|
|
Post by rusty on Feb 5, 2011 20:57:31 GMT -8
And the Steels even had, at least in part, two hulls.
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager 
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Feb 5, 2011 21:21:02 GMT -8
OK, I think this is all very simple to sort out. There is a HUGE missing point here. Fuel Efficiency is completely different from demand.
A ship or a car can have as efficient an engine as you want. This only means that for fuel introduced to the engine you get the most useful energy in return. It has nothing to do with the fact that modern ships and cars have a MUCH higher demand for useful energy.
In the past the engines on the ship turned the propellers, period. Stand alone generators powered a meager number of lights and on board electronics.
Take our Sidney class for example, the day they were built, we have two prime movers and two generators, along with one emergency generator. The ship is fitted out with diesel burning boilers, some lights, some hydraulic steering pumps, hydraulic bow/stern door pumps, electric oil pumps, and some guages. Wastewater, human waste, and garbage is thrown overboard. Both ships were awarded full galleys in the first year of service and the Tsawassen was later fitted with an electric bow-thruster. The Tsawwassen then had a small problem, while approaching dock she would sometimes blackout and all power would fail, the engineers would instantly shut the prime movers down as they were no longer receiving oil. The problem was that one of the electric generators was weaker than the other and would stall out under high demand ie. bow thruster and galley running full power. This would then cause the demand on the other to skyrocket and it would stall.
What did the SE's have for power demand, did they even have lights on board? How did they heat the place, deal with waste-water, did they have AC, was there a single computer on board?
Today we have the Super C class ferries. We have 4 massive electric generators and an emergency generator. The 4 generators now power, two HUGE electric motors, electric oil pumps, hydraulic steering pumps, hydraulic door pumps, a much more capable galley, a preponderance of lighting fixtures that may be more efficient than the old ones, but there are 10 times as many, a full electronic bridge, engine control room, radar, autopilot computers, countless crew computer workstations, countless electronically monitored safety systems, TV's, satellites, wireless internet, water treatment and recycling systems, most of the heat used is recovered from the engines and we have the granddaddy of all power smugglers AIR CONDITIONING. So, we have now increased the demand on power so much that the engines can be much more efficient, but the added load creates a net gain in daily fuel use.
We also fixed the blackout problem, the ship has enough reserve generating capacity that if an engine went offline or stalled for some reason the ship wouldn't go dead in the water, energy, even though it may not be used usefully is not free.
Now if BCF/WSF were allowed by both the consumer and the regulators to build a ship to say the exact safety/passenger comfort spec. as say the Tsawwassen or the SE, but with updates for efficiency we would no doubt have a MUCH less costly ship to run, compared to both the original ship built in 1960 and a ship of similar passenger/cargo capacity that meets current standards.
So, that is why ships are more efficient (most useful energy output for fuel input) but are still more costly (increased demand for power = more fuel burned).
Cheers,
P.S. the engines for the Chetzy are not suited for her, selecting the right engine for the job is NUMBER ONE in fuel efficiency and fuel burn.
|
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Feb 5, 2011 21:39:25 GMT -8
Quatchi, it would be indeed be interesting to see the designed electrical load of newer boats relative to the older boats. And various boats over time. And if the fuel used to generate that is calculated into the daily fuel #'s many have been posted. Look at King County Metro's hybrid buses which have gotten poorer mileage than hoped, but then if you realize they have A/C when nothing else does...
|
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Feb 5, 2011 22:00:25 GMT -8
The engines on the Chetzemoka are the right engines for a reversing-gear split plant propulsion system. If a designer wanted fuel efficiency, they would of spec'd a CPP boat that could of used 4-stroke engines of less hp. These boats' are copied from the Martha's Vineyard route's Island Home, and incorporated some serious propulsion design deficiencies in them. Boats 2 & 3 have CPP's, but kept the EMD's that are over-sized for that configuration. They also incorporate some propulsion design oddities of their own.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Feb 7, 2011 4:35:47 GMT -8
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? Thanks Nick, I was about to make most of those comments before I read your post. I heard a comparision recently that the model T was not too far off the fuel consumption requirements of today's cars. Most of the increase in efficiency in today's engines is lost to the increased loads due to the additional requirements we impose on today's designs. |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Feb 15, 2011 21:15:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Feb 15, 2011 21:51:48 GMT -8
I guess she's passed her initiation then! Every ship on that route's done it once or more. |
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Feb 15, 2011 22:04:03 GMT -8
What's bent? What's broke?
|
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Feb 16, 2011 7:35:55 GMT -8
What's bent? What's broke? Must not have done anything. She's back in service this morning.  |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Feb 16, 2011 7:58:45 GMT -8
I guess she's passed her initiation then! Every ship on that route's done it once or more. Really? I don't have anything about the Illahee, Nisqually, San Diego, Defiance, Fox Island, Beeline, Clatawa, Kitsap (I) or Rosario. What do you have? |
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Feb 16, 2011 9:12:21 GMT -8
In the past, if there was no appreciable damage, and the boat could back-off, it was load and go. Not much was recorded about a simple grounding.
