MV Chetzemoka

[Koastal Karl]

Is the Chetzy ever full on that route??? A big boat for a 15 min sailing another example of waste of a ferry, lol!

[SolDuc]

Jan 7, 2014 21:21:05 GMT -8 Koastal Karl said:

Is the Chetzy ever full on that route??? A big boat for a 15 min sailing another example of waste of a ferry, lol!

Car-wise, she can get full on some commuter sailings and when there are special events at either end of the route. Passenger-wise, I bet you could close the main cabin and sun deck and the saddle lounges wouldn't even feel crowded. I guess if there are special events at Point Defiance there could be a bit of Walk-on traffic, but there usually isn't a lot of walk-ons. It was posted somewhere, maybe here maybe somewhere else that the run carries an average of six walk ons per trip.
Now of course a this was a mid-day sailing, I was one of two walk-ons when going to Point Defiance and a lone wolf when coming back.

[FNS]

CHETZEMOKA (II) is getting herself level.

Vigor won the contract to right her to an even keel et al:







Nice to see her on this cam again. I had thought she was in Seattle doing this.

The CHETZY2 was finished at Everett during her building.

webcam.heraldnet.com/axis-cgi/jpg/image.cgi?resolution=640x480

[lifc]

As some of you know, I think the best thing to do with this class of Ferries is to sell them and replace them with more appropriate boats, I have heard that the Steamship Authority is wanting at least one new boat, seems like a perfect match to me.

Baring that, I would rather see the high side saddle lounge removed and replaced with a car ramp. This would help balance the boat and increase its utility. Then replace the engines with more efficient 4 cycle models, like the big Cat C280-6, or something like it. Rebuild the EMD"s and use them for the next 144.

For the PD/T run, we need a more efficient boat period.

[maximase86]

Can you put dollar values around all of that? If we sell the boats what would we realistically get for them vs. what we paid for them. If we don't sell them, what would be the cost to modify the boats as you mentioned and how long would the ROI be for the modification?

Realistically, can you sell all the politicians that would be involved in whether this happens on that plan?

S

[Kahloke]

Feb 20, 2014 10:53:29 GMT -8 lifc said:

As some of you know, I think the best thing to do with this class of Ferries is to sell them and replace them with more appropriate boats, I have heard that the Steamship Authority is wanting at least one new boat, seems like a perfect match to me.

Baring that, I would rather see the high side saddle lounge removed and replaced with a car ramp. This would help balance the boat and increase its utility. Then replace the engines with more efficient 4 cycle models, like the big Cat C280-6, or something like it. Rebuild the EMD"s and use them for the next 144.

For the PD/T run, we need a more efficient boat period.

Last I heard, Steamship Authority wasn't all that thrilled with Island Home, so I'm not sure they would want another vessel of that same design.  Not to mention, if we sold them one of the KDT's, they would have to do an awful lot of modifications to make it work for them - e.g. bow modifications so it will fit into their docks, a totally enclosed car deck with bow doors, side doors on the mezzanine level to align with their passenger loading planks, an air conditioning system, and I'm sure much more.  Bottom line:  it probably wouldn't be worth their while to convert one of our vessels vs. doing a new-build, designed to their specifications.

Converting the saddle lounge to a car deck:  I don't think the KDT vessels are long enough to realistically convert the so-called bicycle mezzanine into a gallery deck for vehicles.  I think the ramp would end up being pretty steep.  I guess I would have to see it on paper to be convinced it would work.

Lastly, as inefficient as these ferries are, they are here to stay.  As has been said before, there are too many politician's reputations at stake over this fiasco, and no one's going to come forward and admit these boats were a mistake.  It would be nice to see them re-engined as you mentioned, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.  The state is having a hard enough time trying to fund a 3rd Olympic Class vessel.

[lifc]

You are probably right, although some of the Pols who made the decision are now gone.Changing the engines, in at least one, out to pay off well, fuel use savings alone will pay for the new engines in five years and re-using the EMD's could help the bottom line of building the third 144.

[compdude787]

Feb 20, 2014 10:53:29 GMT -8 lifc said:

As some of you know, I think the best thing to do with this class of Ferries is to sell them and replace them with more appropriate boats, I have heard that the Steamship Authority is wanting at least one new boat, seems like a perfect match to me.

