|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 28, 2011 8:19:17 GMT -8
Keep in mind that the Klatawa and Kulleet are not designed for open water crossings. Also, The Jones Act prevents them from being used in Alaska, as they weren't built in-state. Small clarification, built in-country, not built in-state. This design as never made good sense to me. When I responded to a DOT request for public impute, I could clearly feel the agency's closed mind to public impute. My main concern was the lack of staterooms which many tired travelers need on this leg of their journey. This lack of staterooms will also limit their use as substitutes for main line vessels. Adding a cabin deck not only adds manpower to run, but it also adds a deck of steal to carry around. Over the lifetime of the vessel, that is a lot of weight that is not needed for a day-boat, and with that, a lot of fuel. They are not looking for a replacement vessel, they are looking to use state operating resources wisely. Like it or not, with more people moving to Southcentral, over the lifespan of this vessel, the political will to maintain the system will decline. These vessels need to be as inexpensive to operate as possible for the future health of the system.
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Jul 28, 2011 12:42:48 GMT -8
This design as never made good sense to me. When I responded to a DOT request for public impute, I could clearly feel the agency's closed mind to public impute. My main concern was the lack of staterooms which many tired travelers need on this leg of their journey. This lack of staterooms will also limit their use as substitutes for main line vessels. Adding a cabin deck not only adds manpower to run, but it also adds a deck of steal to carry around. Over the lifetime of the vessel, that is a lot of weight that is not needed for a day-boat, and with that, a lot of fuel. They are not looking for a replacement vessel, they are looking to use state operating resources wisely. Like it or not, with more people moving to Southcentral, over the lifespan of this vessel, the political will to maintain the system will decline. These vessels need to be as inexpensive to operate as possible for the future health of the system. This. Also regarding staterooms from just a practical usage point of view----hmm not sure what that means, but it sounds good --- anyway, the first Alaska Class is likely to be deployed on the north Lynn Canal run between Juneau, Haines, and Skagway. The second boat they are looking at deploying in Prince William Sound between Cordova, Valdez, and Whittier. Currently the first run in north Lynn Canal is served by the Malaspina as a dayboat in the summer. Although the Mal has a deck full of staterooms these are largely not used. What very few are used is up to the discretion of the crew. You cannot reserve them in advance, the purser "opens" the cabins once the vessel has left port. Typically they open around 4-5 cabins, although again this can vary, or the crew could decide to not open any up. In Prince William Sound, these runs are served by the Aurora and Chenega, neither have any staterooms. The Aurora, which is the "slow boat" which takes on average about 6 hours one way on sailings. So the main runs AMHS is looking to deploy the Alaska Class on are already served by vessels without any cabins or only very few cabins. As much as I enjoy having a cabin on the ferry, they are not really needed on these runs, and the travelers on these runs are already accustomed to not having them.
|
|
|
Post by NMcKay on Jul 29, 2011 11:43:47 GMT -8
there was talk a few years ago that they were going to add an exemption to the Jones act to include Canadian Vessels, i don't think its a good idea, but it was something to think about, with the talk about the expense, with all these companies spending large amounts of money on the whole designing their own boat, whats wrong with taking an existing proven design, and making it work? it seems like there is just too much money being spent figuring out these things, when in reality, many companies just license their own designs, and its been proven many times that companies can get around the Jones act if they want to.
I just think its stupid to spend all that on design, when you could buy a design off the shelf, thats proven with all the tinkering already done. especially for a 50 car boat with no berths.
