Boatnerd Discussion Forum

It was my impression that the Alpena typically has been kept busy.

As for tug/barges, after over 40 years of it being the "future", there are a grand total of 10 large tug/barge combinations engaged in the dry bulk trade on the lakes by my count on both sides of the lake.

American Steamship Corporation has one new build, Great Lakes Fleet has one new build, Interlake has one conversion, Lower Lakes has three conversions and one new build, Purvis Marine has one conversion, Upper Lakes Shipping has one conversion, and VanEnkevort has one new build.

And out of that, one was built from the scratch for a major fleet on the lakes and another was converted for a major fleet on the lakes. The rest have been done by small independent companies that often already operated small barges or in the case of Lakes Contender, construction was began as I understand it essentially on speculation with ASC not leasing it until it was well underway.

Yet in the past 15 years, we've seen numerous repowerings on both sides of the lake by large fleets, we've seen lots of Canadian new builds, we've seen new forebodies mated with existing sterns, etc.

We haven't seen any large Great Lakes fleet engaged in the general dry bulk cargo trade on the lakes contract for the construction of a new ATB or conversion of an existing vessel since Interlake's experiment in the late 1990's.

I'll let examples like Interlake's over $50 million USD investment in repowering over the past decade speak for me where the future lies.

Just scan the fleet gallery listing on this site, after a quick rough count, there's something like 25 or 30, tug-barge combos of various configurations & cargo capacities. As a whole, that's not as small of a contribution to the overall shipping picture as the guest portrays it.

As far as Alpena & repowering goes, that ship is being used as a supplement to the barges Innovation & Integrity & I'd be very surprised to see her get a new engine when that time eventually comes. LaFarge executives have been quoted on record that they were very pleased with the barges & that is the way of the future for them.

You won't see a fleet like Interlake building barges when it comes time to build new vessels. If that was the future course for such a fleet, they wouldn't be spending significantly more money to repower their existing vessels than what it would cost to acquire a modern tug suitable for the job and notching the old hull. Barging is a cheaper proposition than repowering. That they're instead spending more to repower vessels like the Charles M. Beeghly rather than barge them is proof positive of what they think their future is.

And I wasn't ignoring the cement and petroleum trades at all. My post was about ASC, Lower Lakes, Algoma Central, CSL, Central Marine Logistics, Great Lakes Fleet, and Interlake Steamship with their self unloaders and straight deckers. There are only a handful of cement vessels on the Lakes. Something like the St. Mary's Challenger is hardly representative of what's happening with the large fleets on the Lakes that haul and compete for a variety of dry cargo like iron ore and grain.

They have a vessel with a shorter sailing season, lots of downtime during the course of a season, and a short cargo run. Fuel prices weren't as crucial for them as the big companies with long hauls which swung the equation in favor of barging thanks to the smaller crew, the regulations that are cheaper to meet, and the less expensive rebuild which still offered a significantly reduced fuel and engine room maintenance cost compared to the 1950's era steam plant she had. Hardly representative of what direction a company like Interlake Steamship will go for something like a 800' freighter.

And the petroleum side most definitely has a significant future on the lakes with powered vessels as seen by Algoma's tanker division and Desgagnés's fleet. Most of the investment in new tanker capacity on the Lakes is going into ships, not barges.

And I suspect the Alpena stands an excellent chance of being repowered. She's in great shape overall with lots of life left unlike some of these 80-100 year old vessels that we were all sad to see replaced over the past 20 years (Or the St. Mary's Challenger which I bet they don't expect would be viable to last the economic life of a new engine room), has a large capacity that's very comparable to the Lafarge newbuild barges, has a longer and more active season than a vessel like the Challenger, and I believe has a significantly longer run with her typical trade routes than the average cement vessel.

With fuel prices what they are along with the forecast for their future, she stands an excellent chance of being repowered with an eye towards getting another 30-40 years of use out of her.

I couldn't agree with you more on your comments and what you said regarding the Petroleum barges Brian. For anyone, just go and look sometime at the Mariatown Vessel Passage Page on here. Just look at all the times the Everlast/Norman McLeod and the Victorious-John J. Carrick have been up and down the Seaway this season so far. Even the tug Michigan and barge Great Lakes have made seaway trips as well along with the Spartan/Spartan II as well. In the past, Andrie used to send some of their vessels down the seaway although I have not seen too many of them lately.

