|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Dec 13, 2007 19:33:13 GMT -8
After looking at some photos and statistics for MV Christine Anderson, one might wonder if this vessel is actually seaworthy for the Port Townsend/Keystone run??? It definitely doesn't look like a rough weather ship. With that large open car deck, I wonder if vehicles would have enough protection from high waves?
Why would she be considered more seaworthy than Rhody, which saw service on that route for years? I wonder if the Anderson is ADA compliant? I could not find that info from my very brief survey of her statistics.
Would the state really seriously consider such a design and such small capacity (52 or 54) in building permanent replacement vessels for the route that experiences the toughest weather in the system. That seems really stupid to me.
|
|
FNS
Voyager 
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,942
|
Post by FNS on Dec 13, 2007 19:47:26 GMT -8
The MV CHRISTINE ANDERSON and the MV STEILACOOM II are both ADA compliant with an elevator serving the Main Deck and the Saloon Deck. There is no galley. When I rode the CA several years ago, I found no vending machines. So, some work in getting some sort of vending service aboard is needed.
As for the open ends, it would be a good idea to raise the bulwarks like what we see on BCF's MV QUEEN OF CAPILANO and MV QUEEN OF CUMBERLAND.
I think they should use the STEILACOOM II as she has more cabin space than the CA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 13, 2007 21:34:16 GMT -8
SS Shasta, where have you been? I know you're in Ketchikan, but I'm pretty sure you can hear the screaming all the way up there every time WSF tries to upgrade the capacity on that run.
The design is "seriously" being considered because the design is already complete, and with only a few modifications, can be built post-haste and in service in just over a year.
The Rhododendron, by nature of her hull compartmentalization, is not allowed more than a mile offshore.
|
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Dec 16, 2007 16:39:05 GMT -8
Just wondering if this vessel is capable of handling these large truck vans that seemed to frequent the Port Townsend/Keystone route? I saw two or three being loaded on MV Klickitat this summer at Port Townsend. I wouldn't think that vehicles that high and long would be common on the Anderson Island route?
|
|
|
|
Post by guest1 on Dec 16, 2007 16:56:49 GMT -8
The Port Townsend paper mill had been hauling a large amount of product and supplies on the PT/Key run. I would estimate 20 trucks a day for the mill alone. WSF has detailed records on traffic volume and type.
Another thing is passenger cabin capacity. On festival weekends, such as the Wooden Boat Festival, several hundred walk-ons might make a crossing.
With the open cardeck, and in rough seas, where are the vehicle drivers and passengers going to go. As I recall, cars were washed around last winter on the Klickitat, leaving one car hanging from the bulkhead.
A political decsion has been made as to permanent vessel replacement. I am hoping that some engineering common sense can compliment that politician's wish fullfillment.
|
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Dec 16, 2007 20:10:46 GMT -8
The Port Townsend paper mill had been hauling a large amount of product and supplies on the PT/Key run. I would estimate 20 trucks a day for the mill alone. WSF has detailed records on traffic volume and type. Another thing is passenger cabin capacity. On festival weekends, such as the Wooden Boat Festival, several hundred walk-ons might make a crossing. With the open cardeck, and in rough seas, where are the vehicle drivers and passengers going to go. As I recall, cars were washed around last winter on the Klickitat, leaving one car hanging from the bulkhead. A political decsion has been made as to permanent vessel replacement. I am hoping that some engineering common sense can compliment that politician's wish fullfillment. Yeah...but how much longer is the PT mill going to be operating? I hear they're barely afloat as it is right now and EPA is breathing down their neck over their emissions...it seems they are regularly flunking their tests. |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 16, 2007 20:18:49 GMT -8
I do believe that the USDOT doesn't really care what the Anderson Island ferry is carrying; the height clearance is likely to be 16 feet regardless. But I won't swear to that, of course, having never seen the young lass.
And yes, passenger capacity might not be what it is on the Klickitat, but... how is it compared to zero?
