lifc
Voyager 
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Nov 11, 2012 17:59:42 GMT -8
More like 4 million a year in excess cost, at today's prices or 240 million over 60 years, difference in operating cost from Steel Electrics.
1. Excess cost savings +240 million
2. Re-power one, 1 less crew in engine room - 10 million
3. Retain 2nd cabin crew in re-powered boat - 12 million
4. Buy two extended 72 car STII's 20 M ea. - 40 million
5. Fuel savings from use of STII's-72 + 15 million
6. Crew savings, one less, STII-72's + 24 miliion
7. Purchase new 80 car properly designed boat - 80 million
8. Sell 2 KdT's +80 million
-----
+ 274 Million in saved costs with another new boat too. We could more than save the price of three new boats on just the reduction in operating costs over 60 years! Just do the math.
|
|
|
|
Post by suburbanite on Nov 13, 2012 19:20:54 GMT -8
I'm trying. And your math just doesn't add up.
First, some more detail would be helpful.
Second, we just had an election that confirmed the status quo in the executive branch in Olympia. Overall the legislature changed very little although transportation may be better off with MMH gone. How do you see WSF getting new construction costs under control without a major political shake up?
Third, where do you see customers for TWO 64 car ferries at $40 million each coming from?
Fourth, no business would spend $120 million to reduce operating costs $3-4 million per year. If you had that much cash you would be better off investing the money somewhere else that was more productive. Even in this economy there are plenty of opportunities to get more than a 3% return on investment.
I think you are missing better opportunities for WSF to save money by getting fixated on the toy boats. There is no doubt they were a mistake. They are not well suited to WSF needs, they are expensive to operate and WSF paid far to much thanks the the Built in Washington law. A repower program for the I-leans out in the 2020s could pencil out. Spending money and time replacing them now would further hurt the system by distracting attention from bigger problems.
WSF has three 87 car ferries built in the 1950s the need replacing very soon. The 90 car Sealth and 124 car Issaquah's could be bumped down to replace them nicely. Then their is the Hiyu that is underutilized since it represents a service reduction and a revenue loss every time it leaves the dock. And then there are the Supers. They are fast with great auto and passenger capacity but if you want to save fuel look at them. Don't like EMDs? Every super has 4 of them. That's 64 thirsty two stroke cylinders per boat. The new 144s have just two 12 cylinder engines to do the same work as a super.
The state needs to keep building 144 car ferries. They represent the best hope for reliable service on the most runs, the best chance for fuel savings and the best chance for revenue growth. The system needs to get 6 to 8 of them to replace the Evergreens, the Supers and the Hiyu. When WSF is well along with that program perhaps they can squeeze in a Tub Toy repower project before moving to the construction of Jumbo MK IIIs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Nov 13, 2012 19:32:46 GMT -8
The state needs to keep building 144 car ferries. They represent the best hope for reliable service on the most runs, the best chance for fuel savings and the best chance for revenue growth. The system needs to get 6 to 8 of them to replace the Evergreens, the Supers and the Hiyu. When WSF is well along with that program perhaps they can squeeze in a Tub Toy repower project before moving to the construction of Jumbo MK IIIs. Well stated! I think you're absolutely right in just about everything you said. The Kwa-di Tabils were a mistake, but they are here, and we need to learn how to live with them. Like you said, the state is in no position to write them off and start over. Hopefully, they can get re-engined sometime during their lifetime, and in the meantime, let's hope that funding is made available for building more of the Olympic Class vessels. |
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Nov 13, 2012 21:19:47 GMT -8
When WSF is well along with that program perhaps they can squeeze in a Tub Toy repower project before moving to the construction of Jumbo MK IIIs. JMIIIs? Did Wsf even talk about those? If no then I have a whole bunch of plans to propose them... |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Nov 13, 2012 22:40:25 GMT -8
JMIIIs? Did Wsf even talk about those? If no then I have a whole bunch of plans to propose them... Not that I know, the only talk was once about whether to build a 4th Mark II. I think the point was more that by the time the 144's finish building in the mid to late 2020's it will be time to talk about replacing Spokane & Walla Walla and a jumbo sized vessel will be needed. That's a long ways away, outside of the 20 year long range plan. That is the time that the KDTs will also be 20 years old and spending some serious time in the yard. I concur with Kahloke and Suburbanine, that would be the time an engine replacement or major other structural work would actually be cost effective. edit: On further thought it's probably a bit premature to even prognosticate that a jumbo sized vessel will be needed in 2030. By then Link, Sounder and possibly Seattle's oft talked about "west side" and "u-district/ballard" line will be done along with numerous other massive infrastructural projects and commuter habits might have changed quite a bit. |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Nov 14, 2012 10:47:05 GMT -8
I look at this differently. Th KdT's are a constant loss everytime they start the engines. This loss continues to pile up to significant money. Make the change now. $240 million over the tenure of the vessels is simply lost money that should not be lost. If we can sell or two, didn't think we could sell all three, let's do it. My contacts tell me that the Steamship Authority is considering replacing at least one of their old boats, let's jump on it.
