Boatnerd Discussion Forum

by **Charlie** » March 15, 2015, 12:28 am

As my father [A chief for 42 years] its cheaper to go up a floor for water, sewer, power, heat, a/c, and so on.
It cost big $ to run everything 1,000 feet up the deck.

Putting unloading equipment forward or aft is all based on what your customer needs.

It the same in any business you need to keep the "customer" happy and if the boom in the bow keep the customer happy then you put it in the bow. If you don't then someone else will and you loss the contract and maybe the boat sits and that crew stays home.

You need too understand margins in business. The company's just don't have the money in the contracts to play with and if keeping business means changes then you change.
this is the same thing in all your food stores they are only making pennies on a can of corn, peas, and so on. you need to sell a lot to cover cost and that is why stories have changed so much in the last 15 to 20 years they are not making that 5 cents a can its know 1.1 cents a can.
So the boats are changing again.
first was cuts in crew
second was no painting
third was ?
know its change in design to keep a float.

the changes have happen on both side and more changes will be in the future.

that's my 2 cents

charlie in the Queen City 3L2s

by **TWilush** » March 14, 2015, 9:38 pm

PDBLK25 wrote:I still think all that steel up front would collect too much ice to make a Laker of that design feasable (I was on a 730' all-aft Laker & heavy ice/freezing spray made her unstable, even though the only structure on the Bow was the Watchman's shanty).
2nd is the visibility issue. It appears so little forward visibility is allowed, that Stones might as well not have a pilothouse. Visibiliy is far more important for Lakers. In the rivers, they mostly navigate by landmark. If you consult the AMO rivers handbooks, you'll see what I mean. Often these landmarks are at, or slightly above horizon level. How will you see these vital landmarks without a forward pilothouse, or a highly-positioned aft one?

All that steel? What difference does it make to the ice if it's a self unloading system or forward pilothouse at the bow? The debate over forward vs aft accommodations has been over for decades, accept it.

by **CF259** » March 14, 2015, 8:29 pm

This thread is getting a little silly. A clear line of sight is not necessary for navigation. Saltwater vessels with a large number of deck cranes regularly travel the lakes, rivers and locks. The view forward on these ships is generally poor to impossible (see photo below, credit Capt. Gindroz). Having made many runs on these ships with obstructed vision forward, I can say these cranes do not pose any issues with lakes pilotage. Worst case scenario, you take five steps to your left or right and you can see ahead just fine. A forward mounted boom would be no different. One doesn't need to see "vital landmarks".

Makes no difference whatsoever if the pilothouse is aft. Frozen spray is a non-issue. There is nothing wrong with the new Algoma design.

by **Jon Paul** » March 14, 2015, 7:35 pm

How does the tug Defiance and barge Ashtabula do it? The bridge on the Defiance is not all that elevated and actually does not have a clear field of vision for line of sight navigating in ports and rivers. The self unloading gear hopper is also directly on the bow fully exposed to lake spray and icing.

by **PDBLK25** » March 14, 2015, 3:35 pm

I still think all that steel up front would collect too much ice to make a Laker of that design feasable (I was on a 730' all-aft Laker & heavy ice/freezing spray made her unstable, even though the only structure on the Bow was the Watchman's shanty).
2nd is the visibility issue. It appears so little forward visibility is allowed, that Stones might as well not have a pilothouse. Visibiliy is far more important for Lakers. In the rivers, they mostly navigate by landmark. If you consult the AMO rivers handbooks, you'll see what I mean. Often these landmarks are at, or slightly above horizon level. How will you see these vital landmarks without a forward pilothouse, or a highly-positioned aft one?

by **Guest** » March 13, 2015, 10:12 am

This idea is not new and has been operating in Europe for years. This ship is one of a fleet that operate in conditions similar to the Great Lakes climate.
http://cdn2.shipspotting.com/photos/mid ... 199738.jpg

by **PDBLK25** » March 12, 2015, 6:16 pm

algowest wrote:Assume LLT is not raising aft pilothouse on their current conversion at Chengxi? Believe Algoma design will have bow-mounted Equinox design S-U boom and aft superstructure, only shorter length, perhaps one cargo hold removed or shortened.

Too Bad, I thought both companies would value protection of expensive S-U equipment & visibility enough (after all most tug-barges [exception: Jane Ann IV/Sarah Spencer] have raised pilothouses for (some) better visibility. Even tugs that regularly push Barges have this raised pilothouse feature). With "power" in the stern having to be up forward (for the S-U) & no loss of freight space, as the S-U machinery is already there; I thought forward-cabins made financial sense.
They say the shipping industry is slow to adopt change. It took them years to adopt the proven, cheaper all-aft design. Could this be the same case in reverse (all-aft having become the norm)?

by **algowest** » March 12, 2015, 11:34 am

Assume LLT is not raising aft pilothouse on their current conversion at Chengxi? Believe Algoma design will have bow-mounted Equinox design S-U boom and aft superstructure, only shorter length, perhaps one cargo hold removed or shortened.

by **PDBLK25** » March 12, 2015, 10:28 am

Duluth Guest wrote:So what are the chances, seeing as these are forward mounted SU units, that these vessels will be a pilothouse forward design?

