|
Post by Mike C on Sept 3, 2011 16:44:55 GMT -8
Buses carry LPG in tanks on the roof. I am not sure if any carry LNG. In fact I have seen photos of buses in China with bag like affairs on the roof to carry Natural Gas. Given it is China though, who knows what the safety record is. Our CNG-powered buses have the fuel tanks on the roof, and they are very top-heavy (and a mechanical disaster). I suspect we have come a long way, and still have a long way to go in terms of perfecting Natural Gas engines for heavy-duty uses. Just to reiterate what a few have said, I do not expect we will be seeing any sort of Natural Gas or other alternative fuel sources in large vessels. I suspect that ferries will be on the tail-end of the alternative fuel movement, rather than going willy-nilly on the latest thing.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Sept 3, 2011 21:15:24 GMT -8
I wonder why these LNG engines were not considered? They certainly are big enough, made in USA with extensive marine heritage.
dresserwaukesha.com
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Sept 3, 2011 22:18:05 GMT -8
I suspect that ferries will be on the tail-end of the alternative fuel movement, rather than going willy-nilly on the latest thing. One of the ferries I rode in Norway is fuelled by LNG (MS Stavangerfjord. She runs like a beauty. Really quiet too, and free of vibes.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Sept 3, 2011 23:20:35 GMT -8
I suspect that ferries will be on the tail-end of the alternative fuel movement, rather than going willy-nilly on the latest thing. One of the ferries I rode in Norway is fuelled by LNG (MS Stavangerfjord. She runs like a beauty. Really quiet too, and free of vibes. Well then, I stand corrected. That's interesting, and rare for anything powered by Natural Gas. It seems that most machinery powered by either LNG or CNG are very noisy and not very powerful. But again, this technology is not perfect, and we will have to see where it takes us.
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Sept 4, 2011 0:23:13 GMT -8
Personally I do not see this actually happening. It is an interesting concept but the report seems a little limited in its scope. While there are benefits to natural gas, there are reasons why it is not used in more new builds. As has already been pointed out there are regulatory issues that need to be sorted out in the U.S., no small task. The report also mentions that there would need to be developed some land based infrastructure to provide the fuel supply for these new ferries, this is kind of glossed over in the report but I highly doubt that WSF or the state government are ready to finance such an undertaking. Another point, and this I do not know for sure, so maybe someone who knows more could correct me but I was told that it takes greater amounts of natural gas to do the same job that a diesel would do. In other words although natural gas may cost less per gallon or barrel or whatever, you have to buy more of it to accomplish the same job that you could do with less diesel. And finally just let me add my skepticism to the design choice of placing the fuel tanks on top of the ship, this does not make any sense to me from a stability, safety, or even an aesthetic point of view. Although I will say that the remainder of the design actually looks quite nice, it retains some features from previous WSF vessels that make it look like it really belongs with the fleet. Well these are my uneducated ramblings , I now leave you to your thoughts.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Sept 4, 2011 3:22:14 GMT -8
One of the ferries I rode in Norway is fuelled by LNG (MS Stavangerfjord. She runs like a beauty. Really quiet too, and free of vibes. Well then, I stand corrected. That's interesting, and rare for anything powered by Natural Gas. It seems that most machinery powered by either LNG or CNG are very noisy and not very powerful. But again, this technology is not perfect, and we will have to see where it takes us. I'm surprised you would think they would be any noisier than any other combustion engine. Most CNG, LNG and propane engines started life as a gasoline engine, or at least as a gasoline engine design. Modified diesels which will burn high percentages of LNG (diesels with low percentages of LNG/propane injection have been around for years) are now being road tested, too ( www.cleanenergyfuels.com/pdf/LNG_landline_apr09.pdf), and if anything are quieter than their counterparts. Your comment piqued my curiousity as I have both owned and driven LNG and propane fueled vehicles.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Sept 4, 2011 8:29:36 GMT -8
EDIT: And as a side-note, wouldn't the massive LNG tanks above the superstructure be a perfect target for terrorists? All they'd have to do is throw whatever explosive device they want up top there and wait for a boom, and a big one at that. Natural gas is quite combustible... lol The whole world is a terrorist target if you think like the American administration. A ferry boat.... they may be able to accept the risk on this one....