If we want to re-engine one, let's do it now and see if it works out. Then the exisiting engines can be re-used in one of the new boats, which saves more money.
Just because the yearly loss is not too much money this year is no excuse for saving money over time, this is just the wrong attitude for a successful operation. Drip, drip, drip, it adds up.
I agree the 144's are the right way to go, but, there is the matter that Keystone isn't moving, and the bigger boats can't work there and it's a waste of a bigger vessel at Pd/T or Inter Island, especially in the winter.
The 20 million dollar boats are the Steilacoom II pattern, extended by three car lengths. Base STII is likely 12-14 million, add about a million each for a car length, throw in some extra and we get 20 million each, for a Ferry that is easier to load, hauls more cars, runs at less than 1/2 the fuel cost and takes less crew. I got the figures from Nichols, this is on a design/bid proposal from them. It is a lighter weather Ferry, so it would work at Keystone in the summer, always at PD/T and Inter-Island. We only extend the passenger space about 25 feet long which keeps the stairs back so the Inter-Island spin will work. Use the CAT 3512HD engines so they run at lower speed but still have reserve power if needed. We ought to buy one, immediately.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Nov 14, 2012 13:56:30 GMT -8
I look at this differently. Th KdT's are a constant loss everytime they start the engines. This loss continues to pile up to significant money. Make the change now. $240 million over the tenure of the vessels is simply lost money that should not be lost. If we can sell or two, didn't think we could sell all three, let's do it. My contacts tell me that the Steamship Authority is considering replacing at least one of their old boats, let's jump on it. If we want to re-engine one, let's do it now and see if it works out. Then the exisiting engines can be re-used in one of the new boats, which saves more money. Just because the yearly loss is not too much money this year is no excuse for saving money over time, this is just the wrong attitude for a successful operation. Drip, drip, drip, it adds up. I agree the 144's are the right way to go, but, there is the matter that Keystone isn't moving, and the bigger boats can't work there and it's a waste of a bigger vessel at Pd/T or Inter Island, especially in the winter. The 20 million dollar boats are the Steilacoom II pattern, extended by three car lengths. Base STII is likely 12-14 million, add about a million each for a car length, throw in some extra and we get 20 million each, for a Ferry that is easier to load, hauls more cars, runs at less than 1/2 the fuel cost and takes less crew. I got the figures from Nichols, this is on a design/bid proposal from them. It is a lighter weather Ferry, so it would work at Keystone in the summer, always at PD/T and Inter-Island. We only extend the passenger space about 25 feet long which keeps the stairs back so the Inter-Island spin will work. Use the CAT 3512HD engines so they run at lower speed but still have reserve power if needed. We ought to buy one, immediately. I've put in bold the words money, loss, loose and sale/sell for you. I could also include sale. This shows (with other posts) that basically all you are talking about in this thread is selling/re-engineering the KDTs and build SII type boats. C'mon man, the KDTs are built and will stay how they are for at least five years. Period. You're surely not the only one that thinks that the KDTs are a mistake, but that is the way it is and you gotta accept it. The SIIs also do not have pickleforks which would mean that all passenger traffic would have to go through the car deck if the boat is ever docked at one of the terminals with those. You are also considering one vessel for the InterI route, and this vessel goes at Anacortes twice a week. Knowing that there is a significant amount of foot traffic there, it would take forever to load/unload the boat If we want to re-engine one, let's