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Jul 29, 2011 13:26:57 GMT -8
there was talk a few years ago that they were going to add an exemption to the Jones act to include Canadian Vessels, i don't think its a good idea, but it was something to think about, with the talk about the expense, with all these companies spending large amounts of money on the whole designing their own boat, whats wrong with taking an existing proven design, and making it work? it seems like there is just too much money being spent figuring out these things, when in reality, many companies just license their own designs, and its been proven many times that companies can get around the Jones act if they want to. I just think its stupid to spend all that on design, when you could buy a design off the shelf, thats proven with all the tinkering already done. especially for a 50 car boat with no berths. Your kind of hung up on this 50 car capacity thing. As already pointed out, 50 car capacity is not small for Alaska. Consider that most of our current dayboats have capacity of 34 - 36 cars. Staterooms have been covered, she doesn't need them on the routes she is intended to serve. Now as to why design a new vessel as oppose to using an already existing design. This has been asked during some of the public meetings held in the early design stages so its a good question. The main reasons are probably similar as to why BC Ferries designed brand new Coastal class ferries as oppose to simply using the already existing C-Class design. Regulations change over time, simply put, you cannot use some of the older designs as they no longer meet current standards. Hull forms can be designed and built to a better more efficient hull form than what they were years ago. There is also a consideration that using a preexisting design means that you have to purchase that design, and remember that Alaskan ports are somewhat unique, there are not that many ferries designed to unload through side doors, this would require design time and money to modify an already existing design to suit our needs. While our ferries meet current US Coast Guard standards, not all of the vessels meet SOLAS standards, and the older ferries that do meet standards have been upgraded continually over the years. It is far more cost effective to build new to SOLAS that to continuously upgrade. As I recall I believe that even BC ferries was looking at replacing the northern boats due to not meeting new regulations. Simply there is just a point where the older designs are not as cost effective over the course of their life as a new design would be. AMHS is looking for at least a 40 year lifespan out of these new vessels. Well that's enough of my ramblings, back to work.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Aug 2, 2011 9:38:19 GMT -8
Adding a cabin deck not only adds manpower to run, but it also adds a deck of steal to carry around. Over the lifetime of the vessel, that is a lot of weight that is not needed for a day-boat, and with that, a lot of fuel. They are not looking for a replacement vessel, they are looking to use state operating resources wisely. Like it or not, with more people moving to Southcentral, over the lifespan of this vessel, the political will to maintain the system will decline. These vessels need to be as inexpensive to operate as possible for the future health of the system. This. Also regarding staterooms from just a practical usage point of view----hmm not sure what that means, but it sounds good --- anyway, the first Alaska Class is likely to be deployed on the north Lynn Canal run between Juneau, Haines, and Skagway. The second boat they are looking at deploying in Prince William Sound between Cordova, Valdez, and Whittier. Currently the first run in north Lynn Canal is served by the Malaspina as a dayboat in the summer. Although the Mal has a deck full of staterooms these are largely not used. What very few are used is up to the discretion of the crew. You cannot reserve them in advance, the purser "opens" the cabins once the vessel has left port. Typically they open around 4-5 cabins, although again this can vary, or the crew could decide to not open any up. In Prince William Sound, these runs are served by the Aurora and Chenega, neither have any staterooms. The Aurora, which is the "slow boat" which takes on average about 6 hours one way on sailings. So the main runs AMHS is looking to deploy the Alaska Class on are already served by vessels without any cabins or only very few cabins. As much as I enjoy having a cabin on the ferry, they are not really needed on these runs, and the travelers on these runs are already accustomed to not having them. My main concern would be the use of such a vessel on a Prince Rupert to Ketchikan run. I don't see that there is enough traffic for a run from Prince Rupert, just to Ketchikan. Vehicles line up to go to various ports in Southeast, not just Ketchikan. Would vehicles and passengers going to ports north of Ketchikan have to reload on to other vessels? Would this traffic have longer wait times in PR for a vessel going north of Ketchikan? Several years ago AMHS used the Aurora or LeConte as single stop boats between Prince Rupert and Ketchikan. I believe that short SE route was a big looser and was discontinued after a year or two. By the way, a November 2004 issue of the Ketchikan Daily News described a revised Southeast Alaska transportation plan in which AMHS would retain 3 mainline vessels, the Kennicott, Columbia, and Malaspina while retiring Matanuska in 2008, Aurora in 2005, and retaining Taku in reserve. Lots of wishful thinking there! In my view the two AMHS Fast ferries should be the first to go.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 2, 2011 10:21:00 GMT -8
My main concern would be the use of such a vessel on a Prince Rupert to Ketchikan run. I don't see that there is enough traffic for a run from Prince Rupert, just to Ketchikan. Vehicles line up to go to various ports in Southeast, not just Ketchikan. Would vehicles and passengers going to ports north of Ketchikan have to reload on to other vessels? Would this traffic have longer wait times in PR for a vessel going north of Ketchikan? Several years ago AMHS used the Aurora or LeConte as single stop boats between Prince Rupert and Ketchikan. I believe that short SE route was a big looser and was discontinued after a year or two. I agree that that run seems the weakest fit for the AK Class. Perhaps that is why they are seeing that as the third (and least likely to be built) ferry. Reading between the lines, a difference between "then" and "now" might be SOLAS. If we have a SOLAS hull doing the international hop, it might be easier to retain our older main-liners for a longer period of time, keeping them within the state. There is a general trend towards a more fractured system (day-boats from Auke Bay-north and Auke Bay-Sitka), and as much as I don't like seeing this from a passenger perspective, during the life-span of this vessel, IF the pipe-line is still flowing, it will be filled with ANWR or NPR-A oil. There will be no more North Slope oil that the State owns and will be getting revenue from. The population of the state is growing in southcentral, shrinking in southeast, and the political challenge of using decreasing State revenue to keep our system functioning. If being proactive about saving our ferry system into the future is more short runs, so be it.
