|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 22, 2015 3:52:07 GMT -8
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?! Kulshan. |
|
lifc
Voyager 
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jun 26, 2015 21:21:27 GMT -8
Crashamet,
I agree about the KDT's everything you say, which a number of us said back when they were being built, has been borne out. There's one more deficiency I can think of, they hold on to a roll and slowly return to upright.
If you read back into the archives, you will see that I was one to promote a Steilacoom II platform, extended by three car lengths to 276 feet for a 72 car boat. It has a single Pilot House, like the STII and can be built to barely under 100 tonnes to a K class Boat or over as a full H class boat. The cost of a design build by Nichols Brothers ( from Matt in March) was under 19 million, for the H class. The K may be some less expensive.
This boat would run at PD/T with a maximum crew of 7, not the ten the KDT's require, use less than 700 gallons of diesel per day. The House would be several times bigger than needed for the walk-on passenger load there. It would be considerably more seaworthy than the STII with the added length, especially with the addition of roll chalks like the KDT's have. It would be more than adequate for off season on the San Juan Inter-Island Route and would work fine for a second or third summer boat at Port Townsend. FNS drew up a CAD Envisionment for the boat in Whatcom County colors for us here at Lummi Island in 2011 when we though we might be forced out of our normal Gooseberry Point mainland landing and have to go to Bellingham. I don't believe the 72 car/single Pilot House version was posted on this site, but the 270' dual Pilot house version is on the "Future Ferry Designs for Washington" thread, page 1 &2. There is also a roaring discussion there, although as time has moved on, things are some different now. It was on the Voyager part, perhaps FNS will re-post it here. The single Pilot House version not only would work better, but looks better too, it is very handsome vessel. Build one, call it the replacement for the HIYU and see how it works.
As for the KDT's:
A. Design a new Heavy Weather shallow draft 80 plus car boat. Get one built.
1. Sell all of the KDT's off, as replacements come on line, take the loss, smile and go on.
2. Same as above, keep one, initially, for winter at Port Townsend. The two KDT service is not adequate in the summer.
3. Pull the engines, replace them with fuel efficient four strokes like the Cat C280-6, or other. Re purpose their EMD engines as spare or rebuild and put them in the next 144.
4. Do 3. above, if engineering permits, remove one or two of the bicycle/passenger saddle lounges, replace each with a single wide upper car ramp. like the other bigger boats. This might also lower the staffing by one with the less passenger capacity.
5. Use the extended STII at PD/T and as a summer boat at PT.
6. Temporary measure--- Try one the E State'rs at Port Townsend for a couple of weeks in this July/August during the higher tide periods to see how it does. This would enhance revenue and decrease fuel costs.
Just a few of my ideas. I do know some of you like the KDT's, I'd rather they went off to become someone other's property, and we can still like them from a distance.
|
|
|
|
Post by crashlament on Jun 27, 2015 7:54:13 GMT -8
Crashamet, I agree about the KDT's everything you say, which a number of us said back when they were being built, has been borne out. There's one more deficiency I can think of, they hold on to a roll and slowly return to upright. If you read back into the archives, you will see that I was one to promote a Steilacoom II platform, extended by three car lengths to 276 feet for a 72 car boat. It has a single Pilot House, like the STII and can be built to barely under 100 tonnes to a K class Boat or over as a full H class boat. The cost of a design build by Nichols Brothers ( from Matt in March) was under 19 million, for the H class. The K may be some less expensive. This boat would run at PD/T with a maximum crew of 7, not the ten the KDT's require, use less than 700 gallons of diesel per day. The House would be several times bigger than needed for the walk-on passenger load there. It would be considerably more seaworthy than the STII with the added length, especially with the addition of roll chalks like the KDT's have. It would be more than adequate for off season on the San Juan Inter-Island Route and would work fine for a second or third summer boat at Port Townsend. FNS drew up a CAD Envisionment for the boat in Whatcom County colors for us here at Lummi Island in 2011 when we though we might be forced out of our normal Gooseberry Point mainland landing and have to go to Bellingham. I don't believe the 72 car/single Pilot House version was posted on this site, but the 270' dual Pilot house version is on the "Future Ferry Designs for Washington" thread, page 1 &2. There is also a roaring discussion there, although as time has moved on, things are some different now. It was on the Voyager part, perhaps FNS will re-post it here. The single Pilot House version not only would work better, but looks better too, it is very handsome vessel. Build one, call it the replacement for the HIYU and see how it works. As for the KDT's: A. Design a new Heavy Weather shallow draft 80 plus car boat. Get one built. 