do it now and see if it works out. Then the exisiting engines can be re-used in one of the new boats, which saves more money. How do you propose a KDT being out of service for more than a month with the Walla Walla issue? And if they re-engine the Chetzy, when it goes in for maintenance, either the Salish or the Kennwick will replace her. And these two will still have the EMDs. We ought to buy one, immediately. Buy one? Vigor and Nichols Bros are working on the Oly's until early 2015. Sure there is other shipyards. But these are more expensive. The SII versions that you are talking about are not seaworthy enough to be on the PT-K run. The coast guard had certified the SII because WSF had no other boats being able to enter keystone and do the crossing, and specified that it would not have certified the boat if WSF had sturdier boats. Also look at the number of weather-related run cancellations on the SII vs. the KDTs. Waste of a bigger vessel at Pd/T or Inter Island Steilacoom II pattern, extended by three car lengths. Always [work] at PD/T and Inter-Island. Let's see, SII is 54 cars + 3 cars per lane for six lanes = 72 cars So you're saying that there is a waste of space with a KDT (64 cars) at Pt-T and InterI but that with a 72-car boat it would work perfectly. Where is the logic, if there is even some?  |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Nov 14, 2012 16:22:25 GMT -8
lifc, here are few notes on your thoughts...
First I think more economic engines being installed in the KdTs at 20 or 30 years when the existing ones need to be rebuilt anyways is a given. That means your $240M increased cost maybe as much as 50% to high but lets assume 40% cause they are big boats for what you get. You are likely looking at lifetime extra fuel cost on the boats of something in the range of 150M at the most.
Second as was noted your $120M capital outlay for new boats and changes to the existing KdTs. This money can be used elsewhere, even a 1 to 2% ROI would than halve the lifetime cost of the KDT's extra fuel assuming they re-engined. For example that 120M could be spent on a road that allows a new businesses to start in an area. Such things are taken into account by governments when planning infrastructure projects.
Finally the idea of building 2 different classes of boats with capacities of 72 and 80 cars is I think a little silly.
First it's a one-off design and that's expensive. On top of the construction cost, design, licensing and engineering costs for Chetzemoka were almost $3M on a largely proven design structurally. The 144's design cost is north of $8M and was unrushed and conducted over many years. Your 80 car boat would likely require as much as $8M in custom engineering and designing for one vessel.
Second you'll lose huge economies of scale. The 2nd 144 will be $130M as compared to $142M for the first. In the KdT's Kennewick came in at less than $60M as opposed to the $75M for Chetzy.
If I were going to do your plan I'd forgo the extended STII's take advantage of the two things I noted above and build 3 80+ car ferries with efficient engines that can be used broadly within the system and offload the KDT's. If economies of scale got you the 2nd and 3rd 80's for $70M and you actually got $40M for the KdTs the sale of the third KdT would cover half the cost difference between those two boats and two STII's.
So you'd end up with 3 identical vessels giving you further economies of scale in both training as well as maintenance and parts. In fact in several planning studies that is close to what WSFs working plan was before the SE fiasco. The baseline study for PT/K was a ~100 car shallow draft boat.
BTW, if the KDTs were more "normal" WSF boats with 80 64 car capacities and no list and the only real problem was bad engines, would you have the same level of concern?
|
|
|
|
Post by suburbanite on Nov 15, 2012 5:07:03 GMT -8
They haven't, yet. At least I haven't seen anything from WFS about more jumbos.
It better not take until the late 2020s to start talking about replacing the Spokane and Walla Walla.
