|
Post by Barnacle on Feb 7, 2010 15:10:19 GMT -8
From what I understand, the design for lengthening the Pierce County (PC) platform has already been done. As for the question, "is lengthening of the PC type boat feasible", absolutely, as a comparison, just look at the first 737, it was a little stubby thing, now look at the 737-800! Point taken. But continuing to legnthen it will eventually end up with another canoe-like hull, similar to the roly-poly Supers. I would expect the rolling problem to worsen, not improve, with lengthening. Longitudinal stability would improve, true, but that would only lessen the pitching, not the rolling. *tweet!* Terminology time-out! A "rolling chock" is a hole cut in a bulkhead for a mooring line to be passed through, with a roller in the center of it. The items you are referring to are called "bilge keels." Whether or not it would help the Steilacoom II or not, I don't know. I do not wish to sound like I am talking trash about FerrynutSeattle's work, because I enjoy it very much. However, he has NOT done a design. He has done an artist's concept, which is fine, but bears about as much resemblance to a design as a Testor's model does to the actual car. He can include whatever he wants on his design; it doesn't mean that it would be practical to include the same ideas and concepts, worthy though they be, in an actual execution. Computers are only as good as the data they are fed. And having suffered through a semester of ship's stability classes, I will admit that while it isn't rocket science, it's a lot closer to rocket science than the tiddlywinks you're making it sound like. I'll go along with you on that one. At one point they were actually kicking around the idea of lengthening the Evergreen State class and determined that it would actually improve their speed. Alas, nothing was ever done with it. I will forever be gunshy of design/build contracts because of the Issaquah class boats. It took years to get those boats right once we got them. I wouldn't mind seeing out-of-state yards competing, but yes, I would like to see a local yard get the business. Maybe some sort of mild handicapping, instead of outright exclusion. I think that any realignment of ferry systems in either direction was a fanciful bit of conversation. I'm not seriously suggesting that anything of that ilk would ever happen. (However, it does make sense that WSF would end up with the lot, what with having our own in-house yard... we can do pretty mch everything but actual haul-outs--and exterior painting-- there.) WSF has added additional safety equipment that would, in the event of an emergency, require a couple of extra people to operate. Like the liferafts. Do the PC crews have first aid or firefighting training? I do believe that Pierce County contracts it out to Hornblower, but I'm not sure of that. Wouldn't cutting down on the number of runs leave you with the same problem of line-ups? I think your idea of an ICFA has considerable merit. It would depend on how much control an individual county wants to have over the ferries that operate under their auspices. But people who live on islands are funny... Guemes Islanders got all whiny and pouty when Skagit County expanded their ferry service. Apparently they felt they were losing their small-island community and charm by making the island more accessible. Quite honestly, all I remember about their comments in the paper was that they came across as a bunch of exclusive snobs, especially after reading about how the QCIs were all but begging for better service.
|
|
chief
Chief Steward
Posts: 117
|
Post by chief on Feb 7, 2010 15:22:43 GMT -8
I could not have said it half as well as Barnacle.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Feb 7, 2010 17:21:13 GMT -8
From Barnacle: Point taken. But continuing to legnthen it will eventually end up with another canoe-like hull, similar to the roly-poly Supers. I would expect the rolling problem to worsen, not improve, with lengthening. Longitudinal stability would improve, true, but that would only lessen the pitching, not the rolling.
****** The Stretched PC types would be 68 wide, 252 feet long for the 66 car and 170 feet long for the 72 car model. The new KdT type Chetzemoka is 173.8 feet long and 64 feet wide, from what you say, a seemingly less desirable length/width aspect ratio than an extended PC type. The KtT also has considerably more cabin size higher off the water than the PC type, especially once loaded with passengers. The designers of the Chetzemoka seem to think it's Ok, and since the boats have a similar hull profile, I would think this one would too. I do agree that too much further lengthening might have that effect, I think this is within the envelope.
From Barnacle: *tweet!* Terminology time-out!
A "rolling chock" is a hole cut in a bulkhead for a mooring line to be passed through, with a roller in the center of it. The items you are referring to are called "bilge keels." Whether or not it would help the Steilacoom II or not, I don't know.
