lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
Mar 14, 2014 12:29:54 GMT -8
Post by lifc on Mar 14, 2014 12:29:54 GMT -8
Our pursuit of obtaining the HIYU for us here on Lummi Island continues.
One of the issues that confronts us is its draft, which is about four feet deeper than the Whatcom Chief. In 2006, when the County was considering building the 35 car "eggbeater" replacement, which was not purchased, the County commissioned a geo-technical study to see what the topology of the bottom was for both docks. I just got a copy of that study and found that there is nothing under the slips that would preclude the HIYU operating here. The Mainland dock is already deep enough, the entire bottom of the Island side, to an additional depth of 10 to 35 feet is made of "Marine Deposits" or decayed biological material, silt, sand, and some small pebbles. It is my opinion that the prop wash of the vessel alone would scour out the bottom to a depth that would never have to cancel due to low tides. Right now, the HIYU could operate on the Island side to a depth of 0 to-1 tides. At first we could use the Whatcom Chief during those low tide events, until the HIYU finishes hydraulically pushing out the silt. Looks like another impediment out of the way.
Now the only issues are the crew number and the moving of dolphins to accommodate her. The old creosote pilings are well worn and need to go anyway, we can get that part done when they get replaced, either this of early next year. We already know that the boat will just barely squeak into the docks, just not well enough for anything other than emergency operation.
About 3 weeks ago, we got electronic copies of the original blueprints of the HIYU. The profile shows two sizable void areas about halfway between the engines and the stern. I think this means the boat does not have to observe the "close to shore" restriction that the Rhododendron had to.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
MV Hiyu
Mar 14, 2014 21:47:13 GMT -8
Post by Neil on Mar 14, 2014 21:47:13 GMT -8
Our pursuit of obtaining the HIYU for us here on Lummi Island continues. One of the issues that confronts us is its draft, which is about four feet deeper than the Whatcom Chief. In 2006, when the County was considering building the 35 car "eggbeater" replacement, which was not purchased, the County commissioned a geo-technical study to see what the topology of the bottom was for both docks. I just got a copy of that study and found that there is nothing under the slips that would preclude the HIYU operating here. The Mainland dock is already deep enough, the entire bottom of the Island side, to an additional depth of 10 to 35 feet is made of "Marine Deposits" or decayed biological material, silt, sand, and some small pebbles. It is my opinion that the prop wash of the vessel alone would scour out the bottom to a depth that would never have to cancel due to low tides. Right now, the HIYU could operate on the Island side to a depth of 0 to-1 tides. At first we could use the Whatcom Chief during those low tide events, until the HIYU finishes hydraulically pushing out the silt. Looks like another impediment out of the way. Now the only issues are the crew number and the moving of dolphins to accommodate her. The old creosote pilings are well worn and need to go anyway, we can get that part done when they get replaced, either this of early next year. We already know that the boat will just barely squeak into the docks, just not well enough for anything other than emergency operation. About 3 weeks ago, we got electronic copies of the original blueprints of the HIYU. The profile shows two sizable void areas about halfway between the engines and the stern. I think this means the boat does not have to observe the "close to shore" restriction that the Rhododendron had to. Just out of curiosity... exactly what input does your group of interested citizens have in the final decision of the county regarding the Lummi service?
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
Mar 14, 2014 22:52:13 GMT -8
Post by lifc on Mar 14, 2014 22:52:13 GMT -8
Several ways, directly to the County Council and Public Works Department and through the County Ferry Board. It's on the agenda for the next Ferry Board Meeting to officially recommend looking into the boat's acquisition. Ultimately the decision will be done by the County Council. Our function is to look into and get answers for pertinent issues.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
MV Hiyu
Jul 10, 2014 1:28:17 GMT -8
Post by FNS on Jul 10, 2014 1:28:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Jul 16, 2014 19:20:22 GMT -8
Post by trillium on Jul 16, 2014 19:20:22 GMT -8
It looks like the latest maintenance schedule (updated today) shows the Hiyu on Fauntleroy-Vashon-Southworth next week, with the Sealth shifted up to Bremerton as part of the cascade from the Wenatchee's drydocking. When is the last time the Hiyu was on the triangle?
