MV Chetzemoka

[Kam]

Feb 15, 2012 10:16:24 GMT -8 FNS said:

Feb 15, 2012 9:42:21 GMT -8 chokai said:

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=3

Can'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.

Thats likely part of the problem.. Lack of air flow.

[FNS]

From Mr. Moseley's Weekly Update dated today:

Chetzemoka incident

On Tuesday morning during a departure from Tahlequah, the Chetzemoka had white smoke coming from one of its exhaust stacks. The vessel returned to the dock and the Chief Engineer began troubleshooting. A Port Engineer and a service technician were brought in and worked together with the Chief Engineer to investigate and diagnose the problem. It turned out that due to the characteristics of the Point Defiance/Tahlequah route (short crossing time and low engine power requirements) there has been oil building up in the exhaust system, and on Tuesday it got hot enough to burn off, resulting in the white smoke coming from the stack. After successful sea trials, the Coast Guard approved the Chetzemoka to return to service. We are working on a plan to avoid this type of situation in the future.

www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/weekly/

[chief]

The Chetzemoka had a classic stack fire. The cause is a direct result of the design of the machinery arrangement.

1. The two engines on this class are not connected together, one powers the stern propeller the other powers the bow propeller.

2. Because of this design feature, the ship must have larger engines than an arrangement where both of the engines can be connected together to power the stern propeller and push the ship through the water. In effect the ship has to have two times the horsepower that the 1927 Steel Electrics had to do the same job.

3. Having so much horsepower results in much higher fuel consumption. WSF monthly fuel consumption figures show this class to be burning much more fuel per month than it and the legislature's consultants (Cedar River Group) would. In fact, the ship is burning exactly as much fuel as the WSF fleet's engineers told WSF and the legislature it would.

4. To reduce fuel consumption WSF has the bow engine of the Chetzemoka running with no load on it during transits and at the dock. This is a very poor practice.

5. When a diesel engine runs at very low or no load, there is not sufficient combustion pressure above the pistons to seal the rings against the liner walls and so much of the oil splashed on the walls to cool and lubricate them is discharged through the exhaust valves into the exhaust system, the stack.

6. This oil accumulates in the stack until it is made hot enough to burn by the exhaust of the engine when it finally does become loaded (when that engine becomes the stern). The exhaust temperatures of an EMD engine at no load can be only 2 to 3 hundred degrees. The temps at full load can easilly exceed 900 degrees. This higher temperature exhaust provides the ignition temperature for the accumulated carbon.

7. To eliminate the cause of the exhaust fires on the Chetzemoka, or any similar ship, the bow engine must be run with a load or not at all. On all other classes of WSF vessels this is accomplished by connecting the bow engine to the stern propeller either through a shaft or by electrical means.

8. If WSF run the bow engine at a partial load by turning the bow propeller to pull the ship through the water (to eliminate the fire hazard), they will increase the fuel consumption on this vessel which is already very inefficient.

9. The other option is to not run the bow engine except for stopping the ship. If it does this it will create a situation where the engine must be started and stopped dozens of times per day. This will dramatically increase the rate of failure of the camshafts and rocker rollers which recieve low lubrication at start up. It will also risk even more significant lubrication failures at start up (such as main bearing and rod bearing failures).

10. The short route at Point Defiance greatly exacerbates the problems related to the design in that the bow propeller really can't be turned for a very long time as it can be (and is) in Port Townsend.

The problem with the Chetzemoka is that it has a poorly designed propulsion system, it is inherently inefficient. The Point Defiance route brings out the worst in that design.

The problem with the Legislature, the Cedar River Group and WSF management is they convinced themselves that this would be a good ship inspite of what numerous Chief Engineers at WSF were telling them about this design before it was built.

The Chetzemoka is the first design since the Cirtus Class to have no meaningful input from the fleet's engineers. It shows the effect in every aspect, from the lean to the efficiency to the poor redundancy built into the ship.