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Aug 2, 2011 11:43:58 GMT -8
My main concern would be the use of such a vessel on a Prince Rupert to Ketchikan run. I don't see that there is enough traffic for a run from Prince Rupert, just to Ketchikan. Vehicles line up to go to various ports in Southeast, not just Ketchikan. Would vehicles and passengers going to ports north of Ketchikan have to reload on to other vessels? Would this traffic have longer wait times in PR for a vessel going north of Ketchikan? Several years ago AMHS used the Aurora or LeConte as single stop boats between Prince Rupert and Ketchikan. I believe that short SE route was a big looser and was discontinued after a year or two. By the way, a November 2004 issue of the Ketchikan Daily News described a revised Southeast Alaska transportation plan in which AMHS would retain 3 mainline vessels, the Kennicott, Columbia, and Malaspina while retiring Matanuska in 2008, Aurora in 2005, and retaining Taku in reserve. Lots of wishful thinking there! In my view the two AMHS Fast ferries should be the first to go. I would agree that the Ketchikan- Prince Rupert run would probably not be the most successful run. I seem to remember a report done for AMHS by a third party at UAF from around '07 or '08 where they looked at possible future deployments for the system. I should try and find it, but if I recall correctly, it's findings were that such a route would not have enough travelers to warrant putting a vessel on that run. About the only way it would have enough traffic is if mainlainers stopped serving Rupert, and before anyone worries about that AMHS has no plans of doing that. There has actually been talk that in a few years they may try to have Columbia make stops at Rupert while sailing between Bellingham and Ketchikan. Whether or not this becomes a reality time will tell. I think AMHS may be using the KTN-YPR run as a sort of placeholder for the third vessel. They may see a need for a third Alaska Class but where exactly it will be deployed I don't know, but personally I don't think it will end up on the KTN-YPR run, if a third one even gets built. I have also heard it speculated that the third one is more political, meaning AMHS is not really expecting to have it built, but really wants two built. So they are asking for three so if asked to, they could "compromise" at two. I don't know about this one, but politics do play a role in what AMHS does. There is a general trend towards a more fractured system (day-boats from Auke Bay-north and Auke Bay-Sitka), and as much as I don't like seeing this from a passenger perspective, during the life-span of this vessel, IF the pipe-line is still flowing, it will be filled with ANWR or NPR-A oil. There will be no more North Slope oil that the State owns and will be getting revenue from. The population of the state is growing in southcentral, shrinking in southeast, and the political challenge of using decreasing State revenue to keep our system functioning. If being proactive about saving our ferry system into the future is more short runs, so be it. I see this trend as well, but I wonder which is really more cost effective in the long run, having a system of "hopping" from one boat to another or the more traditional AMHS system of having a "circuit" route. Maybe we don't need all the mainliners we have, but if we had fewer but newer mainliners could this be a more cost effective system. It would just require more capital investment now to build larger vessels, but would be less in operating costs in the future. Don't get me wrong I love our original Spauldings, but they are getting up there in age and costs.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 2, 2011 14:10:38 GMT -8
Maybe we don't need all the mainliners we have, but if we had fewer but newer mainliners could this be a more cost effective system. It would just require more capital investment now to build larger vessels, but would be less in operating costs in the future. Don't get me wrong I love our original Spauldings, but they are getting up there in age and costs. I will cry for our lost Spauldings, especially Taku, when the eventually do go. That being said, I am heartened by the design of the AK class ferries with their rounded edges and passenger accessible deck spaces. This design, if it still looks anything like this at the end of the design process, gives me hope for the eventual mainline replacements. Kennicott is very capable, but she looks like a floating apartment block. While she has a lot of deck space, it feels claustrophobic and crowded, as an afterthought stashed in alongside her elevator. In the long run, I don't foresee us having many more years with a $3B budget surplus in this state, and we should probably build for the future while we have the resources to do so, preferably building ships with a Spaulding influence.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Aug 2, 2011 15:24:37 GMT -8
Maybe we don't need all the mainliners we have, but if we had fewer but newer mainliners could this be a more cost effective system. It would just require more capital investment now to build larger vessels, but would be less in operating costs in the future. Don't get me wrong I love our original Spauldings, but they are getting up there in age and costs. I will cry for our lost Spauldings, especially Taku, when the eventually do go. That being said, I am heartened by the design of the AK class ferries with their rounded edges and passenger accessible deck spaces. This design, if it still looks anything like this at the end of the design process, gives me hope for the eventual mainline replacements. Kennicott is very capable, but she looks like a floating apartment block. While she has a lot of deck space, it feels claustrophobic and crowded, as an afterthought stashed in alongside her elevator. In the long run, I don't foresee us having many more years with a $3B budget surplus in this state, and we should probably build for the future while we have the resources to do so, preferably building ships with a Spaulding influence. Are the proposed Alaska Class vessels large enough to be considered "building for the future?" During the early stages of their long service careers, two of the "Blue Canoes" were considered too small and were lengthened at a Portland, Oregon yard.
