MV Hyak

[Barnacle]

Feb 18, 2013 14:30:49 GMT -8 portorstarboard said:

Also, theres nothing making a WSF vessel retire at 60.  The EState will hit that next year.  Rhody went five years past.  The Tilly or Klahowya will go way past 60 when ever the 3rd 144 gets built.

I think it was an "understood" thing that the Rhododendron would be retired as soon as was possible after the Rule Of Sixty was applied.  Even with the Rhododendron, we still had to borrow a boat; what would be the point of retiring the Rhody at that point?  And sure enough, as soon as a replacement was available, that was the end of the line for the Rhody.

[compdude787]

Feb 18, 2013 16:53:39 GMT -8 Barnacle said:

Feb 18, 2013 14:30:49 GMT -8 portorstarboard said:

Also, theres nothing making a WSF vessel retire at 60.  The EState will hit that next year.  Rhody went five years past.  The Tilly or Klahowya will go way past 60 when ever the 3rd 144 gets built.

I think it was an "understood" thing that the Rhododendron would be retired as soon as was possible after the Rule Of Sixty was applied.  Even with the Rhododendron, we still had to borrow a boat; what would be the point of retiring the Rhody at that point?  And sure enough, as soon as a replacement was available, that was the end of the line for the Rhody.

Yep, that's why the Rhody wasn't retired till age 65.

Barnacle, is it true that the Legislature mandated that the retirement age for ferries be ~60 years old?  Considering that, will the Hyak still be retired at age 60 even if she gets the hybrid upgrade?  Do you think there might be any possibility that WSF might decide not to hybridize the Hyak?

The EState will hit
[age 60] next year.  Rhody went five years past.  The Tilly or Klahowya will
go way past 60 when ever the 3rd 144 gets built.

The E-State will be retired when Tokitae is in service.  WSF's page for the Olympic class ferries says that they will "replace the 1950s-era Evegreen State Class ferries, which are approaching the end of their service lives."  There are two being built; funding for a third will be considered in the next legislative session and they'll be idiots not to fund a third ferry.  Said third ferry will probably enter service in early 2016 (assuming construction on it starts at the end of this year), and will allow WSF to say "Good riddance" to the Klahowya, which recently seems like it's been in the shop more than it's been in service.  Same could be said for the Supers, too.  As for the Tilly's replacement, that may come a few years later than the 3rd Oly because they might make it be LNG.

[chokai]

Feb 18, 2013 14:30:49 GMT -8 portorstarboard said:

Nope, they are now wanting new diesel engines.  Page 23 says "The existing EMD prime movers shall not be reused for this propulsion system replaement."

www.wsdot.wa.gov/Ferries/Business/Contracts/DisplayPDF.aspx?contractdocid=4637

Also, theres nothing making a WSF vessel retire at 60.  The EState will hit that next year.  Rhody went five years past.  The Tilly or Klahowya will go way past 60 when ever the 3rd 144 gets built.

That's potentially an unfortunate investment in new engines that will only be used likely half of thier effective lifespan before being retired, unless Hyak does make another 20+ years. 

I know she got refurbed engines from one of the jumbo's but how long in the tooth are they now?

[rusty]

Totally new propulsion engines were not in the Tiger Grant proposal, so that's news to me. This project is essentially the construction a new vessel as far as the electro-mechanical parts of the boat are concerned. WSDOT must see a lot of value in the hull, for the amount of money this rebuild will consume will rival new construction, minus some fraction of the cost of steel for a new hull.

There has never been a rebuild of this scope in WSF history, and their track record for rebuilds has been dismal from a perspective of cost overruns. I just don't see the wisdom in this project, and once again my belief is reinforced that WSDOT capital projects are initiated to benefit the firms that hire the lobbyist

[Steve Rosenow]

Wasn't it said in this very thread, that the Hyak's hull is fairly sound? I remember reading in this very thread or somewhere that the hull of the Hyak is actually the most sound of the four Supers.

Either way, I see this project with potential benefits. It's time to stop looking so much at the negative aspects. What have we become, as a society, where we no longer take risks for the benefit of discovery?