******
From over 40 years of working on commercial vessels, I have never heard of these roll impediment devices being called anything other than rolling chocks, (rolling chalks maybe, no don’t think so) in fact a shipyard owner recently called them that. OK, maybe it's a wrong term, but accepted iregardless. The new boat has them, they think they are worthwhile and from my experience, I do too.
From Barnacle:
I do not wish to sound like I am talking trash about FerrynutSeattle's work, because I enjoy it very much. However, he has NOT done a design. He has done an artist's concept, which is fine, but bears about as much resemblance to a design as a Testor's model does to the actual car. He can include whatever he wants on his design; it doesn't mean that it would be practical to include the same ideas and concepts, worthy though they be, in an actual execution.
Computers are only as good as the data they are fed. And having suffered through a semester of ship's stability classes, I will admit that while it isn't rocket science, it's a lot closer to rocket science than the tiddlywinks you're making it sound like.
****** I do believe the design for the hull does exist, in at least one place. The stability calculations may not have done, but by all normal observation it appears to be within the proper design envelope. I have seen the balance of the concept and it appears very practical to me.
From Barnacle:
I will forever be gunshy of design/build contracts because of the Issaquah class boats. It took years to get those boats right once we got them. I wouldn't mind seeing out-of-state yards competing, but yes, I would like to see a local yard get the business. Maybe some sort of mild handicapping, instead of outright exclusion.
*****
In this case we have a very successful vessel we can look at, and a yard with good credentials. It is not even in the same ballpark with the procurement of a new unproven boat concept from a yard that had never really existed before on the scale needed. I too would like to see the Vessels built here, however, the award could be made as you say, with an allowance for local procurement instead of a counterproductive outright banning of out-of-state bidding.
From Barnacle:
I think that any realignment of ferry systems in either direction was a fanciful bit of conversation. I'm not seriously suggesting that anything of that ilk would ever happen. (However, it does make sense that WSF would end up with the lot, what with having our own in-house yard... we can do pretty mch everything but actual haul-outs--and exterior painting-- there.)
*******
True, but if you take a look at the current situation, it is unsustainable. With the budget crisis' and other factors, something needs to be done on all fronts. Otherwise we will roll from one crisis, one band aid to another without ever fixing the problem. While you may think this premature, it has to start sometime, to me the sooner the better. The WSF yard is a commendable feature, but applying it to smaller vessels might be problematic.
From Barnacle:
WSF has added additional safety equipment that would, in the event of an emergency, require a couple of extra people to operate. Like the liferafts. Do the PC crews have first aid or firefighting training?
******
The County Ferries have very short runs, ours and Skagits are about 5 minutes from dock to dock. These are not in the same category as the WSF's longer runs. Further the affected populations are much smaller with a much lower ability to afford higher costs that larger crews bring. From what I know, all Ferry operators are mandated to have emergency training, most of the ones on our Ferry are Firefighters and EMTs.
From Barnacle:
I do believe that Pierce County contracts it out to Hornblower, but I'm not sure of that.
*****
Could be, I have never looked into that aspect.
From Barnacle:
Wouldn't cutting down on the number of runs leave you with the same problem of line-ups?
******
The County is looking into cutting runs, mainly to save money. During off season, with the existing vessel, yes, the lineup would be longer, service lousy. It is likely they will be looking to cut down to one shift a day, which would mean extremely lousy service, with any Ferry. The bigger boat would help solve the service issue and in the summer dramatically reduce the lineups associated with the current vessel, even with reduced runs. There is no solution to trying to reduce the service to one shift a day.
From Barnacle:
I think your idea of an ICFA has considerable merit. It would depend on how much control an individual county wants to have over the ferries that operate under their auspices. But people who live on islands are funny... Guemes Islanders got all whiny and pouty when Skagit County expanded their ferry service. Apparently they felt they were losing their small-island community and charm by making the island more accessible. Quite honestly, all I remember about their comments in the paper was that they came across as a bunch of exclusive snobs, especially after reading about how the QCIs were all but begging for better service.
