|
|
Post by chokai on Nov 17, 2012 20:01:31 GMT -8
Build the vessel in a joint contract whenever Pierce County decides to have a bigger ferry built for their services out of Steilacoom. Pierce County plans to operate thier two boats for 50 to 60 years so I'm afraid you'll be waiting a while. :-) With the state growth act it's unlikely they'll have need for a ton more capacity on that route. |
|
lifc
Voyager 
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Nov 18, 2012 13:08:31 GMT -8
From what I understand, a few years ago the then Pierce County Ferry Director wanted the State to buy the STII so they could build a bigger one. Seems like the current recession caused a bunch of people to sell off their houses on the mainland and move to their Vacation Houses on Anderson Island, some retired early, some commute. The Ferries are running toward capacity, and sometimes over capacity in the summer. He was looking at adding two car lengths to the base model. But, during the time when the Governor was trying to give the Ferry System to the Counties, he was let go when the locals found out he was talking to the State about backing up Point Defiance. Long before the 50-60 years go by, they will need a bigger Ferry.
The extended STII as drawn by FerryNut for us when Whatcom County was considering moving our mainland terminal to Fairhaven, has plenty of room for outside viewing, especially from the Pilothouse deck. I think this boat would be very popular for sight see-ers. Perhaps we can convince him to post the drawing here, it would be a very handsome vessel.
This 72 car boat is right on the boundary of being built with a bunch of tonnage frames and barely coming under the 100 tonne limit as a K class. It could also be built with less and be over 100 tonnes and an H class. Knocking things down to minimum, on PD/T as a K, it would likely require a crew of five, as an H, seven. If a County was to build it, it would be no doubt a K, the State, probably an H. The H requires more firefighting equipment, but for shorter runs, that is likely not necessary as a K has most of the H requirements
While being perfect for PD/T, I also believe that it would be fine for off-season Inter-Island when there are not so many walk-ons. Remember this is not a regular STII, it is much longer and has more abilities than the original. I again maintain, it would be great as the second boat at Keystone in the summer. My calculations are, with a set of Cat 3512HD's it ought to burn about 700 gallons a day at 12-13 nauts. By opening the throttles, burning more fuel, it will likely go 15-16 it's all a function of waterline length.
The State ought to buy one and see how it works, I think all will be pleasantly surprised.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2012 18:38:42 GMT -8
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 Edmond's or Columbia Beach runs. Yeah I agree with you! But I think Steilacoom II lengthened could go on the Tahlequah and could be the Inter-Island vessel for the San Juan Island. But will would WSF get funding to build the new vessel and to put the Chetzemoka as third vessel on the Edmond's to Kingston route or the Columbia beach run? Will would they store her on the Edmond's to Kingston route or the Columbia beach run? |
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Nov 18, 2012 18:59:08 GMT -8
Will would they store her on the Edmond's to Kingston route or the Columbia beach run? Edmonds-Kingston because Kingston has three slips (one tie-up and two operational). Clinton has two operational ones and both Mukilteo and Edmonds only have one. |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Nov 18, 2012 22:32:09 GMT -8
From what I understand, a few years ago the then Pierce County Ferry Director wanted the State to buy the STII so they could build a bigger one. Seems like the current recession caused a bunch of people to sell off their houses on the mainland and move to their Vacation Houses on Anderson Island, some retired early, some commute. The Ferries are running toward capacity, and sometimes over capacity in the summer. He was looking at adding two car lengths to the base model. But, during the time when the Governor was trying to give the Ferry System to the Counties, he was let go when the locals found out he was talking to the State about backing up Point Defiance. Long before the 50-60 years go by, they will need a bigger Ferry. While they may have peak service issues Pierce County operates at 35% of thier total capacity. Or 70% of one boat which is thier regular MO. While they have issues with specific runs I supposed if they wanted to avoid having to run a 2nd vessel as often they could get one bigger boat but that is unlikely to make much sense from a capital expenditure perspective. This is below most WSF runs utilization. There is detailed information here which includes things like # of cars left behind per month, outside of the summer it's very infrequent. www.co.pierce.wa.us/archives/40/2011%20PCF%20December%20Year%20End%20Performance%20R_RN51.pdfSounds to me like that fired ferry director was trying to find a way to earn some money on a generally underused asset during the winters by backing up WSF when the boats went in for maintenance and and got nailed by the political process, if so that'd be a shame. There's a reason why they were able to give up STII for so long to WSF without severe repercussions. There is also a reason why the 48 car Rhody was <sarcasm>acceptable</sarcasm> as a backup. Ketron cannot have any further construction. Development on Anderson will be significantly restricted by the shoreline habitat and state growth act laws. Anderson's full time population today is actually half what it was in 2000 per the census. Perhaps people aren't being honest with the feds about where they *really* live. :-) |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Nov 19, 2012 11:09:36 GMT -8
One thing a lot of people miss when looking at bulk passage rates, is that they do not understand the ability for the system to be able to handle the peak passage times. People simply do not transport themselves equally during all times in the day. To be successful the system has to be able to move the commuters expeditiously so they can get to their destinations on time. This looks to some that the system is oversize and a gross waste as the rest of the day the boats are running way under capacity. 35% for two boats, 70% for one boat, that is amazingly good utilization.
