I'm back to engines again, and maybe somebody else can clarify something that's really been bugging me with regards to these discussions. It's been stated as almost an "end of the world" scenario (tongue in cheek) regarding the 144's that the pool of engines purchased for them is being scavenged for the 64's. I guess I'm a bit confused. Were the 64's budgeted to be built without having engines purchased for them to save money? If not, it seems pretty clear that taking from the existing pool will only speed the existing building process, with the "negative" of preventing the 144's from being built at the same time. That wasn't going to happen anyhow, was it?
If money is budgeted for engines on the 64's, then wouldn't the engines purchased would simply go back into the pool to replenish the ones taken for the new construction? EMD is still in business, so getting them to build additional engines isn't a problem. And the EPA's marine Tier III emissions don't take effect until 2013, so as long as the engines are used before then, it's not a problem, right?
I guess I'm a bit confused there. The only way the engine issue appears to be a real issue is if the 64's plan doesn't include engines.
If there is no problem with fuel consumption and stopping the new class, why then would WSF make the very expensive change to a controllable pitch system for the second and third vessels?
If the ship manuevers well, stops well, is a fuel saver and is all that the WSF Communications Department states it is, why then does WSDOT go to the significant cost to redesign the propulsion system, scrap the proven PMC control in favor of a system that has never been used on a single double ended ferry in the world? A system with no local technical support?
Why do this now, before the first boat is even on the water and has had a chance to show her stuff?
Don't they know there is a 2 billion dollar deficit, the Viaduct is underfunded, the 520 bridge is underfunded, the entire WSF terminal renovation program was eliminated (it's engineers laid off), the 144 program was de-funded, there is not enough money to build the fourth boat....the list goes on. It is illogical for WSF to upgrade this boat in the face of all financial problems the WSDOT faces if it really believed these boats were just fine as designed.
The fixed bow propeller system is this ship's most immediate problem. It is in effect a parachute dragging through the water. To over come it's effect, the bow propeller must be turned backwards so that it pulls the ship through the water. This represents a loss, a waste of fuel and horsepower on fixed pitch boat. Since the pitch of the propeller can't be changed, the bow engine must be turned to run the propeller in reverse.
The torque issue with the larger vessels you cite is not an issue, they are diesel electrics and the issue is dealt with completely differently. They have the ability to generate power via the bow propeller while is is being driven backwards by the sea. When bridge needs to reverse the direction of the diesel electric propeller there is no chance it will stop the engine as there is no mechanical connection between the propeller and the diesel engines. The IH does...
The fuel figures WSF advertises are inaccurate. Four strokes (SE) burn less fuel and oil than two strokes (IH) of the same size. The Steel Electrics had only 50% of the horsepower as the Island Home Class. Both ships carry the same load, operate at the same speed and are roughly the same size. The Steel Electrics actually had less wetted surface because they needed less buoyancy (not Martha's Vinyard draft restricted). As every diesel manufacturer will report their engine fuel consumption in terms of the amount of horsepower produced, more horsepower means more fuel.
The Island Home fuel figures cited by WSF do not factor in the fact that that ship turns it's engines completely off and is held at the dock by winches between every run. WSF is not going to do that...
The Chetzamoka main engines will run very lightly loaded for more about 60% of the day, that is the worst thing you can do to a diesel engine from both the fuel consumption and longevity perspectives.
Take a look at what is happening to the lightly loaded vessels in the fleet with EMD now, the turbo chargers are overloaded, the engines have to be overhauled earlier and the state is having to change both lubricating oil and cylinder kits. WSF believes the Klahowya and Tillikum are actually overpowered with smaller EMDs than are going into the Island Home Class.
The 64s worsen the economic condition of WSF because they make it less efficient than it would have been if WSF would have stuck to it's decision to build the 144 first.
