Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jul 18, 2013 3:34:53 GMT -8
I also find it interesting that they are considering having a clamshell-type bow door that opens in two pieces instead of a bow visor like the Bartlett and all of BCF's northern vessels have. Having a clamshell bow door (I think I'm making up this term but that's what they call this type of freight loading door found on the nose of an airplane) would mean that the forward view from the pilothouse wouldn't be hindered, so I think it's a good idea. The NorAd , of course, has no bow visor. It loads/unloads only via the stern. A bit of a handicap, I'd say. I am fairly sure that clam shell bow doors are not uncommon in Europe, and they do refer to them as 'clam shell' doors, I believe. From what I understand, the clamshell doors are the predominant design in most modern RORO ferries. It's considered much safer than a visor, because the compressive forces of the bow striking water actually helps seal the doors, which makes them less dependent on latching mechanisms than a visor. You also don't have 60 tons of steel hanging 30 feet in the air with a clam shell. All of the Marine Atlantic ships use clamshells with great success.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 18, 2013 8:51:11 GMT -8
From what I understand, the clamshell doors are the predominant design in most modern RORO ferries. It's considered much safer than a visor, because the compressive forces of the bow striking water actually helps seal the doors, which makes them less dependent on latching mechanisms than a visor. You also don't have 60 tons of steel hanging 30 feet in the air with a clam shell. All of the Marine Atlantic ships use clamshells with great success. Fast forwarding to Appendix A, another major advantage to the clam-shell is that it does not obstruct the view from the bridge during the critical period of docking. The trade-off is that it makes shore-side facilities more challenging, as there are protrusions eather side of the bow, which are (relatively) fragile while open. Since the state is planning on building two new nose-in breaths in Haines to accommodate these vessels, the berths can be built to accommodate the doors (and the bulbous bow), so Elliot Bay feels that the benefits outweigh these disadvantages. It does, I would assume, mean that these vessels could not nose into our existing rear berths, but the bulbous bow probably assured that anyway. Apropos of this, page 19 has an interesting point that illustrates how much everything is connected in architecture. While backing into Juneau's existing berth, the ramp will fall to the port of the Ship's center-line, necessitating wider doors aft. I suspect, although it is not explicitly stated, that this is why the ADA lane for wheelchairs is starboard, shifting the cars slightly to the port, more in line with the ramp. This requires the elevator shaft starboard, which affects every deck.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jul 18, 2013 10:01:36 GMT -8
I also find it interesting that they are considering having a clamshell-type bow door that opens in two pieces instead of a bow visor like the Bartlett and all of BCF's northern vessels have. Having a clamshell bow door (I think I'm making up this term but that's what they call this type of freight loading door found on the nose of an airplane) would mean that the forward view from the pilothouse wouldn't be hindered, so I think it's a good idea. The NorAd , of course, has no bow visor. It loads/unloads only via the stern. A bit of a handicap, I'd say. I am fairly sure that clam shell bow doors are not uncommon in Europe, and they do refer to them as 'clam shell' doors, I believe. The NorAd has no bow visor? Wow, that is quite a bit of a handicap.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jul 18, 2013 10:04:17 GMT -8
Apropos of this, page 19 has an interesting point that illustrates how much everything is connected in architecture. While backing into Juneau's existing berth, the ramp will fall to the port of the Ship's center-line, necessitating wider doors aft. I suspect, although it is not explicitly stated, that this is why the ADA lane for wheelchairs is starboard, shifting the cars slightly to the port, more in line with the ramp. This requires the elevator shaft starboard, which affects every deck. Oh so that's why the lanes are shifted slightly to port! I was wondering why that was so, since it would've seemed to have made the ferry unbalanced.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jul 18, 2013 10:43:31 GMT -8
So those are my comments. What do others think? I like the design; it seems to include some of cost saving ideas for the class and a enclosed car deck. But the one elevator seems to break the law for ADA.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jul 18, 2013 11:31:25 GMT -8
But the one elevator seems to break the law for ADA. Maybe not, because the Coastwise design also had just one elevator. That tells me that only one elevator is necessary under the ADA's regulations.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 18, 2013 11:47:36 GMT -8
But the one elevator seems to break the law for ADA. Maybe not, because the Coastwise design also had just one elevator. That tells me that only one elevator is necessary under the ADA's regulations. It's worth remembering that that every other AMHS vessel has only one elevator. Our ships are as long as they are due to car deck requirements, as well as sea-keeping on the Lynn Canal and Chatham Strait. When measured by number of passengers, our largest vessel, Columbia, would be the second smallest ferry in the Washington fleet. The ACF as envisioned has less than half the capacity of the Kwa-di Tabil class vessel. It is well possible that that puts the ship in a different ADA category.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Jul 18, 2013 23:25:29 GMT -8