Baring that, I would rather see the high side saddle lounge removed and replaced with a car ramp. This would help balance the boat and increase its utility. Then replace the engines with more efficient 4 cycle models, like the big Cat C280-6, or something like it. Rebuild the EMD"s and use them for the next 144.

For the PD/T run, we need a more efficient boat period.

No, actually the best thing to do with these boats would be to put different engines that are more suited for this type of vessel. They should NOT be sold.

[EGfleet]

Leveled-out ferries save sizable amount of fuel

By Jerry Cornfield, Herald Writer
OLYMPIA — Fuel use on two of Washington’s newer ferries is down since the state poured tons of ballast into the 64-car vessels to prevent them from leaning when empty.

And it’s adding up to thousands of dollars in savings for Washington State Ferries, whose leaders for months resisted political and public pressure to level out the boats.

Vessels in the Kwa-di Tabil class used an average of 71.7 gallons per hour in the last six months of 2013. That’s down from 83.7 gallons per hour in the same period in 2012, according to figures from the Washington State Ferries.

The 14 percent drop over a six-month stretch worked out to approximately $233,000 in savings, according to Deputy Chief Jean Baker.“I think over the life of the vessel we’re talking tens of millions of dollars potentially in savings,” said Rep. Norma Smith, R-Clinton. “Is that significant? Absolutely.”

The figures for fuel use cover all three boats in the class — the Salish, the Kennewick and the Chetzemoka.

But officials attribute the bulk of the decline to the Salish and Kennewick, which each started burning less fuel immediately after getting weighted down with ballast last year to overcome a design feature that purposely caused them to list.

In April 2013, the state added 72.5 tons of granular steel shot to the Salish to erase its lean. Six months later, it did similar work on the Kennewick. Work on the Chetzemoka is slated this year.

Smith began in early 2012 pressing ferry officials to take steps to level the boats. Aside from the awkward way it looked, she questioned whether the boats vibrated more because of it, and therefore might not last as long.

For months, state ferries chief David Moseley resisted. He said there was no indication the boats vibrated more or would be less durable because of the design. Eventually he relented.

Once the work got under way Moseley said adding weight and pushing the propellers a couple of inches deeper into the water could improve fuel efficiency and operability of the vessels, which traverse the rough waters of Admiralty Inlet between Port Townsend and Coupeville.

“I thought it was possible. We’re pleased,” Moseley said. “I think the ballast work and the fact that the boats sit a little lower in the water is probably one of the contributing factors.”Moseley declined to answer if the magnitude of the savings gives him pause about not doing the renovations earlier.

Smith was not reticent.“Very early on in the operation of the vessels both the crew and the public expressed concerns,” she said. “Had those concerns been heeded sooner I think more savings and operational efficiencies could have been realized sooner.”

Rep. Larry Seaquist, D-Gig Harbor, who also pushed to add the ballast, said it’s worked out better than he anticipated.

The savings proves the boats should not have been built with a list in the first place. Part of the problem is ferry system staff helped design the class of boats and had too big a stake in it, he said.He’s written legislation aimed at getting an independent party to oversee ferry construction contracts and reduce the role of ferry employees in designing boats.

It passed the House and is awaiting consideration in the Senate.

“This is exactly the mistake of letting the ferry system do the in-house design that the bill is intended to prevent,” he said.

heraldnet.com/article/20140221/NEWS01/140229834/Leveled-out-ferries-save-sizable-amount-of-fuel--

[lifc]

Feb 20, 2014 18:08:50 GMT -8 Elwha on the Rocks said:

