FNS
Voyager 
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,956
|
Post by FNS on Jan 28, 2012 19:48:53 GMT -8
You know, a stretched Steilacoom II might work very well down there. Great idea!  Then, send the CHETZY to Kingston. There, she could be a third ferry on the Kingston run or the Columbia Beach run (whichever run needs her most). She is equipped with foot passenger gates for the Kingston run. I think it would be fun to see a "Chetzemoka" on the Columbia Beach run again. I was a little kid when the old CHETZY was on the South Whidbey run there and remember her fondly. The CHETZEMOKA of today could also be a back up ferry centrally located on Puget Sound. |
|
Jody
Chief Steward
Ferry Foamer
Posts: 152
|
Post by Jody on Jan 28, 2012 20:32:37 GMT -8
You know, a stretched Steilacoom II might work very well down there. Oh boy. Here we go again... |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 28, 2012 20:49:17 GMT -8
I have the perfect solution, let's sell the Chetzemoka to the Steamship Authority, it's their design, they like it. They stop it by Eastern Marine in Florida on the way and get the bow doors and the lifting mechanisms installed. I'm not sure we want the Kulshan back, but, for the interim while a new boat is built. OK.
The fact is the KDT's are not working out well. The Chetzemoka burns as much fuel as a Jumbo, they are difficult to load, have too large a passenger cabin for their routes, and are generally disliked by the crews. We've spent the money, it's gone, however the operating costs alone,of these three boats will continue to consume more money then replacing them with an efficient Vessel that more effectively meets the demands of the runs.
As many of you know, I have been an advocate of the extended STII for several years. A STII, extended 54 feet to 270 feet would carry 72 cars, 8 more than the KdT's for less than 18 million dollars cost. It would work fine at Point Defiance and as a summer Vessel on Keystone Port Townsend burning less than 1/2 the fuel of the most efficient of the KdT's. I would get the deck beefed up some to carry the heaviest trucks. Perhaps a trade could be made with the Steamship Authority to get one of these back, made on the Gulf Coast, where the ship builders charge less, in partial trade. Let's keep the Rody in the meantime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jan 28, 2012 21:03:38 GMT -8
I have the perfect solution, let's sell the Chetzemoka to the Steamship Authority, it's their design, they like it. They stop it by Eastern Marine in Florida on the way and get the bow doors and the lifting mechanisms installed. I'm not sure we want the Kulshan back, but, for the interim while a new boat is built. OK. The fact is the KDT's are not working out well. The Chetzemoka burns as much fuel as a Jumbo, they are difficult to load, have too large a passenger cabin for their routes, and are generally disliked by the crews. We've spent the money, it's gone, however the operating costs alone,of these three boats will continue to consume more money then replacing them with an efficient Vessel that more effectively meets the demands of the runs. As many of you know, I have been an advocate of the extended STII for several years. A STII, extended 54 feet to 270 feet would carry 72 cars, 8 more than the KdT's for less than 18 million dollars cost. It would work fine at Point Defiance and as a summer Vessel on Keystone Port Townsend burning less than 1/2 the fuel of the most efficient of the KdT's. I would get the deck beefed up some to carry the heaviest trucks. Perhaps a trade could be made with the Steamship Authority to get one of these back, made on the Gulf Coast, where the ship builders charge less, in partial trade. Let's keep the Rody in the meantime. We've got Chetzemoka. It's here to stay, so I guess we should just deal with it. I'm not going to pretend I'm happy about it. I agree that she is overkill on the PD-Tahl route, but this is where we are at. Rhody is not coming back. The COI expired and I don't think they could, or would, try to get her re-certified. Regarding your statement about retrofitting Chetzemoka with the platform decks to be like Island Home IF we were to sell her to Steamship Authority (which of course we are not), the crew that I spoke with when I rode Island Home a few years ago hate the platforms on that vessel. They say it takes too long to deploy them and it throws them completely off schedule when they use them. Regarding your other statement about a stretched STII design. That would be a much better fit for Point Defiance. It's not going to happen, but it would be a great design. |
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Jan 28, 2012 21:06:57 GMT -8
The Chetzemoka burns as much fuel as a Jumbo, .... I have no idea what a KdT burns in comparision to other boats, and it would be interesting to see verified fuel consumption results. The Klick burned 50 gals an hour at PT/Key on an average day. |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,302
|
Post by Neil on Jan 28, 2012 23:10:43 GMT -8
As many of you know, I have been an advocate of the extended STII for several years. A STII, extended 54 feet to 270 feet would carry 72 cars, 8 more than the KdT's for less than 18 million dollars cost. No matter what anyone might have told you, I really believe you are dreaming in technicolour if you think that any yard on either side of the border could build a vessel that size for that price. When you look at what BC Ferries paid to rebuild the little Kuper ($11million) and to build the Island Sky ($45 million), and WSF's costs for the KDT boats, your price looks like a fantasy. All in all, this horse left the barn long ago and is probably in Kansas by now... |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 29, 2012 0:25:50 GMT -8
I spoke directly to the people who built the Island Home, they said they could have built the three KdT's for 1/2 the cost we paid. Right now on a design build, the STII could be built for about 13 million, add about a million for every 18 feet of extension, the costs are in the ends with the machinery, and then put some more in for a other stuff and bigger engines, still under 18 million, it's a very cost-efficient design.