1. Sell all of the KDT's off, as replacements come on line, take the loss, smile and go on. 2. Same as above, keep one, initially, for winter at Port Townsend. The two KDT service is not adequate in the summer. 3. Pull the engines, replace them with fuel efficient four strokes like the Cat C280-6, or other. Re purpose their EMD engines as spare or rebuild and put them in the next 144. 4. Do 3. above, if engineering permits, remove one or two of the bicycle/passenger saddle lounges, replace each with a single wide upper car ramp. like the other bigger boats. This might also lower the staffing by one with the less passenger capacity. 5. Use the extended STII at PD/T and as a summer boat at PT. 6. Temporary measure--- Try one the E State'rs at Port Townsend for a couple of weeks in this July/August during the higher tide periods to see how it does. This would enhance revenue and decrease fuel costs. Just a few of my ideas. I do know some of you like the KDT's, I'd rather they went off to become someone other's property, and we can still like them from a distance. Oh don't get me wrong or anything Ii like the KdTs because they are ferry boats and we all love and have a passion for those things but the KDTs just aren't adequate. |
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jun 27, 2015 16:09:58 GMT -8
Here was the big issue back in 2006.
When Port Townsend and Keystone were proposed for improvements, the NIMBYs pressed the panic button. The plan was to run 1 124 car vessel and cut the frequency in half. Then there were the environmentalists complaining about dredging Keystone Harbor, and then those who were opposed to any more traffic on the route through larger vessels.
When the Steel Electrics suddenly got pulled, then action had to be taken. There were discussions on this very forum about using an Island Home design and making it more suitable to the WSF standard. Of course looking back we already saw the writing on the wall of what they would select and of course "what Mary wants Mary gets". That in turn caused that cost for one boat to be almost $100 million just for Chetzmoka. Given then engines for the 144s were already available, construction was accelerated by putting those ones in. That accelerated decision making was utilized to build these vessels given no one wanted to touch the Keystone Harbor football.
What should have happened and what did happen were created out of what I would say define as bending over backwards. The lead State Senator of the Transportation Committee represented Camano Island which made larger vessels and doing work to Keystone Harbor a non-starter. I am also not sure how discussions went on the vessel with an open deck but I thought part of the reason was for winter operations. I would have rather had the terminals expanded for the loads and accommodate larger vessels then placed an Evergreen or two up there but we are past that point.
An engine change I do not think would be practical and I do not think you would find buyers for those vessels given they are mission specific and not cost effective. Ramps are not that easy either given the elevation changes and length limitations along with passenger circulation.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,302
|
Post by Neil on Jun 27, 2015 16:39:22 GMT -8
Yes it has. The boats are here, they're not going to be re-engined or sold, and there is no such thing as a 'stretch Steilacoom II' Do we have to do this discussion again, or shall we live in the world we live in? |
|
|
|
Post by crashlament on Jun 28, 2015 6:46:01 GMT -8
Yes it has. The boats are here, they're not going to be re-engined or sold, and there is no such thing as a 'stretch Steilacoom II' Do we have to do this discussion again, or shall we live in the world we live in? I think that we should take most good ideas into consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by crashlament on Jun 28, 2015 6:47:40 GMT -8
