyway.) and it is sounding like it is going to be increasingly soon. If the Klickitat's hull for some reason proved to be too costly to repair or if the CG pulled her certification, that's all she wrote. That fact that she's operating in service right now with 35 cracks in the hull--and I don't care if they're letting in water or not--doesn't exactly give me an overwhelming feeling of safety. These boats are all becoming huge black holes that the state is throwing barrels of money into. The sooner they're gotten rid of, the better.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 20, 2007 13:18:19 GMT -8
^^^ What he said.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 27, 2007 13:06:40 GMT -8
Apparently no one is in a rush to inspect and make repairs to MV Klickitat. She as been idle at Port Townsend since "so urgently" being pulled from service almost a week ago.
Seems logical that MV Klickitat should be at the top of the priority list as she has that important higher car deck clearance than the other vessels. MV Klickitat should be a higher priority than the San Juan Inter-island vessel. That run seems to work well with MV Evergreen State
|
|
|
Post by guest1 on Nov 27, 2007 14:19:49 GMT -8
Oh, but if logic were used WSF wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. Because of that extra cardeck hieght and better stability the Klickitat is the only boat they've got for the Port Townsend/Keystone run. The plan was always to keep the Illahee and Quinault for Talaquah and inter-island, and that is why so much money (ie: stern tubes) was put in those vessels.
Now with 4 plus million sunk into to them, WSF will stay the course and sink several more million into them. Odds are the Klickitat is done for.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Nov 27, 2007 15:32:48 GMT -8
Oh, but if logic were used WSF wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. Because of that extra cardeck hieght and better stability the Klickitat is the only boat they've got for the Port Townsend/Keystone run. The plan was always to keep the Illahee and Quinault for Talaquah and inter-island, and that is why so much money (ie: stern tubes) was put in those vessels. Now with 4 plus million sunk into to them, WSF will stay the course and sink several more million into them. Odds are the Klickitat is done for. This was my thinking too...they've dumped the money into the Illahee and Quinault, and nothing has been done to either the Klickitat or Nisqually...the Nisqually isn't even being talked about any more. More telling is the fact that one of the papers reported no drydock time has been scheduled for the Klickitat. The Illahee at last report was already at Todd.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 27, 2007 21:26:47 GMT -8
Heading for Todd tomorrow. She checked out of Anacortes this afternoon.
[edit] Lemme clarify... that's the Illahee I'm referring to. I don't know where someone got the idea I was referring to the Klickitat.
|
|