WSF threw money into rebuilding the Steel-Electrics in the 1980s and had no plan to replace them when they realized that operating 80 year old boats to carry passengers every day wasn't a good idea. In the panic that followed that "surprising" realization the state ended up with the unsuitable and uneconomical 64 car ferries that we have been discussing. A non-plan resulted in a poor showing for our $210 million.
WSF has wanted the 144s for about a decade and we are still over year from seeing the first one in service.
The Spokane and the Walla Walla are 40 yeas old. The Supers are 45. The Evergreens are 53-58 years old. The Hiyu is 45 years old, holds 34 cars and does 10 knots.
WSF needs to build 8 vessels by 2028 to keep the oldest vessels under 60 years of age. The Jumbos will be 56 years old by then. With the first of the new 144s under construction I see two major considerations for WSFs future ability to serve its customers. Building enough 144s to retire the Evergreens, Supers and the Hiyu and planning for whats comes next. The loss of the little Steel-Electrics 5 years ago really did through the system into crisis. The loss of one Jumbo now threatens to do the same. Better to plan early than create a gargantuan crisis if the Spokane and Walla Walla start showing their age at the same time.
LIFC
Successful operations don't get fixated on a drip while their is serious flooding going on elsewhere.
The Tub Toys are a symbol of everything that is wrong with WSF. (Clueless bridge engineers and city managers running a marine operations enterprise, management by crisis, micromanagement by the legislature, MMH holding the state transportation budget hostage for her cronies benefit, the outrageous cost of built in washington, "it's designed to list", etc, etc, etc.) But they aren't the biggest problems facing the system anymore.
Their are 20 older EMD main engines in boats built in the 50s and 60s. How much fuel can be saved by replacing those boats? How many engine room staff could be employed more profitably elsewhere?
The state plans to have a 55 year old 87 car vessel on one of its highest grossing runs for three weeks in place of a damaged 40 year old 188 car vessel. How much revenue will be lost?
Leave the drips alone for now. We need to stop the flooding.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Nov 15, 2012 15:20:59 GMT -8
LIFC Successful operations don't get fixated on a drip while their is serious flooding going on elsewhere. The Tub Toys are a symbol of everything that is wrong with WSF. (Clueless bridge engineers and city managers running a marine operations enterprise, management by crisis, micromanagement by the legislature, MMH holding the state transportation budget hostage for her cronies benefit, the outrageous cost of built in washington, "it's designed to list", etc, etc, etc.) But they aren't the biggest problems facing the system anymore. Their are 20 older EMD main engines in boats built in the 50s and 60s. How much fuel can be saved by replacing those boats? How many engine room staff could be employed more profitably elsewhere? The state plans to have a 55 year old 87 car vessel on one of its highest grossing runs for three weeks in place of a damaged 40 year old 188 car vessel. How much revenue will be lost? Leave the drips alone for now. We need to stop the flooding. Totally agreed. The priority for now is the Walla Walla. Period. Once the Walla Walla is back in service, lifc, you can start talking about this. Not for the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Nov 15, 2012 16:47:47 GMT -8
Totally agreed. The priority for now is the Walla Walla. Period. Once the Walla Walla is back in service, lifc, you can start talking about this. Not for the moment. There is nothing wrong with discussing it, provided that the discourse is reasonable, logical and there is a discussion with new information being contributed rather than just continuous complaining. Right now I don't see that happening though it has in the past to be honest. The current very specific and relatively short-term issue of Walla Walla is completely seperate from how to address the matters of vessel replacement matters (i.e the 144's) or what if anything should be done about the KdTs. |
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Nov 15, 2012 16:54:21 GMT -8
Totally agreed. The priority for now is the Walla Walla. Period. Once the Walla Walla is back in service, lifc, you can start talking about this. Not for the moment. There is nothing wrong with discussing it, provided that the discourse is reasonable, logical and there is a discussion with new information being contributed rather than just continuous complaining. Right now I don't see that happening though it has in the past to be honest. The current very specific and relatively short-term issue of Walla Walla is completely seperate from how to address the matters of vessel replacement matters (i.e the 144's) or what if anything should be done about the KdTs. Right. I was more thinking of a they-are-not-gonna-do-it-now thing, if you see what I mean. All I personally wanna say is please don't talk too much about money because things are not gonna be worth the same thing in 2, 5, 10 years. And money just stresses me, especially millions and this is mostly a place to relax. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Nov 15, 2012 17:01:58 GMT -8