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 problem with that argument as I see it is that the Whidbey Island residents have in effect tied the hands of the WSF with regard to vehicle capacity on the ferries that serve Keystone. By not allowing the harbor to be dredged, or the capacity of the terminal to be increased, the local lobby has effectively eliminated most ferry options.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't a 100+ car design (and certainly not the unfulfilled and much decried 144's) on the table with a shallow enough draft to enter Keystone Harbor, is there? It seems like a "can't have your cake and eat it too" scenario. The compromise of building a boat that is shallow enough to enter the harbor and seaworthy enough not to sink on the way is to sacrifice capacity. Unless the prevailing attitude changes on Whidbey Island, the only answer is to increase frequency, ie add a third boat during peak time, or finding another route to draw capacity off of the PT. From an operational standpoint, both seem highly unlikely at this point. And if the tide of opinion does turn on Whidbey, well then, the 64's will become white elephants in an awful big hurry.
There is no mature plan for the manueverable class. There are three main proposals. One is to buy the Safe Passage vessel offered by Martinac, a much better alternative than Island Home.
Then there is the WSF designed from the ground up "Manueverable Class" these would have been part of a multi vessel, two vessel class with what we have come to regard as the 144.
Finally there was the concept of converting a Evergreen State class vessel for duty In Port Townsend either through a modification to make then Cycloidial propellers or to the steering systems. They are actually narrower than the Steels.
There three 64s cost as much as two 144s. The engines make it a wash. What would be better for WSF? In both cases we need a seond class at some future point.
I guess that doesn't actually answer my question, though. If I have two boxes of cookies for this weekend, but I eat one box now (they're yummy!), then go to the store and buy another box of cookies, I'll still have two boxes of cookies for the weekend, right? (I love that analogy...)
My background is in the railroad manufacturing end of things, and I was previously a railroader and a journalist. So when I look at a project that says a ferry costs $76 million, I assume that that means that if I, Joe Taxpayer, plop down $76 million, I will have myself a fully functional ferry for my money. Put another way, I worked for a luxury railcar builder until it went out of business in Dec. 2008. If we built a railcar body for $3 million, delivered it to a customer, and they in turn bought a Stadco generator for $250K and installed it on the car, then the car cost $3,250,000.
Was the Chetzemoka's build (at better than twice what it was projected to be) budgeted without engines, or will additional engines be procured to replace the ones that are used?
We get our "fannies" back into the saddles of photos on this thread, once again.
Today, we witnessed the last of the web cam capture opportunities at Nichols on their contribution in the construction of the new CHETZEMOKA. Here are seven captures from the pre-dawn this morning to sunset. The last of the CHETZEMOKA's three cabin cores has made it to Seattle for mating onto the hull.
It has been a great experience to watch the cabin sections being put together at this great facility through their cam that refreshed every two hours. This was only Act One in how many we'll be seeing.
Many thanks to Nichols for letting us see the cabin cores of the new CHETZEMOKA being put together.
This is a really worthwhile discussion, and it would be easier to follow if it wasn't being chopped up into two threads.
This thread is for photos; the "New Vessels" thread seems more appropriate.
I think that the discussion migrates to this photo thread in response to the various glowing-words that are attributed to these ships when the photos are being posted.
There is no mature plan for the manueverable class. There are three main proposals. One is to buy the Safe Passage vessel offered by Martinac, a much better alternative than Island Home.
Is that the design that WSF claimed didn't meet specifications? Looking at the design that was once avaialble on YouTub, it looked like someone had taken two back ends of a Kalakala design, butted them together, and droppe pilothouses on them. Except in the drawings presented, it also appeared that the house sloped away too far for the pedestrian loading ports to meet the existing structures. I thought everyone except Perla and Martinac had forgotten these vessels.
Finally there was the concept of converting a Evergreen State class vessel for duty In Port Townsend either through a modification to make then Cycloidial propellers or to the steering systems. They are actually narrower than the Steels.
By eight inches. Big whoop.
