|
Post by SS Shasta on Jan 24, 2010 10:25:16 GMT -8
Just wondering if AMHS is giving any thought to "early retirements" for the so called fast ferries FVF Chenega and FVF Fairweather if or when the Alaska Class vessels are built? I keep hearing that the fast ferries are poor sea boats, have excessively high maintenance and fuel costs. This list goes on and on.....
|
|
|
Post by fargowolf on Jan 24, 2010 14:25:29 GMT -8
Has there been anything in the media, reports from AMHS or the State itself about this?
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Jan 25, 2010 13:05:29 GMT -8
Has there been anything in the media, reports from AMHS or the State itself about this? Yes. There was a rather detailed account of this issue published in the JUNEAU EMPIRE on 14 August 2009. Please see below: juneauempire.com/stories/081409/loc_481687437.shtmlIn addition there has been "street talk" from time to time on this issue. Some folks here in Ketchikan are also concerned that these Alaska Class vessels will replace mainline vessels and not even offer basic stateroom facilities. Many, especially in the +40 group, like a stateroom for rest and comfort, even on the rather short run to Prince Rupert, BC.
|
|
|
Post by darkfred on Feb 28, 2010 13:42:54 GMT -8
The real skiinny on this subject is that currently the AMHS management is going to use the High speed ferries for years to come. There are significant issues with the propulsion engines. Those issues are related to the engine design. The Chenega on the Prince william sound run is highly desired by the city of cordova. The chenega regularly runs at car deck capacity daily in PWS. Sitka and the Northern Lynn canal folks love the fairweather. When the Fairweather ran during the summer in northern lynn they made more money then any vessel in the fleet during the high season. That is including subtracting the fuel costs. These vessels are really only made for the summer seasons (may-sept). During those periods they outperform the other vessels hands down in customer satisfaction. This is not something very well known because the previous alaska executive administration were trying to push the fast ferries out, actually the whole ferry system out, so roads would be built by the governor's contractor buddies.
|
|
M/V LeConte
Chief Steward
~ I believe in Ferries! ~
Posts: 147
|
Post by M/V LeConte on Mar 26, 2010 17:22:08 GMT -8
Ths just in... State Sues Manufacturer of Fast FerriesMarch 26, 2010 Friday Anchorage, Alaska - On behalf of the Alaska Marine Highway System, the State of Alaska today filed a lawsuit against the contractor responsible for the design and construction of the fast ferries Fairweather and Chenega. The suit also named the companies responsible for the vessels' propulsion systems. "Since we accepted delivery of the vessels in 2004 and 2005, the propulsion systems have been subject to recurrent problems," said Jim Beedle, deputy commissioner of marine operations with the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. "Given the ongoing problems and an approaching deadline for filing suit, the state has been compelled to take this unresolved issue to court. However, we have not ruled out further negotiations, if we can get a favorable result for Alaska." Typical of the problems encountered with the vessels was the massive overhaul required on the Fairweather beginning in February 2006 at Ketchikan Ship and Drydock. All four diesel engines had hairline cracks in their steel sleeves, and there were additional problems with bull gears, shafts and bearings. The initial in-service date was pushed back by months. The lawsuit is against Robert E. Derecktor, Inc., the contractor responsible for the design and construction of the ferries, and against MTU Friedrichshafen, GmbH and MTU Detroit Diesel, Inc., the entities responsible for the vessels' propulsion systems. "We're protecting the fiscal integrity of the state," said Attorney General Dan Sullivan. "We received a faulty product, and we intend to see that the citizens and taxpayers of Alaska are appropriately compensated." Source of News: Alaska Department of Law www.law.state.ak.usLink to story: www.sitnews.us/0310news/032610/032610_fast_ferries.html
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Jul 7, 2010 13:06:04 GMT -8
Concern continues to be expressed over safety and high maintenance costs of the AMHS Fast Ferry Program. The FVF Chenega finally completed a expensive engine rebuild and returned to service after about a 10 month layup in Ketchikan. The question remains as to whether the Alaska Class vessels currently being planned will result in early retirements for the Fast Ferry vessels: www.juneauempire.com/stories/042310/let_619492142.shtml
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Jul 7, 2010 14:07:07 GMT -8
Regarding the question over the Fast Ferry Retirements, "darkfred" pretty much answered this question. AMHS plans on using the fast ferries for thier entire life span. Now these ferries do have shorter life spans than traditional monohulled vessels, at the moment I am not sure how much shorter.
