|
Post by Whidbey Island boy on Nov 28, 2007 12:48:53 GMT -8
Barbara Bailey is a windbag though she has never had real thought of her own.
I have to say I am less then thrilled with all of trashing of the Steels. There is No question that they have been the backbone and workhorses of the fleet for 70 years and the last 10 years they have been the dummy stepchildren. It has been sad to see that their time of service is over. But it is very much time to say good-bye to them.
Lets hope that whatever the ferries will be to replace them can have the same amazing and versatile use they have had. Let alone beautiful lines, unlike the design J.M. Martinac came up with. YUCK!!
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Nov 28, 2007 18:04:43 GMT -8
I would make a comment about something like "Why don't we do a study to see which of the studies we should believe" or something like that. But it would sound too much like a Dilbert comic. So I won't go there. Fortunately there has been some positive comments from the legislature on that very issue: State Rep. Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam, said even if repairs are possible, there is no doubt the Steel Electrics must be replaced -- and fast.
"These are 80-year-old boats, for goodness' sakes," she said.
State Rep. Barbara Bailey, R-Oak Harbor, said the need for a speedy solution is apparent.
"The last thing in the world I want to see is another year of study," she said.Let's hope they stick to that. Words and action are two totally different things might I remind you. Chat does nothing, there were not results and we are stuck on the same page still. We need to move on. What will replace them? Would it be a good idea to get ready to replace the Evergreen's and make a fleet of 5 of their size vessels? Would it be a good idea to get two more 144's? Or get a new class of 192's to keep up with capacity? We need ideas pros cons discussion of what to do. 40 million to keep a ferry another 20 years or less I think is a ridiculous waste of money. For twice that, you get a better vessels for 50 years.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 28, 2007 19:30:04 GMT -8
Barbara Bailey is a windbag though she has never had real thought of her own. I have to say I am less then thrilled with all of trashing of the Steels. There is No question that they have been the backbone and workhorses of the fleet for 70 years and the last 10 years they have been the dummy stepchildren. It has been sad to see that their time of service is over. But it is very much time to say good-bye to them. Lets hope that whatever the ferries will be to replace them can have the same amazing and versatile use they have had. Let alone beautiful lines, unlike the design J.M. Martinac came up with. YUCK!! I'd have to say the Steel-Electrics lost their "backbone of the fleet" title around 1985 or so, when the Isasaquah class finally came into their own. And I'm being kind by letting them retain the title that late into their careers. So, given that they didn't arrive on Puget Sound until 1941, they were indeed relatively versatile boats for 45 years or so. But ultimately it's looking like the second major refit was probably a mistake. Their practical service life was, for all intents and purposes, over twenty years ago. (And for what it's worth, the Evergreens are near the end of theirs, and the Supers are well into their twilight.)
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Nov 28, 2007 20:37:02 GMT -8
Barnacle, I find your unvarnished attitude toward some of the old anachronisms that plough our coasts refreshing (even the ones you like, as in Evergreen State). Sometimes us ferry fans get a little too attached to boats that have seen much better days, and while a good part of the rest of the civilized world is moving to modern, efficient fleets, we revel in these old dowagers and their quirks. I supect that a good part of the travelling, commercial and commuting public doesn't necessarily share our sentimentality, and would happily trade ancient for up to date. Of course, 'up to date' needs to be paid for, and the WSF soap opera shows that that can be a wee bit contentious...
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Nov 28, 2007 20:42:29 GMT -8
WSF did a good study and found that new Issaquah type vessels were the best in the long run, and they ended up moving them from 130 car boats to 144 car boats. This was dependent on Keystone Harbor being modified or moved, and it looks like that won't happen now. This was a move to standardization of the fleet and it made sense financially. If they built a "Keystone" ferry, it will cost much more in the long run. In other news, I was reading an article on the Seattle Times website last night that said WSF is looking into a congressional waiver of the Jones Act to get a boat "from British Columbia". What boat I have no idea, but I am sure BC Ferries would have at least one boat that would work.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Nov 28, 2007 22:39:15 GMT -8
Any link to the article? Possibly the Queen of Tsawwassen?
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on Nov 28, 2007 23:41:16 GMT -8
Might be the QUEEN OF CAPILANO, or a BOWEN QUEEN. I think the CAPILANO has a rounded bow with a radius compatible to our docks here. She has a high clearance for trucks, high bulwarks for rough crossings, adequate comforts for passengers (they'll have to get used to the harder seats, though), and an elevator. That's my guess.
