|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 12, 2011 20:21:19 GMT -8
You know, there's a surprising amount of "what you need is this" when you also admit you don't know the demographics of the route.
The last time I did time at Mukilteo (thirteen years ago), I saw an EASY 200+ foot passengers for three consecutive commuter trips in the morning. If you want to put up with inadequate passenger seating, go right ahead.
I'm not arguing that the Kwa-di-Tubtoys have excessive passenger capacity, or that the bicycle lounges aren't justified. However, we've drifted to the subject of open-decked ferries, and I think I'm in a decent position to say that, with the Port Townsend-Keystone run being at the eastern end of the Straits of Juan de Fuca (translation: business end of the prevailing westerly pipe), an open-deck boat out there would be an operational nightmare. As for Mukliteo, people want a place to sit. End of story.
|
|
FNS
Voyager 
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,956
|
Post by FNS on Jun 12, 2011 20:44:49 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. Let us remember that the KULSHAN was built originally for San Diego service. It was around 1947 when mass transit (streetcars) ended service in San Diego and Coronado. The Coronado dock had an upper passenger gangplank so passengers could proceed separately from the car traffic to awaiting rail cars. It was sort of like an operation on San Francisco Bay before the bridges. Mass transit service with mass transit sized cabins on the ferries. With the withdrawal of the rail cars, motor buses began boarding the ferries there on San Diego Bay and the passenger ramp at Coronado was retired. Most people would stay in the buses for the crossing. Therefore, the mass transit cabins on the ferries were less used. It was afterwards when it was decided that the San Diego ferry line build a more efficient ferry with a smaller cabin for passengers. Enter the CROWN CITY in 1954. Then, she came to Puget Sound in 1969 as the KULSHAN. She spent the years of 1969 through 1979 on the Mukilteo run. In 1980 on Hood Canal. Back at Mukilteo in 1981 as third ferry. Other routes the KULSHAN appeared on were both north and south Vashon Island routes and the Edmonds - Kingston run. We know where she is now. |
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Jun 12, 2011 21:35:50 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? The Chetzemoka clearly cost way to much and I fully agree with Evergreen about where and how the problem lays. The we in this case would be a person that goes to the ferry meets when we have them on Whidbey and someone that has commuted the Mukilteo run for years..  Far as Neil I would never presume to try and tell you or anyone in BC about what kind of "boat" they need on "their" run, as I haven't studied the facts and are not actually informed about the numbers of people, and or budget for any runs there.. I also wouldn't start throwing stones about gov't and ferry systems when you live in a glass house...  |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,302
|
Post by Neil on Jun 12, 2011 22:15:17 GMT -8
[Far as Neil I would never presume to try and tell you or anyone in BC about what kind of "boat" they need on "their" run, as I haven't studied the facts and are not actually informed about the numbers of people, and or budget for any runs there.. I also wouldn't start throwing stones about gov't and ferry systems when you live in a glass house... That remark is uncalled for, and it also ignores the fact that traffic statistics and financial information is available for WSF, as it is for BC Ferries. Also, not everyone on our side of the border is completely ignorant about Washington affairs; we are neighbours, and there is a lot of information available. I'm sure your input into the ferry system on our side of the border would be welcome. Admittedly, I don't have the first hand experience of the WSF system that you folks have, but there does seem to be some touchiness here regarding someone questioning what seems to be a set orthodoxy on the kind of vessels WSF uses. I'm not telling you to build a Skeena Queen, but merely suggesting that sort of boat as an alternative, especially since the financial squeeze on funding for public infrastructure is common to both sides of the border. Barnacle: You're right, "people want a place to sit". 200 seats on a run like Mukilteo would be inadequate, and I wasn't suggesting otherwise. The Island Sky can accommodate far more than that, as could an elongated version of a Skeena Queen. If your shipyards can deliver a basic 125 car ferry for $56 million, then I'll admit I have nothing to suggest. Now, before I provoke a pig war, or get accused of a chief-like obstreperous repetitiveness, I'll go to bed. Hands across the border, and all that stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Jun 12, 2011 22:43:49 GMT -8