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Jul 16, 2014 19:28:06 GMT -8
Post by Political Incorrectness on Jul 16, 2014 19:28:06 GMT -8
It looks like the latest maintenance schedule (updated today) shows the Hiyu on Fauntleroy-Vashon-Southworth next week, with the Sealth shifted up to Bremerton as part of the cascade from the Wenatchee's drydocking. When is the last time the Hiyu was on the triangle? Back in December of 2012. MileagePhoto was down here and both of us went for a quick spin on her. I think next week calls for a trip for the shuffle and a rare one.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
Jan 23, 2015 18:49:09 GMT -8
Post by lifc on Jan 23, 2015 18:49:09 GMT -8
I am the Chair of the Technical Issues Subcommittee, of 8, to our local Ferry Board. Due to a number of reasons we have been doing a very thorough investigation an evaluation on obtaining the HIYU for our route here at Lummi Island. Through the course of this extensive project we have come to the conclusion that the HIYU would be the best option we currently have, everything we found out about it is positive. We have so far worked out dock compatibility, operating, maintenance, and crewing issues as well as extremely low acquisition cost via Inter-Agency Transfer. Probably the most amazing thing about the vessel is it unbelievably good condition, fuel efficiency and seaworthiness, the thing's a jewel. Our report is about 40 pages long, with a 40 image power point, and has over 300 pages of references. We are tuning up the report so we can get the final version in next week.
However, even though our current boat, the Whatcom Chief, cannot carry all legal vehicles, has had two attempts by Whatcom County, and one from the Citizens, to replace it due to age, very high maintenance costs, and overall size, there seems to be a few residents that loudly proclaim the Chief to be perfect and permanent. Mostly they have absolutely no tangible basis for their defense of the boat, and refuse to acknowledge well supported facts to the contrary.
Basically, in an attempt to keep up with traffic, the vehicle deck is being overcrowded. On about 1/2 the commute time trips there is no way about 1/3 or more, of the riders can open their doors to exit the vehicles. The cars are also parked bumper to bumper so one cannot get between then. Often times a person has to go almost to the other end to get around the lane of cars. We understand why this this method of operation is done, if it wasn't the system would be completely overwhelmed. The boat was originally built to carry 16 cars, it's now constantly loaded with 20. Investigation of current loading standards and regulations would allow 10-14 cars at the most, safety regulations are different than they were in 1962 when it was built.
There is also a legend out here that the Whatcom Chief has an exemption from the regulations on loading.
While investigating the possibility of a reduced tonnage rating for the HIYU and resultant Master License and crew definitions, three of us had a conference with a Coast Guard Inspector in Seattle. The inspector went through the CFR's for both boats and gave us the answers we needed. The upshot of this is there cannot be, and never has been an exemption to loading of the Whatcom Chief, the boat is simply being operated outside of standards. The inspector also told us what the USCG would do if a complaint was made,it was not pretty.
Despite being told this, the opponents of the HIYU refuse to believe the legality issues. Some accuse us of being mean to the old boat, and trying to upset the tranquility of the place. One in particular points to the last positive Survey (for an old boat) on its condition, "obviously" covers it for any operating issues.
The problem is the HIYU is the last good used appropriate boat we could get for our route on the entire west coast. A new one, that neither has the utility or capabilities of the HIYU would cost 10 million dollars and take three years to get designed, built, and delivered. It's quite likely the Ferry Board, will pass the full report to the County Council for consideration. However, the Naysayers promise to press their emotional pleas at every step of the process.
Frustrating. I just want to make sure we have a way to get home.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
MV Hiyu
Jan 23, 2015 23:21:46 GMT -8
Post by Neil on Jan 23, 2015 23:21:46 GMT -8
re lifc's post above...
From what I know about life on Hornby Island, and what I gathered from my late brother's account of affairs on Bowen, as well as the Bowen forum, any small island community seems to separate fairly easily into pretty strong lines of opinion on issues such as this. I imagine that there are people on Lummi who are uncomfortable about the possible unknowns about bringing a vessel like the Hiyu to the island... as well as those who might feel the Hiyu is too big, relative to the Whatcom Chief. If someone suggested bringing a ferry 50% bigger than the Kahloke to Hornby, opinion might be equally divided between those who looked forward to the capacity, and those who were afraid of the strain a bigger vessel might bring to bear on island services and things like water resources, if more people could be accommodated.