A couple of interesting things to note from the Elliott Bay Design Group Report. 1) They seem to recognize that a real challenge on AMHS is "dwell time" at the terminal. They acknowledge that the excessive terminal time experienced on the AMHS routes leads to the crews "timing out" on the day boat services. They are trying to come up with real solutions, including more bow and stern loading. When I stopped in Haines on the Columbia (en route from Skagway to Juneau) in 2009 we were at Haines for over 90 minutes. 90 minutes! The side loading terminals are not efficient and take a long time not only to load and unload (especially on multi-stop voyages) but just to tie up to the berth. If these ships can be the catalyst for some berth reconstruction system wide to allow more bow/stern loading, that would be great. 2) There is a lot of discussion on using the Alaska Class on the Lynn Canal service. This is an okay place for these boats, but I'd like to see AMHS re-evaluate using the Fairweather on this route. Skagway and Haines are Juneau's connection to the mainland highway system and poking along for six hours from Juneau to Skagway is not ideal. The Fairweather really makes a difference in travel time when on this route. Additionally, there are lots of Haines residents that travel to Juneau regularly for appointments and provisions - crossing to Skagway and connecting to another vessel to get to Juneau seems really cumbersome and inefficient. 3) The vehicle capacity seems pretty light; the AMHS ferries (mainliners and local vessels) are sold out a lot in the summer time. I wish they would build something with growth in mind, not just to maintain the status quo. I really wish long time member SS Shasta would chime in; the Alaska board has been pretty quite since he stopped participating.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 19, 2013 8:20:11 GMT -8
The Fairweather was built for the Sitka run, and that is where she belongs. She is the only vessel in Southeast who has the power to weight to not have to wait for slack tide on the route, and therefore is the only vessel who can keep a regular schedule. The economics of her design are such that her speed allows her to do the run on a single shift, which means there is an economic off-set to the significantly higher fuel consumption. You get neither advantage running her on the Lynn Canal
In the 60 year projected lifespan of the ACF ferry, I think it is wise from a practical perspective to assume that 1) the cost of fuel is going to increase relitive to other costs of doing business, and 2) there will an opportunity to build a terminal further north on the Juneau side making it possible for one vessel to do all three ports and freeing up the second vessel.
As for capacity, the report alludes to a increase in the cost of safety equipment at around 305 feet in length. If you look at the design, just after the centerline there is a wall on all floors that hits the hull at it's flattest point. Given that the AMHS has absolutely no fear of stretching their vessels, (and Alaskanmohician's comments about the Kennicott's future) I have to wonder if this is the "insert plug here" line. I am not even an amateur navel architect, and might be projecting like an imax here, but looking at the long game, we can afford 2 sub 305' vessels now, one of them may well grow in 5 years or so if needed.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 19, 2013 9:32:35 GMT -8
Additionally, there are lots of Haines residents that travel to Juneau regularly for appointments and provisions - crossing to Skagway and connecting to another vessel to get to Juneau seems really cumbersome and inefficient. For the record, the vessels will meet in Haines, not Skagway. It's Skagway folks who will have to transfer to get to Juneau.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Jul 19, 2013 23:01:54 GMT -8
Additionally, there are lots of Haines residents that travel to Juneau regularly for appointments and provisions - crossing to Skagway and connecting to another vessel to get to Juneau seems really cumbersome and inefficient. For the record, the vessels will meet in Haines, not Skagway. It's Skagway folks who will have to transfer to get to Juneau. Thanks for the correction. I still think this plan will lead to major under utilization of the ferry that will be doing Haines-Skagway-Haines. While there is a quite a bit of commerce between these two towns on Lynn Canal, is it enough to justify a new ferry going back and for between them (and an additional bow-in berth in Haines to allow for connections)? What about crewing concerns? Will AMHS need to open a crew domicile in Haines? What are they doing right now for the Malaspina, which overnights in Skagway. Presumably it is a Juneau based crew working week-on/week-off shifts.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Jul 19, 2013 23:08:25 GMT -8
