Telescoping hatch covers

Discussion board focusing on Great Lakes Shipping Question & Answer. From beginner to expert all posts are welcome.
William Lafferty
Posts: 1491
Joined: March 13, 2010, 10:51 am

Re: Telescoping hatch covers

Unread post by William Lafferty »

What changes were made to the John G. Munson to allow the fitting of one-piece hatch covers?
It received a new deck, hatches, and coamings when lengthened, as I recall, and a low-profile hatch crane.
Guest

Re: Telescoping hatch covers

Unread post by Guest »

Guest wrote:It was because they were self unloaders and cable swung booms at that. Deck room was at a premium already, so room for the hatch crane and boom clearance were issues.

What changes were made to the John G. Munson to allow the fitting of one-piece hatch covers?
Guest

Re: Telescoping hatch covers

Unread post by Guest »

It was because they were self unloaders and cable swung booms at that. Deck room was at a premium already, so room for the hatch crane and boom clearance were issues.
William Lafferty
Posts: 1491
Joined: March 13, 2010, 10:51 am

Re: Telescoping hatch covers

Unread post by William Lafferty »

Here's what hayhugh2 (first paragraph) and I (second) wrote about this subject in 2010 on this board:

Telescopic hatches with 12 foot centers were utilized on the self-unloaders so as to fill up each hatch for more tonnage. one piece hatches needed space between hatches for stowage. Not an issue on ore boats, but boats in the stone and coal trade used all available space and would still not put her down to her marks.

The commonality here is that newbuild self-unloaders after 1938 had telescoping hatches, probably since the unloading booms and hatch cranes as then utilized were thought to be incompatible for clearance reasons. The first new self-unloader I can think of with a hatch crane was the Cape Breton Miner. Early conversions of vessels with single-piece hatch covers, beginning with the E. B. Barber, John T. Hutchinson, and Hochelaga the year the Cape Breton Miner was built, 1964, retain the hatch cranes and, probably, original hatch covers. I do find it odd that a vessel like the Adam E. Cornelius did not have one-piece covers and a crane. I wonder if the switch from flat to tubular trusswork for the unloading boom resulted in more clearance for the crane.
Guest

Re: Telescoping hatch covers

Unread post by Guest »

It seems strange that the John G. Munson, Detroit Edison, John J. Boland, and Adam E. Cornelius were all built by Manitowoc Shipbuilding with telescoping hatch covers while that yard's last ship, the Edward L. Ryerson, had one-piece hatch covers. The only difference I can see between these ships is that the former vessels were built primarily for the stone and coal trades and the Ryerson for the movement of ore. Perhaps the telescoping hatch covers were fitted to allow coal to be loaded over the edges of the hatches? Single piece hatch covers require a different spacing or pattern to allow hatches to be laid alongside the openings or stacked. Was there an advantage to having a large number of closely arranged hatches afforded by telescoping hatch covers in operating in the coal and stone trades at the time of these ship's construction? The John G. Munson did receive one-piece covers at some point in its early career, most likely during its lengthening in 1976. As it seems that the telescoping hatch covers are more labor intensive to operate, there must be a logical explanation.
Guest

Telescoping hatch covers

Unread post by Guest »

Were there any advantages to these over the single piece style that are now used ? I'm wondering why the Saginaw, built in 1953, had telescoping hatch covers these were long out of favour. TIA
Post Reply