|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 10, 2011 6:57:16 GMT -8
Beware, though. Going to work in what you have previously done as a hobby tends to kill the hobby. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 10, 2011 7:33:03 GMT -8
Beware, though. Going to work in what you have previously done as a hobby tends to kill the hobby. I've experienced the same thing in my work as a financial-auditor. Being an auditor as a hobby was way more fun for me. haha. - but true about the change from hobby to job. I've seen that also with people who've tried to convert a craft hobby to a business venture. |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Jun 10, 2011 8:21:28 GMT -8
Hey zargo, so do you think the single lane loading is due to the gap on the apron because of the list (i've seen that written a few places), the complexity of positioning the cars or some combination thereof? Do you think double lane loading might be an option if they got one of the fancy aprons that can flex to adjust for list?
And congrats on the new job, sometimes you do find the right thing and know it right away. 17 years ago I walked through the door of a building and found my career about 15 minutes later. Still do it to this day.
|
|
Neil
Voyager 
Posts: 7,302
|
Post by Neil on Jun 10, 2011 12:54:39 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. I'm not surprised it's a pain to load. When I rode the Chetzemoka a few weeks back, it just confirmed my opinion that the boat is ridiculously overbuilt for the route it's on. Great hulking thing, considering its 64 car capacity. That absurd bicycle lounge- a whole gallery deck with not a single bike in it. The other gallery lounge also completely empty. The main passenger lounge with a handful of people scattered about, and despite the size of it, feeling broken up and compartmentalized. This is a route that carried, even back when it had two boats in peak season, an average of 15 foot passengers a trip, not surprising when you note how the Coupeville terminal seems out in the middle of nowhere. Many people stay in their cars, and while the car deck was two thirds full on the crossing I took, the boat, up top, was virtually empty. WSF dogma says that all boats have to look the same, they all have to have two wheelhouses, they all have to be interchangeable, yada yada... so you end up spending a fortune every time out, when often something much more basic will do. I just don't understand the logic, when it seems like it might be easier for WSF to get funding for new vessels if they could show that they were being as frugal as possible in their designs. A twenty minute crossing like Mukilteo to Clinton would be adequately served by a longer version of BC Ferries' Skeena Queen. I can almost imagine the disgusted looks from WSF fans... |
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Jun 11, 2011 16:03:21 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. I'm not surprised it's a pain to load. When I rode the Chetzemoka a few weeks back, it just confirmed my opinion that the boat is ridiculously overbuilt for the route it's on. Great hulking thing, considering its 64 car capacity. That absurd bicycle lounge- a whole gallery deck with not a single bike in it. The other gallery lounge also completely empty. The main passenger lounge with a handful of people scattered about, and despite the size of it, feeling broken up and compartmentalized. This is a route that carried, even back when it had two boats in peak season, an average of 15 foot passengers a trip, not surprising when you note how the Coupeville terminal seems out in the middle of nowhere. Many people stay in their cars, and while the car deck was two thirds full on the crossing I took, the boat, up top, was virtually empty. WSF dogma says that all boats have to look the same, they all have to have two wheelhouses, they all have to be interchangeable, yada yada... so you end up spending a fortune every time out, when often something much more basic will do. I just don't understand the logic, when it seems like it might be easier for WSF to get funding for new vessels if they could show that they were being as frugal as possible in their designs. A twenty minute crossing like Mukilteo to Clinton would be adequately served by a longer version of BC Ferries' Skeena Queen. I can almost imagine the disgusted looks from WSF fans... No If we had a Boat like Skeena Queen we would be screwed in the winter for sure!.. that and we have WAY too many walk ons for that kind of boat.. Mukilteo to Clinton Doesn't need anything little like the chetzy and it doesn't need another open car-deck boat.. Needless to say we don't miss the one we had many years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Jun 11, 2011 20:21:31 GMT -8