I also strongly disagree that WSDOT capital projects are done to benefit firms that hire lobbyists. While that may be the case for some, I don't think it should be blanketed to all cases.

[rusty]

I'm saying why spend this kind of money on the Hyak, when a better use of public resources would be to fund another Olympic Class boat, and do a life extension project on the Hyak; such as was done on the Kaleetan and Yakima. Past performance of rebuild projects has not been good from a financial point of view, and costs tend to skyrocket. This is public transportation, and as such a ferryboat needs to be safe, reliable, efficient, and economical. Spending money on something because it's cool is the kind of magical thinking that begot the FastCats.

[compdude787]

Feb 20, 2013 18:22:30 GMT -8 rusty said:

I'm saying why spend this kind of money on the Hyak, when a better use of public resources would be to fund another Olympic Class boat, and do a life extension project on the Hyak; such as was done on the Kaleetan and Yakima. Past performance of rebuild projects has not been good from a financial point of view, and costs tend to skyrocket. This is public transportation, and as such a ferryboat needs to be safe, reliable, efficient, and economical. Spending money on something because it's cool is the kind of magical thinking that begot the FastCats.

Interesting that you bring up the FastCats.  You know, at least they'll be putting a bunch of fans in the battery room so the batteries don't catch on fire like the 787!    Because they're smart enough to keep all those Li-Ion batteries cool, I'm all for this project.

I still am on Steve's side that the Hyak hybrid project is a risk worth taking.  Will it work?  Well, you never know till you try!!   BTW, in the FastCat fiasco, they basically just rushed the project too much.  Not enough thought was put into whether building catamarans was a good idea.

Taking risks is American!  That's why we have the Boeing 747, the Boeing 787, the Mac and GUI, and I could go on and on...



A-MERICA!!!

[rusty]

All done by private industry,

[rusty]

....and not by some government pork-barrel.

[Steve Rosenow]

Feb 20, 2013 22:29:53 GMT -8 rusty said:

....and not by some government pork-barrel.

The interstate highway system was seen as extraneous government waste when it was conceived during the Eisenhower Administration. Cries of "socialism" and "big government waste" were made when whole portions of cities and towns, and scores of private land were cut through to make way for it. Cities like Tumwater, Washington (which lost its downtown core in the construction of I-5) tried blocking it through a host of lawsuits.

Social Security was seen as the same when it was conceived in the 1930s. Conservatives railed against it. Some tried suing to block it or filibuster its passing.

My point? 

Both were big government risks that were well worth the result in the end, and are now seen as a vital component of our infrastructure and a cherished institution which keeps senior citizens from hitting complete poverty. 

The Hyak should be seen as more a risk for the benefit of discovery. 

Oh, and The Boeing 747?

Its development was through a government-backed research grant and research contract, into high-capacity military transport aircraft. While Lockheed ultimately won with the C5 Galaxy, some design elements of the C5 Galaxy were carried over to the Boeing 747, most notably the upper deck cockpit and nose door.

It was a risk backed by the government, that ultimately became a critical success story for Boeing, and one in which saw them unveil an aircraft which became the industry standard.

[rusty]

O.K., O.K., I finally get it. The Hyak rebuild is a government pork-barrel project, designed nobly to propel marine technology, sometime in mistake, into a green future. Still, it's one heck of a way to run a ferry system.

[Steve Rosenow]

Feb 20, 2013 23:52:23 GMT -8 rusty said:

O.K., O.K., I finally get it. The Hyak rebuild is a government pork-barrel project, designed nobly to propel marine technology, sometime in mistake, into a green future. Still, it's one heck of a way to run a ferry system.

I disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment.

Let me ask you these questions.

1.) Why are you opposed to the risk for the benefit of discovery?

2.) Why are you opposed to it in general?

3.) And more importantly, what if this turns out to be a success?

[rusty]

Feb 21, 2013 1:15:59 GMT -8 Steve Rosenow said:

1.) Why are you opposed to the risk for the benefit of discovery?

I assume by "discovery" you refer to the "hybrid" part of the project. In my mind the current need is a propulsion battery unit for the Jumbo MkII's. The practice of starting an engine for maneuvering into the dock has proven to accelerate engine wear. This project, in my estimation, will delay the development of an effective propulsion battery unit for the MkII's. 
 