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Aug 2, 2011 16:40:51 GMT -8
Are the proposed Alaska Class vessels large enough to be considered "building for the future?" During the early stages of their long service careers, two of the "Blue Canoes" were considered too small and were lengthened at a Portland, Oregon yard. I think it depends on what your vision of the future for AMHS is like. If the Marine Highway is heading for a system of shuttle ferries between points as oppose to the circuit system then the size is probably going to work fine. I would prefer the more traditional circuit route that the mainline follows, although I do see the need for shuttle boats to serve some of the areas with heavier traffic between them. I would like to see at least one if not two Alaska Class built, but think that AMHS should start to look at new large mainline overnight vessels. I do absolutely love our Spauldings, but we are reaching a point that fondness and nostalgia are not going to make a successful system. AMHS needs newer ships, although ships based on the Spaulding designs would be good.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 2, 2011 18:40:56 GMT -8
Are the proposed Alaska Class vessels large enough to be considered "building for the future?" During the early stages of their long service careers, two of the "Blue Canoes" were considered too small and were lengthened at a Portland, Oregon yard. Aurora, leConte and E.L. Bartlet have been a part of the system since the 70's, and have served us well. E.L. Bartlent was replaced (very inderectly) with Lituya, and she seems to be doing well for the system. There have always been a place for day boats, these ones just take the concept and go bigger. Will they replace the mainline completely? No. Are they a part of the future? Yes. Will we need to look at a replacement ferry for the mainline? Yes. If you hop over to Kenicott's thread, I have a link to a post that suggests that they might be thinking about stretching her, Alaskanmohican, I would love to hear any information you have on that. The Tustimina will need to be replaced, and eventually, the Aurora and leConte; the Alaska class is probably too big. The AK Class vessels have crew cabins, specifically so they can run multiple crews to give the system more flexibility as to home-porting the vessel. Whether this means they plan on being able to do longer strings of short runs in the future, I don't know, it DOES probably indicate that they are putting more flexibility into the design then limiting her to 12 hour days, thinking about how the mission for this design may change in the next 45-60 years.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 2, 2011 23:17:32 GMT -8
The other big outlying question is what happens to the rest of the Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan. If the road north out of Juneau is built, and the road from Sitka across Baranoff is built, and the road from Petersburg south is built, the Alaska Class would be well suited for a Juneau-Sitka-Petersburg route, with a return the next day (using the aforementiond Crew berths for the overnight in Petersburg).
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 3, 2011 23:32:21 GMT -8
Are the proposed Alaska Class vessels large enough to be considered "building for the future?" During the early stages of their long service careers, two of the "Blue Canoes" were considered too small and were lengthened at a Portland, Oregon yard. This quote got me thinking, and so I looked more closely at the proposed AK class. Amidships, there is a wall on every level with the exception of the bathrooms... which are essentially spit to be two individual bathrooms fore and aft of the center-line, with fixtures and fittings in each (and a divider so that half can be closed for cleaning while the other half remains open). You don't suppose that the designers are thinking about making things relativity easy if they do decide to stretch her? EDIT to add... While I was looking at the plans, I counted the number of boxes they have representing cars in the car-deck, and got to 61. I don't know if that is a more accurate number than the 50 quoted by the news, but it is a lot more closely aligned with the 69 cars that fit into Taku's car deck. If you add cars forward of where they are represented in the plans, you can get to 69.
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Aug 6, 2011 12:08:53 GMT -8
This quote got me thinking, and so I looked more closely at the proposed AK class. Amidships, there is a wall on every level with the exception of the bathrooms... which are essentially spit to be two individual bathrooms fore and aft of the center-line, with fixtures and fittings in each (and a divider so that half can be closed for cleaning while the other half remains open). You don't suppose that the designers are thinking about making things relativity easy if they do decide to stretch her? I thought I read somewhere that the Alaska Class were being designed with the possibility of stretching in the future. However I can't seem to find where I read it. It wouldn't surprise me though if they are making such provisions.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 11, 2011 17:24:56 GMT -8
www.bclocalnews.com/news/127255458.htmlNothing really new, this story reports that there are 4 AK class ferrys planned, but the story is in such bad need of editing that that is as likely a typo as new information. One line caught my attention. Aside from tourism, Alaska is also very interested in shipping seafood to Asia through Prince Rupert’s container port, [Ketchikan Gateway Borough Mayor Dave Kiffer] added. What sort of regular barge/package service is there presently between Southeast and Prince Rupert?