The Fairweather was built for the Sitka run, and that is where she belongs. She is the only vessel in Southeast who has the power to weight to not have to wait for slack tide on the route, and therefore is the only vessel who can keep a regular schedule. The economics of her design are such that her speed allows her to do the run on a single shift, which means there is an economic off-set to the significantly higher fuel consumption. You get neither advantage running her on the Lynn Canal In the 60 year projected lifespan of the ACF ferry, I think it is wise from a practical perspective to assume that 1) the cost of fuel is going to increase relitive to other costs of doing business, and 2) there will an opportunity to build a terminal further north on the Juneau side making it possible for one vessel to do all three ports and freeing up the second vessel. As for capacity, the report alludes to a increase in the cost of safety equipment at around 305 feet in length. If you look at the design, just after the centerline there is a wall on all floors that hits the hull at it's flattest point. Given that the AMHS has absolutely no fear of stretching their vessels, (and Alaskanmohician's comments about the Kennicott's future) I have to wonder if this is the "insert plug here" line. I am not even an amateur navel architect, and might be projecting like an imax here, but looking at the long game, we can afford 2 sub 305' vessels now, one of them may well grow in 5 years or so if needed. But the Fairweather doesn't go to Sitka everyday, there are some Petersburg runs in its weekly schedule. Before the day-boat regulations came down from the USCG forcing a reworking of the AMHS schedules (especially for Juneau based LeConte) the Fairweather was doing something like 4 days a week to Sitka and 3 days on Lynn Canal. The advantage for the Fairweather on Lynn Canal is the speed she can round trip Haines and Skagway. For those in Juneau that need access to the highway system, that really makes a big difference. You aren't going to get very far after getting up at the crack of dawn (don't forget AMHS wants vehicles to check in 2 hours prior to ferry departure) and sitting on the slow boat for 6+ hours. At least with Sitka and Petersburg, those towns are the destination. You're not facing an interminable drive before/after your ferry ride. Additionally, Sitka and Petersburg see regular, daily Alaska Airlines service. Haines and Skagway get small plane service with Wings of Alaska with baggage limitations and the potential for major weather delays (not that Alaska Airlines is immune to that, either). Truthfully, transport is a major issue in all of Southeast Alaska, and I don't think AMHS is, overall, doing a good job serving their communities. There is a lot of room for improvement.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 20, 2013 8:54:50 GMT -8
I still think this plan will lead to major under utilization of the ferry that will be doing Haines-Skagway-Haines. While there is a quite a bit of commerce between these two towns on Lynn Canal, is it enough to justify a new ferry going back and for between them (and an additional bow-in berth in Haines to allow for connections)? What about crewing concerns? Will AMHS need to open a crew domicile in Haines? What are they doing right now for the Malaspina, which overnights in Skagway. Presumably it is a Juneau based crew working week-on/week-off shifts. These are actually related. Just to be clear, they are looking at TWO total bow-in berths in Haines, so the vessels can be side-by side with a car driving off of one and onto the other. The new version of the vessel will be able to stern in at Juneau, and use a port-stern door in Skagway. The original Costwise study (linked on page 4 of this tread) reports that crew costs are approximately 70% of total operational costs, and that having 2 day ferries would reduce the crew requirement by around 44% over the Mal. From page 6; The LeConte, according to the AMHS website, has a crew of 24, so the difference is not quite as stark for her, but it's still there. I don't expect that AMHS would operate a domicile in Haines, I think that that is where the crews would be based. The Haines-Skagway ferry would most likely be "under-utilized" but it would still be an operating cost reduction, which is a big win for the system (capital costs are easier to get from the legislature than operating costs), and it would provide redundancy in the system. If for example (my example, not theirs) you wanted to take one boat out for winter overhaul. One boat could start in Haines, go to Juneau, back to Haines, change crews, go to Skagway and back to Haines. Long day for the boat, but the shift in crews still keep the system to 12 hour days, and frees up the other boat for winter maintenance, or to spot the LeConte when she goes in. Also, capacity is a weird thing. I've been in some pretty horrid weather on the Lynn Canal, I'm not sure I would have wanted to be on a boat that was sized "correctly" for the two towns.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Jul 25, 2013 21:53:32 GMT -8
I still think this plan will lead to major under utilization of the ferry that will be doing Haines-Skagway-Haines. While there is a quite a bit of commerce between these two towns on Lynn Canal, is it enough to justify a new ferry going back and for between them (and an additional bow-in berth in Haines to allow for connections)? What about crewing concerns? Will AMHS need to open a crew domicile in Haines? What are they doing right now for the Malaspina, which overnights in Skagway. Presumably it is a Juneau based crew working week-on/week-off shifts. These are actually related. Just to be clear, they are looking at TWO total bow-in berths in Haines, so the vessels can be side-by side with a car driving off of one and onto the other. The new version of the vessel will be able to stern in at Juneau, and use a port-stern door in Skagway. The original Costwise study (linked on page 4 of this tread) reports that crew costs are approximately 70% of total operational costs, and that having 