chief
Chief Steward
Posts: 117
|
Post by chief on Feb 24, 2012 4:56:57 GMT -8
The Ferry Nut observation about the Oly was a very good one. The Oly used to have stack fires on purpose. It would be done at night because it produces so much smoke that people ashore would be concerned that the ship was in danger.
The old Fairbanks Morse was notorious for leaking rings. This caused a great deal of accumulation in the exhaust of the engine and so over the years the engineers would set fires with burlap, paper or rags to burn off the oil. It reduced backpressure on the engine and kept the danger of a serious fire down.
Today the engine room telegraph hangs in the #1 engine room of the Puyallup as a momento of our engineering heritage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 24, 2012 8:14:28 GMT -8
No doubt our opinions on that matter have been registered and I know they will be respected, last time they most certainly were. Heck I've posted like 4 times on this topic, I'd bet a lot of money a fair # of people are already ignoring me today!  Hey, no one's ignoring you.  Lots of people read these threads. It's interesting ferry & life drama. Regarding your comment that "opinions have been registered", I'm not sure about that, simply because of the vague and distracting way that the ex-member presented it. My suggestion is that next time you (the "collective You") see a post that you're tired of seeing, reply to it by quoting it (so that it's clear what you're referring to) and make your case in a clear manner. Explain why you think that post is out-of-place, and move on (to the next topic, that is). - if you propose something clearly, then people will respond clearly. If you propose using a loud and vague ultimatum, then you'll probably get drama in return. I think this whole episode shows that a message gets lost if it's presented poorly. A message is heard if it's presented well. Based on the ex-members vague ultimatum, critical posts aren't going to be moved away. But if you want to propose something specific, then I'm sure that lots of us are interested in seeing how we can make these threads more enjoyable for all. But things that would likely be rejected (things that have been proposed here before) include: - Telling Canadians to stay out of Washington discussions (yes, that's been suggested, in one specific instance. ;D) - Moving to a fan-only discussion Let us know what you think would work, re the types of things that get discussed in these forum threads. If there's a continual off-topic that you think should find a new home in a new thread, then let us know. Lets make it work. |
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Feb 24, 2012 8:48:44 GMT -8
This has sure been an interesting dust-up. Usually there is no discussion in a flame war, just mean-spirited accusations . Someone always leaves, often to come back with another handle. Civil discourse on the internet? Never seen that before. My hat's off to you people.
|
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Feb 24, 2012 12:31:35 GMT -8
Hey, no one's ignoring you. Lots of people read these threads. It's interesting ferry & life drama. My comment was meant in jest given that I had already had to repeat myself several times. I most definitely do not feel ignored, this forum is generally admirably respectful in that area. I have no doubt at all that as a side effect of this kerfluffle my concern regarding redudant and repetitive posting, which BTW is not related to the armchair quarter backing, will be indirectly addressed so no concerns there. Regarding my specific objections, I feel I already detailed them in a previous post. Many subtle posts that amounted to saying "all right let's move along" or "yes we understand your concerns" and other actions have been taken for quite some time by many people. I've steered away from the KdT discussion because that didn't really work and I didn't want to be more overt about things, but if you'd prefer that then I have no problems with doing that the next time it comes up! |
|
Neil
Voyager 
Posts: 7,302
|
Post by Neil on Feb 24, 2012 15:01:35 GMT -8
The current round of Chetzemoka criticisms was occasioned by the stack overheating. Before that, this thread had been inactive for a week, so I just don't get the inference that conversation is being domineered by the negative nellies.
A pessimistic prediction: if people are encouraged to jump in and and tell critics that they're being repetitious and their views don't need to be posted, those people will simply post less. The conversational void will not be filled by more cheerful talk, since some of those members advocating for same were and are fairly infrequent contributors. So the net result will simply be a less active thread, and people like me who found the criticisms worthwhile will have less to read. Progress?
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people are so turned off by critical posts that they just don't participate. If so, I look forward to more frequent contributions from people with a different attitude.
