American Valor (Valo)

[Brian Ferguson]

The Photo Gallery page on the Mississagi indicates she retained her steam-driven auxiliaries when she was repowered in the 1980s. Is that still the case? Steam-driven steering gear, ballast pumps, etc. would add up to sizeable capital investments for renewal with modern components, likely not justifiable on a ship of her age.

I know all 3 of the ships USS sold to LLT had Aux Boilers at least for the deck equipment. The Mississagi has a hydraulic steering gear (I think they got it back in the 1990's). I remember when I worked in the engine room on the Blough some of the guys had worked on the Sloan when she got the Caterpillar and I guess Cat was using the Sloan as kind of a test mule to flog the engine, so the early miles on her main engine weren't easy ones.

[GuestfromEU]

The Mississagi has been working the lower lakes for the last 20 years, meaning she has carried a lot of salt. Not only that, but she was never repowered under LLT. So, with her aging turbine and hull deterioration, combined with her size, she's probably at the end of the line. Sad, but the fact of the matter is, she is tired and needs a rest.

Ships like Cuyahoga, Saginaw, and Michipicoten, which have been repowered, probably have a good 20 years or better left, since hull work is worth it with that new engine in there.

The Mississagi has a 3612 Caterpillar Diesel. It's over 30 years old but she was repowered. Age isn't as big as a factor with diesel engines, they are generally infinitely rebuildable so long as the block is in good shape and parts are available. She has essentially engine as the Joyce L. VanEnkenvort. the same 40 years out of a diesel isn't uncommon. Most short line rail roads (and I lot of major railroads) are running GP/SD 38 and 40 locomotives with engines that are 50 years old.

The Photo Gallery page on the Mississagi indicates she retained her steam-driven auxiliaries when she was repowered in the 1980s. Is that still the case? Steam-driven steering gear, ballast pumps, etc. would add up to sizeable capital investments for renewal with modern components, likely not justifiable on a ship of her age.

[Brian Ferguson]

The Mississagi has been working the lower lakes for the last 20 years, meaning she has carried a lot of salt. Not only that, but she was never repowered under LLT. So, with her aging turbine and hull deterioration, combined with her size, she's probably at the end of the line. Sad, but the fact of the matter is, she is tired and needs a rest.

Ships like Cuyahoga, Saginaw, and Michipicoten, which have been repowered, probably have a good 20 years or better left, since hull work is worth it with that new engine in there.

The Mississagi has a 3612 Caterpillar Diesel. It's over 30 years old but she was repowered. Age isn't as big as a factor with diesel engines, they are generally infinitely rebuildable so long as the block is in good shape and parts are available. She has essentially engine as the Joyce L. VanEnkenvort. the same 40 years out of a diesel isn't uncommon. Most short line rail roads (and I lot of major railroads) are running GP/SD 38 and 40 locomotives with engines that are 50 years old.

[Andrew]

The Mississagi has been working the lower lakes for the last 20 years, meaning she has carried a lot of salt. Not only that, but she was never repowered under LLT. So, with her aging turbine and hull deterioration, combined with her size, she's probably at the end of the line. Sad, but the fact of the matter is, she is tired and needs a rest.

Ships like Cuyahoga, Saginaw, and Michipicoten, which have been repowered, probably have a good 20 years or better left, since hull work is worth it with that new engine in there.

[Guest]

The Mississagi has a hull survey due in Spring 2020. She'll be 77 years-old at that time. So age could be one factor. I would assume rust would be a significant issue, considering the trades those vessels are put in.

[Guest]

What issues would cause the Mississagi to be retired ?

[Andrew]

Shell need a new engine but I think otherwise she is in great shape. Rumor is the Mississagi is retiring soon, so the assumption is that the Valor will take over the dedicated Superior run of the Michipicoten and the Mich will take over the Mississagi routes. Or maybe the Saginaw will do more lower lakes stuff and they'll keep the Mich running around up north.

[MarcE]

Im very happy to hear the old Armco is coming back.