******
We have the same problem over here. Unfortunately, those we often hear from are as my brother calls them, "cranks and malcontents". They usually are retired with time on their hands, often well off, quite outspoken and only use the Ferry intermittently. The problem is that they do not speak for the commuters who actually are the main Ferry clients, or those who have businesses relying on commerce. The real users of the Ferry have a busy life and don't have or take the time to spend voicing their opinions. Our dock crisis got them out and involved. The others would rather have the Ferry run, only when they need it. We too have had to battle the "Elitist" image here too, it's just not based in reality. The ICFA makes sense to me as a way to keep from duplicating assets and overhead. I have no idea if it would work, but once again, it has to start somewhere to even find out.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, we may not always agree on everything, at the least we hold the common enthusiasm for water transportation. I welcome your thoughts.
Jim
PS, I could not figure out how to make the quote function work.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Feb 7, 2010 17:45:15 GMT -8
From Barnacle: *tweet!* Terminology time-out! A "rolling chock" is a hole cut in a bulkhead for a mooring line to be passed through, with a roller in the center of it. The items you are referring to are called "bilge keels." Whether or not it would help the Steilacoom II or not, I don't know. ****** From over 40 years of working on commercial vessels, I have never heard of these roll impediment devices being called anything other than rolling chocks, (rolling chalks maybe, no don’t think so) in fact a shipyard owner recently called them that. OK, maybe it's a wrong term, but accepted iregardless. The new boat has them, they think they are worthwhile and from my experience, I do too. Jim: I'll rescind part of my statement. I was thining of "roller chocks," rather than rolling chocks. The terms "rolling chock" and "bilge keel" are, in fact, interchangeable. My apologies.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 2, 2010 14:44:03 GMT -8
My plan is:
1. Stop the 64 car program at two, the Chetz and the next. Keep the CP props and shafts for the third for spares and retrofit for the 1st.
2. Transfer the $ from the third 64 to a 144
3.Build one, maybe two PC type (STII) platform extended 36' to 252'=66 or extended 54' to 270'=72 cars for Pt. Defiance, summer Inter-Island and spare for Keystone. on a Design/Build contract. Costs would be 15-17 million each,-CHEAP-. engineering is available within 2 months, could be on the job in a year. It's a proven, known design, runs inexpensively, and more seaworthy than the standard 54 car model and either would haul more cars than the 64.
When we here on Lummi island were threatened with having to run to Fairhaven, I asked Ferrynutseattle to draw up an illustration, look on page 6 of New Ferry construction. It's a handsome vessel.
I would have copied the image to here, but can't figure out how.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 2, 2010 15:23:11 GMT -8
When we here on Lummi island were threatened with having to run to Fairhaven, I asked Ferrynutseattle to draw up an illustration, look on page 6 of New Ferry construction. It's a handsome vessel. And once again, I point out that an illustration does not constitute a boat design. Blueprints for a boat design can cover reams of paper, not a single illustration.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 2, 2010 15:33:54 GMT -8
The extended versions would be different handling boats. I would also install one size bigger Cat engines (3512s) in them. The larger 4 cycle engines would have almost identical fuel consumption, as the installed units (3508s) at similar horsepower output and have a lot of reserve for extreme situations.
