lifc
Voyager 
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 8, 2012 9:35:32 GMT -8
The basic design of the old 2 stroke design of the EMD engines precludes much tinkering with the injector patterning. The engines do not begin to get efficient until they get into the "high blower" power band, which is higher than the demands at Keystone and much higher then used at Point Defiance.
The adding of the C Props will not affect this to the positive at the PD/T route, could actually make it worse as they would tend to apply power more appropriately, and therefore lower in the powerband. .
As installing a more efficient engine will be considered an "experiment" by the system, install it on one of the boats that already has a CP. Again I vote for the CAT C280-6, as it has the same RPM range as the EMD's. Their continuous output is perfectly adequate at 2300 HP usual and 2700HP at the upper end. This would not only greatly lower the fuel use, but, also would allow the reduction of one crew in the engine room. Payout of these engines, at current fuel price, is about two years.
Bring back the Rhody to cover the down time on the Vessel (s). When the project works, do the second CP boat, do the Chetzemoka last, keep it for a spare and summer boat at Keystone until then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Mar 8, 2012 10:19:48 GMT -8
Bring back the Rhody to cover the down time on the Vessel (s). When the project works, do the second CP boat, do the Chetzemoka last, keep it for a spare and summer boat at Keystone until then. Rhody's not coming back. IF WSF were to re-engine the KDT's, and I don't think that's likely to happen, they would probably do it during the late fall-winter-early spring season when only 1 boat is operating at PT-KEY, so therefore, no need to bring Rhody or another vessel in to cover the down time. |
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Mar 8, 2012 16:28:55 GMT -8
Bring back the Rhody to cover the down time on the Vessel (s). When the project works, do the second CP boat, do the Chetzemoka last, keep it for a spare and summer boat at Keystone until then. Rhody's not coming back. This was a heated argument for three years after our V class and QPR were retired up here in BC. "Why not keep just one of them for backup?!?!" It's the classic ferry geek predicament; we don't want to get rid of our old ferries, but the ferry lines can't and won't keep them in service because it costs way to much to keep an old ship in operating condition for that 'just in case' moment. In conclusion, wishful thinking can be fun, but it gets us nowhere on this forum. Nobody likes driving in circles. The Rhodo-dendy-ron ain't coming back. Period. No ifs, buts, or maybes. Not a chance. Let's think of a solution that might actually happen instead of repeating all the same old clichés(unintentional song reference!). In the meantime I'll be drinking my slurpee watching this gong show. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Mar 8, 2012 16:39:53 GMT -8
Rhody's not coming back. IF WSF were to re-engine the KDT's, and I don't think that's likely to happen, they would probably do it during the late fall-winter-early spring season when only 1 boat is operating at PT-KEY, so therefore, no need to bring Rhody or another vessel in to cover the down time. Another likely time would also be immediately after the 1st or 2nd 144 enters service. I could see them attempting to eek out a year or two from one of the Evergreens to "cover" while they go down a boat or two for heavy maintenance work. The increased schedule flexibility (not just in the winter) would allow them cost savings and a wider selection of yards to do the work in. My money though is still on the 10 year refits. |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,302
|
Post by Neil on Mar 8, 2012 16:53:56 GMT -8
This was a heated argument for three years after our V class and QPR were retired up here in BC. "Why not keep just one of them for backup?!?!" It's the classic ferry geek predicament; we don't want to get rid of our old ferries, but the ferry lines can't and won't keep them in service because it costs way to much to keep an old ship in operating condition for that 'just in case' moment. In conclusion, wishful thinking can be fun, but it gets us nowhere on this forum. Nobody likes driving in circles. The Rhodo-dendy-ron ain't coming back. Period. No ifs, buts, or maybes. Not a chance. Let's think of a solution that might actually happen instead of repeating all the same old clichés(unintentional song reference!). In the meantime I'll be drinking my slurpee watching this gong show. ;D The bulk of posts in this thread recently have been from people who've taken the time to analyze engineering and operational concerns of this boat and to suggest solutions. I've found it interesting reading from an outsider's standpoint, and I wouldn't dismiss their contributions as a 'gong show'. |