The vehicle drivers and passengers can go upstairs to the passenger cabin. The weather very seldom coincides with heavy loads of foot traffic.
|
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Dec 16, 2007 20:27:03 GMT -8
I do believe that the USDOT doesn't really care what the Anderson Island ferry is carrying; the height clearance is likely to be 16 feet regardless. But I won't swear to that, of course, having never seen the young lass. Overhead clearance is 14"6'. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 16, 2007 20:31:40 GMT -8
The reason why the Rhododeneron (and Hiyu for that matter) can't be used on the Port Townsend/Keystone route is because if it's one compartment design i.e. one compartment can flood and the ship can stay afloat. Coast guard regulations limit the Rhody and Hiyu to routes where the boat is no more than 1 mile from shore.
|
|
|
|
Post by guest1 on Dec 17, 2007 14:44:53 GMT -8
With the proper judgment of a route qualified deck officer the Christine Anderson could be operated safely on the PT/Key route. But any long term replacement vessel needs to be designed for the sea conditions on this route. The following link is of your typical westerly. The passenger deck is 21 feet above the waterline, the run was was on overload conditions for vehicles when this videos was shot. The link demonstrates the minimum sea conditions that a vessel should be designed for. |
|
Kam
Voyager
Posts: 925
|
Post by Kam on Dec 17, 2007 14:54:07 GMT -8
With the proper judgment of a route qualified deck officer the Christine Anderson could be operated safely on the PT/Key route. But any long term replacement vessel needs to be designed for the sea conditions on this route. The following link is of your typical westerly. The passenger deck is 21 feet above the waterline, the run was was on overload conditions for vehicles when this videos was shot. The link demonstrates the minimum sea conditions that a vessel should be designed for. lol... thats not rough, thats just jerky camera work!  |
|
|
|
Post by guest1 on Dec 17, 2007 15:33:58 GMT -8
Though on the Christine it would've provided a wonderful saltwater car wash. Gotta luv modern electronics.  |
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Apr 27, 2008 12:43:59 GMT -8
Just wondering if the MV Christine Anderson will be used at Port Townsend-Keystone this summer as the 2nd vessel listed on the proposed WSF summer schedule? Perhaps MV Hiyu would replace the Anderson on the Anderson Island run??? Just a guess, but it's fun to speculate. |
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,942
|
Post by FNS on Apr 27, 2008 15:41:51 GMT -8
Just wondering if the MV Christine Anderson will be used at Port Townsend-Keystone this summer as the 2nd vessel listed on the proposed WSF summer schedule? Perhaps MV Hiyu would replace the Anderson on the Anderson Island run??? Just a guess, but it's fun to speculate. I emailed WSF about a week or two ago suggesting that the RHODY and HIYU be loaned to PC, the SEALTH be placed on the Tahlequah run, and the CA joining her sister S2 at Keystone this summer. No reply yet. Up to 100 cars could then be crossing Admiralty Inlet per 90 minutes, weather permitting. As for the operations down at Steilacoom, the RHODY would be the primary vessel and the HIYU would be an overheight (under 15 feet) ferry with her scheduled sailings on an arranged basis with the trucking industry (also a standby vessel for the RHODY). |
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Apr 27, 2008 18:51:17 GMT -8
Factoring in crew training (which would have to be done on the Hiyu and Rhody before it can be done on the CA), modifications needed for the CA, and the fact that the Hiyu wouldn't be available until June at the earliest, I don't think they would be able to have the CA on the route until at least probably mid-July.