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Aug 11, 2011 19:55:31 GMT -8
www.bclocalnews.com/news/127255458.htmlNothing really new, this story reports that there are 4 AK class ferrys planned, but the story is in such bad need of editing that that is as likely a typo as new information. One line caught my attention. Aside from tourism, Alaska is also very interested in shipping seafood to Asia through Prince Rupert’s container port, [Ketchikan Gateway Borough Mayor Dave Kiffer] added. What sort of regular barge/package service is there presently between Southeast and Prince Rupert? In my opinion, Mr. Kiffer sometimes gets his facts confused with fiction. This article is confusing and perhaps misleading: (1) There are 4 runs from Ketchikan to Prince Rupert per week during the summer months and often 3 runs per week during the winter season. There is frequently little problem booking space for a vehicle. Passenger cabins are sometimes hard to book, but I have heard that some voyages have rather light loads this summer. (2) This is the first time that I have noticed the Alaska Class ferries being described as "fast ferries." The 2 AMHS fast ferries were built. This is fewer than were in the original plan. Their history has been somewhat controversial with their very high operational costs. Currently the Petersburg/Juneau fast ferry route is running at about 17% capacity and the fuel consumption is twice that of a mainline ferry. (3) Not all Ketchikan residents believe that the Alaska Class ferry should be built in Ketchikan. I hope that they will be put out to bid at all US yards. The Ketchikan yard has a rather spotty record of AMHS maintenance and overhauls. Problems with MV Columbia are an example.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 19, 2011 13:34:18 GMT -8
New Alaska Class Ferry could be built in state www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1361:alaskaferry19september2011j01&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=107Of import Alaska Ship & Drydock was selected as construction manager and general contractor to potentially build the next generation boat--the new Alaska Class Ferry--for the Alaska Marine Highway System.
. . .
"By participating in the design, ASD will have thorough knowledge of the vessel and what it will take to construct it,” ADOTPF Commissioner Marc Luiken said. “ASD can then submit a bid to build the vessel. This puts ASD in a partnership with the state, an arrangement that should limit costly change orders and cost overruns. The new process fulfills our responsibility to maximize the value of public funds while providing an opportunity for economic development and jobs in Alaska.” Again, the lack of editing on this article brings up concerns about its validity.
|
|
timo
Deckhand
Posts: 57
|
Post by timo on Sept 20, 2011 4:06:06 GMT -8
Read this thread and wonder if the Jones Act in reality succeeds in doing anything else than keeping American shipyards uncompetitive. If this sum of 120 MUSD per ship is true, this can be seen as something to compare with what they could get by ordering from abroad. The sum apparently equals to about 86 MEUR. From European yards they could get one CORRAGGIO-class vessel for 56 MEUR, so for two Alaska ships they would get three CORRAGGIO-vessels... These would in fact be suitable as replacements for their long-haul vessels having ample space for trailers as well. www.merchantships.info/displayimage.php?album=201&pos=3Or, if this approximately 50-car size is the desired idea, why not take a Norwegian heavy-weather ferry design, for about 30 MEUR a piece. 120 European cars is the capacity hear, and unlike this Alaska-Class design that I am sorry to say looks like a floating museum from the 1960ies these would be modern and handle seas well. www.ferryvolution.com/newbuilding-database/thorghatten-nord/I actually believe the Jones Act has cost the USA much much more than they think.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 20, 2011 7:33:07 GMT -8
I am no defender of the Jones Act. That being said, your numbers are off. The first $120M USD is for design and build of the first of the class. The second ship is set to be less expensive.
Since there is no other ferry system remotely like ours in the United States, the Jones Act forces us into new-builds for everything we might want to do. We applied for a waiver for Wikersham but were blocked (partially by Puget Sound ship building interests) and so had to sell her and build Columbia in Puget Sound. Then, when Seattle realized that they were loosing revenue from cruise ships that had to load-unload in Vancouver (Vancouver to Anchorage is fine under the Jones Act), they saw the light... and what the Jones Act costs them.
Actually, I've heard the argument made that part of the reason it took so long to get double hulled tankers in Prince William Sound is that the Oil Embargo Act forces the oil to go to US Ports, and the Jones Act increases the cost of new hulls. EXXON is still a cheap two-bit crappy company, so they still would have been running the Valdez, so it's not like we can directly blame the spill on the Jones Act, but it does keep old ships running longer.