In my talks with the former Ferry Director, he did not fit the usual Governmental mode. He sounded more like an entrepreneur, always looking for more ways to benefit the system. He, unlike others in most Public Woks Divisions, was not afraid to expand the operation if it lowered the overall costs or increased the availability to the users. He also understood that the cost of running one bigger boat that would better do the job at hand was far less than running two smaller ones. I liked his attitude, he is the kind of person the State needs to be in charge of the Ferries.
|
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Nov 19, 2012 21:45:59 GMT -8
First off I read it wrong, it's 35% annual usage total of one boat. That puts them a tad on the downside of the middle when compared to WSF and BCF. They peak at 70 on specific weekends but average ~50 in the summer. They currently never regularly operate 2 boats at the same time. Sidebar, they generally do something like 20% better at farebox recovery than WSF does on runs with comprable utilization for obvious reasons I think you know. ;-)
As to peak travel I get what you are saying, thier data is pretty clear on that. They average between a 0.3% and 0.6% leave behind rate off season. That's on average barely 1 car a day. You'd need the specific days but I suspect many of them are going to be the few winter holidays. As always sucks if you are that person but that is pretty good. What stats still don't tell you though is how people's behavior has been altered since they will figure out when they are more likely to miss. They have some peak issues during summer, but in the end people are more likely to see a run outright cancelled or delayed by a train than to miss the boat due to waiting. Most major transportation agencies would kill for being able to have Piece County's quality of service. I do agree they could certainly use a bigger boat in some situations, especially in the summer but I don't see it making sense from a capital expenditure perspective long term when they have another boat already available and they have debt service on both of them still.
Pierce County, at least data available publicly has got a far better picture of thier quality and level of service than WSF does, WSF could learn a few things from them. Pierce is obviously looking down to the level of individual days to decide how to optimize. Case in point metro saves a lot of money by reducing service when school is not in session at the UW. In a larger organization like WSF such data could allow significant savings. Someone at Pierce County is a serious stat nerd, probably a result of that entreprenerial manager.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2013 14:56:30 GMT -8
compdude787 are saying put an heat exchanger on the Chetzemoka for the Pt. Defiance / Tahlequah route to save fuel?