To be completely honest, I wouldn't mind seeing the KDTs being sold one bit. I have just never really liked those boats, and to me they don't feel that comfortable. Personally, I think that WSF should sell two of the boats (the third one would be for PDF.)Then build two new boats that are about the same size as the KDTs, but that instead of having the saddle lounges they would have have gallery decks. Then they would have the same cabin layout as the Supers, but instead of having the solariums on either end of the upper cabin, they would have the wheelhouses there. So basically, they would be "Mini Supers," since the Supers have been so successful. Most likely none of this will ever happen, but that's what I would do if I were WSF.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I would sell off as as many as they could, one, two, or three. Perhaps the Steamship guys would like the longer boat better than the Island Home. The non-utility of these boats is really the problem, burn too much fuel-even with the better fuel use of the un I lean's, do not do Inter-Island well, already have too little car load for Port Townsend, way too much passenger space for PD/T, not enough capacity for other runs. All this adds up to big boat costs for a small boat, in the financial and utilization long run it would be better to sell them off at a loss and get boats that would do the job better. The happy face of lower fuel costs still doesn't disguise the fact that proper 4 stroke engines fuel use would be still be about 20% lower.

I like your Mini Super idea, with the same outside dimensions as the KdT's they would hold about 80 cars, which is about right.  These boats would be able to slightly delay the adding of the second boat on Port Townsend, and be a better substitute on other runs. If we can sell two, I would also buy an extended 72 car  STII, as the HIYU's replacement, for PD/T or Inter-Island. The last Kd/T could be used for either and eventually be either sold or modified to work better.

When I spoke to Elliot Bay Design Group a few weeks ago, they mentioned a design that they were working on before the Island Home was mandated by the State, I wonder what it looks like.   

[Blue Bus Fan]

Feb 21, 2014 7:51:53 GMT -8 EGfleet said:

Leveled-out ferries save sizable amount of fuel

By Jerry Cornfield, Herald Writer
OLYMPIA — Fuel use on two of Washington’s newer ferries is down since the state poured tons of ballast into the 64-car vessels to prevent them from leaning when empty.

And it’s adding up to thousands of dollars in savings for Washington State Ferries, whose leaders for months resisted political and public pressure to level out the boats.

Vessels in the Kwa-di Tabil class used an average of 71.7 gallons per hour in the last six months of 2013. That’s down from 83.7 gallons per hour in the same period in 2012, according to figures from the Washington State Ferries.

The 14 percent drop over a six-month stretch worked out to approximately $233,000 in savings, according to Deputy Chief Jean Baker.“I think over the life of the vessel we’re talking tens of millions of dollars potentially in savings,” said Rep. Norma Smith, R-Clinton. “Is that significant? Absolutely.”

The figures for fuel use cover all three boats in the class — the Salish, the Kennewick and the Chetzemoka.

But officials attribute the bulk of the decline to the Salish and Kennewick, which each started burning less fuel immediately after getting weighted down with ballast last year to overcome a design feature that purposely caused them to list.

In April 2013, the state added 72.5 tons of granular steel shot to the Salish to erase its lean. Six months later, it did similar work on the Kennewick. Work on the Chetzemoka is slated this year.

Smith began in early 2012 pressing ferry officials to take steps to level the boats. Aside from the awkward way it looked, she questioned whether the boats vibrated more because of it, and therefore might not last as long.

For months, state ferries chief David Moseley resisted. He said there was no indication the boats vibrated more or would be less durable because of the design. Eventually he relented.

Once the work got under way Moseley said adding weight and pushing the propellers a couple of inches deeper into the water could improve fuel efficiency and operability of the vessels, which traverse the rough waters of Admiralty Inlet between Port Townsend and Coupeville.

“I thought it was possible. We’re pleased,” Moseley said. “I think the ballast work and the fact that the boats sit a little lower in the water is probably one of the contributing factors.”Moseley declined to answer if the magnitude of the savings gives him pause about not doing the renovations earlier.

Smith was not reticent.“Very early on in the operation of the vessels both the crew and the public expressed concerns,” she said. “Had those concerns been heeded sooner I think more savings and operational efficiencies could have been realized sooner.”

Rep. Larry Seaquist, D-Gig Harbor, who also pushed to add the ballast, said it’s worked out better than he anticipated.

The savings proves the boats should not have been built with a list in the first place. Part of the problem is ferry system staff helped design the class of boats and had too big a stake in it, he said.He’s written legislation aimed at getting an independent party to oversee ferry construction contracts and reduce the role of ferry employees in designing boats.

It passed the House and is awaiting consideration in the Senate.