You know, there's a surprising amount of "what you need is this" when you also admit you don't know the demographics of the route. The last time I did time at Mukilteo (thirteen years ago), I saw an EASY 200+ foot passengers for three consecutive commuter trips in the morning. If you want to put up with inadequate passenger seating, go right ahead. I'm not arguing that the Kwa-di-Tubtoys have excessive passenger capacity, or that the bicycle lounges aren't justified. However, we've drifted to the subject of open-decked ferries, and I think I'm in a decent position to say that, with the Port Townsend-Keystone run being at the eastern end of the Straits of Juan de Fuca (translation: business end of the prevailing westerly pipe), an open-deck boat out there would be an operational nightmare. As for Mukliteo, people want a place to sit. End of story. Well put! Barnacle, I would love a chance to meet with you and have coffee someday. Someone who definitely knows their stuff! |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Jun 12, 2011 22:54:11 GMT -8
That remark is uncalled for, and it also ignores the fact that traffic statistics and financial information is available for WSF, as it is for BC Ferries. Also, not everyone on our side of the border is completely ignorant about Washington affairs; we are neighbours, and there is a lot of information available. I'm sure your input into the ferry system on our side of the border would be welcome. --- Admittedly, I don't have the first hand experience of the WSF system that you folks have, but there does seem to be some touchiness here regarding someone questioning what seems to be a set orthodoxy on the kind of vessels WSF uses. I'm not telling you to build a Skeena Queen, but merely suggesting that sort of boat as an alternative, especially since the financial squeeze on funding for public infrastructure is common to both sides of the border. It's the fact of the matter that that sort of vessel has been tried before (the Kulshan). I'm old enough to remember crossing the Kulshan on Hood Canal and I HATED that boat with a passion. (I remember the brand new Chelan being my most favorite boat back then). It's simple and boils down to a case of "if it's not broke, why fix it?" Our ferry designs (read: our signature design of two wheelhouse, fully-enclosed passenger cabin, picklefork deck, and enclosed - yet open @ both ends car deck) have a tried and true appeal to them that also makes them a very hot tourist attraction in the summer months (when the weather is right! ). We simply do not need, nor care for, open car deck ferries. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Jun 12, 2011 23:02:57 GMT -8
Oh, and EGFleet, it was June 1, 1951 that the state took over Puget Sound Navigation Company. I follow WSDOT on Twitter and on FB and I remember seeing a tweet on there about WSF celebrating their 60th birthday on June 1. This was their tweet: RT @wsdot: 60 years ago today the largest ferry system in the U.S. was created. Happy Birthday @wsferries! |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 13, 2011 5:51:11 GMT -8
Oh, and EGFleet, it was June 1, 1951 that the state took over Puget Sound Navigation Company. I follow WSDOT on Twitter and on FB and I remember seeing a tweet on there about WSF celebrating their 60th birthday on June 1. This was their tweet: RT @wsdot: 60 years ago today the largest ferry system in the U.S. was created. Happy Birthday @wsferries! As he's published on the subject, I'm going to gamble EGFleet knew that. I believe he's referring to hunting for the drawings for the open-deck type ferries that Governor Langlie was proposing when WSF took over the fleet. I may have seen them too at some point; I don't recall. On the other hand, I could simply be mistaking them for some old detail blueprints for the Crown City/Kulshan/Governor that I have lurking around here somewhere...  |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 13, 2011 6:07:30 GMT -8
I'll try again on the question of why Washintonians don't like open-deck ferries: So far I've learned: 1) there is a long history of not liking them 2) if it aint broke, don't fix it. So all that's left for me to learn is whether there are any reasons about riding an open deck ferry (related to the experience of riding the ferry itself) that causes Washingtonians to not like them. If it's just because of history and aversion-to-change, that's ok. But I had assumed that there must have been something about the actual experience of riding an open-deck ferry that was considered unacceptable. Weather ? - too much sun, to much rain ? - too much wind ? PS: I find the comparative issues interesting for 2 seemingly inconsistent items: 1) the aversion to an open deck ferry 2) the fondness of an open ended & open sided ferry. Open to something, not about others (strictly ferry speaking). - here in BC, we're like that too, just differences on what we're open on and closed on. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 13, 2011 6:28:04 GMT -8
Far as Neil I would never presume to try and tell you or anyone in BC about what kind of "boat" they need on "their" run, as I haven't studied the facts and are not actually informed about the numbers of people, and or budget for any runs there..
