Blough Self-unloading
-
Darryl
Re: Blough Self-unloading
In reading about the Bough, have to wonder about the strength of the hull of the PI. That being a footer that fits under the chutes. It has a double belt so it uses space for ore. It must be a pretty solid design. The barge, not so much the tug. Not to detract from the Blough, just wondering if the PI will be around indefinitely with coal declining and other footers available for ore.
-
Guest
Re: Blough Self-unloading
The Blough's shallower hull depth was designed so she would fit under the chutes at the gravity docks in Two Harbors and Duluth. At the time, the only ore docks with conveyor loaders were Taconite Harbor and Silver Bay.
When she was designed in 1966-68, the two ore docks at Escanaba were still the wooden gravity-type. The conveyor loader wasn't put into operation until the 1969 navigation season.
Both the Blough and Stewart J. Cort were designed by Marine Designers and Consultants in Cleveland.
The Blough was designed for the gravity docks, meaning her hull depth wouldn't be sufficient for a 1,000 foot length. Her designer has been noted that she could be lengthened to 1,0000 feet, but it would be alot more work than building a mid-section and adding it between the bow and stern sections.
It had been planned for the Roger Blough to enter service in the Summer of 1971, and during that Spring the US Army Corps of Engineers commenced a "bend widening" program for several of the turns in the St. Marys river that were thought to cause issues for thousand-foot vessels. The bend widening program was completed in 1973.
The Johnson Point turn was a concern for the designers
When she was designed in 1966-68, the two ore docks at Escanaba were still the wooden gravity-type. The conveyor loader wasn't put into operation until the 1969 navigation season.
Both the Blough and Stewart J. Cort were designed by Marine Designers and Consultants in Cleveland.
The Blough was designed for the gravity docks, meaning her hull depth wouldn't be sufficient for a 1,000 foot length. Her designer has been noted that she could be lengthened to 1,0000 feet, but it would be alot more work than building a mid-section and adding it between the bow and stern sections.
It had been planned for the Roger Blough to enter service in the Summer of 1971, and during that Spring the US Army Corps of Engineers commenced a "bend widening" program for several of the turns in the St. Marys river that were thought to cause issues for thousand-foot vessels. The bend widening program was completed in 1973.
The Johnson Point turn was a concern for the designers
-
Guest
Re: Blough Self-unloading
Guest wrote:She was designed with the intention to be lengthened to 1,000' at some point in her life span. Naval Architects that drew up her plans originally designed her at a length of 1,000', but plan was shortened to 858'.Guest wrote:Isn't there something about the depth of the Blough that prevents its lengthening to 1,000 feet?
Wasn't one of the reasons the Blough was designed with a relatively shallow draft for its size was the limitations of the existing dry dock at Lorain during its construction? I don't know how this would have limited the depth of the ship just something I remember reading about.
-
Guest
Re: Blough Self-unloading
Was that when USS thought no 1000 footer could make the turn at Johnson’s Point?Guest wrote:She was designed with the intention to be lengthened to 1,000' at some point in her life span. Naval Architects that drew up her plans originally designed her at a length of 1,000', but plan was shortened to 858'.Guest wrote:Isn't there something about the depth of the Blough that prevents its lengthening to 1,000 feet?
-
Guest
Re: Blough Self-unloading
She was designed with the intention to be lengthened to 1,000' at some point in her life span. Naval Architects that drew up her plans originally designed her at a length of 1,000', but plan was shortened to 858'.Guest wrote:Isn't there something about the depth of the Blough that prevents its lengthening to 1,000 feet?
-
Guest
Re: Blough Self-unloading
The classification societies allow a length to depth ratio of 21 for vessels operating on the Great Lakes. The Blough is already approaching that figure as her length of 833 feet (bp) versus her depth (41 feet) is 20.3. So, to lengthen her with another 120 feet (to 978 feet) would give us a length to depth ratio of 23... which is way outside the ratio that would be allowed. So her hull girder would need to be strengthened as if her hull was 45 feet deep.Guest wrote:Isn't there something about the depth of the Blough that prevents its lengthening to 1,000 feet?
-
Andrew
Re: Blough Self-unloading
Any word on the street regarding the Callaway? I would think that some of those contracts will need to be met and she will get the repairs, but that could take months too.
-
Guest
Re: Blough Self-unloading
Isn't there something about the depth of the Blough that prevents its lengthening to 1,000 feet?
-
Guest
Re: Blough Self-unloading
The rumor that repairs could take a year or more is just that - a rumor. No decision has been made yet.