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Sept 4, 2011 9:38:10 GMT -8
Well then, I stand corrected. That's interesting, and rare for anything powered by Natural Gas. It seems that most machinery powered by either LNG or CNG are very noisy and not very powerful. But again, this technology is not perfect, and we will have to see where it takes us. I'm surprised you would think they would be any noisier than any other combustion engine. Most CNG, LNG and propane engines started life as a gasoline engine, or at least as a gasoline engine design. Modified diesels which will burn high percentages of LNG (diesels with low percentages of LNG/propane injection have been around for years) are now being road tested, too ( www.cleanenergyfuels.com/pdf/LNG_landline_apr09.pdf), and if anything are quieter than their counterparts. Your comment piqued my curiousity as I have both owned and driven LNG and propane fueled vehicles. I have worked in Transit with motor coaches and buses. In one of the cities where I worked we had a bus that ran on natural gas I did not notice any difference in noise from the engine. The bus did not sound like a diesel but wasn't any noisier that a diesel, but I am not sure I would say it was any quieter. It had the tank on the roof which did make it top heavy. Just as a side note, the cruise ship industry has been using gas turbine engines for a while now. They work well when the vessel is at her cruising speed, but they do not work as well when the ship is maneuvering in harbors or at slower speeds. This has been a large reason why not many ferry operators use this type of engine, the turbine. Ships with the turbine do have less vibrations, but the technology is still expensive. I think working with natural gas for fuel is a smart way to go, it has a lot of potential, but still needs further development in areas such as the infrastructure to supply the demand. While I do think someday ferries will be able to make the natural gas engines work, I do not think that a ferry agency run by any government will be willing to invest the money to develop the infrastructure to make it work at this time.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Sept 4, 2011 15:50:11 GMT -8
EDIT: And as a side-note, wouldn't the massive LNG tanks above the superstructure be a perfect target for terrorists? All they'd have to do is throw whatever explosive device they want up top there and wait for a boom, and a big one at that. Natural gas is quite combustible... lol The whole world is a terrorist target if you think like the American administration. A ferry boat.... they may be able to accept the risk on this one.... Perhaps, but I also think it's a bit on the Pollyanna side to dismiss the concept out of hand. Trust me... if it were your job to ride around with that big tank no more than 175 feet away from you, you'd think about it. Daily.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Sept 4, 2011 21:11:17 GMT -8
True. But I still think it is reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Sept 4, 2011 23:06:47 GMT -8
The ferry in Norway had the tanks down below decks in the engine room... why can't they just do that? Out of sight and out of mind for them naughty people, and relieves some top-heaviness at the same time.
|
|
Kam
Voyager
Posts: 926
|
Post by Kam on Sept 4, 2011 23:50:51 GMT -8
The ferry in Norway had the tanks down below decks in the engine room... why can't they just do that? Out of sight and out of mind for them naughty people, and relieves some top-heaviness at the same time. The LNG storage will be located be located in the weather on the Bridge Deck of the vessel. Locating the tanks on the Bridge Deck is preferable to locating them below the main deck for several reasons. „h The vessel¡¦s hull structure will not need to be redesigned to accommodate tanks inside the hull. „h The USCG has indicated that they prefer that the tanks be located in the weather and that they are not located beneath passenger accommodations. „h The cost of installing the tanks on an open deck is significantly less than to install them inside the hull.
