|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Jan 17, 2011 19:39:35 GMT -8
Going back to a previous topic: I went to the open house of the Chetzemoka and noticed that the tunnel lane was VERY narrow. It is made more narrow by the cones that are along the outside of the lane. As for the list, I would think that the outside lane on the north side of the vessel would allow for taller vehicles. It holds the bike area and is limited in height. I have not been on the boat during a crossing, but I would think that they would want the heaviest vehicles closer to the north side, as it would settle the list. Does anybody know if the three new boats will have controllable pitch props? I rode on Chetzemoka again this afternoon from Keystone to Port Townsend. This is the 4th time I've been on the new vessel, and the third time I have ridden it. I have yet to ride on Chetzy as a walk on passenger. All three times I have driven on the boat. Anyway, today there was enough traffic that they loaded me into that single outside lane below the mezzanine. To answer your question about the narrowness of that tunnel lane, there's actually more room to open your car doors in that single lane than in the other 5 lanes. you are correct in that they only load vehicles into that single lane when they have enough vehicles to fill the vessel. The rest of the time, they keep the cars to the other side of the fidley for balancing purposes. Today was a rough crossing. They ended up heading way south of Keystone before crossing Admiralty Inlet, but Chetzemoka handled it well, much better than Steilacoom II would have. She really is a great boat! she handles well and as long as you know what you are doing she give more then enough power when needed. I am still amazed at her over all tone and sound level. she thankfully is far more like a Jumbo in her cabin, then she is like and Issy... |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Jan 18, 2011 9:37:10 GMT -8
To answer your question about the narrowness of that tunnel lane, there's actually more room to open your car doors in that single lane than in the other 5 lanes. you are correct in that they only load vehicles into that single lane when they have enough vehicles to fill the vessel. The rest of the time, they keep the cars to the other side of the fidley for balancing purposes. I noticed that about the small tunnel lane. I've seen them stick pickups and SUVs in there and they had plenty of room once parked. I can say it certainly doesn't feel very spacious when you are moving inside of it though, particularly at the ends. If a good spot is not availble in the main tunnel, the side tunnel strikes me as an alternative place to put the cars of those needing ADA access to the elevators etc... Provided there aren't any wheelchairs, I don't think there's enough room for them in there. |
|
lifc
Voyager 
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 18, 2011 10:51:44 GMT -8
I went to Port Townsend this weekend and rode her over and back.
From my conversations with the Crew and Riders, it seems quite a number of items we wrote about in the previous postings have moved from the speculative to fact column.
The passenger house is indeed way larger than needed, although my friends on the deck report an increase of weekend riders there to experience the New Ferry.
Initial fuel use is higher than anticipated, they are trying various speed scenerios to minimize it, right now they are running it "slow".
The car deck is harder to load than the SEII, the list makes it even more difficult.
It handles the weather just fine.
**** The Big One***
The big trucks are back and increasing in quantity as the operators discover that the new Ferry can carry them. The locals are worried that if the route is restricted to only one boat, that this resumption and perhaps increase of truck traffic will reduce the seasonal tourist car traffic to an even lower level than the SEII was able to carry. Now they are wishing a larger Vessel was built, and that they have figured out that bicylists don't buy much when passing through, it's the familys in the cars that spend more. Strange how things come to pass...