On a Steel-Electric the rudder would be pushed up when the boat nosed into the gravel. When she backed-off, unless the rudder had been turned, everything went back to normal; except the steering rams would begin leaking past their ram seals over the next several weeks.
It appears, from what I've read, that the Chetzemoka drifted onto the gravel broadside, so the rudders might not be involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Feb 16, 2011 11:55:59 GMT -8
That would be a huge bonus. While I'd like to think she's burlier than some would say, the fact of the matter is that there is an awful lot of gear hanging loose out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Feb 16, 2011 12:56:59 GMT -8
Chetzemoka runs aground at Coupeville ferry terminal
Today, 11:10 AM
The Tuesday evening sailings of the Chetzemoka were canceled after the ferry system's newest vessel ran aground in Keystone Harbor.
Ferry officials said the 64-car ferry experienced a "soft grounding" alongside the western side of Keystone Harbor at approximately 6 p.m. Tuesday evening as it was sailing to the Coupeville terminal, according to a news release provided by Washington State Ferries.
Crews were dealing with 44-knot (50 mph) winds and 3.3 knot (3.75 mph) currents during the approach into Keystone Harbor to complete the 5:15 p.m. sailing from Port Townsend.
No crew or passenger injuries were reported, according to the release.
At approximately 10 p.m., divers arrived at the Coupeville ferry terminal to conduct a full hull inspection while it was moored on the Whidbey Island side of Admiralty Inlet. There wasn't any significant damage except a few small nicks on the leading edge of the propeller. The inspection was completed early Wednesday morning and the Chetzemoka sailed to Port Townsend in time to start Wednesday's scheduled sailings beginning at 6:30 a.m.
The Chetzemoka missed five sailings Tuesday night: the 6 p.m., 7:30 p.m. and the 9:15 p.m. sailings from Coupeville along with the 6:45 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. sailings from Port Townsend.
The Chetzemoka is the only vessel in the ferry system's fleet capable of navigating through the difficult entry into Keystone Harbor. The ferry started service in mid-November, nearly three years to the day that the Steel Electrics were retired from service due to safety problems.
Because of the canceled sailings, riders had the unenviable task of taking ferries at Clinton and Edmonds in order to get to and from the Olympic Peninsula.
State ferries officials are not releasing the names of the crew members working on the Chetzemoka until an investigation is complete.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Feb 16, 2011 14:19:51 GMT -8
The design of the hull cross section of the Chetzemoka goes clear back to Spaulding. It’s nearly identical to that of the many boat designs of most that have come out of Spaulding, Nickum and Spaulding, and now Elliot Bay. Included are other WSF Vessels, older B.C. Ferries, the Pierce County boats, and now the IH and KdT class. It is well explained in Elliot Bay’s writing, 50 Years of Double Ended Ferries. The exposed prop shafts, struts and rudders of the IH/KdT’s are not appropriate for the Keystone/Port Townsend route, we have just had our first brush with the bottom, what will the next one bring, just a matter of time? Here is a picture of the bottom of the STII taken at Dakota Creek during its recent retrofit. PHOTO link: i170.photobucket.com/albums/u251/roguedancer/IMG00050-20101220-12511.jpgAs you can see, these essential components are enclosed in a “spine” and shoe assembly that would prevent damage in all but the worst grounding events. Why, in the most expensive Ferries per-car-space in the history of the world was this simple and relatively inexpensive protection left out.? To my take, considering the intended route, the exclusion of these protections borders on being criminal. Boats have been going aground since the beginning of time, why would the future be any different? ================ [moderator edit to change oversized picture from IMG to a URL link] |
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,956
|
Post by FNS on Feb 16, 2011 18:29:20 GMT -8
And, don't forget what happened to the RHODODENDRON in the 1960s and the KLAHOWYA in the late 1970s. Both have the "enclosed" propellers and rudders.
The RHODY suffered a bent rudder at low tide at Mukilteo on one of her many trips there. This was mentioned on another thread in this Washington State section of this forum.
As said before, the Edmonds-Kingston run was downsized after the Hood Canal Bridge sank during a vicious windstorm in February of 1979. The TILLIKUM replaced the ELWHA and NISQUALLY on this run. It was during this time period when the KLAHOWYA lost a rudder on the Vashon run. The Kingston run is better suited for single-ended ferries. So, the TILLY and KLAHOWYA traded routes until a new rudder was built. The KLAHOWYA was a target of many jokes by a teacher at my high school who commuted each day on the Kingston run.
It was the KLICKITAT and QUINAULT that have run aground at Keystone in their assignments there. The RHODY did find herself on the mud at the Quincy Street dock at Port Townsend once. A deliberate act by the crew to avoid a dock slamming due to a mechanical malfunction.