I just looked at the tide tables, I see nothing tidally unusual for that time, most likely it has to do with the repair of the slip, in regard to tidal condition. The STII does not have deep draft, and is a beautifully handling vessel with a good power ratio, if it can't handle it, I doubt if the new 64s could either.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Mar 2, 2010 15:44:09 GMT -8
The STII does not have deep draft, and is a beautifully handling vessel with a good power ratio, if it can't handle it, I doubt if the new 64s could either. It's handling is decent in calm weather, but I rode STII across Admiralty Inlet once last year on a midly choppy day - not severe - and STII was bobbing around like a bathtub toy. It was not handling those conditions well at all. A vessel like this works fine for the protected waters in South Puget Sound, but I certainly wouldn't want one up north, not even in the San Juans.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Mar 2, 2010 16:00:24 GMT -8
My plan is: 1. Stop the 64 car program at two, the Chetz and the next. Keep the CP props and shafts for the third for spares and retrofit for the 1st. I agree 2. Transfer the $ from the third 64 to a 144 Absolutely! 3.Build one, maybe two PC type (STII) platform extended 36' to 252'=66 or extended 54' to 270'=72 cars for Pt. Defiance, summer Inter-Island and spare for Keystone. on a Design/Build contract. Costs would be 15-17 million each,-CHEAP-. engineering is available within 2 months, could be on the job in a year. It's a proven, known design, runs inexpensively, and more seaworthy than the standard 54 car model and either would haul more cars than the 64. No. That gets us right back to what we are facing now with the 64-car ferries: building limited-capacity and limited use / one-off vessels. The inter-island route works just fine with an Evergreen-Class vessel, and those will be around for awhile. Eventually, the Sealth could potentially be placed there when all of the Evergreens get retired. Hopefully, by then, the 144-car ferry program will be well under way and we will have enough of a fleet to backfill routes as needed. I really don't think we need a specialized vessel for PD-T.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Mar 2, 2010 16:18:38 GMT -8
My plan is: 1. Stop the 64 car program at two, the Chetz and the next. Keep the CP props and shafts for the third for spares and retrofit for the 1st. I agree Absolutely! 3.Build one, maybe two PC type (STII) platform extended 36' to 252'=66 or extended 54' to 270'=72 cars for Pt. Defiance, summer Inter-Island and spare for Keystone. on a Design/Build contract. Costs would be 15-17 million each,-CHEAP-. engineering is available within 2 months, could be on the job in a year. It's a proven, known design, runs inexpensively, and more seaworthy than the standard 54 car model and either would haul more cars than the 64. No. That gets us right back to what we are facing now with the 64-car ferries: building limited-capacity and limited use / one-off vessels. The inter-island route works just fine with an Evergreen-Class vessel, and those will be around for awhile. Eventually, the Sealth could potentially be placed there when all of the Evergreens get retired. Hopefully, by then, the 144-car ferry program will be well under way and we will have enough of a fleet to backfill routes as needed. I really don't think we need a specialized vessel for PD-T. Totally agree, especially on that last bit. Anything smaller than the Evergreen on the inter-island is proving to be useless. I actually expect the Sealth to take over for the Evergreen (that extra overhead height is dead useful for the trucks up here, and believe me that is a big consideration.) Last time I looked, the Evergreen is supposed to be retired in 2012. I wonder if that will actually come to pass or if they'll stretch her out a few more years until at least 1 144 is on the water.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 2, 2010 18:03:07 GMT -8
At least one more smaller boat is needed. The Rody is failing, when prosperity returns the two 64s will not be able to keep up with the peak demand at Keystone, a third boat will be needed. Add rolling chocks to the extended PC type which with the longer length will result in a pretty good handling boat that will take most weather. Even at best, the 144s are five years off. One of these extended PC's could be running in a year. Being that it is reasonably cheap it's a good interim vessel and ultimately a great spare, 72 car capacity is no joke. Remember, today we are down four boats, three if one counts the STII, which will soon return to its owners. Beside the Evergreen ought to be retired and the little Hiyu is next to worthless and ought to be dispensed with as soon as it is not needed. I'm all for the 144s, let's get one or more asap. Meanwhile something needs to be done now, this is a great option. The designer thinks the extended vessel would work fine, the builder thinks so too, so do I.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 3, 2010 10:27:55 GMT -8
If the 64 car Ferry program is allowed to run its course, the first 144 will be built after that, that is if money is allocated. The State's broke, it will take a lot of wangling in the State houses to get the money allocated, if you don't think so, just look at what it took to get the SE replacements going, in good times. I have a State Rep who is a friend, he backs me up on this. I do think the 144 designs are nearly done, this is why I am advocating for the canceling of the third 64 and the immediate building of a 144, I would further advocate for the canceling of the second 64 and a 144 built in its place, however, I believe #2/64 is already underway.
The STII is already designed, the designers say the modifications are not hard to do and plans could be ready in 60 days, my guess is that they already partially exist. The yard gave me the cost estimates, now, they are if I was buying it, which brings me to the design/build option that bypasses the standard bid procurement process.