Crashamet, I agree about the KDT's everything you say, which a number of us said back when they were being built, has been borne out. There's one more deficiency I can think of, they hold on to a roll and slowly return to upright. If you read back into the archives, you will see that I was one to promote a Steilacoom II platform, extended by three car lengths to 276 feet for a 72 car boat. It has a single Pilot House, like the STII and can be built to barely under 100 tonnes to a K class Boat or over as a full H class boat. The cost of a design build by Nichols Brothers ( from Matt in March) was under 19 million, for the H class. The K may be some less expensive. This boat would run at PD/T with a maximum crew of 7, not the ten the KDT's require, use less than 700 gallons of diesel per day. The House would be several times bigger than needed for the walk-on passenger load there. It would be considerably more seaworthy than the STII with the added length, especially with the addition of roll chalks like the KDT's have. It would be more than adequate for off season on the San Juan Inter-Island Route and would work fine for a second or third summer boat at Port Townsend. FNS drew up a CAD Envisionment for the boat in Whatcom County colors for us here at Lummi Island in 2011 when we though we might be forced out of our normal Gooseberry Point mainland landing and have to go to Bellingham. I don't believe the 72 car/single Pilot House version was posted on this site, but the 270' dual Pilot house version is on the "Future Ferry Designs for Washington" thread, page 1 &2. There is also a roaring discussion there, although as time has moved on, things are some different now. It was on the Voyager part, perhaps FNS will re-post it here. The single Pilot House version not only would work better, but looks better too, it is very handsome vessel. Build one, call it the replacement for the HIYU and see how it works. As for the KDT's: A. Design a new Heavy Weather shallow draft 80 plus car boat. Get one built. 1. Sell all of the KDT's off, as replacements come on line, take the loss, smile and go on. 2. Same as above, keep one, initially, for winter at Port Townsend. The two KDT service is not adequate in the summer. 3. Pull the engines, replace them with fuel efficient four strokes like the Cat C280-6, or other. Re purpose their EMD engines as spare or rebuild and put them in the next 144. 4. Do 3. above, if engineering permits, remove one or two of the bicycle/passenger saddle lounges, replace each with a single wide upper car ramp. like the other bigger boats. This might also lower the staffing by one with the less passenger capacity. 5. Use the extended STII at PD/T and as a summer boat at PT. 6. Temporary measure--- Try one the E State'rs at Port Townsend for a couple of weeks in this July/August during the higher tide periods to see how it does. This would enhance revenue and decrease fuel costs. Just a few of my ideas. I do know some of you like the KDT's, I'd rather they went off to become someone other's property, and we can still like them from a distance. Oh don't get me wrong or anything Ii like the KdTs because they are ferry boats and we all love and have a passion for those things but the KDTs just aren't adequate. Also note that I didn't have an account here yet when these boats were being built. |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jun 28, 2015 10:33:05 GMT -8
OK kids,
We all agree that the KDT's are not adequate, either in operation, or capacity. What do we do now?
I was pretty accurate in my prognostications way back in 2010 after I visited the Chetzemoka when it was being fitted out at Everett, all has come to pass as I envisioned.
a. What do you do about the inadequate coverage at Port Townsend in the summer? Add the third Ferry, then what covers PD/T? Remember the E Stat'rs are soon on their way out with the Supers soon behind them. Sealth is likely going to be the I-I boat.
b. Apparently the bottom of Keystone is rock and very hard to further dredge, I see no movement toward changing that terminal, even with MMH gone.
c. What about my idea of the TEMPORARY summer try of an E Stat'r at Port Townsend at higher water? --- My idea is to see how the town takes the increased capacity boat, my guess is when they see it, they will like it, your comments please.
d. There was no 144 car Ferry until last June, does that mean that no one could envision one, plan for one, get one built, until it suddenly appeared-- Shazzam! The same goes for the extended STII, one could be here in a year and it does have some real application.
e. I see a push again toward larger size boats with the big routes, Bainbridge, Edmonds, now overloading, and the fragility and finite number of the JumboII's, perhaps extended Olympic class boats? Your comments please.
f. Peabody was not shy of modifying vessels to better serve the public, why the resistance now?
