|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 20, 2013 13:59:57 GMT -8
Why is it that when ferries go from Kingston to Edmonds, they go east towards Point Wells, then turn northeast and go along the shore up to Edmonds? Don't you think this is a waste of fuel and time as opposed to just going straight across?
I've ridden that ferry many times and I've noticed it do this for at least a year. And it's not like they're trying to make their way around cruise ships or container ships; this seems to be the normal eastbound route out of Kingston. Can someone explain the reasoning behind this?
|
|
FNS
Voyager 
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,942
|
Post by FNS on Jan 20, 2013 14:16:16 GMT -8
Why is it that when ferries go from Kingston to Edmonds, they go east towards Point Wells, then turn northeast and go along the shore up to Edmonds? Don't you think this is a waste of fuel and time as opposed to just going straight across? I've ridden that ferry many times and I've noticed it do this for at least a year. And it's not like they're trying to make their way around cruise ships or container ships; this seems to be the normal eastbound route out of Kingston. Can someone explain the reasoning behind this? Must be a set passing pattern for the Edmonds - Kingston ferries to avoid collisions between the vessels themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 20, 2013 15:01:05 GMT -8
Why is it that when ferries go from Kingston to Edmonds, they go east towards Point Wells, then turn northeast and go along the shore up to Edmonds? Don't you think this is a waste of fuel and time as opposed to just going straight across? I've ridden that ferry many times and I've noticed it do this for at least a year. And it's not like they're trying to make their way around cruise ships or container ships; this seems to be the normal eastbound route out of Kingston. Can someone explain the reasoning behind this? Must be a set passing pattern for the Edmonds - Kingston ferries to avoid collisions between the vessels themselves. Well, they sure do a good job of avoiding each other. I'm sure most passengers don't mind getting a close-up view of the shoreline  . As for cruise ships, on one ferry ride from Kingston to Edmonds, the ferry went right behind a cruise ship departing Seattle. You could feel the ferry bob up and down quite a bit when it went thru the cruise ship's wake! |
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Jan 20, 2013 21:32:56 GMT -8
I was on a cruise ship in 2010 leaving Seattle and we passed over the Edmonds route and the Puyallup had to slow and wait for us to pass.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Jan 20, 2013 21:52:12 GMT -8
I'm sure most passengers don't mind getting a close-up view of the shoreline . But some passengers mind not getting a close-up view of the other vessel!  |
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 21, 2013 12:57:05 GMT -8
I'm sure most passengers don't mind getting a close-up view of the shoreline . But some passengers mind not getting a close-up view of the other vessel! Well, yeah but I always liked being able to take a picture of the other ferry  . Now you can't do that anymore, except with a camera with really good zoom (which I got for Christmas, fortunately) and a tripod (or just rest it on the railing ) since my hands are so darn shaky  . I s'pose I could still take pics of the other ferry, but it's a lot harder... |
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jan 21, 2013 13:02:53 GMT -8
I was on a cruise ship in 2010 leaving Seattle and we passed over the Edmonds route and the Puyallup had to slow and wait for us to pass. Wow, nice. Maybe they have the route different now just so they aren't in the path of cruise ships and container ships, which frequent the Sound. I think it was so cool just to go right astern of the cruise ship in our "tiny" ferry (compared to the massive cruise ship). And then to go bob-bob over the cruise ship's wake. It was as if we were in a canoe going over the wake of a motorboat! |
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Apr 9, 2013 17:32:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Apr 22, 2013 4:49:45 GMT -8