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Sept 5, 2011 0:49:32 GMT -8
The ferry in Norway had the tanks down below decks in the engine room... why can't they just do that? Out of sight and out of mind for them naughty people, and relieves some top-heaviness at the same time. The LNG storage will be located be located in the weather on the Bridge Deck of the vessel. Locating the tanks on the Bridge Deck is preferable to locating them below the main deck for several reasons. „h The vessel¡¦s hull structure will not need to be redesigned to accommodate tanks inside the hull. „h The USCG has indicated that they prefer that the tanks be located in the weather and that they are not located beneath passenger accommodations. „h The cost of installing the tanks on an open deck is significantly less than to install them inside the hull. You see now the location of the tanks is something I question. They say placing the tanks on the top will not require major design modification, well what about the fuel tanks already designed into the ship for when it wasn't going to use natural gas. Yes I know there are still other items on the ship that would need the fuel, but those are large tanks for not being used for the main engines. The USCG wants the tanks in the weather? This doesn't make sense to me. I understand the concern of not having them under passenger accommodation, but on deck doesn't seem much better if there were a need to evacuate, typically your life saving and emergency equipment such as generators are located towards the upper decks. Finally I can see the cost being cheaper to install the tanks on an open deck, if the ship were already built, this isn't. I am no engineer so I admit I may be missing something or have the wrong impression regarding ship design. Personally I agree with what was mentioned up thread that this study is likely so that WSF can say that they at least considered the possibility. I wonder if the real reason they are not wanting to make any major design modifications has more to do with not wanting to spend money on a design that they know is not likely to be built.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Sept 5, 2011 1:26:02 GMT -8
I wonder if the real reason they are not wanting to make any major design modifications has more to do with not wanting to spend money on a design that they know is not likely to be built. Perfect way to put it. I was going to say so myself, but the words I came up with were the type that would set off a few brains here. But you wrote it the way I thought it, so thanks
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 5, 2011 7:41:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by zargoman on Nov 1, 2011 12:14:43 GMT -8
Looks like things are moving forward for the new boat www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/6303491030/in/photostreamFrom www.wsdot.wa.gov/News/2011/11/144_110111.htmState invests in expanding ferry fleet, but funding unavailable for more vessels SEATTLE – Construction will begin early next year on a new 144-car ferry. The Ferries Division of the Washington State Department of Transportation today signed a contract change order with Vigor Industrial and its US Fab shipbuilding division to begin construction. “This has been a momentous week for Washington state and our ferry system,” said Gov. Chris Gregoire. “We have just taken delivery of the last of three new 64-car ferries, the Kennewick, and now we begin construction on a new 144-car ferry – an important action that helps ensure we have modern vessels to continue giving our passengers safe and reliable service.” Work on this first vessel will create an estimated 200 family-wage jobs at Vigor and 350 jobs at subcontractors, vendors and other shipyards in the region. The new ferry is scheduled to take about 27 months to complete. Cost of construction is $115 million and the total cost of the vessel is $147 million, which includes owner-furnished equipment, construction management and contingencies. The design of the ferry is based on the 130-car Issaquah class, which has proven to be the most versatile vessel in the state fleet. Benefits of the new 144-car ferry include increased passenger comfort, improved safety systems, better access for customers with disabilities and reduced operating costs. “This construction is a vital part of our vessel-renewal program and will allow us to retire the 55-year-old ferry Evergreen State,” said state Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond. “But this is the last boat we have funding for and we don’t have the money needed just to operate our ferry system at the current level. We are on the brink of a crisis.” WSF has a contract with Vigor for design and construction of up to three 144-car ferries, but it is contingent on available funding. “We’re eager to get started building this new ferry with our two dozen subcontractors and suppliers around the region,” said Kevin Quigley, president of Vigor’s US Fab division. “We look forward to putting local, skilled shipbuilding trades to work producing another new ferry for the citizens of Washington state.” Washington State Ferries operates the largest ferry fleet in the United States. Twenty-two ferries cross Puget Sound and its inland waterways, carrying more than 22 million passengers a year. For photos of today’s signing and more information about this project, visit WSF’s flickr page and 144-car ferries project page. Hyperlinks within the news release: Project page www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/ferries/144carferries/Vessel class page www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/vesselwatch/vessels.aspxFlickr photo page: www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/sets/72157627905126905/