2.) Why are you opposed to it in general?

The boat will be close fifty years-old when the retrofit is complete, and as this is the most extensive, and complex machinery replacement in WSF history, the cost most likely outwiegh the benefit of this project. To recoup this investment the Hyak will need to operateat least thirty more years.

3.) And more importantly, what if this turns out to be a success?

Throw enough money at it, and it will run, but the Hyak could turn out to be a crippled odd duck. WSF doesn't need more Elwha's.

My replies are posted below Steve's questions.

[compdude787]

All done by private industry,

Yes, and it shows the awesomeness of the private sector, and how much better than the government it is at doing (most) things!

(Except roads, ferry systems, education funding, and having a military)

Feb 20, 2013 23:06:43 GMT -8 Steve Rosenow said:

Feb 20, 2013 22:29:53 GMT -8 rusty said:

....and not by some government pork-barrel.

The interstate highway system was seen as extraneous government waste when it was conceived during the Eisenhower Administration. Cries of "socialism" and "big government waste" were made when whole portions of cities and towns, and scores of private land were cut through to make way for it. Cities like Tumwater, Washington (which lost its downtown core in the construction of I-5) tried blocking it through a host of lawsuits.

Social Security was seen as the same when it was conceived in the 1930s. Conservatives railed against it. Some tried suing to block it or filibuster its passing.

My point? 

Both were big government risks that were well worth the result in the end, and are now seen as a vital component of our infrastructure and a cherished institution which keeps senior citizens from hitting complete poverty. 

The Hyak should be seen as more a risk for the benefit of discovery. 

Oh, and The Boeing 747?

Its development was through a government-backed research grant and research contract, into high-capacity military transport aircraft. While Lockheed ultimately won with the C5 Galaxy, some design elements of the C5 Galaxy were carried over to the Boeing 747, most notably the upper deck cockpit and nose door.

It was a risk backed by the government, that ultimately became a critical success story for Boeing, and one in which saw them unveil an aircraft which became the industry standard.

The Interstate Highway system, yes, it was a big risk.  But that's fine that the government did that because they're supposed to be responsible for maintenance of the transportation system.  But heck, we really needed it!  Social Security?  Well, I'll just say that that's not my favorite of FDR's New Deal programs; the FDIC is my favorite New Deal program because it was most instrumental in preventing the Great Recession from becoming Great Depression II. 

Just to clear things up, I think it's wrong to say that the 747 was a risk backed by the government.  Though some design elements of Boeing's C-5 concept were carried over to the 747, the 747 didn't look much like the Boeing C-5.  The C-5's wing is situated above the fuselage, while the 747's wing is below the fuselage like most commercial jetliners.  The 747 started off as a double-decker with a narrower fuselage than the C-5, but then evolved into a single-deck widebody with a much wider fuselage of 20'.  The 747 was a much bigger risk for Boeing, albeit any other company, than the C-5 would be since no government money was provided.  The 747 was a huge risk for both Boeing and Pan Am.  Boeing barely survived; OTOH, the 747 was sadly the beginning of Pan Am's downfall.  Was it worth it?  Heck yeah!!!!  It changed the airline industry tremendously, just like the 707 had done 10 years earlier. 

(The government did fund one commercial airliner for Boeing: the 2707, which was going to be a supersonic transport that would ultimately supersede the 747, but environmentalists rallied against it, and Congress cancelled it in 1971.)

Since the government should find ways to get more bang for the buck out of our $$, the Hyak hybrid is worth it since it will result in fuel savings and will make environmentalists happy .

[rusty]

I think the Hyak project is much more of a bridge to nowhere than an interstate highway system. Time will tell, eh?

Fuel economy should be a fleet wide priority, not the sole province of some budget busting exotic. 

[compdude787]

Feb 21, 2013 10:11:00 GMT -8 rusty said:

Feb 21, 2013 1:15:59 GMT -8 Steve Rosenow said:

1.) Why are you opposed to the risk for the benefit of discovery?