Then there's the American member who is without question the most cheerful poster on this forum. He doesn't criticize people for their mopy, repetitive complaining, he simply jumps in with photos and positive posts that reflect where his interests are and where he prefers the focus to be. Others can respond in kind or not, according to their interest. A worthwhile concept, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 24, 2012 15:22:02 GMT -8
My intention from my post this morning was that if people feel that some posts would be better off in another thread, then speak up and we can do some thread-rearranging if necessary.
- This is not to remove things we don't agree with. Rather it's to spin-off any continued items that are legitimately a recurring off-topic.
ie.
- Should the "LIFC: Here's my new vessel for a low price" responses be in their own thread, about that exact topic? It keeps being brought up every few months, so maybe it would be best to keep that topic all in one thread.
Just wondering...
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,302
|
Post by Neil on Feb 24, 2012 15:34:03 GMT -8
My intention from my post this morning was that if people feel that some posts would be better off in another thread, then speak up and we can do some thread-rearranging if necessary. - This is not to remove things we don't agree with. Rather it's to spin-off any continued items that are legitimately a recurring off-topic. ie. - Should the "LIFC: Here's my new vessel for a low price" responses be in their own thread, about that exact topic? It keeps being brought up every few months, so maybe it would be best to keep that topic all in one thread. Just wondering... Then I misunderstood you. When you refered to people reacting to "post(s) that you're tired of seeing", I thought you were addressing the remarks about supposedly repetitive critiques, which seems to have been the gist of Chokai's and the two departed members' complaints. |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Feb 24, 2012 23:36:29 GMT -8
I've not been there for a couple of days, here's my take. I think the Forum's just fine, If we all thought the same we'd still be back in the stone age, I'll take the bricks, I am a big boy.
From my take, the Vessel is not appropriate for its routes, not evil, not badly built, just not appropriate. I stand by my original opinions I came to during it's construction and sadly they appear to have actualized. No amount of wishing, good intentions or management adjustments are going to make it work. We are now put in the very bad position of having to do something about the composite problem, the stack fires, although foreseen are just the latest in the string.
Instead of folding our arms and denying there is a problem we need to figure out a solution. I spent 7 long months, in a meeting in every week, but three, on our local temporary Ferry Task Force. We had a huge amount of ground to cover in that time, more than we could. My part was to investigate infrastructure, I spoke to almost every Ferry Operator from Coast to Coast looking for ideas as well a many Designers and Shipyards. At the end we had to submit a report, one of the things in it was the fate of the very popular Mainland Parking Lot, hey I use it too. We recommended it be closed due to the fact that the owners of the ground wanted about 10 times of current lease amount to renew the lease, it just wasn't possible. I still get yelled at by locals for our decision, but those who are angry never bothered to read the report or come to one meeting. Some times decisions are hard, some never look beyond the surface.
What I came up with are a few solutions, not popular to some, seemingly unbelievable to others. I actually spoke in depth with the Builders, Designers, Subcontractors, Engine Makers, this is what they told me, I am not making it up! If you do not believe me, take the time and do your own investigation.
My fellow board members and I found the Steilacoom II design to be one of the nicest, most intuitive, cost effective Vessel of it size we had seen. It's economical, reliable, handles well, and well liked by the Crew's both County and State. The Designer and Builder both expressed hope that longer versions be built in the future. I am sure there are other designs that could be advanced, in my looking, they just didn't cross my path, although I saw many that were not desirable. This one is here, available, actualized, and can be built, and would do a much larger percentage of the assigned job (s) better than what we have. Although overpriced due to a monopoly of bidding, the original State bid, 25 million each for four now looks like a bargain.
Let's quit snarking at each other and come up with a plan, the status quo is failing us. What are your ideas?