It's easy to try to shoot at/down someone else's ideas, now, let's see your solutions to the KDT problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jun 28, 2015 15:42:04 GMT -8
OK kids, We all agree that the KDT's are not adequate, either in operation, or capacity. What do we do now? I was pretty accurate in my prognostications way back in 2010 after I visited the Chetzemoka when it was being fitted out at Everett, all has come to pass as I envisioned. a. What do you do about the inadequate coverage at Port Townsend in the summer? Add the third Ferry, then what covers PD/T? Remember the E Stat'rs are soon on their way out with the Supers soon behind them. Sealth is likely going to be the I-I boat. b. Apparently the bottom of Keystone is rock and very hard to further dredge, I see no movement toward changing that terminal, even with MMH gone. c. What about my idea of the TEMPORARY summer try of an E Stat'r at Port Townsend at higher water? --- My idea is to see how the town takes the increased capacity boat, my guess is when they see it, they will like it, your comments please. d. There was no 144 car Ferry until last June, does that mean that no one could envision one, plan for one, get one built, until it suddenly appeared-- Shazzam! The same goes for the extended STII, one could be here in a year and it does have some real application. e. I see a push again toward larger size boats with the big routes, Bainbridge, Edmonds, now overloading, and the fragility and finite number of the JumboII's, perhaps extended Olympic class boats? Your comments please. f. Peabody was not shy of modifying vessels to better serve the public, why the resistance now? It's easy to try to shoot at/down someone else's ideas, now, let's see your solutions to the KDT problem. We might want to shift this over to another thread and perhaps resurrect the new vessel designs thread. |
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Jun 28, 2015 22:45:10 GMT -8
The KDTs are here to stay, they aren't going anywhere. I don't see why you pointlessly argue getting rid of them. WSF is building Four Olympics and no more smaller boats. Frankly, keeping up this line of argument undermines your arguments on Whatcom County buying the Hiyu.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 8:15:10 GMT -8
I was certainly hoping this discussing about the KDT's and the fantasy of a stretched STII was lone gone and over with but I guess it's time to beat an already very dead horse once again! In the past I have stayed out of the this discussion but now I feel it's time to put my two cents worth in. The KDT's are here to stay and that is that. Just because you don't like them and think they are inadequate doesn't mean they should simply be sold off and we start over, talk about wasting money (I don't think anyone would just smile and go with it). They may not be a dream ferry but they do a days work and I think after having the Salish work as the #3 ferry at Kingston it shows just how versatile they really are. In fact when I rode the Salish at Kingston I overheard more than one crew member singing the praises of how agile and reliable she is.
Just because you have a CAD version drawn up of a 72 STII doesn't mean it would actually operate that way after being built (max crew of 7 and use less than 700 gallons of diesel per day). And I find it hard to believe it could actually be built and operating in a year. There is much more that goes into designing and building a ferry than just taking a CAD design to the shipyard and having them build it. How do you know it would be considerably more seaworthy than the STII with the added length and roll chalks? Has this been tested with a scale model in a simulated exercise or is it just what could be? I enjoy drawing ferries using Google Sketch Up but I would never dream that my designs for a 40 car single ended ferry or a modern version E-State could actually be built from those drawings without major changes or re-design. Not to mention thinking I had already come up with a set price on how much it would cost to have them built.
We can barely come up with the funding for a 4th Olympic Class ferry where are we going to come up with it for the design of a new heavy weather shallow draft 80 plus car boat? And if it's designed for heavy weather then is it going to be only be operated at Port Townsend? Even if this isn't the case a heavy weather boat may burn more fuel and be rather inefficient for other routes (thinking Sunshine Coast Queen and Queen of Chilliwack here). We would then be wasting valuable money to design and build a ferry that is not necessary.
Like other members have stated on here I think if you took out the the bicycle/passenger saddle lounges and replaced them with a single wide upper car ramp the ramps would be simply too steep. Plus you would be adding more car carrying capacity which means more passengers on board so I don't think that would lower the staffing by one crew member either.
If one of the Evergreen State class could be used at Port Townsend don't you think it would have been tried already? Isn't that why the Steel Electrics were used there for until they had to be retired? If they could get the E-State in there at high tide why wasn't it used when they lost the Steels? And if it could go into Keystone Harbor during the higher tide periods how many sailings a day could it actually do before low tide comes again? Sure it could increase revenue because it can carry more vehicles but then you are losing money to have a crew staffed to operate it and the fuel used to make maybe just a couple trips a day? Not to mention where are you going to tie up when all three boats are tied up for the evening? Sail it to Kingston to tie up? Now that would be wasting money. From a business stand point the cost for "trying it out" probably wouldn't offset the little revenue gained.
You say Peabody wasn't shy of modifying vessels and why the resistance now? Well, that was a different era, most of those boats where smaller, with passenger cabins made of wood and more easily modified because the regulations where different then and not as strict. With that being said it cost a fraction of what it does today because of all that. I wouldn't say there is a resistance to it, in most cases it just isn't practical or cost effective.
