Unloader

[Guest]

Did the unloader have anything to do with why the Meisner/Leitch had such a massive funnel? Or was that just someone's odd idea of aesthetically pleasing?

I always thought it was for aesthetic reasons but there is a definite possibility that the designers were concerned that when the large unloading structure was near the stern it could have created problems with the exhaust flow from a shorter stack. This is why most of the 1950s-built ships that had self-unloading conversions done had exhaust extension added after their conversion, in a few cases after they had operated for a short period as self-unloaders. The Frankcliffe Hall (Later Halifax) had its stack heightened considerably after its conversion, and if I recall correctly that ship also operated for a short period before the extra casing was added. Regardless, the Ralph Misener was a pleasing ship to view, especially when converted to a standard bulk carrier.

[badger]

the massive funnel was for the new the new "SM" which like the self unlloader a mistake. what were the rocket scientist in the head office thinking?

[Guest]

Did the unloader have anything to do with why the Meisner/Leitch had such a massive funnel? Or was that just someone's odd idea of aesthetically pleasing?

[lakercapt1]

I do remember reading (I think it was Lake Log Chips) that the extra strengthening needed for the Conflow unloader was removed sometime in the mid-1990s; by then the Ralph Misener was with Upper Lakes Shipping and had been renamed Gordon C. Leitch.

The extra strengthening you were referring to was in the form of the rails the Monster ran on. They were still there when she was sold.

[badger]

walter was a true model maker, every thing made by hand. he was a member of the welland canal ship society before its demise. meisener was his favoutie shipping company. RIP my friend.

[Guest]

The concept seems kind of simple: utilize the Conflow unloading gear only when discharging commodities like iron ore while retaining high cubic capacity cargo holds for grain by eliminating the need for sloped holds and losing space for conveyor belts running under the holds. In practice, however, the Conflow proved troublesome to operate and surely had a high maintenance cost. I believe there were several instances in which it was reported to be down for repairs. In addition, the weight penalty of carrying this gear, which was likely only used sporadically, limited the amount of cargo the vessel was able to carry due to the amount of draft represented by this mostly useless equipment. Only a few inches of lost draft over several voyages can have a large negative impact on a vessel's seasonal carrying capacity. Another factor is that the efficiency of a self-unloading ship in comparison to a gearless vessel is reduced in direct relation to the distance cargo is carried due to the increased cubic and carrying capacity of the latter. Over longer voyages such as those between the lakes and ports on the St. Lawrence, the ability to carry extra cargo (even marginally) generally offsets the faster unloading rates of a self-unloading vessel. This is why, in simple terms, Algoma and CSL have built some gearless vessels during their fleet renewal projects over the past several years. As the vast majority of the ore cargoes for the Ralph Misener would originate on the St. Lawrence River bound for ports on the lakes, the self-unloading capability played a much smaller role in its successful operation. Every design of a ship has its benefits and tradeoffs to meet a specific goal, and it appears that in this case those at Misener who decided to proceed with such a design felt they had come up with a solution that met their requirements. In the end, however, the Conflow system was ill-suited for operation on the Great Lakes / St. Lawrence Seaway system.

[guest]

the ralph meisner was the last laker built at canadian vickers in montreal. they built 2 more vessels before the exiteted shipbuilding. the klondike for container service from vancouver to skagway, alaska. they also built the last steam powered icebreaker for the canadian coast guard the C.C.G.S' LOUIS S. ST. LAURENT. the st. laurent is still in service but has been dieselized. canadian vickers went bankrupt about 1982. by that time it was a repair yard.

[D Estep]

Sucess has many fathers someone once said. Failure is an orphan. I think what you have here is an orphan. Intriguing to look at. Not a bad idea conceptually. And like the previous poster said about more area below for cargo with no belts.
But it just didn't work, although I would love to see it in operation. Must be a film hidden away somewhere of it in action.

Thanks.

[Guest]

One newspaper article I read said that when it was hauling ore, only holds 1,3, and 5 would be used. Does that sound right?