Oh, in case you are wondering what I have been doing, in the last few days I have negotiated for and purchased the last un-restored Vintage Unlimited Hydroplane available on the West Coast. Wish me luck, it will be a long task. I will be making the trailer ready and moving it to the Bellingham area in the upcoming weeks.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Feb 25, 2012 11:31:40 GMT -8
What I'm thinking is that lifc should start a thread dedicated to his idea of an ideal ferryboat. I have some bones to pick with him about the hull form of the SII in the bows, but this thread is about the Chetzemoka.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 25, 2012 11:34:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 25, 2012 11:48:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 25, 2012 15:59:11 GMT -8
Here's a little something that I posted back in early 2010, back when someone was certain that someone else was "from Martinac" (followed by approx 8 angry emoticons). And then, also in February 2010, someone suggested a separate part of the forum for complaints (actually they were referred to as "Raspberries"). Here's my response from then, and I think it's still good guidance for today. - and it shows that the issues we experienced this week in this thread are nothing new. And it will likely happen again... [pardon this continued (but worthwhile) off-topic]
I think that a comment could be interpreted as either a "complaint" or "criticism". And that distinction depends on the articulation of the sender and on the perception of the receiver.
I oppose the notion that complaints / criticisms are bad and should be segregated to a separate thread. (you could counter that glowing-praise should also be segregated to a plum-thread).
Again, I think that productive discussion is dependent on the articulation of the sender and the perception of the receiver. As evidenced by use of emoticons, some people reacts hotly to issues that perhaps could be responded-to more calmly.
Make your rebuttal points, push for clarification, take opposing viewpoints maturely and then wait for the moderators to clean-up situations where people aren't playing by these rules.
Disagreement on issues isn't a problem. But poor arguing-skills are....
Oh, and I really like this emoticon:  |
|
|
|
Post by suburbanite on Feb 29, 2012 5:10:53 GMT -8
It has been fascinating catching up on this and related threads. I'm sorry to see that Whidbey Island Guy has decided to depart. From my reading of recent and older posts he seems to have a personal investment in the Chet and her sisters as a result of his support for their construction. While I am sorry he decided to go rather than read continuing criticism of their performance there are some facts now in evidence to be considered about the KdTs after months of operational experience.
First, they burn more fuel than the boats they have replaced. They burn a lot more fuel, hundreds of gallons a day more. At current off road diesel prices that means approximately $2000 to $3000 dollars a day more to operate the Keystone run.
Second, they have larger crews than the boats they replaced. Wages and benefits cost the state $100,000 per person, per year or more. And that is just per employee. It takes more than one employee to staff a crew position every day.
Third, the KdT are proving to be special purpose boats. They may have different strengths and weaknesses than other boats in the system but aren't any more versatile than the boats they are replacing. They are too small for the big runs in the central sound even though they have adequate speed. And they have much more power than they can use on short runs resulting in high fuel consumption or potential mechanical problems.
That means the WSF system is spending about $1,000,000 per KdT operating year over the cost of a Steel electric for boats that aren't an adequately sized or efficient fit anywhere in the system. And they have three of them!
So the question is what to do now? What ever course that is taken it needs to pencil out compared to the operational cost of continuing to run the KdTs as they are today.
Could one of the boats be sold and the funds used to fund a more efficient small boat?
BC ferries seems unlikely to be a buyer. The boats wouldn't fit into that system either.
The Steam Ship Authority in Massachusetts might be interested but not at the inflated price WSF paid. It is improbable that the politicians and bureaucrats who brought us the Steel Electric crisis and the KdT/iLean (albatross?) class solution/ongoing economic problem will be willing to take a $35,000,000 wright off from the "built in Washington" premium price they just paid and sell a KdT at the market price of a new Island Home less the cost to the SSA of modifications needed for a WSF KdT to meet their standards.
If selling isn't an option then can something be done to make the KdTs more efficient on short runs?
Could a layshaft be installed to allow one main engine to be shut down? Would operating a boat in such a fashion provide for adequate safety and maneuverability?
Could a layshaft and smaller main engines allow the KdTs to be maneuverable when docking and maintain their top speed?
Would the Chetzemoka benefit from CPPs alone or in conjunction with any of the layshaft and engine options?
Could the gallery decks be removed to correct the list and reduce crewing needs?