Those benches are original to the overhead walkway, which was built in the mid-1990s; however, they probably did come from the same supplier as the benches on the JM2s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Oct 20, 2013 13:52:42 GMT -8
Yes, please send the Cathlamet to Kingston as a third vessel! That route definitely needs more capacity in the summers; often the wait times at Kingston on Sundays can be upwards of 2 hours, as opposed to only a 1-hour wait for the Bainbridge-Seattle route. I agree with you. The 144's added capacity will be better utilized once WSF rebuilds the Mukilteo terminal. I'm surprised they aren't planning on changing the schedule to accommodate the increased loading time for an additional 20 cars. Even with two Issys on the route, there isn't enough time to load the boat to capacity and still remain on schedule. I thought that at least for now, it would make more sense to send the Tokitae to Bremerton to replace the Kitsap, who would be sent to the triangle route instead of the Cathlamet. On the first point, I agree that an extra boat would be needed at Kingston but another solution would be to promote Bremerton more as gateways to the Olympic (and Kitsap) peninsulas. Especially if WSF gets smart and put a Super and a Jumbo in the summer. Wonder why I don't list Bainbridge in there? Because WSF doesn't even send any more alerts about waits at Seattle on weekday evenings. There's pretty much a 1 boat wait Mondays-Thursdays and 2-3 boat waits on Fridays, year round. On the second point let me remind you that Mukilteo-Clinton is not a one-way route. There are also people coming from Clinton, and that's where the capacity will be used. I agree with you about adding a third boat on Edmonds to Kingston route. But you would need to change the schedule on this route to operate the third vessel. |
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Oct 25, 2013 21:04:43 GMT -8
On the first point, I agree that an extra boat would be needed at Kingston but another solution would be to promote Bremerton more as gateways to the Olympic (and Kitsap) peninsulas. Especially if WSF gets smart and put a Super and a Jumbo in the summer. Wonder why I don't list Bainbridge in there? Because WSF doesn't even send any more alerts about waits at Seattle on weekday evenings. There's pretty much a 1 boat wait Mondays-Thursdays and 2-3 boat waits on Fridays, year round. On the second point let me remind you that Mukilteo-Clinton is not a one-way route. There are also people coming from Clinton, and that's where the capacity will be used. I agree with you about adding a third boat on Edmonds to Kingston route. But you would need to change the schedule on this route to operate the third vessel. Question 1: Where is WSF going to get the extra ferry from? Question 2: Special bonus math question for the posters above (which has been discussed at length on this forum before): Can you devise a schedule that would accommodate a 3-boat schedule, allowing enough time to load and unload the boat at either end of it's run, but also eliminating the possibility of any of the boats arriving at a terminal before the previous boat has finished loading vehicles? I would love to see what the results are!  I remember this from school.... A ferry leaves Kingston at 5:35 AM traveling at about 12 knots. Another boat leaves Edmonds....... |
|
|
|
Post by Cascadian Transport on Oct 26, 2013 8:22:13 GMT -8
I just checked the Kingston ferry schedule, and from what I can tell, from the time a ferry leaves one terminal to the time it leaves the other is ~45 minutes. I have been giving the idea of 3-boat service at Kingston a bit of thought. What I came up with is this: - There is ~one departure from each terminal every ~45 minutes, which equals ~two departures every ~90 minutes.
- With a third ferry, the schedule could be re-written to accommodate a departure every ~30 minutes, or ~three in ~90 minutes.
- With a revised schedule, you could have sailings from Kingston at :00 and at :30, and sailings from Edmonds at :15 and :45, or vise versa.
- The scenario listed above would have each vessel in dock for 15 minutes, than the dock would be free for 15 until the next vessel came in. That would allow one vessel to be up to at least 10 minutes behind scedule before it started to affect other vessels.
- Perhaps the roll as boat #3 would be a good place for the Samish?