I assume by "discovery" you refer to the "hybrid" part of the project. In my mind the current need is a propulsion battery unit for the Jumbo MkII's. The practice of starting an engine for maneuvering into the dock has proven to accelerate engine wear. This project, in my estimation, will delay the development of an effective propulsion battery unit for the MkII's. 
 
2.) Why are you opposed to it in general?

The boat will be close fifty years-old when the retrofit is complete, and as this is the most extensive, and complex machinery replacement in WSF history, the cost most likely outwiegh the benefit of this project. To recoup this investment the Hyak will need to operateat least thirty more years.

3.) And more importantly, what if this turns out to be a success?

Throw enough money at it, and it will run, but the Hyak could turn out to be a crippled odd duck. WSF doesn't need more Elwha's.

My replies are posted below Steve's questions.

Doing something like this on the JMII would be nice, but we'd have to wait a little while because we don't want another big boat out of service.  WSF was really in trouble when the Wally was out of service.  We'll have to wait until Samish is in service before taking any ferries out of service to do upgrades like this. 

And I do think Hyak is getting a bit old to do a life extension.  BC ferries has done several life extension projects on a couple minor vessels built in the late-1960s (the Tachek and QQII, and the 1964-built HSQ)  but the ferries were between 41 and 44 years old, and I thought that was a bit old.  But the Hyak will be getting its gold stripes by the time it receives this hybrid upgrade!  Ideally, this upgrade would be done on a newer ferry, but the only ones I can think of are the Issaquahs and the Jumbos.  With the Issys, there aren't any spares that could be taken out of service to get such an upgrade w/o causing service disruptions.  And the Jumbos?  We don't want the Walla Walla (or the Spokane) out of service again for so long! 

Anyway, the Hyak retrofit will probably end up being way over budget, as is typical of such government endeavors , and the money could probably be better spent building another Olympic Class ferry to replace her (that'd probably end up being the 5th Oly, and thus it'll be cheaper by then, perhaps even more so than the hybrid retrofit).  But Steve, you've convinced me that such a project is worth the risk!  In fact testing it out on the Hyak will be better, because then WSF will know that this concept actually works before doing it on a JMII.

If it's done, and whether or not it is a success, the Hyak shall NOT, under any circumstances, be kept in the fleet past 2027.  We do NOT

[chokai]

Feb 21, 2013 10:11:00 GMT -8 rusty said:

I assume by "discovery" you refer to the "hybrid" part of the project. In my mind the current need is a propulsion battery unit for the Jumbo MkII's. The practice of starting an engine for maneuvering into the dock has proven to accelerate engine wear. This project, in my estimation, will delay the development of an effective propulsion battery unit for the MkII's.

Why on earth would you want to risk a extremely valuable and relatively new boat for which there is really no backup for an unproven hybrid project? Wouldn't you want to prove out some of your concepts first? If you were going to engaged in such a "research" endeavour this is the perfect project for WSF, it's green it has good PR, uses a "low cost" boat and it'll give them a ton of information to apply to boats across the fleet.

Feb 21, 2013 19:05:27 GMT -8 rusty said:

Fuel economy should be a fleet wide priority, not the sole province of some budget busting exotic.

Fuel economy is obviously a pretty big priority for WSF, there are two projects in two different classes of boats going on about this and the new boats being built are strongly focussed on efficiency. The Issaquah's are all having thier systems tweaked to save a little over the next few years. Our abberation in this area is the KdT legislatured induced fiasco. When most of the Supers went through thier MLU's in hindsight they should have had new more efficient systems put in, but that's hindsight. When that work was done for them fuel was much less of a concern. Now that Hyak is "due" and fuel prices are through the roof they are very focused on it, or at least trying to find and approach to it.

If either of the two projects about fuel efficiency going on right now succeed, particularly the Issaquah LNG project, they have the potential to save far far more than simply installing newer more fuel efficient diesels. Additionally they have environmental benefits that greatly reduce WSF's exposure should certain regulations regarding marine fuels be implemented.

