FNS
Voyager 
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,942
|
Post by FNS on Mar 24, 2011 23:18:00 GMT -8
Have there been any operational cost estimates or cost increases when the new vessel replaces the Rhody on this route? Will, for example, the new vessel require a larger crew than the Rhody? Would fuel consumption be higher? Perhaps, the number of round trips could be reduced by one or two, but this would assume that vehicle and walk on traffic would stay about the same. BTW, does this route have many walk on passengers? I'm not an expert on fuel consumption. But, I don't think there will be an astronomical amount of fuel consumption by the KENNEWICK on the Tahlequah run. The ship trackers rarely show a ferry exceeding ten knots on a crossing on this run. She won't be doing the speeds like what her sisters are doing on the Keystone Harbor run et al. No full throttles except during dockings on the Tahlequah run. |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 25, 2011 6:11:10 GMT -8
Have there been any operational cost estimates or cost increases when the new vessel replaces the Rhody on this route? Will, for example, the new vessel require a larger crew than the Rhody? Would fuel consumption be higher? Perhaps, the number of round trips could be reduced by one or two, but this would assume that vehicle and walk on traffic would stay about the same. BTW, does this route have many walk on passengers? I'm not an expert on fuel consumption. But, I don't think there will be an astronomical amount of fuel consumption by the KENNEWICK on the Tahlequah run. The ship trackers rarely show a ferry exceeding ten knots on a crossing on this run. She won't be doing the speeds like what her sisters are doing on the Keystone Harbor run et al. No full throttles except during dockings on the Tahlequah run. Don't forget, FerryNut, that you rarely see a ferry "exceeding ten knots" on this run because that's all the Rhody (and for that matter, the Hiyu) can do. And as a result, the schedule is written for that speed. Further, the other boats (when they are present) tend to "dog it" to try to minimize their fuel consumption by keeping down to the Rhody's speed (with, perhaps, a little "handicapping" to give themselves more time in the dock to achieve the offload and load). Will the fuel consumption be greater with a larger boat? Of course it will. I should also mention that, with a larger boat, you WILL also see an increase in auto traffic. It happens every time a larger boat turns up down south. The Kwa-di-Tubtoys do require a larger crew than the Rhody. But, before you start in on a Susannah-Frame-esque rant about taxpayers' money, let me point out to you that the Rhody's crewing standards were probably set in 1954 and never updated to factor in the increase in safety evacuation gear that has since been installed on the boat. With all the evac slides etc., the Rhody (and most WSF boats) are probably undermanned. And don't count your chickens on the Kennewick being at Point Defiance. New legislatioin was put forth that includes, among other things, language that the "two most appropriate boats" will be put into service at Port Townsend-Keystone. Most likely that indicates the two controllable-pitch vessels will be there, and the Defiance boat will probably be the Chetzemoka. |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,095
|
Post by Neil on Mar 25, 2011 9:24:59 GMT -8
The Kwa-di-Tubtoys do require a larger crew than the Rhody. But, before you start in on a Susannah-Frame-esque rant about taxpayers' money, let me point out to you that the Rhody's crewing standards were probably set in 1954 and never updated to factor in the increase in safety evacuation gear that has since been installed on the boat. With all the evac slides etc., the Rhody (and most WSF boats) are probably undermanned. But surely boats aren't sailing with less crew than deemed necessary in an emergency? Up here, when Transport Canada changed the regulations for existing vessels a couple of years back, crews weren't increased, but pax capacities were drastically reduced on a number of runs. As for fuel usage, I would wager that the Kennewick or Chetzemoka's consumption will be several times what the 70 car capacity Quinsam uses on the slightly longer Gabriola Island run, but to compensate, the walk-ons will have that huge passenger lounge to rattle around in... |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 25, 2011 10:24:04 GMT -8
The Kwa-di-Tubtoys do require a larger crew than the Rhody. But, before you start in on a Susannah-Frame-esque rant about taxpayers' money, let me point out to you that the Rhody's crewing standards were probably set in 1954 and never updated to factor in the increase in safety evacuation gear that has since been installed on the boat. With all the evac slides etc., the Rhody (and most WSF boats) are probably undermanned. But surely boats aren't sailing with less crew than deemed necessary in an emergency? Up here, when Transport Canada changed the regulations for existing vessels a couple of years back, crews weren't increased, but pax capacities were drastically reduced on a number of runs. I'd acutally like to rephrase that, if I may. I don't think that the manning levels take into account the amount of equipment that is currently on the boats, and I think said manning levels are definitely due for reconsideration. |