If anyone thinks I have have the facts wrong please correct me. If you have informed opinions on any of these or other options to make the KdTs more cost effective to operate I am interested in hearing them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Feb 29, 2012 7:11:35 GMT -8
Could the gallery decks be removed to correct the list and reduce crewing needs? The list is caused by the offset casing, not the saddle lounges, so unless you want to relocate the casing, the list will always be a factor. This has been discussed before, but the saddle lounges really cannot be removed. They are an integral element to that design. Among other things, the saddle lounge opposite the casing provides necessary egress from the main passenger deck (and saddle lounge) to the car deck. Remove that, and you are down to only two stairwells serving the car deck. I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think regulations would allow that. |
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080 
|
Post by Nick on Feb 29, 2012 7:14:11 GMT -8
Could the gallery decks be removed to correct the list and reduce crewing needs? The list is caused by the offset casing, not the saddle lounges, so unless you want to relocate the casing, the list will always be a factor. This has been discussed before, but the saddle lounges really cannot be removed. They are an integral element to that design. Among other things, the saddle lounge opposite the casing provides necessary egress from the main passenger deck (and saddle lounge) to the car deck. Remove that, and you are down to only two stairwells serving the car deck. I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think regulations would allow that. The list isn't a problem with the ship. Sure it looks kinda funny, but it doesn't affect the stability or safety of the ship. As I understand it, the list disappears when the ship is loaded. These ships have their issues, no doubt. The list isn't one of them. |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Feb 29, 2012 10:25:33 GMT -8
I don't see too much we can do to make the Chetzemoka more efficient. For the later two, with the CP props, we could change the engines to more efficient 4 strokes, in light of the current fuel cost, this ought to be done immediately. I vote for the CAT C-280-6, the EMD"s can be again stored for use in another new 144 where they will work just fine.
For the Chetzemoka, due to the fixed pitch prop, installing efficient four stokes may result in engine stalling upon an emergency reversal at speed. I agree with Suburbanite, the best thing we could do with it is to sell it off. If we look at the original design, these Vessels were designed for longer distance routes with far more passenger load than we have, like Martha's Vineyard where the Vessel is on-the-water for a considerable time. The Chetzemoka would be right at home in a similar situation. Yes, we will take a horrible financial haircut on selling it. If one looks at the projected future operating costs, (using the principle of sunk money- I know, disturbing name) limited size and inappropriateness of route fit, the we'd be better off financially to scrap it and start over with a better design. The money has been spent, we are not going to get it back, so sell it and get what we can to put toward a more appropriate Vessel. I can equate these issues to that of an abusive relationship, as much as one wants to make it work, sooner or later you just have to get out of it. Sorry to be wet blanket for those who like the Boat, The thing will really get up and go, let's get it to somewhere that can maximize its design attributes and it will be loved. Then get us something that will do the job and we can afford.
|
|
chief
Chief Steward
Posts: 117
|
Post by chief on Mar 2, 2012 8:47:33 GMT -8
WSF issued operating policy changes today regarding the Chetzemoka in response to the stack fire situation. They will put the bow engine under a modest load to reduce the accumulation of fuel and oil in the exhaust. The trade off is fuel consumption.
|
|
|
|
Post by suburbanite on Mar 3, 2012 23:49:30 GMT -8
Chief Thanks for the update. That seems like tho only reasonable option for the near term. Do you have an opinion on any to the possible changes to the propulsion system I mentioned above? I was thinking of something major like that as part of a 15 year overhaul unless it made financial sense sooner. When I said "informed opinions" I was thinking of our contributors who have actual experience building and operating ferries.  |
|
chief
Chief Steward
Posts: 117
|
Post by chief on Mar 5, 2012 8:30:39 GMT -8
In answer to your question about my opinion. There are several ways to make a ship more efficient, not all involve a major reorientation to the power plant. The options that I would consider are:
1. Petition the CG to reduce the crew size to the same as the Steel Electric Class. The ship is over manned which costs an extraordinary amount of money over and above the fuel difference to do this. The new 144s were designed to reduce crew size. This design ignored it.