They haven't, yet. At least I haven't seen anything from WFS about more jumbos. It better not take until the late 2020s to start talking about replacing the Spokane and Walla Walla. WSF threw money into rebuilding the Steel-Electrics in the 1980s and had no plan to replace them when they realized that operating 80 year old boats to carry passengers every day wasn't a good idea. In the panic that followed that "surprising" realization the state ended up with the unsuitable and uneconomical 64 car ferries that we have been discussing. A non-plan resulted in a poor showing for our $210 million. WSF has wanted the 144s for about a decade and we are still over year from seeing the first one in service. The Spokane and the Walla Walla are 40 yeas old. The Supers are 45. The Evergreens are 53-58 years old. The Hiyu is 45 years old, holds 34 cars and does 10 knots. WSF needs to build 8 vessels by 2028 to keep the oldest vessels under 60 years of age. The Jumbos will be 56 years old by then. With the first of the new 144s under construction I see two major considerations for WSFs future ability to serve its customers. Building enough 144s to retire the Evergreens, Supers and the Hiyu and planning for whats comes next. The loss of the little Steel-Electrics 5 years ago really did through the system into crisis. The loss of one Jumbo now threatens to do the same. Better to plan early than create a gargantuan crisis if the Spokane and Walla Walla start showing their age at the same time. I couldn't agree more but I was more stating the facts as I see them. I'd bet a fair amount of money they won't talk about replacing the Jumbos or any other major build program until those 8 144's are all done. Given that the last one will finish in 2029 replacing the Hyak (as currently planned) I really don't see it happening before then. The political and funding climate in Olympia would have to fundamentally change for us to have such a logical discussion. Like you in my view the most important thing is to expend money where it gives the most return. That is as you note the 144 build program to replace aging and frankly tired vessels, fixing two very delapidated terminals that are essentially unsafe and deciding upon a long range funding model for the system. |
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Nov 16, 2012 15:59:36 GMT -8
fixing two very delapidated terminals that are essentially unsafe and deciding upon a long range funding model for the system. And these terminals are Mukilteo and Colman Dock right? |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Nov 16, 2012 16:58:46 GMT -8
fixing two very delapidated terminals that are essentially unsafe and deciding upon a long range funding model for the system. And these terminals are Mukilteo and Colman Dock right? Correct. In addition to those terminals Vashon is not considered to not be in great of shape from certain perspectives, it needs to have it's pilings under the dock almost entirely replaced but the slips are good (supposedly). Information is publicly available about the official condition of the terminals from the state. However another good place is to ask on this forum in the thread we have for each terminal. Many people will have opinions on things. :-) |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Nov 17, 2012 12:37:16 GMT -8
So much to discuss and answer, I will do it generically.
1. Yes, it would be best to replace all three KdT's with properly designed 80 car boats, I do not see it happening. If we can sell any KdT's, the best we are likely to sell would be two. I we sell them, the new owners are likely to want them, soon.
2. The KdT's have excess passenger space, not car space, they, considering their structure, are way under goal there.
3. With the exception of extremely heavy weather and an occasional passenger loading issue, the extended STII would do everything better than the KdT's. Burn less fuel, and carry more cars, use less crew, not to mention the lower acquisition cost and related debt service due.
As the StII's are already designed, the computer aided production is already done, they could be built in about a year. There are many capable people who are out of work right now who could be hired to build one or more, there is enough local yard capacity available, especially with some sub-assembly production by other contractors, who would love the work.
