|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 2, 2009 22:12:54 GMT -8
I suppose 'noggin bopper' is slightly more elegant than the 'brain bucket' label we gave 'em on the Sea-Land Kodiak...
|
|
lifc
Voyager 
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Nov 3, 2009 8:12:07 GMT -8
While it's nice to see the new boats being built, I have some serious reservations about the design. The exposed propellor shafts and the one bearing rudder mounting concern me. How soon will it be before one of them ends up on the beach at Keystone? Will that vessel have to then go to the yard to get these parts unbent?
Overall the hull design of the Steel Electric's looks better to me, better protection for the moving parts and a better hull profile. The more rounded bottoms of the new boats look like they might be a bit rolly.
It looks to me that the State is preparing to flake out on building the 144 car boats. The EMD engines for them are going in the 64s, which mean they will not be available for the 144s, just another reason they can't build them. The EMDs are barely emmission legal and are fuel hogs, their only attribute is that they are tough. The excuse not to get new poweplants for the 64s was that it takes 18 months to get an engine ordered and delivered, maybe a few years ago. I know that Caterpiller can deliver the new version of the 3608 in less than 18 weeks. It is emmission legal and burns far less fuel, and then we'd still have the motors for the 144s.
I guess I am a dinosaur, I have always thought the purpose for the State was to provide services to the citizens, not take all the money to fill up the capital with non essential flunkies that only make trouble for all of us.
Jim
|
|
tom98250
Deckhand
Life doesn't get better than this...
Posts: 85
|
Post by tom98250 on Nov 3, 2009 9:07:08 GMT -8
This story seems to be slightly behind on the naming rights issue...it would seem that particular issue is a non-starter given the lack of interest.
Coupeville organizations are working with a nearby Indian tribe to come up with a name to submit to the Washington State Transportation Commission to consider for the second ferry that could be used across Admiralty Inlet during the summers.
“We all feel it’s a measure of respect for the local tribes,” said Rick Castellano, executive director for the Island County Historical Society. The museum, the Central Whidbey Chamber of Commerce and the Coupeville Historic Waterfront Association are working with the Swinomish tribe to come up with some possible names for the second ferry. The Swinomish tribe, based near Anacortes, represents the Lower Skagit Tribe, which Castellano said historically had members living on Whidbey Island.
"Swinomish" has a nice ring to it, and I can't think of it having been used to name a ferry before. It could possibly eliminate the angst over possibly naming one of the boats "Kelohken." |
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,887 
|
Post by Mill Bay on Nov 3, 2009 9:27:34 GMT -8
While it's nice to see the new boats being built, I have some serious reservations about the design. The exposed propellor shafts and the one bearing rudder mounting concern me. How soon will it be before one of them ends up on the beach at Keystone? Will that vessel have to then go to the yard to get these parts unbent? Overall the hull design of the Steel Electric's looks better to me, better protection for the moving parts and a better hull profile. The more rounded bottoms of the new boats look like they might be a bit rolly. It looks to me that the State is preparing to flake out on building the 144 car boats. The EMD engines for them are going in the 64s, which mean they will not be available for the 144s, just another reason they can't build them. The EMDs are barely emission legal and are fuel hogs, their only attribute is that they are tough. The excuse not to get new powerplants for the 64s was that it takes 18 months to get an engine ordered and delivered, maybe a few years ago. I know that Caterpillar can deliver the new version of the 3608 in less than 18 weeks. It is emission legal and burns far less fuel, and then we'd still have the motors for the 144s. I guess I am a dinosaur, I have always thought the purpose for the State was to provide services to the citizens, not take all the money to fill up the capital with non essential flunkies that only make trouble for all of us. Jim Wow, someone is still expecting an awful lot out of the state government these days,  . Although it seems that there have been a couple instances lately where the state has listened to public complaints--mainly with the naming rights of the vessels. If someone could rally enough support or negative publicity, maybe they could get the state to take a second look at the type of machinery they plan to use. As for the hull design, it's based on the Island Home's hull shape, which has proven itself to be good and stable in rough weather, so they should be o.k., although WSF has messed with the plans quite a lot, so you never know. The Island home has never gone up on the beach, however, so we don't have anyway of knowing what might happen in that event. |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Nov 3, 2009 10:02:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by sparky on Nov 3, 2009 12:34:11 GMT -8