[lmtengs]

Two words: White Elephant.

[Low Light Mike]

Chief: Thanks for taking the time to write that 10-point post; it's much appreciated.

It will be interesting to see how WSF responds to this previously ignored issue.

[lifc]

This boat is not going to work on this run unless it gets it's engines replaced by decent 4 strokes, period.

Actually, this class of boats does nothing well, in their intended runs, which is now apparent.

Although I was critical of the design once I learned more about it, I was hoping they would work out better. I think the right thing to do is try to sell them to another operator to whom they are more appropriate, especially the Chetzemoka. I am hearing that the Steamship Authority is looking for another boat, good, sell it to them. Take the loss and get something like two stretched Steilacoom IIs to replace it. 1800 gallons a day, V/S 700 and at least three extra crew
at Point Defiance makes no sense at all. I'd rather see the extra crew people go on another run, like Bellingham to Orcas than being where they are not really needed. Perhaps one or two of the STII- stretchers could be returned as trade backs, therefore eliminating the local bid process.

This would be a win for us all, the expensive one got built here, satisfying the in-State build, and we'd get two that would work better for the local runs. We'd still have one or two of the KDT's for their fans, running at PT/Keystone.

[Luke]

I agree. The Chetz will NOT work well at PDT. I admit, I liked the idea of the Chetz at Defiance BEFORE I found out how inefficient it was. A possible suggestion that came to mind was something that the Vashon islanders might not like, but it is better than a KDT. Put the Hiyu at Defiance, then replace the Klahowya with a second Issy somehow...

Lets get the Chetz OFF the Defiance run.

*edit* We had six vessels compatible for PDT in 2007. Four were lost in the Steel-E meltdown. Now the Rhody is gone. We only have One now: the tiny Hiyu.

[Kahloke]

Feb 20, 2012 12:16:11 GMT -8 Luke said:

*edit* We had six vessels compatible for PDT in 2007. Four were lost in the Steel-E meltdown. Now the Rhody is gone. We only have One now: the tiny Hiyu.

To the best of my knowledge, Sealth works pretty well at PDT. It's overkill for that route but I don't recall hearing about any mechanical issues with Sealth when she has subbed there in the past. Problem is, Sealth is needed elsewhere and WSF doesn't have any reserve boats right now except for Hiyu which is basically useless.

[chokai]

Thanks for the detailed explanation Chief. One of the biggest problems on this board is the high level of "assumed knowledge" that many have. I appreciated the bullet point explanation for beginners.

[Barnacle]

Feb 20, 2012 12:48:15 GMT -8 Kahloke said:

Feb 20, 2012 12:16:11 GMT -8 Luke said:

*edit* We had six vessels compatible for PDT in 2007. Four were lost in the Steel-E meltdown. Now the Rhody is gone. We only have One now: the tiny Hiyu.

To the best of my knowledge, Sealth works pretty well at PDT. It's overkill for that route but I don't recall hearing about any mechanical issues with Sealth when she has subbed there in the past.

Ditto the Evergreen State. However, we're still stuck with the KdTs.

[Luke]

Feb 20, 2012 12:48:15 GMT -8 Kahloke said:

To the best of my knowledge, Sealth works pretty well at PDT. It's overkill for that route but I don't recall hearing about any mechanical issues with Sealth when she has subbed there in the past. Problem is, Sealth is needed elsewhere and WSF doesn't have any reserve boats right now except for Hiyu which is basically useless.

We could make Sealth work @ Defiance. It would mean a bit of vessel repositioning, though. Here is some perspective.
Defiance: Sealth
Fauntleroy: Issaquah, Tillikum, Evergreen state
Bremerton: Kalletian, Kitsap
Winslow: Tacoma, Wenatchee
Kingston: Puallup, Walla walla
Clinton: Kittitas, Cathlamet
Townsand: Sailish, Kennewick
San Juans: Hyak, Yakima, Elwha
International: Chelan
Inter-Island: Klahowya
Spare: Hiyu, Chetzemoka, Spokane
Sorry for the Long post. But, it would not hurt to increase capacity. And I don't think it would decrease capacity anywhere else.