|
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Jan 18, 2011 14:57:59 GMT -8
I went to Port Townsend this weekend and rode her over and back. From my conversations with the Crew and Riders, it seems quite a number of items we wrote about in the previous postings have moved from the speculative to fact column. The passenger house is indeed way larger than needed, although my friends on the deck report an increase of weekend riders there to experience the New Ferry. Initial fuel use is higher than anticipated, they are trying various speed scenerios to minimize it, right now they are running it "slow". The car deck is harder to load than the SEII, the list makes it even more difficult. It handles the weather just fine. **** The Big One*** The big trucks are back and increasing in quantity as the operators discover that the new Ferry can carry them. The locals are worried that if the route is restricted to only one boat, that this resumption and perhaps increase of truck traffic will reduce the seasonal tourist car traffic to an even lower level than the SEII was able to carry. Now they are wishing a larger Vessel was built, and that they have figured out that bicylists don't buy much when passing through, it's the familys in the cars that spend more. Strange how things come to pass... We wanted something with more cabin space then the STII. And in many ways the Chetzy is just a modern verion of the SE. And if you talk with the people that live around the run and use it often, it is what WE wanted.. WE wanted something with a bigger cabin, WE wanted lots of outside deck space. WE Did NOT want a Boat like the STII. While there have been issues with canceling crossings because of weather, that happens on this run we know it, and we are used to it.. The plus is, we haven't had to deal with anywhere near the amount of cancellations with the Chetzy, that we had to deal with the STII. I am sorry if this seems harsh but, LIFC You have been dead set against the Chezty since the basic design was chosen. While the STII is a nice Little boat, she is to little for PT Whidbey. It's like when the Hiyu is called in to action, she is very small, but you are always grateful to at-least have her rather then have nothing. STII was a make due, and nothing more. WE Made due with her, and were grateful for at-least something, but now we have something that works well for us. |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,302
|
Post by Neil on Jan 18, 2011 15:17:08 GMT -8
We wanted something with more cabin space then the STII. And in many ways the Chetzy is just a modern verion of the SE. And if you talk with the people that live around the run and use it often, it is what WE wanted.. WE wanted something with a bigger cabin, WE wanted lots of outside deck space. WE Did NOT want a Boat like the STII. Given YOUR very exacting requirements for ferry boats, it's very fortunate that you could have everyone ELSE in the state pay for this overpriced, overbuilt vessel.  |
|
Jody
Chief Steward
Ferry Foamer
Posts: 152
|
Post by Jody on Jan 18, 2011 18:11:36 GMT -8
The passenger house is indeed way larger than needed, although my friends on the deck report an increase of weekend riders there to experience the New Ferry. It's January. Is that really a fair assessment of the needs and requirements of the passenger house? Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't walk-on/bike-on traffic be much higher in the fair weather/summer months when the tourists start flocking that direction again? Just my thoughts. As for the dreaded truck traffic, and the sudden musings of the need for a larger boat, I can only say "Irony". You've defined it... Jody |
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Jan 18, 2011 21:02:16 GMT -8
Too much cabin atop too little cardeck = poor economy; i.e. cost of hauling vehicles is too high.
If the ferry system is truly going broke, this class of vessel just makes it happen quicker.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 18, 2011 23:50:22 GMT -8
Dear WhidbeyIslandGuy,
Hey, don't shoot me I'm only the messenger.
Yes, more cabin space, outdoor areas etal were wanted than the SEII, you got em, but do they really need 750 passengers spaces for Keystone when it only carries 64 cars? Most people wanted updated Steel Electric's, these are not, they are designed for a passenger heavy route, like --- Martha's Vinyard, the design is not intended to carry trucks to the Pulp Mill. Do you need 750 Passenger Spaces for Tahlequah, maybe 100 maximum there. Actually 500-600 pasenger spaces would have done quite well for the classes entended routes, imagine the lower cost of that. It is not the boat's design I object to, it's the process that got us this design I object to.
I never said the SEII was perfect, of couse it is way to small in load, both passenger and cars. But the fact remains that it is easier to load and unload than the Chetzemoka. It's also a fact that's the Chetzy burns over twice the fuel than the SEII and has two more crew than the Steel Electrics for no projected increase in ridership. The real problem is the local retail and hospitality industry will likely get less benefit from the Chetzy then they did with the SEII due to all the car spaces being filled with trucks if only one Ferry is assigned there.
The SEII, which we all agree is too small, cost 13 million, the Chetzy is pushing 90 million. Don't you think for that amount of money we ought to gotten something that would have aced the job, not been less appropriate than the 80 year old tubs it replaced.