***Edit to add, the Jones Act does not prevent us from using existing designs as evidenced by the FVF (an essentially existing design modified to fit our docks). We have a somewhat conservative system that wants ships that fit within our existing supply and repair infrastructure, so twin screws in front of rudders pushing a traditional hull, powered by the same fuel that drives the rest of the fleet.
|
|
timo
Deckhand
Posts: 57
|
Post by timo on Sept 21, 2011 10:36:44 GMT -8
Yes, I saw that they estimate the order price for number 1 to be around 120 MUSD. It is interesting as this is the price said BEFORE a contract is signed. Designing such a simple vessel should not cost much, probably in the region of less than two million - however, if you put NASA to the job the cost might grow a bit... A short distance ferry of that size, with closed car deck, would cost around 20 MEUR in Europe today, and that is the price for a prototype vessel. If you want it to be really heavy-duty you add a few million to that, but on the other hand the finished product will include more seats and a much more modern lay-out than that.
I showed this Alaska-Design to a guy working with ship designs and he thought I was joking, that the drawings were some kind of April Fools thing. His estimate for building price was around 20 MUSD, depending on equipment. On the other hand - he did not take into account that they are to be built in the US.
Usually second ship in a series is about 5 % cheaper than the prototype vessel. This would mean number 2 will cost around 114 MUSD.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Sept 21, 2011 13:42:37 GMT -8
Yes, I saw that they estimate the order price for number 1 to be around 120 MUSD. It is interesting as this is the price said BEFORE a contract is signed. Designing such a simple vessel should not cost much, probably in the region of less than two million - however, if you put NASA to the job the cost might grow a bit... A short distance ferry of that size, with closed car deck, would cost around 20 MEUR in Europe today, and that is the price for a prototype vessel. If you want it to be really heavy-duty you add a few million to that, but on the other hand the finished product will include more seats and a much more modern lay-out than that. I showed this Alaska-Design to a guy working with ship designs and he thought I was joking, that the drawings were some kind of April Fools thing. His estimate for building price was around 20 MUSD, depending on equipment. On the other hand - he did not take into account that they are to be built in the US. Usually second ship in a series is about 5 % cheaper than the prototype vessel. This would mean number 2 will cost around 114 MUSD. There is no way that any yard here or in Europe could deliver a 350' closed deck, bow and stern ferry for anywhere near $20 million. The 'guy working with ship designs' obviously hasn't been paying attention to ferry construction costs in recent years. Do you have a source for your 56 million euro figure on the Coraggio?
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Sept 21, 2011 21:08:15 GMT -8
There is no way that any yard here or in Europe could deliver a 350' closed deck, bow and stern ferry for anywhere near $20 million. The 'guy working with ship designs' obviously hasn't been paying attention to ferry construction costs in recent years. Do you have a source for your 56 million euro figure on the Coraggio? I question that $20 million as well. Now let me delve into an area that I know little about, but this does not stop me from posting an opinion. ;D One of the reasons for the cost of the Alaska Class is that it is largely a completely new design, not based on an already existing one. Even our original three blue canoes were based on the Coho, heavily modified, but still recognizable as being the base for the design. Many new ferries are based on already existing designs that shipyards have done that they then modify to suit the buyer. You even see this in the cruise industry. I believe that even the Coastals in BC were based on a design that BC Ferries already had, was it just the C-class or was there a "super C" design that they used. Anyway I had heard that the Coastals were designed from an already existing plan for a large C-class. This is what I've been told, but I admit it is just a rumor, I know there are many on this board that could clear that up.
