|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Oct 7, 2007 17:22:50 GMT -8
I thought I would bring this subject up, since I don't think it has been even discussed yet. Since it seems that we are close to replacing all of the Steels, I am wondering what other forum members think WSF will do with them after they are removed from service. Will they finally begin to scrap their own vessels, sell them as they have in the past to the highest bidder or sell them only to a salvage company to ensure that they are never used again. Thread title changed to reflect that they're heading to the "ferry terminal in the sky"
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 7, 2007 19:32:40 GMT -8
I don't think they'll have to "ensure" that they are never used again... nobody would attempt to operate them, I don't think. WSF tends to hold on to its equipment until it is well past useless, since we don't have to be profitable, and it would be utterly impractical for anyone to operate it if we can't find it practical ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Electric Thunderbird on Oct 11, 2007 11:49:33 GMT -8
Maybe post them on E-Bay. WSF will sell to the highest bidder, either a scrap yard or private party for alternate use. Probably wouldn't survive an over seas trip to a scrap yard? Artificial reefs? Vintage car museums? Floating beer gardens?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 12, 2007 7:59:19 GMT -8
Anything that puts them to a floating purpose is optimistic. I honestly don't think they'll be fit for anything except the scrappers. And they may well have to be scrapped locally. Not that such should be a problem; they've all had their asbestos out years ago, as far as I know.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenboatrider on Oct 21, 2007 1:01:10 GMT -8
I wonder, would they join the Olympic, beached across the way from Eagle Harbor?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 21, 2007 4:31:54 GMT -8
I doubt it. Daryl McNabb is trying to offload the Olympic as we speak, although he's asking over three times what he paid for it (it was on eBay for US$250k last week; it got a single offer of $60k). They'll be scrap, most likely.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenboatrider on Oct 21, 2007 10:37:01 GMT -8
It's a shame, but I bet being so old, the Steel-Electrics might not b e worthso much as scrap metal.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 21, 2007 15:55:17 GMT -8
Another possibility to be considered, unfortunately. But their general usefulness is pretty limited outside of their current application, and they are clearly at the end of their lifespan (if not several years past it)...
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Oct 21, 2007 16:05:49 GMT -8
Another possibility to be considered, unfortunately. But their general usefulness is pretty limited outside of their current application, and they are clearly at the end of their lifespan (if not several years past it)... Well, if you go by Coast Guard regulations, five decades past, actually. ;D
|
|
|
Post by zman on Oct 22, 2007 9:16:19 GMT -8
In all reality, they have a limited usefulness. If WSF could get some replacements for them, they could probably save a ton...on maintenance alone. The cost of the S/Es seems to be getting astronomical. It seems that every drydocking turns into a major repair of some sort.
|
|
|
Post by In Washington on Oct 31, 2007 5:32:51 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Oct 31, 2007 8:07:04 GMT -8
The Kitsap Sun article is interesting, but it seems to me that re-using the existing "Houses" on new hulls doesn't address capacity issues, particularly lane widths, which are too narrow on the current vessels, car deck height (which really should be taller), and those narrow, steep stairwells to the passenger cabin, just to name a few. Also, are we really prepared to be stuck with 59-64 vehicle capacity ferries on a run which will probably see significant growth over the next twenty years or so? I would think the state should at least be planning for vessels somewhere in the 80-100 vehicle capacity range just for projected growth reasons alone.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Oct 31, 2007 8:48:56 GMT -8
More and more, from following the never ending soap opera around the renewal of the WSF fleet, I get the impression that at the bottom of the problem is simply a state of absolute denial on the part of elected and non-elected officials, and maybe citizens, as to the financial resources required to run an efficient marine transportation system. If someone came up with a proposal to slap some paint on the inside of the Kalakala, fit it out with plastic lawn chairs from WalMart and have tugs tow it back and forth across Puget Sound, there would probably be someone to get enthusiastic about that being a good way to save money.