It's here, we're stuck with it, let's hope they can make it work as well as possible. We just cannot ever let another aquisition fiasco like this happen again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jan 19, 2011 7:38:56 GMT -8
That's quite a gap from "pushing $90 milllion." Please cite your sources. I'd like a link to a document, thanks; not just 'so-and-so told me.' If $10.6 million is a trivial insignificance to you, can I have your pocket change? |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 19, 2011 8:25:53 GMT -8
That's quite a gap from "pushing $90 milllion." Please cite your sources. I'd like a link to a document, thanks; not just 'so-and-so told me.' If $10.6 million is a trivial insignificance to you, can I have your pocket change? I assume that you're being rhetorical, and not asking me. Because I have no idea on those questions, ;D.... |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 19, 2011 9:09:16 GMT -8
The 90 million figure is out there somewhere, I read it, I will try to find it. But even the 80 million figure is, yes, I'm sure it will get there, astounding. We will not really know until and independent audit is performed. The original cost under 40.
Look what the Governor just tried to do, dump the system off onto others, what we are seeing is the result of compounded mistakes by Government. This series of boats are just the point of the current dustup. We cannot afford this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jan 19, 2011 10:13:38 GMT -8
The 90 million figure is out there somewhere, I read it, I will try to find it. But even the 80 million figure is, yes, I'm sure it will get there, astounding. We will not really know until and independent audit is performed. The original cost under 40. Look what the Governor just tried to do, dump the system off onto others, what we are seeing is the result of compounded mistakes by Government. This series of boats are just the point of the current dustup. We cannot afford this. The $90 million figure you quote doesn't turn up on Google. The "original" did cost $33 million, yes. But to expect prices to remain stagnant is sheer fantasy. Halter Marine can provide a much lower cost because it doesn't have to pay its employees for a westcoast cost of living. Louisiana doesn't have a state minimum wage, relying on federal minimum wage of 7.25 an hour (which is not to imply that Halter Marine pays minimum wage, mind you). It also has no requirement of premium pay after 40 hours like Washington does. Did the price of steel change? How about the cost of the 18-month timeline? And then there's the fact that Todd has an effective monopoly by joining forces with Nichols and Martinac... these are the actions of private industry, not government. The Governor's suggestion, while inappropriate and inadequate, is not strictly relevant to this conversation. |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 19, 2011 11:43:54 GMT -8
Our leaders did not have to put up with the industry monopoly, it was politically expedient for them to do so, now we, the taxpayers, are stuck with the bill. For my part, and many people I know, we intend to make sure this never happens again. If we do not bring this forward into the light, it just might.
The fact that the Chetzy is now carrying an increasing number of trucks is both a problem and a success.
A problem to the tourist and retail sectors, if the cars cannot get to the Peninsula because the trucks are taking up all the space. The loss of the SE's cost this industry tens of millions of dollars, I personally know a Jewelry maker who supplied a number of shops in the Port Townsend area, his loss of business there was over 50%, while the rest of this clients purchasing only declined 5% due to the down economy. The resultant loss of B&O and sales taxes to the State are also of a considerable percentage. If the WSF does not put the second Ferry on the route, this will further decrease the business to the area.
On the success side, the resource based industries are profiting. The trucks are bringing raw materials to the Peninsula Mills more efficiently. For example, the Skagit County Lumber Mills are moving their waste products to them at a far lower cost than sending it elsewhere, that industry wins.
The problem is one boat is not big enough, and 80 car Vessel would still be too small for one boat operation in the summer but would have been better than one 64, for once I agree with MMH, the second boat is needed.
If the second boat is not assigned the only other option I can see is to seasonally take advantage of the inherent attribute of the Vessel, speed. Wind it up to 15 knots, get the push engine into it's efficiency zone, I doubt if the fuel cost per car load will increase overall, the boat will just get there faster. By doing that and refiguring the schedule, another run could be fit into the day and a bit more traffic turned
|
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Jan 19, 2011 12:42:12 GMT -8
The trucks the Chetzy is careering many of them are like what the SE's would carry. While she does have a high car deck clearance, the traffic is coming back to what it was before the STII.
|
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Jan 19, 2011 14:48:26 GMT -8
A couple of videos from her first day in service.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Jan 30, 2011 12:07:33 GMT -8
There is pretty positive article in the new Work Boat Magazine about the Chetzemoka. I read it last night at my brothers place, but can't seem to find it on-line. There were also two small write-ups on the New Texas and North Carolina Ferries.
