Kwa-di Tabil Class Design & Construction

[FNS]

Jan 16, 2010 2:28:52 GMT -8 Scott2 said:

I hope when the mount the wheelhouses on the rightful decks that they weld them in place facing the right way.....looks kind of odd with the back of the wheelhouse facing the bow.

I have my trust in the whole consortium that they'll install these right.

It really looked odd to see how these were placed on the barge. It's a good thing these were towed at night. Now, I hope her decks didn't get messed up with the dreaded excretion of those gulls we feed at that famous restaurant. Otherwise, here comes the mop gang! ;D

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

01-16-2010 0300PST



All fast at Todd, the first two cabin cores have been delivered and soon to be mated to the hull of the new CHETZEMOKA.

Good day, everyone!

[Freeland]

The remaining Bridge at Nichols is schedule to be barge out to Todd's shipyard
this coming Thursday according to web page for the South Whidbey Record.

www.pnwlocalnews.com/whidbey/swr/news/81750357.html

Here is excerpt right at end of the article.

Seattle-based Kelly-Ryan, Inc. is handling the transportation of the unfinished ferry to Todd. Barging the ferry to Seattle was expected to take 12 to 13 hours.

To watch the launching in progress, Nichols Brothers has a Web cam online here.

Another section of the ferry is expected to be shipped out on Thursday

Emory at Freeland

[Mike C]

Jan 15, 2010 21:32:28 GMT -8 FNS said:

The tow has passed by Edmonds. In the below picture from the WSF Edmonds dock cam, I was able to pick out that small dot in the green circle representing the tug.

You sure that's not dust on the lens?

[SS San Mateo]

Here's a few pictures I got today from Jack Block Park in West Seattle:









I'm guessing she was placed into the drydock no later than noon (I got there just after 1:00).

[hergfest]

And the Chelan is getting painted!!!!

[Kahloke]

Great pictures at Todd - and yea! Chelan's finally getting some new paint.

[FNS]

Jan 16, 2010 19:09:20 GMT -8 Mike C said:

Jan 15, 2010 21:32:28 GMT -8 FNS said:

The tow has passed by Edmonds. In the below picture from the WSF Edmonds dock cam, I was able to pick out that small dot in the green circle representing the tug.

You sure that's not dust on the lens?

Greetings to my friend on the north side of the border. Nice to see you on this side of the forum!

I met this neat fellow for the first time in person in August of 2009 at Port Hardy. He, a fine group of others on this forum, and myself took a trip aboard the new BC ferry NORTHERN EXPEDITION from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert. That 15 hour voyage went by too quickly. It was really good to be with a great group of fun ferry fans who have the same interests I have.

Naa, that wasn't dust on the lens. That was the tug LOIS H. The Edmonds terminal lights on the cam are quite bright. Very lucky to even get a lighted tug through these lights.

Edmonds terminal cam refreshes about every five minutes. Here is the sequence of saved images during the time of the LOIS H's pass by:


Captured at 2317PST 01-15-2010 WSF Edmonds cam
The tug LOIS H was arriving in this area, no view of her yet.


Captured at 2320PST 01-15-2010 WSF Edmonds cam
This one you can see the tug LOIS H. This is without the green circle.


Captured at 2326PST 01-15-2010 WSF Edmonds cam
She competed her pass by.


Captured at 2331PST 01-15-2010 WSF Edmonds cam
"Big W" WALLA WALLA arriving Edmonds. I took a ride aboard her on my birthday in 1979 from Port Townsend to Edmonds, a route WSF operated after the sinking of the Hood Canal Bridge. I followed the same route the old CHETZEMOKA did when she started service here in the late 1930s. 90 minutes compared to about two or more hours on the 240 foot wooden classic.

Takes some perseverance in capturing images of items of interest through the network of webcams on this planet.


Captured at 0214PST 01-16-2010 Space Needle cam
This was captured as the LOIS H and the JENNIFER H were arriving Seattle. Can't really see the barges, though.

Now, we await the "Flensburger"-style operation of installing these cabins aboard the hull and the long process of finishing before we'll see her making wakes for the first time.

