Kwa-di Tabil Class Design & Construction

[FNS]

Oct 14, 2010 16:47:05 GMT -8 EGfleet said:

Oct 14, 2010 13:59:51 GMT -8 SS San Mateo said:

I guess the WSF site (which is where I got the measurement from) is in error.

Ferryboats: A Legend on Puget Sound has her at 63'.
The Ferry Story has her at 63'

WSF has her at 62 feet from every fleet guide I've got post-1985, right up until the most recent one and what appears online.

Steamboat Bill has her at 62'. It depends on who you ask, I guess. ;D

And, we get this from the Evergreen Fleet and an early 1970s handout, as we see below:



For a larger look:

i139.photobucket.com/albums/q309/ferrynutseattle/ferrynutseattle1/43005c15.jpg

[chokai]

Oct 14, 2010 14:27:52 GMT -8 @lmtengs said:

I guess you got a point there. Chokai 1, Viking 0 ;D

LOL. Hardly but if you wanna say that my ego certainly won't object. :-)

Was glad to see Chetzy out and about again today up at Kingston btw.

[Barnacle]

Oct 14, 2010 15:37:05 GMT -8 rusty said:

Why, specifically, was the operational date of Nov. 1 delayed to Nov. 15 anyway?

I don't know that November 1 was ever official... it may come from the observation that the lease on the Steilacoom II was up then.

[Deleted]

Yeah! I was thinking the same thing. I never thought November 1st was an official start date either.

[rusty]

I probably got the Nov. 1 start of service date from news stories of an October 31 date for the inaugural ceremony, which I believe they inferred from WSDOT's statement regarding 6 weeks of crew training.

[Freeland]

Today, the Salish was loaded on the barge at Nichols Bros. It went very quickly.

Both sections are ready at noon hour to be barged to Todd Ship yard. There is a second barge in Holmes Harbor. They may put the second bridge on it today. I sent pictures to EGfleet.
I let him post the pictures.

See the new Thread "Salish" that EGFleet started.

Emory in Freeland

[EGfleet]

New Vessel Construction Milestone Reached: Kennewick Keel Laying

This week the keel was laid on the new ferry Kennewick at Todd Pacific Shipyards. This marks a milestone for the third vessel in the Kwa-di Tabil Class. The Kennewick is scheduled to be in service in 2012, following the Salish in 2011 and the Chetzemoka’s inaugural sailing on Sunday, Nov. 14. For more information on the new vessel construction program visit www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/ferries/64carferries/

[Deleted]

Oct 15, 2010 14:29:15 GMT -8 EGfleet said:

New Vessel Construction Milestone Reached: Kennewick Keel Laying

This week the keel was laid on the new ferry Kennewick at Todd Pacific Shipyards. This marks a milestone for the third vessel in the Kwa-di Tabil Class. The Kennewick is scheduled to be in service in 2012, following the Salish in 2011 and the Chetzemoka’s inaugural sailing on Sunday, Nov. 14. For more information on the new vessel construction program visit www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/ferries/64carferries/

Ahh the keel is laid on the Kennewick thus debunking another rumor here that the third boat's production will be stopped, delayed or re-designed altogether!

[rusty]

Gonna need the 3rd while they "fix" the 1st.

[BreannaF]

Oct 15, 2010 19:29:36 GMT -8 rusty said:

Gonna need the 3rd while they "fix" the 1st.

Then that is a good option to have.

[Barnacle]

Oct 15, 2010 19:29:36 GMT -8 rusty said:

Gonna need the 3rd while they "fix" the 1st.

I think that's been the speculation for some time now. Get #2 and #3 on the run, the pull the Chetzemoka and convert it so that it is a similar critter--most notably putting the controllable pitch propellers on board.

[lifc]

Just because #3 has been started, it does not mean it will not be modified some.

If nothing else, I would look for a change of engines to four strokes and perhaps simpler. less expensive, controllable pitch prop systems, the ordered ones kept for refit on the Chetzemoka. The engine change would be a wise decision to see the difference in performance and fuel economy. Unfortunately, the changes to the hull to protect the props and rudders won't likely be considered until after a very expensive grounding.

One of our local state candidates, who in my opinion will be well elected has asked me for a list of what I would do to modify #3, right after the election, so he can begin to affect some changes at that time.

Here is my tentative list:

1. Change the engines to 4 strikes, likely candidates, Cat C280-6, 3516CHD.
2. Close in and protect exposed rudders and propeller and shaft.
3. Increase the width of the "rub-rails" to prevent bulwark and window damage
4. Sponson out the vessel by one car lane to 75-76 feet beam to facilitate San Juan Spin and carry more cars.