Feb 21, 2013 18:42:44 GMT -8 compdude787 said:

Though some design elements of Boeing's C-5 concept were carried over to the 747, the 747 didn't look much like the Boeing C-5.  The C-5's wing is situated above the fuselage, while the 747's wing is below the fuselage like most commercial jetliners.  The 747 started off as a double-decker with a narrower fuselage than the C-5, but then evolved into a single-deck widebody with a much wider fuselage of 20'.  The 747 was a much bigger risk for Boeing, albeit any other company, than the C-5 would be since no government money was provided

Boeing has always heavily cross polinated thier engineering teams. I know someone who went from wing work on the shuttle to the F22 to the 787. My grandfather did the same thing in his career there for electronics. What Boeing learns from thier DoD work is as much about manufacturing techniques and technology as it is aircraft design. Without the predecessor work that was gov't funded it's highly unlikely that Boeing would have had the engineering know how to build the 747 regardless of the appearance of the final design. Boeing heavily leveraged thier military composites experience with your favorite plane. :-)

[Mike C]

Long time listener, first time caller.

We are having the same discussion regarding LNG conversions north of the border. It has been determined that the first vessel to receive the conversion will be the Spirit of British Columbia, built in 1993. The conversion will take place during her MLU in 2015. She will be 22.

To me, spending any amount of money on a 50 year old ferry is a government boondoggle and a level of crazy that goes beyond me. I would rather see this conversion happen to an Issaquah and be mid-life, instead of the Hyak and making this a life-extension. It is ridiculous that anything major, besides retirement, happen to this ferry for the rest of her career. A life extension of the Hyak would lead to another Steel-Electric gong show, where ferries are kept in service well past their intended lifespan.

I also wanted to chime in regarding our "MLU" process on our minor vessels: to clarify, these are not by any stretch of the imagination mid-life upgrades. But rather Life Extension Projects, due to a lack of funding for replacement ferry construction. These are vessels that are nearing the end of their lifespan, but are not yet at the point of retirement. I don't think we would ever consider investing in new technologies in these ferries that are 40+ years old.

If this does go forward, which I very highly doubt it will, we will be watching closely. I am not by any means against innovation, I just think this is the wrong vessel to innovate with - as I previously stated, I think an Issaquah would be a much wiser choice: smaller, has less impact when out of service, and is newer.

[compdude787]

Feb 22, 2013 1:12:51 GMT -8 Mike C said:

Long time listener, first time caller.

We are having the same discussion regarding LNG conversions north of the border. It has been determined that the first vessel to receive the conversion will be the Spirit of British Columbia, built in 1993. The conversion will take place during her MLU in 2015. She will be 22.

To me, spending any amount of money on a 50 year old ferry is a government boondoggle and a level of crazy that goes beyond me. I would rather see this conversion happen to an Issaquah and be mid-life, instead of the Hyak and making this a life-extension. It is ridiculous that anything major, besides retirement, happen to this ferry for the rest of her career. A life extension of the Hyak would lead to another Steel-Electric gong show, where ferries are kept in service well past their intended lifespan.

I also wanted to chime in regarding our "MLU" process on our minor vessels: to clarify, these are not by any stretch of the imagination mid-life upgrades. But rather Life Extension Projects, due to a lack of funding for replacement ferry construction. These are vessels that are nearing the end of their lifespan, but are not yet at the point of retirement. I don't think we would ever consider investing in new technologies in these ferries that are 40+ years old.

If this does go forward, which I very highly doubt it will, we will be watching closely. I am not by any means against innovation, I just think this is the wrong vessel to innovate with - as I previously stated, I think an Issaquah would be a much wiser choice: smaller, has less impact when out of service, and is newer.

Yes, I agree that it would be better to do the hybrid upgrade on an Issaquah class vessel.  After all, they are getting to the age where they'll need their MLUs.  WSF is currently planning to convert the Issaquah to LNG, so why not try out the hybrid technology on one of her sister ships?  In fact, since you'd be trying out two different new technologies on the same class of ferries, you could easily compare which technology is better, which saves the most fuel, and which has the least impact on the environment.

I just want to know what Steve thinks of hybridizing an Issaquah class vessel instead of the nearly 50-year old Hyak.  Personally, I'd rather see this upgrade done on a newer vessel.  The Issaquahs are going to need MLUs soon, anyway!

[rusty]

The Issaquah class are controllable pitch propulsion systems not electric, so you would have to redo the propulsion drive. (Though the Hyak project replaces the entire propulsion system, and the ship's service electrical system to boot.)