Work Boat is an interesting and insightful publication, I'm sending in my own subscription on Monday.
|
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Feb 5, 2011 8:57:08 GMT -8
Found this on the Bitter End blog...some very interesting stuff in the report. Most telling was that the PVA didn't even use statistics from the three ferry systems most like WSF. I'll post the link at the end. They also did an analysis on the Chetzemoka...here we go: "Consider the 2010 Chetzemoka Class as compared to the 1927 Steel Electric Class: Both designs carry roughly the same amount of cargo and served the same routes. The Steel Electric Class vessels were very fuel efficient and required only ½ of the horsepower the Chetzemoka Class requires. Because they did have very efficient hulls, the Steel Electrics never exceeded the fuel consumption rate of 900 gallons per day. Their small power plant only required two crewmembers to operate. By contrast, the Chetzemoka hull and propulsion systems are inefficient and require much larger engines, it burns a minimum of 1200 gallons per day, often more. These large engines require a three man engine room crew to operate. The difference in daily fuel consumption between these two ships means that over a 60 year career, the Chetzemoka will burn 6.57 million gallons more fuel than a Steel Electric Class vessel would burn doing the exact same job. Because there are three Chetzemoka Class vessels being built, the total increase in fuel consumption for the class (over their 60 year life spans) will be 19.71 million gallons more than what three Steel Electric Class vessels would consume. At a current cost of $3.00 per gallon, the additional fuel cost WSF will have to pay to operate the Chetzemoka class for 60 years is 59.13 million (2011) dollars. This figure will go up as fuel price increases over the next 60 years. The inefficient hull form of the Chetzemoka also results in higher labor costs because it requires one additional employee on each engineering watch. This one additional position is really 4.25 additional persons to cover the 24-7-365 engineering schedule. As each engine crew member costs roughly $75,000 in wages and benefits per year, the cost increase per year, per ship is $318,750. Over the lifecycle of the ship this is 19.12 million dollars. The total increase in lifecycle engine room labor cost for three ships is 57.38 million dollars. The deck crew of the Chetzemoka requires one additional sailor than the Steel Electric Class, increasing the cost of operation by $243,750 per ship, per year. Over the lifecycle of the ship this is 14.63 million dollars. Total increase in lifecycle deck department labor cost for three ships is 43.88 million dollars. Labor calculates that the inefficiency of the Chetzemoka Class hull and machinery arrangement results in a lifecycle cost increase of $160.38 million. These are operating costs and must be paid for through subsidies or fare box increases." Link to the full report can be found here: bitterendblog.com/?p=9807Some very interesting reading. |
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080 
|
Post by Nick on Feb 5, 2011 12:03:10 GMT -8
David Hahn brought up a very good point on Voice of BC the other day when asked why the Coastal class burn more fuel than the class they are "replacing" (the C class). His response was that safety, accessibility and engineering requirements make it impossible to design a ship that will perform as well as the old ones and burn less fuel.
For safety reasons, ships need more power than they had before so that they can handle any currents and unforeseen circumstances. When was the last time you heard of a ship having difficulty in a fast tide? When the SE's were built, this wasn't an uncommon occurrence. Ships are heavier because of increased structural requirements, and things like extra-wide staircases, elevators, and re-enforced passenger staging areas.
All of these factors make an apples to apples comparison between ships that have 80 years between their build dates all but impossible. Coast Guard requirements have changed JUST a little bit in that time frame. If you submitted plans for the Steel Electrics and said "We want to build one of these, because it's what we had before" the CG would take a quick look and run from the room laughing. These safety requirements have been passed for a reason - they make our ships safer for us to be on.
As far as the increased crewing goes, I think that comes from the fact that the SE's were grandfathered to the ying-yang. The KDTs are crewed more in line with what modern requirements would dictate, no matter what the vessel.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Feb 5, 2011 12:18:54 GMT -8
I don't think it's the hull that is inefficient. The hull profile is an industry standard same as used in many other Vessels, including the very efficient STII and Christine Anderson.