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Mar 8, 2012 17:13:10 GMT -8
The bulk of posts in this thread recently have been from people who've taken the time to analyze engineering and operational concerns of this boat and to suggest solutions. I've found it interesting reading from an outsider's standpoint, and I wouldn't dismiss their contributions as a 'gong show'. The gong show comment is referring to the numerous 'bring back the Rhody' comments (and to add to that, the earlier suggestions of 'let's drop the Chetz on BC's doorstep and be done with it'), not the posters providing interesting, educated suggestions on how to plan out the future of the Chetzemoka. I find those interesting and fun to read. It was only the ferry geek 'save our ship' hysteria that I was after. I do make a lot of implications in my posts... gotta work on that ;D |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 9, 2012 9:26:22 GMT -8
With the ever escalating fuel prices, the re-engining of one of the KdT's ought to happen tomorrow, not next year. The system is bleeding money, let's stop it as soon as possible, re-powering ought to take---60 days? In the meantime the Rody could cover if it was available. One of the Shipyards I spoke to said it was in far better overall condition than the Hiyu or the Evergreen. Two years, ten years wait?, just add up the fuel cost, do it now. We need to move past political spin into real economic reality, then thing might just work better.
|
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Mar 9, 2012 13:50:15 GMT -8
What would be a reasonable estimate for the total capital cost including aquisition and installation of a new power plant in a KdT? There has been much discussion about what to install and there seems to be a group consensus, but I have never seen a post with numbers about the cost of doing it, just on potential fuel savings. I think it's safe to assume the existing engines would go into a 144 unless regulations change.
|
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Mar 9, 2012 18:30:58 GMT -8
IMHO, re-engining a KtD would take over 4 months of yard time, and cost millions. My guess is $5 million plus, and that's a WAG.
|
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Mar 10, 2012 20:24:34 GMT -8
The Rhody isn't coming back, I don't know why you guys keep suggesting it. She is decommissioned and will be sold.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Mar 11, 2012 16:06:12 GMT -8
This goes out to those who work with WSF and may be "in the know" on this issue:
ever since Chetzemoka's stack fire, they've been running her on a different routing when going from Point Defiance to Tahlequah. Instead of just going straight across in a direct line, Chety's been zig-zagging, starting out in a more northwesterly direction, almost like they're heading to Gig Harbor, then in the middle of the crossing, they turn to a northeasterly direction, and finally straighten out when they approach Tahlequah. I've seen this with every sailing I have witnessed here from Gig Harbor, and so I figure this has something to do with the stack fire, like it's one of the mitigations to keep that from happening again. Funny thing, though - on the return sailings from Tahlequah to Point Defiance, they just do the normal direct route - no course alterations. Does anyone know why they are doing this?
|
|
chief
Chief Steward
Posts: 117
|
Post by chief on Mar 11, 2012 16:38:11 GMT -8
One can argue that the Rhody will never come back with a high degree of certainty but it is noteworthy to point out that the issue is still being debated. There are legislators in the current session who have asked WSF about the possibility of retaining the ship for emergencies. WSF has put together a response which is obviously designed to preclude that from happening. It is a classic case of the part time legislators and their staffs not having enough information about the fleet to ask the right questions or to see that WSF is shading their answers to a specific outcome. Too bad.
The KDT requires 7 more year round employees to operate than Rhody. With compensation and benefits each one costs about 90K. So the KDT crew costs $630,000 more per year, this difference increases over time. In the 60 year life of the boat this difference is just under 38 million dollars. Those are of course in today's dollars.
It also is burning more than 700 gallons of fuel per day over what the Rhody would burn. At 4 dollars per gallon this is $2,800 dollars per day or 1.02 million dollars per year. In 60 years the KDT will burn 61 million dollars more fuel than Rhody.
So in terms of economics, of lifecycle cost, the decision to bring back Rhody (or build a duplicate using FHA funding in a nationwide bid) is a no brainer.