The Guest is completly overlooking the cement & petroleum products trade on the lakes which has a heavy tug-barge compliment moving major tonnage sidlining older ships & resulting in some new builds & conversions.

There is an absolutely HUGE market for petroleum ATB's on the East Coast & that section of the tug-barge industry is booming.

Guest,

I would agree you won't see a ton of new ATBs coming on line. You will see some. Any new builds on the US side will be ATBs, I would bet on it. I doubt you'll see any more self unloaders converted, if you do it will not be many. A cement boat (Alpena) would not shock me. That trade is perfect for it.

A ship with a modern engine room vs an ATB..... the longer the run the more the ship is favored. Shorter runs favor ATBs. This revolves around fuel economy. A non automated/older engine room on a ship cannot compete with an ATB on either run.

You will not see a lot of new ATB's coming online. All the major fleets on the Lakes are solidly behind powered vessels as evidenced by many expensive repowerings and Canadian new builds. They offer the greatest fuel efficiency and thanks to things like reduced crew sizes compared to a generation ago, the gap with a barge isn't what it once was.

For over 40 years now, the integrated tug/barge and now the articulated tug/barge have been proclaimed as the future. Hasn't happened yet and mainstream fleets on the lakes have only commissioned a total of two of them to date. The Presque Isle built from the ground up for leasing to US Steel and Interlake's self unloading conversion and barging of the J. L. Mauthe.

Since then, the US Steel switched back to building ships and today's Great Lakes Fleet I believe invested a ton of money into repowering one of those footers that they built. And Interlake has embraced the repowering route since that experiment,

Everything else has been built for the fringes of the industry like bargings of old lakers for small operators with equally small budgets. Even the two big barges that have been built haven't been commissioned by a major fleet. Erie built the Great Lakes Trader for VanEnkevort, their only major vessel, and dusted off the plans on speculation for the Lakes Contender with ASC not leasing it until late in the game.

ATBs are here to stay. The economics Do work. Less capital expense, less operating expense, smaller crews, more flexibility. The return on investment is better, period. The Great Lakes fleet is clearly going thru a big turnover. The new boats employ state of the art technology, engine plants and the like that will drive good return on investment too. So we will definitely see a lot more ATBs coming on-line, and a fair amount of new boats on the Canadian side. It's a business, period. We might not like that, but these companies are not in the business to support nostaglia or operate a parade fleet. They are in the business to move freight in the most productive and cost effective way that can drive profitability.

>>A friend on an ATB told me they once went to anchor for a day so the exhausted crew could catch up on rest (sleep). <<

That was the Dorothy Ann/Pathfinder in its first year or two. I overheard their radio call saying they were going to anchor to sleep for a while. Hopefully, it's less hectic on there now.

Regular ships do seem overmanned at times. I had my wheelsman go into a rage and threaten me with the wrath of the union. He was mad that I, the mate, had pushed the button on the autopilot to adjust the course by one degree.

bhale,

I have been working on ATBs since 2008. I have no intentions of going back to a ship, ever. You are correct about a number of things. The crew is less, the inspections are different. However, we are not worked to death. The most I put in as a mate is 12 hours in a day. If you average it out over time it is 10 hours a day. The crew that have been removed are ones that are unneeded in the real world beyond USCG regulations. Wheelsman for example, I can drive the boat just fine by turning the wheel myself. From time to time a situation comes along where it would be nice to have another guy around, but it is rare. I could buy the argument that ATBs are undermanned based on that occasional need. But on the flip side the ships are over manned. My room may be smaller than on a ship, but its big enough. I am quite comfortable in my room. I will grant that one ATB I was on briefly was too small, but she is an odd duck that has lived 9 lives. shouldn't be doing the job she is. However these big modern ATB tugs are fine to live on.

I am out there to make money, that is the point of having a job. I will make more on an ATB than on a ship for the same amount of time away from home. Plus, I get to drive the thing myself instead of having to tell someone to move the wheel for me. I'll take that any day. All without having to live in a uncomfortable room that supposedly exists on these rigs.

Nothing is wrong with ATBs. What is wrong is the regulations that over man ships. If the reality of how a boat of that size can be operated in reality was reflected by the manning regulations then ATBs would never have been created.