I think these could be Forward-Pilothouse ships. The problem has always been the higher expense.
In '75, just after Columbia got the Wolverine, I asked them - did they ever think there'd be another "traditional" Laker built. The answer: "No" -- All aft was cheaper. Several threads in Info. Search repeated this. "Shipwatcher1" summed it up best saying:"consider it from an engineering view. With bow mounted pilothouses, heat and power produced in the stern has to be sent clear up forward."
Here is a case where economics may favor a bow-mounted pilothouse. All S-U machinery (1 exception - the Ashtabula) is protected by a forward house, or is located far enough aft that Deck space protects it. What LLT bought was a Barge made for warm-water sailing - no protection from ice-accumulation needed.
The Algoma New-Builds will need ice protection for extensive bow-mounted machinery. Since these ships have forward S-Us, electricity & perhaps water (if not stored forward) will have to be brought forward. If the pilothouse is at the stern, it will have to be built very high (for adequate visibility), producing additional expense. Since "power" is already brought forward & with a 78' beam making small-port maneuvering a real challenge, it will be cheaper, and allow better visibility, by building a forward house.

by **boatbuddy** » March 11, 2015, 12:15 pm

MikeCDN wrote:A naïve ( stupid ) question,

Why haven't either Canadian companies gone with thousand footers? The reason I ask is there has to be some routes that warrant them and the ships could at least be built at a North American shipyard.

Thanks,

M

When Algoma Steel closed the blast furnace in Port Colborne the land was bought by Upper Lakes with the plan to build a dry dock to assemble 1000 footers from parts fabricated at Port Weller. It was thought that a few 1000 footers could serve the Nanticoke generating station and Stelco's Nanticoke plant. It was found that 730's could handle the traffic so the plan was shelved and the land sold to become the scrap yard where boatnerds explore each September.

by **Guest** » March 11, 2015, 7:33 am

MikeCDN wrote:A naïve ( stupid ) question,

Why haven't either Canadian companies gone with thousand footers? The reason I ask is there has to be some routes that warrant them and the ships could at least be built at a North American shipyard.

Thanks,

M

There aren't very limited origin/destination pairs available for a Canadian 1000 footer to be economically viable. Now that the Nanticoke generating station doesn't burn coal, that leaves the US Steel mill at Nanticoke as the only unloading port available.

by **J Kerwin** » March 10, 2015, 8:03 pm

I believe somewhere in the Algoma Central 100th anniversary book, it mentions they chartered a 1000 footer and even explored purchasing the St. Clair but decided against it. I think it mentions that ultimately they did not like the fact that she would not be able to transit many of the smaller rivers that Algoma served and would be land locked, unable to transit the Seaway.

by **Guest** » March 10, 2015, 7:01 pm

Who finally scrapped the Norris, algma or upper shipping. 5

by **Middle rouge** » March 10, 2015, 6:47 pm

MikeCDN wrote:A naïve ( stupid ) question,

Why haven't either Canadian companies gone with thousand footers? The reason I ask is there has to be some routes that warrant them and the ships could at least be built at a North American shipyard.

Thanks,

M

Canadian companies don't have any footers because the big money makers for them are the trade routes that go down the Welland Canao and the seaway. Most of that cargo is then transshipped overseas. A footer can't fit in the locks.

by **MikeCDN** » March 10, 2015, 6:04 pm

A naïve ( stupid ) question,

Why haven't either Canadian companies gone with thousand footers? The reason I ask is there has to be some routes that warrant them and the ships could at least be built at a North American shipyard.

Thanks,

M

by **Shipwatcher1** » March 10, 2015, 4:01 pm

Rob, ULS had intended to repower the Norris, even purchasing an engine. However, the crash in 2008 ended it and I believe the engine was donated for educational use

by **Guest** » March 10, 2015, 9:14 am

Anyone have any insight on what their beam may be?

To my untrained eye, the number I saw points towards something less than 75'-78' since it's more in line with with their existing river class vessels than something like the later Algoport (which while in the 650' class, had a beam of 75' with a corresponding increase in her capacity).

Not sure what the requirements other than length and the bow mounted self-unloading boom are, for the ports that they're planned to serve.

by **rob** » March 10, 2015, 8:50 am

All equipment eventually becomes out dated. Companies wisley invest in their futures. While the james Norris hull may be pristine, she an out dated carrier. A major investment would be required to bring any where close to today standa6rds.

by **Duluth Guest** » March 10, 2015, 8:23 am

So what are the chances, seeing as these are forward mounted SU units, that these vessels will be a pilothouse forward design? ;-)

by **THM** » March 10, 2015, 7:44 am

One thing people may be missing is that the ships may have been depreciated out (financially) and are no longer an asset (again financially)

Boatnerd Discussion Forum

More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard

Re: More Algoma Newbuilds 3 Maj Shipyard