What's your wish list?

Read more: ferriesbc.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=nwf&thread=7111&page=38#ixzz12XsGyOlm

[Kahloke]

Oct 16, 2010 9:50:19 GMT -8 lifc said:

4. Sponson out the vessel by one car lane to 75-76 feet beam to facilitate San Juan Spin and carry more cars.

Seriously, how important is it for these vessels to facilitate the "San Juan Spin"? The only time a Kwa-di Tabil boat might serve as the inter-island ferry is during the winter months when traffic is at its lightest. And even then, it's just a Monday-Friday operation. The rest of the year, traffic levels demand a larger inter island vessel, either an Evergreen-type, or Sealth.

Now, sponsoning the vessel out to accommodate more cars on the Port Townsend-Keystone route would be a good argument for doing it, if it's even possible. In that event, the Kennewick would be a good primary vessel on that route, displacing Chetzemoka to operate on the Point Defiance-Tahlequah run.

[lmtengs]

Oct 16, 2010 9:50:19 GMT -8 lifc said:

Just because #3 has been started, it does not mean it will not be modified some.

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking.

Here is my tentative list:

1. Change the engines to 4 strikes, likely candidates, Cat C280-6, 3516CHD.
2. Close in and protect exposed rudders and propeller and shaft.
3. Increase the width of the "rub-rails" to prevent bulwark and window damage
4. Sponson out the vessel by one car lane to 75-76 feet beam to facilitate San Juan Spin and carry more cars.

What's your wish list?

You can't forget shortening the bulwarks, or removing them completely, to allow a wider landing pad for the vehicle ramp. During rough weather, it might be hard to line it up. We did come to conclusion that the gap between them was too narrow for comfort, right?

[Kahloke]

Oct 16, 2010 10:16:11 GMT -8 @lmtengs said:

You can't forget shortening the bulwarks, or removing them completely, to allow a wider landing pad for the vehicle ramp. During rough weather, it might be hard to line it up. We did come to conclusion that the gap between them was too narrow for comfort, right?

Do we really know this for sure? It's all been speculation and conjecture. I'd like to see some hard facts before I make a determination on this one.

[whidbeyislandguy]

Oct 16, 2010 10:19:02 GMT -8 Kahloke said:

Oct 16, 2010 10:16:11 GMT -8 @lmtengs said:

You can't forget shortening the bulwarks, or removing them completely, to allow a wider landing pad for the vehicle ramp. During rough weather, it might be hard to line it up. We did come to conclusion that the gap between them was too narrow for comfort, right?

Do we really know this for sure? It's all been speculation and conjecture. I'd like to see some hard facts before I make a determination on this one.

It's just fine.. How else do you think it docks at all these locations? Do you remember when the Rhody and the Oly had their ends stretched and tapered ?? I do, and that was because they were too wide. The Chezy only looks like it is too narrow, in fact it's just fine..

[lifc]

Widening it would settle the issue. On Moday I will ask my industry friends if the regular CP props are more readily available.

[rusty]

The opening on the car deck, as reported by others, is 24 feet. The loading ramp by my guesstimate is 22 feet wide. If the boat pivots in the dock the ramp will get caught in the bulwarks.

Ask anyone who has lowered the ramp to the car deck and they will tell you what the problem is.

The boat and/or slip will be modified.

For a look at some other problems, tour the car deck of the IH and see what they'll be like on the KdTs, with this link provided by ferrynutseattle:

www.pbase.com/bswanplsbo/image/106247385

[chokai]

I think we'll see the bulwarks (if necessary) as it's quick. The rub rails, an oversight so bad it's actually almost funny, and CPP's would probably come later.... And I can't imagine that that the rubrail wouldn't be fixed on both Salish and Kennewick before they even hit the water.

Sponsoning would be a significant capital investment, even for the Kennewick at this point, and the money would be (for now) far better spent on covering some of the cost of a 144 or the much needed work for the Hyak. As others noted the boats would only see inter-island use in the off season, if even then. The ridership, especially given the economy simply does not justify spending millions more right now. 10+ years out at a minimum on that, if ever.

[chokai]

Oct 16, 2010 13:25:04 GMT -8 rusty said:

The opening on the car deck, as reported by others, is 24 feet. The loading ramp by my guesstimate is 22 feet wide. If the boat pivots in the dock the ramp will get caught in the bulwarks.

Find a good top down picture of the ramp with a car in it you can look the width up of and and extrapolate. That should also allow you to get a good estimate on the width of the openings at the front of the existing boats. I've been looking through my collection... But that's just not something I often take pictures of....

