|
Post by Kahloke on Apr 16, 2017 10:11:34 GMT -8
The thing is- You CAN'T hold an open house in any of the other terminals on the Whidbey or San Juan Islands routes. Port Townsend, Anacortes and Clinton are the only places you could hold an open house north of Kingston. The last new boats where there could be a question as to where the open house would be were the Wenatchee and Tacoma. Were they in Seattle or Winslow? (Perhaps the answer will end up being BOTH?) Mv Tacoma's Open Ship event was actually in Tacoma, along one of the Port of Tacoma waterways - can't remember which one, now. That was in September of 1997. I know, because I was there. I don't recall where Wenatchee's open ship was held at, or Puyallup, for that matter. I did not attend either of those events. They also did something extra with MV Tacoma. Just prior to it entering service, they held an inaugural cruise between Seattle and Winslow - just foot passengers only. I also attended that.
|
|
|
Post by Sammy Sam Samish on Apr 16, 2017 17:15:44 GMT -8
The thing is- You CAN'T hold an open house in any of the other terminals on the Whidbey or San Juan Islands routes. Port Townsend, Anacortes and Clinton are the only places you could hold an open house north of Kingston. The last new boats where there could be a question as to where the open house would be were the Wenatchee and Tacoma. Were they in Seattle or Winslow? (Perhaps the answer will end up being BOTH?) What about the Friday Harbor tie-up slip for the Samish? That would have made more sense instead of Anacortes because you would actually be in the islands. Besides an open ship, I think WSF should have an open ship sailing where you can check out the ship while it's underway. That would be cool.
|
|
|
Post by theoanderson23 on Apr 23, 2017 20:48:21 GMT -8
I think WSF should have an open ship sailing where you can check out the ship while it's underway. That would be cool. An open ship sailing would be awesome! I’ve always thought that WSF should have “Maiden Voyage” events where they sell tickets or something to sail on the boat's first commercial voyage across the sound. Save
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on May 1, 2017 14:34:10 GMT -8
If any of you follow the website of EGFleet, one of our forum members www.evergreenfleet.com/ ,you'll see a small blurb on the May Day Room page that eludes to the possibility of a 5th Olympic Class vessel being funded to directly replace Elwha, and that it is likely the 5th Olympic will be SOLAS compliant. If this does come to fruition, then it is good news, indeed. It has been noted on this thread, and in other places, that the Supers are not aging well. Hyak will be retired when Suquamish comes online, and if this 5th new vessel gets funded and built, then Elwha won't be too far behind it.
|
|
|
Post by Olympic Ferries on May 1, 2017 15:13:50 GMT -8
If any of you follow the website of EGFleet, one of our forum members www.evergreenfleet.com/ ,you'll see a small blurb on the May Day Room page that eludes to the possibility of a 5th Olympic Class vessel being funded to directly replace Elwha, and that it is likely the 5th Olympic will be SOLAS compliant. If this does come to fruition, then it is good news, indeed. It has been noted on this thread, and in other places, that the Supers are not aging well. Hyak will be retired when Suquamish comes online, and if this 5th new vessel gets funded and built, then Elwha won't be too far behind it. I guess if this does come to pass (I hope it doesn't because I'm really fond of the Elwha), then it'll make the Sidney route a lot more efficient with a newer boat with wider lanes.
|
|
|
Post by Sammy Sam Samish on May 1, 2017 16:32:40 GMT -8
If any of you follow the website of EGFleet, one of our forum members www.evergreenfleet.com/ ,you'll see a small blurb on the May Day Room page that eludes to the possibility of a 5th Olympic Class vessel being funded to directly replace Elwha, and that it is likely the 5th Olympic will be SOLAS compliant. If this does come to fruition, then it is good news, indeed. It has been noted on this thread, and in other places, that the Supers are not aging well. Hyak will be retired when Suquamish comes online, and if this 5th new vessel gets funded and built, then Elwha won't be too far behind it. I heard the Suquamish retires the Tillikum. Although, judging by WSF's love to always be short of vessels, you're probably right.
|
|
|
Post by R30A on May 1, 2017 16:45:34 GMT -8
Straight from the bill itself:
Also: I suspect, although I don't know either way, that this is funding for the continuing construction of the Suquamish
|
|
|
Post by R30A on May 1, 2017 16:55:01 GMT -8
Looking through the budget documents on the WSDOT website, they seem to be presenting a lot of conflicting data. In some places it shows the Suquamish replacing the Hyak and NOT the Tillikum, In others it lists the Elwha as being the first Super retired with funding for the Hyak running well into the next decade.
|
|
|
Post by Sammy Sam Samish on May 1, 2017 17:54:44 GMT -8
Looking through the budget documents on the WSDOT website, they seem to be presenting a lot of conflicting data. In some places it shows the Suquamish replacing the Hyak and NOT the Tillikum, In others it lists the Elwha as being the first Super retired with funding for the Hyak running well into the next decade. My interpretation of the bill is that they were going to be doing "predesign studies" for a new class of vessels with an undetermined size to replace the Supers, and possibly fund a fifth Olympic. Now, I'm not sure how old this is, but judging how it said the Hyak would extend into another decade makes me think this was probably written around the time when the whole Hyak Hybrid thing was going on, so it has probably changed by now. That being said, I'd still like to see a new class to retire the supers. The Olympics need to be bigger, especially if ferry ridership continues to grow like it has in the past three years.