Things can get pretty heated. And in small communities like Lummi or Hornby, everyone pretty much knows everyone, which can make fundamental disagreements even more awkward.
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Feb 4, 2015 21:17:07 GMT -8
Post by old_wsf_fan on Feb 4, 2015 21:17:07 GMT -8
According to the maintenance schedule dated today, the Hiyu is to be decommissioned as of May 11th. Oh the times they are a changin'
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Feb 5, 2015 6:01:53 GMT -8
According to the maintenance schedule dated today, the Hiyu is to be decommissioned as of May 11th. Oh the times they are a changin' I honestly can't see what use WSF would have for it once the Samish is on line. It isn't like it's been in service as of late.
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Feb 6, 2015 13:40:28 GMT -8
Post by paulvanb on Feb 6, 2015 13:40:28 GMT -8
Having it replace the Chief would give me a reason to visit Gooseberry Point again! I am sure they could hang onto the Chief as a backup.
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Feb 6, 2015 20:48:59 GMT -8
Post by PeninsulaExplorer on Feb 6, 2015 20:48:59 GMT -8
Having it replace the Chief would give me a reason to visit Gooseberry Point again! I am sure they could hang onto the Chief as a backup. That is the matter IF they purchase the Hiyu, she is a 47-48 year old vessel, she might not be the best replacement with age and all.
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Feb 6, 2015 20:55:13 GMT -8
Post by old_wsf_fan on Feb 6, 2015 20:55:13 GMT -8
According to the maintenance schedule dated today, the Hiyu is to be decommissioned as of May 11th. Oh the times they are a changin' I honestly can't see what use WSF would have for it once the Samish is on line. It isn't like it's been in service as of late. I meant my comment as a compliment to WSF. It is about time they retired and sold that boat. It was obsolete 10 years after it was built. If it had a larger capacity in the first place, say 60 cars, maybe it could have been a viable member of the fleet. Hopefully the State can sell her to an agency that can still use her.
We all know WSF has got to replace a good portion of its' fleet in the next 10-15 years. They need boats of proper capacity and proven design. Lets hope that the current building program gets extended and a stable source of funding is created so we no longer have a fleet stretched to its limits.
I for one will not shed a tear for the Hiyu. never liked that boat
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Feb 7, 2015 10:41:06 GMT -8
Post by Political Incorrectness on Feb 7, 2015 10:41:06 GMT -8
I honestly can't see what use WSF would have for it once the Samish is on line. It isn't like it's been in service as of late. I meant my comment as a compliment to WSF. It is about time they retired and sold that boat. It was obsolete 10 years after it was built. If it had a larger capacity in the first place, say 60 cars, maybe it could have been a viable member of the fleet. Hopefully the State can sell her to an agency that can still use her.
We all know WSF has got to replace a good portion of its' fleet in the next 10-15 years. They need boats of proper capacity and proven design. Lets hope that the current building program gets extended and a stable source of funding is created so we no longer have a fleet stretched to its limits.
I for one will not shed a tear for the Hiyu. never liked that boat
I will have the memory when I barely got on her when she was on the triangle, pulling into Vashon, asking the attendant if we can hop on the Hiyu instead of waiting on the Tilikum to go to Fauntleroy. I only missed her being up on the inter-Island run. Still, her time is coming and she doesn't have a good fit in the fleet.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
Feb 7, 2015 12:07:49 GMT -8
Post by lifc on Feb 7, 2015 12:07:49 GMT -8
I will agree, the HIYU is not a usual Ferry Boat and for the current WSF uses, nearly useless.
For our uses here at Lummi Island, she looks pretty good, we have thoroughly investigated and vetted the boat. She is in excellent condition, has the proper car carry capacity, runs inexpensively, has much enhanced emergency capability, father port access, and will be available for a very inexpensive amount via governmental transfer. She can be re-rated, to under 100 tonnes, so our crew can run her, either by tonnage framing or by Legislative action, which will be the least expensive. Her increased draft and dock compatibility issues can be handled. No, she's not likely the boat we'd build for here, but, there is no will from the County to buy a new boat. The plain truth is that if we decided to buy a new one, today, it would be three years before it went into service here.
