|
|
Post by evergreenboatrider on Feb 12, 2008 2:04:39 GMT -8
I wonder, would WSF permanently reconsider the sale of the Snohomish, in light of the service they have got out of it since the current vessel shuffle since the Steel Electrics were taken out of service? Should keep it on stand-by if and when everything gets back to normal.
|
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Feb 12, 2008 8:19:03 GMT -8
I wonder if it is safe to ride even when it is running properly? With so many "close calls" at Port Townsend/Keystone and now Seattle/Bremerton, I really wonder!  |
|
|
|
Post by Electric Thunderbird on Feb 12, 2008 8:22:34 GMT -8
Isn't it the State that's pushing the sail of it rather than WSF?
|
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Feb 12, 2008 8:36:17 GMT -8
Isn't it the State that's pushing the sail of it rather than WSF? Legislation was passed last year that directed the sale of the two boats to help fund the King County's (or whom ever was going to take it over) operation of the Vashon Island- Seattle run. As it stands now, unless someone produces a bill to change it, those boats will have to be sold by law. |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Feb 12, 2008 8:42:07 GMT -8
I wonder if it is safe to ride even when it is running properly? With so many "close calls" at Port Townsend/Keystone and now Seattle/Bremerton, I really wonder! And yet you rail against the decomissioning of eighty-year-old boats whose hulls are more gone than there...  |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenboatrider on Feb 12, 2008 23:58:36 GMT -8
Too late to change it this session, yesterday was die-day for clearing committees in the State Legislature. Also, was it officially retired in the years it was out of service, and are the speed restrictions still in effect? As long as they have her out of the dock, might as well open it up a little bit. Although Rich Passage Property owners will go to court again. Just wondering.
|
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Feb 13, 2008 7:33:09 GMT -8
Also, even if somehow the legislation could be changed to allow the Snohomish to remain with WSF, they would still be dealing with a boat that is pretty uneconomical to operate ad care for. And all the other operational reasons why it shouldn't be out there.
Besides, the best replacement boat for an auto ferry is a spare auto ferry. While these passenger boats are better than nothing, they are just barely better than nothing. The solution is a net increase of a couple of vessels (in addition to replacing the older ones), as well as an additional slip at a couple of terminals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or better yet, we stop adding lanes to our highways. We will just run more passenger buses over the lanes we have.
|
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Feb 13, 2008 7:33:49 GMT -8
Too late to change it this session, yesterday was die-day for clearing committees in the State Legislature. Also, was it officially retired in the years it was out of service, and are the speed restrictions still in effect? As long as they have her out of the dock, might as well open it up a little bit. Although Rich Passage Property owners will go to court again. Just wondering. Since WSF paid out a large chunk of change to the property owners along Rich Passage in a settlement over the case, and the fact that the terms of the settlement left the door open for them to sue again should damage reoccur, I'm willing to bet that the speed restrictions are still in place. Besides, I' sure the Snohomish got well opened up running from Port Townsend to Seattle.  |
|
|
|
Post by In Washington on Feb 13, 2008 8:47:13 GMT -8
The Snohomish is and was (on the PT/Key route) limited to 30 knots by the USCG. This is due to not having a Security Plan in place that WSF never envisioned it would need as the boats were about to go to the auction block. That is also the reason for the 149 passenger limit.
The speeds through Rich Passage and approaching Bremerton are the same as they were prior to ending PO service between Seattle and Bremerton.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenboatrider on Feb 13, 2008 17:06:13 GMT -8
Kitsap Transit said they were working on a Foil-Assisted Catamaran that might have sloved the wake erosion problem, but since the voters said no to their Passenger-Only Plan, twice,(The first time with the hated MVET, the second time without it), we will never know.
|
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Feb 18, 2011 20:13:22 GMT -8
I hunted all over for a thread for this, but I couldn't find one. If it needs to be moved, please do so... This comes via Emory of Freeland, who did some diligent work on the internet and solved the mystery as to what the Chinook is going to be renamed: goldengate.org/board/2010/min-sum/bo100325min.php
Director Cochran inquired as to the process for renaming the M.V. Chinook to the M.V. Golden Gate. In response, Ms. Kupersmith stated that the process requires Board action and that the proposed recommendation for the award of Contract No. 2010-FT-1 can be amended for the purpose of adding the approval of renaming the M.V. Chinook to the M.V. Golden Gate. Ms. Kupersmith noted that, if the M.S. Sonoma is retired someday, staff will present a recommendation to the Board to approve the renaming the M.V. Golden Gate to the M.V. Sonoma, in accordance with District practice to name a ferry for each county represented on the Board.