I also wouldn't start throwing stones about gov't and ferry systems when you live in a glass house... I'm going to reply carefully to this. I'll start with stating my assumption that it seems that Mr. Whidbey is suggesting that it's improper for forum-members from one jurisdiction to comment on ferry matters of another jurisdiction. Different "jurisdictions" (nice word, huh?) include: - southern British Columbia - northern British Columbia - Puget Sound - South-east Alaska - the rest of Alaska - North America east coast (ie. Newfoundland, Martha's Vineyard, etc) - Europe Having made that assumption, here's my reply: - Speaking as a moderator of this forum, we've worked hard to encourage cross-border commentary, cross-border Q&A, cross-border trips, cross-border photos, and even some cross-border non-ferry banter. - We (the forum moderators) encourage members to look outside their home-jurisdiction and to learn about the ferries and issues in other jurisdictions. - the proximity of Puget Sound to Gulf of Georgia makes it easier to compare and experience both of these 2 jurisdictions. All this being said, this forum thinks it's very appropriate, and encourages its members, to comment-on and question the ferry systems in any jurisdiction, especially between Puget Sound and Gulf of Georgia. As with any type of forum discussion, specific questions and specific answers are the way to go. If anyone posts a "that system is different, so it sucks" type of ignorant comment, expect to be challenged. Expect to be asked to give examples. Expect that if you ask a specific & well thought-out question, you'll get a specific & well thought-out answer. Have fun. |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 13, 2011 6:42:09 GMT -8
I just realized that I don't think anyone's actually mentioned the specific objections to the Kulshan. I'm going on hearsay at this point, because I wasn't a ferry-nerd until the Kulshan had been gone for a few years. But the objections I have heard leveled at the boat: --absence of passenger seating/enclosed passenger space. The Kulshan only had seating for about sixteen people, I'm told. The easiest way to clean the passenger cabin, according to one senior deckhand, was to "lash the cabin doors on each end open for one crossing." Fifteen minutes of breeze was plenty, though I suspect it didn't do that well on the windows. Either way, people would frequently have to take shelter wherever they could, and the passenger count wasn't anywhere near what it is today. --no galley service. Not even a vending machine. --Tender. It was one way-hey-hey of a roller. And even if it wasn't raining, you'd still get wet if the wind was blowing. --The boat was built in Oakland to San Diego specs; the sunny climes of San Diego Bay/Coronado Bay were considerably more amenable to the Crown City's external lifestyle. Might even be that we just aren't as rugged as you guys are. After all, Douglas fir and hemlock are softwoods. Maple is considerably harder. |
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jun 13, 2011 6:56:03 GMT -8
Oh, and EGFleet, it was June 1, 1951 that the state took over Puget Sound Navigation Company. I follow WSDOT on Twitter and on FB and I remember seeing a tweet on there about WSF celebrating their 60th birthday on June 1. This was their tweet: As he's published on the subject, I'm going to gamble EGFleet knew that. I believe he's referring to hunting for the drawings for the open-deck type ferries that Governor Langlie was proposing when WSF took over the fleet. I may have seen them too at some point; I don't recall. On the other hand, I could simply be mistaking them for some old detail blueprints for the Crown City/Kulshan/Governor that I have lurking around here somewhere... Yep, that is what I meant, and EUREKA! I remembered today where I saw the drawing! It was in Graham Shrader's The Black Ball Line (which, for the record, probably gives the best account of how the state forced Captain Peabody out of business on Puget Sound.) Forgive the poor quality of this scan. This copy was given to me second or third hand and lord only knows how many generations back from the original it is. You can get the idea of what was proposed.  I don't think they could have killed it any quicker by putting in the caption that there was no galley. Even back then depriving Puget Sounders of their coffee was not a wise idea, even on a short trip... |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 13, 2011 7:42:31 GMT -8
I just realized that I don't think anyone's actually mentioned the specific objections to the Kulshan. I'm going on hearsay at this point, because I wasn't a ferry-nerd until the Kulshan had been gone for a few years. But the objections I have heard leveled at the boat: --absence of passenger seating/enclosed passenger space. The Kulshan only had seating for about sixteen people, I'm told. The easiest way to clean the passenger cabin, according to one senior deckhand, was to "lash the cabin doors on each end open for one crossing." Fifteen minutes of breeze was plenty, though I suspect it didn't do that well on the windows. Either way, people would frequently have to take shelter wherever they could, and the passenger count wasn't anywhere near what it is today. --no galley service. Not even a vending machine. --Tender. It was one way-hey-hey of a roller. And even if it wasn't raining, you'd still get wet if the wind was blowing. --The boat was built in Oakland to San Diego specs; the sunny climes of San Diego Bay/Coronado Bay were considerably more amenable to the Crown City's external lifestyle. Might even be that we just aren't as rugged as you guys are. After all, Douglas fir and hemlock are softwoods. Maple is considerably harder. thanks for that. Based on these comments, an open-decked ferry similar to BC's "Island Sky" or the Queen of Cumberland / Capilano would meet the Washintonians criteria: - lots of inside seating space, washrooms, and an elevator, and a sundeck too. - a coffee / snack bar, plus vending machines. So even with all that, is the fact that it's somewhat open-deck still an issue ? |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 13, 2011 8:54:56 GMT -8
thanks for that. Based on these comments, an open-decked ferry similar to BC's "Island Sky" or the Queen of Cumberland / Capilano would meet the Washintonians criteria: - lots of inside seating space, washrooms, and an elevator, and a sundeck too. - a coffee / snack bar, plus vending machines. So even with all that, is the fact that it's somewhat open-deck still an issue ? I'd be hesitant to call the Cumberland, Capilano or Island Sky open-decked. That basic design is a lot more appropriate than the old Kulshan was. The house on the Kulshan was, at its widest point, probably 12 feet wide. And that wasn't the portion that held the pasenger cabin. |
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Jun 13, 2011 9:06:39 GMT -8
I don't see why everyone is so bent on having food service on every single vessel either. Everyone seems to complain about it all of the time, so why have it? If the food was good, you'd have lineups as long as the ship, and chances are you'd already be on the other side by the time you were close to making your order.