When the QUEEN OF BURNABY first began her Seattle-Victoria service, she tested out the south slip at Colman Dock as a backup to Pier 48. I imagine that tested out OK. This testing was shown in a news clip on one of our stations here.
So, a BC ferry might do good here for three months until the QUINAULT is cut loose again in February (if she does, that is).
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Nov 29, 2007 2:47:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Nov 29, 2007 7:07:07 GMT -8
According to previous posts here, the only ferry that BC Ferries currently has available only goes 9 knots and wouldn't handle currents very well. I wonder if this vessel is the Garibaldi II.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,177
|
Post by Neil on Nov 29, 2007 10:41:52 GMT -8
The Garibaldi II has been sold. The only real spare BC Ferries has, since the Kahloke will be covering for the Quinitsa in refit, is the Klitsa.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Nov 29, 2007 11:17:33 GMT -8
Isn't the II with a numbered company? She hasn't moved for months.
Perhaps they were looking at a Cat?
;D
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Nov 29, 2007 17:14:08 GMT -8
Klitsa would fit the description. 9 knots is about right for her, and she is open decked so the relatively open passage between keystone and PT would not be a fun trip. Also, she only carries around 30 cars. She is also "extra" right now, as the Kuper replaced her and she is currently either in Fraser shipyards, or is at Deas dock in storage.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Nov 29, 2007 18:01:23 GMT -8
It seems highly improbable that WSF will get a BC Ferry down here, even if it's just on loan. In addition to the complications of getting a waiver for the Jones Act, I don't think BC Ferries even has any extra boats on hand which would work in Keystone Harbor. Klitsa was just mentioned, but as has been previously stated, we need a vessel which will do more than 9 knots in order to counter those nasty currents at the entrance to Keystone Harbor. An article in the Port Townsend Leader lends optimism for getting the Quinault back on the run in February, and that seems to be the direction the state is leaning, at least in the interim. www.ptleader.com/main.asp?SectionID=36&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=19395&TM=75388.06
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Nov 29, 2007 22:30:54 GMT -8
Though the Klitsa is an option, as previously stated. I think BC Ferries would do a bit of a ship shuffle in order to make things work. Even though she's slated for a major upgrade this winter, would the Howe Sound Queen work by any chance? The Klitsa could replace her for the time being (yes I've seen K boats on Crofton - Vesuvius before). I don't see much point in taking the Chilliwack back up North to handle the Central Coast Routes, and have the Nimpkish come down to Puget Sound. Although the Nimpkish could replace the Tenaka, and Tenaka could be used. I haven't got a clue of what the Port Townsend - Keystone route is like, but from the sounds of it, it's fairly exposed. This probably cuts our barge type vessels out, but might possibly allow for the small single enders to have a chance? Their raised bows make them slightly more seaworthy. If they could have a small single ender with the Snohomish, it will probably help in making sure food, gas, essentials, etc could get across, and relieve some of the stress on the other route leading to Whidbey Island. There's lots of possibilities, it all depends on how much one is willing to pay.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Nov 29, 2007 23:13:10 GMT -8
I haven't got a clue of what the Port Townsend - Keystone route is like, but from the sounds of it, it's fairly exposed. This probably cuts our barge type vessels out, but might possibly allow for the small single enders to have a chance? The key problem for the ferries on this route goes like this: 1) The ferry must have a shallow draft (10 foot or less) and be maneuverable to get in and out of Keystone Harbor on Whidbey Island. There is a rather narrow and shallow path in the harbor itself, and at the entrance to the harbor there are some rather wicked currents. 2) The route crosses Puget Sound at one of it's narrowest points. It it is a quite open place, similar to crossing the Georgia Strait. However, it is also quite windy there and there are heavy currents due to the relative narrowness of the area. The problem is that it is hard to find a boat that fits both needs. I would think that the Klitsa or any of the barge type ferries would have problems in the open water crossing at that point. In fact, that's why they can't use the WSF's Hiyu there right now. I guess I've never been on that route on a perfectly calm sunny day, but I have certainly done it a few times on days that were less than stormy, and I don't really remember a time when the ferry (always a S-E) wasn't bobbing up and down out in the middle of the Sound. There really isn't an issue of getting supplies to any towns on one side or the other of the route. After all, there are four other places to cross Puget Sound by ferry, and of course you can drive around. The problem here is that the nearest detour for this route is a 3 to 4 hour loop around, and if the destination is on Whidbey Island from PT, requires either an additional hour detour or 2 ferries to cross. Not so good for commuters who live and work on opposite sides of this one, but it's not going to cause anyone on either side to have shortages of basic supplies. It will just make it inconvenient and more costly for some of the supplying companies. One of the reasons I would advocate for a new terminal location is simply that, in the long run, it would seem less of a problem to have a place that could be used by any appropriately sized ferry, not just 80-year-old ferries or newer replicas of them.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Nov 29, 2007 23:54:14 GMT -8
The Nimpkish would work, she has a service speed of 14 knots and a draft of 8.5ft. Problem is she only carries 16 cars. The Tachek and Tenaka both have a deeper draft, so they probably wouldn't work very well.