In the meantime, the Whatcom Chief is a problem. Yes, it runs and operates but:
1. It's costing way too much to maintain, about the same or more as the maintenance of one of Pierce County's 54 Car boats.
2. It's once again getting to be too small and will shortly again be unable to keep up with the traffic, as it is operated, with a 20 car load.
3. It's old, starting to have more small failures. Right now the Mainland side reduction gear and/or prop shaft sounds like it's about to break.
4. It will not carry all road legal traffic. such as semi trucks, lowboys, and others.
5. The vehicle deck is being loaded in an overcrowded condition and is not in compliance with the 46CFR 185.340 safety rule. For many of the vehicles, there is no room for emergency egress from automobiles. In other words, many cannot get the doors open and get out of their car in fully loaded conditions.
--
While I understand why #5 is done, if it wasn't the boat would not even come close to keeping up with the demand. If there was an accident, the costs to everyone involved would be horrendous. If there is a complaint, the USCG would have to act and the carry capacity would likely be cut to about one half of what it is now.
The half capacity issue would be devastating to the Islander's life, economy and accessibility. The Passenger spaces were originally only rated for 38 people, they could not handle the increased walk-on traffic. Crew and operating costs would go up due to trying to run more, and the old thing would break.
The odd part about all this is that many people refuse to believe that it is not OK to operate the Whatcom Chief this way. This includes not only a section of the Public, but some of the Crew, Ferry Board Members, and some of the County Officials. They contend that since the boat has been operated this way for so long, that it's OK to continue to do so. All a number of us can say is wow!
It is our opinion that the HIYU solves a lot of these problems. We do not intend for the boat to be the complete solution, but a temporary one. We envision its tenure here will be a maximum of 15 years. In that time better information can be obtained, plans developed and better solutions put forth. The improvements to the infrastructure needed for the HIYU will carry over to be used by a subsequent vessel.
Our group has put together a nearly 40 page report with about 400 pages of references, we are doing the final edit right now, I will post a link to it once we are done.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 7, 2015 12:50:36 GMT -8
5. The vehicle deck is being loaded in an overcrowded condition and is not in compliance with the 46CFR 185.340 safety rule. For many of the vehicles, there is no room for emergency egress from automobiles. In other words, many cannot get the doors open and get out of their car in fully loaded conditions. -- While I understand why #5 is done, if it wasn't the boat would not even come close to keeping up with the demand. If there was an accident, the costs to everyone involved would be horrendous. If there is a complaint, the USCG would have to act and the carry capacity would likely be cut to about one half of what it is now. The odd part about all this is that many people refuse to believe that it is not OK to operate the Whatcom Chief this way. This includes not only a section of the Public, but some of the Crew, Ferry Board Members, and some of the County Officials. They contend that since the boat has been operated this way for so long, that it's OK to continue to do so. All a number of us can say is wow! Assuming that I'm understanding this correctly, you're describing an ongoing situation of a ferry being overloaded by ignoring a federal safety rule. And you're also saying that this situation won't change unless someone complains to the US Coast Guard. And you're saying this on a public internet website. So, does this mean that the US Coast Guard is being negligent in not enforcing an important safety rule? This sounds like 3rd-world operational culture, not a highly regulated, highly litigious USA culture. That's pretty strange.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
Feb 7, 2015 13:06:21 GMT -8
Post by lifc on Feb 7, 2015 13:06:21 GMT -8
I am not sure what to say here. I cannot say it won't change until someone complains, just hasn't yet. I think some of it is that until now we had no other option, with the HIYU we do. The bad part about it is that if something happens to the Chief, we have a passenger boat here, there are no other plans.
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Feb 7, 2015 16:06:47 GMT -8
Post by Barnacle on Feb 7, 2015 16:06:47 GMT -8
So, have you managed to resolve the Hiyu's draft issue yet?
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
MV Hiyu
Feb 7, 2015 19:09:26 GMT -8
Post by lifc on Feb 7, 2015 19:09:26 GMT -8
In 2006, the County had a Geo-Technical Study done of the two docks, complete with test drills and hydraulic depth ramming. On the Island side, the Study says there is a minimum of 15 feet, to maximum 75 feet of "Marine Deposits",- loose mud, small peoples, sand, etc, before encountering rock. On the mainland side, there is 75-79 feet of the same. The HIYU only needs four more feet than we have now, to land in any circumstance, and only that much at the ramp end of the Island side. The rest of the slip areas are already adequate, the Mainland side has a faster rate of decline into deeper water.