-
Guest
Re: Blough Self-unloading
Her designer in one paper I have said she could be lengthened to 1,000 feet. But if she wasn't lengthened in the 1970s when the demand for iron ore was stronger, then why would they do so in a declining integrated steel industry.
And rumors of the Blough being rebuilt into a conventional self-unloader go back to the early 1980s when I first heard them.
She is a strong vessel, and was built with heavier steel channels in her deck and bottom than was required by the classification societies at the time. Now whether she was built with T-1A steel in her bow and hip areas I don't know - but I would think so.
Several of US Steel's vessels during the winter navigation program of the 1970s had ice-strengthing done and the 1,000 footers of the fleet have T-1A steel in their bow plates/frames along the ice belt.
I sincerely hope that the Roger Blough will be repaired. But by what I've read it could take a year to do repairs. Besides the water damage, nearly all the electrical wiring, etc would have to be replaced.
What worries me is the fact US Steel has started to get into the mini-mill industry, with their purchase of Big River Steel in Arkansas and the recent startup of the new EAF in Fairfield, Alabama. Does this mean that in the long term US Steel will turn their back on the integrated steel mills in Mon Valley and Gary? I don't know.
An even greater worry is the fact that 13.5 million tons of EAF raw steel capacity will be coming online in the next couple of years in the US. That could impact steel prices and cause a shakeout in the steel industry - which would reduce even more the number of blast furnaces still in operation. https://www.amm.com/Article/3947481/US- ... unami.html
And rumors of the Blough being rebuilt into a conventional self-unloader go back to the early 1980s when I first heard them.
She is a strong vessel, and was built with heavier steel channels in her deck and bottom than was required by the classification societies at the time. Now whether she was built with T-1A steel in her bow and hip areas I don't know - but I would think so.
Several of US Steel's vessels during the winter navigation program of the 1970s had ice-strengthing done and the 1,000 footers of the fleet have T-1A steel in their bow plates/frames along the ice belt.
I sincerely hope that the Roger Blough will be repaired. But by what I've read it could take a year to do repairs. Besides the water damage, nearly all the electrical wiring, etc would have to be replaced.
What worries me is the fact US Steel has started to get into the mini-mill industry, with their purchase of Big River Steel in Arkansas and the recent startup of the new EAF in Fairfield, Alabama. Does this mean that in the long term US Steel will turn their back on the integrated steel mills in Mon Valley and Gary? I don't know.
An even greater worry is the fact that 13.5 million tons of EAF raw steel capacity will be coming online in the next couple of years in the US. That could impact steel prices and cause a shakeout in the steel industry - which would reduce even more the number of blast furnaces still in operation. https://www.amm.com/Article/3947481/US- ... unami.html
-
Guest
Re: Blough Self-unloading
Amen they barely want her now. The joke when I worked on the Blough was when we got our set of orders from the office everyone would ask "where are we laying up". Her and the Speer are good boats but they lay up first for a reason.Chris M wrote:Not a chance
-
Bigboat
Re: Blough Self-unloading
I know her original design was 1000'. Anybody think they may lengthen her?
-
Brian Ferguson
Re: Blough Self-unloading
She's not much different from the other ships of her time. There's no extra ribs or frames in the bow, I'm not sure if her plate is heavier but if it is you couldn't tell. Even with an ice strengthened ship that extra material is not focused on the bottom of the hull it's would be more at the bow, wouldn't do much good if you rubbed a rocky bottom. The Robert S. McNamara was rebuilt with a new bow to operated all year and as stated that was limited to a bow.Guest wrote:I have always heard that the Blough was built like a tank to operate year-round. Even with that said, I was somewhat surprised that the grounding in the St. Marys River a few years back with $4.5 million in damage didn't end its career. If this staunch ship took that amount of damage in that accident, I tend to believe that many of the other ships built during that period would have suffered considerably more damage and may have been written off. Hopefully, the recent fire did not do much structural damage to the vessel and it can be repaired.
-
Guest
Re: Blough Self-unloading
I have always heard that the Blough was built like a tank to operate year-round. Even with that said, I was somewhat surprised that the grounding in the St. Marys River a few years back with $4.5 million in damage didn't end its career. If this staunch ship took that amount of damage in that accident, I tend to believe that many of the other ships built during that period would have suffered considerably more damage and may have been written off. Hopefully, the recent fire did not do much structural damage to the vessel and it can be repaired.