[Guest]

Exciting news article today that Rand is looking at options to re-power the Valo and return it to service in 2021. They describe it as both an 'addition' to the fleet and part of fleet 'renewal'. I interpret 'addition' to mean no existing vessels are being retired. "Renewal" sounds more like a replacement of an existing vessel. Which will it be ? In any case, it's a very interesting development for a ship that's been idle since 2008 and widely thought to be awaiting scrap. Getting this ship repowered and ready to sail will be a big task.

[Shipwatcher1]

Has there been any signs of activity on the boat since this announcement?

[GuestfromEU]

Question for those in the know: What is the breakdown in costs per hour of the operation of the vessel (fuel, maintenance, etc.) to crew cost?

It's a very fluid question. Fuel consumption varies widely between vessels, both the size and age being the greatest factor. A ship burning 14,000 US Gallons per day at $2.25/gallon, will cost $31,500 per 24 hours, or $1,312/hour. That's for full sea speed, something Great Lakes ships operate at for only 30-60% of the time on an annual basis. The remaining time is spent at lower speeds while in rivers or maneuvering or berthed at a load/discharge dock. Fuel prices change regularly, of course, further clouding the average calculations. Conservatively, figure $1,000/hour in fuel costs.

Maintenance and lube oil costs vary too widely to calculate. Assume $25,000/month in spare parts/maintenance, and $8,000/month for oils (lube oil, grease, hydraulic oil, etc.) The maintenance costs are based only on routine maintenance, not unplanned repairs. That works out to $1,100/day (30 day month), or $45.83/hour. My experience with maintenance/repairs is skewed, as I work primarily with ocean-going ships, which do require more preventative and corrective maintenance than Lakers. Some days will have no maintenance costs, others will be higher. An electronic component on a new ship could fail and easily cost $15,000 alone. There are also ongoing costs to consider, such as annual inspections of navigation equipment, lifesaving appliances, attendance of Class for surveys, etc.

Those costs noted above will be similar for an ATB or ship, with ATB's on the higher-than-average end of fuel consumption, possibly lower on maintenance and regulatory costs.

Crew costs are unknown and I cannot offer a reasonable comment. Perhaps others on this board may be able to better comment on current crew wages. For a ship operating with Indian officers and Filipino crew, $4,000-5,000/day is a rough estimate. Obviously, the US and Canadian flagged ships are higher.

[Ohio Bob]

Question for those in the know: What is the breakdown in costs per hour of the operation of the vessel (fuel, maintenance, etc.) to crew cost?

[GuestfromEU]

http://www.tugmasters.org/wp-content/up ... design.pdf[/url]

That article sure has made the rounds. I recall reading that piece at least ten years ago, likely longer.

It's a good read. He has many valid points. He also glosses over the detriments of ATB operations.

As for the lower crew compliment on an ATB with just a few personnel adding up to meaningful costs, yes, that is a concern. Another factor is the ability to hire mariners with limited level licenses for work on ATBs, whereas a ship requires unlimited level licenses. Lower level licenses command less pay, in general.

[Geest]

GuestfromEU is right on, the gigantic ATB craze is over. If profit margins on oil wont supprt their operations profitably, there is zero chance ore and stone will, which are keystones to any midsize vessel on the lakes these days. Being able to backhaul is imperative for these boats otherwise they will simply not pull their weight.

[Guest]

In the US Coastwise trade, it is very common for the tug and barge to separate in port, with the tug moving away to pick up supplies, undergo repairs, load bunkers, etc. The barge crew handles all cargo operations. This is not so common on the Great Lakes, though not unheard of. Ultimately, a ship on the Great Lakes is loading/discharging in port for 12 hours or less. That is a far quicker turnaround than coastal ports. Even though time underway at sea may be less on the Great Lakes, it very likely adds up to the same number of hours per year when compared to an ocean-going ATB. In that case, fuel consumption is absolutely a consideration.

