Fate of the Ryerson

[Guest]

As far as Ryerson's cargo hold configuration is concerned I believe the only real obstacle is the added expense involved for a conventional hopper style self-unloading conversion. I don't believe I have ever heard of its being structurally impossible but I have seen it presented that their was at one time to lengthen the vessel if it was to receive a self-unloading reconstruction. Why could the ship not be fitted with a reclaimer type unloader as that installed in the CSL Assiniboine and I believe in some of the ULS self-unloaders built during the late 1960s and early 1970s? From a quick, uniformed, glance such a system would appear to present a possible solution to the Ryerson's cargo hold configuration especially if its primary cargo remained taconite.

https://www.ems-tech.net/projects/self- ... siniboine/

[Guest]

I would think Ryerson has a lot better chance of seeing service than the Sherwin, simply her smaller size may serve her better out the seaway.

[Guest]

Anything can be converted just a matter of how much, she's Jones act compliant so thats a plus as new build US ship must be built in country so that would be very expensive, Im sure they could do new tanks like the Dool Lietch and others have had done.

[Guest]

What trade routes could the Ryerson and Sherwin serve? Detroit Edison within the next 20-25 yrs. plans to phase out most if not all of their coal fired power plants. So there goes a lot of lost cargoes hauled by Interlake, plus other companies. The former Inland Steel Mill(ArcelorMittal) hasn't received a cargo on a gearless bulker in yrs. Her bridge unloaders have been inactive for yrs. So where does the Ryerson haul to. Hamilton?The Seaway? Looks like to me Algoma has those runs taken care of, plus Algoma has several more efficient self-unloaders coming out. I know the Ryerson had hauled into Lorain, but that market has dried up. I know this site has been posted before, but just the basic work that would have to be done on the Sherwin would run into the millions. I for one would like to see them run again, but I don't see it.

http://www.nailhed.com/2014/09/drummond ... y-own.html

[Guest]

Im sure the Ryerson would be looked at as an asset and only if the company was loosing lots of money and needed cash would then scrap it. Also guessing that down the line its probably thought of as a replacement for the Sykes.

Ryerson can't be converted to a self-unloader because of her cargo hold configuration, so there goes the idea of replacing the Sykes.

[Guest]

Im sure the Ryerson would be looked at as an asset and only if the company was loosing lots of money and needed cash would then scrap it. Also guessing that down the line its probably thought of as a replacement for the Sykes.

[Guest]

I agree Roger! It seems to me that the retention of the John Sherwin and Ryerson over the years makes some sort of sense to their owners. These vessels are probably viewed as long term strategic assets that, despite requiring a significant investment to return to service, are far less costly than building completely new vessels. As such, the costs of docking these vessels in a state of idleness may be insignificant in their owner's operational plans. The bottom line is that if CML saw no future potential in the Ryerson it would have likely been sold some time ago.

According to the appendix in the book The Inland Steel Fleet 1911-1998, the Ryerson is in its fourth long term layup period since 1985. Of these, the current one became the longest in May of this year with 8 years of inactivity thus passing its 7 1/2 years of idleness stretching from December of 1998 to July 2006. Over the years I have also heard all of the rumors of this ship's impending doom. Despite what the future holds for the Ryerson there can be no dispute that it is truly a survivor in an era in which nearly every one of its contemporaries that did not receive self-unloading conversions began disappearing from the lakes 30 years ago.

[BigRiver]

I wouldn't count her out just yet. Prior to her last fitout, there were plenty of folks saying "She will never run again, she doesn't have an unloader, she's a steamer, blah blah blah." They were wrong then, and they could be wrong now, although I do acknowledge times have changed since she last ran. But until a towing stripe is painted on the bow, anything could happen. I will not count her out until I have to.

[A J]

Hi Jared. The concern of going to scrap has always followed the Ryerson when it's laid up long term. The fate of it lays at the discretion of the owners despite any postings or rumors. There is cost involved retaining a freighter in lay up so they must have some kind of contingency for keeping it, so it's anyone's guess in the meantime.

[Jared]

From what I gathered from other posts it sounds like the Ryerson is done for good. My question is, is when scrap steel prices rise, will she be one of the first in line to be scrapped.

Is there any motions to save her superstructure or try and turn her into a museum ship (Not that there are many of those around already)?

It sounds to me that there is no real plans to convert her as there are many other boats looking for work and have modern unloading systems.