In any case, beam isn't the problem at Keystone; it's draft. If you were as knowledgeable about this situation as you are purporting yourself to be, you'd know that. The Steel-Electrics drew 12'9" of water by WSF's claims; Evergreen-class boat draw 15'6" (K&T) to 15'10" (Evergreen State). That would mean that instead of ceasing service at a low tide constriction of -2.5', service would halt any time the tide got below 1' above mean lower low water... or about double the closures we have now (this statement is admittedly being made without looking at a tide book). All the sexy articulated high-speed rudders in the world won't change that.
Last Edit: Jan 22, 2010 8:11:14 GMT -8 by Barnacle
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 problem with that argument as I see it is that the Whidbey Island residents have in effect tied the hands of the WSF with regard to vehicle capacity on the ferries that serve Keystone. By not allowing the harbor to be dredged, or the capacity of the terminal to be increased, the local lobby has effectively eliminated most ferry options.
Basically...yes...that's the situation in a nutshell. We've discussed the Keystone situation on this forum ad nauseam so I won't go "dredging" that subject up again except to say that it's the primary reason we're stuck with the 64-car ferries today. Whether you liked Mike Thorne or not, there were a few proposals that he had right: 1. relocating Keystone - it really was the right thing to do 2. standardizing the fleet - if things had gone according to schedule, we'd already have 4 144-car ferries 3. eliminating Sidney
There is no mature plan for the manueverable class. There are three main proposals. One is to buy the Safe Passage vessel offered by Martinac, a much better alternative than Island Home.
Then there is the WSF designed from the ground up "Manueverable Class" these would have been part of a multi vessel, two vessel class with what we have come to regard as the 144.
Finally there was the concept of converting a Evergreen State class vessel for duty In Port Townsend either through a modification to make then Cycloidial propellers or to the steering systems. They are actually narrower than the Steels.
Wow cheif, ok at first I thought you were really trying to state facts. But, now I see indeed you must be joking.
I mean really Yes, lets go with a JM Martinac design. There is nothing standard about it. JM Martinac is a BIG[/i][/u] part of the problem we are in now. If they hadn't kept taking the state to court trying to force WSF to use their boats that they designed of their own free will without the State coming to them saying (hey we need a new Boat what can you come up with?) No JM Martinac did their awful Non-usable design on their own.
While the Chetzemoka may not be ideal for everywhere we all know the facts of it are a very well and trusted design.
You have such hatred for the Chetzemoka you must either work for JM Martinac.
For those that don't know it was JM Martinac with it's endless lawsuits that have added to part of the problems of where we are today!!!!
I am not a Steel Electric crew member, not a Martinac employee, not a person who judges a ferry by what it looks like at all.
I am a person that does not understand the euphoria for this little ship though, I do admit that.
The Safe Passage was properly rejected as a proposal exactly because it had of much of the baggage of the Island Home design. The Island Home would never have been built as is if there were not an emergency created by the sudden retirement of the Steels.
Both ships were "forced" on WSF.
No WSF manager wanted to build 64 car ferries any more than they wanted the Safe Passage boat. That is why they pursued the 130/144 and the Keystone move. It is why their plan B was a manueverable class built in small numbers.
The difference is that the managers who did not want either are all now replaced. Their opposition to new 64s was founded on the harm they do to the economic condition of the WSF. Who cares now?
Niether vessel benefitted from WSF operational experience.
They were both too expensive.
Niether look like WSF boats, is that important?
Both were going to be maintenance problems.
The Safe Passage boat did have greater capacity and utility around the fleet. It had more redundancy and required 50% fewer hulls for the same per trip capacity. Was more cost effective operationally. It could have been stretched easily to 144 or shrunk to 100 just as well.
The WSF did not benefit by the lawsuits from Martinac. Martinac did not benefit from the lawsuits. The public did not benefit, the crews did not either.
Only Todd and Nichols Brothers benefitted from the lawsuits.
The Island Home is the Safe Passage realized except that it has less usefulness and a lower return at the farebox.