The new Alaska Class is expected to mainly run the North Lynn Canal run, the route that the Malaspina is currently serving. This will allow the Fairweather to continue to serve Sitka almost daily. This current deployment of the Fairweather to Sitka has proven to be a good run for the ferry. In fact while people do like the service to Sitka, there are many Juneau residents who would rather have the Fairweather running the North Lynn Canal run, better schedules when it does the run.
Many people do wish that the fast ferries did not have so many restrictions due to weather, but when they run, the fast ferries are quite popular in the communities they serve.
And as far as the Chenega, she was late entering service this year due to the engine problems which have been mentioned as being the main source of troubles for the fast ferries. However, if the state were to remove the Chenega from service altogether, Cordova, the Chenega's homeport would become the definition of a mob with pitchforks and torches. They like their ferry. Ridership in Prince William Sound as increased between 40-50% since the Chenega came online, the frequency and timing of the schedules that the Chenega is able to perform are considered main reasons for the traffic increase.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Jul 7, 2010 23:30:52 GMT -8
There are many Skagway residents who would also like to have the Fairweather running North Lynn Canal.
It is a fairly protected run (okay, maybe not in the middle of the winter) and her speed that truly makes a difference connecting a small town to the nearest "services" in the United States, and also connects a Alaska's Capital to the continental road system.
The Malaspina is just too slow for this run, and frankly is a huge waste of resources running as a dayboat with all those empty cabins.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Jul 8, 2010 8:48:08 GMT -8
Ketchikan would love to have the MV Malaspina back for the 2nd Bellingham/Skagway run during the summer and the main vessel on that route during the winter .
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Jul 8, 2010 9:32:24 GMT -8
I think there are many people that would like to see this happen, have two Bellingham boats and the Fairweather in North Lynn Canal again.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Jul 8, 2010 12:57:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Jul 8, 2010 18:11:45 GMT -8
Good article, I think it sums up the main problem with the fast ferries, namely the engines. It also shows the interest that the Marine Highway has in continuing to use the fast ferries with the comment about possible engine replacements.
The article ends rather ominously however with comment about the Chenega. I have seen the proposed schedule for Prince William Sound, and indeed the plan is to run the Chenega through the winter. In past years the Aurora has been the winter boat for the sound.
The weather in winter in the sound can be rough, even the Aurora, sister ship to the LeConte, has to cancel sailings due to weather. So it will definately be interesting to see how the Chenega performs.
I mentioned above that Cordova is fond of their ferry, and they are, but they also realize that the Aurora is preferred in the winter. Cordova wants the Chenega in the summer and is content with Aurora in the winter.
Aurora is being redeployed to the LeConte's route during most of the winter while LeConte heads to the yard for her CIP. This is why the Chenega is remaining through the winter in the Sound.
The fast ferries are "fairweather" boats (pun intended). They perform well in the summer, and are actually quite popular, but in the winter they do struggle.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jul 8, 2010 18:40:28 GMT -8
We in BC could always adopt your fast-ferries. We need more ships for our major routes. They'd obviously be much to small to be replacements, but as surplus ships they'd be great.