The bottom line is that the KDT's are here to stay whether you like them or not. They are not going to be sold off and new boats designed to replace them. You really are undermining your arguments for Whatcom County for purchasing the Hiyu by trying to resurrect and keep this now very old agrument alive.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jun 29, 2015 15:17:24 GMT -8
I fail to see the logic of why this thread undermines the use of the HIYU at Lummi Island.
Once again, WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION? We need more capacity at PT/K, how do we provide it?
Let the cars pile up and do nothing? Or try to move the traffic one way or another and enhance commerce, revenues and satisfaction? Which one, how?
At the time of the cashiering of the Steel Electrics, all other Ferries were needed else where, trying the E State Class here is possible now with an "almost" spare boat. Go look at the tide tables there are several week or longer envelopes where the vessel would work at Keystone, do your homework. Take the KDT to Eagle Harbor, Anacortes and tie it up or use it somewhere else, remember this is only a trial. In reality there is barely a spare boat now other than the HIYU and we know what its utility is. Use the loose KDT as a spare boat.
I would call the Steel Electric's heavy weather Ferries at least as much as the KDT's and they used 2/3rd's the fuel, if they could do it in 1927, why not now, and remember, it ought to be near the capacity of and E State.
The SEII design already exist, lengthening it, is pretty easy to do, it's not a new design. The builder says the same thing I do. For the fuel cost, use the fuel use of the SEII for a baseline, then go to the larger Cat 3512HD spec sheets and do the math. I have on existing vessels, got very close to their actual fuel use, 700 gallons a day might even be too much, erred to the plus side. Got the KDT's fuel use dead on the money. Got the crew size from the Coast Guard, may be less at PD/T.
Again, How do you solve the problem. I'll take the new designs to the new design forum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 20:11:44 GMT -8
I don't buy for one second that when the Steel Electrics went out of service that if they could have used the E-State at Port Townsend and cut the Inter-Island route out they would have. Instead WSF chose to take the E-State to the San Juans to replace the Illahee. It is my understanding and what WSF has said in the past that the only ferries that can safely navigate Keystone Harbor was the Steel Electrics and now the KDT's. I will have to do "my homework" on this to make sure that is the case though. You were saying in your previous post that an E-State Class ferry could be tried at Port Townsend during high tide only. Now you are stating that there are "several week or longer envelopes where the vessel would work at Keystone". Are you now saying that there wouldn't be a tide low enough during that period to prevent an E-State Class from entering the harbor? I didn't feel I needed to do any "homework" on the tides based on what you stated earlier. And if you take the second KDT to Eagle Harbor or Anacortes and tie it up or use it then what are you going to do the E-State Class can't enter Keystone Harbor? Run it back to Port Townsend, take it off the route it's on or just simply leave Port Townsend with one ferry during the times the E-State Class can't be used at Port Townsend? Now that would sure make a lot of sense in money savings wouldn't it?
I will say that perhaps your fuel calculations are correct for the SEII design based on the the fact you used the spec sheets for a larger Cat 3512HD and did the math. And that you were able to calculate the KDT's fuel consumption on the money. That makes sense. I still think there is a lot more to consider with the SEII design though.
I do see the day Port Townsend will probably have three ferries and I think that will be the solution. In my opinion to solve this we should have built 4 KDT's to start with then we would have had a spare boat immediately or as an Inter-Island ferry. Then it could have been used at Port Townsend as a third ferry in the future. But right now we are working to try to get the 4th Olympic Class ferry built and I would like to see us push for more of them. I think it is more important than trying to push new designs and hope we get the funding for them. We have to go with what the overall need is at the moment and that is more 144 car ferries to retire the E-State Class and put a Super or two into reserve status.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jun 29, 2015 20:35:36 GMT -8
In my opinion to solve this we should have built 4 KDT's to start with then we would have had a spare boat immediately or as an Inter-Island ferry. Then it could have been used at Port Townsend as a third ferry in the future. But right now we are working to try to get the 4th Olympic Class ferry built and I would like to see us push for more of them. I think it is more important than trying to push new designs and hope we get the funding for them. We have to go with what the overall need is at the moment and that is more 144 car ferries to retire the E-State Class and put a Super or two into reserve status. My opinion is that three KDT's were three too many. It is not a good design, and really not a good fit for any of our routes, but as you and others have repeatedly stated, they are here now, so we might as well get used to them. As for assigning one to the inter-island route, both Chetzemoka and Salish did short stints up there. My understanding is that the crews hated those vessels, particularly the narrow beam, which made it more difficult to turn cars around on the car deck (the San Juan Spin), which is necessary in certain situations. I suppose one would do in a pinch, if that was the only boat available, but I don't think island crews would be very happy about that. As for your other point, I totally agree. Let's get that 4th OC vessel built right after Chimacum enters service. |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jun 29, 2015 20:50:47 GMT -8
The KDT's as they are are disasters, we do not need any more of them, if we want a boat of this size, get another design. I do not think we need a 64 car ferry anywhere, they all ought too be bigger, with the exception of PD/T. They also are problematic on Inter-Island, with the restrictive deck structure. Even though it's too small, the HIYU does a better job in the load unload department.