Yes there is a draft issue relative to the ES class, I am quite aware of that. Think of it in terms of the bigger picture however. Deepening is a one time project, after that it goes back to maintenance dreging, as is now conducted.
The end result is avoiding the construction of 130 million dollars worth of new ships that will have to be maintained and unprofitable for 60 years.
The ES class is full of lead ballast, walk the keel sometime from the inside. It is possible to remoe this ballast in the course of a renovation project that installs cyclodial propellers or Pods.
The Evergreen State Class has too much power for their current duties, (too much engine) and would be made available by 144 deliveries. The class could do this. The question of should was only one of comparison to what other alternatives existed.
At any rate the decisions are made and there is no further consideration of any other alternatives than the path they are on.
Well, Chief, for what it's worth, I share your lack of euphoria for the Haugen class boats. I feel that they will not be efficient people movers, for the same reason the Steel-Electrics weren't--lack of auto capacity on a run that I would suspect really doesn't do much for foot traffic.
Any guesses how much lead, weight-wise, the Evergreens are packing? The ES has already had the most of her ballast removed that she can, and any further weight down below the GM would have to be countered with placement of new weight. How would this affect the Klahowya and Tillikum's stability card? Three feet is a lot to try to gain.
As for dredging, I'm totally in favor. The EPA people apparently object to it, and I've always been told that if they go much deeper they're going to hit bedrock. I don't know that for a fact, though. And completely lost in all of this flap is the point that Keystone Harbor is man-made.
We are in agreement about the Martinac lawsuits. And, unfortunately, that the course has been set, so we'll be stuck with these limited-use boats for decades.
I am not a Steel Electric crew member, not a Martinac employee, not a person who judges a ferry by what it looks like at all.
I am a person that does not understand the euphoria for this little ship though, I do admit that.
The Safe Passage was properly rejected as a proposal exactly because it had of much of the baggage of the Island Home design. The Island Home would never have been built as is if there were not an emergency created by the sudden retirement of the Steels.
Both ships were "forced" on WSF.
No WSF manager wanted to build 64 car ferries any more than they wanted the Safe Passage boat. That is why they pursued the 130/144 and the Keystone move. It is why their plan B was a manueverable class built in small numbers.
The difference is that the managers who did not want either are all now replaced. Their opposition to new 64s was founded on the harm they do to the economic condition of the WSF. Who cares now?
Niether vessel benefitted from WSF operational experience.
They were both too expensive.
Niether look like WSF boats, is that important?
Both were going to be maintenance problems.
The Safe Passage boat did have greater capacity and utility around the fleet. It had more redundancy and required 50% fewer hulls for the same per trip capacity. Was more cost effective operationally. It could have been stretched easily to 144 or shrunk to 100 just as well.
The WSF did not benefit by the lawsuits from Martinac. Martinac did not benefit from the lawsuits. The public did not benefit, the crews did not either.
Only Todd and Nichols Brothers benefitted from the lawsuits.
The Island Home is the Safe Passage realized except that it has less usefulness and a lower return at the farebox.
I am not talking about looks. But Martinac's design in all right down to a z-drive wouldn't work... Don't get me wrong it's nice fun idea but, it's not practical any more then having 3 an 4 elevators on ferry. A side from that, you also went on about redoing one of the evergreen's.. another BIG Problem. the evergreens could never fit into keystone harbor no matter what end modifications there were done to them.. too DEEP of DRAFT!!!!!
The point about the lawsuits is it helped get us in the spot we are now. They took WAY to long.
After being on Chetzemoka and looking at her and seeing the actual changes she has from the island home, she will do just fine. yes she will be a bit small looking at traffic flow, but at-least it's not a fantasy (the faculty or activity of imagining things, esp. things that are impossible or improbable : his research had moved into the realm of fantasy. • the product of this faculty or activity : the scene is clearly fantasy. • a fanciful mental image, typically one on which a person dwells at length or repeatedly and which reflects their conscious or unconscious wishes : the notion of being independent is a child's ultimate fantasy. • an idea with no basis in reality : it is a misleading fantasy to suggest that the bill can be implemented. • a genre of imaginative fiction involving magic and adventure, esp. in a setting other than the real world.) ferry.