[dasgeneral]

Isn't it a little bit of overkill to stick an Issaquah-Class on the Point Defiance run? I mean from what I've heard the Chetzy is just barely getting filled to capacity even during rush hour. An Issaquah is too inefficient in that run. Until the state starts constructing some efficient intermediate sized boats as back ups or that can take over the smaller runs like Defiance, this might be the best we've got.

[dasgeneral]

Or, here's a better idea. The state already has the Hiyu in storage at Eagle Harbor for when a relief boat is needed somewhere. If we're talking sheer efficiency here, then the Hiyu is a very efficient choice. But, during peak operating hours, Hiyu only has a 34-car carrying capacity and the Chetzy has shown that something nearing a 60-car capacity is required on the Point Defiance run.

Have the state go to Hawaii and purchase Hiyu's sister ship from that charter boat company running out of Oahu, give it an official name and a paint scheme, and tow it back to the state and assign both to the Point Defiance run. Have both of the boats running at peak hours, from 6-9AM and 3-7PM. In the interim hours, have Hiyu or its sister ship as the sole boat running at that time. So from 10-3 and from 7-11, Point Defiance is a one-boat run, but at peak hours it's a two boat run to ensure that we don't have massive back-ups at the dock.

This may be less efficient in terms of fuel consumption split between two boats as opposed to one, but then we're looking @ how much mass is being hauled back and forth on that short run that isn't needed for the Defiance-Talequah run and how absolutely inefficient the Chetzy is for that area.

The problem would be in finding mooring for the extra ship, which might necessitate a set up like at the north end of Vashon when one of the steel electrics was moored at the dock, but was not in use. I remember that the state used to have one of the steel electrics tied up at the dock @ north Vashon back in the late '90s. Do something similar here. Spend some cash to build a small mooring off of the dock at Talequah or Point Defiance to moor the extra ship, and only crew it when it's needed.

If you trade off and have one ship run the interim hours one day, and the other run the next, then there might also be an additional savings in fuel.

[old_wsf_fan]

If any vessel swaps are going to happen, I think the most logical swap is to put the Chetzy back up in the San Juans as the Inter-Island boat, then use the Evergreen State at Pt. Defiance.

The Chetzy obviously needs the longer route to be somewhat "efficient", and since the E-State has trouble keeping the schedule on most routes, she is a natural for the south end of Vashon.

I do not think buying the twin to the Hiyu is going to work. Two vessels on that short run? Not in todays dollars.

The State is either going to fix the carboning of the stack or transfer the Chetzy elsewhere.

It would be a public relations disaster to admit that the Governors' newly appointed ferry staff, put in place to fix the WSF problems, actually created more of a mess with the new boats. I think the least costly way out for now is to swap the vessels.

Like it or not, the I-lean class is here to stay and they will eventually be modified and improved just as the Citrus-class was.

I seriously doubt that the Steamship Authority would buy any of the I-lean class. Too many modifications would be required to make them useful back in Massachusetts, purchase cost from WSF, cost of getting them back there, no my friends , we are stuck with these boats.

They will be used as is with very little changes for quite a while.

[Jody]

Hasn't the pattern in the past been that, when a larger boat is available on the PD-T route, it eventually siphons traffic off of the Fauntleroy side? Why not make a trade - pull the Sealth from the Islands and send it to PD-T, take the Issaquah from Vashon-Fauntleroy and send it north to replace the Sealth, and move the Chetz up to the north end of Vashon. How did the Chetz do on the Interisland route?

Or maybe, just maybe, make the three-way swap with one of the Mukilteo-Clinton boats? I'd bet the Chetz would do OK on that route too?

Just some thoughts.

Jody
Still hasn't seen the Tub Toys in action.