It looks to me that the State is preparing to flake out on building the 144 car boats. The EMD engines for them are going in the 64s, which mean they will not be available for the 144s, just another reason they can't build them. The EMDs are barely emmission legal and are fuel hogs, their only attribute is that they are tough. The excuse not to get new poweplants for the 64s was that it takes 18 months to get an engine ordered and delivered, maybe a few years ago. I know that Caterpiller can deliver the new version of the 3608 in less than 18 weeks. It is emmission legal and burns far less fuel, and then we'd still have the motors for the 144s. Jim How about qualifying (by publishing here, perhaps) the consumption and pollution numbers re; the 3600 series Cats vs, the 710's If the Cats are indeed better about fuel consumption, it's probably beacuse they're usually broken. Which brings us to repair costs, overhaul costs, etc. The life-cycle costs for the Cats was established long ago (even using Peoria's rather optimistic overhaul intervals, which weren't seen by the users they supplied as refferences) as being well in excess of what the 710's would cost. This is why the main engines on the Jumbo mk II's aren't painted yellow. I'm told that the 3600's are pretty effective as artificial reefs, though. |
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080
|
Post by Nick on Nov 3, 2009 13:23:09 GMT -8
It looks to me that the State is preparing to flake out on building the 144 car boats. The EMD engines for them are going in the 64s, which mean they will not be available for the 144s, just another reason they can't build them. The EMDs are barely emmission legal and are fuel hogs, their only attribute is that they are tough. The excuse not to get new poweplants for the 64s was that it takes 18 months to get an engine ordered and delivered, maybe a few years ago. I know that Caterpiller can deliver the new version of the 3608 in less than 18 weeks. It is emmission legal and burns far less fuel, and then we'd still have the motors for the 144s. Jim How about qualifying (by publishing here, perhaps) the consumption and pollution numbers re; the 3600 series Cats vs, the 710's If the Cats are indeed better about fuel consumption, it's probably beacuse they're usually broken. Which brings us to repair costs, overhaul costs, etc. The life-cycle costs for the Cats was established long ago (even using Peoria's rather optimistic overhaul intervals, which weren't seen by the users they supplied as refferences) as being well in excess of what the 710's would cost. This is why the main engines on the Jumbo mk II's aren't painted yellow. I'm told that the 3600's are pretty effective as artificial reefs, though. According to Wikipedia, the EMD 710s produce somewhere between 3000 and 4000 HP, depending on the engine chosen. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the MaK M25C or M32C be a better choice than a CAT 3608? Or do these ships need high speed diesels? I'm not sure what Sparky is referring to when he (or she) mentions the lack of reliability in CAT products. BC Ferries has chosen MaK or Caterpillar products in almost all of their ships because of their reliability record. The C-class are still running on original 1976 MaK engines, as were the Vs. The new Coastals are running MaK M32Cs as well. A considerable number of ships use CAT engines as their auxillary power sources as well. Also, I seem to recall hearing that these new boats weren't using all the engines that had been ordered for the 144s. I seem to recall hearing that there would be enough left over for construction of at least one 144. |
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,957
|
Post by FNS on Nov 3, 2009 14:33:44 GMT -8
If you look at page one on this thread, you'll see a line of engines. At least eight of them. By the look of things, six of these would go into the CHETZIES and the other two into the 144. I think WSF is looking for good power for these to go in and out of Keystone harbor. Also, the ISLAND HOME, which has the same engines, is geared for 15 knots. It should be easier for these new ones to make up time if need be on the Keystone run. Also good for the San Juans where the second vessel may end up during the winters when the two vessel service is reduced to one on the Keystone run. It's really interesting that a news writer on Whidbey Island calls this new Keystone ferry a "high speed" one. I guess that speed records will be shattered on this run, not counting the passenger-only crafts.  BTW, the B-Class of these new 64-car ferries are slated to have CP propellers. |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Nov 4, 2009 6:55:10 GMT -8
My post about the engines was in two directions. First I do not want to see any reason for the State to be able to postpone the building of the 144s, I can just see some powerful politician who would rather add more people to some agency than build ferries site the lack of engines and the huge lead time as a reason not to build them. Isn't the one extra set of engines supposedly the spare set? If the others are all used in the IH's won't they be the spare set for them? Simply, I think the IH's ought to be acumulating their own owerplants as they go along. I do not want to see the impetus for the 144's go away.