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 4, 2013 15:48:40 GMT -8
... are insanely heavy (4600 gr. tons); in fact, only the JMIIs are heavier than the KDTs! You are not the first person on this forum to believe that ' gross tonnage' is a measure of weight. It is actually a measure of volume. |
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 4, 2013 17:48:59 GMT -8
... are insanely heavy (4600 gr. tons); in fact, only the JMIIs are heavier than the KDTs! You are not the first person on this forum to believe that ' gross tonnage' is a measure of weight. It is actually a measure of volume. Sorry about my ignorance; disregard my above comment. Am I right in assuming that the displacement, rather, is a measure of weight? |
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 4, 2013 17:59:52 GMT -8
compdude787 are saying put an heat exchanger on the Chetzemoka for the Pt. Defiance / Tahlequah route to save fuel? Okay I didn't get my point across right, which is why I deleted my original comment. Don't worry about misunderstanding. |
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 4, 2013 19:40:09 GMT -8
@white Coast and @awesome Cheese, this is what I meant to say. I meant to reply to to an earlier post by lifc: 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. I'm not sure the KdT's are so bad that they ought to be gotten rid of. Compared to what I've read about BCF's failed FastCat endeavor and the issues with those fast ferries, I'd say that the KdT's are nowhere near as bad that their shortcomings can't be fixed. 2. The KdT's have excess passenger space, not car space, they, considering their structure, are way under goal there. That may be true for the PT.D-TAH route. You don't need a humongous cabin nor a galley for a 15 minute route, but for PT-Keystone I think the passenger cabin is fine. It carries 150 more people than the SEs, in a more roomy and less-cramped cabin. I remember riding the Quinault when it was filling in on the Edmonds Kingston route in 2007. The one thing I remember most is that the cabin was SMALL! (And old-looking, too) 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 You make a good argument for the Steilacoom II stretch, but of course, the KDTs are a done deal. We have them, let's keep 'em, and, as I said above, they're not absolutely terrible and their problems can be fixed. But I do give you credit for making a good pitch for the STII stretch. 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. I totally agree with you that the KDTs need different engines!!! It makes sense what you're saying about the fact that the engines are being underworked, that they're not operating at an efficient level, and that they're a complete fail for the KDT class. I'm totally with you on the fact that they need to rip those engines out, and put engines that are actually meant for that size ferry. I hope that they can do this next winter. WSF should just try it out on the Chetzy first because that one is wasting the most fuel on the route it's on. In fact, I should send David Moseley an email suggesting this. You said it perfectly: "Let us start to do the right things now so we save money for the Taxpayers and give better service to the users." Indeed!! |
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 4, 2013 19:41:57 GMT -8
@ P_Keenleyside, thanks for the explanation and clarification. Now I get the difference between displacement and gross tonnage.
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 4, 2013 20:17:03 GMT -8
You are not the first person on this forum to believe that ' gross tonnage' is a measure of weight. It is actually a measure of volume. Sorry about my ignorance; disregard my above comment. Am I right in assuming that the displacement, rather, is a measure of weight? No need to apologize. You are in good company. With the word 'tonnage' in there who can be faulted for thinking weight? I was once under that impression and so were/are many, many others. Did you check out the hyperlink [' gross tonnage'] in my earlier reply? |
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 4, 2013 23:02:43 GMT -8
No need to apologize. You are in good company. With the word 'tonnage' in there who can be faulted for thinking weight? I was once under that impression and so were/are many, many others. Did you check out the hyperlink [' gross tonnage'] in my earlier reply? Yeah I did. Isn't it weird that the word "tonnage" comes not from the word "ton" but the word "tun," which means something totally different? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2013 18:18:25 GMT -8
Do you think the KdT's all need to be re-engined ASAP? Their engines definitely have too much horsepower for their size. 6,000 hp is insane for a boat that small. I think they do need more efficient engines so they stop wasting so much fuel. I do agree with you because it seems to be wasting fuel for those vessels. I think a 2,500 horsepower engine will do just fine for them. |
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080 
|
Post by Nick on Jan 9, 2013 19:40:03 GMT -8