“This is exactly the mistake of letting the ferry system do the in-house design that the bill is intended to prevent,” he said.

heraldnet.com/article/20140221/NEWS01/140229834/Leveled-out-ferries-save-sizable-amount-of-fuel--

That is kinda interesting how a balance vessel saves money from using less fuel.  

[rusty]

Once they trimmed the boats they magically blended in with the other ferries. Be nice to have 4-stroke engines -- and proper controllable pitch propellers; but they're here to stay. And anyway, the tunnel is the scandal for this year.

[chokai]

Feb 20, 2014 16:07:08 GMT -8 compdude787 said:

No, actually the best thing to do with these boats would be to put different engines that are more suited for this type of vessel. They should NOT be sold.

Yeah the engine change out if it happens before the MLU will happen @ 10 years. A custom project just to fix the engines would be millions of dollars and take each boat out of service for months. If you do it at 10 yrs they'll be down for months already anyways saving a ton of cash.  You[ll burn a ton more fuel in the meantime sadly but there is also a cost to doing the work...  If someone wants to get serious on if it's really worth doing it sooner break out Excel...

Better yet 10 years would also be a few years before the state would be starting the "flight 2" 144's to replace the supers. That would allow the engines time to be pulled and refurbed for use in those boats if they are still going to be using a standard diesel plant.

Glad to see the balancing and the deepending of the draft on the boats cut fuel. Would love to see if they can also now hit something close to thier supposed design speed, I've noticed Kennewick running closer to 14.5kts now when she's behind.

[lifc]

A while ago, I did the cost estimates to change the engines to CAT C280-6's. On the basis of fuel alone, the Cat's would pay out in three years. The cost of changing the engines was estimated a 1 million a boat. My guess is that this would pay out in about 5 years total. This would free up one pair of EMD's immediately for the installation in the next 144. Once the engineering is done, the conversion should not take more than three weeks, plus some time for sea trials. I used the Cat because it was the same RPM profile and I am familiar with it, I think it's a great engine, my friends in the towing business agree. However, there may be others that would work as well too. For the taxpayers sake, this ought to be done now. We could hold over the E State for a few months to cover this, put it on PD/T, I do not think it would cost any more money to use it there.

[SolDuc]

So here's a shy Chetzemoka horn that I got blown on request during my trip on NYE, along with the ferry tour I forgot to post since then. Oops...





Re the whole debate about selling the ships and all: WSF is not selling the ships. That's just it. They already got a 12 gallon per hour fuel consumption reduction, which is very respectable and will of course pay off not only economically but also environmentally.
However if you couple those savings with new engines as Jim mentioned, you get even better. WSF will have to eventually increase capacity on the PT-K run since a status quo (exact same) capacity replacement for a run for the next 60 years is simply not viable. We're looking at the same problem as the so called "Cable Queen" for Denman Island in BC.
Of course the capacity of PT-K can be doubled in the winter with a second boat added, but capacity still needs to be higher.

So instead of selling the vessels, how about we give them a mega MLU at around 20-25 years old. This would include a complete re-engineiring of the ships, along with extended capacity. As stated, the mezzanine decks could be converted to auto decks without much issue. The ramps wouldn't need to be that steep at all since the rescue boats/MES are already taking the space where those ramps would be. Adding one-lane gallery decks on either side would easily bump the capacity up to 90 cars, a 40% increase in car capacity which would be just about right.

[Barnacle]

Feb 24, 2014 18:01:11 GMT -8 SolDuc said:

Of course the capacity of PT-K can be doubled in the winter with a second boat added, but capacity still needs to be higher.

So instead of selling the vessels, how about we give them a mega MLU at around 20-25 years old. This would include a complete re-engineiring of the ships, along with extended capacity. As stated, the mezzanine decks could be converted to auto decks without much issue. The ramps wouldn't need to be that steep at all since the rescue boats/MES are already taking the space where those ramps would be. Adding one-lane gallery decks on either side would easily bump the capacity up to 90 cars, a 40% increase in car capacity which would be just about right.

Hmm.  I'd call it 85 cars just so there's no disappointment.  I'm also not familiar with those boats, so I wouldn't know if it would be possible to get ramps in without pinching off the lower wing entrance.  Check out the Issaquah-130s for comparison--WSF barely got away with it there, and some would say they didn't.  On the face of it, though, definitely a valid proposal.