[FNS]

WSF has released 20 new images for us to see today. I'll present four and the rest can be seen at:

www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/sets/72157621006556309/

Rolling Chetzemoka out of construction building

WSF photo taken on January 15, 2010.
On January 15, 2010, WSDOT's new ferry was rolled out of the construction building at Todd Pacific Shipyards in Seattle.

Rolling Chetzemoka onto drydock

WSF photo taken on January 16, 2010.
On January 16, 2010, WSDOT's new ferry was rolled onto drydock at Todd Pacific Shipyards in Seattle.

Lifting deck section onto Chetzemoka

WSF photo taken on January 18, 2010.
On January 18, 2010, a 105-ton section of the passenger deck was lifted onto the hull of the Chetzemoka at Todd Pacific Shipyards in Seattle. This superstructure section was constructed at Nichols Bros. Boat Builders on Whidbey Island and was brought to Seattle by barge.

Lifting pilothouse onto Chetzemoka

WSF photo taken on January 19, 2010.
On January 19, 2010, pilothouse #1 was lifted onto the Chetzemoka. The vessel's pilothouses were constructed at Nichols Bros. Boat Builders on Whidbey Island and were brought to Todd Pacific Shipyards in Seattle by barge.

Today from the NB cam:

Nichols, according to the South Whidbey Record, is slated for placing the End Number Two cabin core onto a barge tomorrow. Today, we see this being rolled onto the crawler that will move this out over the water's surface in Holmes Harbor and set this up for lifting.

www2.whidbey.net/nichols/image003.jpg

[Neil]

I gather that the assumption is that one of these new 64 car ferries will replace the Rhododendron on the Tahlequah run.

It seems ridiculous to me to build a vessel with such a great honkin' superstructure and two wheelhouses just to transport 64 cars on a 15 minute trip. Does anyone know if ferry officials have ever looked at a more modest design, something along the lines of BC Ferries' Quinsam, with lounges on the vehicle deck?

[Kahloke]

Jan 20, 2010 13:52:26 GMT -8 Neil said:

I gather that the assumption is that one of these new 64 car ferries will replace the Rhododendron on the Tahlequah run.

It seems ridiculous to me to build a vessel with such a great honkin' superstructure and two wheelhouses just to transport 64 cars on a 15 minute trip. Does anyone know if ferry officials have ever looked at a more modest design, something along the lines of BC Ferries' Quinsam, with lounges on the vehicle deck?

Yes, the 3rd 64-car vessel is supposed to be deployed at Point Defiance-Tahlequah. I suppose a vessel design similar to the Quinsam, Kuper, Quinitsa, and Skeena Queen would be more practical on a such a short route such PD-TAHL. One central pilot house, an open car deck, and passenger lounges on the sides of said car deck should be simpler to construct and it would minimize crew size requirements. However, it would pretty much be a one-off vessel with little application on other routes, and that would go against the DOT's efforts to try and standardize the fleet as much as possible.

Personally, I think the state should only build 2 of these 64-car ferries, and use the money for the 3rd vessel to start the 144-car ferry program, which is the size and type of vessel WSF really needs; and yes, I know it's probably too late to start going down that road, but this is my "what-if" scenario. If 2 64-car ferries and 1 144-car ferry were to be built, such a fleet deployment could potentially look something like this:

SUMMER SCHEDULE DEPLOYMENT
Point Defiance - Tahlequah: Sealth
Fauntleroy - Vashon - Southworth: Cathlamet, Issaquah, Kitsap
Seattle - Bremerton: Hyak, Walla Walla
Seattle - Bainbridge: Tacoma, Wenatchee
Edmonds - Kingston: Puyallup, Spokane
Mukilteo - Clinton: new 144-car ferry, Kittitas
Port Townsend - Keystone: Chetzemoka, 2nd 64-car ferry
Anacortes - San Juan Islands: Elwha, Kaleetan, Yakima
Anacortes - Sidney, BC: Chelan
San Juan inter-island: Klahowya

standby/reserve: Hiyu, Tillikum
retired: Evergreen State, Rhododendron

Yes, I know Sealth might be overkill at PD-TAHL but it would be using an existing vessel. Anyway, something like this makes more sense to me than building 3 small ferries which are already inadequate to handle the traffic volumes of any of the routes they will be assigned to.