As for the Cats, I do not think a 1000 RPM engine is really very high speed. My friends in the towing industry love their 3600s. What's nice about Cat is they have parts and pieces, right now. Several of my quarry and digging friends use Cat exclusively due to that fact, they had other makes of machines, said they worked fine, but, when they need repairs, Cat had it all over the other guys. Almost all of the smaller ferries are Cat powered and do very well. It's common knowledge that a 4 cycle engine is more fuel efficient than a 2, and easier to get to run cleaner. But you may be right, there are other factors too.
All in all, I am an American, and I would like the power for our ferries to be made in the USA, I do know that there are many makes of excellent foreigh engines. In the bigger engines, that leaves Cat, EMD, Fairbanks, and GE, which I don't know much about, although the GE's are Tier Two compliant. The Fairbanks engines are beloved by the US Navy, but I an under the impression that they require more maintenance and fuel.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by forest on Nov 4, 2009 9:22:08 GMT -8
I advocate "Admiralty Class" for the 64-car ferries. This honors the place name where this Class will primarily be running, and doesn't promote one terminal over another.
|
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Nov 4, 2009 10:32:58 GMT -8
I advocate "Admiralty Class" for the 64-car ferries. This honors the place name where this Class will primarily be running, and doesn't promote one terminal over another. I wouldn't hold my breath....... |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 4, 2009 12:13:36 GMT -8
I'm still cheering for "Chieftain" class. But only because I think I might've started it... |
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080
|
Post by Nick on Nov 4, 2009 12:32:30 GMT -8
My post about the engines was in two directions. First I do not want to see any reason for the State to be able to postpone the building of the 144s, I can just see some powerful politician who would rather add more people to some agency than build ferries site the lack of engines and the huge lead time as a reason not to build them. Isn't the one extra set of engines supposedly the spare set? If the others are all used in the IH's won't they be the spare set for them? Simply, I think the IH's ought to be acumulating their own owerplants as they go along. I do not want to see the impetus for the 144's go away. As for the Cats, I do not think a 1000 RPM engine is really very high speed. My friends in the towing industry love their 3600s. What's nice about Cat is they have parts and pieces, right now. Several of my quarry and digging friends use Cat exclusively due to that fact, they had other makes of machines, said they worked fine, but, when they need repairs, Cat had it all over the other guys. Almost all of the smaller ferries are Cat powered and do very well. It's common knowledge that a 4 cycle engine is more fuel efficient than a 2, and easier to get to run cleaner. But you may be right, there are other factors too. All in all, I am an American, and I would like the power for our ferries to be made in the USA, I do know that there are many makes of excellent foreigh engines. In the bigger engines, that leaves Cat, EMD, Fairbanks, and GE, which I don't know much about, although the GE's are Tier Two compliant. The Fairbanks engines are beloved by the US Navy, but I an under the impression that they require more maintenance and fuel. Jim Sorry, I might be missing something here. What would be the point in having a "spare set" of engines laying around? How often, really, does something go so horribly wrong that an entire engine, let alone an entire set, needs to be replaced on short notice? That just seems to be a lot of capital funding sitting around doing nothing. I admit I'm not all that familiar with WSF's operating history, but I can think of one ship in the BCF fleet in the past 50 years that blew out an engine to the point it had to be replaced. BTW, in marine engine terminology, 1000 RPM is indeed a high speed engine. Around 500 is generally deemed "medium speed", and less than 300 or so is considered "low speed". The engines used in towboats are generally considerably different than those used in a ferry. Most ferries that I know of use medium speed engines since they require less maintenance and have better reliability due to their lower speed. I'm not an American, so I'm not going to get into the benefits and drawbacks of protectionist "buy American" attitudes. |
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Nov 4, 2009 12:44:41 GMT -8