|
|
timo
Deckhand
Posts: 57
|
Post by timo on Sept 22, 2011 1:14:38 GMT -8
There is no way that any yard here or in Europe could deliver a 350' closed deck, bow and stern ferry for anywhere near $20 million. The 'guy working with ship designs' obviously hasn't been paying attention to ferry construction costs in recent years. Do you have a source for your 56 million euro figure on the Coraggio? Comment 1. My very unfortunate doubletypo- it should read 20 MEUR for a ship of that capacity. This still remembering that US cars are oversize. Part of the cheap price is due to one fact - that it is easy to use existing designs and this was already covered by another poster. Part of the estimate was due to doubt that the ship really needs to be over 90 meters in length for that capacity and they waste space in the design. It should have a lower hold, boosting capacity and as a result lowering cost and especially operating costs. If you want a price for a 90 meter ferry with larger capacity than that, then Caledonian MacBraynes FINLAGGAN was from a Polish yard and because of currency fluctuations the price quoted as 24,5 MGBP has changed from about 25 MEUR to 29 MEUR. She however to my knowledge does not have a lower hold and apparently is equipped with more powerful engines. As for the mans work - he has not worked on small ship projects for years, as he is currently involved in the (finally starting) building of Viking Lines new 240 MEUR baby and previously on the Oasis of the Seas. And - I never told him that the ships were to be used in Alaskan waters, only on the "wrong side of the Atlantic" as the expression goes. And as for my expertise in this - it is none-existent. Only four years on freighters and also a few ferries. Comment 2. As for CORAGGIO-class - they are a 8-ship series originally ordered on speculation by an Italian company from an Italian yard. They are very cheap as they are a serious of 8 almost identical vessels. The difference is that the first 4 were built with 67 cabins and the last 4 with 103 cabins. Another Italian yard, Visentini, has built several similarly sized ships with price tags of 60-65 MEUR per ship, depending on size of superstructure and number of cabins. The price tags are kept low as they build several, simple but effective vessels in a series. The source is Designs 07 published by shippax.se/ who annually publish the general arrangement plans of all delivered ferries, cruise ships and ro-ros delivered during a year. Whether or not any subsidies are involved is not mentioned. They are mostly illegal under EU, but then again, certain South European countries do not have a perfect track record concerning economical questions at this moment. Interestingly the other sources I found on the net quoted a 400 MUSD (and this it really is American Rubles ) for the entire 8-ship series. This was in 2005, and was originally published in International Freight Weekly 07/11/2005. As the original article appears to be removed I have only my own copy past version left of it. I saved it because the claimed price seems unbelievable, and later on the price tags were changed 56,25 MEUR a ship and the USD replaced with EUR. Anyway, that is copied here below. Grimaldi has signed a US$400m (t331m) contract with Nuovi Cantieri Apuania for eight new vessels to be operated by its ferry subsidiary, Grandi Navi Velocci (GNV). The first of the new "blue ships" is due for delivery at the end of 2006, with the remainder following at six monthly intervals. They will have a service speed of 24 knots and 2,600 lane metres for commercial vehicles. "This is the first major investment following the Grimaldi group's reorganisation and opens a new phase of enlarging the motorways of the sea network, " says spokeswoman Annachiara Montefusco. "The new ships will be fast, reliable and safe, flexible to use, cost-competitive and easy to run. As such, they will be ideal for exploiting the opportunities offered by maritime transport in Italy and abroad, for building up existing routes, or opening new ones. "Road freight is expected to grow over the next 10 years at a rate that cannot possibly be sustained by the network of highways and roads in Italy and in other European countries, " she says. "Of the 60m tonnes of general cargo transported over distances of more than 500km in Italy, a little more than 5% travels by sea, compared with 66% by road. "If only 10% of these goods were transported by sea, this would take about 240,000 trucks off the roads, " she says. "Governments should promote an 'eco-bonus' for lorry drivers and transport agencies choosing to use sea freight services." This month, GNV launched two services between Italy and Tunisia and now operates weekly between Tunis and Rome-Civitavecchia and Palermo. This is in addition to its twice-weekly service between Tunis and Genoa, via Malta, which has experienced a 40% increase in traffic and last year carried 160,000 lane metres of freight. "The enlargement of the EU creates new challenges for Tunisia, which now has access to a much broader market for its exports, " she says. "Italy is the ideal bridge between Africa and Europe, and Civitavecchia is a crucial junction for northbound freight traffic." Traffic between Tunisia and Italy has grown steadily for the past decade, with 20% of Tunisian imports coming from Italy, while Italy takes 22% of Tunisia's exports. In June, GNV introduced the 2,500 lane metre ro-ro freighter Ocean Trailer on its 18-hour service between Genoa and Barcelona. This has enabled the line to operate three sailings a week on the busy freight route. The same month, Grimaldi Ferries took another step in the development of its motorways of the sea network by starting a daily service between Barcelona and Civitavecchia. This followed the introduction of the line's newest vessel, the 28.5 knot Eurostar Barcelona, alongside the Eurostar Roma. The vessels have a freight capacity of up to 110 trailers and will take up to 80,000 trailers a year off the crowded coastal motorways linking Italy and Spain.
The closure of the Fréjus Pass this summer has shown just how easy it is to disrupt road freight movements. Grimaldi & Dreyfus Lines (GLD) recently inaugurated a shuttle service between Civitavecchia and Toulon, which is operating three times a week and can carry up to 150 trailers per sailing.
"The Civitavecchia-Toulon service launched in January is continuing to attract the attention of logistics operators keen to save on transportation costs, while increasing the level of safety and minimising damages to freight during transportation, " claims a spokesman.
The Grimaldi group has signed a memorandum of understanding covering the transfer of a majority shareholding in state-owned Sea Malta as part of its aim of consolidating and developing the Mediterranean ro-ro market.