As Chris mentioned above, these boats are fairly seaworthy, due to their upturned bow, and they are quite maneuverable, as they negotiate some of the tightest ports of call in our system.
Although they do bob like corks making the trip somewhat uncomfortable for anybody with a light stomach.
Bottom line is that BCF would not have a ship available without considerable rearranging to the system here.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Nov 30, 2007 0:07:17 GMT -8
I am not very familiar with the WSF system, but I had a thought a little while ago. I remember reading that the bottom of Keystone harbor is bedrock, and therefore unable to be dredged.
This is probably the wannabe engineer in me, but what about blasting a channel through the rock to the berth? Similar to what has been done to Ripple Rock in Seymour narrows. There would be some major environmental concerns to overcome, as well as local opposition. It's just that it seems that the harbor depth is the limiting factor in finding replacement ship(s) for that particular run.
It would add versatility to the WSF system, and maybe they wouldn't need to build more ships, as they could use a ship from another run that would be displaced if and when the new 144 car ships come into existence.
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Nov 30, 2007 0:19:39 GMT -8
First off, the draft of the Steel Electrics is 12'9", this comes from the WSF website. Second, I believe the Howe Sound Queen has a service speed of only 10 or 11 knots, which isn't good enough.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Nov 30, 2007 9:36:50 GMT -8
So the Environmental impact statement done for the harbor in '06 lists the following: "Sand and gravel. Offshore in the dredged area, substrate is sandy gravel with less than 1% silt."
How much "sandy gravel" is on the bottom there before we hit that bedrock? The existence of bedrock is prominantly noted for the other terminals, such as Friday Harbor & Shaw.
Also do the tides at Keystone really run that hard that you'd have to skip a lot of runs a day with a 10 or 11 knot boat? Do we know how agile some of these replacement boats are? Personally I'd much rather sit on the dock in Pt. Townsend and read the paper for an hour or two than drive around, it sucks. Even if you must wait for the extreme of the tides many people are still gonna save time overall.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 30, 2007 15:43:35 GMT -8
Barnacle, I find your unvarnished attitude toward some of the old anachronisms that plough our coasts refreshing (even the ones you like, as in Evergreen State). Sometimes us ferry fans get a little too attached to boats that have seen much better days, and while a good part of the rest of the civilized world is moving to modern, efficient fleets, we revel in these old dowagers and their quirks. I supect that a good part of the travelling, commercial and commuting public doesn't necessarily share our sentimentality, and would happily trade ancient for up to date. Of course, 'up to date' needs to be paid for, and the WSF soap opera shows that that can be a wee bit contentious... Rebuilding older vessels such as the Steels, Evergreen, etc. makes good sense. The public is not going to tolerate lavish spending and increased taxes to pay for new construction every time there is a breakdown. With proper maintenance, the Evergreens should have another 30 years along with the Supers.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 30, 2007 16:49:32 GMT -8
Rebuilding older vessels such as the Steels, Evergreen, etc. makes good sense. The public is not going to tolerate lavish spending and increased taxes to pay for new construction every time there is a breakdown. With proper maintenance, the Evergreens should have another 30 years along with the Supers. I'm going to assume you aren't really serious about that and just move on. People don't live forever; why should boats? The Supers (save for the mighty Hyak, which has been piece-mealed) and the Evergreens received their 30-year MLUs when they were thirty. We're already having trouble getting parts, from what I understand. There comes a point when it simply isn't practical, as much as it will break my heart to walk off the Evergreen State for the last time. (As it is, I always wonder when I walk off shift if it is the last time I work on her. I hope not. I started my career as an ordinary seaman on the old girl, and I'd really like to sail as her captain just once before she goes.) I, like many other history buffs, will be sorry to see the Steel-Electrics go. But ferries are like sports heroes: in their prime, nobody could outperform them. But as they age, they become mere shadows of their former selves; venerable legends in story, but practical embarassments to anyone who must share the field with them. It's time for the legends to retire, hit the showers, and take their place in the Hall of Fame, where the past can live forever.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Nov 30, 2007 19:45:00 GMT -8
