john sherwin

[garbear]

I was just talking about the beam of the two. Not the propulsion.

[Guest]

If this had happened wouldn't this have been like the Chimo/Hilda Marjanne conversion? There was a big difference in the beam of both those boats. A lot greater than the Sherwin beam and that of the Elton Hoyt II.

The important difference in the Chimo/Hilda Marjanne conversion is that it changed a steamship to a motor vessel. The Hoyt/Sherwin would not have accomplished that and would have caused a reduction in horsepower of nearly 2000hp.

[Guest]

Despite the Elton Hoyt 2nd having been converted into a self-unloader, she spent much of the 1980s in lay-up if memory serves me correctly. For some reason she always seemed like a spare boat for Interlake since the 1980s. Perhaps there was something about her size/capacity that did not fit into the fleet's operations following the 1980s recession.

[garbear]

If this had happened wouldn't this have been like the Chimo/Hilda Marjanne conversion? There was a big difference in the beam of both those boats. A lot greater than the Sherwin beam and that of the Elton Hoyt II.

[Guest]

Not only would it appear unsuitable for the tasks as stated, but the Hoyt had just been converted to a self-unloader during the 1979/1980 winter layup.

Would've been an extremely peculiar decision to scrap much of that brand new investment during the 1980's just to save the cost of constructing a bow mounted unloading system for the Sherwin.

All the cargo hold work would've just had to have taken place, albeit with the possibility of recycling some components like rollers and the belt.

[Jon Paul]

During the 1980s there was some consideration given to taking the stern of the Elton Hoyt 2nd and grafting it onto the stern of the John Sherwin. This came up during a lecture given by John O. Greenwood at Port Huron while he was a vice president at Interlake.

That would be a rather strange modification considering the EH 2nd (now Michipicoten) was 70ft beam and 7100 hp and the Sherwin is 75ft beam with a 9300hp turbine.

[garbear]

I hope all of you are right about the Sherwin running again. Guess I've just gotten too old where I have to see it to believe it.

[Guest]

During the 1980s there was some consideration given to taking the stern of the Elton Hoyt 2nd and grafting it onto the stern of the John Sherwin. This came up during a lecture given by John O. Greenwood at Port Huron while he was a vice president at Interlake.

[Shipwatcher1]

Despite how long it has been idle, the fact remains that the conversion to diesel and a self unloader WAS started. The crash in 2008 stopped it. If not for that, she would be sailing with us today. Interlake obviously anticipated basically everything inside the hull was outdated, including the electronics, and would have replaced such equipment.

[Guest]

Ships don't age like people. In the mid & late 1970's, you had 60 & 70 year-old vessels that were constantly running and with their original triples (I worked on a very fit 56-year-old ship in the early '80s). It all comes down to economics. The shipping companies can make anything of any age run, if it's cheaper than a newbuild. Look at the St. Marys Challenger. 107 years-old before she was barged. Think of how long she would have lasted if her Stern & Under-Engine Plates had received the same attention that the rest of the ship got. 5tthqmg

You bring up some good points. Remember to that the ships you mentioned still running into the mid to late 1970s that were reaching 60-70 years old had been in active service, not idled for several decades at a dock. Although I understand that even an idled ship will deteriorate, such corrosion to the hull should be at a reduced rate compared to a ship that is constantly passing through locks and being loaded and unloaded.

[Guest]

Ships don't age like people. In the mid & late 1970's, you had 60 & 70 year-old vessels that were constantly running and with their original triples (I worked on a very fit 56-year-old ship in the early '80s). It all comes down to economics. The shipping companies can make anything of any age run, if it's cheaper than a newbuild. Look at the St. Marys Challenger. 107 years-old before she was barged. Think of how long she would have lasted if her Stern & Under-Engine Plates had received the same attention that the rest of the ship got. 5tthqmg

[garbear]

The propeller would have to be replaced in a diesel conversion, as would the shaft. The fact she has neither at this time has no impact on any future reactivation when, or even if, it comes. Interlake was planning on using the Sherwin in the ore trade into Rouge Steel (now part of A.K. Steel) with a coal backhaul to Marquette.

I was in high school when the Sherwin was first laidup and I'm now 50. Many other ships of her generation are gone and she must have a record for longest time in layup. There has to be a reason for Interlake holding on to her for as long as they have, but it has never been stated by them why. Perhaps they see her as "strategic asset".

That's really putting it into perspective when you say you were in high school when it laid up and you're now 50.
I was a young man of 29 and now I'm 62. Think about all that time that's passed. And it's going to run again. Okay.