[Luke]

Feb 20, 2012 18:53:58 GMT -8 old_wsf_fan said:

I seriously doubt that the Steamship Authority would buy any of the I-lean class.

Sell the KDT class to BCF. Then with the money, build as many modified Steel-E's as possible.

[Jody]

Except that, with the discount price we'd pay to unload the KdT's, and the premium we pay to have anything built these days, we'd probably end up getting 1 1/2 to 2 boats for our 3. And very likely, tanking the 144 project in the process. I don't think any of us want to get rid of the KdT's that badly. Need I remind everyone that it wasn't that long ago (relatively speaking) that the Issaquah class was the so-maligned White Elephant of the WSF fleet.

I think new engines and/or applying a diesel-electric propulsion system is still a far better solution than abandoning them this early. And more cost effective. The big EMDs that are in the KdT's now are still low enough "mileage" that they could be installed into the 144's without worry.

In the mean time I see in the KdTs overall a solid design that can hold their jobs for years to come. But, akin to the Issaquah class, I think the KdT's need some adjustments to make them workable. I for one predict that, if they decide to iron out the kinks, we'll be looking back ten or more years from now and talking about the positives of the class rather than their shortcomings.

Just my thoughts. Time will tell.

Jody
Ferry crossings on Lake Champlain just aren't the same...

[chief]

I would be surprised if the state did anything noteworthy to the Chetzemoka and her sisters for many years.

They work on relatively low volume routes and return less than 35% of their operating costs at the fare box. Plus with the persons responsible for their acquisition still being in office, it would be a major embarassment to even talk about extensive modifications to these "ships".

Let's not forget forget each one has already had significant additional investment just to make operational, Eagle Harbor alone spent more than 600K on each vessel before they carried their first passenger. Their high labor and fuel costs are being talked about in Olympia with numerous inquiries being made by legislative staff.

The modifications suggested, ala Issaquah class are incredibly expensive. The costs of fixing the fruit boats has exceeded their original purchase price several times over. Each has recieved two new main engines, new generators, rebuilt reduction gears, three sets of controls, three sets of steering systems and so on. Ultimately these investments paid off because the class carries so much traffic. Not so with the KDT.

Of course now they want to pull the new engines and generators out of the Issaquahs to pursue LNG....

The best thing WSF could do for the Pt Defiance route is to make the necessary investments into the hull steel of the Rhody (if any is required) and put it back on that run. She is the best financial fit for the route. Her age has no practical effect on her suitability for further service at Point Defiance.

The only reason Rhody is being replaced now is because the state got a reduced price on #2 and #3 hulls of the KDT class and the retirement due to "age" argument bolsters the Secretary's decision to retire the Steel Electrics.

[Kahloke]

Feb 20, 2012 20:31:12 GMT -8 Jody said:

How did the Chetz do on the Interisland route?

I think Chetzy did OK on the inter-island run the few times she's been called into action up there. Of course, this time of year there's not that much traffic, so capacity isn't an issue. Chetzy would not work well as the inter-island ferry during the summer when the traffic volumes are at their peak.

Feb 20, 2012 20:31:12 GMT -8 Jody said:

Or maybe, just maybe, make the three-way swap with one of the Mukilteo-Clinton boats? I'd bet the Chetz would do OK on that route too?

Mukilteo-Clinton has one of the highest vehicle demands in the whole system. Chetzemoka wouldn't do well there at any time of the year.

[Low Light Mike]

Feb 20, 2012 20:33:27 GMT -8 Luke said:

Feb 20, 2012 18:53:58 GMT -8 old_wsf_fan said:

I seriously doubt that the Steamship Authority would buy any of the I-lean class.

Sell the KDT class to BCF. Then with the money, build as many modified Steel-E's as possible.

That's a great idea. We've been looking for 3 little overbuilt ferries just like those. And we'd like to pay a premium price for them.

And if the price is right, there might even be some leftover cash for WSF to upgrade it's historical fleet-list for those new spellings.


