Boatnerd Discussion Forum

The daily operating economics, though significant, are only one reason to convert to a barge vs re-power.
Try to place a value on:
the business interruption caused by a broken part on a pre-WWII engine room
no excess fleet capacity to fill in (the only other powder boats are the direct competition)
the inability to source bunker C fuel for a reasonable cost
the money that would have had to go into the hull under the engine room during the 5-year inspection
This added to:
conversion project < 50% of re-power project
crew reduction to 11 from 24 or 25
same cargo carrying capacity

Sounds like the decision wasn't that tough.

About 15 years ago I attended a talk by an official of USS Great Lakes Fleet who said filling the typical laker berth (i.e., filling one job for one season) was about $100,000 for pay and benefits. I'm sure that number may have changed somewhat over the past 15-or-so years and may vary by employer, union representation, etc., but I expect it still remains a large sum.

Is the carrying capacity unchanged? The removal of the engine, cabins, associated structure and equipment should have lessened the hull's displacement. Is this offset by the addition of hull sections to flair the notch into the stern? Or is the carrying capacity determined by the cubic dimensions of the cargo holds rather than tonnage of cement?

I suspect that the cost of converting to a barge was far less than repowering, mostly in part because Port City already had a tug that was not in use. Now, we have a barge with less crew, a formerly idle tug which is now active and making money, and at the same time using less fuel than the steam plant was. Add to this the Challenger only does shorter runs on Lake Michigan, with a rare run to the lower lakes. All these factors made much more business sense to convert to a barge

Just cutting a few officers saves them over a half a million dollars a year. Add a few unlicensed cut and multiply by how many years they estimate to continue operating it. It's surprising it wasn't cut up earlier.

I have been wondering about this myself. How if the only real savings is in the lack of crew members does it justify spending the money to alter the ship to a barge?. It makes little sense to me why this is done.

wlbblw wrote:The crew will be less, cargo the same, speed less, heavy weather just slightly less, fuel less.

Do I understand correctly that fuel costs with the current tug should be less than what they were with the Challenger's 1950s vintage steam power plant, but that she would have been more fuel efficient with a new engine in her intact stern than with a tug in a notch?

The crew will be less, cargo the same, speed less, heavy weather just slightly less, fuel less.

Can anyone quantify for me the economics of the new barge vs. old self-powered Challenger? Namely...

Crew requirements new vs. old.

Cement cargo capacity new vs. old.

Relative cruising speed new vs. old.

Heavy weather tolerance new. vs. old.

Fuel costs new vs. old.

Thanks. If I've missed this information documented elsewhere could someone point me to the info