The extended version would be far more seaworthy than the original STII. I will be longer, and the addition of roll chalks would make it likely as seaworthy as the KdT's. Look at the midsections profiles of the KdT and the STII hulls, they are nearly identical, both use the Spaulding/Elliot Bay hull profile. The longer hull completely charges the dynamic of the boat, the two vessels have the same upper end hull profile, the difference is in the treatment of the propeller and the rudder attachment only. In fact the spine and skeg of the rudder and prop protection of the STII is likely to do more roll slowing the open water format of the KdT's.
If anything, the extended STII's may be some "wetter" for the vehicles due to the more open deck housing.
Remember, I only advocate these style of boats for protected water, Inter-Island, PD/T, and summer at PT/K, although I do not think they would do badly in the winter at PT/K, they will not "bob around" like the standard STII. You could call these replacements for the Rhododendron and the Hiyu. Their production and use would allow one of the expensive KdT's to be kept in reserve and save operating costs on a usual basis.
OK, I am very tired of posting this over and over this just to have nay-sayers, who have not done any investigation, complain If you have real engineering data to disprove this, show it to me
4. If the KdT's are to be retained, they need to be re-engined immediately. Again there are many good engine people and fabricators who are at best under-employed who could get this work done quickly. It could be done on-the-water, perhaps even at Eagle Harbor, within two weeks. This would require all materials to be pre-fabricated and ready to go once the project is started. Diesels are about five weeks out, after ordering. One boat ought to be done first to see how it works. The existing EMD's could then be retained and re-used in the next 144. Everyone wins here, except Standard Oil.
5. The EMD engines in the other boats are generally operating within their efficiency envelope.The are way under it in the KdT's, remember these engines only become efficient at about 80% power, when the turbo boost kicks in, they are way under it in the KdT's at the RPM's they are running at. The EMD's are not appropriate engines for these boats.
6. Washington State is a big outfit, they have plenty of capacity to handle more than one project at a time. If they do not, they are too incompetent to be in charge and need to be replaced.
Let us start to do the right things now so we save money for the Taxpayers and give better service to the users.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2012 13:57:51 GMT -8
So much to discuss and answer, I will do it generically. 1. Yes, it would be best to replace all three KdT's with properly designed 80 car boats, I do not see it happening. If we can sell any KdT's, the best we are likely to sell would be two. I we sell them, the new owners are likely to want them, soon. 2. The KdT's have excess passenger space, not car space, they, considering their structure, are way under goal there. I agree with you on the 80 car boats. But not on selling them. They could be put on Standby for Washington State ferries along with Pierce County. The second point I do understand the car deck is under achieving the goal for Washington State ferries. What is WSF goal with the car deck for the Kwa-di Tabli Class? |
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Nov 17, 2012 14:03:29 GMT -8
What is WSF goal with the car deck for the Kwa-di Tabli Class? The most logic answer would be to use it to park 62 cars ;D. Or did you mean something else? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Nov 17, 2012 14:36:07 GMT -8
So much to discuss and answer, I will do it generically. <--- snip---> 2. The KdT's have excess passenger space, not car space, they, considering their structure, are way under goal there. <--snip--> I think the claims of the KDTs having excess passenger deck space can be resoundingly debunked during the summer months. Especially on clear days! For example, I took the Kennewick from Port Townsend to a star party near Anacortes back in the first week of September, and the following day I took the Salish on the return leg back home. On both crossings - which were midday runs, the sun deck was virtually packed as well as the passenger cabin. In that regard, I don't think it's appropriate to say there's an excess. With all due respect as a ferry fan, I think removing passenger deck space, much less reducing it - on any run - is a mistake, as one of the biggest things I look for in ferries is the passenger deck and outdoor deck space. As far as I'm concerned, the passenger deck and sun deck on the KdTs are perfect. The days of running the ferry fleet simply based on number crunching is long over, I'm sorry to say. With Washington State Ferries' being one of the state's biggest tourist draws in the summer, using the logic that passenger deck space should be cut back is a logic that is best left in the land of fallacy. It is this very reason that the the larger Issaquah-class boats fall woefully short in offering passengers the ability to walk freely aboard on outdoor deck space, when the room is present on that vast Texas Deck. One of the biggest complaints I hear is "Back in my day, we sat in our cars for the crossing!" which to me, is the logic you present. I certainly do not envision this as being the future of the ferry fleet, nor should it have to be. As for the rest of your arguments, I'm sorry to say, you're beating a dead horse. |