My post about the engines was in two directions. First I do not want to see any reason for the State to be able to postpone the building of the 144s, I can just see some powerful politician who would rather add more people to some agency than build ferries site the lack of engines and the huge lead time as a reason not to build them. Isn't the one extra set of engines supposedly the spare set? If the others are all used in the IH's won't they be the spare set for them? Simply, I think the IH's ought to be acumulating their own owerplants as they go along. I do not want to see the impetus for the 144's go away. As for the Cats, I do not think a 1000 RPM engine is really very high speed. My friends in the towing industry love their 3600s. What's nice about Cat is they have parts and pieces, right now. Several of my quarry and digging friends use Cat exclusively due to that fact, they had other makes of machines, said they worked fine, but, when they need repairs, Cat had it all over the other guys. Almost all of the smaller ferries are Cat powered and do very well. It's common knowledge that a 4 cycle engine is more fuel efficient than a 2, and easier to get to run cleaner. But you may be right, there are other factors too. All in all, I am an American, and I would like the power for our ferries to be made in the USA, I do know that there are many makes of excellent foreigh engines. In the bigger engines, that leaves Cat, EMD, Fairbanks, and GE, which I don't know much about, although the GE's are Tier Two compliant. The Fairbanks engines are beloved by the US Navy, but I an under the impression that they require more maintenance and fuel. Jim Sorry, I might be missing something here. What would be the point in having a "spare set" of engines laying around? How often, really, does something go so horribly wrong that an entire engine, let alone an entire set, needs to be replaced on short notice? That just seems to be a lot of capital funding sitting around doing nothing. I admit I'm not all that familiar with WSF's operating history, but I can think of one ship in the BCF fleet in the past 50 years that blew out an engine to the point it had to be replaced. BTW, in marine engine terminology, 1000 RPM is indeed a high speed engine. Around 500 is generally deemed "medium speed", and less than 300 or so is considered "low speed". The engines used in towboats are generally considerably different than those used in a ferry. Most ferries that I know of use medium speed engines since they require less maintenance and have better reliability due to their lower speed. I'm not an American, so I'm not going to get into the benefits and drawbacks of protectionist "buy American" attitudes. It's really simple Washington State had some of the stuff like engines and shafts for the 144's there have been many names for them and they have been one the so called books for be built for the last 10 years. |
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080
|
Post by Nick on Nov 4, 2009 12:51:09 GMT -8
It's really simple Washington State had some of the stuff like engines and shafts for the 144's there have been many names for them and they have been one the so called books for be built for the last 10 years. I understand that... I was under the impression that "lifc" was advocating that a set of those engines be kept around as spares. I'm familiar with the story of the 144s... Thanks for trying to clear that up though. |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Nov 4, 2009 12:59:37 GMT -8
I am not a protectionist, I simply like our products. Sometimes the initial cost savings of buying "foreign" is quickly exhausted in the aquisition of service parts. The US companies can get the parts to the domestic user much quicker than the others. By the way, I do not consider Canada foreign, have purchased many parts and services in BC. Hey, Cats are all over the world, they must have something going for them, if they were junk, no one would buy any. To me high revolution is 3000 RPM and over. Too bad Waukesha didn't survive. Jim
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080
|
Post by Nick on Nov 4, 2009 13:20:17 GMT -8
I'm not saying Cat engines are bad... I'm a big fan of Cat products personally. The MaK engines (made by Caterpillar) in the BCF fleet have served extremely well. As you say, there's a reason the yellow engine (or silver and red, in the case of MaK) is seen all across the world.
I guess what I'm saying is why would the state spend millions of extra dollars buying more engines, when they have a stash sitting there just getting old. Especially in this case, where time is a significant factor in the construction of the boats. The 144s are still a long ways off anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to buy more up-to-date engines for those when they finally are constructed?
I was also wondering why you were advocating Cat-branded engines, which are the smaller of the Caterpillar line, when the MaK-brand might be better suited, and supported by the same company.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Nov 4, 2009 13:32:50 GMT -8
Not necessarily advocating Cats, just do not want to see the impetus for the 144s put on hold. I know altogether too well how our State Govt. works, they would rather spend the money on things with no end result than actually making anything. Seems like their direction is to preserve the overhead, and- if - there is any money not used up, they might build something.