2. Use the boats where they will carry the greatest amount of traffic. These are expensive boats to operate, to offset this they should be used where they can generate the greatest amount of revenue per operating hour.
3. Consider using these boats on larger routes after commute hours to reduce the operating cost of the route they are moved to. For example using it as the late boat on the mid sound route where 200 car vessels rarely carry more than 50 cars. During the Winter one will just lay in EH, put into service as a third boat to do this or as a relief boat for the ES class.
4. Consider using them as replacements for the Evergreen State Class vessels which are nearing retirement. Replace the KDTs on their current routes with purpose designed and built vessels which will be more efficient to operate. None of the ES class operate by themselves on a single route as do these vessels and so the lack of redundancy in the KDTs will be less of an impact on the route.
5. Remove the saddle decks. They add weight and so increase fuel consumption but do not increase revenue. This is not that hard, WSF added second car decks to the 5 vessels of the Issaquah class with little difficulty. It might also be used to improve their loading by our topside personnel.
6. Design propellers optimized for Chetzemoka needs on it's current route. The propellers she has are designed to put her at 16 knots, without concern for fuel consumption. She needs new propellers anyway, these should be optimized for slower speeds, reduced cavitation and lower fuel consumption.
7. If it has not yet been done yet, modify the Chetzemoka controls for Pt Defiance. The ship's controls were set up for Keystone, this is no longer a performance requirement. Review the system software and revise with a priority placed on fuel efficiency.
8. Train deck officers how to reduce fuel consumption through their throttle use pushing the dock and departing same.
9. Investigate strategies for de-rating the 12 cylinder turbocharged EMDs on the Chetzemoka. For example replace the turbo charger with a super charger, modify injector mapping and so on.
10. Depending on the future of fuel costs, the KDT class should be considered for a fleetwide program of reducing horsepower on WSF vessels for the purposes of fuel efficiency. Several vessels have more horsepower than needed. Pull the 3000 hp engines from the KDTs and put them in ships that have 4000 hp engines, put 2000 hp four strokes in Chetzemoka.
11. Retire the Evergreen State as soon as her engines require another 1 million dollar overhaul. Replace it with a KDT. Restore the Rhododendron to service at Point Defiance.
12. Of course the real answer this early in their 60 year lifecycles is to put two 2000 hp four stroke diesels on them turning a compact AC/AC power plant. It is a no brainer and will pay for itself over the 180 years of service these three ships will provide.
This could be a very long list but Haugen would have to be retired for anything meaningful to take place.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 5, 2012 14:39:47 GMT -8
Good points Chief,
The first thing I would do after bringing back the Rhody, would be to immediately re-engine one of the CP prop KdT's with efficient 4 strokes, like a Cat C280-6 or equivalent. It would need one less crew in the engine room and could be used at T/PD if needed. The Chetzemoka could then be the spare and summer boat a Keystone, it won't stack fire there. Concurrently start the process of getting a purpose built boat for T/PD like the 72 car extended STII. My immediate take.
|
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Mar 6, 2012 18:06:20 GMT -8
Best solution is 4-stroke engines (I prefer the in-line ones), and controllable pitch propellers like the ones on the Steilacoom II (& not the like the ones on the other two KdT's).
Never happen, though. The extra fuel consumption costs of a KtD on the PT/Key route is in the range of $1,000,000 a year (and rising with fuel, as I type). WSDOT's solution, I fear, would be to curtail runs, and limit service.
From my research, an EMD consumes about 15% more fuel at rated power than a comparable Wartsila.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 6, 2012 19:44:54 GMT -8
15% more fuel at rated power. The boat is running at less than 40% power, at this range a two stroke burns about 50% more than a good 4 stroke. Where do we want to burn the extra fuel, Port Townsend, Point Defiance? It's not worth the conversion, we already have two that are better candidates for conversion to four strokes. Best solution is to put it in reserve, run it at Keystone in the summer only, or the ultimate best, get rid of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Mar 6, 2012 21:42:10 GMT -8
The Chetzemoka is, in my opinion, the better candidate for engine replacement. It needs the CPP wheels, anyway (and not like the ones on the other KtDs.) And if you're doing that, you might as well put in more efficient engines. The sooner you start saving fuel the sooner the improvement in fuel economy will pay for the retrofit.