[Jody]

OK, so, a couple of random and only loosely related questions.

1. I see the photos of the drydock taken by San Mateo at Jack Block Park. I am headed to Seattle on Saturday, and wanted to take a peek at the Chetzy and Chelan, which are the only two boats in the fleet that I haven't seen. Is this area the best place to get a peek at the Chetzy? (I am taking the Bremerton ferry over in the morning, so that view is already a given, but I am planning a brief land excursion as well.) Comparing the WSDOT's pics with the aerials on Google Maps, it looks like the Chetzemoka's drydock is in the basin on the west side of Harbor Island, correct? I already know you can't see much from Harbor Island as I used to do some work out there. But is it possible to get closer access than the park, say, along the shore by the old railroad yard there beside Florida Street? (And while we're at it, the rail barge slip that appears to be right there, is that the old Milwaukee Road and later Seattle & North Coast slip?)

2. Regarding the engines to be used. They look like they're EMD 12-710 engines, correct? 3,000 hp, pretty common in both marine and rail. In rail applications, at least (and I'm far more familiar with rail than marine) the 12-710 were a Tier 0-rated engine up until recently. All new locomotives constructed have to meet Tier II ratings right now. I believe it's similar for marine as well. How is WSF getting around this? I know EMD has an emissions retrofit package that meets current EPA standards. Will those be applied to the engines? Or were they manufactured after Jan. 2005 and thus meet the EPA's Tier 2 standards?

3. And finally, in regards to the emissions, EMD makes a 12-710G3-T2 engine in its ECO series (for rail) that puts out 3,200 hp, meets current Tier 2 standards, and I believe is upgradable to Tier III. Any chance these engines might find their way into future iterations of the 64-car ferries, or other ferries in our fleet?

Sorry to bombard you with odd questions. Just some things that have been rolling around in my head for a while. Thanks,

Jody

[lmtengs]

That second photos looks really cool

[FNS]

Jan 20, 2010 16:38:17 GMT -8 Jody said:

OK, so, a couple of random and only loosely related questions.

1. I see the photos of the drydock taken by San Mateo at Jack Block Park. I am headed to Seattle on Saturday, and wanted to take a peek at the Chetzy and Chelan, which are the only two boats in the fleet that I haven't seen. Is this area the best place to get a peek at the Chetzy? (I am taking the Bremerton ferry over in the morning, so that view is already a given, but I am planning a brief land excursion as well.) Comparing the WSDOT's pics with the aerials on Google Maps, it looks like the Chetzemoka's drydock is in the basin on the west side of Harbor Island, correct? I already know you can't see much from Harbor Island as I used to do some work out there. But is it possible to get closer access than the park, say, along the shore by the old railroad yard there beside Florida Street? (And while we're at it, the rail barge slip that appears to be right there, is that the old Milwaukee Road and later Seattle & North Coast slip?)

2. Regarding the engines to be used. They look like they're EMD 12-710 engines, correct? 3,000 hp, pretty common in both marine and rail. In rail applications, at least (and I'm far more familiar with rail than marine) the 12-710 were a Tier 0-rated engine up until recently. All new locomotives constructed have to meet Tier II ratings right now. I believe it's similar for marine as well. How is WSF getting around this? I know EMD has an emissions retrofit package that meets current EPA standards. Will those be applied to the engines? Or were they manufactured after Jan. 2005 and thus meet the EPA's Tier 2 standards?

3. And finally, in regards to the emissions, EMD makes a 12-710G3-T2 engine in its ECO series (for rail) that puts out 3,200 hp, meets current Tier 2 standards, and I believe is upgradable to Tier III. Any chance these engines might find their way into future iterations of the 64-car ferries, or other ferries in our fleet?