I'm amazed at how sensitive of a subject it is to even mention the word, open deck ferry to WSF fans.
I don't think anyone was suggesting a Skeena Queen to go on the Port Townsend route. The exposure there is pretty obvious, especially since we all saw how the Steilacoom II handled it. But once again, it's pretty hard to think your partially enclosed deck ferries with that wide open bow, as one that would handle the seas any better than an open deck vessel. Sure, the ride would be a little more comfortable overall with a larger vessel. But it really isn't going to be able to handle seas much better with no bow doors.
Edit: Clearly the Kulshan was a failure from the beginning. But it wouldn't make sense for that to be the be all end all for open deck vessels there. Heck, I've seen it in person. It looks really uncomfortable, even more so than some of our smaller ferries.
|
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Jun 13, 2011 9:24:36 GMT -8
So even with all that, is the fact that it's somewhat open-deck still an issue ? Potential other issues I see all of which are easily surmountable if appropriate consideration is given up front: 1) Need for overhead or other mechanism to seperate passengers boarding from cars. This has been deemed required from a safety and schedule holding perspective in several studies given growth on the route. 2) Large passenger spikes from the Sounder commuter rail station to the south of the terminal. (seems unlikely to ever happen given current ridership #'s on the north line but possible I suppose). In order to encourage mass transit ridership and not "waste" the big bucks ST has spent it is necessary that there not be any "sorry wait a boat" situations. Besides if the "people" wanna spend millions more to have a cabin, so be it. Apparently we are soft, squishy and don't want to get wet if we have to use the restroom. ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jun 13, 2011 9:26:21 GMT -8
thanks for that. Based on these comments, an open-decked ferry similar to BC's "Island Sky" or the Queen of Cumberland / Capilano would meet the Washintonians criteria: - lots of inside seating space, washrooms, and an elevator, and a sundeck too. - a coffee / snack bar, plus vending machines. So even with all that, is the fact that it's somewhat open-deck still an issue ? I'd be hesitant to call the Cumberland, Capilano or Island Sky open-decked. That basic design is a lot more appropriate than the old Kulshan was. The house on the Kulshan was, at its widest point, probably 12 feet wide. And that wasn't the portion that held the pasenger cabin. I've actually thought that the I-Class vessel design could be a good fit for some of the WSF routes, if the state was not already predisposed to the "standard" WSF template common to most of the fleet (i.e. open ended car decks, twin stairwell layout, twin pilothouses, etc.). I think the I-Class template is a fairly efficient design that eliminates some redundancy, like the central pilothouse, for example. And, that class vessel does have a nice cabin with room for a cafeteria. A couple of layout options may satisfy the requirements for several WSF routes: 1. a version with a single car deck for some of the lighter traffic routes such as Point Defiance-Tahlequah and San Juan Inter Island 2. a version with gallery decks for heavier traffic routes like Fauntleroy-Vashon-Southworth, and Mukilteo-Clinton What would the vehicle capacities be? I guess that depends on how much the design is modified. I also wonder if such a design could do away with the RAD propulsion system and go with a more conventional propeller of the sort WSF is more used to. I'm not a naval architect or engineer, so I really have no idea. I'm just throwing it out there. Getting back to Chetzemoka...EGFleet summed it up best a number of posts ago when he talked about how the "Kwa-di "tubtoy" design was forced through in the wake of the crisis that the state let itself get into. I won't re-hash too much of what he said other than to agree that this is not a good design fit for our ferry system, and as has been said over and over again, it does not address future growth in automobile traffic. As for the bicycle mezzanine that was based on Island Home's design, I will say this, having ridden on Island Home: Island Home does not have a bicycle mezzanine. Both mezzanines are for passenger seating on that vessel. The design makes sense for that route because of the high number of walk-ons, and because the overhead walkway ramps at Vineyard Haven and Woods Hole line up with the vessel on the mezzanine level. |
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jun 13, 2011 9:26:26 GMT -8