The problem I see is the engines, the EMD's only approach efficiency at 80%, at 12 knots, my calculations , show them at 40% for the push engine and 21% for the pull engine, they are simply off their prime fuel curve, the boat does not need 6000HP!
Initial fuel use shows the boat using significantly more than the original target of 1200 gallons a day. The above horsepower settings with two of the big 6 cylinder Cat C280-6, which have a maximum of 2700Hp each, would use about 700-750 gallons a day total. The four cycle diesels, while they do have their "sweet spot" in fuel use/per horse power, are very fuel proportionate per horse power output.
I tried to influence an engine substitution in the third boat, but got nowhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Feb 5, 2011 17:01:10 GMT -8
David Hahn brought up a very good point on Voice of BC the other day when asked why the Coastal class burn more fuel than the class they are "replacing" (the C class). His response was that safety, accessibility and engineering requirements make it impossible to design a ship that will perform as well as the old ones and burn less fuel. For safety reasons, ships need more power than they had before so that they can handle any currents and unforeseen circumstances. When was the last time you heard of a ship having difficulty in a fast tide? When the SE's were built, this wasn't an uncommon occurrence. Ships are heavier because of increased structural requirements, and things like extra-wide staircases, elevators, and re-enforced passenger staging areas. All of these factors make an apples to apples comparison between ships that have 80 years between their build dates all but impossible. Coast Guard requirements have changed JUST a little bit in that time frame. If you submitted plans for the Steel Electrics and said "We want to build one of these, because it's what we had before" the CG would take a quick look and run from the room laughing. These safety requirements have been passed for a reason - they make our ships safer for us to be on. As far as the increased crewing goes, I think that comes from the fact that the SE's were grandfathered to the ying-yang. The KDTs are crewed more in line with what modern requirements would dictate, no matter what the vessel. Very well put! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Feb 5, 2011 17:27:27 GMT -8
Wrong propulsion system on the Chetzemoka--it won't be in PT once the Salish enters service.
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Feb 5, 2011 19:03:48 GMT -8
David Hahn brought up a very good point on Voice of BC the other day when asked why the Coastal class burn more fuel than the class they are "replacing" (the C class). His response was that safety, accessibility and engineering requirements make it impossible to design a ship that will perform as well as the old ones and burn less fuel. For safety reasons, ships need more power than they had before so that they can handle any currents and unforeseen circumstances. When was the last time you heard of a ship having difficulty in a fast tide? When the SE's were built, this wasn't an uncommon occurrence. Ships are heavier because of increased structural requirements, and things like extra-wide staircases, elevators, and re-enforced passenger staging areas. All of these factors make an apples to apples comparison between ships that have 80 years between their build dates all but impossible. Coast Guard requirements have changed JUST a little bit in that time frame. If you submitted plans for the Steel Electrics and said "We want to build one of these, because it's what we had before" the CG would take a quick look and run from the room laughing. These safety requirements have been passed for a reason - they make our ships safer for us to be on. As far as the increased crewing goes, I think that comes from the fact that the SE's were grandfathered to the ying-yang. The KDTs are crewed more in line with what modern requirements would dictate, no matter what the vessel. Do you really believe what he says? Cars today are lighter and much more fuel efficient by far than they were 40 and more years ago. Are they safer? You bet they are. The same can be said for trains and planes. And to think not so long ago we were seeing those gigantic posters boasting as to how much fuel would be saved with the introduction of the ''Super C's". I apologies to folks south of the 49th re the diversion on this thread. I am not convinced, however, that your new ferries or ours for that matter need to be less fuel efficient than the older ones they have replaced. |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Feb 5, 2011 19:53:22 GMT -8