Sorry to bombard you with odd questions. Just some things that have been rolling around in my head for a while. Thanks,

Jody

I have found what appears to be a good place to see the new CHETZEMOKA in drydock. This is in the circle on the west side of the photo. The drydock is within the circle on the photo's east side.

As you can see, the view from Jack Block Park is quite obscured due to the high sides of the drydock. The vantage point on the hill may provide a better straight-on view (hope this vantage point is still there!).

Let us know how your vantage points turn out!

BTW, you can still see the ILLAHEE and QUINAULT in the northern drydock in GoogleEarth. This photo is a bit outdated as these are in Speedy Gonzales' land now. "arriba arriba, ándale ándale, arriba arriba ... Arriba! Andale! Andale!" ;D

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Gonzales

[SS San Mateo]

From what I could tell by looking at the map, it's not possible to get a closer view from land than from where I took the pictures. The area along the shore outside of the park doesn't appear to be public access.

[Jody]

Oh, I remember this place now. I'd totally forgotten about it. But I bet you're right about the vantage point. Especially with the additional elevation. I've shot photos there before (not of Todd, just of the city in general) and it's a great location. And my telephoto lens is coming with me anyhow, so...

Thanks for the reminder! I'll definitely be giving that a try.

Jody

[Jody]

Building a one-off ferry especially for the Point Defiance run seems like a mistake for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that designing another ferry means more money spent on design work. Of the two choices, I'd say it'd be more reasonable to build another Kwa-di Tabil (that's going to take some getting used to...) than it would be to design and build a one-off specialty boat that wouldn't be suitable for much of anything else. Might as well dust off the Hiyu and get it over with...

But at the very least, even that is a poor use of assets. I like Kahloke's plan, for the most part. There's very little argument that the first two 64-car ferries need to happen. Yes, they're for a very limited part of the WSF's traffic, but there's no suitable substitute so it kind of has to happen. And the local residents have rallied together to make sure that a more reasonable option can't be implemented. But once they're built, that's that for another 40-60 years. We can hope. But after that, it makes a good deal more sense to build a new 144 and use it to replace an Evergreen State-class on the Fauntleroy-Vashon-Southworth run. I suppose an argument could be made for Clinton-Mukilteo as well, and I'm probably not educated enough on specific volumes to have an "expert" opinion.

Either way, I don't think the Sealth is overkill on PD-Talequah route. If I have read things correctly, it's documented that having better capacity on that end of Vashon Island helps the north end routes a bit as well. Might even render my statement about the 144-class on the north end to be moot as well, since the capacity would already be increasing with the replacement of two Evergreens with Issaquah 130's.

Just my "very much on the outside" opinion.

Jody

[FNS]

The chapter of the moving of the End Number Two cabin core is now officially in its initial writing stages.



The tug LOIS H, with barges and assisted by the tug JENNIFER H, are on their way to Freeland. They departed Seattle at 2130PST this evening. ETA Freeland is at 0700PST Thursday morning. We then anticipate activity at Nichols again.

[chief]

I don't understand why the Island Home would be considered a "fine vessel".

The owner of the Naval Architecture firm that Todd hired to convert the Island Home drawings to the Todd design was telling everyone who would listen (legislature, WSF, Todd, the Citizen's Plan C Committee, that the Chetzamoaka was the wrong vessel for WSF!

The problems with the design for WSF are fundamental, not correctable without a complete redesign of the ship:

The ship has a verry fuel inefficient design. It requires as much horsepower as the 144 car class, 6000 hp. Why?

Because the new ferry must get all of it's propulsion from the power of the stern engine alone. The Steel Electrics and every class larger than the Rhody have means for connecting the two engines together so that they both drive the stern engine. As a result each is half the size of just one of the engines on the chetzamoka. Her large engines will consume more fuel and have to be rebuilt more frequently than the Steel Electric engines.

The ship is designed with no redundant equipment but is being placed on the one run in the WSF that most requires it. Redundant equipment is what gives ferries reliability. Reliability in two forms, that it will be running with a minimum of missed trips and reliability in the sense that when something fails there are alternative means available for the crew to safely bring the ship in to the terminal.