WSF has provided us with two neat photos of the installation of the End Number Two cabin core today. Here they are!
Chetzemoka in drydock - aerial WSF photo taken on January 22, 2010. Aerial photo of No. 1 end of Chetzemoka in drydock at Todd Pacific Shipyards in Seattle.
Zoomed by yours truly.
Pilothouse No. 2 lift - aerial WSF photo taken on January 22, 2010. Aerial photo of No. 2 pilothouse lifted into place on the Chetzemoka at Todd Pacific Shipyards in Seattle. The pilothouses were constructed at Nichols Bros. Boat Builders on Whidbey Island and brought to Seattle by barge.
Zoomed by yours truly.
She's looking really neat, now.
PRINCESS MARGUERITE, OLYMPICS, PUGET SOUND, EARLY 1970S
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Jan 23, 2010 13:43:24 GMT -8
Yes, well I still think she looks like, my joke boat the Issaquah Mini.
How about the new Issaquah Mini! They will only take 20- 25 years to work out the bugs, by then they will need to be rebuilt, If you are lucky hey will only have half the problems of the big sisters, the Issaquah's....
Well, so much for my big recon day where I got to come back and report that the second wheelhouse was more or less in place. Stale, old news... lol. After attending an open house at Bastyr University with my sweetheart, we swung over to try and burn a few pixels on the Chetzemoka and Chelan - the last two boats in the system that I hadn't seen.
FerryNutSeattle's guess about the Admiral Way vantage point was spot-on. Thank you for the tip. Unfortunately, there was another of the big white curtains like the one visible on the shore side of the aerial shots that had been erected on the waterfront side, so it wasn't possible to get a decent shot straight down the pipe as we had hoped. At least not 'til the curtain is removed. Then it's a terrific (albeit heavy on the telephoto) shot.
I was going to go down and explore what there was to see on Harbor Ave down below, and from Harbor Island, but didn't bother because the only thing to be seen would have been even less of the boat since the curtain was there. That, and I had developed a serious migraine and was starting to get extremely sick to my stomach, a problem that violently halted all travel a few minutes later on the way to the ferry dock to catch a boat home.
Now that I'm back home and feeling a little more human (spent most of the trip home upstairs in the Hyak breathing deeply) I figured I would make this quick post. Photos from the day are downloading from the camera right now, and once I get them looked through I will work a couple up and post them.
OK, as promised, here is the results of today's recon. First up, the shot from up above on Admiral Way. Exactly as advertised, with the addition of a curtain.
Next, a photo from the sundeck of the Hyak as we headed back toward Bremerton.
The word "tub toy" had popped into my head earlier as I looked at the side profile of the Chetz from the ferry on the way home. I was glad to find it in use on this thread when I got home. It really is a teensy little thing, isn't it? And with the wider wheelhouse, it just exaggerates the diminutive size even more.
As for the viewpoint on Admiral Way, there were enough breaks in the trees that it's not likely that this view will be obscured even in the height of spring and summer. If they launch her during the day, this might be a great starting point for getting shots and/or video. I'll definitely be trying this location again. Thanks again for the tip. I'm ashamed to admit that, while I knew about the overlook, it hadn't even occurred to me to try from up there. Glad you thought to mention it.
One thing that I didn't notice until looking at the WSF's aerials today is that the funnel is offset to one side on this boat. I didn't realize that was going to be the case. I would normally chastise myself for not noticing that when I took pictures. My excuse today is that my head was pounding like it had been skewered, and I was just focusing on the technical aspects, with the hope that I could admire the photos later when I was a little more clear-headed. I still have a pounding headache, but it's nothing like it was earlier. Not to mention I found a novel way of getting rid of the nauseous feeling...
That's all for today. I have some photos of the Hyak I am very happy with, so I might work those up and post 'em.