:)one member talked about red herrings, and the new age ferries are richly deserving of this description, as their claimed fuel ratings are not beleievable anymore than the fast cat feascoe proved to be, and I will not be around to see the lifespan that we had on our first generation Spauldings, and my old QPR, but some of our young generation members may be able to check this out, and see which of these new coastals etc, will come close to their livespans! herring, I think Hahn is dining on cavier! :)mrdot.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,080
|
Post by Nick on Feb 5, 2011 20:16:58 GMT -8
David Hahn brought up a very good point on Voice of BC the other day when asked why the Coastal class burn more fuel than the class they are "replacing" (the C class). His response was that safety, accessibility and engineering requirements make it impossible to design a ship that will perform as well as the old ones and burn less fuel. For safety reasons, ships need more power than they had before so that they can handle any currents and unforeseen circumstances. When was the last time you heard of a ship having difficulty in a fast tide? When the SE's were built, this wasn't an uncommon occurrence. Ships are heavier because of increased structural requirements, and things like extra-wide staircases, elevators, and re-enforced passenger staging areas. All of these factors make an apples to apples comparison between ships that have 80 years between their build dates all but impossible. Coast Guard requirements have changed JUST a little bit in that time frame. If you submitted plans for the Steel Electrics and said "We want to build one of these, because it's what we had before" the CG would take a quick look and run from the room laughing. These safety requirements have been passed for a reason - they make our ships safer for us to be on. As far as the increased crewing goes, I think that comes from the fact that the SE's were grandfathered to the ying-yang. The KDTs are crewed more in line with what modern requirements would dictate, no matter what the vessel. Do you really believe what he says? Cars today are lighter and much more fuel efficient by far than they were 40 and more years ago. Are they safer? You bet they are. The same can be said for trains and planes. And to think not so long ago we were seeing those gigantic posters boasting as to how much fuel would be saved with the introduction of the ''Super C's". I apologies to folks south of the 49th re the diversion on this thread. I am not convinced, however, that your new ferries or ours for that matter need to be less fuel efficient than the older ones they have replaced. I apologize for continuing this diversion, but I feel that this discussion could come around to be relevant eventually. I disagree that cars are lighter now than before. For example, a 1970 Ford Pinto compact weighed about 2100lbs, depending on options. A comparable 2011 Ford Fiesta weighs in at 2460lbs. They are both powered by 4 cylinder engines, and both are designed to be 2 door fuel-sipping people movers. REAL test results show about 30 MPG average for the Fiesta, and the Pinto averaged about 28MPG. In over 30 years, they gained a whole TWO MILES PER GALLON. There are several reasons for this. One is new emissions standards. By today's standards, the Pinto had more or less a straight path from engine to tailpipe, with few restrictions. The Fiesta on the other hand has a few things thrown in the way, such as a catalytic converter. While a Catalytic converter is a great invention, reducing harmful smog contaminants by up to 95%, it robs an engine of about 10% of it's power which makes it burn more fuel. Other emissions requirements have a similar effect. All the electronic equipment on newer cars also takes a toll on fuel use, requiring the engine to work harder to turn a bigger alternator to run it. The new Chevy pickup trucks use a 200Amp alternator. My friend's '79 F150 has a 60Amp. That extra 140A means there's an extra 1680 Watts, or about 2 horsepower, that has to come from somewhere. A 2 horsepower parasitic draw on an engine can make a HUGE impact in fuel consumption, no matter how big the engine is. What I'm trying to say with all this is that environmental and safety standards have increased over the last number of years, and this has made it difficult to make any REAL progress in fuel burn, both in cars and ships. I think this is a worthwhile discussion, but I realize it is somewhat off topic. If a mod so chooses, maybe it would be worth moving to a new thread? |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Feb 5, 2011 20:30:05 GMT -8
I agree with White Coast. Since about 1995 we have gotten great advancements in engine efficiency with a better burn of fuel. In that time we have experienced a 5-10% increase of fuel efficiency of diesels. The Chetzemoka likely weighs no more than the Illahee did as the Pasenger spaces are aluminum, and the diesel/gear assembly are far lighter than the engine/generator/motor of the SE's. If the SE hull had been more efficient, it would have been used instead of the one built, and the engines in the SE's were early 1980s designs. I do not buy the heavier, less efficient hull explanation.
|
|