At Keystone the Chetzemoka burned 1800+gallons per day, the Salish around 1600, this is horrible. The Steels burned 800-900 a day, the Steilacoom II about 600. The KdT's have the wrong engines, the 2 stroke EMD"S are only somewhat efficient at 80% power, they are running about 40 and 20 % respectively. Big 4 strokes would decrease the fuel use dramatically as they are fairy fuel per horse power consistent.
In the long tern, using the economic principle of "lost (sunk) money" we'd be better off financially to replace them with more appropriate ferries, one at a time, and scrap each KdT upon replacement, sad but true. The really bad part is that the now gone WSF Design Staff had the pre-design of an 80 car, direct drive, controllable pitch prop, ferry on the lines of a Steel Electric., on their table. No one listened.
Remember, Government Agencies are very inefficient, we have to start operating like a Private Company, this all can be done. Just look to the Lake Champlain Company, they had a new 46 car boat built in Florida for about 9 Million! I spent 7 months on our County Ferry Task Force, meeting almost every week. The way the Government runs thing defies all usual practices we see in Private Enterprises. We can no longer afford this, it's time for reforms.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jan 29, 2012 4:44:38 GMT -8
The way the Government runs thing defies all usual practices we see in Private Enterprises. We can no longer afford this, it's time for reforms. "Reform" is how we got into this mess in the first place. How cheap are your $30 car tabs now? |
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jan 29, 2012 5:24:30 GMT -8
You know, a stretched Steilacoom II might work very well down there. Oh boy. Here we go again... ;D You are my psychic friend! For surely we have seen the same dead horse! My favorite picture I've taken of the ferry everyone loves to hate. I may have to change my website to reflect the fact that in absolute vitriol the Chetzemoka has taken the mantle from the Kulshan--a ferry that was equally despised by passenger and crew alike. While I've not heard quite the venom from the crews about any of the Kwa di Tubtoys--quite the opposite in fact, everyone I've spoken to has said once they get down how to load the boats, which admittedly is a bit tricky, they like them quite a bit, and their sea-handling abilities cannot be beat. Long live the mighty Chetzemoka! She may not be exactly what we wanted, but asCelie said in The Color Purple, "I might even be ugly, but dear God, I'm here. I'm here." Which is more than can be said about the Steel Electrics or any mythical Steilacoom II based replacement. Enjoy the photo.  |
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Jan 29, 2012 9:04:54 GMT -8
... we'd be better off financially to replace them with more appropriate ferries, one at a time, and scrap each KdT upon replacement, sad but true. The middle path would be to re-engine the KdT's at some point in the future. That might achieve a 15% increase in fuel economy. The KdT's on the PT/Key route are working out better than anyone thought they would, but that 1600 gpd fuel rate, if true, is troubling. |
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Jan 29, 2012 10:19:58 GMT -8
Since no one has asked, how did the Chetzy do as the Inter-Island boat up in the San Juans recently? Was there any problems with spinning any vehicles at anytime? Inquiring minds want to know  |
|
Jody
Chief Steward
Ferry Foamer
Posts: 152
|
Post by Jody on Jan 29, 2012 11:22:01 GMT -8
I do wonder why the insistence on direct drive propulsion? Since I work in the railroad industry, I tend to think in terms of diesel-electric, and in the case of the KdT's, this seems logical. And it's not like there isn't some application somewhere that has an EMD 710 engine coupled to a generator for D-E system... (Spent 10 hours in one yesterday...)
For the KDT's, I wonder if a lot of fuel savings couldn't be achieved by having several smaller engines that can be taken off-line when not needed?
Now, let's compare my perspective so the experts can tell me how it differs. On a train, a good deal of effort is put into getting it rolling initially, overcoming the friction of the rails, etc. Once it's rolling, it's much easier to keep it rolling. I do understand that the physics of a ferry in water are much different. I am just wondering how much.