|
|
|
Post by rwbsparks on May 1, 2017 21:24:17 GMT -8
Maybe the State has decided that having an extra 90 car boat lying around in case Sealth kicks the bucket during the summer season may be a prudent decision. I guess with an Olympic being built to replace Elwha and Hyak that would kill the possibility of enlarging the design to say the original super capacity of 160 vehicles. Then again, the goal is to keep Bremerton unhappy right? Also if the design is stretched a small sun deck cabin like on the JMII might be feasible. It's been a long time since I've been on an Olympic Sun Deck (September 2015) so I'm not sure how much the design would have to be stretched.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on May 2, 2017 9:33:05 GMT -8
Maybe the State has decided that having an extra 90 car boat lying around in case Sealth kicks the bucket during the summer season may be a prudent decision. I guess with an Olympic being built to replace Elwha and Hyak that would kill the possibility of enlarging the design to say the original super capacity of 160 vehicles. Then again, the goal is to keep Bremerton unhappy right? Also if the design is stretched a small sun deck cabin like on the JMII might be feasible. It's been a long time since I've been on an Olympic Sun Deck (September 2015) so I'm not sure how much the design would have to be stretched. Here is the language in the bill awaiting the governor's signature, ESB 5096, page 146: The department shall submit a cost estimate to procure a fifth 144-car vessel to the governor and the transportation committees of the legislature by June 30, 2017. The estimate must include, but is not limited to, construction costs, estimated operating costs, and any potential savings from replacing a currently operating vessel with a fifth 144-car vessel.Technically the Chimacum replaces the Tillikum. Three Evergreens, three replacements-- Tokitae for the Evergreen, Samish for the Klahowya, Chimacum for the Tillikum and Suquamish for the Hyak, which, yes, is going to be decommissioned next year. That appeared in one news story recently and is correct; it's been on the books to retire the Hyak in 2018 for a while. Incidentally, the documents on the wSDOT site are old. It doesn't get updated as much as it used to. The Hyak Hybrid project was officially declared dead several years ago and it's still up there, along with the sale notices for the Rhody and the Skagit and Kalama. At least two Supers aren't going to see 60 years of service--the Hyak is one, as that has been established and confirmed in the press. It's not to hard to do the math on what the second one will be. The Elwha's last main overhaul was almost 30 years ago. The Kaleetan and Yakima about twenty years ago. (The Hyak never got one.) The Elwha has issues to it which are unique and don't affect the other two boats which are hastening it to the boneyard, SOLAS upgraded or not. As for building larger ferries, it isn't going to happen. WSDOT has determined the a 144 is the near perfect fit for any route, save Bainbridge-Seattle and Kingston-Edmonds. Those are likely the only routes that will see larger boats built for them, and that's a few years down the road still for when it comes time to retire the Spokane and Walla Walla.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 2, 2017 10:38:39 GMT -8
The Elwha has issues to it which are unique and don't affect the other two boats which are hastening it to the boneyard, SOLAS upgraded or not. I think this quote is required-reading for "fans" of the Elwha. Of all the places to put the elevator shaft....
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on May 3, 2017 11:22:24 GMT -8
As for building larger ferries, it isn't going to happen. WSDOT has determined the a 144 is the near perfect fit for any route, save Bainbridge-Seattle and Kingston-Edmonds. Those are likely the only routes that will see larger boats built for them, and that's a few years down the road still for when it comes time to retire the Spokane and Walla Walla.If WSDOT is claiming that the Olympic Class vessels (144AEQ) is a near-perfect fit for any route in the system, I have to disagree with that. Granted, I'm not an expert in the field, but even I can see there is a degree of variability in capacity needs throughout the WSF system. Sure, it's nowhere near the complexity and variability that BC Ferries has to accommodate, but a "one size fits all" approach isn't going to work for WSF any more than it would work for BCF. My opinion - take it for whatever it's worth (probably not much) - is that the Olympic Class is a near-perfect fit for the San Juan Islands/Sidney route, a reasonably good fit for Mukilteo-Clinton (vehicle capacity is good - passenger capacity a bit overkill), and sort of a good fit for Bremerton, although I think a slightly larger vessel with more passenger capacity would be a better fit for Bremerton. Outside of those three routes, I do not see the 144's going anywhere else. They would be far too big for the F-V-S triangle and Point Defiance, too small for Edmonds-Kingston and Seattle-Bainbridge, and of course Port Townsend-Coupeville is a total "no-go" in that the vessels have too deep a draft for Keystone Harbor. There are some economies of scale for WSF to continue with the current Olympic Class design to replace the rest of the Supers, so I can see them sticking with the current plans for Olympics 5, 6, & 7. After that, it will be time to replace the Jumbos. And, like EGFleet said, I'm sure we can expect something larger there, likely on par with the Jumbo Mark II's in terms of capacity. Then, sometime in the 2030's, they'll be looking to replace the Issaquahs. It will be interesting to see where things sit (demand, infrastructure, funding, etc.) when it comes time to do that.