Actually, as a second thought, two fast-ferries would be great replacements for the Queen of Burnaby AND North Island Princess. They could inaugurate a triangle route between Westview, Blubber Bay, and Little River. Then we could get the 'Burnaby sold or scrapped, and the North Island Princess could stay as a stand-by.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Jul 8, 2010 23:01:16 GMT -8
We in BC could always adopt your fast-ferries. We need more ships for our major routes. They'd obviously be much to small to be replacements, but as surplus ships they'd be great. Actually, as a second thought, two fast-ferries would be great replacements for the Queen of Burnaby AND North Island Princess. They could inaugurate a triangle route between Westview, Blubber Bay, and Little River. I'll cut you some slack on this as it would be a interesting venture to go ahead with, but, you might want to re-read what became of BC's Fast Ferry program. Then we could get the 'Burnaby sold or scrapped, and the North Island Princess could stay as a stand-by. Timeout! Not that it will ever happen, but don't say such a thing...for future reference, stop such a sentence at sold.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jul 9, 2010 12:31:15 GMT -8
Then we could get the 'Burnaby sold or scrapped, and the North Island Princess could stay as a stand-by. Timeout! Not that it will ever happen, but don't say such a thing...for future reference, stop such a sentence at sold. I know it's hard for everyone to bear hearing the words scrap, scrapped, scrapping, or any other terminaison to scrap, but keep in mind her condition, age, and thinning hull. Scr**ping is really the only option BC Ferries has for her. Even now, i'm concerned about whether or not she's safe to sail on. It's imminent that she'll be gotten rid of sometime in the coming years, and I've forced myself to accept it. You should too. Whether it be 5 years, 10 years, or maybe even 15, it will happen, and sadly, we need to acknowledge it. We can dream about our old ships being saved, but face it, what are the REAL chances of that happening? The Queen of Sidney was going to be saved. So was the San Mateo. . Look at them now. Even the Kalakala. I must say, I'd rather have the 'Burnaby scrapped instead of watching her fall apart like those two. I should add, though, that I would be elated if BC Ferries gave the 'Burnaby a major retrofit and gave her another 20 years of service life.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Jul 9, 2010 16:41:37 GMT -8
Timeout! Not that it will ever happen, but don't say such a thing...for future reference, stop such a sentence at sold. I know it's hard for everyone to bear hearing the words scrap, scrapped, scrapping, or any other terminaison to scrap, but keep in mind her condition, age, and thinning hull. Scr**ping is really the only option BC Ferries has for her. Even now, i'm concerned about whether or not she's safe to sail on. It's imminent that she'll be gotten rid of sometime in the coming years, and I've forced myself to accept it. You should too. Whether it be 5 years, 10 years, or maybe even 15, it will happen, and sadly, we need to acknowledge it. We can dream about our old ships being saved, but face it, what are the REAL chances of that happening? The Queen of Sidney was going to be saved. So was the San Mateo. . Look at them now. Even the Kalakala. I must say, I'd rather have the 'Burnaby scrapped instead of watching her fall apart like those two. I should add, though, that I would be elated if BC Ferries gave the 'Burnaby a major retrofit and gave her another 20 years of service life. God only knows where you're getting these false facts from. Do you actually have a genuine copy of the Burnaby's latest Transport Canada certifications, or any engineering test done regarding the soundness of her hull? If you don't want to sail on her, fine, but don't employ scare tactics to support your improbable predictions of what condition the ship is in, what is likely to happen to her, what BCFS should do with her, or what totally unfeasible replacement vessel you can dream up for her. The Burnaby is fine. It's not like the engine room crew is refusing to sail on her like they ultimately did with the Queen of Sidney. The Queen of Sidney was also never really scheduled for preservation. If you look into the events surrounding her retirement, that is clear. Also, it seems that according to genuine Alaska residents and ferry travellers, the fast ferries work well enough up there and are like by users well enough that it is unlikely AMHS would ever be offering them over to BC Ferries. So, despite what BCFerries should do, what they certainly cannot do is buy one of the fast ferries to replace the Burnaby.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jul 9, 2010 16:51:42 GMT -8
God only knows where you're getting these false facts from. Do you actually have a genuine copy of the Burnaby's latest Transport Canada certifications, or any engineering test done regarding the soundness of her hull? I thought I read here on this very forum that her hull was thinning... I'll try and find that post that stated that, then link to it here. Did they seriously? Elaborate, s'il vous plait!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2010 17:34:37 GMT -8
We in BC could always adopt your fast-ferries. We need more ships for our major routes. They'd obviously be much to small to be replacements, but as surplus ships they'd be great. Actually, as a second thought, two fast-ferries would be great replacements for the Queen of Burnaby AND North Island Princess. They could inaugurate a triangle route between Westview, Blubber Bay, and Little River. Then we could get the 'Burnaby sold or scrapped, and the North Island Princess could stay as a stand-by. Considering the facts that the fast ferries can only load through the side and the stern and that they only carry 36 cars each I don't think they would make great replacements for the Queen of Burnaby and the North Island Princess. I am thinking that they probably can only carry very few if any large trucks or campers which would make them impractical all the way around for the Comox - Powell River or Texada Island routes. www.dot.state.ak.us/amhs/vessel_profiles.shtml
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Jul 9, 2010 18:34:48 GMT -8
It is true the capacity of the FVF's (Fast Vehicle Ferry) is not great when compared to most BC ferries. In fact from the statistics on BCF website, the fast ferries are similar in vehicle and passenger capacity to the Kuper.
