boatbuddy wrote:I worked for Misener when these ships were introduced. Perhaps Lakercaptain can confirm that the three Govan built vessels carried 25000 metric tonnes at Seaway draft while the Senneville, the biggest carrier in the fleet could carry 28000 MT at Seaway draft. In other words the extra steel needed for deep sea weighed 3000 tons. They were state of the art ships for their day and were considered money makers as lakers.
Yes the lift from Thunder Bay was about 25000 tonnes but more or less depending on the amount of fuel carried. Topping up below Montreal they carried and additional 7000tonnes at deep sea draft.
Senneville did carry more but had light scantlngs which had parts replaced a couple of times.
The two Misener boats were on long term charter to the Canadian Wheat Board at very good rates for the first five years. Saskatchewan Pioneer which was Richardson's was not and only got the ongoing rates for freight. Still they were not profitable with Canadian crews ACCORDING TO MISNER"S which was BS
I worked for Misener when these ships were introduced. Perhaps Lakercaptain can confirm that the three Govan built vessels carried 25000 metric tonnes at Seaway draft while the Senneville, the biggest carrier in the fleet could carry 28000 MT at Seaway draft. In other words the extra steel needed for deep sea weighed 3000 tons. They were state of the art ships for their day and were considered money makers as lakers.
SailorDoug wrote:I am confused. Cannot any length to beam ratio be designed for a desired longitudinal stiffness? Just more steel and less capacity. Extra beam reduces heel, increases potential load and keeps you out of locks.
When you are talking about a boat that will be working outside the lakes system it has to be stong enough to withstand the elements. Certainly more steel would stop the bending but more steel means less cargo capacity and that is a reduction in earnings so not a good solution. This was why high tensile steel was used.
A deep sea ship coming on the lakes must be able to pass through the locks. This is why modern boats have the maximum allowed by the seaway. It was increased recently after many moans by ship owners for more cargo carrying capacity as well as deeper drafts. Many of us were stopped as overdraft at 26 '00.5" which was foolishnes but the rules were a maximum drft of 26'00".
I am confused. Cannot any length to beam ratio be designed for a desired longitudinal stiffness? Just more steel and less capacity. Extra beam reduces heel, increases potential load and keeps you out of locks.
Also Transport Canada class I inland waters.I think the old length to breadth ratio no longer applys as modern steel and construction methods have changed.Case in point.Fednav ships are of seaway dimensions as well and are full ocean going.The above is based on my 49 years in Naval Architecture and marine Engineering[/quote]
The seaway class are approx 734 feet long and 78 feet wide which is a ratio of approx. 10 to one as I stated ocean sailing ship are much wider and lenght to beam ratio is about 8 to one.
Paterson was very flexable and bent like a rubber band and was a nightmare to load as if allowed to hog or sag too much ballast lines broke.
High tensile steel was used on the sheer strake and on the garboard stakes.
The rest of what the previous poster was correct about the Govan built boats. I was there for some of the constuction and completion of the last one; Saskatchewan Pioneer.
I have studied the construction plans of the Govan Built ships and did a comparison with the last Canadian Bulk carrier built around the same time,"Paterson".Both were classed by lloyds,but the Govan ships were ice class 3.The frame spacing on the Govan ships was closer together but i was unable to determine if the thickness was increased.I also noted the shell plating was about the same thickness . The Govan ships had an ice belt due to the ice class.The hold section of the Govan ships had saddle tanks both top and botton as well as having heavier cargo hold bulkheads.The tank top also had what is called Egg Shell construction.In my opinion The Govan built ships were of a stronger built than a Laker.The Govan ships were classed as +100A1 Bulk Carrier,Strengthened for Heavier Cargos Holds 1,4 and 7 or 2,4,& 6 may be empty H.T.Steel Top & Bottom + LMC-CC-Ice Class 3.This is from Lloyds .The Paterson was classed an+100 A! Great lkaes and river ST.Lawrence service with notation Bulk Carrier also Part HT steel.
Also Transport Canada class I inland waters.I think the old length to breadth ratio no longer applys as modern steel and construction methods have changed.Case in point.Fednav ships are of seaway dimensions as well and are full ocean going.The above is based on my 49 years in Naval Architecture and marine Engineering
The three ships were more lakes had deep sea builds. Deep sea ships have a length to breadth ratio of 8 to 1 whilst lakers are 10 to 1.They did flex in a seaway to an alarming rate at times and it was very noticeable in bad weather. There are no seas in the great lakes to match ocean waves and the only limiting factor when sailing the great lakes in the fall an encountering bad weather was whither they would ice up. Nothing they experienced on the lakes matched the North Atlantic in the winter. There was a few photographs of Selkirk Settler in a storm that shows how nasty it can be.
Never felt that the were in danger even in the worst of weather.
Eight years experiance will attest.
When Misener had the three combination saltwater / Great Lakes ships built during the 1980s: Canada Marquis, Saskatchewan Pioneer, and Selkirk Settler, what design characteristics differed them from a standard Great Lakes carrier and a salt water vessel? I have always heard that lake ships have more flex due to the shorter wave lengths in the lakes compared to those on the ocean. Is it easier for a saltwater vessel to handle rough weather on the lakes than the other way around?