I don't see why everyone is so bent on having food service on every single vessel either. It isn't on every single vessel now. The Rhody has no galley, nor does the Hiyu and the inter-island ferry does not provide food service either. Just for the record. |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Jun 13, 2011 9:40:30 GMT -8
As for the bicycle mezzanine that was based on Island Home's design, I will say this, having ridden on Island Home: Island Home does not have a bicycle mezzanine. Both mezzanines are for passenger seating on that vessel. The design makes sense for that route because of the high number of walk-ons, and because the overhead walkway ramps at Vineyard Haven and Woods Hole line up with the vessel on the mezzanine level. I got the impression somewhere that the bike lounge was put in on Chetzy and the others to save a few $$$ on interior finish work. Is that assessement more or less correct? I'd never noticed that about Island Homes overhead loading mechanism either. Looking at the pictures I found this strikes me as way cheaper than the massive grade seperated causeways and lift structured used by WSF. Of course none of our other boats have mezzanines of that type. |
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jun 13, 2011 10:13:25 GMT -8
I got the impression somewhere that the bike lounge was put in on Chetzy and the others to save a few $$$ on interior finish work. Is that assessement more or less correct? Perhaps, although it seems like they did finish out the interior of the mezzanine, with the exception of adding a bunch of seating, so I'm not sure they saved any money in making it a "bicycle" mezzanine. Here's a comparison: Chetzemoka's bicycle mezzanine:  Chetzemoka's other mezzanine (the one with more seats):  Island Home's mezzanine:  |
|
|
|
Post by zargoman on Jun 14, 2011 4:05:49 GMT -8
AHA! That's where those seat designs came from! I was wondering why they were so different from what WSF has had before. It's not like they even tried them out before installation...The single chairs have a lot less material than previous chairs, so I can see where they could save $$ on those. Not too sure about the bench seats. Those rounded areas at the top are not the most comfortable (for me).
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,956
|
Post by FNS on Jun 14, 2011 7:59:49 GMT -8
Photos released by WSF show different seating used aboard the SALISH than those aboard the CHETZEMOKA. Here are three photos from WSF showing the seats: MV SALISH OBSERVATORY SEATS ON SALOON DECK FROM WSFMV SALISH SALOON DECK SEATING FROM WSFMV SALISH SALOON DECK SEATING FROM WSFI think that another name of class of these new ferries should be called the "Evergreen Class" (not "Evergreen State Class", mind you) with all those green tiles on the interior decks and green seats and benches. They represent the greenery we have here and the "wood" paneling represents the tree trunks. I miss the original interiors of the EVERGREEN STATE, KLAHOWYA, and TILLIKUM as well as the wooden cabin interiors of the Steel Electrics prior to the steeling in the 1980s. |
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jun 14, 2011 8:35:40 GMT -8
Thanks for posting those photos, Ferrynut. Is it just me, or do the seats on Salish look even cheaper than the ones on Chetzemoka? I can't say that the lime green floor has grown on me yet. From a design perspective, I suppose colour is subjective, but in my opinion, YUCK!  |
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Jun 14, 2011 9:02:28 GMT -8
Thanks for posting those photos, Ferrynut. Is it just me, or do the seats on Salish look even cheaper than the ones on Chetzemoka? I can't say that the lime green floor has grown on me yet. From a design perspective, I suppose colour is subjective, but in my opinion, YUCK! The green interiors metro has been using on their busses, especially those in the city proper, have performed very very well in terms of at least looking clean over the years. And I mean heck if it can make a bus working the 358 route look passable it's doing something right. They have been switching to blue though lately. The thing that bothers me about the color is more that *everything* is that color, there is no variation in things like seat colors, floor tile pattern etc as there are on the other boats. |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Jun 14, 2011 12:09:20 GMT -8
:)looking at the posted pic. of the observatory seating on the new WSFerry, just posted by ferrynut seattle, I am wondering if our new pay per view, free enterprise hahn's viewing programme would apply in any forward viewing vista on new BC ferries? :)go nucks go! :)mrdot.
|
|