Post #150!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Oct 26, 2013 15:28:48 GMT -8
It would save money in the long run because you do not have to pay for fuel for three boats and the state would just need to add more crew with a third boat you need a whole crew. What you said makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Is this how you intended your words to come out? I ask, because you've pretty much contradicted yourself in those sentences. Regarding 3 ferries at Edmonds-Kingston: with a 3rd vessel, you could have departures every 30 minutes, but such a schedule would be pretty tough to implement without a second slip at Edmonds. Any delay, and the boats will be stacking up on each other on the Edmonds side. |
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Oct 26, 2013 15:44:26 GMT -8
I agree with you about adding a third boat on Edmonds to Kingston route. But you would need to change the schedule on this route to operate the third vessel. Question 1: Where is WSF going to get the extra ferry from? Question 2: Special bonus math question for the posters above (which has been discussed at length on this forum before): Can you devise a schedule that would accommodate a 3-boat schedule, allowing enough time to load and unload the boat at either end of it's run, but also eliminating the possibility of any of the boats arriving at a terminal before the previous boat has finished loading vehicles? I would love to see what the results are! I remember this from school.... A ferry leaves Kingston at 5:35 AM traveling at about 12 knots. Another boat leaves Edmonds....... Answer 1: They could use a Super once two of Olympic class comes to replace the super or use the Samish. Answer 2: I would do the same as Cascadian Transport. Delete my first post to change the answer of the first the question; to not "contradicted" myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Oct 26, 2013 15:46:42 GMT -8
It would save money in the long run because you do not have to pay for fuel for three boats and the state would just need to add more crew with a third boat you need a whole crew. What you said makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Is this how you intended your words to come out? I ask, because you've pretty much contradicted yourself in those sentences. I did not go back to re-read my original post to see what I was saying and why I said. No I did not mean to do that; so I change the answer. |
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Nov 10, 2013 21:45:25 GMT -8
Some pictures taken while riding the Edmonds-Kingston route yesterday. I've been too used to Bremerton and the San Juans this year and the run was WAY too short for me! (especially on the Walla Walla, which I've always ridden at Bremerton). Oh, and also Low Light Mike, since I used a fisheye lens (borrowed from my photography teacher for the weekend) for all of these shots, they are wide-angle, similar to the Tokina which I'm planning to buy. I'm trying out new ways to describe my photos that display the wide-angle effect, and I'd like some input!  On Walla Walla departing Edmonds. I like the round-your-world style with the land, but how the terminal and wake still retain their actual proportions. Also notice the train, which luckily only passed after the ferry was loaded and ready-to-go.  MV Walla Walla departing Edmonds - Washington State Ferries by SolDuc Photography, on Flickr The Gantry at Kingston isn't going anywhere, or isn't forward of the old one (or it probably is, but that's not very visible...). This is one of my favorites at WSF because of the contrast between the green bars and the yellow pulleys. Also distorted in wide-angle mode.  Slip 1 Gantry, Kington Terminal - Washington State Ferries by SolDuc Photography, on Flickr Another round-your-world photo, with more loosing its proportions here. But still cool. I like the wideness allowing you to see the symmetry in Slips 1 and 2.  MV Spokane departing Slip 1, Kingston - Washington State Ferries by SolDuc Photography, on Flickr Now this is one of those ultimate wide-angle photos. Unlike a lot of other situations you just can't step back to get this shot, you need the wide-angle. And it gives out very good results as you can see here:  MV Spokane arriving at Edmonds - Washington State Ferries by SolDuc Photography, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 11, 2013 17:53:45 GMT -8
Oh, and also Low Light Mike, since I used a fisheye lens (borrowed from my photography teacher for the weekend) for all of these shots, they are wide-angle, similar to the Tokina which I'm planning to buy. I'm trying out new ways to describe my photos that display the wide-angle effect, and I'd like some input! No need for the humility-police to intervene on this one. No excessive self-praise noted. |
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Oct 9, 2014 5:54:23 GMT -8
Some aerial views of Kingston on Sunday afternoon, Oct 5, 2014:   MV Spokane at Kingston  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2014 13:37:11 GMT -8
Some aerial views of Kingston on Sunday afternoon, Oct 5, 2014: MV Spokane at Kingston Why are they in the other slip? Shouldn't the vessel be in Slip 1?
|
|
|
|
Post by R30A on Oct 9, 2014 17:14:53 GMT -8
Now, I don't know the specifics of the terminal, but it appears as if the south slip is just as capable as the north from above(similar lane configurations, with both having upper level passenger bridge access)
Coming from the perspective of someone living on the Atlantic(the entirety of my WSF experience outside of sitings is a round trip to Bainbridge on the Tacoma), I could see a few reasons for this situation.
Perhaps the currents favored the use of one slip over the other? (With the smaller boats I am used to, wind can also be a big issue, does this hold for Jumbo's too? I would imagine less so)
Perhaps there is some issue with the North slip forcing them to use the south one?
Perhaps they wanted to use the south slip just to use it? Some gear needs to be used every once and a while to keep it in working order.