The bottom line reality is that citizen taxpayers are tired of seeing their taxes go -up,up, up. We can see this in what happened in Oly today with the property tax limit and that is likely just the beginning. That Eyman follow is planning for a comeback. Others ask why tax money that is "in the bank" has not been used or used properly.........example......where are the replacements for the Steels that were funded years ago. We may not like this situation, but it is a fact so we need to take better care of what we have. BTW: Just came down today on Voyage 2813 South on the First Lady of AMHS, MV Malaspina. She is a fine old ship and is looking great, 9 years after her scheduled retirement. Her replacement is currently laid-up for the next six months at the shipyard in Ketchikan.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 30, 2007 20:07:46 GMT -8
The replacements for the Steel-Electrics are tied up in court, mi amigo. Where have you been?
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Nov 30, 2007 20:16:21 GMT -8
The bottom line reality is that citizen taxpayers are tired of seeing their taxes go -up,up, up. We can see this in what happened in Oly today with the property tax limit and that is likely just the beginning. That Eyman follow is planning for a comeback. Others ask why tax money that is "in the bank" has not been used or used properly.........example......where are the replacements for the Steels that were funded years ago. We may not like this situation, but it is a fact so we need to take better care of what we have. BTW: Just came down today on Voyage 2813 South on the First Lady of AMHS, MV Malaspina. She is a fine old ship and is looking great, 9 years after her scheduled retirement. Her replacement is currently laid-up for the next six months at the shipyard in Ketchikan. I'm sorry, but as a taxpayer, I highly resent dumping 4 million dollars per 80 year old boat. That's not taking care of them, that's a complete waste of money. As for the replacements, they've been tied up in court, as you well know...or have you forgotten? The truth of the matter is there comes a time when pouring truck loads of money in old vessels exceeds practicality and new boats have to be built. It's not a matter of "taking care of what we've got" it's a matter of vessels having a lifespan, pure and simple, and extending beyond a certain point not only becomes prohibitively costly but dangerous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2007 20:28:46 GMT -8
Rebuilding older vessels such as the Steels, Evergreen, etc. makes good sense. The public is not going to tolerate lavish spending and increased taxes to pay for new construction every time there is a breakdown. With proper maintenance, the Evergreens should have another 30 years along with the Supers. No it doesn't make good sense rebuliding the Steel Electrics, Evergreens and the Supers! If it did how come the Enatai and Willapa weren't rebulit and instead they were just retired! If you think about it when the Supers first came on line the Steel Electrics where already 40 years old. Now the Supers are 40 and the Steel Electrics are 80. So you're saying that it would be a good idea to rebuild the Evergreens and let them run another 30 years? And the same with the Supers? That would make them 80 and 70 years old respectively. My question is how could this possibly make good sense? We would be running into the same problems with those boats in 30 years as we are now. The lack of planning and thinking we could run the boats into the ground is why Port Townsend is without a car ferry today. So then in 30 years we're out 7 ferries instead of 4? That would put a real pinch on Vashon, Bremerton and the San Juans I believe. Unless they can just put a passenger ferry there for the time being, patch the boats and run them again? This is not a matter of lavish spending it's a matter of safety for those of us working and riding on the ferries. I will be sad to see the Queen of Tsawwassen, Queen of Esquilmalt and Queen of Prine Rupert retired but it has to happen someday. Just think if BCF thought they could rebuild the Queen of Prince Rupert. Also take time to think how much more fuel and maintenance these old boats need as they age. It not just rebuilding and fixing the holes it's a long term investment for safety and transportation on our waterways that should have been done years ago. In my opinion before the Klickitat, Illahee, Quinault and Nisqually were ever rebuilt. Retirement should have come then which would have saved alot of headache today.
|
|