[PeninsulaExplorer]

Feb 20, 2014 12:36:17 GMT -8 Kahloke said:

Feb 20, 2014 10:53:29 GMT -8 lifc said:

As some of you know, I think the best thing to do with this class of Ferries is to sell them and replace them with more appropriate boats, I have heard that the Steamship Authority is wanting at least one new boat, seems like a perfect match to me.

Baring that, I would rather see the high side saddle lounge removed and replaced with a car ramp. This would help balance the boat and increase its utility. Then replace the engines with more efficient 4 cycle models, like the big Cat C280-6, or something like it. Rebuild the EMD"s and use them for the next 144.

For the PD/T run, we need a more efficient boat period.

Last I heard, Steamship Authority wasn't all that thrilled with Island Home, so I'm not sure they would want another vessel of that same design.  Not to mention, if we sold them one of the KDT's, they would have to do an awful lot of modifications to make it work for them - e.g. bow modifications so it will fit into their docks, a totally enclosed car deck with bow doors, side doors on the mezzanine level to align with their passenger loading planks, an air conditioning system, and I'm sure much more.  Bottom line:  it probably wouldn't be worth their while to convert one of our vessels vs. doing a new-build, designed to their specifications.

Converting the saddle lounge to a car deck:  I don't think the KDT vessels are long enough to realistically convert the so-called bicycle mezzanine into a gallery deck for vehicles.  I think the ramp would end up being pretty steep.  I guess I would have to see it on paper to be convinced it would work.

Lastly, as inefficient as these ferries are, they are here to stay.  As has been said before, there are too many politician's reputations at stake over this fiasco, and no one's going to come forward and admit these boats were a mistake.  It would be nice to see them re-engined as you mentioned, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.  The state is having a hard enough time trying to fund a 3rd Olympic Class vessel.

Last time I checked the KDT's had air conditioning, it was nice on a hot summer day out of Port Townsend.

[lifc]

Mar 1, 2014 9:20:09 GMT -8 PeninsulaExplorer said:

Feb 20, 2014 12:36:17 GMT -8 Kahloke said:

Last I heard, Steamship Authority wasn't all that thrilled with Island Home, so I'm not sure they would want another vessel of that same design.  Not to mention, if we sold them one of the KDT's, they would have to do an awful lot of modifications to make it work for them - e.g. bow modifications so it will fit into their docks, a totally enclosed car deck with bow doors, side doors on the mezzanine level to align with their passenger loading planks, an air conditioning system, and I'm sure much more.  Bottom line:  it probably wouldn't be worth their while to convert one of our vessels vs. doing a new-build, designed to their specifications.

Converting the saddle lounge to a car deck:  I don't think the KDT vessels are long enough to realistically convert the so-called bicycle mezzanine into a gallery deck for vehicles.  I think the ramp would end up being pretty steep.  I guess I would have to see it on paper to be convinced it would work.

Lastly, as inefficient as these ferries are, they are here to stay.  As has been said before, there are too many politician's reputations at stake over this fiasco, and no one's going to come forward and admit these boats were a mistake.  It would be nice to see them re-engined as you mentioned, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.  The state is having a hard enough time trying to fund a 3rd Olympic Class vessel.

Last time I checked the KDT's had air conditioning, it was nice on a hot summer day out of Port Townsend.

Perhaps the Steamship people would longer boat. True, they would have to do some modifications, but, if the price is right, they might be interested. For or part, these thing are never going to work right for us and their operating costs alone would make it less expensive in the long run to give them away and build proper new boats. I was very excited when the KdT's were first proposed, about half way through the building, I began to see their deficiencies, which have proven out to be true. No, we can't just unload them without replacements, been there done that, the results were disastrous. This time we need to do a proper job of matching the boats to the job. If we can't get rid of them, then here's what needs to be done, NOW.