In the past, the slips on the Island were not deep enough for the Whatcom Chief, they simply ran the boat and scoured out depth with the props. In the current Island location, which was established in the late 70's, the Whatcom Chief could not get to the ramp under a zero tide, so the scouring method was used there too. Right now we have about 3 feet under the boat at a minus 3 tide.
If let to its own, the big props of the HIYU could scour to the necessary depth in less than a month of normal operation, faster if singularly used for that. As our group had neither the appropriate amount of time or contact with the governing agencies, that will have to be done by the County. The questions will be if dredging or scouring will be the proper approach, the amount of material need to be moved is, as the one agency we contacted said, insignificant. We'll see what happens, it can be done one way or another.
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Mar 19, 2015 7:17:27 GMT -8
Post by whitieiii on Mar 19, 2015 7:17:27 GMT -8
According to the maintenance schedule dated today, the Hiyu is to be decommissioned as of May 11th. Oh the times they are a changin' I honestly can't see what use WSF would have for it once the Sammamish is on line. It isn't like it's been in service as of late. even tho I have never been on that boat, I still get sad to hear some of the ferries being retired.... the WSF only runs them 50-60 years? Speeking of the Sammamish if she holds the level of the Tokitae, I would like them alot, seeing that the Tokitae and (hopefully Olympic class) is now my favorite of the fleet but my memories still lie in the jumbo class
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Mar 19, 2015 7:43:11 GMT -8
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 19, 2015 7:43:11 GMT -8
I honestly can't see what use WSF would have for it once the Sammamish is on line. It isn't like it's been in service as of late. even tho I have never been on that boat, I still get sad to hear some of the ferries being retired.... the WSF only runs them 50-60 years? Speeking of the Sammamish if she holds the level of the Tokitae, I would like them alot, seeing that the Tokitae and (hopefully Olympic class) is now my favorite of the fleet but my memories still lie in the jumbo class Is there really going to be a WSF ship named Sammamish ? That would be news to me...
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Mar 19, 2015 7:50:37 GMT -8
Post by whitieiii on Mar 19, 2015 7:50:37 GMT -8
even tho I have never been on that boat, I still get sad to hear some of the ferries being retired.... the WSF only runs them 50-60 years? Speeking of the Sammamish if she holds the level of the Tokitae, I would like them alot, seeing that the Tokitae and (hopefully Olympic class) is now my favorite of the fleet but my memories still lie in the jumbo class Is there really going to be a WSF ship named Sammamish ? That would be news to me... again my spelling bites me in the ass!
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Mar 19, 2015 8:00:09 GMT -8
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 19, 2015 8:00:09 GMT -8
Is there really going to be a WSF ship named Sammamish ? That would be news to me... again my spelling bites me in the ass! Hey, you were just following what Barnacle said. And Barnacle usually knows what is going on. I suspect that extra syllable will be a regular thing, for anyone mentioning that new ship.
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Mar 19, 2015 8:29:30 GMT -8
Post by whitieiii on Mar 19, 2015 8:29:30 GMT -8
again my spelling bites me in the ass! Hey, you were just following what Barnacle said. And Barnacle usually knows what is going on. I suspect that extra syllable will be a regular thing, for anyone mentioning that new ship. true.... I will probably do that again...
|
|
|
MV Hiyu
Mar 19, 2015 12:25:40 GMT -8
Post by Barnacle on Mar 19, 2015 12:25:40 GMT -8
I honestly can't see what use WSF would have for it once the Sammamish is on line. It isn't like it's been in service as of late. even tho I have never been on that boat, I still get sad to hear some of the ferries being retired.... the WSF only runs them 50-60 years? Speeking of the Sammamish if she holds the level of the Tokitae, I would like them alot, seeing that the Tokitae and (hopefully Olympic class) is now my favorite of the fleet but my memories still lie in the jumbo class That's funny, I have the name correctly as "Samish" in two other places. It's Samish, not Sammamish. Thank you.
|
|