The installation of side guide dolphins at the approaches at Keystone Harbor may help keep the ferries from the embarrassing groundings.
|
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Feb 16, 2011 19:24:27 GMT -8
I guess she's passed her initiation then! Every ship on that route's done it once or more. Really? I don't have anything about the Illahee, Nisqually, San Diego, Defiance, Fox Island, Beeline, Clatawa, Kitsap (I) or Rosario. What do you have? I have no proof, I just remember reading it somewhere in the past that every ferry that's regularly serviced Keystone Terminal's either grounded or nudged the shore of the little cove there at least once. Maybe I'm wrong? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2011 6:12:19 GMT -8
It is fair to say that every vessel which has worked Keystone has gone aground. Many of these were similar to what the Chetzemoka experienced. These are historicly undocumented except where damage to the vessel was sustained or where the ship could not free herself. In today's environment, we can be certain that every contact with the bottom will be reported. One only needs to think about the consequences of not reporting to understand why.
With respect to damaging rudders which are carried in a shoe vs ones which are not, one can always find exceptions to every design feature argument but there is a much greater risk of damage to the rudder and propeller in the arrangement of the Island Home Class than of the Steel Electric Class. The two arrangements are not comparable in terms of their relative capacity to absorb grounding without sustaining damage and thus avoid shipyard repairs.
The shoe could be a logical feature to disregard where a vessel will not be subjected to a significant risk of grounding as in most other WSF routes. In these cases dispensing with it where it interferes with other attributes such as fuel efficiency would be reasonable.
I prefer the low bearing carrier (shoe design being referred to) on ships which manuever frequently as lateral forces pushing on the bottom of the rudder as the ship turns tend to make the rudder vibrate. This energy is transferred to the hull and can induce vibrations all the way to the bridge on lightly built ships like ferries.
The bottom line is that a prudent owner will design for known risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by zargoman on Feb 22, 2011 22:02:14 GMT -8
Would it have added too much to have built a big tube covering the shaft and props? I guess it would probably make maintenance more challenging and add some weight, but wouldn't it also protect some of the parts that are vulnerable to damage in the event of grounding? Or did WSF think that the boat was "ungroundable"  |
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Feb 22, 2011 23:17:13 GMT -8
Similar items are used on some ships, but it reduces fuel efficiency a lot, so it's not economical to build a 'tube' around the props and rudder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2011 7:17:58 GMT -8
Lifc, I think if you compare the hull cross section shown in the chetzemoka photo you provide links to and compare it with the Kaleetan launching photos Barnacle posted. You will see distinctly different hulls. They may seem to be borne from the same pen but look at the Chetzemoka closely, her hull is pregnant in comparison to Kaleetan, the "chine" is pronounced. This additional volume contributes buoyancy to give the vessel a shallow draft but it also increases the wetted surface of the ship. The Kaleetan, which is not particularly fuel efficient compared to other ferries, has a much finer hull.
The Chetzemoka actually is even shallower than her eastern sister because the hull extensions add additional buoyancy. This puts the propellers even closer to the surface where they are more suseptible to damage from deadheads, particularly in a seaway. They are fine wheels and quite light in comparison the SE blades.
|
|
Kam
Voyager
Posts: 926
|
Post by Kam on Apr 26, 2011 14:42:09 GMT -8
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,956
|
Post by FNS on Apr 30, 2011 21:31:37 GMT -8
Just came across a railfan's photo journal on a trip from California to Seattle and back aboard the Coast Starlight. The author included some side trips here before returning south and took a nice photo of the CHETZEMOKA at Port Townsend. The travelogue is joined here in progress: trainweb.org/carl/Seattle2011/Attractions.html |
|
|
|
Post by zargoman on Jun 9, 2011 22:26:15 GMT -8
I started off working at the Keystone dock today. I LOVE IT! I think this is what I was meant to do. Anyways, the Chetzemoka takes forever to load. It is single-lane loading and the vessel is so open that the crew has to direct very specificaly. The lane that's between the stairwells and the side of the boat is narrow and needs relatively small cars (I am calling that lane 1. It is on the port side looking from the No 1 end towards the No 2 end.). The next lane over (Lane 2) is also really narrow and has no curbing and needs skinny vehicles. The next two lanes (3 and 4) take the long, wide and tall vehicles. Lane 5 is wide, but has the 7'4" clearance because of the bicycle area on the mezzanine deck above it. Lane 6 is a narrower one too. Unlike the other boats that can get two lanes at an even pace to balance out the load, this one is better off using single-lane loading so that the vehicles can be put into perfect places. The big time taking thing for the loading is the sorting of vehicles. The pace of boarding is stop and go and stop and go. The 15 minutes that the boat is supposed to be at the dock is not enough when it is a full load.  IMG_4081 by zargoman, on Flickr  IMG_4079 by zargoman, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Jun 9, 2011 23:17:57 GMT -8
How does one even apply to work for WSF? I would love to work on those things.
|
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jun 10, 2011 6:51:35 GMT -8
|
|