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Nov 17, 2012 14:51:43 GMT -8
I think the claims of the KDTs having excess passenger deck space can be resoundingly debunked during the summer months. Especially on clear days! For example, I took the Kennewick from Port Townsend to a star party near Anacortes back in the first week of September, and the following day I took the Salish on the return leg back home. On both crossings - which were midday runs, the sun deck was virtually packed as well as the passenger cabin. In that regard, I don't think it's appropriate to say there's an excess. With all due respect as a ferry fan, I think removing passenger deck space, much less reducing it - on any run - is a mistake, as one of the biggest things I look for in ferries is the passenger deck and outdoor deck space. As far as I'm concerned, the passenger deck and sun deck on the KdTs are perfect. The days of running the ferry fleet simply based on number crunching is long over, I'm sorry to say. With Washington State Ferries' being one of the state's biggest tourist draws in the summer, using the logic that passenger deck space should be cut back is a logic that is best left in the land of fallacy. It is this very reason that the the larger Issaquah-class boats fall woefully short in offering passengers the ability to walk freely aboard on outdoor deck space, when the room is present on that vast Texas Deck. One of the biggest complaints I hear is "Back in my day, we sat in our cars for the crossing!" which to me, is the logic you present. I certainly do not envision this as being the future of the ferry fleet, nor should it have to be. As for the rest of your arguments, I'm sorry to say, you're beating a dead horse. I totally agree for PT-K. If a STII type boat should be built, it should not ever go there. I remember seeing pictures of the STII back when it was at Keystone and the passenger deck was awfully packed, even the stairs were full. That on a sailing sometime in the winter. The only point where I disagree is Point Defiance-Talequah. There the passenger deck is too much. Even on clear days. |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Nov 17, 2012 15:44:48 GMT -8
My friends on the Keystone run told me the STII was at full Passenger Capacity twice, in its tenure there. Once was when they took a huge load of Girl Scouts over to PT for some kind of a event, the other time was when they hauled all the Big Wigs back from the Chetzemoka Ceremony. The extended STII would likely have around 500 Passenger Capacity, the STII is rated for 325 people, 500 is a lot more, the boats I an talking about are about the same length as the KdT's. With two boats on PT/K, it would not be a problem. I would only think it ought to run there off-season only in case of other boat failure. I have ridden the KdT's there quite a bit, never seen one even 1/2 full, in almost every case, the mezzanines were totally empty.
Ok, let me rephrase the statement. I realize the panic stricken community at Port Townsend was hoping by keep the car goal at status quo, that they would get new boats sooner, it didn't work that way. Yes the KdT's were designed for that status quo. I remember one Canadian Fellow described them as "hulking", I agree with him. For the size and bulk of the KdT's they ought to be able to carry more cars, in this respect they also under perform for the route. In the summer the route backs up, the boats do not hold enough cars. If they did, I would not be complaining as much. The planning that went into this acquisition was seemingly knee jerk and otherwise non existent. Further, if they had been 80 car boats, the inception of the summer season could be delayed some as the bigger boat would be adequate for a longer period, again saving the Taxpayers money. An 80 car boat would not take any more crew, thereby reducing the per car cost and benefiting the system. The day I went to look at the uncompleted Chetzemoka at Everett, I saw this. I told the Fellow who took me on the tour that if we could "do a Steel Electric style " expansion by sponsoning it out to 7 lanes and pulling out at least one Mezzanine we might have something worthwhile. He told me they would be pleased to have the work, but, didn't think it would happen right away. He also said it caught more wind than the Issaquah, which was tied up in front of it.
