Frontenac’s self-unloading gear

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: Frontenac’s self-unloading gear

Unread post by William Lafferty »

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.
William Lafferty
Posts: 1491
Joined: March 13, 2010, 10:51 am

Re: Frontenac’s self-unloading gear

Unread post by William Lafferty »

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.
Jon Paul
Posts: 888
Joined: December 14, 2017, 8:37 pm

Re: Frontenac’s self-unloading gear

Unread post by Jon Paul »

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.
GuestfromEU
Posts: 359
Joined: December 7, 2014, 10:33 am

Re: Frontenac’s self-unloading gear

Unread post by GuestfromEU »

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.
Guest

Re: Frontenac’s self-unloading gear

Unread post by Guest »

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
hausen
Posts: 803
Joined: July 2, 2010, 1:36 pm

Re: Frontenac’s self-unloading gear

Unread post by hausen »

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.
Shipwatcher News

Re: Frontenac’s self-unloading gear

Unread post by Shipwatcher News »

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).
jlew715

Frontenac’s self-unloading gear

Unread post by jlew715 »

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.
Post Reply