Unfortunately that is just a little more brain power than the state has at it's disposal.
|
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Mar 11, 2012 18:53:00 GMT -8
As lifc has said, a Steilacoom III would be the boat to build.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 13, 2012 10:14:56 GMT -8
Although I am not privy to all information, and I know everything Governments do costs multiples of what a private operator would do, I still find the cost and time estimates of what it would cost to re-engine a KdT very high. The Cat C280-6 cost about a million each+ 2M. I cannot see why it would cost more than a million to change them, the controls and gearboxes ought to plug right on to them. Can't see how it should cost more than a million to hook up the stacks and make them fit the engine beds. I once helped change an engine in a large steel Commercial boat with a slightly smaller engine, took three of us four days.
Savings, 600/ gallons per day- 878K, + 1 less crew of 100K, very close to a million a year, or (revised) 3.5 year payout, ought to be done today.
I agree with Chief about the STIII, build the 72 car version.
|
|
|
|
Post by suburbanite on Mar 14, 2012 4:47:46 GMT -8
Lifc Congratulations on having worked on the fastest and smoothest repower job know to man. Whoever planned it must have been really sharp. You did it in 12 man days total? What did that entail? Does that include time to plan the repower job and obtain all the necessary materials? Did that time start from placing the boat at the dock to returning to service? If not, what was the total time from the boats removal from service to the boats return to carrying passengers? Oops, that wasn't a passenger vessel was it? Was it an inspected vessel of any type? Did you comply will all applicable OSHA or WISHA workplace safety regulations? Did you have a hot work permit for performing any grinding or welding? Did you have a chemist certify that any tanks or void spaces had been properly inerted before any hot work was preformed on them? What was the horsepower? What was the weight of the main engine? What sort of access did you have to remove the old main engine and fly in the new one? Was their any superstructure that limited how you did that work? Was all overhead lifting done with grade 80 chain or approved straps of the required size and properly rigged? Look at where the main engines are on the Chet. How does that compare to the repower job you helped out on for a few days? You "cannot see why it would cost more than a million to change them, the controls and gearboxes ought to plug right on to them." Really? You want to install two new main engines of a totally different type and configuration and reduce the horsepower by 30 to 50 percent and you can't see why the props, gear boxes and controls wouldn't "plug right in?" Before spending several million dollars someone really ought to do some math and see how the props, gears and controls would match up with any possible new powerplant. I bet they find there are some changes necessary to achieve the desired fuel economy. I haven't even mentioned alignment of the engines and the care needed to do it properly. There will need to be some careful design and fabrication to allow for a totally different engine to be placed in a bed designed for a 12 cylinder EMD. The cost of engineering work, yard labor, main engines and associated controls and machinery combined with the complexities of engine room access, precision work, sea trials, minor rework, inspection and return to service could very easily take 4 months and 5 million dollars per boat. For a WAG I say Chief called it in the ballpark. So consider a repower project for the class as costing about $15 million and plus the cost of taking the system down one boat for a year. Now figure the payback time for a repower project. It still likely pencils out, but it is a longer payout and probably makes sense to plan into a 10 year overhaul. It definitely isn't a project for a few guys over a three day weekend.  And it really underscores the importance of building the right boat for WSF operating conditions and doing the math right the first time.  It took 30 years for WFS to forget the lessons learned form the citrus class. Hopefully they don't forget the lessons form this Big Gulp class of fuel thirsty little boats. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2012 10:15:21 GMT -8
I heard about the zig zag. I also heard the front prop is now being run backwards to make the rear end work harder? Can that be right?