|
|
|
|
Post by Electric Thunderbird on Apr 29, 2008 17:01:20 GMT -8
The reason why the Rhododeneron (and Hiyu for that matter) can't be used on the Port Townsend/Keystone route is because if it's one compartment design i.e. one compartment can flood and the ship can stay afloat. Coast guard regulations limit the Rhody and Hiyu to routes where the boat is no more than 1 mile from shore. Why one mile? |
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Apr 29, 2008 18:47:10 GMT -8
Possibly things like time needed to get rescue boats out to where the boat is (there's not enough life rafts on board for the max # of passengers allowed) since the vessel would probably go down faster. Technically it's 0.8 nautical miles (about 0.92 miles). |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Apr 30, 2008 11:55:52 GMT -8
Just wondering if the MV Christine Anderson will be used at Port Townsend-Keystone this summer as the 2nd vessel listed on the proposed WSF summer schedule? Perhaps MV Hiyu would replace the Anderson on the Anderson Island run??? Just a guess, but it's fun to speculate. The two-boat schedule was released in error. And given WSF's current vessel shortages, I don't know why anyone who reads this board with regularity would've thought otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on May 19, 2008 15:34:10 GMT -8
I was reading that MV Christine Anderson will need a significant amount of modification before she can go to work on the Port Townsend-Keystone route. With this being the case, I was wondering why the new lease agreement requires the change in vessels? Could it be that with these modifications, both vessels could be used at Keystone and a complete shutdown of the route could be avoided?
Is it also possible that MV Hiyu will be going to work at Anderson Island when MV Christine Anderson is out of service for these necessary modifications?
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 20, 2008 3:34:50 GMT -8
I was reading that MV Christine Anderson will need a significant amount of modification before she can go to work on the Port Townsend-Keystone route. With this being the case, I was wondering why the new lease agreement requires the change in vessels? Could it be that with these modifications, both vessels could be used at Keystone and a complete shutdown of the route could be avoided? Is it also possible that MV Hiyu will be going to work at Anderson Island when MV Christine Anderson is out of service for these necessary modifications? I suppose that's as good a reason as any to swap out the Steilacoom for the Christine, though I personally suspect Pierce County just wants their new boat back. It is also possible that the Hiyu will be sitting in during said period, yes. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but it would make sense. The Hiyu is currently available for service, and tied up at Eagle Harbor. |
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on May 20, 2008 6:08:44 GMT -8
I was reading that MV Christine Anderson will need a significant amount of modification before she can go to work on the Port Townsend-Keystone route. With this being the case, I was wondering why the new lease agreement requires the change in vessels? Could it be that with these modifications, both vessels could be used at Keystone and a complete shutdown of the route could be avoided? Is it also possible that MV Hiyu will be going to work at Anderson Island when MV Christine Anderson is out of service for these necessary modifications? I suppose that's as good a reason as any to swap out the Steilacoom for the Christine, though I personally suspect Pierce County just wants their new boat back. It is also possible that the Hiyu will be sitting in during said period, yes. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but it would make sense. The Hiyu is currently available for service, and tied up at Eagle Harbor. That's exactly why Pierce County wants it back. They said so: According to Esher, the decision to deny WSF further use of the Steilacoom II was based on a responsibility to the Pierce County taxpayer. Anderson Island ferry riders paid higher fares for several years to help cover the cost of building the Steilacoom II, which was completed in 2007.
But Esher said the decision also had to do with a public loss of confidence in WSF. The Steilacoom II already has taken a beating on the Keystone-Port Townsend route, and doubts have arisen whether WSF will really be in a position to return the vessel in 2010.
"It makes no sense to beat up our new boat on a run it obviously wasn't made for," Esher said. "Take our old boat, use it for as long as you need it, and bring it back when you get your act together."www.whidbeyexaminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=1326&TM=61843.59In a bit of sloppy reporting, it doesn't give "Esher's" first name, but they mean Michael Esher, airport/ferry administrator for Pierce County. |
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Jul 12, 2008 13:12:15 GMT -8
Any idea as to when the modification work on MV Christine Anderson is scheduled to begin? Guess that would mean shifting the Rhody to Anderson Island again and MV Hiyu to Point Defiance........assuming Port Townsend-Keystone does not go back to a foot passenger only route.
|
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Jul 12, 2008 14:25:14 GMT -8
She's scheduled to replace the Steilacoom II in September, so she should be going in for modifications soon. The extent of the modifications isn't known yet (WSF is considering replacing the propellers with variable pitch ones). Other than that, I haven't heard anything.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,942
|
Post by FNS on Jul 15, 2008 7:45:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Jul 15, 2008 8:08:03 GMT -8
I wonder which vessel will take the place of the Rhody at Tahlequah - Pt. Defiance.
|
|