|
|
|
Post by R30A on May 3, 2017 11:46:21 GMT -8
I don't have these answers, and don't know if anybody else does, but I think these are worthwhile questions to ask. Does an Issaquah class vessel burn significantly less fuel than an Olympic? Would an Issaquah class vessel built today require fewer crewmembers than an Olympic? If the answer to these is both no, I could easily see Olympic class boats running on any Issaquah assignment.
|
|
|
Post by Sammy Sam Samish on May 3, 2017 12:29:25 GMT -8
I don't have these answers, and don't know if anybody else does, but I think these are worthwhile questions to ask. Does an Issaquah class vessel burn significantly less fuel than an Olympic? Would an Issaquah class vessel built today require fewer crewmembers than an Olympic? If the answer to these is both no, I could easily see Olympic class boats running on any Issaquah assignment. Crew members, Olympic have two more unless the sun deck is closed. I believe it's 12 and 14. For fuel consumption, I have heard that the Olympics burn a lot of fuel, and I have also heard that they burn very little. I'd guess they burn a little more than an Issaquah, but definitely not as much as a Super.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 4, 2017 7:54:43 GMT -8
I don't have these answers, and don't know if anybody else does, but I think these are worthwhile questions to ask. Does an Issaquah class vessel burn significantly less fuel than an Olympic? Would an Issaquah class vessel built today require fewer crewmembers than an Olympic? If the answer to these is both no, I could easily see Olympic class boats running on any Issaquah assignment. Fuel consumption isn't the only cost to consider. Does the extra (potential) capacity justify the additional cost? I freely admit I don't have a clue how much the operational costs of an Olympic and an Issaquah compare. There's non-tangibles to consider too, like loading/unloading time, wake, vessel speed... the very simple question easily develops into a very complicated answer, alas.
|
|
|
Post by rusty on May 5, 2017 8:51:04 GMT -8
One of the downsides of WSF mandate of 2-stroke propulsion engine installation in new construction is higher fuel consumption. That, and that the Olympic Class are bigger boats, my guess is they burn about 20 to 30% more fuel than an Issaquah Class boat on the same run.
|
|
|
Post by rwbsparks on Aug 7, 2017 19:53:17 GMT -8
When will we find out if Olympic #5 will be built? Also with the construction schedule so spread out if 5,6, and 7 are built and say the Coast guard mandates changes to new builds that would make the Olympic design no longer up to standard, would these late build olympics be exempt from these changes?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Aug 10, 2017 14:12:38 GMT -8
When will we find out if Olympic #5 will be built? Also with the construction schedule so spread out if 5,6, and 7 are built and say the Coast guard mandates changes to new builds that would make the Olympic design no longer up to standard, would these late build olympics be exempt from these changes? 1) When the Legislature releases its findings. 2) No. To draw the argument out to extremes, would the USCG grandfather any safety issues the Titanic had if you wanted to build a fourth sister to that? It's a big point for why the next flight of Olympics-- should they happen at all--should happen sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Aug 16, 2017 7:11:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Dec 26, 2017 19:53:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Dec 27, 2017 11:45:51 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Dec 27, 2017 13:12:41 GMT -8
From the article in the link above:
"WSF planner Ray Deardorf ticked off some of the accomplishments from previous such plans, including a vehicle-reservation system, “improved web experience for trip planning,” getting the Mukilteo and Colman Dock construction projects going, and building new vessels – more Olympic-class vessels than first planned, in fact. (The next one will be christened at Vigor on Harbor Island on January 4th, by the way, the task force was told before adjournment.)"
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Dec 27, 2017 14:51:30 GMT -8
From the article in the link above: "WSF planner Ray Deardorf ticked off some of the accomplishments from previous such plans, including a vehicle-reservation system, “improved web experience for trip planning,” getting the Mukilteo and Colman Dock construction projects going, and building new vessels – more Olympic-class vessels than first planned, in fact. ( The next one will be christened at Vigor on Harbor Island on January 4th, by the way, the task force was told before adjournment.)" Ideally, Olympics 5, 6, & 7 will be constructed every two years until all of the Supers are retired: late 2018 or early 2019: Suquamish (replaces Hyak) 2021: Olympic #5 (replaces Elwha) 2023: Olympic #6 (replaces Kaleetan) 2025: Olympic #7 (replaces Yakima) Hopefully, these will all be funded, and as Barnacle stated in a previous post, the sooner the better.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Dec 28, 2017 10:03:39 GMT -8
They're going to need another Olympic (ideally in 2019 or 2020) to replace the Tillikum. Ideally they're going to have to build a total of eight Olympics to fully replace the Evergreens, Supers, and the Hiyu. Hopefully, at least two of them will have larger passenger cabins with capacity for 2000 passengers in order to have enough passenger capacity for the Bremerton ferry route.
|
|