This ship meets the minimum CG standard for this class.

The first ship has a stopping problem. The force of the bow propeller being turned backward by the ship moving through the water must be overcome suddenly. It is a huge torque load on that machine. If anything goes wrong the diesel can stall and delay the reversing thrust in the critical moments entering Keystone.

The second and third ship's will be modified so that the propeller blades can be moved to a "fully feathered" configuration like the Issaquah class, (even though the controls vendor has never done this before). This system will help with the starting torque and fuel inefficiency problems. This means the first boat will end up in the least taxing route, it won't stay at Port Townsend.

The new vessel has it's entire tail shaft exposed to underwater damage if the ship goes aground, same with the rudder. There is no skeg, just a couple of striuts. All WSF vessels carry the shaft inside the vessel where it is protected from impact hazard. All vessels that work in Keystone go aground, often it is just lightly and it is rare for any damage to occur because of the ship's protective arrangement.

The new vessel will go aground there also but it won't be so fortunate. Purhaps this is why WSF will need three of them. Often there is not a drydock available when you need one.

The new boat might be fine if you are a boat rider, particularly if you are a tourist. The problem is that it will be inferior to the Steel Electrics in most of the ways that translate into service reliability. Yes they will have modern interiors, light and airy I suppose but they are inferior to the ships they replace in virtually every respect.

But, don't take my word for it, this is the naval architect talking, the one who's name appears on the drawings of the ship being built for WSF.

[chief]

Jody, your questions regarding the EMD 710 and emissions standards.

You ask good questions on the 710s. The 710s being put into the 64s were purchased with federal money for the 144s. They were purchased at a time when tier 2 was required for new vessels.

WSF was allowed to use these engines in the 64s because the law permits owners to use tier 2 engines it already had in inventory. It was one of the ways they could deliver the first boat so quickly.

The Island Home just happened to use the same engines as the 144s were going to be built with. If that coincidence had not occurred then the 64 program would be up in the air or, WSF could have designed it's own 64 car vessel and continued with the 144 construction program.

This means that if the 144s are built they will require tier 3 engines or 4 depending when they are built. The one exception would be if WSF had any of the original 8 tier 2 EMDs stiill available at the time the 144s are built.

So if WSF stopped building 64s at two, it could build 2 144s with the engines it has on hand. If it builds three 64s it could only build 1 144 car vessel with existing engines.

If WSF were to build more than one 144 then it would have to open engine bidding back up to build more than one of the 144s. This complicates the design and efficiency of the repetitive building process.

We should also consider that if the 144 is not built this time that they will be extensively delayed no matter how much money the state has in the bank because new engine acquisitions are time consumptive and expensive, anybody can bid on them as long as they meet the minimum bid. If you want EMD or GE rather than say a Stork or a Caterpillar, your design and spec has to justify it to the satisfaction of a civil lawsuit.

The loss of the EMDs to the 64 program was really devestating to the 144s for a number of reasons.

[Kahloke]

Jan 21, 2010 10:49:34 GMT -8 Jody said:

If the cost difference is so great, and the prep time so little, I think I'd probably advocate eliminating even the second Kwa-di Tabil (probably too late for that, though, isn't it?) building two or three Stretch Steilacooms instead, and saving the additional funds to commission the first two 144's. (Issaquah Mk. II's?)

I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that the state is already locked into building the 2nd 64-car ferry. As far as building 2 or 3 stretched Steilacoom II vessels? - bad idea. We don't need another small vessel. What we need are the 144's. That type of ferry will become the new work horses of the system, and will allow WSF to start retiring the oldest vessels such as Rhododendron and Evergreen State.

Jan 21, 2010 10:49:34 GMT -8 Jody said:

And for that matter, when there were two Steel E's available for the route, did they run two year-round?

No. The second Steel E only ran from mid May through mid October. I think WSF is planning on deploying the second 64-car vessel to the San Juan inter-island run during the winter ONLY. The rest of the year traffic on that route demands a larger boat - Evergreen State Class.