Do you think the KdT's all need to be re-engined ASAP? Their engines definitely have too much horsepower for their size. 6,000 hp is insane for a boat that small. I think they do need more efficient engines so they stop wasting so much fuel. I do agree with you because it seems to be wasting fuel for those vessels. I think a 2,500 horsepower engine will do just fine for them. The difference is that because of their propulsion system design, only one engine is doing any appreciable work at a time. The 6000 HP is a little bit misleading because each end's engines aren't geared together, so when the ship is going in one direction one engine pushes, and in the other direction the other engine pushes. The forward propeller spins slowly and idles along just enough so that it doesn't have much drag. |
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 10, 2013 22:32:26 GMT -8
The difference is that because of their propulsion system design, only one engine is doing any appreciable work at a time. The 6000 HP is a little bit misleading because each end's engines aren't geared together, so when the ship is going in one direction one engine pushes, and in the other direction the other engine pushes. The forward propeller spins slowly and idles along just enough so that it doesn't have much drag. Ohh! That makes a lot more sense now as to why they have 6000 hp engines. I was just reading that the engines aren't "connected" to each other and it seems that one is just dead weight while the other is pulling all the weight. This is still a waste of fuel. Considering that, do you think that having different engines wouldn't make that much of a difference then? |
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,957
|
Post by FNS on Jan 10, 2013 23:03:11 GMT -8
The difference is that because of their propulsion system design, only one engine is doing any appreciable work at a time. The 6000 HP is a little bit misleading because each end's engines aren't geared together, so when the ship is going in one direction one engine pushes, and in the other direction the other engine pushes. The forward propeller spins slowly and idles along just enough so that it doesn't have much drag. Ohh! That makes a lot more sense now as to why they have 6000 hp engines. I was just reading that the engines aren't "connected" to each other and it seems that one is just dead weight while the other is pulling all the weight. This is still a waste of fuel. Considering that, do you think that having different engines wouldn't make that much of a difference then? Actually, they have two 3000 hp engines each. www.nicholsboats.com/pdfs/Brochures/S-168-Kennewick.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 11, 2013 17:17:09 GMT -8
Yeah, I know that there's two engines, each is 3000hp. It adds up to 6000 hp for both engines. But really we should be saying that it's 3000 hp since the two engines aren't geared together.
EDIT: Considering that even the Issaquah class (and Evergreen State class) has 2x 2500hp engines and yet can still go 17+ kts, suitable for Bremerton, I think the KdT's are extremely overpowered. 3000hp engines are too much for these small boats.
|
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 16, 2013 11:51:36 GMT -8
Okay so what do you all think about putting in different engines into the KdT's and putting those EMDs into the Olympic class? They should also put in CPPs into the Chetzy so that they could use her up at PT-Keystone. That would make Port Townsenders happy. I think they were gonna put CPPs on the Chetzy eventually but they decided not to put them in during construction so that the boat would be completed sooner.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 16, 2013 17:57:57 GMT -8
The four cycle Cat C280-6 most conservative rating is 2370 HP @ 900 RPM, the highest, not quite as continuous duty 2720 HP @ 1000 RPM, it would work just fine. Fuel use would be about 50-60% of the installed EMD's. At today's fuel prices payout will be about three years. Further the takeout EMD's could be refreshed and installed into the new 144's. These engines as they were originally intended for the 144's and in State ownership since lower emission requirements, would not have to meet current higher fuel use EPA standards, we all win here.
|
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 17, 2013 10:49:23 GMT -8
You sure have a good idea of what engines would work best for that ferry. The only question is when are they going to do this? Definitely would have to wait till next winter when they can afford to take a ferry out of service long enough to install a new engine.
|
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Jan 29, 2013 20:37:35 GMT -8
Thanks lifc for the info on that Cat engine. I didn't know they made an in-line marine engine in that hp range. Here's a link to Cat's spec sheet, for those so inclined: marine.cat.com/cda/files/1377760/7/Cat%20C280-6%20Spec%20Sheets.pdfI'd only do one boat, and see how it worked. One would assume the first candidate would be the Chetzemoka. The boat would also need to be fitted with (the proper) CPP wheels. Is that going to happen anytime soon? Probably not. |
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 29, 2013 22:03:31 GMT -8
Yes, I hope they do this sooner rather than later. But who knows if it will actually happen or not?
What I wonder is, did they intend the EMDs just to be temporary and that they would replace them w/ a more suitable engine when they finally got the chance? The EMDs are really meant to be used on a class of vessels with more than 2x the car capacity, and would work a lot better in such a vessel.
It's interesting to note that the Kalakala, which was actually around the same size as the KdT class, also had a 3000 hp engine that was expensive to maintain, and was quite a fuel hog. Just like the KdT class's engines.
|
|