[Barnacle]

Oct 16, 2010 11:41:31 GMT -8 lifc said:

Widening it would settle the issue. On Moday I will ask my industry friends if the regular CP props are more readily available.

You keep assuming there IS an issue, which is yet to be proven.

[Barnacle]

Oct 16, 2010 9:50:19 GMT -8 lifc said:

Just because #3 has been started, it does not mean it will not be modified some.

If nothing else, I would look for a change of engines to four strokes and perhaps simpler. less expensive, controllable pitch prop systems, the ordered ones kept for refit on the Chetzemoka. The engine change would be a wise decision to see the difference in performance and fuel economy. Unfortunately, the changes to the hull to protect the props and rudders won't likely be considered until after a very expensive grounding.

One of our local state candidates, who in my opinion will be well elected has asked me for a list of what I would do to modify #3, right after the election, so he can begin to affect some changes at that time.

Here is my tentative list:

1. Change the engines to 4 strikes, likely candidates, Cat C280-6, 3516CHD.
2. Close in and protect exposed rudders and propeller and shaft.
3. Increase the width of the "rub-rails" to prevent bulwark and window damage
4. Sponson out the vessel by one car lane to 75-76 feet beam to facilitate San Juan Spin and carry more cars.

What's your wish list?

The engines will NOT be changed... they were available and paid for. Forget it already.

You can't close in a rudder. It ceases to be a rudder once you put it inside something.

Sponsoning out the vessel to add a lane isn't something you can just do with a pencil and a sheet of paper and whoof-wham make it so. The stability has to be redone, and don't forget that the off-center fidley is what makes the spin difficult, not the overall beam of the vessel. The SJ spin can be conducted on the 63-foot beam HIYU because the outside lanes are two cars wide.

Setting aside that any campaigning by your candidate for changes to the vessel will be far too late into the construction process to do any good, I have to ask: what are your maritime credentials that qualify you to provide a list for modifications?

[whidbeyislandguy]

Oct 16, 2010 20:59:58 GMT -8 Barnacle said:

Oct 16, 2010 9:50:19 GMT -8 lifc said:

Just because #3 has been started, it does not mean it will not be modified some.

If nothing else, I would look for a change of engines to four strokes and perhaps simpler. less expensive, controllable pitch prop systems, the ordered ones kept for refit on the Chetzemoka. The engine change would be a wise decision to see the difference in performance and fuel economy. Unfortunately, the changes to the hull to protect the props and rudders won't likely be considered until after a very expensive grounding.

One of our local state candidates, who in my opinion will be well elected has asked me for a list of what I would do to modify #3, right after the election, so he can begin to affect some changes at that time.

Here is my tentative list:

1. Change the engines to 4 strikes, likely candidates, Cat C280-6, 3516CHD.
2. Close in and protect exposed rudders and propeller and shaft.
3. Increase the width of the "rub-rails" to prevent bulwark and window damage
4. Sponson out the vessel by one car lane to 75-76 feet beam to facilitate San Juan Spin and carry more cars.

What's your wish list?

The engines will NOT be changed... they were available and paid for. Forget it already.

You can't close in a rudder. It ceases to be a rudder once you put it inside something.

Sponsoning out the vessel to add a lane isn't something you can just do with a pencil and a sheet of paper and whoof-wham make it so. The stability has to be redone, and don't forget that the off-center fidley is what makes the spin difficult, not the overall beam of the vessel. The SJ spin can be conducted on the 63-foot beam HIYU because the outside lanes are two cars wide.

Setting aside that any campaigning by your candidate for changes to the vessel will be far too late into the construction process to do any good, I have to ask: what are your maritime credentials that qualify you to provide a list for modifications?

This is a clue to my maritime credentials.

Here is my old Z card.... ;D
Seattle to Alaska, many times down to San Diego, and many sea trials. I mostly did deliveries.. This isn't my livelihood anymore so needless to say it is expired and I don't need one anymore.

[Low Light Mike]

Oct 16, 2010 22:35:38 GMT -8 @whidbeyislandguy said:

This is a clue to my maritime credentials.

Here is my old Z card.... ;D
Seattle to Alaska, many times down to San Diego, and many sea trials. I mostly did deliveries.. This isn't my livelihood anymore so needless to say it is expired and I don't need one anymore.

Thanks for sharing that, sir. I suspect that your current career has a membership card that never expires, in an everlasting sort of way.

[Barnacle]

Noted and appreciated! However, you aren't the one making up a list of suggestions for politicos... at least, not that we know of.