1. Re-engine then with appropriate 4 stroke diesels ---- this allows us to decrease engine room staff and save 20% on fuel. Rebuilt EMD"S can be used in a new 144.
2. Remove the saddle lounges, install car ramps for more usable load. - This makes then more useable in the system. slightly postpones the start of two boat service on the PT run, and keeps up with increased demand in high season with two boats.
3. Install a keel shoe under he rudders and props, so when they go on the beach at Fort Casey, they don't bend those expensive hollow prop shafts and rudders.
4. Hold over the E State to cover the rebuilding time, it can be used at PD/T at all but the lowest tides at PT.
5. Build a new extended 72 car Steilacoom II for PD/T and Inter-Island in the off season. -- It's relatively cheap. reduces fuel use and operating costs, and gives us a great small boat for the little routes. Oh, the Summer demand at PT is exceeding the two boat capacity, within the Ferries, there is some thinking that in the future, they may have to add a third boat. This could help that out, either as the third,  or at PD/T, call it a replacement for the HIYU/ Rhododendron.

My thoughts

 

[FNS]

Mar 2, 2014 10:33:35 GMT -8 lifc said:

Mar 1, 2014 9:20:09 GMT -8 PeninsulaExplorer said:

Last time I checked the KDT's had air conditioning, it was nice on a hot summer day out of Port Townsend.

Perhaps the Steamship people would longer boat. True, they would have to do some modifications, but, if the price is right, they might be interested. For or part, these thing are never going to work right for us and their operating costs alone would make it less expensive in the long run to give them away and build proper new boats. I was very excited when the KdT's were first proposed, about half way through the building, I began to see their deficiencies, which have proven out to be true. No, we can't just unload them without replacements, been there done that, the results were disastrous. This time we need to do a proper job of matching the boats to the job. If we can't get rid of them, then here's what needs to be done, NOW.

1. Re-engine then with appropriate 4 stroke diesels ---- this allows us to decrease engine room staff and save 20% on fuel. Rebuilt EMD"S can be used in a new 144.
2. Remove the saddle lounges, install car ramps for more usable load. - This makes then more useable in the system. slightly postpones the start of two boat service on the PT run, and keeps up with increased demand in high season with two boats.
3. Install a keel shoe under he rudders and props, so when they go on the beach at Fort Casey, they don't bend those expensive hollow prop shafts and rudders.
4. Hold over the E State to cover the rebuilding time, it can be used at PD/T at all but the lowest tides at PT.
5. Build a new extended 72 car Steilacoom II for PD/T and Inter-Island in the off season. -- It's relatively cheap. reduces fuel use and operating costs, and gives us a great small boat for the little routes. Oh, the Summer demand at PT is exceeding the two boat capacity, within the Ferries, there is some thinking that in the future, they may have to add a third boat. This could help that out, either as the third,  or at PD/T, call it a replacement for the HIYU/ Rhododendron.

My thoughts

 

Removing the Mezzanine Decks may involve a lot of work.  Plus, the Port Side has the stair tower with its related fire doors et al.

This would relocate the rescue boat stations to the Saloon Deck or Sun Deck along with the extra life rafts.  Also, the anchor hold would have to be redesigned.  The MES stations would have to be relocated to the Saloon Deck as well.

The upper car deck would likely be on the Starboard Side with the existing ladders providing access to the Saloon Deck and an adjustable ramp at each end.  Only small and light cars would use this deck.

You could install an adjustable ramp at each end that would lead motorbikes up to the Port Side Mezzanine Deck.  More ventilation would be needed on this platform, though.

On the other hand, I like the Mezzanine Decks as they are now.  Good passenger evacuation foyers with little or no seats that are in the way of you getting to the MES.  I like having to chose between an indoor prom on cold windy days and an outdoor Sun Deck prom above on fair days.  The Barberi-Class NY ferries have indoor proms that have windows that can be opened up on fair days and are closed on cold days (your alternate open decks are at the ends on the Main Deck and Deck 2.5 between the second and third passenger decks of those passenger only ferries).

There's a lot of thought that has to be worked out in ship refurbishing brains to alter the KDT ferries.

[lifc]

I realize that it would take a lot of thought to get the renovations done right. This way we could keep the good parts of the design while generally making the boats do their job better. At one time I had the idea of sponsoring them out about 10 feet which would add another car lane, sort of a version of what was done to the Steel Electrics in the 50's. Without that modification, these boats will never work well for Inter-Island. To me, the best option for Inter-Island is the extended STII in off season, the Sealth in High season, but that would mean at least 4 144's would have to be built. I personally do not think we need the passenger Mezzanine decks at all. I have ridden the PT ferry many times in all seasons, I have never seen more than five people in them ever, the main cabin has plenty of space for the run. I like the idea of a new Mini-Super better, but we have to do what we have to do. Let's get at it now before the E State goes to the breakers.