[Barnacle]

The third boat would be relieving at Tahlequah or Port Townsend while the other two are out for maintenance.

Once that's done with, there ain't a whole lot of winter left, and it's back up to Townsend.

Moreover, the 64-car design is going to involve restructuring the schedule for the interisland, because they won't be able to load it as effectively. There won't be anywhere on board to turn traffic around and face it the other direction, and it will screw up the whole load.

I'll bet a "Toonie" that the WSF Long-Range Plan didn't take that into account...

[FNS]

The tug LOIS H, with the CHETZEMOKA's End Number Two cabin core on her barge, has departed Freeland. At 1340PST, she was at the north end of Holmes Harbor running at 5 knots.

[FNS]

At 1600PST this afternoon, I spotted the LOIS H and her tow passing Clinton on the WSF and Whidbey Telecom camera sites.


WSF cam


Whidbey Telecom cam


Whidbey Telecom cam

[Deleted]

I tend to read more on this forum and look at pictures than I make posts here but there seems to be a pattern that is starting to show up from you "Chief" and I want to reply to it. I have been noticing your frequent posts in regards to the Chetzemoka and you’re so called “facts” about this new ferry. I am questioning your facts that you have been posting because I have done some digging of my own and wanted to bring them to everyone’s attention. First I would like to direct you to these two links which gives some good information and facts on the 64 car ferries and what research WSF did before going forward with this project:

www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Ferries/64CarFerries/FAQ.htm

tiny.cc/8m7wf

These links also show you where I went to get my information.

In regards to the 710 engines being put in the Chetzemoka, yes they were originally purchased for the 144 car ferries but they have been sitting around waiting for the ferries to be built. WSF decided in order to save time and money that it would be beneficial to use these engines in the 64 car ferry as they could be used efficiently and easily in this class of vessel. Plus given the time constraints the ferry system was up against I think it was a smart decision. Plus as you stated “new engine acquisitions are time consumptive and expensive.”

You stated “the ship has a very fuel inefficient design. It requires as much horsepower as the 144 car class, 6000 hp.” You went on to say in your next paragraph “her large engines will consume more fuel and have to be rebuilt more frequently than the Steel Electric engines.” I must ask is this your own opinion? Here’s what I found from doing my research. The 64-car ferries will burn approximately 1,000-1,200 gallons of fuel per day. This is slightly more than the Steel Electrics (1,000-1,100 GPD), but less than all other vessels in the WSF fleet. Fuel consumption will be reduced from the existing design by using smaller generators and reducing the size of the heating and cooling system. It looks to me that WSF has also done their research in order to make sure that the Chetzemoka will be fuel efficient and they have done so by a reduction in other areas.

You went on to say that the new ferry will have a stopping problem. You were saying that “the force of the bow propeller being turned backward by the ship moving through the water must be overcome suddenly. It is a huge torque load on that machine.” Isn’t this the same proven design that is used to stop the Tacoma, Spokane, the Super’s and even the Steel Electrics? Why would this make any difference having this new ferry equipped this way? The Steel Electrics could have had a problem in Keystone Harbor if the diesel engines stalled and delayed the reversing thrust so why would this be a concern in the Chetzemoka? Here is what WSF had to say about the vessel’s propulsion system and stopping power. “WSF has studied various propulsion systems as part of the vessel planning process for the Port Townsend/Keystone route. The Island Home propulsion system has proven reliability, good stopping power, and performs well in rough seas and in tight maneuvering situations. The design does not include an interconnected propulsion system. This feature would add redundancy, but, as designed, each engine has adequate horsepower to stop and maneuver the vessel in an emergency. To redesign this feature would require a minimum of 8–12 months of design time and would involve the use of custom-designed gear boxes and long lead times to procure them.” It sounds to me like they should have no problems in any way, shape or form when entering Keystone Harbor as the stopping power has already been proven on the Island Home’s design. So then I started to wonder how you knew “The new vessel will go aground there also but it won't be so fortunate. Purhaps this is why WSF will need three of them.” Do you think that it’s going to sink if it runs aground? The Steel Electric’s could have run aground in Keystone Harbor as well if they lost power. I am certain it would have inflicted much more damage to their fragile hulls than what it would to a brand new ferry. Remember any ferry has the potential to run aground or have an engine failure. It can happen for any reason at anytime and can happen even to the most reliable ferry.

