Boatnerd Discussion Forum

Ice Breakers and Ice Breaking seems to be the hot topic of debate.

Any boat that can make its way thru ice as little as 1" thick has the ability to break ice. Your 16' aluminum boat would get ripped so shreds, thus it does not have the ability to break ice......long term.

Heavier ice requires a heavier hull to prevent damage from the ice, thus constructed for ice breaking abilities. This also trickles back to the propeller, and machinery for driving the prop.

More specialized ships for breaking ice have unique shapes to their hulls for breaking the ice, either by plowing thru or dropping down from above, unique selection of steel for the hull, higher horse power available to the propeller(s), bubblers for hull lubrication, even bow propellers.

Specialized ice breakers often have hulls without many parallel sides. Parallel sided ships can get trapped in the heavy ice, which happens to freighters & car ferrys. If you look at the old Mac from above, it is somewhat tear-drop shape, so it can wiggle itself from a jam where it is getting pinched from the sides.

There is no perfect ship for summer and winter use, optimum cargo carrying, fuel efficiencies, speed, and cost to build & operate. There are wins and losses for every design.

Pete

Rob wrote:

BMCS wrote:

Rob wrote:All of these are valid points. But carferries were designed from the outset for year round navigation. Some were actually used as icebreakers as needed. Surely a hundred years ago the economics of cargo capacity, horsepower, and hull shape were taken well into consideration. Isn't the real reason that shipping companies don't pursue ice breaking designs because they have us all subsidizing them with taxpayer funded ships that do the job for them for free?

Carferries were designed to work in the ice, but not be icebreakers. When I served aboard a USCG icebreaker, we broke out a number of carferries stuck in the ice on Lake Michigan.

I beg to differ. The Chief Wawatam and the Sainte Marie were both excellent icebreakers and were employed in that capacity all over the Great Lakes. Ann Arbor No. 5("The Bull of the Woods") could reportedly break through more than 36 inches of ice.

Both the Wawatam and Sainte Marie were equipped with bow propellors, which considerably enhanced their ice breaking capabilities. The other ferries did not, and could easily be beset by ice under certain conditions, even the vaunted No. 5

Several more thoughts on Gov. vs. Private and/or icebreaking hulls on bulk carriers:
1. The U.S. government (and I would guess Canadian as well) has a strong interest in keeping shipping lanes open as a point of national security. Iron ore, coal, limestone, etc. are essential to vital to industries that would support a war effort. The government will always have a certain amount of ships to help support that need. Currently almost all Great Lakes operated tug companies on both sides of the boarder break ice in the winter and spring to supplement ice breaking needs.
2. Another reason a GL bulk carrier cant be an "ice breaker" is the design of the hull requires and ice breaker to have a steep sheer to the hull just below the water line to be able to climb up on the ice and break through. In addition to government ice breakers and buoy tenders, most commercial tugs have the same hull design. A GL bulk could not have the ice breaker steep sheer to the bow because the water line varies greatly between being fully loaded and running in ballast.

The motor vessel Arctic was purpose built to operate in extreme ice conditions in which there would be every likelihood that icebreaking assistance would be unavailable. Given that, yes it is an icebreaking bulker. However, the unique nature of its intended purpose is what makes it so defined in that it is specifically designed for the challenges of the Canadian Arctic. As such, it would be at a disadvantage in terms of carrying capacity in comparison to a ship of similar dimensions and build era while serving in other trade routes due to the considerations given to enable its operation in the Arctic such as hull design, extra plating, etc. In addition, an icebreaker is defined as a vessel capable of maintaining a channel through the ice, I don't know if the Arctic has ever been employed in such a role.

As far as the original Mackinaw, yes you are right it was a single purpose ship that in times of tightening budgets apparently proved unpopular due to its manning requirements and aging equipment. I'm far from an expert when it comes to the US Coast Guard, but I believe the construction of the icebreaking tugs beginning during the late 1970s embodied the multipurpose characteristics of the 180-foot buoy tenders built during the Second World War. This philosophy was definitely carried over with the construction of the new Mackinaw, which also has aids to navigation duties.

The USCG was trying throughout the 1980s and 90s to retire the Mackinaw (WAGB-83) due to her high operating costs and that she wasn't multi-mission capable. Congress and industry fought for her survival.

The polar-class icebreaker Westwind and her sisters weren't ideal for the Great Lakes because their deeper draft meant they had to carry less fuel and hence their mission endurance was shorter than the Mackinaw's.

At one time in the mid-1970s there was talk of the US government purchasing one of the Urho-class icebreakers for use on the lakes. The USCG didn't like the idea citing issues with foreign-built machinery and parts.

But again all three icebreakers have the same issue - no multi-mission capability.