....all in good satire fun.

[lifc]

From what I heard from my WSF friends was that the unloading of the Chetzemoka on the Inter-Island run was "awkward". Apparently anything over the size of a subcompact had to jockey around, in multiple attempts, to get off the boat, and it took several times longer than usual to get unloaded.

The bad part of all this is that we could get more appropriate boats built and on the job for less than the KdT's are going to cost us over just a few years. We're having an election this fall, perhaps with it, we might get some new direction and get rid of at least one. I can see keeping one for the winter at Keystone, another for a spare, other than that I see no good use for them. I agree, bring back the Rhody.

I really think the Chetzemoka would be a great boat for the Steamship Authority, she's longer, more seaworthy and will hold more passengers then the Island Home. In actuality, all she needs is bow doors and she could go to work. If they want, they could always add the car lifts, and then it would hold more cars too. A win for all of us, let's pursue this option.

[Kahloke]

Feb 21, 2012 10:28:20 GMT -8 lifc said:

I really think the Chetzemoka would be a great boat for the Steamship Authority, she's longer, more seaworthy and will hold more passengers then the Island Home. In actuality, all she needs is bow doors and she could go to work. If they want, they could always add the car lifts, and then it would hold more cars too. A win for all of us, let's pursue this option.

To work for SSA and become a "sistership" to Island Home, Chetzy will need bow doors, of course, like you mentioned, but also a complete ventilation system for the car deck, side doors on the mezzanine level for SSA's overhead passenger loading ramps, and an AC system for the cabin. It's quite a bit more than just installing bow doors. Most likely they would not install the platform decks. The crews hate the platforms and rarely use them, even in the busy summer months, because they take so long to deploy.

[lifc]

In the summer, SSA would not need even the bow doors. The other stuff is bothersome, but can be done, I'm sure Eastern Marine would love the job. The Chetzy already holds the cars of the Island Home without the lifts, but then there is the I Lean, thing, concrete? I am going to write my State Senator and Reps about this, anyone care to join in?

These are nicely built Vessels, just not right for us. I like the idea of a new trade-back boat.

[Luke]

Feb 21, 2012 9:32:47 GMT -8 Low Light Mike said:

Feb 20, 2012 20:33:27 GMT -8 Luke said:

Sell the KDT class to BCF. Then with the money, build as many modified Steel-E's as possible.

That's a great idea. We've been looking for 3 little overbuilt ferries just like those. And we'd like to pay a premium price for them.

And if the price is right, there might even be some leftover cash for WSF to upgrade it's historical fleet-list for those new spellings.


....all in good satire fun.

Would you pay enough for WSF to build a min. of three, maybe four modified Steel-E's? That would likely be more than $45,000,000. For a class of ridiculously overbuilt and inefficient ships. AND, WHEN YOU GOT THEM, WE ARE NOT BUYING THEM BACK.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Time for some ski lift web sites.

[Kahloke]

Feb 22, 2012 20:16:38 GMT -8 @whidbeyislandguy said:

It would be nice if we could talk about the boats and enjoy sharing times, and rides, and use this forum for something other then a snoopy the dog feast of how, who knows more then the people that work on them and, what a consultant says. I for one Like the New boats and have been on them quite abit, and was on sea-trails for the Chetzemoka to begin with. But hey Let keep talking about how awful they are and what kind of tub toys consultants want!

Either make a new area for ranting and raving about how much you hate the ferries, and let us chat about the boats and why we like them, or some of us are going to leave, and I know I am NOT alone in tired of this bitching. We have the new boats they work. GET OVER IT!

There's room on this board for all opinions as long as people keep it civilised. Yes, the new boats are here to stay, but that doesn't mean there aren't problems with them, nor does it mean we should avoid discussing those issues in fear of ruffling someone's feathers. I'm all for open dialogue as long as it isn't derogatory and/or offensive. Keep it professional and you can debate the issues all you want.