Challenger Conversion

Discussion board focusing on Great Lakes Shipping Question & Answer. From beginner to expert all posts are welcome.
Chief

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by Chief »

The Midland had 5 Cyl Skinners where as the Badger and the Challenger have 4 Cyl Skinners. The PM 21 and 22 also had the 4 Cyl Skinners.
darren

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by darren »

the torching has begun! there are metal scrap dumpsters on deck and the smoke stack has been removed and is sitting next to the large yellow ladder assembly by the face of the steel dock.SAD SIGHT!
Career sailor

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by Career sailor »

The City of Midland not the Badger, had the same engines (although one model number different) as the Challenger. The Badger has the steeple-compounds, the other boats have the standard Uniflow.
Chief

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by Chief »

From my research the Challenger and the Badger have the same engine, 4 cylinder Skinner 3500 HP. The 4 cylinder is a Steeple Compound and the 5 cylinder is a Simple Compound.
middlerouge
Posts: 420
Joined: July 8, 2013, 8:44 pm

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by middlerouge »

The badger has a skinner compound uniflow engine, while the challenger has a non-compound uniflow. With that said, most of the parts, if any, are not interchangeable. Any parts needed for the badger comes from the rusting old Spartan.
Lake Guest

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by Lake Guest »

Do you have any contact information for anyone interested in the steam engine or other keepsakes?
Engineer

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by Engineer »

First off, thank you for your kind support. Most of the crew will be shipping out on other vessels either this season yet or when next season begins. Very few have been offered jobs on the barge. We hope that the Badger can make use of any spare parts we had, and that they keep the last up-n-downer running. To the best of my knowledge our Skinner is available if you can figure out how to move a 2.5 story tall, 110 ton engine to your museum! We all pray it can be saved.
Lake Guest

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by Lake Guest »

Now those are some well fed crew members! How often did they enjoy the kind of fare noted on the hand scribed menu?
Chief

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by Chief »

First off I want to say "Great Work" to Chris Winters on the photo array of the Challenger. We have discussed at length the fate of the Challenger, but how about the fate of the crew. I assume that most of them will have to find another ride for the 2014 season. I assume that some of the deck guys will transfer to the barge, but how about the deck and engineering officers? Is anyone interested in saving her engine? Other then the Badger the Challenger's engine is one of the last Skinners left sailing. It will be too bad if some museum doesn't try and get the engine for future display.
dcook

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by dcook »

It is a sad day when a grand old ship makes her final voyage under her own power. Seeing the picture of the sailing board with the message "The End" chalked in brought back bittersweet memories of the Hanna Fleet. I had the distinct honor of being on the crews that took the Leon Falk, Geo. M. Humphrey, and Paul H. Carnahan to Quebec City for overseas scrapping. The Carnahan was the last to go. Before we left the ship that day there was a photo taken of Jimmy May, Mark Rohn, and myself kneeling beneath the name on the hatch crane with a painted sign that said "The End". We were not as much sailors on those trips as we were pall bearers.
Guest

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by Guest »

Did the photographers give you permission to use those photos?
http://www.boatnerd.com/cright.htm
CottonwoodStudios
Posts: 80
Joined: March 13, 2011, 6:32 pm

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by CottonwoodStudios »

Hi everyone. Here's a photo tribute I put together saying "Goodbye." It uses photos from BN and the "Save the St. Mary's Challenger Facebook"
Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_9mcRoQ ... DlbK3sfrDw
Kazoonerd

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by Kazoonerd »

It's worth remembering, as Guest notes, that - with very rare exceptions - the fate of Great Lakes vessels is determined by economics. Economics as perceived by the owner, to be specific. Everything from when and where a vessel is built to its configuration to, ultimately, its disposition. Even in those cases in which a much-loved or historically significant vessel is "saved" from the breakers, its fate is determined by economics. Dockage, physical preservation, insurance, etc. all trump how we feel about a significant vessel and keeping "cold iron" living is an expensive proposition.
Guest wrote:If it had not been converted into a cement carrier in 1967, this ship would have been scrapped sometime during the late 1960s to early 1970s. Therefore we have been able to see the vessel in its present form for nearly 50 years. While the Challenger being rebuilt into a barge configuration may not as be aesthetically appealing to most, at least it will continue to serve a vital function in transporting cargoes for its owners on the Great Lakes. After all, that is the original purpose for which it was built 107 years ago.
MilwBob
Posts: 379
Joined: May 9, 2010, 7:20 pm