-
Brian Ferguson
Re: Blough Self-unloading
As she is configured the hold belts incline and come back about as far aft as possible and would need major re configuring, hold belts and a new elevator system (loop belt) to run a deck boom. The stern accommodations were essentially designed around the boom and incline belts. In order to utilize the hold belts as they are you'd have to run two more inclined belts forward ahead of the aft cabins from where the existing boom in now, or have a hopper at the existing boom condense to one incline belt running forward, it'd turn into a Rube Goldberg machine when it's all said and done. Plus you'd have to circumvent all the structures on the boat deck. Her current hold belt lay out is actually a pretty elegant design compared to a loop belt or bucket elevator, or the Cort's Ferris wheel of death, it just doesn't lend itself well to anything other than what it was designed for. I have a lot of pictures of the unloading gear from my time on her as a wiper/tunnel rat.
-
Guest
Re: Blough Self-unloading
Studies have been completed in the past to redo the Blough’s unloading system to a deck mounted boom. Cost prohibitive.
Re: Blough Self-unloading
If memory serves, the unloading conveyors that bring cargo aft from under the Blough's holds and up to the shuttle boom are a rather unique arrangement. That means that adding a more conventional loop belt / slewing boom system to the Blough would involve a significant reconfiguration of the ship's aft end.
On one hand, that seems like an amount of work that might not be worth carrying out in light of the current trend of declining demand for bulk cargo hauling on the U.S. side of the Great Lakes. That trend is mostly driven by the imminent end of the low-sulfur western coal trade from Superior to St. Clair and Monroe, Mi, which is likely to come within the next 10-20 years. As less coal is loaded out of Superior, thousand footers like the Bay Ship-built members of the American Steamship Co. fleet have been carrying more and more cargoes of iron ore pellets from Duluth-Superior and Two Harbors to Gary and Conneaut, in direct competition with the fleet the Blough belongs to. At the moment some of those ships are likely able to haul pellets at a lower cost than the Blough.
On the other hand, depending on the extent and nature of fire damage the Blough has just experienced, if a significant reconstruction of her aft end is necessary to return her to service, this could be a good opportunity to undertake projects to increase her efficiency as a carrier, like re-powering her and/or adding a more conventional self-unloading boom. This likely depends on the mindset/business priorities of the ship's owners. Do they see themselves allowing the size of their fleet to shrink as competition increases for iron ore pellet cargoes, or do they want to invest in their ships to make them more competitive in the long run and try to out-last their competitors? One advantage the Blough might have is whether she was built with a long life span in mind (it seems likely that she was), and whether or not she has been maintained more fastidiously than some of the thousand-footers that are a part of the ASC fleet (it seems likely that she has). If the Blough has a lot more life left in her vs. some of the ships in competing fleets, which might be closer to the end of their operational lifespans, perhaps this would be an excellent opportunity to 'go big' and give the Blough the kind of refit aimed at keeping her in service for several more decades.
On one hand, that seems like an amount of work that might not be worth carrying out in light of the current trend of declining demand for bulk cargo hauling on the U.S. side of the Great Lakes. That trend is mostly driven by the imminent end of the low-sulfur western coal trade from Superior to St. Clair and Monroe, Mi, which is likely to come within the next 10-20 years. As less coal is loaded out of Superior, thousand footers like the Bay Ship-built members of the American Steamship Co. fleet have been carrying more and more cargoes of iron ore pellets from Duluth-Superior and Two Harbors to Gary and Conneaut, in direct competition with the fleet the Blough belongs to. At the moment some of those ships are likely able to haul pellets at a lower cost than the Blough.
On the other hand, depending on the extent and nature of fire damage the Blough has just experienced, if a significant reconstruction of her aft end is necessary to return her to service, this could be a good opportunity to undertake projects to increase her efficiency as a carrier, like re-powering her and/or adding a more conventional self-unloading boom. This likely depends on the mindset/business priorities of the ship's owners. Do they see themselves allowing the size of their fleet to shrink as competition increases for iron ore pellet cargoes, or do they want to invest in their ships to make them more competitive in the long run and try to out-last their competitors? One advantage the Blough might have is whether she was built with a long life span in mind (it seems likely that she was), and whether or not she has been maintained more fastidiously than some of the thousand-footers that are a part of the ASC fleet (it seems likely that she has). If the Blough has a lot more life left in her vs. some of the ships in competing fleets, which might be closer to the end of their operational lifespans, perhaps this would be an excellent opportunity to 'go big' and give the Blough the kind of refit aimed at keeping her in service for several more decades.