We used to do the above occasionally with the Undaunted when I was on her. Your points are valid. The smallest crew on a full sized ship I worked on was ~22 on the Roger Blough in 2003. The biggest was 29 on the Earl W. Oglebay in 2004. People say a crew difference of 6-8 isn't much but you have to think of what 6-8 represent. That's pushing half a million in annual pay, not counting benefits (worker and family medical) and employer paid taxes. I was reading this a while back and brought up some good points. http://www.tugmasters.org/wp-content/up ... design.pdf

[GuestfromEU]

The Invincible shouldn't have any issues pushing a 700' barge. It has roughly the same power as the Herbert C. Jackson, but rumor has it she's going to the Menominee. If you look at an AIS most vessels are moving at ~12knts. ATB's do just fine on open water, Crowley just put in a new order for an ATB for their Alaskan routes. The efficiency in a tug barge isn't from fuel costs but in crew size and cost.

Ask Crowley how efficient their 750 Class ATB's are. Massive fuel burn compared to the tankers, slower, and less weather capable. Case in point being that no new ATB's of that size were built by them again. That entire project was one large money pit overall, though a very experienced operator of ATB's was still shortsighted in their expectations.

Modern automation can reduce the need for 20+ crew, as is typical of older ships. From navigation electronics to machinery automation, it is very possible to safely operate a ship like a modernised Laker with 12-15 crew. The US Coast Guard has also taken a better viewpoint with regards to automation aboard ships and how modern, purpose-built ATB's are essentially ships, for all intents and purposes. Yes, ATB's will usually have a few less crew aboard, but it's not half the crew as used in common comparisons.

ATB's were never known to be fuel efficient - ships always had that advantage. Of course, fuel efficiency has been a high concern for many years. Most ATB conversions in the US have been a combination of refitting an old steamship and having a tug available. That is the lowest cost attainable for a shipowner considering options with an older vessel. Removing the machinery/engine room and adding steel to form a notch is less expensive than removing old steam propulsion machinery and installing new engines/auxiliaries. If the shipowner needs to build a tug to push this new barge around, then the cost differential is narrowed. A steady supply of donor tugboats on the coasts should provide many options to avoid building new, but refit costs are still there. New rules in Subchapter M compliance further reduce the ultimate ship vs ATB cost differential.

In the US Coastwise trade, it is very common for the tug and barge to separate in port, with the tug moving away to pick up supplies, undergo repairs, load bunkers, etc. The barge crew handles all cargo operations. This is not so common on the Great Lakes, though not unheard of. Ultimately, a ship on the Great Lakes is loading/discharging in port for 12 hours or less. That is a far quicker turnaround than coastal ports. Even though time underway at sea may be less on the Great Lakes, it very likely adds up to the same number of hours per year when compared to an ocean-going ATB. In that case, fuel consumption is absolutely a consideration.

[Guest]

Crew size is one component but there are others. Naval Architects have sighted a decrease in hull efficiency when converted to a tug/barge that effects speed and fuel used on longer hauls. Not only does that mean more fuel burned by fewer trips per season.

The efficiency in a tug barge isn't from fuel costs but in crew size and cost.

[Brian Ferguson]

My gut is they'll repower it- tug barges are not as efficient or safe on large expanses of open water unless you have a very large tug unit, like the Joyce or Clyde. Invincible is not strong enough to push 740 feet at 14 knots. To barge it, they'd need a new tug. For smaller groups which do more river stuff, ATBs are maneuverable and efficient, but on big lakes, the laker is still the most efficient.

The Invincible shouldn't have any issues pushing a 700' barge. It has roughly the same power as the Herbert C. Jackson, but rumor has it she's going to the Menominee. If you look at an AIS most vessels are moving at ~12knts. ATB's do just fine on open water, Crowley just put in a new order for an ATB for their Alaskan routes. The efficiency in a tug barge isn't from fuel costs but in crew size and cost.

[Chris M]

Manistee or Mississagi

[Lakerguy]

Assuming all reports are correct. When she comes out sporting gray paint, what are our guesses as to what LLT will name her?