|
|
|
Post by guest1You on Oct 31, 2007 18:01:25 GMT -8
You seem to have hit the nail on the head, Neil.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 1, 2007 7:18:30 GMT -8
No kidding... can you say it a little quieter next time? Seriously though, the Kalakala is very similar to our Steel-Electrics... another 80-year-old hull with a replacement house atop it, and I know the Kalakala's hull isn't watertight either. Steven Rodrigues can say what he wants; I know the void under the steering gear is flooded at the very least.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Nov 1, 2007 7:33:19 GMT -8
From what I've read, it seems the only realistic way to deal with the narrow lane width (and probably the low clearance) is to have one machinery casing, which would reduce the capacity (since the dreaded middle lane would have to go). Would probably have to either replace or reinforce the beams holding up the passenger deck as well.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Nov 1, 2007 13:25:33 GMT -8
Maybe they should consider just saving the upper deck works... the wheelhouses and passenger cabins, and setting these on top of entirely new hull and car-deck structures. This would solve the hull problems and the clearance and accessability problems, but they could still re-use parts of the original ships.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Nov 1, 2007 15:13:46 GMT -8
Maybe they should consider just saving the upper deck works... the wheelhouses and passenger cabins, and setting these on top of entirely new hull and car-deck structures. This would solve the hull problems and the clearance and accessability problems, but they could still re-use parts of the original ships. Umm...see six posts back?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 1, 2007 20:43:14 GMT -8
That idea is so ludicrous, the "consultant" should be stripped of his credentials. There isn't any real portion of the vessels worth saving--the cost of reconfiguring the houses to be useful on a newbuild would probably be close to that of new fabrication, with all the added challenges of retrofits. Scrap the idea and the boats both.
The only reason I'm interested in the consultant's proposal to dump some money into the Hyak is that even if the legislature got on the stick tomorrow (hey, they're all in bed by now), it'd be ten years before we could realistically spare the Hyak from further duty. Might as well make sure she makes it that far.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Nov 2, 2007 11:47:17 GMT -8
Just to note, that my comment was actually something different from what they said above. Basically, if they must suggest something like this, I was saying, that's another method they might want to consider.
I actually agree with the fact that this suggestion adds up to being totally brainless. This is a classic case of dropping a dollar to save a penny, because if they ask enough consultants, they'll eventually have paid the price of new ferries totally in consulting fees. As it is, it seems any mention of the steel electrics seems to spark peoples' ire--this board being no exception--, but I'm not one to merely post casual comments.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Nov 6, 2007 2:39:25 GMT -8
That idea is so ludicrous, the "consultant" should be stripped of his credentials. There isn't any real portion of the vessels worth saving--the cost of reconfiguring the houses to be useful on a newbuild would probably be close to that of new fabrication, with all the added challenges of retrofits. Scrap the idea and the boats both. No, it all makes perfect sense. And, I presume that the "consultant" is driving a car with the upper body of a 1927 Dodge welded on to the frame of a 2007 Chevy. Because after all, we should be able to save some money by saving the top and just replacing the hull.............. ;D
|
|
|
Post by guest1 on Nov 6, 2007 19:11:56 GMT -8
Actually the top is from the Eighty's. How about scrapping them, and then recycle the material. I sure would like a surplus BigCam.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 7, 2007 9:12:06 GMT -8
I'd take one of the name plates... ;D
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 7, 2007 17:17:31 GMT -8
Based on yesterday's vote in Washington State, these grand old gals might be around for a long time. Let's not rush them off to the scrap heap. Looks like the folks down there are in a sour mood about funding transportation projects and increasing taxes.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Nov 7, 2007 19:06:55 GMT -8
Based on yesterday's vote in Washington State, these grand old gals might be around for a long time. Let's not rush them off to the scrap heap. Looks like the folks down there are in a sour mood about funding transportation projects and increasing taxes. You're not referring to "Prop 1" are you? That was only for transportation projects in King, Pierce and Snohomish County. And no, they will not be around for a long time. They're falling apart on their own as it stands and the Coast Guard will pull them before too much longer whether there are replacements or not.
|
|