I'm not surprised it's a pain to load. When I rode the Chetzemoka a few weeks back, it just confirmed my opinion that the boat is ridiculously overbuilt for the route it's on. Great hulking thing, considering its 64 car capacity. That absurd bicycle lounge- a whole gallery deck with not a single bike in it. The other gallery lounge also completely empty. The main passenger lounge with a handful of people scattered about, and despite the size of it, feeling broken up and compartmentalized. This is a route that carried, even back when it had two boats in peak season, an average of 15 foot passengers a trip, not surprising when you note how the Coupeville terminal seems out in the middle of nowhere. Many people stay in their cars, and while the car deck was two thirds full on the crossing I took, the boat, up top, was virtually empty. WSF dogma says that all boats have to look the same, they all have to have two wheelhouses, they all have to be interchangeable, yada yada... so you end up spending a fortune every time out, when often something much more basic will do. I just don't understand the logic, when it seems like it might be easier for WSF to get funding for new vessels if they could show that they were being as frugal as possible in their designs. A twenty minute crossing like Mukilteo to Clinton would be adequately served by a longer version of BC Ferries' Skeena Queen. I can almost imagine the disgusted looks from WSF fans... No If we had a Boat like Skeena Queen we would be screwed in the winter for sure!.. that and we have WAY too many walk ons for that kind of boat.. Mukilteo to Clinton Doesn't need anything little like the chetzy and it doesn't need another open car-deck boat.. Needless to say we don't miss the one we had many years ago. I'd have to say that with all due respect, I don't think the Chetz nor Salish are overbuilt for that run. My family took that crossing when the Steilacoom II was running that crossing and the Steilacoom II was overcrowded. They had a three hour wait to even get on the boat (they were hauling a horse trailer to pick up a horse my mom had purchased on Whidbey Island), and once they got on, there wasn't even room for a bicycle. They also happened to've taken that crossing when conditions were extremely rough, like looking out off the side of the vessel and seeing sky and then seeing sea a few seconds later. I have a feeling the Chetzemoka and the Salish will serve that run well, and I'm sure that once people realize that there's two-boat service on that run again, the traffic volume will pick up. |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,302
|
Post by Neil on Jun 11, 2011 21:56:33 GMT -8
No If we had a Boat like Skeena Queen we would be screwed in the winter for sure!.. that and we have WAY too many walk ons for that kind of boat.. Mukilteo to Clinton Doesn't need anything little like the chetzy and it doesn't need another open car-deck boat.. Needless to say we don't miss the one we had many years ago. I'd have to say that with all due respect, I don't think the Chetz nor Salish are overbuilt for that run. My family took that crossing when the Steilacoom II was running that crossing and the Steilacoom II was overcrowded. They had a three hour wait to even get on the boat (they were hauling a horse trailer to pick up a horse my mom had purchased on Whidbey Island), and once they got on, there wasn't even room for a bicycle. They also happened to've taken that crossing when conditions were extremely rough, like looking out off the side of the vessel and seeing sky and then seeing sea a few seconds later. I have a feeling the Chetzemoka and the Salish will serve that run well, and I'm sure that once people realize that there's two-boat service on that run again, the traffic volume will pick up. Take a look at the historical traffic figures, and do the math. Both the runs mentioned carry an average of less than twenty foot passengers per run. Let's say that in busy times, it's ten times that, and that's probably being very liberal. The need for a large upper deck passenger cabin is just not there; capacity could be provided by a set up like the four cardeck lounges on the Skeena Queen. Please don't try to tell me you have mountainous winter seas between Mukilteo and Clinton, and as for the Port Townsend route, I noticed how the Chetzemoka rolled in moderate waves, and since her ends are open, it could be an improvement if an open deck vessel had higher bulwarks, Norwegian style. I don't understand whidbeyislandguy's comment about "another open car deck boat", because you've never had one such as I'm suggesting- the little Kulshan doesn't count, if that's what you're refering to. In BC, the last ferry commissioner, Martin Crilly, directed BC Ferries to look at any innovative idea to deliver acceptable service at a reduced cost, and out of that came the cable ferry option that will probably be adopted for Denman Island. WSF faces a chronic struggle for funding for new boats, but I get the impression that Washingtonians are so stuck on the existing pattern of a certain kind of ferry no matter what that you're going to continue the problem, and when you do build, you're going to end up vastly overpaying, as you've done with your $70 million for a 64 car ferry, and almost as much for the puddle jump from Pt Defiance to Tahlequah. It's your money, I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Jun 11, 2011 22:07:04 GMT -8