[Neil]

Mar 3, 2014 11:40:16 GMT -8 lifc said:

I realize that it would take a lot of thought to get the renovations done right. This way we could keep the good parts of the design while generally making the boats do their job better. At one time I had the idea of sponsoring them out about 10 feet which would add another car lane, sort of a version of what was done to the Steel Electrics in the 50's. Without that modification, these boats will never work well for Inter-Island. To me, the best option for Inter-Island is the extended STII in off season, the Sealth in High season, but that would mean at least 4 144's would have to be built. I personally do not think we need the passenger Mezzanine decks at all. I have ridden the PT ferry many times in all seasons, I have never seen more than five people in them ever, the main cabin has plenty of space for the run. I like the idea of a new Mini-Super better, but we have to do what we have to do. Let's get at it now before the E State goes to the breakers.

It's good that the 'Extended 72 car Steilacoom II' was invented as our fantasy ferry on the American side of the forum, because the 'Queen of Richmond' needed company.

[lifc]

It may be your "fantasy" ferry, but it a very good concept that would work very well. Sooner or later, one will be built. The design idea came from a CAD concept posted on this site from FerryNutSeattle. It came up during the time when we thought we might have to move our Lummi Island,- Mainland terminal to Fairhaven (Bellingham). This lead us to contact both Nichols and Elliot Bay Design Group, who both agreed that it was an excellent idea, Nichols gave us approximate costs.  It would have been the least expensive boat of this size we could have gotten. What would be the other option, another KdT? Oh sure, that would be really cost-effective!

In further conversations with EBDG, we found out about the idea the State using more smaller, lower cost, lower operating costs boats, instead of fewer larger more expensive boats.  The would have lead to a more agile fleet than we have now. But, being as that may be, one or two of these boats could greatly enhance our options within the State fleet for a very reasonable cost.

Trust me, it was no fantasy for us here on Lummi Island, about the real possibility that we might had have had to go from a 3/4 mile route to a 12 mile route. 

[SolDuc]

On my most recent Vashon ferry trip (April 7th), I had the chance to get the Chetzemoka's horn blown the right way upon arrival at Point Defiance.

[SolDuc]

Sailing on the Chetzemoka on the beautiful morning on April 7, let's start with the bridge in TOKINA POWER mode:
Bridge, MV Chetzemoka - Washington State Ferries by SolDuc Photography, on Flickr

Sun Deck and TOKINA POWER:
Sun Deck, MV Chetzemoka - Washington State Ferries by SolDuc Photography, on Flickr

Nameplate, Jackstaff and even more TOKINA POWER:
Nameplate and Jackstaff, MV Chetzemoka - Washington State Ferries by SolDuc Photography, on Flickr

Arriving at Point Defiance with an enormous amount of TOKINA POWER:
MV Chetzemoka arriving at Point Defiance - Washington State Ferries by SolDuc Photography, on Flickr

The Bulwark Name, taken while at Point Defiance. TOKINA POWER.
Bulwark Name, MV Chetzemoka - Washington State Ferries by SolDuc Photography, on Flickr

The wake while headed back to Vashon. You know what I'm gonna say: TOKINA POWER!
Wake, MV Chetzemoka - Washington State Ferries by SolDuc Photography, on Flickr

[crashlament]

The Chetzemoka clearly is nowhere as good as the Rhody was. Why? Let me count the ways. First of all she burns way more fuel and has inferrior engine types for her class that were meant to make her faster than an Issaquah class. Same with her 2 sisterships. The KDT design is deplorable, has huge top space that is obviously wasted, has an ugly horn sound, nasty interriors, and clearly can'y handle the Port Townsend/Keystone and PT Defiance/Tahlequah runs, the way the Steel Electrics and Rhody can, so overall, the KDT class is the worst class ever to grace WSF! WHO'S WITH ME?!