One of the two reasons I suggested a MkII hybrid project is that you could design a battery propulsion unit as a separate item that would connect to the existing propulsion bus as if it were a propulsion generator. So the development cost would be a fraction of the cost of the Hyak project, and if you have problems you open the circuit breaker of the battery unit, and then operate normally. It's all my armchair engineering, so, of course, it's wouldn't be that simple.

[Steve Rosenow]

Feb 22, 2013 11:09:23 GMT -8 compdude787 said:

Feb 22, 2013 1:12:51 GMT -8 Mike C said:

Long time listener, first time caller.

We are having the same discussion regarding LNG conversions north of the border. It has been determined that the first vessel to receive the conversion will be the Spirit of British Columbia, built in 1993. The conversion will take place during her MLU in 2015. She will be 22.

To me, spending any amount of money on a 50 year old ferry is a government boondoggle and a level of crazy that goes beyond me. I would rather see this conversion happen to an Issaquah and be mid-life, instead of the Hyak and making this a life-extension. It is ridiculous that anything major, besides retirement, happen to this ferry for the rest of her career. A life extension of the Hyak would lead to another Steel-Electric gong show, where ferries are kept in service well past their intended lifespan.

I also wanted to chime in regarding our "MLU" process on our minor vessels: to clarify, these are not by any stretch of the imagination mid-life upgrades. But rather Life Extension Projects, due to a lack of funding for replacement ferry construction. These are vessels that are nearing the end of their lifespan, but are not yet at the point of retirement. I don't think we would ever consider investing in new technologies in these ferries that are 40+ years old.

If this does go forward, which I very highly doubt it will, we will be watching closely. I am not by any means against innovation, I just think this is the wrong vessel to innovate with - as I previously stated, I think an Issaquah would be a much wiser choice: smaller, has less impact when out of service, and is newer.

Yes, I agree that it would be better to do the hybrid upgrade on an Issaquah class vessel.  After all, they are getting to the age where they'll need their MLUs.  WSF is currently planning to convert the Issaquah to LNG, so why not try out the hybrid technology on one of her sister ships?  In fact, since you'd be trying out two different new technologies on the same class of ferries, you could easily compare which technology is better, which saves the most fuel, and which has the least impact on the environment.

I just want to know what Steve thinks of hybridizing an Issaquah class vessel instead of the nearly 50-year old Hyak.  Personally, I'd rather see this upgrade done on a newer vessel.  The Issaquahs are going to need MLUs soon, anyway!

I disagree with it, because we don't have enough backup ferries in the system and even then when the M.V. Tokitae comes online we'll be woefully short of boats for backup. That, and the Issaquah-Class ferries are the only class of boats that can provide service on any route without any major disruptions. 

I also disagree with it because they're already looking at using alternative, cleaner burning fuel technology on them to begin with. It makes no sense.

The Hyak is a perfect fit, the hull is fairly sound on it and it's the perfect platform because it's closer in size to the Olympic-class ferries, which by the time the last one rolls off the ways so to speak, might have the technology seeing if what we learn from the Hyak has any positive outcome.

[chokai]

I like lists, I use them a lot when planning my work team's projects and budgets.  So I had to make this.  :-) To synopsis we now have the folowing regarding selecting Hyak for this project should they do it... Feel free to add...

Pros for selection of Hyak
• Is similar in size to Olympic class vessels
• Is large enough to provide technical validation for concept on bigger vessels (e.g. JMII's) as well as smaller boats.
     - Rusty did you notice that they plan to make her an AC boat like the JMII's as opposed to the DC she is now?
• Already is a Diesel-Electric (does the above impact the value of this?)
• Remaining life span roughly equal to life span of 1 set of the batteries to be used (batteries are gonna be about $1.1M)
• Preserves backup capacity in Jumbo and Issaquah vessels.

Cons for selection of Hyak
• Structural condition pretty uncertain.
 - seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004049863_webferry03m.html
• Investments in new main diesels, generators and drive motors that may only see 10 to 12 years of service.
• Removes a 144 sized vessel from service for an indeterminate period of time. (who knows how long installation and testing will take)

I will say it's a real shame we don't have an around 144 car 30 year old boat that's a Diesel-Electric that can be spared.