[Guest]

The propeller would have to be replaced in a diesel conversion, as would the shaft. The fact she has neither at this time has no impact on any future reactivation when, or even if, it comes. Interlake was planning on using the Sherwin in the ore trade into Rouge Steel (now part of A.K. Steel) with a coal backhaul to Marquette.

I was in high school when the Sherwin was first laidup and I'm now 50. Many other ships of her generation are gone and she must have a record for longest time in layup. There has to be a reason for Interlake holding on to her for as long as they have, but it has never been stated by them why. Perhaps they see her as "strategic asset".

[edm]

I'd love to see the Sherwin spend another season on the lakes but, I doubt I'll see her run again any time soon. I was born in 1942 and spent all my summer time on Russell Island watching the boats run every 8 minutes. yup - i've have a chance to see almost anything that would float, run the saint clair river. i can only hope this old ship will make one more passage.

[garbear]

I have been watching Great Lakes shipping since I was about 8, so along with my 9 years of sailing in the '70s, and being 62 years old, I've been a watcher for 54-55 years.
One of you says it wouldn't surprise you if in 5 years Interlake might start the Sherwin conversion talk again. How old would that make the Sherwin? Roughly what my age is now. The Ryerson is now, what 55 years old. The C.T.C. No. 1 is now over 70 years old. The time will come shortly, if it's not already here, where it just doesn't make sense to do anything with them anymore. There's a surplus of iron ore worldwide. Power plants are converting to other fuels besides coal. Like I've said numerous times on numerous posts, I would also like to see these boats run again, but for a lot of boat watchers it's more of wishing they'd run again rather than them being needed to haul cargo.

[Guest]

Interlake simply hasn't had consistent work for the Sherwin in decades. Even when re-powered and converted to a self-unloader, she is over 800 feet long and isn't suited for a variety of cargoes and ports. She would require a stable contract to justify the cost of the repairs and upgrades she needs. The reactivation plans in 2008 were brought about because of Interlake's acquisition of a new contract (perhaps someone else recalls the specifics?), but it fell apart in the 2008 collapse and as such, she's back at the wall. As long as the Jones Act continues to be upheld, the Sherwin and Ryerson (and C.T.C. No. 1 for that matter) are viable assets, just waiting for their time.

[Guest]

Did the shaft warp from years of non-use, or did this have something to do with why the Sherwin was originally laid up?

As I understand it, when the John Sherwin was laid-up her shaft was fine. It became warped from all the towing they did to her with the propeller still on the shaft.

That surprises me that the prospect of damaging the shaft would not have been taken into account before the towing operation was undertaken. Sort of like towing a vehicle too far in neutral can burn up an automatic transmission.

[Guest]

In spite of reports that the hull suffered some deterioration while laid up at Superior, the replacement of the affected plates would be pale in comparison to the cost of building an entirely new vessel from scratch. While it is true that the vast majority of electronic equipment will have to be replaced, this too represents a small fraction of an investment necessary to return the Sherwin to service. Watching the Great Lakes shipping industry for nearly 1/2 a century, I can tell you that it has seen some very depressing times while also some very high points in terms of seasonal tonnage movements. While many may view the downturn that occurred in 2008 as the death knell for the Sherwin, such a perception may be shortsighted as such economic recessions are common in the Great Lakes shipping industry. It would not surprise me that within five years we are once again hearing rumblings of Interlake pursuing the conversion and reactivation of the Sherwin. One wild card, however, is how the downturn in coal consumption will affect the domestic shipping fleet. It must be remembered, however, that the current US flagged fleet has very little excess capacity in terms of idled ships (perhaps the smallest in its history), and therefore the Sherwin may represent a more valuable asset than one would think.

[PDBLK25]

Did the shaft warp from years of non-use, or did this have something to do with why the Sherwin was originally laid up?

As I understand it, when the John Sherwin was laid-up her shaft was fine. It became warped from all the towing they did to her with the propeller still on the shaft.

[wlbblw]

Sometimes even though a ship (or other old machine) has very little run time on it, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's in "good shape". When the Iowa Class battleships were recommissioned in the 1980's, they had very little active service on their hulls, but with that said, a lot of their on board systems & equipment had timed out due to age. There was very little support for spare parts & knowledge because technology had advanced while they were out of service. When the explosion occurred in turret 2 on the Iowa, an investigation found that something as simple as a sticky, possibly clogged hydraulic system may have been a big factor in why there was an over ram of the powder bags & resulting explosion. Surviving crewmen mentioned problems with the old electrical & mechanical systems on the ship. Not that they were worn out or broken, just that they were beyond their years & not functioning properly. I'm sure if the Sherwin was to be used again as a ship or a barge, it would need a massive amount of updated equipment & have entire systems replaced.