I apologize for the entirely theoretical nature of my post, but I think any of these could possibly be the reason why.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2014 17:37:54 GMT -8
Now, I don't know the specifics of the terminal, but it appears as if the south slip is just as capable as the north from above(similar lane configurations, with both having upper level passenger bridge access) Coming from the perspective of someone living on the Atlantic(the entirety of my WSF experience outside of sitings is a round trip to Bainbridge on the Tacoma), I could see a few reasons for this situation. Perhaps the currents favored the use of one slip over the other? (With the smaller boats I am used to, wind can also be a big issue, does this hold for Jumbo's too? I would imagine less so) Perhaps there is some issue with the North slip forcing them to use the south one? Perhaps they wanted to use the south slip just to use it? Some gear needs to be used every once and a while to keep it in working order. I apologize for the entirely theoretical nature of my post, but I think any of these could possibly be the reason why. Perhaps there is some issue with the North slip forcing them to use the south one? ; This is a definite possibility, but I don't recall any problems with the slip on that day Perhaps they wanted to use the south slip just to use it? Some gear needs to be used every once and a while to keep it in working order. : This isn't true because the vessel ties up at this slip every night, so it doesn't need to be used every once in a while. |
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 11, 2014 9:50:06 GMT -8
Now, I don't know the specifics of the terminal, but it appears as if the south slip is just as capable as the north from above(similar lane configurations, with both having upper level passenger bridge access) Coming from the perspective of someone living on the Atlantic(the entirety of my WSF experience outside of sitings is a round trip to Bainbridge on the Tacoma), I could see a few reasons for this situation. Perhaps the currents favored the use of one slip over the other? (With the smaller boats I am used to, wind can also be a big issue, does this hold for Jumbo's too? I would imagine less so) Perhaps there is some issue with the North slip forcing them to use the south one? Perhaps they wanted to use the south slip just to use it? Some gear needs to be used every once and a while to keep it in working order. I apologize for the entirely theoretical nature of my post, but I think any of these could possibly be the reason why. All are valid suppositions. Slip 1 (north slip) might've been receiving maintenance; the wind might've been a factor (though the water surface indicates otherwise); the current may have been running to the south (heaven knows I've ended up in the "other slip" a few times after getting an unexpected push from the current); the officer docking the boat may have just wanted to land in slip 2... each slip has its own slightly special landing characteristics and it's always a good idea to keep one's hand in. |
|
|
|
Post by PeninsulaExplorer on Oct 13, 2014 9:22:57 GMT -8
Now, I don't know the specifics of the terminal, but it appears as if the south slip is just as capable as the north from above(similar lane configurations, with both having upper level passenger bridge access) Coming from the perspective of someone living on the Atlantic(the entirety of my WSF experience outside of sitings is a round trip to Bainbridge on the Tacoma), I could see a few reasons for this situation. Perhaps the currents favored the use of one slip over the other? (With the smaller boats I am used to, wind can also be a big issue, does this hold for Jumbo's too? I would imagine less so) Perhaps there is some issue with the North slip forcing them to use the south one? Perhaps they wanted to use the south slip just to use it? Some gear needs to be used every once and a while to keep it in working order. I apologize for the entirely theoretical nature of my post, but I think any of these could possibly be the reason why. There is a height limit on slip 2 because the overhead walkway crosses over in that skybridge thing going to the ramps |
|
|
|
Post by PeninsulaExplorer on Oct 13, 2014 9:26:34 GMT -8
Have they used the tie up slip (Slip 3) ever since the Klickitat left?
|
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 13, 2014 13:20:25 GMT -8
Now, I don't know the specifics of the terminal, but it appears as if the south slip is just as capable as the north from above(similar lane configurations, with both having upper level passenger bridge access) Coming from the perspective of someone living on the Atlantic(the entirety of my WSF experience outside of sitings is a round trip to Bainbridge on the Tacoma), I could see a few reasons for this situation. Perhaps the currents favored the use of one slip over the other? (With the smaller boats I am used to, wind can also be a big issue, does this hold for Jumbo's too? I would imagine less so) Perhaps there is some issue with the North slip forcing them to use the south one? Perhaps they wanted to use the south slip just to use it? Some gear needs to be used every once and a while to keep it in working order. I apologize for the entirely theoretical nature of my post, but I think any of these could possibly be the reason why. There is a height limit on slip 2 because the overhead walkway crosses over in that skybridge thing going to the ramps I'd be very surprised if the "height limit" was less than sixteen feet (auto deck max). Anyone have a photo of a clearance sign on the bridge showing otherwise? |
|
.
. Now you can't do that anymore, except with a camera with really good zoom (which I got for Christmas, fortunately) and a tripod (or just rest it on the railing 
. I s'pose I could still take pics of the other ferry, but it's a lot harder...