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by MilwBob »

Guest wrote:For all concerned, the owners are already working on a plan to save and donate various major parts of the Challenger for the sake of history. They deserve a great deal of credit for this, and all Challenger's boatnerds should voice their appeciation and support for this.
Well, they lied about the conversion-a week before the final voyage they were still saying a final decision had yet to be made on barging or repowering when in fact the decision for a barge was made some time ago- so we will have to see what happens. They may take a cue from the Viking owners- anything worth anything was sold off to the highest bidders, not much was donated to anybody.
Guest

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by Guest »

middlerouge wrote:.

But I still remain optimistic that the hull ends up in good shape and they end up repowering her.
The contract was signed two months ago. She is being barged to be pushed by Bradshaw McKee.
middlerouge
Posts: 420
Joined: July 8, 2013, 8:44 pm

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by middlerouge »

Guest wrote:For all concerned, the owners are already working on a plan to save and donate various major parts of the Challenger for the sake of history. They deserve a great deal of credit for this, and all Challenger's boatnerds should voice their appeciation and support for this.
Money on the prop ending up in Charlevoix. it would also be nice to see her stern end cabins saved as well. I know that does not happen often, but they don't make stern structures like that anymore. I also think most of that is original. the pilothouse is not original, sadly. I support preserving as much of the vessel as possible.

But I still remain optimistic that the hull ends up in good shape and they end up repowering her.
Guest

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by Guest »

For all concerned, the owners are already working on a plan to save and donate various major parts of the Challenger for the sake of history. They deserve a great deal of credit for this, and all Challenger's boatnerds should voice their appeciation and support for this.
Guest

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by Guest »

The ATBs came onto the lakes last year. Bay Ship's barge is for an ocean customer, not a lakes customer.
George

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by George »

It is sentimental to want to keep the vessel as a ship. When they convert her to a barge they will most likely have a crew with simular size as to the conquest , which is 10 I believe. The new repowers still have crews close to 20-21. The crew cost is not just wages but benefits are ar huge cost in todays market, Ins. 401-K or pensions ect. Some have stated increased reglations on ATB units. The restrictions have not changed. These units the barges are non-manned which from firefighting to safety equipment ect. the cost and regulations are much less. The tugs will eventually come under sub-chapter M.. Most companies are already up to the additional standards and it is still a lot less than ships. The crewing can and usually is done with a lower level license and pilotage is not required. A three watch system is not also. Most ATB units work 12 hour days 6 on 6 off. This year alone two new ATB units came onto the Lakes. The Lakes Contender was chartered to a company which has multiple some diesel ships laid up. They didn't do that because it was more expensive. There are long runs which the hydrodynamics of an ATB make fuel cost more with slower speeds. There are also a lot of shorter routes that require manuverablilty and the fuel cost and speed aren't as much of a difference maker. Most ATB units are twin screw and rarely use assist tugs. If you move outside of the lakes ATB are very much moving forward. Bay Ship has another contract for an ATB barge along with this conversion at this time. It is technology moving forward. For those who love tugs before the bowthruster was common there were tugs everywhere...the times change.
Johny

Re: Challenger Conversion

Unread post by Johny »

I would be neat if the Stearn section, cabins and engine room could be left intact an exhibit at the Manitowoc Museum as an exhibit of the local ship builders work. Seal it off the right way it could be an entire self contained exhibit. Perhaps the pilot house too.

The mindset doesn't exist for that to happen, but that would be the makings of an ultimate exhibit.

-Johny
Post Reply