Kulshan is a borderline 4 letter word on South Whidbey for some Neil, and she was an open deck boat. Regardless of the significant differences between her and a boat like Skeena Queen it simply would never happen, at least not for several generations. Note also that during the era she served the run she wasn't exactly "little". Seas at Mukilteo/Clinton can get severe enough to require shortloading the existing boats, but that does not happen very often. I've ridden hundreds of times and had it done twice that I can recall, but I am not a heavy winter rider. The extreme example are the pictures taken a few years ago, but they are a total abberation once 20 year type of storm in concert with tides. www.pbase.com/trackside_photography/washington_state_ferries&page=2 |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,302
|
Post by Neil on Jun 11, 2011 22:15:42 GMT -8
Kulshan is a borderline 4 letter word on South Whidbey for some Neil, and she was an open deck boat. Regardless of the significant differences between her and a boat like Skeena Queen it simply would never happen, at least not for several generations. Note also that during the era she served the run she wasn't exactly "little". Seas at Mukilteo/Clinton can get severe enough to require shortloading the existing boats, but that does not happen very often. I've ridden hundreds of times and had it done twice that I can recall, but I am not a heavy winter rider. The extreme example are the pictures taken a few years ago, but they are a total abberation once 20 year type of storm in concert with tides. www.pbase.com/trackside_photography/washington_state_ferries&page=2Yes, I'm aware that Kulshan was open deck, but she was much smaller than what I'm suggesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Jun 11, 2011 23:01:20 GMT -8
Seas at Mukilteo/Clinton can get severe enough to require shortloading the existing boats, but that does not happen very often. I've ridden hundreds of times and had it done twice that I can recall, but I am not a heavy winter rider. The extreme example are the pictures taken a few years ago, but they are a total abberation once 20 year type of storm in concert with tides. www.pbase.com/trackside_photography/washington_state_ferries&page=2I rode the Kaleetan under identical seas from Bremerton to Seattle on February 19th and I was almost thrown to the deck quite a few times! Neil, you really need to look at the ferry bulletins on a more regular basis. In the fall/winter/spring months, the crossing @ PT/Keystone and Mukilteo/Clinton can get so rough that the vessels load at either half capacity or the crossings get completely canceled until conditions improve. I can vividly recall reading not a couple weeks after the Chetz entered service that crossings were canceled due to high seas. Overbuilt? I think not. Puget Sound especially in those areas is rife with high seas under certain conditions. I know that, because I used to be a weather forecaster. *EDIT* I can also say with certainty that the M/V Kennewick isn't costing the $70 million you are claiming. That cost was only reflected for the Chetzemoka (which came in at just over $80 million). The Salish was much lower than that and the Kennewick even lower than the Salish. It's typical of "new builds" where the expenses are mostly incurred on the initial build. I almost bet the farm that the Hyak cost more to build than the Kaleetan, and the Kaleetan cost more than the Yakima, and so on... You also have to think: Those vessels are going to be in service for around 60 years. They're going to more than pay for themselves. And any way you slice the cake, the ol' Rhody is going to have to be retired anyways, as Washington State Ferries specifically set 60 years as the cutoff for maximum age in terms of service life (after the S/E fiasco). And hey, they could always put the Hiyu back in as a regular boat at Pt. Defiance, but I think that'd be a bit ridiculous.  |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 12, 2011 7:10:57 GMT -8
I will jump-in and re-ask one of Neil's questions that never got answered:
- Is there a need for the bike-mezzanine on the Keystone-Port Townsend route? And is there a similar need on other routes that the KDT triplets might be used on ?
If so, is this just a seasonal need? ie. more cyclists in the summer on the Keystone route?
Or is the bike-mezzanine a feature that wasn't really needed ?
Next Neil unanswered item:
- the lower lounge on the opposite side of the bike-mezzanine: is that also an underused space, on the routes that the 3 ships are expected to serve?
Request:
- for any forum members who have ridden both WSF and BCF ferries, and a variety of those ferries from each fleet (yes, we do have some people who've ridden both), what do you think of the issues in this thread, that we've been discussing in the past few days?
- for those that have never seen a large open-deck ferry like the Skeena Queen in action, I wonder if you know what Neil (and I now) have been talking about.
Question for someone who has been in both BC and Washington travelling and knows both systems and both areas:
- how are the demographics different on the Clinton-Mukilteo route, compared with say the Fulford-Swartz route ?
- and how are the demographics of Keystone - Pt. Townsend different than that same Fulford-Swartz route?