Assuming the deal is completed, Sea Malta will remain a Maltese company, but the line will be strengthened through the deployment of new Maltese-flag tonnage, according to the spokesman.
Grimaldi is participating in an intermodal project which has received funding under the EU's Marco Polo programme, together with Italian rail operator Trenitalia and Spanish logistics operator Servilog. The project is the Maritime and Rail ItalySpain Connection (Maris) which the line wants to establish in conjunction with the upgrading of its trailer service between Livorno and Valencia, following the introduction of bigger vessels on the route.
"With about 900m tonne/km of freight expected to be shifted from road to sea and the environmental benefits to the community worth over t24m, the project is intended to be an alternative to road transport between central and northern Italy and the Iberian peninsula, " the spokesman says."It is also in line with Grimaldi's view of building a maritime-based intermodal alternative to link eastern Europe with the Iberian peninsula, removing as much cargo as possible from the congested roads, " he adds.
Trasmediterranea is one of the leading Spanish ferry operators, with services from Barcelona and Valencia to the Balearic Islands. It also operates ferries from Malaga to the Spanish enclave of Melilla in Morocco, from Almeria to Melilla and Nador, as well as to Ghazaouet in Algeria, and from Alicante to Oran.
Its fleet includes the 1,250 lane metre Ciudad de Burgos roro freighter and four high-speed ferries with capacities from 2,000 to 3,400 lane metres.
Posted: 07/11/2005
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 22, 2011 9:25:24 GMT -8
One of the reasons for the cost of the Alaska Class is that it is largely a completely new design, not based on an already existing one. Even our original three blue canoes were based on the Coho, heavily modified, but still recognizable as being the base for the design. Kennicott was based on a new design, is a much more complex vessel, and came in for USD $80 Million, or around $108 Million in today's prices. While I strongly question the idea of building such a vessel for USD $26 million as that's the price of a small to mid sized civic structure on land, there IS cause to wounder at the estimated price tag, especially if the yards have essentially been chosen before the final ship goes out to bid. Why is she more expensive than the Kennicott. One answer, of course might be that the price of steel was $260 a ton in '98 and is $800 a ton now, but I don't know enough to know if that in itself is the answer. The question is valid, especially as we contemplate what a replacement for Tustimina may cost.
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Sept 22, 2011 22:14:43 GMT -8
Good points Name_Omitted. I think the price tag is likely the result of a variety of factors like the ones discussed here. Back to the topic of ASD appearing to be in a position to be the builders of the ferry I have mixed feelings on the matter. First I love the notion of building a new ferry in Alaska, the work it would provide, the "coolness" factor of having an Alaska ferry built in Alaska, all sounds good. However, my excitement is tempered somewhat by the question of whether ASD is really the best way to go. I wonder if using ASD is really the best way to get the best value product for the price paid. Will ASD deliver a quality product? Likely yes. Could the state have gotten a product of equal quality for a lower price from somewhere else? I think likely yes. Here are two articles on ASD. The first a little history, this article is from this past January: www.marinelink.com/news/success-drydock-alaska336957.aspxThe second article is from earlier today: www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-Journal-of-Commerce/September-2011/Ketchikan-shipyard-to-help-with-new-state-ferry/A quote from the second article, "If the federal government was providing funds to build the ferry, federal procurement rules would require use of the low-bid method, Neussl said.
Any new ferry running between U.S. ports must be built in the United States, according to the Jones Act, but because it is using only state money Alaska can use the process that gives a local builder the best chance, he said.
Past history suggests that ASD would likely have difficulty winning the contract on a low-bid basis.
Federally funded overhauls of AMHS vessels have always gone to Lower 48 shipyards with low bids, Neussl said."What caught my eye was the part that I highlighted in bold. What I am getting from this is that the state will be paying more to build in state than if we used the more traditional low-bid process. This may be a large part as to the current price tag. Now the article does point out the following: "The biggest benefit, however, is in the alignment of interests. With the low-bid method, shipyards are motivated to cut costs during bidding, but once the deal is signed they then use change orders to boost the total price.
“It sets up an adversarial relationship that we’re trying to avoid here,” Neussl said."So there is a chance that contracting with a low-bidder outside of Alaska could in the end cost more, but I still wonder how close that would be to the current price tag. So those are my thoughts, to build in Alaska can be a good thing as far as jobs, but then if this creates jobs, how many will be filled by Alaskans as opposed to people form outside. ASD is a private entity, they do not have requirements to give hire preference to Alaskans. Will ASD deliver a good product, most likely, but is it the best deal for the state overall, hard to say, at least for me.
|
|