I have been out there meeting and talking with a lot of people. It all started when it looked like we here on Lummi Island might have to move our mainland terminus to Fairhaven. With the backing of our County Council person, I took on the job of checking out vessel alternatives for this run that we might be able to afford, this was the best one I found. The rest just took its course.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 3, 2010 10:44:01 GMT -8
"LIFC" member-name, stands for:
- Lummi Island Ferry Consultant ?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Mar 3, 2010 10:44:12 GMT -8
the designers say the modifications are not hard to do and plans could be ready in 60 days.... The yard gave me the cost estimates, now, they are if I was buying it.... There's been no contract put out to tender, and these are not responses to one. They're something that somebody said, and as such, probably mean as much as 'plans' that come from a computer drawing on a ferry fan forum. Actual costs for recent newbuilds, on both sides of the border, including the rebuild on BC Ferries modest little Kuper, would seem to indicate that $15-$17 million for a 70 car ferry is very unrealistic.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 3, 2010 11:45:23 GMT -8
Consultant, that sounds good, better than i had in mind, sort of was done in the middle of the night.
I am also investigating a Ferry for friends in Texas who are thinking of developing an Island.
Cost I think are accurate at this time, remember times are not so good in the boat building business, it's a good time to cut a deal right now, they want to keep their staff together so when times get better they are in a good position to do better then.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Mar 3, 2010 11:50:57 GMT -8
If the 64 car Ferry program is allowed to run its course, the first 144 will be built after that, that is if money is allocated. The State's broke, it will take a lot of wangling in the State houses to get the money allocated, if you don't think so, just look at what it took to get the SE replacements going, in good times. I have a State Rep who is a friend, he backs me up on this. I do think the 144 designs are nearly done, this is why I am advocating for the canceling of the third 64 and the immediate building of a 144, I would further advocate for the canceling of the second 64 and a 144 built in its place, however, I believe #2/64 is already underway. The STII is already designed, the designers say the modifications are not hard to do and plans could be ready in 60 days, my guess is that they already partially exist. The yard gave me the cost estimates, now, they are if I was buying it, which brings me to the design/build option that bypasses the standard bid procurement process. I have been out there meeting and talking with a lot of people. It all started when it looked like we here on Lummi Island might have to move our mainland terminus to Fairhaven. With the backing of our County Council person, I took on the job of checking out vessel alternatives for this run that we might be able to afford, this was the best one I found. The rest just took its course. Jim OK. That helps to know where you're coming from. I'm no expert on anything here - just expressing my opinions - but I still think it would be a tremendous waste of time and money to design and construct another 1-off vessel. If the 64-Car Ferry program could be limited to 2 vessels (and I'm not saying it can, just saying "what if?"), then perhaps the money allocated for the 3rd vessel can be applied toward constructing the 1st 144-Car ferry, and get that program going as soon as possible. As long as the shipyards have work, what do they care if they're building a 64-car ferry or a 144-car ferry? And, if the design is mostly complete, it should be possible to get one built before 5 years elapses, in theory. OK, that might be simplifying things too much, but I can't believe that it's out of the range of possibility. Yes, Rhododendron and Evergreen need to be retired ASAP. But, we have existing vessels that can operate the Point Defiance-Tahlequah run, such as Sealth, which is there right now. That's why I don't think it is necessary to build another route-specific vessel. Build a 144, assign it to Mukilteo, which I think is where WSF plans on putting the first one, and that displaces an Issaquah 124 which can be deployed to F-V-S, which, in turn, displaces Tillikum or Klahowya, which can replace Evergreen as the Inter Island ferry.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 3, 2010 12:33:01 GMT -8
I don't think the lengthened PC type will be a one off, there are several other entities looking into the design. I just think it would be a good boat to have around for whatever. The fact still exists that there will be a vessel deficit for some time and the Hiyu, while it's a great little boat, does a really lousy job of handling the traffic, anywhere. I would not be advocating getting one if it were not relatively inexpensive. The real problem exists in peak season, that's when the fares are up, system gets closer to paying for itself and sales tax revenues increase due to tourism. Just look at the economic disaster the SE crisis caused Port Townsend and its surrounding areas. The system already has several one-offs, somehow they handle them, one's about to be discarded and another ought to be. If when the system gets to a point of equilibrium, they can sell it then, some one will buy it and meanwhile they have something that works. I just do not see the ultimate program getting up-to-speed anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 3, 2010 16:55:16 GMT -8