In the railroad industry, we have what we call "genset" locomotives, which use 2-3 smaller, 700hp diesels in place of a single larger engine. They're a relatively recent phenomenon. Computer controls allow the individual gensets to be turned on and off as needed, meaning that when a surge of power is needed to get things rolling, all three motors can be used, but when the train is rolling along and just maintaining speed, it can be running on, perhaps, just one. The result is a significant drop in fuel consumption and emissions.
EMD makes both an eight cylinder and 12 cylinder version of the 710 engine that can certainly be applied to marine use just as the 16-710 has been. I'm just wondering if that is too far outside the box for some?
In my mind, having 2-3 smaller engines/generators on demand, tied into an electric drive, would allow the KdTs to get a lot more efficiency for the dollar, and still allow for redundancy in case of failure. It would also eliminate some moving parts that require maintenance, right? If I recall correctly from previous discussions, the KdT propulsion system has two engines, each available for drive in either direction, with a complicated gearing/coupling system between them? I fear that I don't recall the details...
Anyhow, I just figured I would throw that out for discussion.
By the way, is the difference in fuel consumption between the Salish and Chetz a product of the variable pitch propellers? If so, I'd think that upgrade could be rationalized financially in short order.
Thanks.
Jody
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,956
|
Post by FNS on Jan 29, 2012 19:12:58 GMT -8
Meanwhile, I watched the CHETZEMOKA's first public sailing on the Tahlequah run last Monday. She ran as if she was on a longer crossing. More than 14 knots! I guess the reason was that the change of vessels made her 20 minutes late. By 1700PST that day, her sailings would be on time.  Here's the WSF tracker showing the CHETZY's speed on her first public crossing on the Tahlequah run. Normally, it would be around ten knots.  Here was her first public landing at Tahlequah on Monday, January 23, 2012. So, I guess the CHETZY can make up time whenever she gets behind in schedule for one reason or another. As I said before, a Whidbey newspaper writer said that Keystone would be getting some high speed ferries on that run (ferries that would run faster than a Steel-Electric). That is true occasionally. Now, Tahlequah has one, too. |
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,956
|
Post by FNS on Jan 29, 2012 19:34:12 GMT -8
Since no one has asked, how did the Chetzy do as the Inter-Island boat up in the San Juans recently? Was there any problems with spinning any vehicles at anytime? Inquiring minds want to know I watched cars turning around at the end of her at Friday Harbor with no problem. This was during her first appearance as an IIF in the San Juans in October of last year. The crew there were having so much fun working on her and there were no grumblings whatsoever. In my perspective, she handled the IIF service really well. An excellent platform to see the San Juan scenery as well with all those decks she has. |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 29, 2012 20:06:27 GMT -8
Yes, the difference in fuel use between the boats is the controllable pitch props, they are more adaptable to conditions.
The electric equation worked quite well for the Steel's, the opposite diesel engine's power was applied to the push electric motor, quite similarly to your locomotives. However, there is considerable loss in the transmission of mechanical to electric, electric to mechanical. In a boat of this size the direct drive is more efficient, all one has to have is enough available power in each engine for all circumstances. In the past, the electric was the only way of doing this with reduced power, now, we have the controllable pitch prop that compensates for engine torque by allowing the engine to rev up into a higher power output by flattening the pitch of the propeller, airplanes have done this since the 1930s.
Two stroke engines have high, low speed, torque. With a fixed pitch prop, the high toque is needed to keep the engine from stalling upon engagement under adverse conditions. Four stroke engines do not have the low speed torque of the 2 strokes, however, the controllable pitch prop allows the four stroke to have nearly identical performance in these situations by engaging the engine in a low-pitch mode, which will not stall the engine, and allowing the four stroke to develop its horsepower by revving up. A further bonus is that once the Vessel is underway, the pitch can be increased to load the engine better and more efficiently. Good examples of this are the Rhododendron and the very efficient Steilacoom II. In the "old days" the electric function acted as the buffer between the engine and the propeller, with controllable pitch props, this is no longer needed and is more efficient.
If we were to install larger four strokes in the KdT's we could realize as much as a 1/3 increase in fuel economy. The current 2 strokes are far bigger than need in any case, I would suggest engines the size of the Cat C280-6, maximum 2700 horse power, these would work just fine. The four strokes, although they do have a "sweet spot" where they are most efficient, are quite fuel use/ per horsepower consistent and will use proportionally less fuel for less horsepower output. I calculated about 1200 HP is need on the push engine while the boat is underway. At $2.40 per gallon, the payout on the Cats was about three years, with today's prices, considerably sooner. The smaller engines would also require 1 less person in the engine room as per USCG specs, again closing the payout gap further. These new engines require almost no attention by crew.