Yes, this is not the only problem in the system. As Taxpayers, there is a finite amount of subsidy that can be afforded, let us make things work better, not throw money down a rate hole.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Nov 17, 2012 16:23:53 GMT -8
My friends on the Keystone run told me the STII was at full Passenger Capacity twice, in its tenure there. Once was when they took a huge load of Girl Scouts over to PT for some kind of a event, the other time was when they hauled all the Big Wigs back from the Chetzemoka Ceremony. What I meant was the passenger cabin lounge full, not carrying 325 people. I agree that 500 passengers is enough but what we are looking for here is passenger cabin space. Tourists tend to like the pickleforks and sundecks, as well as the passenger cabin when it is too cold/windy/rainy. As I stated before, a STII type would not be WSF style with overhead passenger access possible. All of the boats that were built for WSF had pickleforks (except the Hiyu, but she's too small to work with some). The steel electrics, even though they did not have pickleforks, had overhead access possible. The only way to make me agree on building a ferry that does not look "evergreen fleet" is to make me believe that the runs on which she will operate are not WSF routes. --edit-- the Marta S doesn't have picleforks either. ;D |
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,957
|
Post by FNS on Nov 17, 2012 18:05:18 GMT -8
My friends on the Keystone run told me the STII was at full Passenger Capacity twice, in its tenure there. Once was when they took a huge load of Girl Scouts over to PT for some kind of a event, the other time was when they hauled all the Big Wigs back from the Chetzemoka Ceremony. What I meant was the passenger cabin lounge full, not carrying 325 people. I agree that 500 passengers is enough but what we are looking for here is passenger cabin space. Tourists tend to like the pickleforks and sundecks, as well as the passenger cabin when it is too cold/windy/rainy. As I stated before, a STII type would not be WSF style with overhead passenger access possible. All of the boats that were built for WSF had pickleforks (except the Hiyu, but she's too small to work with some). The steel electrics, even though they did not have pickleforks, had overhead access possible. The only way to make me agree on building a ferry that does not look "evergreen fleet" is to make me believe that the runs on which she will operate are not WSF routes. --edit-- the Marta S doesn't have picleforks either. ;D Even the new MV SANPOIL doesn't have pickleforks, unless there are some in a pickle jar in her tiny crew lounge. She's due for completion next year for the Columbia River service on the Keller ferry run. I'm on "brasegaliwa"'s side. I like the amenities the KDT ferries have. They're good ferries for the Port Townsend to Keystone Harbor at Coupeville run. Yes, we definitely need a single new vessel for the Tahlequah run. The 276-foot expanded ST2 with a cabin eight windows longer than the base design is all what they need there. 70 cars and two or three elevators for passengers, a wheelchair swath the entire length of the ferry, unobstructed height clearance in all lanes with no stanchions, and a single wheelhouse structure are what's needed aboard a ferry on that short crossing. And, don't forget the added safety devices as well as MES. Build the vessel in a joint contract whenever Pierce County decides to have a bigger ferry built for their services out of Steilacoom. The CHETZEMOKA can then be based in Kingston and add service to the Edmonds or Columbia Beach runs. |
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Nov 17, 2012 18:14:25 GMT -8
The CHETZEMOKA can then be based in Kingston and add service to the Edmonds or Columbia Beach runs. Agreed! That would relieve waiting times the runs if she is there, even if she does only two or three roundtrips. And if a boat breaks down at PT-C its not that far for her to go and replace the OOS ferry. All of this would be pretty awesome except that its not going to happen  . |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Nov 17, 2012 19:57:02 GMT -8
Very curious to see how the cabin is recieved when the Salish fills in on the central sound routes over the next few weeks. I know people generally dislike the Issy's on the heavy commuter runs (especially Bremerton). 1,200 people does not mean 1,200 people comfortably. :-)
Besides cars are both getting smaller and people are driving less due to fuel costs. The irony is that I suspect these currently uneconomical boats will likely long term work well with this ratio of passenger to car space. I wouldn't be surprised to see one or more of the KdTs before they retire to be fitted with the necessary equipment to with extra crew assigned carry 1,200 passengers when the situation calls for it.
|
|
.