Sounds like your car backfires so you drive around with the emergency brake on a bit. Time to take it to a shop and tear into those engines.
|
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Mar 24, 2012 19:54:14 GMT -8
I guess you got to do what you got to do to run the thing. They should send Chet back to PT, it's got the best seats. |
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080 
|
Post by Nick on Mar 24, 2012 20:57:26 GMT -8
I heard about the zig zag. I also heard the front prop is now being run backwards to make the rear end work harder? Can that be right? Sounds like your car backfires so you drive around with the emergency brake on a bit. Time to take it to a shop and tear into those engines. I don't think that's entirely accurate. The way I interpreted it was that the problem was that the FORWARD engine wasn't working hard enough and blowing oil into the stack. To combat this, they are using the forward propeller to ADD propulsive effort to put a load on the engine. This will remove load from the aft propeller, but not enough to offset the added fuel on the forward engine, which is why this method uses more fuel. Not quite like driving with the brakes on. |
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Apr 5, 2012 8:12:59 GMT -8
I don't think that's entirely accurate. The way I interpreted it was that the problem was that the FORWARD engine wasn't working hard enough and blowing oil into the stack. To combat this, they are using the forward propeller to ADD propulsive effort to put a load on the engine. This will remove load from the aft propeller, but not enough to offset the added fuel on the forward engine, which is why this method uses more fuel. Not quite like driving with the brakes on. From what I've been told by reliable sources, they are running the bow prop in opposition to the stern prop. They aren't using the bow prop to pull the boat through the water, the bow prop is thrusting in opposition to direction traveled. Not good for fuel economy. |
|
moonman
Oiler (New Member)
Posts: 10
|
Post by moonman on Apr 23, 2012 10:31:28 GMT -8
Returning to the thread. Speaking form the Vashon prospective I think that Chief has much of it spot on. I would suggest pulling the Steilacoom II drawings and adding 15-20 vehicle spaces and putting that on the PtD-Tahlaquah route. when they design this they can include ADA approved access to the vehicles on the deck too. Right now if unlucky you have to crawl out the window to get out of your vehicle. By halving the crew and 2/3rds less fuel it will pay for the construction in short order.
Consider the Rhody a lost cause and take the PTownsend, Chetzemoka, boat into Eagle harbor as a spare and sell the Hiyu.
Get a third, or at least something larger than an E-State class, in production. the E-State boats are on the way out if they do not get the drive motor issue under control. at present they are only good for the Inter-Island or less so the Triangle or PtD-Tahlequah. otherwise they are too slow to keep pace.
The Triangle does not want the the 64's unless we have to. At present I believe the Fare box recovery at PtD-Tahlequah will drop from some 45% to 25% this year due to the extra crew and fuel used on the Chetz.
These boats were know to be garbage when designed and have proven much worse. WSF and all of us will be better off if they just build what we need and tie them up. Certainly cost us less in the long run.
|
|
|
|
Post by zargoman on Apr 24, 2012 4:18:50 GMT -8
From what I've been told by reliable sources, they are running the bow prop in opposition to the stern prop. They aren't using the bow prop to pull the boat through the water, the bow prop is thrusting in opposition to direction traveled. Not good for fuel economy. Yup...Just to keep enough heat going in the engines so that hopefully, the stack fire does not reoccur. |
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Apr 28, 2012 19:08:18 GMT -8
Kind of a crazy way to run a ferry, but I do respect and appreciate that WSF employees can find a way to make a boat work. "If we're hard pressed, we can find a way" should be the motto of the Port Townsend crews, because they sure had to over the past few years. I guess that goes for Pt. Defiance/Tahlequah too.
|
|
|
|
Post by zargoman on May 6, 2012 14:35:01 GMT -8
Today was Point Defiance day for me...I did not realize how slow 8-9 knots really is. The "I-lean/opposing forces" boat is still looking good. Look over the side when underway and you can see the propwash from having the bow opposing the stern. It does indeed get the job done, but what a way to burn through fuel. I'm surprised that the environmental regulatory agencies haven't stepped in and cried foul yet  It's a good boat for the route. The passengers are enjoying the trip, especially when they can take in the sun on the sun deck. Much more passenger space than the Rhododendron had. Too bad there is no galley service though.    That was a really low tide today. Lots of mud being stirred up by the Chetz  |
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on May 28, 2012 16:29:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on May 28, 2012 17:28:19 GMT -8
According to this article, there was a problem with the fire suppression system. |
|