In the document I found on the WSF website it clearly states the following in regards to the Chetzemoka’s propeller shaft and rudder system:
The Island Home has an exposed propeller shaft, similar to the passenger-only vessels. WSF examined its log of groundings in Keystone Harbor and the damage from these incidents has generally not involved the propeller or rudders. There have been groundings which fractured the skeg, rudder shoe or stern casting, resulting in lengthy repairs in dry-dock. The Jumbo Mark IIs do not have a rudder shoe either, and they have not suffered any damage to their propellers. To design a fully enclosed shaft and protected skeg would require a full hull redesign and would create lengthy schedule delays in order to accomplish the required analysis and model tank testing. You mentioned “the new vessel has its entire tail shaft exposed to underwater damage if the ship goes aground, same with the rudder. There is no skeg, just a couple of striuts. All WSF vessels carry the shaft inside the vessel where it is protected from impact hazard (not the case according to what was written in the document from WSF, please see the above information.). All vessels that work in Keystone go aground (hmmmm I didn’t know that the Steilacoom II has been grounded yet in Keystone nor do I even remember the Rhody ground there either so that wouldn’t mean that ALL vessels that work the route have run aground), often it is just lightly and it is rare for any damage to occur because of the ship's protective arrangement.”

You also stated that the new ferry will be “inferior to the Steel Electrics.” How so I ask? The Steel Electrics were built in the 1920’s and yes they were very reliable ferries but I can’t see how they could ever be superior to any new ferry brought on line. They were old and out dated and really should have been retired many years ago. You say the new 64 car ferries will be “inferior to the ships they replace in virtually every respect.” I don’t see any support from you claim to this which translates to me that it’s more of an opinion verses the facts.

Here are some facts I found after reading the report generated from WSF. After touring and see the performance of the Island Home on her route her performance and suitability matched what they were looking for the Port Townsend to Keystone route. From seeing her operating on her existing route to Martha’s Vineyard it was noted that she performed well when operating in rough conditions and that this using the existing design would meet the requirements for the Port Townsend route. It is a fact that they said that it is a proven design and that is why is was one of the top preferred options.

This is why as you said not to take your word for it and I am not. The facts seem pretty clear and straightforward from what I have found in the documentation. Plus it’s hard to take your word for it when you are not naming any names you’re just stating it’s a naval architect talking about all of this. You said he was the owner of the Naval Architecture firm that Todd hired to convert the Island Homes plans. I would like to see where you obtained your “factual” information because when it’s not in writing (like what I have found) it’s hard to believe that it’s actually facts. In this case I would say it more of just your opinion. In my opinion I believe the Island Home is a “fine vessel” and I think the Chetzemoka will serve the Port Townsend route well for many years to come and she will prove to be a reliable vessel and stable vessel in all weather conditions

[Kahloke]

Well, I can't speak to any of the criticisms that Chief eluded to because that's not my area of expertise. These new vessels may be fine in terms of stability and reliability, but my primary concern is one of vehicle capacity. There isn't a run in the system which hasn't already outpaced a single vessel's capacity of 64 vehicles, including Port Townsend-Keystone. When Klickitat (64 cars) and Quinault (59 cars) operated during those last years of Steel Electric service, overloads were frequent, especially on weekends. Having a reservation system may mitigate those overloads for awhile, and certainly it will be an improvement over Steilacoom II, but traffic on that route will grow. It's inevitable. Reservations or not, I do not believe the new 64-car vessels are up to the task of keeping pace with the growth on that run, or any of the runs, for that matter. The same thing applies to Point Defiance-Tahlequah. While a 64-car ferry will provide marginally more capacity than Rhododendron, how long will it be before that run reaches its capacity? I'm guessing sooner rather than later. It's a shame the state is already committed to building 3 of these boats.