2 day ferries would reduce the crew requirement by around 44% over the Mal. From page 6; The LeConte, according to the AMHS website, has a crew of 24, so the difference is not quite as stark for her, but it's still there. I don't expect that AMHS would operate a domicile in Haines, I think that that is where the crews would be based. The Haines-Skagway ferry would most likely be "under-utilized" but it would still be an operating cost reduction, which is a big win for the system (capital costs are easier to get from the legislature than operating costs), and it would provide redundancy in the system. If for example (my example, not theirs) you wanted to take one boat out for winter overhaul. One boat could start in Haines, go to Juneau, back to Haines, change crews, go to Skagway and back to Haines. Long day for the boat, but the shift in crews still keep the system to 12 hour days, and frees up the other boat for winter maintenance, or to spot the LeConte when she goes in. Also, capacity is a weird thing. I've been in some pretty horrid weather on the Lynn Canal, I'm not sure I would have wanted to be on a boat that was sized "correctly" for the two towns. I had the opportunity to browse the Coastwise report tonight. There is a little more detail in that report regarding the operational concerns being addressed by the Alaska Class ferry. The crewing numbers for the Malaspina running North Lynn Canal are shocking. When I spent my summers in Alaska (especially the last one, 2010 in Skagway), the Malaspina schedule called for overnighting in Skagway and running Skagway-Haines-Juneau-Haines-Skagway over about a 14 hour period. When the Malaspina was moved to this schedule it was because of the changed USCG regulations calling for restricting the hours a crew could work while in "day boat" service. Presumably a single crew would start in Juneau, run to Skagway, overnight on board, and run back to Juneau the next day, where they would be swapped out. I took a look at the summer 2013 Malaspina schedule. The schedule is reversed, with the Malaspina overnighting in Juneau every night. Obviously, with no crew base in either Skagway or Haines, they are running with two crews on board to keep the schedule. holey crabapple! At 42 members per crew, that is 84 crew members to run up and down Lynn Canal every day. The Malaspina is so ill-suited for this route its unbelievable. But since the powers that be (whether they are politicians or the AMHS management team) have decided she is the only vessel that can operate this service, the sooner they can implement the Alaska Class ferry plan, the better. That would free the Malaspina up for a few more summers as a mainliner, where she belongs, until she can finally be replaced and retired.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 26, 2013 10:28:38 GMT -8
I took a look at the summer 2013 Malaspina schedule. The schedule is reversed, with the Malaspina overnighting in Juneau every night. Obviously, with no crew base in either Skagway or Haines, they are running with two crews on board to keep the schedule. holey crabapple! At 42 members per crew, that is 84 crew members to run up and down Lynn Canal every day. The Malaspina is so ill-suited for this route its unbelievable. I generally agree with what you say. I think however, that 42 members on board include the relief needed to go beyond 12 hours. It's not clearly written in the document, I went back and forth on my interpretation when I first read this. The comparison they made was 2 Malaspina crews vs. 2 ACF crews over the course of the week, and I came to the conclusion that while not well worded, it was edited by people with much more knowledge than myself (and a possible interest in building 2 boats), and if they could get away with a difference per-run of 9 to 84 crew they would have. If I recall correctly, part of the rationale behind putting the Malaspinia on the run in the first place was SOLAS requirements crossing the border into BC. Using the Mal on Lynn Canal freed up the Mat to do two runs a week out of Prince Rupert (skipping the Lynn Canal one of those runs), which meant that the economic impact of using an inappropriately sized vessel for the Lynn Canal was offset by the ability to delay SOLAS required appointments on the Mal. I believe the Mal has since been upgraded, so I don't know that that is an issue, but in the process she proved the value of daily service.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jul 26, 2013 11:33:40 GMT -8
I took a look at the summer 2013 Malaspina schedule. The schedule is reversed, with the Malaspina overnighting in Juneau every night. Obviously, with no crew base in either Skagway or Haines, they are running with two crews on board to keep the schedule. holey crabapple! At 42 members per crew, that is 84 crew members to run up and down Lynn Canal every day. The Malaspina is so ill-suited for this route its unbelievable. I generally agree with what you say. I think however, that 42 members on board include the relief needed to go beyond 12 hours. I agree with you both. I think the day boat crew should be scheduled for a least 14 hours per-day.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 26, 2013 11:57:14 GMT -8
I think the day boat crew should be scheduled for a least 14 hours per-day. As I understand it, that would violate USCG work rules, and is therefore not an option.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 26, 2013 13:05:50 GMT -8
I agree with you both. I think the day boat crew should be scheduled for a least 14 hours per-day. Really??? 14 hours of work for a regular ongoing shift? Are you nuts ?