A motion was made by Director COCHRAN and seconded by Director MOYLAN to amend the staff’s recommendation to include approval of the renaming of the M.V. Chinook to the M.V. Golden Gate.So she'll be the Golden Gate until the Sonoma retires...when that happens she'll be renamed Sonoma to keep in line with the other ferries in the fleet named after counties. There was a Golden Gate, built in 1923 that was a near clone of the other "golden" boats, many of which ended up on Puget Sound. The Golden Gate was probably closest in looks to the Kehloken. She was broken up in 1938. |
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Feb 28, 2011 6:24:13 GMT -8
I will miss this ferry...from a completely non-relevant standpoint, it was a gas to be zooming across Puget Sound at 40 MPH in this boat. ;D Good luck in San Francisco, Golden Gate, aka Chinook.
|
|
|
|
Post by lavalamp on Mar 20, 2011 21:30:07 GMT -8
Some photos from Saturday 3/19. I happened to be on the Wenatchee out of Colman Dock when the Chinook/Golden Gate departed from Todd.  Coming out of dock.  Head on view crossing behind the Wenatchee.  Throwing up a rooster tail while accelerating. |
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on May 16, 2011 20:44:24 GMT -8
New Golden Gate ferry launches from Larkspur
By Mark Prado
Marin Independent Journal
Posted: 05/16/2011 05:53:55 PM PDT
Golden Gate ferry passengers rode a new ferry Monday that actually is more than 10 years old.
The MV Golden Gate plied Bay Area waters for the first time with passengers aboard — a second life for the boat, formerly known as the Chinook.
Using bridge district, state and federal funds, the Golden Gate Bridge District in 2009 purchased two, mothballed, high-speed Washington state ferries for $2 million apiece. The district is spending $20 million to upgrade the pair. A single new ferry would have cost $20 million.
"We essentially got a two-for-one deal," said Mary Currie, bridge district spokeswoman.
The ferries were built in the late 1990s and used through 2003, but Washington voters passed a ballot measure that cut funding, and the state could no longer afford to operate the vessels. The state had tried to sell the boats on eBay, but there were no takers.
Part of the refurbishment included increasing capacity from 350 passengers to 450.
"It is pretty smooth, I'd say smoother than the other ferries," said vessel master John Beard, standing in the vessel's control room as the big boat was moored at the Larkspur Ferry Terminal. "Down below you can hardly tell you are moving. You can't believe you are going that fast."
Top speed is 55 mph, but 41 mph is about the average cruising speed.
While the consoles in the pilot's room are old, the instrumentation inside, including the radar and radio, is all
Advertisement
new.
One piece of the past remains. When the original Golden Gate ferry that ran out of Sausalito was decommissioned and sold by the district in 2003, its bell was given to Beard.
"I kept it under my desk for eight years," said Beard, who had the bell mounted to the new ferry for use. "I think a few passenger might remember the noise it makes."
The second boat from Washington, the Snohomish, was christened the M.V. Napa and put on the water in 2009 without undergoing a complete refurbishment. That boat has now been taken out of service and is undergoing a refurbishment, similar to the work done on the M.V. Golden Gate.
The district now has seven ferries — three older Spaulding vessels and four high-speed catamarans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2012 14:18:36 GMT -8
I believe I saw the MV Napa (former MV Snohomish) off Richmond Beach conducting sea trails today. She was at full speed heading northbound. According to the Golden Gate Ferry schedule, the Napa has been at Dakota Creek (perhaps Nichols Brothers?) for rehab. and was scheduled to be back in SF in late 2011, looks to be a little behind schedule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chippewa on Mar 16, 2012 18:15:34 GMT -8
I saw her tied up at the dock in Langley last Saturday 3-10-12.
|
|
|
|
Post by zargoman on Mar 23, 2012 11:11:27 GMT -8
She is showing up on marinetraffic.com as having traveled from Langley to Seattle today...45 knots
|
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Mar 23, 2012 16:57:11 GMT -8
It's great to see her again up here & nice pictures lavalamp. I'm glad to see both these boats are gonna apparently have long and productive second lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 13, 2013 12:12:06 GMT -8
Just a reminder to posters, that the Chinook in this here thread is not the same ship as the ex Black Ball ferry Chinook (ex BC Ferry Sechelt Queen).
- so when you find the 1949 video of Chinook, it isn't this WSF passenger-only ferry.
|
|