When comparing the FVF's to other AMHS vessels, they are similar in size and capacity to the LeConte class vessels. The LeConte and Aurora do have slightly higher capacities.
Just a side note, on the AMHS vessel profiles website, the statistics mention cars and vans. Many people here probably already know this, but vans refer to semi trailers. As far as campers and RV's they can actually hold quite a few. There is no restriction on the number of RV's that can travel, only car deck space. There are limits to the number of semi trailers that can travel regardless of how much space remains on the car deck. This is because RV's actually weigh quite a bit less.
A neat feature of the FVF's, they have sensors built into the car deck that can let the bridge know the weight that is on the deck.
One last thing, if you look at the info for the Chenega, it says that she has 40 4-berth cabins, a slight typo since there are no staterooms on her at all.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Aug 2, 2011 15:33:10 GMT -8
I keep wondering if the proposed Alaska Class vessels would be used as replacements for the Fast Ferries? I keep hearing rumors that the Fast Ferries life span with AMHS will be limited. Were they a costly mistake similar to the Canadian fast ferry experiment?
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Aug 2, 2011 16:26:23 GMT -8
I don't think they can be considered a Fast Cat Fiasco similar to the Fast Cats. Both the Chenega and Fairweather sail with full car decks regularly on their respective routes. Both Sitka and Cordova are rather fond of their boats and the daily or near daily service that they provide. As far as FVF early retirements, this sometimes comes up more as a result of the media it seems and from a few, even within AMHS who simply are not fond of the fast ferry concept. Really the ferries are serving AMHS very well, they do have weather restrictions which do get on peoples nerves, but this is more a conscious design choice the state made, probably to save construction costs. And these restrictions only really crop up in the winter months typically. There is the engine issue that the FVF's have, but this is more a bad choice in the design of engine rather than the concept of the fast ferries themselves not working in Alaska. Also when you look at the various problems it is the Fairweather that has had the bulk of them, the Chenega has had a relatively quiet life. Finally to maybe put some of these rumors to rest for another year or so, this is a quote from the minutes from a meeting of the Marine Transportation Advisory Board (MTAB): "It was agreed that MTAB is committed to seeing that the fast vehicle ferries stay in the system. " Link: www.dot.state.ak.us/mtab/documents/agendas_minutes/030910_minutes.pdfThat is from a March 2010 meeting. Personally I do prefer the traditional hulled ships to the FVF's, but the FVF's are doing well enough that I would not consider them a failure.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Mar 11, 2021 23:03:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by ancflyer on Mar 13, 2021 8:39:21 GMT -8
Good. Never should have been in Alaskan waters anyway. Fairweather ships (pun not intended) and not suitable for Lynn Canal.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Mar 13, 2021 17:31:16 GMT -8
Good. Never should have been in Alaskan waters anyway. Fairweather ships (pun not intended) and not suitable for Lynn Canal. I agree although I was caught up in the excitement at the time. I do wish Fairweather was given a chance to prove herself on regular Sitka-Auke Bay. When the fast ferry was sold to us, the intent was to overnight in Sitka with a daily round-trip to Auke Bay, there and back on a single crew shift. The high fuel cost was to be offset by the lower crew cost. Additionally, the ship had the power to keep a schedule regardless of the tide through the straits. Meanwhile, the mainliners would no longer need to stop in Sitka since passengers could transfer at Juneau. It was an easy story to get excited over. But, Knowles gave way to Murkowski, and we never tried to use the ship that way. Knowing what we know now, it's not clear that she would have been successful. It is clear that purchasing a $60 million asset and then ignoring all of the studies that lead to purchasing it is a strong indication that we need a better management structure. And, of course, we see history repeat itself with the Alaska Class Ferry. Built explicitly for the Lynn Canal, they are currently tied up because a new administration did not build the nose-in pier in Haines. Yet another administration wants to build a new port in Berners Bay
|
|
|
Post by dofd on Mar 18, 2021 23:24:33 GMT -8
|
|