So your argument is more with the calling ships that are good in ice rather than purposely built icebreakers? So would the Arctic classify as an Icebreaking bulker? Didn't the US Coast Guard not really like the Mackinaw 1 because she was only useful as an icebreaker without the ability to do much in the summer months!

It seems that there is some confusion between a vessel designed to operate year-round in ice conditions in comparison to a purpose built icebreaker. For example, a few decades ago the tanker Kiisla, which was ice strengthened for service to ports in the Nordic countries of Europe, came into the lakes to operate throughout the winter. During this period of service there were several instances in which it required icebreaking assistance from the US and Canadian coast guards. There is no conceivable way that the Badger would be employed as an icebreaker as such a duty is far from its original design and current purpose. As for the Straits of Mackinac ferries, I would tend to surmise that their ability to operate in heavy ice conditions as being a result of their design incorporating hull forms based on the requirement for year-round operation rather than actually being built as icebreakers. I would be interested if anyone could find documentation to substantiate that these vessels were built as icebreakers, although they apparently proved adept in this role when needed. If my memory is not faulty, I thought I read somewhere that the whaleback steamers could handle ice quite well due to the shape of their hulls. However, this was, once again, most likely a benefit derived from their unique hull shape rather than any purpose built design characteristic.

Darryl,
The Badger and her sister and fleet mates ran year round as did all the railroad carferries. And they were designed to handle heavy ice conditions, essentially being icebreakers.

Excuse my question if I sound un-informed, but how would the Badger do as an Ice Breaker if they ran her late into the season? When hauling cars for the railroads, did it run into January?

The Great Lakes Railroad Carferries were most indeed icebreakers and were designed as such. The first icebreaker to ever exist being the St. Ignace of 1888 for Mackinac Transportation and then her successors St. Marie (I), St. Marie (II) and Chief Wawatam. The Mackinaw WAGB83 was actually patterned after the configuration of Chief Wawatam (2 screws aft,1 screw forward) as were the 7 Wind class Icebreakers.
Have the Carferries had to call for help from the Coastguard before? Absolutely, but more often than not, they broke each other out before calling for help. The Railroad ferries were breaking ice long before the Coastguard. As time progressed, newer built ferries had more horsepower and did better. The Coast Guard has carried out the icebreaking role since and as such their breakers have evolved more than the ferries.
Arctic Icebreakers probably have different style hulls because salt water ice is different than fresh water ice.
All that being said, the Badger will never break ice again due to she is missing one key ingredient to her capability to break ice. Railroad cars. The weight of the railroad cars is crucial to breaking ice for the carferries. Everything you can fit in the Badger today combined weighs about as much as 3 railroad cars and Badger was designed to haul 32. She can't get heavy enough to break ice anymore.

BMCS wrote:

Rob wrote:All of these are valid points. But carferries were designed from the outset for year round navigation. Some were actually used as icebreakers as needed. Surely a hundred years ago the economics of cargo capacity, horsepower, and hull shape were taken well into consideration. Isn't the real reason that shipping companies don't pursue ice breaking designs because they have us all subsidizing them with taxpayer funded ships that do the job for them for free?

Carferries were designed to work in the ice, but not be icebreakers. When I served aboard a USCG icebreaker, we broke out a number of carferries stuck in the ice on Lake Michigan.

I beg to differ. The Chief Wawatam and the Sainte Marie were both excellent icebreakers and were employed in that capacity all over the Great Lakes. Ann Arbor No. 5("The Bull of the Woods") could reportedly break through more than 36 inches of ice.

There seems to be some confusion, or at least some incorrect use of terms relative to "ice breaking" and "operating in ice" on the Great Lakes. Yes some ships were strengthened to operate in ice for potential year around, or at least extended operations into the winter months, but that doesn't mean they don't need the assistance of icebreakers. Their hulls were built with thicker steel, more ribs etc. so they could stand the extra stress on them when operating in the ice. However, most of these vessels don't have the engine horsepower to operate when the ice gets thicker as the winter progresses. There hulls were found to not be thick enough, and the friction on the hulls just to much for them to operate effectively in moderate to heavy ice. If you look at vessels that operate in the Arctic, or heavy ice, they have very different hull designs, significantly increased H.P. on their engines. They also are designed from day one to operate independent of ice breakers. One major thing not to overlook is that these heavy ice-ships are not operating in a very competitive environment, they were built to supply remote regions and significant cost to the owners and the clients they support, in many cases one ship was built to operate and support a specific port and client for the life of the vessel, not a general purpose bulk carrier as we have here on the Great Lakes.

A article about the winter nav from the seventies would be very interesting,

Algoma Central Marine has let it be known that they would like the St. Lawrence Seaway System to be open one week earlier than the opening of the Soo Locks and one week later than there closing, i.e. March 18 to January 22 so that they can move more cargo during that time of the year.