Regarding the tonnage of the license.... Yes, that is true you only need a license to cover the size of the tug. However, you are also required to have a Towing license, something the ship guys do not have to get. This does not produce any additional savings for the operators as they have to pay the same level of wages to attract people. The wages are all in the same ball park. Regardless of the requirements the VAST majority of guys working big ATBs have unlimited licenses despite what is required. Honestly, it doesn't mean a damn thing. I've met guys with an any gross tons license that was clueless. And I've also met a 1600 ton license guy that was very good as what they do. The tests are all but identical, the difference is all about seatime.

Is it also true that the Officers on an ATB can have lower tonnage ratings on their licenses than for a ship? I thought I read somewhere that the tonnage of the barge doesn't matter in the eyes of the Coast Guard, so your license only has to cover the tonnage of the tug. This allows companies to hire younger, less experienced officers at even more cost savings.

I worked on the Lakes on & off (remember, that period covered some awful economic periods) from 1979 to 2005. From the perspective of a "professional", let me say I hate tug/barge conversions. A bit of that is the dislike of seeing a ship chopped-up into a unrecognizable barge. But most of it has to do with economics not touched on in this thread.
Tug-Barges are not subject to the same crew regs. as ships, and the companies take great advantage of that. One or 2 less officers, as the Captain & Chief Engineer stand watches. The crew is minimized, and those left get lots of overtime - as much as Union rules or human endurance will allow. Many of my friends, for these reasons, have turned down openings on ATB's, preferring to wait for an opening on a regular ship. A friend on an ATB told me they once went to anchor for a day so the exhausted crew could catch up on rest (sleep). A few years back, I remember talking to the 2nd on a new ATB. He said he was leaving the tug (New-Built for a major shipping company) as soon as possible. He said he was worked to death, and the accommodations on ATB tugs were cramped & uncomfortable. He waited impatiently for an opening on a ship.

white rose, a canadian oil tanker was painted every season was always painted up nice along with fleetmate herald rae.

garbear wrote:

Guest II wrote:"I can remember when Cliffs and Ford boats would hardly let rust or flaking paint grow on a boat. "

Once upon a time almost all fleets were like that. But I remember seeing a comment made by another B'Nerd that paint doesn't make money. That's what it's all about - money. But there is still a benefit. It's the jobs that the rusty boats still provide, even though the numbers are shrinking.

USS was big on paint when I sailed. When you passed a fleetmate you yelled "hi" to who you knew and the next thing you looked at was how much painting do they have done. If you had more done, you felt great. It was a big deal when you had your summer inspection at the Soo. All the office big shots and the Coast Guard would come out on the Ojibway, have a look at everything, and if everything was great, if you were a deckhand, you usually got the rest of the day off once you locked thru.
But paint doesn't make a boat haul more cargo. 40-45 boats USS had out when I sailed, now look at the size of the fleet. Times do change.

I have lived in the Blue Water Area since 1979 and it amazes me how much the lakes fleet has changed in the past 35 years. With only a handful of major fleets left through mergers and liquidation, the lakes has lost a great deal of its diversity. Over this same time a large number of fleet paint schemes and stack markings disappeared into the history books. Included in this list are those of the Bethlehem Steel, Branch Lines, Carryore/Nipigon, Cleveland Cliffs, Columbia Transportation, Erie Navigation, Ford Motor Company, Halco, Imperial Oil, Kinsman, Misener, National Steel, Paterson, Quebec & Ontario, Soo River, Upper Lakes, and Westdale fleets. This list does not include changes made to other fleets that have changed ownership over the years such as Inland Steel and United States Steel. As has been noted in other posts, I always remember the immaculate condition of the Cleveland Cliffs boat. Their color scheme was very unique and eye catching. For having such a large fleet I have no recollection of having ever seen a USS ship with a poor paint job during my early years of boatwatching.

Guest II wrote:"I can remember when Cliffs and Ford boats would hardly let rust or flaking paint grow on a boat. "

Once upon a time almost all fleets were like that. But I remember seeing a comment made by another B'Nerd that paint doesn't make money. That's what it's all about - money. But there is still a benefit. It's the jobs that the rusty boats still provide, even though the numbers are shrinking.

USS was big on paint when I sailed. When you passed a fleetmate you yelled "hi" to who you knew and the next thing you looked at was how much painting do they have done. If you had more done, you felt great. It was a big deal when you had your summer inspection at the Soo. All the office big shots and the Coast Guard would come out on the Ojibway, have a look at everything, and if everything was great, if you were a deckhand, you usually got the rest of the day off once you locked thru.
But paint doesn't make a boat haul more cargo. 40-45 boats USS had out when I sailed, now look at the size of the fleet. Times do change.