...and has anyone considered that when Neil asked about "overbuilt", he was mainly talking about passenger lounge space, not the sea-keeping ability of the ship. Because, I haven't read any replies to Neil that address his comments about passenger lounge space being overbuilt; and that was a key point to his post.
Cheers from the frozen north on Vancouver Island.
|
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Jun 12, 2011 10:11:42 GMT -8
Yes, I'm aware that Kulshan was open deck, but she was much smaller than what I'm suggesting. What I'm saying is that people there are sour on the very "brand" of open deck ferries. That has little to do with the size of the boat, and in this case the massive differences between Kulshan and say something like Skeena Queen or an Intermediate Class boat likely wouldn't even help. It's like the quality debates in Japanese vs. American cars, even if you are comparing SUVs to cars. It is driven by things that happened 20 (in our case 30+, geez i feel old) years ago but still "matter". Hence my statement of having to wait a generation. |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Jun 12, 2011 10:27:47 GMT -8
I will jump-in and re-ask one of Neil's questions that never got answered: - Is there a need for the bike-mezzanine on the Keystone-Port Townsend route? And is there a similar need on other routes that the KDT triplets might be used on ? If so, is this just a seasonal need? ie. more cyclists in the summer on the Keystone route? Or is the bike-mezzanine a feature that wasn't really needed ? As a cyclist I can say there is no viable need in that location for such a feature given the current situation. The highways in that area (mostly on the port townsend side) are not good for riding as they lack decent shoulders. Not to say people don't do it. The Whidbey Island side road has been rebuilt quite a bit over the last decade and has better shoulders and cyclists are a frequent sight on the island during the summer months. It's been argued the new boats in concert with the adding of shoulders and other bike improvements at the Hood Canal bridge (which was a major major issue, far larger than a ferry for cyclists) will cause cycling habits to change, and this summer will be the first test of that. Anecdotally I know no one doing it though. You might need it on Vashon as people like to ride out there, but again neither are heavy cyclist commuter routes like Bainbridge and Bremerton. edit: There was an article posted that said the ramps up to the saddle lounges are to steep to be used with a bike with any amount of gear on it. Which having ridden her I'd agree with. And this is an area where many people would have significant gear on their bike. |
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Jun 12, 2011 10:58:33 GMT -8
I don't think I would call the Chetzy over built for the Run. Kind of like I am not talking anything about the size of the Kulshan, I just mean the fact that yes Open Deck. I know I am not alone when I say that this is something many if not Most people in Washington state are happy about, No open car-deck ferries.
And yes the short Mukilteo - Clinton run gets nailed with weather that is very strange, that's because it is in the middle of the convergence zone.. When things are bad they are really bad. I personally have been on the ferry when it has taken 4 times to try and dock in Mukilteo. Also had to deal with run cancelations, seen cars bounce so hard that they hit one another on the car deck.
|
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jun 12, 2011 11:05:44 GMT -8
I will jump-in and re-ask one of Neil's questions that never got answered: Question for someone who has been in both BC and Washington travelling and knows both systems and both areas: - how are the demographics different on the Clinton-Mukilteo route, compared with say the Fulford-Swartz route ? I'll throw my hat in on a few. Used to be that the Mukilteo-Clinton route hauled the most cars of any route in the system. Whether this is still true or not, I don't know. Ridership (and I'm not sure if this is just people or cars) for the Mukliteo-Clinton route in 2009 were 4,025,394. The Kaw di Tubtoys being "overbuilt" is the legislature's fault. The boats passenger cabins, etc were little altered from the design for Martha's Vineyard. The Vineyard does get a fair amount of bicycle traffic, so it made sense to have the bike mezzanine. The routes that probably could use said deck are Kingston-Edmonds and particularly the Seattle-Winslow route, where there are a ton of bicyclers. The legislature pushed those boats through so fast that at thoughtful redesign of the cabin couldn't be considered; had they more time the cabins could have been completely redesigned to suit the needs of the run better. The Port Townsend run had perfectly adequate cabins with the Steel Electrics. (Actually, there were some of the nicest cabins in the fleet if you get right down to it.) They certainly don't need all the space given to them on the new boats. Had it not been such a "emergency" to get the new boats on the run, the boats could have been further tweaked to fit the route better. They were bound and determined to get the Chetzemoka on the run in 18 months, which meant that redesigning the cabin was right out. In a few years time, we're going to be hearing