The STII is already designed, the designers say the modifications are not hard to do and plans could be ready in 60 days, my guess is that they already partially exist. The yard gave me the cost estimates, now, they are if I was buying it, which brings me to the design/build option that bypasses the standard bid procurement process. However, for whatever reason, all bids for WSF seem to come with an extra zero tacked on at the end. Maybe it's greed, maybe it's past experience at the difficulty of dealing with the state, maybe it's a see-if-they-pay-it. I don't know. But even with Build Them In Washington, outright bypassing the standard bid procurement is not an option with WSF. So the $17 million figure doesn't really pertain here. Also, I keep noticing you mention that the design extension was kicked around for the Lummi Island boat. Is it still a K-class boat? If so, then it is of little to no use to WSF. End of story.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 3, 2010 23:00:10 GMT -8
The bid is from a local yard. Remember, we are likely to have a different political situation by the end of the year, they will likely do things differently and will be looking to drastically lower costs while retaining quality end products, design/build does that.
It can be either a K class boat, with more subdivisions in the hull interior or an H class, without. I see no reason for an H class here on this size of boat, if one wants the increased emergency capability, just install it. I believe the Hiyu is a K class, it is somehow being used. Perhaps things may be different in the future.
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Mar 3, 2010 23:06:11 GMT -8
I need a smilie that is hitting its head over and over again. Seriously, talk about beating a dead horse. The 64s are being built, there is nothing stopping that so matter how many times you say its a bad design. Hopefully the 144s will follow. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 4, 2010 6:23:29 GMT -8
The bid is from a local yard. Remember, we are likely to have a different political situation by the end of the year, they will likely do things differently and will be looking to drastically lower costs while retaining quality end products, design/build does that. It can be either a K class boat, with more subdivisions in the hull interior or an H class, without. I see no reason for an H class here on this size of boat, if one wants the increased emergency capability, just install it. I believe the Hiyu is a K class, it is somehow being used. Perhaps things may be different in the future. The Hiyu is of little use to WSF; it is only being used--and only can be used--on routes that don't cross designated traffic lanes. The "K" Class Steilacoom II is operating on Port Townsend by courtesy of a waiver from the Coast Guard, a situation that won't be allowed to continue much longer. And if you aren't paying any more attention that THAT, I'm done discussing this with you.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Mar 4, 2010 6:52:14 GMT -8
I need a smilie that is hitting its head over and over again. Seriously, talk about beating a dead horse. The 64s are being built, there is nothing stopping that so matter how many times you say its a bad design. Hopefully the 144s will follow. End of story. You are absolutely correct. Steel is being cut for both boats 2 and 3 right now--and welding is set to begin on # 2 within the next two weeks.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 4, 2010 8:16:39 GMT -8
It would actually be easier to build it as an H class. A K of this size would require more subdivisions under deck to keep the spaces smaller for lower tonnage capacity. Ironically, a K boat of this size would actually be stronger.
I know metals are being prepared for the second boat, I can see no reason they would be for the third, yet, this would require a huge amount of storage space.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Mar 4, 2010 9:16:46 GMT -8
It would actually be easier to build it as an H class. A K of this size would require more subdivisions under deck to keep the spaces smaller for lower tonnage capacity. Ironically, a K boat of this size would actually be stronger. I know metals are being prepared for the second boat, I can see no reason they would be for the third, yet, this would require a huge amount of storage space. You're not the only one with contacts in the maritime industry. Whether or not you can see the reason for it is irrelevant; it's being done. I have it from someone involved in the project that the metal is being cut for boat three. It's a done deal. You can talk all you want about stopping the third boat, but it isn't going to happen.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 4, 2010 10:41:12 GMT -8
Well. let us at least stop boat 4 and make it into a 144. Considering what's gone on with this project, with all it's flaws, it too is probably a done deal . Discouraging.
|
|