WSF has a long history of taking "junk" and fixing it. Take for example the Issaquah class boats. Rumor has it that the State spent as much fixing defects as the boats originally cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Mar 7, 2012 0:26:08 GMT -8
WSF has a long history of taking "junk" and fixing it. Take for example the Issaquah class boats. Rumor has it that the State spent as much fixing defects as the boats originally cost. The situation with the Issaquah's is really quite different from this situation. That was a horrendous issue mechanically but also a serious life and safety issue that caused them to be completely unusable. These boats though outrageously expensive to operate have nothing going on even remotely close to that scale at this point nor do I think anyone has seen any indication of such a situation thus far. That makes the considerations really different. I have no doubt the KdTs (esp Chetzy) will get re-engined or have major propulsion system changes made, but unless something untoward happens that the decision, for better or worse, will be made by some guy at a desk with an Excel spreadsheet who can price out all the operating costs, fuel costs, lost revenue time, labor and other needed work that's involved and find that sweet spot of when to do it. Lets just hope he has accurate information. You could start a betting pool on when it'll happen though. My money's on the 10yr refits unless there is an intervening issue (i.e encounter with a rock/dock etc) |
|
|
|
Post by suburbanite on Mar 7, 2012 22:18:40 GMT -8
Rusty and Chief
Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. I particularly appreciate the detailed list of options.
I hope WSF will apply for and the USCG will grant a waver on crew size. Is the current crew size based on passenger capacity or horse power?
Good point on high utilization. That is a key to cost effective operations in any transportation system, especially one with high operating costs.
I hadn't thought about replacing the turbos with Roots blowers. They way the boat runs at Point Defiance the turbo probably never gets off the gear drive at all. Yikes!
I was thinking adding a layshaft might be less expensive and easier than converting to diesel electric so I didn't even mention it. But the steel electrics certainly proved the fuel efficiency of DE drives in boats this size and the Jumbo Mk IIs have proven the cost effectiveness of AC motors. So long as a DE plant could run efficiently at 10-12 knot speeds and still get up and do 16 knots if needed it would add to the versatility of the Chet. How many horses does it really take to move a KdT hull at 16 knots?
In terms of overall size the KdTs are just about a like for like replacement for the steel electrics but it would have been far better for the system if they were designed to replace the Evergreen States. They are about 20 cars shy of the capacity of an evergreen. Could one fit in at F-V-S without causing too much disruption?
Thanks again guys, I really appreciate your opinions.
Chokai
In a major way the Chet and her sisters are a far worse problem than the Issaquahs. While the KdTs do not have the issues of unreliable controls presenting a problem making safe landings the Issaquahs had a control problem. Structurally and mechanically they were well designed and continue to operate today with their original propulsion systems. The combination of their size, hull design and propulsion machinery also make them very fuel efficient and cost effective.
The new little boats are not just outrageously expensive to build and outrageously expensive operate. They will always be too small for this system. No conceivable refit could turn one into the Evergreen State or Issaquah. Because they are too small they will always generate too little revenue. A refit might mitigate the fuel consumption problem but it will never turn them into the revinue producers they should have been for the money they cost. These boats were just born to be money losers.
I think you have it about right on a major refit, 10 years give or take. Some things like new wheels for the Chet will happen sooner. As the Chief suggested, it makes sense for the new props to be a better match for her current service and better injector mapping to match the new props will help too. But a major refit and repower is years away. The cast of characters making the decisions will also likely need to change first. We will have to see what Olympia looks like next year to find out if that "10 year" refit happens sooner or later.
|
|
Lots of people read these threads. It's interesting ferry & life drama.