The E State class can never be a permanent solution for Keystone, not then, not now, not ever, they draw too much water. This is a test only, at a minimum week long high tide period,during operating hours. The tide tables are extremely accurate, within inches, we "do the homework" so we know when it is. The second KDT stays on post and runs as usual, the E-Stat'r is the second boat with the less operating hours. All we are trying to do is see if the bigger boat temporarily helps relieve the back ups, makes for lower operating costs, and if the streets of Port Townsend can consistently handle the larger unloading traffic, it's a test only! In 2007 the E State was needed elsewhere, they had no spares and considering the shallow Keystone Harbor, the right decision was made. Put the second KDT to another task, for that test period.
The 72 car STII variant is for PD/T and other small ferry work where a big one is not needed, like winter on I/I or summer as a third boat on PT/K. It will run far less expensively, is cheap to acquire, you could buy one with the savings of operating costs of a KDT in just a few years. Yes there is more to the calculations to hull platform, like lower hydraulic drag at longer length, yes, I did those too, a couple of years ago. While there may be some differences in calculations and real use, it will be close. You can find it all on the net, it's not rocket science, just takes a scientific calculator or computer to figure it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elwha on the Rocks on Jul 22, 2016 14:04:49 GMT -8
I got to ride the Chetzemoka on the Port Townsend to Keystone route during her recent stint there. Must say that it was interesting riding a vessel other than the Kennewick and Salish there. It's very interesting to watch a ferry approach Keystone from the shore. When you're onboard you don't realize just how sharp of a turn they make to enter the harbor:   Keystone is one of my favorite ferry terminals to spot at as all of the harbor is accessable to the public so there's lots of vantage points to choose from:  Boarding:  Departing Keystone:  Aesthetically, I think I prefer the Chetzemoka's sundeck seating to that of the Salish and Kennewick:  Galley seating:  Docking at Port Townsend:  |
|
|
|
Post by sounder on Jul 23, 2016 5:54:28 GMT -8
I got to ride the Chetzemoka on the Port Townsend to Keystone route during her recent stint there. Must say that it was interesting riding a vessel other than the Kennewick and Salish there. Making that turn into Keystone Harbor is sometimes like sliding the back end of your car around a turn. It is interesting to see the difference of a vessel that is "controlled pitch" and a vessel that is non "controlled pitch" entering the harbor. I am thinking about the steel electrics, Olymplc, and Rhoderdendron. Also Chetzemoka fits this (current ferry). The interior, the seats in particular on the Chetzy are way more comfortable to sit in then on the Salish or Kennewick. The Chetzy by far has a better interior then her two sister boats. --------- [moderator edit to save peoples' wrists] |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jul 26, 2016 18:07:23 GMT -8
Making that turn into Keystone Harbor is sometimes like sliding the back end of your car around a turn. It is interesting to see the difference of a vessel that is "controlled pitch" and a vessel that is non "controlled pitch" entering the harbor. I am thinking about the steel electrics, Olymplc, and Rhoderdendron. Also Chetzemoka fits this (current ferry). I'm curious as to the differences in your opinion. I don't spend much time out there (like, none) to make the observations. I'd think there would be greater differences between telegraph (Klickitat, Olympic, Rhododendron-back-in-the-day, pre-refurbished Steel-Electrics) and pilothouse control (Kwa-di-Tubtoy, refurbished S/E's other than the Klickitat) than fixed pitch v. controllable pitch, but again, I don't spend much time out there. Whatcha seen? |
|
|
|
Post by sounder on Jul 29, 2016 13:54:20 GMT -8
