I of course meant a stern mounted self-unloading boom like became standard on both sides of the lakes during the 1970's (I mistakenly said the exact opposite in that posting below from a few hours earlier).
Not having to relocate fuel tanks on the Beeghly in order to accommodate a stern mounted self-unloading installation like the industry preferred for their new builds and conversions at the time very well may of been one of several factors that led to her being selected to be converted instead of the John Sherwin three decades ago.
John Sherwin
-
Guest
Re: John Sherwin
I'm the person that referenced the two different sterns and how it would necessitate a forward mounted boom. As others have now said, that's correct information. Reconfiguration of the stern was never part of the plan and her present configuration indeed makes a stern mounted boom not an option.
And no matter how easy it may or may not of been to relocate her tanks, it's an extra cost either way. So if they desired a forward mounted boom 30+ years ago like everyone did and were just looking to convert one of the pair, it's certainly a possible factor that led them to select the Beeghly instead of the Sherwin. And that was the point I was making. It's very unlikely that a well ran company like Interlake just flipped a coin 30 years ago. I'm sure that there were multitude of reasons behind why they selected the Beeghly instead of the Sherwin.
And the Charles M. Beeghly was converted to a self-unloader during the winter of 80/81 layup. The Sykes was converted over half a decade earlier. If the Ryerson was scheduled for conversion immediately after the Sykes and Inland's decision to cancel that conversion opened up shipyard time for Interlake to instead convert the Beeghly, why did it not happen until many years later?
And no matter how easy it may or may not of been to relocate her tanks, it's an extra cost either way. So if they desired a forward mounted boom 30+ years ago like everyone did and were just looking to convert one of the pair, it's certainly a possible factor that led them to select the Beeghly instead of the Sherwin. And that was the point I was making. It's very unlikely that a well ran company like Interlake just flipped a coin 30 years ago. I'm sure that there were multitude of reasons behind why they selected the Beeghly instead of the Sherwin.
And the Charles M. Beeghly was converted to a self-unloader during the winter of 80/81 layup. The Sykes was converted over half a decade earlier. If the Ryerson was scheduled for conversion immediately after the Sykes and Inland's decision to cancel that conversion opened up shipyard time for Interlake to instead convert the Beeghly, why did it not happen until many years later?
-
Guest
Re: John Sherwin
If they were to put an aft mounted boom on the sherwin they would have to move her fuel tanks... they are in the old coal bunker.
-
Guest
Re: John Sherwin
The Oberstar was built as an oil-burner and the Sherwin was coal fueled. When the Sherwin was converted to use oil, the tanks were placed in her coal bunker. It is my understanding that the location of these tanks makes the installation of a stern-mounted self-unloading system very difficult.
-
Guest
Re: John Sherwin
The Sherwin could very well have a stern-mounted self-unloader system. The American Fortitude at one time was a coal-burner like the Sherwin, and when she was converted in 1980 her fuel tanks were located on either side of the conveyor-trunk. The same could be done with the Sherwin.
The reason why Interlake wants to locate the boom forward is so that the Sherwin could better serve the blast furnace (which hasn't been rebuilt at the present) at Severstal Dearborn which is located far in the slip.
The reason why Interlake wants to locate the boom forward is so that the Sherwin could better serve the blast furnace (which hasn't been rebuilt at the present) at Severstal Dearborn which is located far in the slip.
-
Guest
Re: John Sherwin
the Sherwin did have the fuel tanks back aft which was why the boom would be upfront.
-
Gerard Lawson
Re: John Sherwin
There is no reason that the Sherwin could not have a stern mounted boom. The position of the boom was for the specific contract that she was going to haul for. The Beagly got her boom after the owners of the Ryerson decided not to convert her. She was scheduled to get her boom right after the Sykes. If I remember correctly, both the Sykes and the Ryerson were to get booms for $7,000,000 each. I bet the owner of the Ryerson wish that they had done the job then.
-
Chief
Re: John Sherwin
Are you sure that you aren't confusing the Sherwin and the Ryerson? I know it has been discussed on here about self unloader conversions, and the Ryerson would have had to have a forward mounted boom due to the location of her fuel tanks. If the Sherwin was to be converted why couldn't the boom be mounted aft. Fuel tanks couldn't be an issue since a repower was part of the package and relocating the fuel tanks could be done rather easily at that time.
-
Guest
Re: John Sherwin
There are a lot of possible reasons for why the Charles M. Beeghly got the call first.
An obvious one is that due to differences, she was able to accommodate a stern amounted self-unloading mechanism unlike the Sherwin that will have her boom and elevator forward if she is ever returned to service due to her slightly different stern. Presumably by its dominance in modern conversions, such a design is superior over the traditional forward location and preferred.
And budgets were pretty tight back then. Something as simple as being slightly more of a fuel hog than the Charles M. Beeghly could've made the difference or contributed to the Beeghly getting the nod. Even ships that are essentially 100% identical have their own characteristics and rarely perform identically to a trained eye. Lots of variables that I'm sure they considered.
As for the three additions to the fleet that they acquired when they bought the Ford fleet (They also got the Henry Ford II and although she never sailed for Interlake, she was viewed as an asset initially and they held on to her for a number of years before giving up hope of having a need for her), they also get contracts for cargos as part of the deal. They weren't merely just acquiring vessels.
It was a package deal so there was little reason to convert the Sherwin when the deal provided vessels already suitable for the job. And I don't know what the Sherwin conversion would've cost back in 1989 or what Interlake paid for the Ford fleet, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Ford acquisition was very competitive price wise compared to just converting the Sherwin.
An obvious one is that due to differences, she was able to accommodate a stern amounted self-unloading mechanism unlike the Sherwin that will have her boom and elevator forward if she is ever returned to service due to her slightly different stern. Presumably by its dominance in modern conversions, such a design is superior over the traditional forward location and preferred.
And budgets were pretty tight back then. Something as simple as being slightly more of a fuel hog than the Charles M. Beeghly could've made the difference or contributed to the Beeghly getting the nod. Even ships that are essentially 100% identical have their own characteristics and rarely perform identically to a trained eye. Lots of variables that I'm sure they considered.
As for the three additions to the fleet that they acquired when they bought the Ford fleet (They also got the Henry Ford II and although she never sailed for Interlake, she was viewed as an asset initially and they held on to her for a number of years before giving up hope of having a need for her), they also get contracts for cargos as part of the deal. They weren't merely just acquiring vessels.
It was a package deal so there was little reason to convert the Sherwin when the deal provided vessels already suitable for the job. And I don't know what the Sherwin conversion would've cost back in 1989 or what Interlake paid for the Ford fleet, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Ford acquisition was very competitive price wise compared to just converting the Sherwin.
Re: John Sherwin
Kaye E. Barker and LAT were both self unloaders when purchased from Rouge, why would they go to the expense of reactivating and converting a dormant vessel when they could have two immediately vessels actively earning revenue and acquired at very reasonable cost?
-
Chief
John Sherwin
In answering questions about the Sherwin I came up with one, actually a couple. Why was the Sherwin laid up and the Beeghly was converted to a self unloader. What were the differences in the two other then the Beeghly is a year newer? From what I can see the Sherwin and Beeghly are pretty much identical as far as dimensions and such. There must have been a reason one was chosen over then the other or maybe it was just a flip of a coin. Seems strange too that they laid up the Sherwin in 1981 and bought the LAT and the Kaye Barker in 1989. If Interlake needed more capacity it would seem to me that they would have activated and converted the Sherwin and only bought one ship instead of two. Maybe it was a deal with Rouge Steel that they had to buy the pair of they wouldn't sell since they were getting out of the shipping business.