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jul 26, 2013 13:08:04 GMT -8
I agree with you both. I think the day boat crew should be scheduled for a least 14 hours per-day. Really??? 14 hours of work for a regular ongoing shift? Are you nuts ? The crew could have 15 minutes breaks every five hours.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 26, 2013 13:11:14 GMT -8
Really??? 14 hours of work for a regular ongoing shift? Are you nuts ? The crew could have 15 minutes breaks every five hours. OK, I'll ask a different way: Are you completely naïve about workplace standards and of what is considered generally acceptable in the post industrial-revolution world ? Do you have any idea of what you are posting about?
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jul 26, 2013 13:17:28 GMT -8
The crew could have 15 minutes breaks every five hours. OK, I'll ask a different way: Are you completely naïve about workplace standards and of what is considered generally acceptable in the post industrial-revolution world ? Do you have any idea of what you are posting about? Yes I do.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Jul 26, 2013 13:36:55 GMT -8
OK, I'll ask a different way: Are you completely naïve about workplace standards and of what is considered generally acceptable in the post industrial-revolution world ? Do you have any idea of what you are posting about? Yes I do. I honestly don't thuik so. What is considered a regular work week is 40 hours here, or 8 hours a day. In many europeean countries it is even lower. USCG allows for only up to 12 hours a day which is already half of the day. Even with 15 minute breaks they are still on duty since no crew change is in place. If you were to ask a crew to work 14-hour days, they probably would only work a day per week or so. Come on, Cheese, this is the Western world, not mass producers in Asian countries.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Jul 26, 2013 14:53:13 GMT -8
The's no question that the Alaskan coast is very expensive to service, but AMHS's crewing arrangements seem unsustainable over the long term with their present sevice model, and I can understand why they are going to more of a dayboat system. The AMHS subsidy isn't much less than BC Ferries', and yet they carry one twentieth the number of passengers... although I realize that vastly different length of journies makes a true comparison difficult.
You look at the Tustumena, carrying up to 37 crew and transporting less than 200 passengers; not much can be done about that, when it's travelling out to the Aleutians. But one hopes these day boats can rein in some of the extravagant crewing expenditures.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 26, 2013 15:04:06 GMT -8
By today's standards, a 'day' boat's crew should work no longer than a 9 hour watch. ( unless you'd want to go back to the 'good old days' at the B.C. Ferries where day crews worked a minimum of 9 hours. If one was in the catering department, breaks were whenever you could get them between sailings). Regarding night boat crews, there are many different ways of scheduling length of watches. Whether of not you have a live-aboard crew, that does a week or two week rotation or if you have a crew that does much shorter rotations, it depends to a large extent on where the crew pool is domisciled etc. Live-aboard crews are not usually paid on an hourly basis as those crews are in essnece on duty the entire time they are aboard the vessel. Yes, they have an 'active' duty watch but are otherwise on-call for the remainder of the 24 hours time period. On other threads, we have touched on the change of 'crew culture', or not, at BC Ferries in light of the sinking of the Queen of the North, and I would add here in this Alaska State Ferry discussion that there is a different 'culture','attitude' inherent in different regions /cities from which employers locate crewing pools. In my opinion, there was a definite shift of 'attitude/culture when BC Ferries decided to crew the Northern vessels out of Prince Rupert and surrounding areas.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Jul 26, 2013 15:54:28 GMT -8
I generally agree with what you say. I think however, that 42 members on board include the relief needed to go beyond 12 hours. It's not clearly written in the document, I went back and forth on my interpretation when I first read this. The comparison they made was 2 Malaspina crews vs. 2 ACF crews over the course of the week, and I came to the conclusion that while not well worded, it was edited by people with much more knowledge than myself (and a possible interest in building 2 boats), and if they could get away with a difference per-run of 9 to 84 crew they would have. Okay. I reread that section of the document. For a report that is so precisely worded elsewhere, there is a little ambiguity in that footnote. After rereading it I agree with you; the 42 members is enough to cover the 15 hour service day on the Malaspina. AMHS maintains two separate crews (four on/four off?) of 42 to cover this route, plus whatever casuals and fill ins needed to cover vacations and sick days.
|
|