I am so afraid that the political will, will sellect a forth 64, because it's cheaper, than a 144. It took me a while to get it through my thick head that goverments really don't care about what is needed, just make some appearance in that direction, a forth 64 would do just that.
That's all. Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by kanaskat on Nov 4, 2009 22:04:19 GMT -8
Looking at the construction photos and the island home pictures has me wondering what might happen to the three 64 car ferries in the future. Might it be possible for them to go into the yard some day as 64s and emerge a few months later as 88s after Issaquah style modifications?
It seems that 88 car ferries might be more useful to the system than 64 car/300 bicycle ferries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 4, 2009 23:03:31 GMT -8
I suppose it's theoretically possible, but I should also point out that the Issaquah modifications weren't entirely successful, and those were planned. The ramps for the 'tweeners are way too steep, and the Issies pretty much all had to have their ladderwells reconfigured to fit the new decks (though that may have been a construction gaffe; those boats would have been called Wal-Mart Wonders if we'd had WallieWorlds on our coast at the time).
In short, it's been my experience that modifying a vessel is never a complete blessing.
|
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Nov 5, 2009 1:29:54 GMT -8
I suppose it's theoretically possible, but I should also point out that the Issaquah modifications weren't entirely successful, and those were planned. The ramps for the 'tweeners are way too steep, and the Issies pretty much all had to have their ladderwells reconfigured to fit the new decks (though that may have been a construction gaffe; those boats would have been called Wal-Mart Wonders if we'd had WallieWorlds on our coast at the time). In short, it's been my experience that modifying a vessel is never a complete blessing. No kidding, but at-least some of them the ramps are better then others, that's one thing i will give the Cathlamet, her ramps are much nicer then Kittitas or Kitsap. When driving up those things it sometimes feels like Bill Cosby Joke about SF... |
|
M/V LeConte
Chief Steward
~ I believe in Ferries! ~
Posts: 147
|
Post by M/V LeConte on Nov 5, 2009 1:47:06 GMT -8
On some level I hate to do this... Sorry, I might be missing something here. What would be the point in having a "spare set" of engines laying around? How often, really, does something go so horribly wrong that an entire engine, let alone an entire set, needs to be replaced on short notice? -(cough, cough)- AMHS Fast ferries? -(Cough!)- I know those are different and very "specialized" engines, but... The FWX is 5 years old and they are talking about having to re-power her. Also the CHE has had all 4 of her engines pulled and shipped down south for repair/rebuild. If they had a spare set, she could be running now. I'm not saying that they built these boats with these engines planning on having problems with them (does anyone?). BUT they also didn't figure out a contingency plan for if things did go wrong. I am also remiss to bring up the Columbia and her generator fires. |
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,957
|
Post by FNS on Nov 11, 2009 0:33:52 GMT -8
11-10-2009 Us ferry fans are treated to six additional photos today from WSF. They are of the bow installation at End Number One, progress in the engine room, and additional Mezzanine Deck modules installed. I'll just put one of these WSF images on this posting. Before we see this, let's see what the folks up in Freeland have done since my last posting.  A rare night view. The holders are set for the Number Two End core to be laid.  The decking has been laid.  Despite the clammy conditions we had here on Puget Sound today, the folks at NB reached another wonderful milestone. The stack was being installed.  The stack is now installed! We now head down to Seattle. Chetzemoka #1 end WSF photo taken on November 7, 2009. Number one end of the Chetzemoka, under construction at Todd Pacific Shipyards in Seattle. |
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Nov 11, 2009 14:37:45 GMT -8
I've got to hand it to WSF. They've done a good job of keeping everyone informed of Chetzy's progress by releasing construction photos on a timely basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 11, 2009 18:57:18 GMT -8
I'm happy to see the progress on the Chetzemoka moving along at a rather nice clip. Of course, this will be compensated for by the nearly invisible process of wiring and fitting out... |
|
. Although it seems that there have been a couple instances lately where the state has listened to public complaints--mainly with the naming rights of the vessels. If someone could rally enough support or negative publicity, maybe they could get the state to take a second look at the type of machinery they plan to use.