about how royally rooked the taxpayers of Washington got for these boats thanks to a certain senator. You're going to hear about a lot of handwringing and "why didn't we know this while it was going on" and you're going to see people at both the DOT and WSF management get the boot for it, but in the end, nothing is going to change and we're stuck with the boats for the next 60 years. Unlike the nearly identical debacle with the Issaquah Class (although in this case the Tubtoys are certainly better built than MP&E did) where the boats actually worked into useful additions with the fleet, were going to be stuck with these route-specific boats that aren't going to be of use anywhere else in the fleet. George Santayana wrote ""Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The Washington State Department of Transportation seems to be stuck in about a 10-15 year cycle of this. All they had to do was go back to say about 1975 and look at the news articles about the decaying, dangerous boats--which, ironically, were the Steel Electrics going through the first round of problems--and the already out of service Wood Electrics. It was a crises then with aging ferries, not enough ferries to work the routes, threats to shut the Sidney run down, lack of funds for new boats, etc. At least they're consistent. Until they learn to plan ahead instead of react to artificially created emergencies, (or, in some cases very real ones) this is likely the only way we're ever going to get new ferries added to the fleet. Sadly, it's symptomatic of how we treat our infrastructure in this country. The US hasn't planned ahead for any of its transportation needs since the 1950's. Always deemed "too expensive" which is why something like 80% of bridges in the country get a failing grade--something very graphically illustrated when the I-35W bridge collapsed. WSDOT is just no better than the rest of country.  |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 12, 2011 11:16:27 GMT -8
George Santayana wrote ""Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The Washington State Department of Transportation seems to be stuck in about a 10-15 year cycle of this. All they had to do was go back to say about 1975 and look at the news articles about the decaying, dangerous boats--which, ironically, were the Steel Electrics going through the first round of problems--and the already out of service Wood Electrics. It was a crises then with aging ferries, not enough ferries to work the routes, threats to shut the Sidney run down, lack of funds for new boats, etc. Or the early 1960s, which resulted in the Super class vessels (plus the Hiyu) and the eventual retirement of the Willapa, Enetai, Kalakala, Leschi, San Mateo, Leschi, Crosline and Skansonia. Or the 1950s, which resulted in the first refurb of the Steel-Electrics, two new Evergreen-class boats, and the retirement of the Shasta. Sense a pattern here? |
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Jun 12, 2011 13:59:56 GMT -8
WSF dogma says that all boats have to look the same, they all have to have two wheelhouses, they all have to be interchangeable, yada yada... so you end up spending a fortune every time out, when often something much more basic will do. I just don't understand the logic, when it seems like it might be easier for WSF to get funding for new vessels if they could show that they were being as frugal as possible in their designs. A twenty minute crossing like Mukilteo to Clinton would be adequately served by a longer version of BC Ferries' Skeena Queen. I can almost imagine the disgusted looks from WSF fans... I couldn't agree with Neil more. As neat as WSF's fleet of similar double enders are, there are certainly some routes that don't make sense having a ship like that on. At BC Ferries, we have the Queen of Surrey, which is just a couple of feet shorter than your Spokane/Walla Walla, but one extra deck for underheight cars. It sails on a 45 minute route, and that ship is considered borderline excessive at the slower times of the year. But at WSF, you have a similar ship like that running on a route that is around 20 minutes long which is unheard of up here. I'm a Deckhand who works on the Skeena Queen. Let me provide some insight before everyone continues to judge a book by its cover. Although I've only worked on her for only one year now, I have learned a lot about this ship. -She is licensed to carry up to 400 passengers at the moment when an A license. -She's equipped with the same evacuation slides that the majority of WSF uses. There are four of them on this ship, and there are no link rafts. Each slide station has capacity for 150 people, so in theory she could be licensed to carry up to 600 passengers with the way she is right now, this just requires even more crew. -Both ends of the ship have a 5' tall watertight visor that folds down into the deck upon arrival at the dock. This potentially is a step up from any open bow WSF -She is extremely stable. You can load 50 cars to one side of the car deck, and she'll hardly show a list. But when you take her through any type of wave, she'll heel over to one side slowly and then quickly wip back to center before leaning the other way. -With her 6000 hp engines at idle, and her Z drives pointed 90 degrees from the ships head, she will travel completely side ways at 6 knots. But when traveling in a straight line she can do 15 knots. -When travelling full speed, and suddenly having to do an emergency stop by using all four of the Z drives as reverse thrust, she will come to a complete stop in 20 seconds, or roughly 1, to 2 ship lengths. -This ship is rated to carry 100 cars. I've counted as many as 110 sardined with room for another 4 if we didn't have to worry about blocking egress routes. -She was cheap to build too. I can't remember the figures though. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But in all honesty folks, I think you have the wrong idea if you think your open bow ships are good for heavy weather. This is because of the rubbing strake. As soon as the ship pitches up and down, you'll sure notice it when that rubbing strake touches the water, which is what you've all described with the spray. Real ships don't have protrusions at the bow, allowing for a smoother ride as she follows the seas. Also, the more likely reason why cars are loaded short during storms is so the vehicles aren't completely blasted with salt water spray. In conclusion though, covered car deck is nice for protection from weather (rain, snow, etc). Also nicer for passenger amenities for longer runs. Open bow good for seas though? No. Should WSF consider open deck on sheltered runs as a way to cut costs? Absolutely. |
|
|
|
Post by zargoman on Jun 12, 2011 15:16:17 GMT -8
Whew! I've been busy lately. Lots of good experiences so far. The mate that has been loading the boat the last two days is great with it. We have been doing double-lane loading and it is working out just fine. I guess it just depends who is on the boat. Very fortunate to be able to take the last boat out of Keystone during the training time. That will most certanily change when I have to close. Almost all of the walk-ons go up the stairs that lead to the bike storage mezzanine and they come down the same way. I don't think many people know about the passenger mezzanine on the other side of the boat. It has been empty on the trips that I took, even yesterday when there were quite a few walk-ons. A lot of people coming from their vehicles stop at the mezzanine deck and turn the corner to find a wall. They either walk to the other end and take those stairs or get back into the stairwell to get to the main passenger deck. It makes it a really quiet place to sit, but is some seriously underutilized space. I think it would help guide cars a little better if there was some curbing. The cleats pop up straight out of the car deck floor. I'm also wondering how much longer the bridges at Port Townsend and Keystone are going to last. They are the old ones that don't have the apron that flexes. With the listing of the boat, I would think that it causes a lot of stress on the straight aprons, even when the "float" is activated. The bow of the boat where the apron rests shows that too, as there is a lot more wear on the side that sits higher. So far I love it.  Chetzemoka by zargoman, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Jun 12, 2011 17:21:44 GMT -8
WSF dogma says that all boats have to look the same, they all have to have two wheelhouses, they all have to be interchangeable, yada yada... so you end up spending a fortune every time out, when often something much more basic will do. I just don't understand the logic, when it seems like it might be easier for WSF to get funding for new vessels if they could show that they were being as frugal as possible in their designs. A twenty minute crossing like Mukilteo to Clinton would be adequately served by a longer version of BC Ferries' Skeena Queen. I can almost imagine the disgusted looks from WSF fans... I couldn't agree with Neil more. As neat as WSF's fleet of similar double enders are, there are certainly some routes that don't make sense having a ship like that on. At BC Ferries, we have the Queen of Surrey, which is just a couple of feet shorter than your Spokane/Walla Walla, but one extra deck for underheight cars. It sails on a 45 minute route, and that ship is considered borderline excessive at the slower times of the year. But at WSF, you have a similar ship like that running on a route that is around 20 minutes long which is unheard of up here. I'm a Deckhand who works on the Skeena Queen. Let me provide some insight before everyone continues to judge a book by its cover. Although I've only worked on her for only one year now, I have learned a lot about this ship. -She is licensed to carry up to 400 passengers at the moment when an A license. -She's equipped with the same evacuation slides that the majority of WSF uses. There are four of them on this ship, and there are no link rafts. Each slide station has capacity for 150 people, so in theory she could be licensed to carry up to 600 passengers with the way she is right now, this just requires even more crew. -Both ends of the ship have a 5' tall watertight visor that folds down into the deck upon arrival at the dock. This potentially is a step up from any open bow WSF -She is extremely stable. You can load 50 cars to one side of the car deck, and she'll hardly show a list. But when you take her through any type of wave, she'll heel over to one side slowly and then quickly wip back to center before leaning the other way. -With her 6000 hp engines at idle, and her Z drives pointed 90 degrees from the ships head, she will travel completely side ways at 6 knots. But when traveling in a straight line she can do 15 knots. -When travelling full speed, and suddenly having to do an emergency stop by using all four of the Z drives as reverse thrust, she will come to a complete stop in 20 seconds, or roughly 1, to 2 ship lengths. -This ship is rated to carry 100 cars. I've counted as many as 110 sardined with room for another 4 if we didn't have to worry about blocking egress routes. -She was cheap to build too. I can't remember the figures though. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But in all honesty folks, I think you have the wrong idea if you think your open bow ships are good for heavy weather. This is because of the rubbing strake. As soon as the ship pitches up and down, you'll sure notice it when that rubbing strake touches the water, which is what you've all described with the spray. Real ships don't have protrusions at the bow, allowing for a smoother ride as she follows the seas. Also, the more likely reason why cars are loaded short during storms is so the vehicles aren't completely blasted with salt water spray. In conclusion though, covered car deck is nice for protection from weather (rain, snow, etc). Also nicer for passenger amenities for longer runs. Open bow good for seas though? No. Should WSF consider open deck on sheltered runs as a way to cut costs? Absolutely. This isn't Dogma this is the fact that we don't like open car deck ferries, and 400 -500 passengers wouldn't work for us any of the commute times. aside from the fact, don't be fooled into thinking this is that sheltered of a crossing.... Right now we have. Length: 328' Beam: 78' 8'' Draft: 16' 6'' Auto Deck Clearance: 16' Horsepower: 5,000 Max Passengers: 1200 Max Vehicles: 124. Anything smaller or open decked just doesn't work.. this is why we are hoping to get the first 144..  |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 12, 2011 19:11:40 GMT -8
Can someone actually explain the reason for the "fact" that WSF customers find an open-deck ferry unacceptable.
Please explain why, or at least your own personal reasons why you don't like it.
I'm interested to know. (and I love asking people to elaborate).
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 12, 2011 19:16:11 GMT -8
Anything smaller or open decked just doesn't work.. this is why we are hoping to get the first 144.. Just wondering who "We" is, for the sake of clarity. - which community or route or lobby-group or Senator-friends are you representing here? |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,302
|
Post by Neil on Jun 12, 2011 19:32:06 GMT -8
Apologies to Zargoman; I guess this line of conversation is getting a bit away from the thread heading... This isn't Dogma this is the fact that we don't like open car deck ferries, and 400 -500 passengers wouldn't work for us any of the commute times. aside from the fact, don't be fooled into thinking this is that sheltered of a crossing.... Right now we have. Length: 328' Beam: 78' 8'' Draft: 16' 6'' Auto Deck Clearance: 16' Horsepower: 5,000 Max Passengers: 1200 Max Vehicles: 124. Anything smaller or open decked just doesn't work.. this is why we are hoping to get the first 144.. I've been on small, open ferries to Cortes Island, where it was so rough I couldn't walk without bracing myself. Even the Hornby run, ten minutes long, is completely open to some southerlies, and the berths are exposed. There's nothing unique about Possession Sound, and whether you have a boat that's open at the end, as yours all are, or open all around, is largely irrelevant. I've looked at your traffic figures, and I'm familiar with how foot traffic is handled on BC Ferries routes where there are a lot of commuters. You just haven't made a case that on a twenty minute run where so many people stay in their cars, there is a requirement for the expensive vessels you seem so set on. I'm also skeptical that route specific boats cause problems. Not every vessel in any fleet needs to be transferable, and money can often be saved by designing a boat that only meets the needs of a given route. Look at the wasted space on the Chetzemoka. Whidbeyislandguy, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you're one of those people who frequently rails at government waste, and who feels the public sector needs to tighten its belt. (Simply because that seems to be the default public mood right now.) Your government, both state and federal is in a perilous state of debt. I see where money for post secondary education has been cut, and students face tuition hikes of 16% next year. Your ferry workers have given back part of their contract. Budgets everywhere are being cut, and people laid off. It amazes me that you feel you have the luxury to say, when it comes to your ferries, "Nope. Give us what we're used to. Period." A lot of government services are being subjected to a radical rethink, at the very least. No one should care about what style of boat someone prefers, which, anyway, is often based on misconceptions about alternatives. What matters is what's safe, affordable, and reasonably efficient for getting people from point a to b. If all you need, and all the state can afford, is a floating bus with a parking lot, then that's what should be built. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Jun 12, 2011 19:32:59 GMT -8