Making that turn into Keystone Harbor is sometimes like sliding the back end of your car around a turn. It is interesting to see the difference of a vessel that is "controlled pitch" and a vessel that is non "controlled pitch" entering the harbor. I am thinking about the steel electrics, Olymplc, and Rhoderdendron. Also Chetzemoka fits this (current ferry). I'm curious as to the differences in your opinion. I don't spend much time out there (like, none) to make the observations. I'd think there would be greater differences between telegraph (Klickitat, Olympic, Rhododendron-back-in-the-day, pre-refurbished Steel-Electrics) and pilothouse control (Kwa-di-Tubtoy, refurbished S/E's other than the Klickitat) than fixed pitch v. controllable pitch, but again, I don't spend much time out there. Whatcha seen? It has often felt like a sharper turn and overall a faster entry with the Older boats. The Salish and Kennewick seem to have a more controlled approach into Keystone Harbor. I have not been on this route a huge amount either so this is what I have noticed on my trips. Although maybe it is more the tide or like you say the telegraph issue. |
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Jul 29, 2016 23:56:01 GMT -8
The KtD's have that compound rudder and they can "turn on a dime". That coming in high to Keystone was something to do when the tide was running right with a Steel-Electric. A KtD can do it most of the time, and make up the lost time that it takes to engage the bow prop.
|
|
|
|
Post by Luke on Apr 18, 2017 20:52:10 GMT -8
I recently got myself a new toy- a DJI Phantom 3 Drone. Earlier tonight, it got to fly over Point Defiance, on a series of flights dedicated to taking some aerial footage of the Chetzemoka. I'm pretty happy with the results, so I thought I'd post them here.  Nearing Point Defiance on her 7:00 sailing   At Point Defiance  Heading back to Tahlequah on her 7:25 sailing And, two videos of her arrival and departure. So, that's what the Phantom 3 can do. I'm happy with it. It's a fun bird to fly, and it takes fairly decent pictures and videos. Not as good as the big fancy cameras many of you guys around here have, but for what it is, I think it's pretty good. I'm looking forward to playing with this over more ferry terminals. |
|
|
|
Post by paulvanb on Apr 20, 2017 19:28:57 GMT -8
I recently got myself a new toy- a DJI Phantom 3 Drone. Earlier tonight, it got to fly over Point Defiance, on a series of flights dedicated to taking some aerial footage of the Chetzemoka. I'm pretty happy with the results, so I thought I'd post them here. So, that's what the Phantom 3 can do. I'm happy with it. It's a fun bird to fly, and it takes fairly decent pictures and videos. Not as good as the big fancy cameras many of you guys around here have, but for what it is, I think it's pretty good. I'm looking forward to playing with this over more ferry terminals. Just waiting for Mr. Horn to get one and fly it over Active Pass. Then we can all enjoy the results! |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 20, 2017 20:43:08 GMT -8
Just waiting for Mr. Horn to get one and fly it over Active Pass. Then we can all enjoy the results! I'm on the fence between thinking that drones are a treat offering new perspectives, or are unfair to the fun challenge of getting good photo angles from the ground. |
|
|
|
Post by mybidness459 on Apr 21, 2017 17:33:34 GMT -8
On a personal view I think drones are great and you can capture shots you could only dream about.
However I am concerned about the so called no fly zones or security point of view. I would not pull one out while on the ferry or fly one near terminals, especially the American Ferry terminals. They might think you are scouting it out to do something bad, Please be careful and be aware that big brother may think you are up to something else bthan Ferry fanning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Apr 24, 2017 16:50:14 GMT -8
On a personal view I think drones are great and you can capture shots you could only dream about. However I am concerned about the so called no fly zones or security point of view. I would not pull one out while on the ferry or fly one near terminals, especially the American Ferry terminals. They might think you are scouting it out to do something bad, Please be careful and be aware that big brother may think you are up to something else bthan Ferry fanning. To say nothing of unless your drone is capable of considerable horizontal speed, that ferry's moving faster than you think... |
|