The fact remains that the KdT's are more Vessel than required. We are pushing far more bulk around than the routes need, especially for Point Defiance. The other dirty fact is that today, the State of Washington is down one boat from their pre 2007 standard. When the Rody is retired, we will be down two boats. The 144 is to replace the worn Evergreen State, I would guess it's three years out, by then the Evergreen will be completely worn out.
The Island Home design works fine for Martha's Vineyard, it hauls proportionally more passengers than cars, in our situation, it is just the opposite. Let us try to sell the Chetzemoka to them, in their run the fixed pitch propellers are less of a factor than in ours. Then let us add two new lighter weight Vessels similar to stretched Steilacoom IIs. They would uses about 700 hundred gallons of fuel per day, require smaller crews, do just fine for Point Defiance, summer at Keystone, and far better for InterIsland. This would save in operating costs, provide a spare Vessel, and still maintain a KdT for winter use at Keystone. Either one of the stretched STII's or one of the KdT's could be the spare boat.
If our State Ferry Service is to survive, these are the kind of measures that will be needed. Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Feb 5, 2012 20:19:22 GMT -8
A few pics of Chetzemoka on her new route. We went for a "sunset cruise" on Saturday evening. View from Chetzemoka at Point Defiance, which includes a picture perfect view of Mount Rainier in the background  Chetzemoka at Tahlequah  Chetzemoka at Point Defiance  |
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Feb 6, 2012 20:22:26 GMT -8
One more of Chetzemoka nearing Point Defiance as seen from our house on Sunday morning, Feb 5th, 2012:  |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 6, 2012 20:55:00 GMT -8
It looks like the Martians have landed their spaceship on south Puget Sound. |
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Feb 14, 2012 13:02:34 GMT -8
Her stack overheated this morning, knocking her out of service.
|
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Feb 14, 2012 13:58:36 GMT -8
So what happens when the stack overheats? Is it a build up of soot and it catches fire and damages the stack?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Feb 14, 2012 15:13:35 GMT -8
So what happens when the stack overheats? Is it a build up of soot and it catches fire and damages the stack? I think that's a bit of a hyperbole. A lot of boats when they're that new have small teething issues that can, and will, throw them out of service for a day. Fret not about fires on your brand new boat, you guys have far older vessels to worry about... |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Feb 15, 2012 9:42:21 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure it's not catching on fire, at least I would hope! But from an engineering perspective I'd like to know what exactly a stack overheat means, it's causes etc. It's not something I've ever heard of before. I suspect there are more than a few people here with the knowledge to offer up an explanation.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,956
|
Post by FNS on Feb 15, 2012 10:16:24 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure it's not catching on fire, at least I would hope! But from an engineering perspective I'd like to know what exactly a stack overheat means, it's causes etc. It's not something I've ever heard of before. I suspect there are more than a few people here with the knowledge to offer up an explanation. The OLYMPIC had a stack fire on one of her bad weeks in the late 1960s on the Columbia Beach run. Have a look at this page: ferriesbc.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=wsfhistoric&action=display&thread=7757&page=3Can't understand why the CHETZEMOKA's stack got hot on a very short run she's on. Sometimes, she may exceed ten knots on a rare occasion there. |
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Feb 16, 2012 17:29:27 GMT -8
A 2-cycle diesel on a short run is going to foul its stack. As I recall, lighting the stack on fire was perodic maintenance on the Oly. Chet just won't do well on the Point Defiance run.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,956
|
Post by FNS on Feb 16, 2012 19:27:12 GMT -8
A 2-cycle diesel on a short run is going to foul its stack. As I recall, lighting the stack on fire was perodic maintenance on the Oly. Chet just won't do well on the Point Defiance run. I agree. Perhaps the State could go into a 50/50 joint ownership of the CHRISTINE ANDERSON and STEILACOOM II with Pierce County. Let the CA do her thing at Anderson Island and the ST2 at Tahlequah for at least a month and rotate assignments. Permanently base the HIYU at Steilacoom as a backup. Not trying to start a rumor. It's just a thought from my brain. Paint the CA and ST2 green and white. Leave the stack black as neutral. Leave the hull above the bottom paint black. And, put both logos on the sides. The CHETZY could be a decent extra ferry on the Kingston or, especially on, the Columbia Beach runs. Base her at Kingston. |
|