Whew! I've been busy lately. Lots of good experiences so far. The mate that has been loading the boat the last two days is great with it. We have been doing double-lane loading and it is working out just fine. I guess it just depends who is on the boat. Very fortunate to be able to take the last boat out of Keystone during the training time. That will most certanily change when I have to close. Almost all of the walk-ons go up the stairs that lead to the bike storage mezzanine and they come down the same way. I don't think many people know about the passenger mezzanine on the other side of the boat. It has been empty on the trips that I took, even yesterday when there were quite a few walk-ons. A lot of people coming from their vehicles stop at the mezzanine deck and turn the corner to find a wall. They either walk to the other end and take those stairs or get back into the stairwell to get to the main passenger deck. It makes it a really quiet place to sit, but is some seriously underutilized space. I think it would help guide cars a little better if there was some curbing. The cleats pop up straight out of the car deck floor. I'm also wondering how much longer the bridges at Port Townsend and Keystone are going to last. They are the old ones that don't have the apron that flexes. With the listing of the boat, I would think that it causes a lot of stress on the straight aprons, even when the "float" is activated. The bow of the boat where the apron rests shows that too, as there is a lot more wear on the side that sits higher. So far I love it. Chetzemoka by zargoman, on Flickr You are so lucky! |
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jun 12, 2011 19:41:00 GMT -8
Can someone actually explain the reason for the "fact" that WSF customers find an open-deck ferry unacceptable. Please explain why, or at least your own personal reasons why you don't like it. I'm interested to know. (and I love asking people to elaborate). Pretty evident in how quickly WSF got rid of the only open deck ferry they ever had--the Kulshan. It's been documented in at least two other books other than mine how unpopular she was, and the state ditched her after what, a decade? And the only reason the state held onto her after 1979 was because the Hood Canal Bridge sank and she was pressed into service there. This was a ferry built in 1954, remember. It was a nearly three full decades newer than the Steel Electrics, but the state disposed of it and not them--a ferry that carried close to the same number of cars (65 as opposed to 75) with none of the overheight issues with the Steel Electrics. WSF hangs onto their boats for a ridiculously long period of time (those pesky Steel Electrics again) so it says something that they disposed of the Kulshan as quickly as they did. Furthermore, if you go waaay back to when the state first took over the system (I'll have to find the drawings, I have it around here somewhere) they actually proposed and released to the press a design for the new ferries for Puget Sound...all open deck boats. There was immediate opposition to the idea, and the next new ferries became the Evergreen State Class. Skalley notes in The Ferry Story about the Kulshan..."she proved successful from an operational standpoint, but she was not liked by the regular commuters who were accustomed to a fitted-out enclosed deckhouse and food service." Like I say, the short duration of service of the Kulshan compared to the rest of the fleet is evidence enough--and the fact that they've never tried another open deck boat since. |
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jun 12, 2011 19:58:39 GMT -8
I've looked at your traffic figures, and I'm familiar with how foot traffic is handled on BC Ferries routes where there are a lot of commuters. You just haven't made a case that on a twenty minute run where so many people stay in their cars, there is a requirement for the expensive vessels you seem so set on. I take issue with this statement for one reason--you're basing your entire argument here on the artificially high expense of the Chetzemoka and her sisters because of the absurd clause put in by Mary Margaret Haugen that the vessels had to be built in Washington, and in the case of the Chetzemoka within an 18 month time frame. Wasted space or not, the Island Home cost a fraction of what these boats did. Ours ended up so overpriced due to the fiscally irresponsible actions of the legislature. Clearly we're not outraged enough, because we keep putting these clowns back into office. The vessels are expensive--far more than they really ought to be--due to how they were built and the speed at which they were delivered--not necessarily because that was what the public "was so set on." And even if that was the case. and the public does want the boats (as my earlier post indicated, there historically is no love for open deck ferries in this state) and we want to foot the bill for it, who cares whether an open car deck boat would be more practical for the run or not? If we're going to be saddled with the boats for sixty plus years, we may as well get what we want--or as close to it as we can. That said, I'm not sure anyone wanted the Kwa di Tubtoys. But that rant has been covered again and again another thread... |
|
