Return to Great Lakes & Seaway Shipping Great Lakes & Seaway Shipping Online
Discussion Boards
Please click to visit our sponsor
It is currently September 26, 2021, 4:49 pm

FAQ | Instructions | Help
Search for:



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Frontenac’s self-unloading gear
Unread postPosted: July 26, 2021, 11:03 am 

Joined: March 13, 2010, 10:51 am
Posts: 1392
Quote:
The Algoway/Algorail/Agawa Canyon, plus some CSL conversions I believe, had a similar multiple tunnel belt and transfer belt arrangement, but they used a different elevator system, not a loop belt.

The Algoma boats initially had "traditional" bucket elevator systems, but these were replaced with corded steel belts beginning with the Algoway in 1982.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Frontenac’s self-unloading gear
Unread postPosted: July 26, 2021, 11:03 am 

Joined: March 13, 2010, 10:51 am
Posts: 1392
Quote:
The Algoway/Algorail/Agawa Canyon, plus some CSL conversions I believe, had a similar multiple tunnel belt and transfer belt arrangement, but they used a different elevator system, not a loop belt.

The Algoma boats initially had "traditional" bucket elevator systems, but these were replaced with corded steel belts beginning with the Algoway in 1982.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Frontenac’s self-unloading gear
Unread postPosted: July 26, 2021, 8:12 am 

Joined: December 14, 2017, 8:37 pm
Posts: 720
As a side note I was always curious how they handled in a sea. That huge monstrosity rising above the spar deck to that height had to have effected their stability especially rolling in a beam sea.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Frontenac’s self-unloading gear
Unread postPosted: July 25, 2021, 10:18 am 

Joined: December 7, 2014, 10:33 am
Posts: 325
As mentioned, the Frontenac and other similar conversions use the tunnel belts as the loop belts. In most ships using two or three tunnel belts, they discharge into transfer conveyors, which are oriented port-starboard, and discharge the cargo onto a centreline loop belt. That is, the loop belt is a separate, independent belt from others.

The advantage of the above is several: Space is saved in loop belt area. Belts are not as complex or difficult to change. More cubic capacity is retained in the cargo holds.

In the common arrangement mentioned above, the transfer belts will be the first to wear out. Those are not difficult to change and they are the lowest cost due to shortest length. The loop belts will be next to replace. Again, cost is lower due to being only the loop belt, not loop + tunnel belt combined. The tunnel belts can last quite some time, often 15+ years with proper care. They move at the slowest speed and have less wear in way of stretching or conforming like the loop belts experience.

The Algoway/Algorail/Agawa Canyon, plus some CSL conversions I believe, had a similar multiple tunnel belt and transfer belt arrangement, but they used a different elevator system, not a loop belt. I am not familiar with this, but others here likely have knowledge.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Frontenac’s self-unloading gear
Unread postPosted: July 24, 2021, 6:34 pm 
The Frontenac, along with the retired Algomarine and Algosteel (not sure about the long scrapped Halifax) have/had two conveyor belts under their cargo-holds that are actually the loop belt. That system is called a Tunnel-Loop Belt System.

More cubic is saved in a Tunnel-Loop Belt system conversion than if an owner decides to go with a single-belt under the cargo-hold, due to the slope of the cargo-hold. On the other hand, the former is more costly due to the complexity of the system and increased maintenance. Still, both systems are cheaper than a buck-elevator

In regards to the Kaye E. Barker and the other American 1950s-built straight-deckers that were converted in the period from 1975 to 1983, their owners decided to use a cheaper system, both in terms of conversion cost and maintenance, with a single-belt under the cargo-hold that discharged to a hopper then to the loop belt.

As a side note, the Quetico had a three retainer-belt system that was difficult to repair due to its thickness, and extremely expensive to replace. That's why she and the ocean self-unloader, Phosphore Conveyor (built 1969) were never duplicated.


Attachments:
Frontenac_Tunnel-Belt_System.jpg
Frontenac_Tunnel-Belt_System.jpg [ 167.22 KiB | Viewed 990 times ]
Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Frontenac’s self-unloading gear
Unread postPosted: July 24, 2021, 12:52 pm 

Joined: July 2, 2010, 1:36 pm
Posts: 752
Shipwatcher News wrote:
Frontenac, as well as the former Algomarine and Algosteel, had a two belt unloading system installed when they were converted into self unloaders. The two belts each run up through a loop belt in the large housing on deck, and dump into the two chutes seen at the forward portion of the housing (the v-shaped chutes that drop to the base of the boom).


..so one can think of Frontenac's unloading tower as sort of like two of Kaye E. Barker's unloading towers placed side-by-side.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Frontenac’s self-unloading gear
Unread postPosted: July 24, 2021, 9:28 am 
Frontenac, as well as the former Algomarine and Algosteel, had a two belt unloading system installed when they were converted into self unloaders. The two belts each run up through a loop belt in the large housing on deck, and dump into the two chutes seen at the forward portion of the housing (the v-shaped chutes that drop to the base of the boom).


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Frontenac’s self-unloading gear
Unread postPosted: July 23, 2021, 11:33 pm 
Hey folks,

I’ve always wondered why Frontenac’s (and Algosteel / Algomarine) have such a monstrous superstructure where the cargo is fed onto the boom. Other ships (say, Kaye E. Barker) have a structure maybe 1/3 or 1/4 or the size.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Return to Great Lakes & Seaway Shipping  
Copyright Boatnerd.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Use of this site is based on the Terms of Use
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group