I'm surprised they didn't just put one bridge higher up in the middle. It would cost less, and would be more convenient for the bridge crew. They wouldn't have to walk back and forth whenever the ship berths.
OK, as promised, here is the results of today's recon. First up, the shot from up above on Admiral Way. Exactly as advertised, with the addition of a curtain.
Next, a photo from the sundeck of the Hyak as we headed back toward Bremerton.
The word "tub toy" had popped into my head earlier as I looked at the side profile of the Chetz from the ferry on the way home. I was glad to find it in use on this thread when I got home. It really is a teensy little thing, isn't it? And with the wider wheelhouse, it just exaggerates the diminutive size even more.
As for the viewpoint on Admiral Way, there were enough breaks in the trees that it's not likely that this view will be obscured even in the height of spring and summer. If they launch her during the day, this might be a great starting point for getting shots and/or video. I'll definitely be trying this location again. Thanks again for the tip. I'm ashamed to admit that, while I knew about the overlook, it hadn't even occurred to me to try from up there. Glad you thought to mention it.
One thing that I didn't notice until looking at the WSF's aerials today is that the funnel is offset to one side on this boat. I didn't realize that was going to be the case. I would normally chastise myself for not noticing that when I took pictures. My excuse today is that my head was pounding like it had been skewered, and I was just focusing on the technical aspects, with the hope that I could admire the photos later when I was a little more clear-headed. I still have a pounding headache, but it's nothing like it was earlier. Not to mention I found a novel way of getting rid of the nauseous feeling...
That's all for today. I have some photos of the Hyak I am very happy with, so I might work those up and post 'em.
Jody
It's a true pleasure to assist you. I now know where to go to view her as well.
As for the "curtains", I believe this is to protect workers on all sides of the West Waterway from all the sparks that will be present as there will be a lot of welding done to secure the Nichols upper works to the ship. Also, they have the "pickle forks" to install as well as the railings. Add the glass windows and all the hardware, too!
As for the launching, I think this will be just the lowering of the drydock and a "no splash" launch. I think this will be similar to the "launching" of the Issaquah-Class as they were lowered to the water on a flat lift (what a boring launch I saw on December 29, 1979 ). The CHETZEMOKA's eastern sister ISLAND HOME, however, was launched sideways at her birth pace in Mississippi creating a massive splash (just to startle any of those nasty crocs and gators near those swamp lands of the south ;D).
BTW, the only excitement on the ISSAQUAH's "launch" was the spinning of her propeller. The real excitement occurred one year later as she celebrated her first birthday by bashing Fauntleroy and sending traffic through Colman Dock for awhile. The KITTITAS rejoiced and did a minor crushing of a dock on Hood Canal. I was at Colman that day and what a circus it was seeing all sorts of cars going to so many destinations on that awfully busy night before the New Years holiday weekend. The birthday boat, the KLAHOWYA, the QUINAULT, and the KULSHAN were on the detour. HYAK and YAKIMA on the Bremerton run. SPOKANE and WALLA WALLA on the Bainbridge run. KITTITAS and TILLIKUM on Hood Canal. WSF briefly experimented with a Vashon-Southworth shuttle with the KULSHAN until she heard the call to go back to Hood Canal where she was in 1980.
The off centered stack is very "Chetzemoka"-like. The stacks on the older one, though on the centerline, were grouped towards one end. The tall galley smoke stack on the older one was on the vessel's side.
She does look cute. She won't look cute in Keystone Harbor, though, as she's 18 feet longer than the 256-foot Steel-Electrics. Elsewhere, she'll have that "Kwa-di Tabil" look. I mentioned to the folks reading the MV Times that their ISLAND HOME is like a miniature QUEEN OF COQUITLAM. The new CHETZY is like a miniature Super or Jumbo here. She's going to be fun to look at and ride.
BEAUTIFUL PICTURES, JODY!
PRINCESS MARGUERITE, OLYMPICS, PUGET SOUND, EARLY 1970S