[Ohio Bob]

The concept is intriguing... maximize cargo capacity by removing all conveying equipment from the holds. Did this also eliminate the sloped holds? Perhaps there is a modern day application for this. Some cement carriers use an auger conveying system. The massive superstructure above the spar deck had to make handling a challenge though.

[Guest]

I do remember reading (I think it was Lake Log Chips) that the extra strengthening needed for the Conflow unloader was removed sometime in the mid-1990s; by then the Ralph Misener was with Upper Lakes Shipping and had been renamed Gordon C. Leitch.

[guest]

everyone called her the ralph monster. you could call her the edsel of ships. someone sold meisner a bill of sale. live and leard. even her stack colours were different in addition to being their only diesel powered vessel

[Guest12]

https://www.niagarathisweek.com/opinion ... a414e.html

[guest]

The knowledge and information on the board is amazing. I knew if there was a better answer than "It was built that way" I would find it here.
Thank you

[Guest]

That is called a Conflow unloader, and the design was based on a bucket-chain excavator. There were a couple of ships based in the UK in the 1960s that used a variation of the design.

Overall, the Conflow unloader weighed 775 tons, so the Ralph Misener required intermediate webs under the spar deck, and a longitudinal box girder above the deck to support the rails over the five cargo holds. A rack-and-pinion system was used to control the travel of the Conflow.

The system never operated to specification and was rarely used after the first few years.

It was damaged during a thunderstorm shortly after leaving Indiana Harbor on July 12, 1976 and removed at the Davie Shipyard in June of 1977.

A close-up photo of the Conflow unloader. https://www.nemoha.org/2892021/image/2235188

Thank you for the information. I couldn't remember what happened concerning the damage to the Conflow unloader. When the ship was converted to a conventional bulk carrier with the removal of the Conflow unloader were there any other structural features removed or modified as they were no longer needed? I would assume that Misener would have wanted to get as much of a carrying tonnage increase by removing as much unneeded weight as possible in addition to the sizable weight represented by the unloader unit itself.

[Guest]

The Conflow unloader was quite the monstrous system. The Canadian boats that were converted had a rather unsightly appearance with the above deck booms. Does someone know why the US fleet and Canadian fleet differed in appearance?

[D Estep]

Some great Pics. and good information. thanks for posting them.

[Guest]

That is called a Conflow unloader, and the design was based on a bucket-chain excavator. There were a couple of ships based in the UK in the 1960s that used a variation of the design.

Overall, the Conflow unloader weighed 775 tons, so the Ralph Misener required intermediate webs under the spar deck, and a longitudinal box girder above the deck to support the rails over the five cargo holds. A rack-and-pinion system was used to control the travel of the Conflow.

The system never operated to specification and was rarely used after the first few years.

It was damaged during a thunderstorm shortly after leaving Indiana Harbor on July 12, 1976 and removed at the Davie Shipyard in June of 1977.

A close-up photo of the Conflow unloader. https://www.nemoha.org/2892021/image/2235188

[Guest]

If my memory is correct, this was the only self-unloader, albeit a combination bulk carrier - self-unloader, vessel ever operated by Misener. I always heard the Conflow unloader was a sight to see operating, but it was very unreliable and had many problems from being overly complex. I doubt that there is any surviving video of it ever in use but that would likely be very interesting. Even pictures of it being used appear to be rare. From looking at some photographs, it appears to have two separate unloading booms to discharge cargo to either port or starboard. I'm assuming only one was able to be used at any given time. It was widely reported during the mid 1970s that the Conflow unloader sustained some type of accident that led to its removal. Does anyone have any insight into what happened?

I recall seeing a model of this ship in the mid-1980s, in Toronto I believe, with the Conflow system reproduced in great detail. That had to be quite a job to do.

[guest]

It looks like the thing would weigh as much as the cargo being carried.. That and making the ship top heavy it must have been quite a ride in rough weather.