Companies don't get a free lunch in terms of icebreaking. They pay taxes as do their employees. So for shipping companies to have their Great Lakes vessels equipped with bows like an icebreaker wouldn't make sense. The freighters aren't as maneuverable nor are the crews trained for icebreaking. It adds an extra cost to do business with no increase in revenue as the extra weight of an icebreaking bow would provide no benefit during 8-9 months of the year. Besides, it's only since the Winter of 2013-14 that we've seem to have entered a trend on the Great Lakes of greater ice concentration. The years from 1997 to 2012 saw far less ice cover on the lakes.

I'm actually working on an article on the Winter Demonstration Program of the 1970s as it seems that much of this information from 40 years ago is being lost to time and many of the participants of that era have passed on. My article does touch on the Lake Michigan carferries and their winter operations.

Rob wrote:All of these are valid points. But carferries were designed from the outset for year round navigation. Some were actually used as icebreakers as needed. Surely a hundred years ago the economics of cargo capacity, horsepower, and hull shape were taken well into consideration. Isn't the real reason that shipping companies don't pursue ice breaking designs because they have us all subsidizing them with taxpayer funded ships that do the job for them for free?

Carferries and bulk freighters, different designed vessels for different purposes. Year round freighter navigation has been done in the past and certainly proved inefficient even with more icebreakers taking part. Sure the subsidizing exists, much like municipal plowtrucks in snowy regions that clear roads for the public and for commercial trucks. However with the decline of commerce on the lakes, the push for more icebreaking service isn't really warranted.

Rob wrote:All of these are valid points. But carferries were designed from the outset for year round navigation. Some were actually used as icebreakers as needed. Surely a hundred years ago the economics of cargo capacity, horsepower, and hull shape were taken well into consideration. Isn't the real reason that shipping companies don't pursue ice breaking designs because they have us all subsidizing them with taxpayer funded ships that do the job for them for free?

Carferries were designed to work in the ice, but not be icebreakers. When I served aboard a USCG icebreaker, we broke out a number of carferries stuck in the ice on Lake Michigan.

All of these are valid points. But carferries were designed from the outset for year round navigation. Some were actually used as icebreakers as needed. Surely a hundred years ago the economics of cargo capacity, horsepower, and hull shape were taken well into consideration. Isn't the real reason that shipping companies don't pursue ice breaking designs because they have us all subsidizing them with taxpayer funded ships that do the job for them for free?

Guest wrote:But ship owners are not going to go through the expense of having the their fleets modified with icebreaking bows and higher-horsepower engines, when they would only be of use for a few weeks a year.

Plus icebreaking shaped bows take away a considerable amount of cargo carrying capacity if the length of the ship is constrained by the length of the locks it has to transit through. Here is a photo of the icebreaking bow of Fednav's Arctic, which I believe is about to be retired. It probably losses 40 lineal feet of cargo capacity, compared to a typical high block coefficient laker hull designed to carry as much as possible through each lock passage.

http://chengxi.cssc.net.cn/cms_chengxi_ ... 416009.jpg

Most of the ships built in the 1950s, in particular the Philip R. Clarke, Arthur M. Anderson, Cason J. Calloway, John G. Munson, Saginaw, Detroit Edison, etc had T-1A high-strength steel installed from the bow stem to the shoulder along the ice belt line during the 1970s. This ice-strengthening was done during the Winter Navigation Demonstration Program.

A couple of US ships have ice strengthening and additional horsepower for Winter navigation built in - i.e., Edwin H. Gott, Edgar B. Speer and Roger Blough.

As another poster said, a few Canadian ships, such as the Algobay, Algoport, Louis R. Desmarais, Prairie Harvest, Algowood, etc were constructed with a form of icebreaking bow for late Winter operations.

But ship owners are not going to go through the expense of having the their fleets modified with icebreaking bows and higher-horsepower engines, when they would only be of use for a few weeks a year.

Rob wrote:

BMCS wrote:The thing with Coast Guard icebreakers is they have full time work. When not icebreaking they work Aids to Navigation, are available for search and rescue, work as platforms for large marine events, etc.. Private icebreakers would only have 3-4 months work, not a good schedule for keeping a reliable crew or making a profit.

Of course. So why isn't some sort of icebreaking ability, such as reinforced spoon shaped bows, built into ships in order to avoid getting stuck as much as possible?

Reinforcement is only to reduce damage to the ships hull while working in the ice. In order to "break" the ice, an Ice Breaker hull sheers back sharply at the waterline on the bow so the ice breaker can ride up on the ice and smash it with their weight. It also takes a lot of horsepower to push the ice breaker up onto the ice to smash it down. The "pointiness" or sharpness of a bow would not make a great amount of difference to break the ice fields. Also, the length of the hull and the required horsepower would eliminate a Great Lakes bulk carrier from being considered as an ice breaker.