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 25, 2011 12:37:32 GMT -8
From my first inquiries, it appears that the Chetzemoka was burning between 15-1800 gallons of fuel a day at Keystone. Fuel use at PD/T should be some less, but not a lot, as the engines will never get into their efficiency range. When you apply the crew of 10 to the mix, almost no passengers, this is another missmatch for a Vessel. I doubt if the old Rhody burns a third of that. I think the State had better hang on to her as long as they can.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,095
|
Post by Neil on Mar 25, 2011 16:33:01 GMT -8
Perhaps, the number of round trips could be reduced by one or two, but this would assume that vehicle and walk on traffic would stay about the same. BTW, does this route have many walk on passengers? I might have posted this elsewhere, but according to WSF traffic statistics, this route carries, on average, six foot passengers per sailing. Overall, a yearly ridership of about 650,000 and a total of about 14,600 sailings (40 per day) means an average of about 45 people on board, not counting crew. |
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,942
|
Post by FNS on Mar 25, 2011 16:53:57 GMT -8
Perhaps, the number of round trips could be reduced by one or two, but this would assume that vehicle and walk on traffic would stay about the same. BTW, does this route have many walk on passengers? I might have posted this elsewhere, but according to WSF traffic statistics, this route carries, on average, six foot passengers per sailing. Overall, a yearly ridership of about 650,000 and a total of about 14,600 sailings (40 per day) means an average of about 45 people on board, not counting crew. Might be interesting to see a boarding average of footies on the Campbell River to Quadra Island run. The POWELL RIVER QUEEN has the most spacious and the most comfortable cabin seen on any BCF route as short as the one she's on. I've been aboard her and like the wrap-around views of the scenery in her cabin. She's one nice ferry! |
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jan 22, 2012 8:07:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jan 22, 2012 8:11:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Feb 5, 2012 20:24:31 GMT -8
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Apr 12, 2013 23:36:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Apr 12, 2013 23:46:44 GMT -8
Hmm.... I hadn't noticed the modifications to the floating dolphin before (last time I took the south end boat was on 12/31).
|
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Oct 2, 2014 12:26:43 GMT -8
While it is early in the design process several proposed options in Sound Transit's new long range plan (ST3) would see a light rail station being built at or very near the Pt. Defiance terminal as part of the larger system that would be built in Tacoma since the line would be nearby. Which would be pretty cool IMO, they'd sure have to expand that parking lot at Tahlequah. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Mv Suquamish on Dec 26, 2022 8:09:26 GMT -8
What is the pier next to the ferry dock |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Dec 26, 2022 9:43:25 GMT -8
What is the pier next to the ferry dock Gone. |
|
|
|
Post by Mv Suquamish on Dec 26, 2022 16:52:18 GMT -8
Well what is it
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Dec 26, 2022 16:55:14 GMT -8
Likely a private dock on a neighboring property. In any case, as Barnacle said, it's gone now. |
|
|
|
Post by Mv Suquamish on Dec 26, 2022 16:58:13 GMT -8
Oh is remains of the the Pylons still there?
|
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Aug 1, 2023 19:06:11 GMT -8
If this does indeed happen it will be the first time that an Issaquah 130 Class vessel has been used on this route
Ferry Alert: Two Morning Sailings Cancelled on Point Defiance/Tahlequah Route Aug. 2
Two sailings on the Point Defiance/Tahlequah route will be cancelled Wednesday morning due to a needed boat assignment change during the service day. The smaller Salish will be replaced with the larger Kitsap on Wednesday, Aug. 2. Due to the change, the 8:25 a.m. sailing from Point Defiance to Tahlequah and the 8:50 a.m. departure from Tahlequah to Point Defiance will be cancelled. Affected customers can view the schedule online to see which sailings would be good alternatives.
The boat change is happening during the service day due to crew availability, and we apologize for the inconvenience.
|
|