"I can remember when Cliffs and Ford boats would hardly let rust or flaking paint grow on a boat. "

Once upon a time almost all fleets were like that. But I remember seeing a comment made by another B'Nerd that paint doesn't make money. That's what it's all about - money. But there is still a benefit. It's the jobs that the rusty boats still provide, even though the numbers are shrinking.

All of the reasons given here are valid regardless if they are pro or con. So, that leaves a answer based on my personal likes and dislikes. I love the old fore and aft boats, hate the all aft ships. When thinking of style and beauty, its the old ship that people think of. Yes, the new ships have their record to go on and I know they may make more money but I suggest the jury may be still out. This because their durability only now is being tested. I have read of stories of engine and structure failures that imply the life span of these aft island ships will not be as long as the fore and aft vessels. This old ships had a life span in many cases as long as 70 to 80 years long. This too not mention those that reached 100 years.
As to the barge conversions, they are even worse in appearance then anything. I do not consider converting a ship to a barge is saving her. The economics of these conversions have been and are being questioned. Look for a very short life span for ship to barge conversions. The industry seems to want large, long ships but yet, remember, the need for shorter ships still exists.
Ron

I can't agree more on rather seeing a tug barge combo then sending a classic laker to her grave. It truly is economics like the statements made these boats are corporations made to make money it is an expensive business and the owners tend to pinch every penny out of there assets. Many of us mostly the ones who have never been directly been involved look at the cosmetics and complain about the looks of a work boat, face it times have changed money is tight and time doesn't allow the exterior maintenance as in the past. I can remember when Cliffs and Ford boats would hardly let rust or flaking paint grow on a boat. I wish new and better tugs were available maybe this would help in decisions as to conversion but it is what it is I would also rather see new build tug and barges again show me the money. enough said
3long 2short

Guest I have read your post and comments and totally agree with you 100% of everything you have said and then some. I also will agree that I think most of us don't see the point such as in the case of the St. Marys Challenger barge conversion from ship to a barge. While I also agree that it is sad and a shame that she was made into a barge, at least this saved her from maybe being sent to a scrapyard someplace. My question is simple to many and that is "If you had the choice, would you rather see a barge such as the St. Marys Challenger now or have the vessel in a scrapyard?" To me it is easy and obvious, I would rather see the barge than have it sitting in a scrapyard. At least the ship in some ways is still with us and sailing the Great Lakes/Seaway system. That is my opinion and viewpoint on this subject and topic.

Regardless of their appearance, freight ships are built for one purpose: to produce revenue for their owners by hauling cargoes. Aesthetics do not necessarily fit into this equation. Ever since shipping first began on the Great Lakes, vessel design has evolved to provide an ever increasing level of efficiency. Regardless of how we as enthusiasts feel on personal level, freighters are not cruise ships attempting to attract customers by their appearance but rather by the economics of their ability to carry cargoes more efficiently than other forms of transport. I'm sure that many of those that loved sailing ships cringed when they witnessed the appearance of the first steamers. I remember hearing the negative comments made during the 1970s when the boxy all-cabins aft ships began leaving the shipyards. Now, some forty years later these ships have become classics in their own right. Although I agree it was sad to see the St. Mary's Challenger converted to a barge, at least its owners decided to breathe new life into the vessel, thus preventing it from going to the scrapyard in the immediate future. In my, opinion it is far better for a ship to be barged than see it scrapped. Furthermore, it is a testament to the original design that it is able to adapt to meet the challenge of the ever changing nature of economics. The glory days of the traditional Great Lakes ship has long passed. What we are witnessing now is just the latest step in the constantly evolving nature of shipping on the Great Lakes. In the case of the John Sherwin, I don't believe we will ever see it barged as Interlake has demonstrated its commitment to shy away from such conversions through its series of repowerings over the past decade. Furthermore, I also believe we will get to see this fine vessel once again ply the lakes after sitting idle for most of its existence. If that happens, it will be truly one of the most remarkable stories in the history of Great Lakes shipping. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone's personal opinion here...the freedom of expressing one's opinion is what makes for an interesting exchange of ideas and points of view.