[rusty]

Feb 22, 2013 13:35:46 GMT -8 Steve Rosenow said:

The Hyak is a perfect fit, the hull is fairly sound on it and it's the perfect platform because it's closer in size to the Olympic-class ferries, which by the time the last one rolls off the ways so to speak, might have the technology seeing if what we learn from the Hyak has any positive outcome.

At the moment, Olympic Class are CPP boats, so do you mean the build cycle after the Olympic Class?

[Steve Rosenow]

Feb 22, 2013 14:34:44 GMT -8 chokai said:

I like lists, I use them a lot when planning my work team's projects and budgets.  So I had to make this.  :-) To synopsis we now have the folowing regarding selecting Hyak for this project should they do it... Feel free to add...

Pros for selection of Hyak
• Is similar in size to Olympic class vessels
• Is large enough to provide technical validation for concept on bigger vessels (e.g. JMII's) as well as smaller boats.
     - Rusty did you notice that they plan to make her an AC boat like the JMII's as opposed to the DC she is now?
• Already is a Diesel-Electric (does the above impact the value of this?)
• Remaining life span roughly equal to life span of 1 set of the batteries to be used (batteries are gonna be about $1.1M)
• Preserves backup capacity in Jumbo and Issaquah vessels.

Cons for selection of Hyak
• Structural condition uncertainty 
  - Steve's heard she's fine, I've heard she's a little sketchy so I'm putting it under cons for now until someone digs up something firmer.
• Investments in new main diesels, generators and drive motors that may only see 10 to 12 years of service.
• Removes a 144 sized vessel from service for an indeterminate period of time. (who knows how long installation and testing will take)

I will say it's a real shame we don't have an around 144 car 30 year old boat that's a Diesel-Electric that can be spared.

Here's one:

seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004049863_webferry03m.html

The Hyak, a 40-year-old super class ferry, will remain in the Dakota Creek Shipyards in Anacortes three weeks longer than it's scheduled maintenance period for additional steel replacement on the vessel's hull.

[compdude787]

Feb 22, 2013 13:35:46 GMT -8 Steve Rosenow said:

Feb 22, 2013 11:09:23 GMT -8 compdude787 said:

Yes, I agree that it would be better to do the hybrid upgrade on an Issaquah class vessel.  After all, they are getting to the age where they'll need their MLUs.  WSF is currently planning to convert the Issaquah to LNG, so why not try out the hybrid technology on one of her sister ships?  In fact, since you'd be trying out two different new technologies on the same class of ferries, you could easily compare which technology is better, which saves the most fuel, and which has the least impact on the environment.

I just want to know what Steve thinks of hybridizing an Issaquah class vessel instead of the nearly 50-year old Hyak.  Personally, I'd rather see this upgrade done on a newer vessel.  The Issaquahs are going to need MLUs soon, anyway!

I disagree with it, because we don't have enough backup ferries in the system and even then when the M.V. Tokitae comes online we'll be woefully short of boats for backup. That, and the Issaquah-Class ferries are the only class of boats that can provide service on any route without any major disruptions. 

I also disagree with it because they're already looking at using alternative, cleaner burning fuel technology on them to begin with. It makes no sense.

The Hyak is a perfect fit, the hull is fairly sound on it and it's the perfect platform because it's closer in size to the Olympic-class ferries, which by the time the last one rolls off the ways so to speak, might have the technology seeing if what we learn from the Hyak has any positive outcome.

First of all, no I am not saying that WSF would do anything to any boat upon the advent of the Tokitae.  WSF would wait for the Samish to enter service to do any extensive refits like this.  This second Oly class ferry would make it possible to have a real backup ferry.  Okay, I'm forgetting that the Issaquah's are the most versatile ferries in the fleet and that they have direct drive propulsion instead of diesel-electric.

But I still am in agreement with rusty that the Hyak is not the ideal boat to do this upgrade (but I am NOT opposed to hybrid technologies in general).  It's getting too old.  My only hope is that doing this upgrade won't give WSF an excuse to keep the ferry in service past age 60.