|
|
|
Post by zargoman on Nov 2, 2011 10:05:23 GMT -8
WSDOT re-posted the new boat design and it looks the same as before. It includes windows on the car decks (I know it's just a drawing, but...). It looks like the M.E.S. is going to be at the main passenger cabin level. I really hope that the new one is more like a standard boat, and without the list. There are two car deck levels and two passenger levels. Looks like they will have plenty of outdoor space too. Rendering of new 144-car ferry by WSDOT, on Flickr
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Nov 2, 2011 10:58:34 GMT -8
:)how wonderful this new WSF outboard profile looks in it's evergreen livery! I just wish we had retained our historic colours up here in BC! mrdot.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Nov 2, 2011 12:10:05 GMT -8
WSDOT re-posted the new boat design and it looks the same as before. It includes windows on the car decks (I know it's just a drawing, but...). It looks like the M.E.S. is going to be at the main passenger cabin level. I really hope that the new one is more like a standard boat, and without the list. There are two car deck levels and two passenger levels. Looks like they will have plenty of outdoor space too. The biggest (and possibly only) difference appears to be that there is only one MES on either side of the boat. Here's the old line drawing: Makes me wonder if the original drawing reflected what would be required for SOLAS certification or a higher passenger rating or some such.
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Nov 2, 2011 12:12:36 GMT -8
The new boat is based off of the Issaquah's with a midsection put in for the extra auto capacity. That means it will have the standard center tunnel. I would be surprised if the single stack makes it because they can't do the LNG conversion in the future. With two stacks you can mount the tanks between them.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Nov 2, 2011 12:53:38 GMT -8
As far as I know it is and always has been a dual funnel design, you simply can't tell from side profile drawings published thus far. But there are many unofficial documents, presentations etc that include non-side profile views that show two funnels. It's a shame so little has been published, I'm hoping for documentation similar to the KdT's to be published at some point.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on Nov 2, 2011 17:43:16 GMT -8
As far as I know it is and always has been a dual funnel design, you simply can't tell from side profile drawings published thus far. But there are many unofficial documents, presentations etc that include non-side profile views that show two funnels. It's a shame so little has been published, I'm hoping for documentation similar to the KdT's to be published at some point. There are a few angle views of the new 144-car ferries out there on the web. One has been exhibited on this Forum already. Clearly shows two stacks like what you see on the I-class, ES-class, HIYU, YFB87, Super-class, ISLAND SKY, NORTHERN ADVENTURE, LOMAIVITI PRINCESS (QPR), the goners ALAMEDA, SANTA CLARA, and SMOKWA, et al. ferriesbc.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=nwf&action=display&thread=3983&page=1These concentrated on the proposed use of LNG for the ferries. i139.photobucket.com/albums/q309/ferrynutseattle/ferrynutseattle2/144LNGprofile1.jpgwww.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/105768E1-30AA-4CC4-9FE2-AF7DD36B3258/78907/LNGFuelApplicationSeminars_WSFPresentationAug31.pdfwww.glosten.com/papers/2010/LNG%20Use%20for%20Washington%20Ferries%20%28rev%20-%29.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Nov 2, 2011 22:56:53 GMT -8
I really don't see how those are even remotely based off the Issaquah-class.
When I see that new, updated design and especially that 3D representation, I see a very different ferry class.
For what it's worth, I see a sharply-updated look to the Super-class over anything else. Do the Issaquahs have *that much* open space? God no.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 3, 2011 3:47:15 GMT -8
Actually, the design looks more like the original Issaquah-class design that was floating around in the mid-1970's than the vessels that were actually constructed (which were based off the Evergreen State-class).
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Nov 3, 2011 4:43:03 GMT -8
Actually, the design looks more like the original Issaquah-class design that was floating around in the mid-1970's than the vessels that were actually constructed (which were based off the Evergreen State-class). I may have posted this somewhere before, but here it is again. And larger! Originally 1970's drawing of the Issaquah Class--the one that was rejected when the bid came in too high for the state. Very little doubt as to where the "new" design came from.
|
|