Boatnerd Discussion Forum

there is video of csl assiniboine unloading on you tube

Due to the configuration of the Edward L. Ryerson's cargo holds, would a reclaimer system be considered for a self-unloading conversion?

In answer to a few questions that have been asked (based on sailing on the Navigator and Transport).

The Navigator has two loaders as well as two large shovels (the kind on tracks) engineers run the shovels, deckhands the loaders. The equipment is stored in a garage between hold 1 and 2 (bulkhead forward and aft of it separating it from the holds). She has a particularly odd configuration with the tunnel raised above the tank tops which means more of the cargo need to be dug out then on the other vessels that unload this way. A normal unload was around 12 hours, the transports reclaimer was much more efficient and quicker, our last load (pet coke) this year took 8 hours. It was run by the ships electrician.

Front-end loaders have cabin air filters just like any other tractor or piece of equipment with an enclosed cab. They do need to be cleaned or changed from time to time just like anything else that needs regular preventative maintenance. Operating inside the ship's hold is really not that different than other outside operating conditions, so the filters would not necessarily clog quickly in this situation.

Possibly, but it would clog in no time.

I would think the front end loaders would have some type of cabin filter for the cab at least. Anyone know for sure?

wlbblw wrote:Wow! What a smelly, dusty, noisy nightmare that must be driving those loaders around down there! I still can't believe all this hassle to save the cubic capacity. I also can't believe there's no grating over the holes in the deck down to the belt to protect crewmen, tires, or debris/parts from falling through. Those things must be a real pain to work on after the salt gets at them. Every bolt, bushing, & fitting must be completely rotten, & frozen on every inch of those machines.

What type of clothing and breathing apparatus would the operator wear for protection from the dust ? Also, does the flat bottom make cleanup with hoses more challenging ? TIA

It's just as much work as unloading a straight decker. Self-unloaders are supposed to be so much more efficient, but here, as opposed to a gravity fed system, your boat crew still has to be the same, you're just saving the customer from not having the need for shore side unloading equipment. Besides the added cost to building the ship with unloading gear & sloped holds & whatnot, in this design you're adding all the additional costs of installing, maintaining & operating all this additional mechanical equipment, be it the reclaimer or the front end loaders, the overall cost to run one of these must be up there compared to the gravity fed design. Are there any cargoes that these can't carry for some reason?

You do wonder how they know far to move the front-end loader without falling into the centre conveyor. And the beeping from the machines backing up would drive one nuts after a while.

Wow! What a smelly, dusty, noisy nightmare that must be driving those loaders around down there! I still can't believe all this hassle to save the cubic capacity. I also can't believe there's no grating over the holes in the deck down to the belt to protect crewmen, tires, or debris/parts from falling through. Those things must be a real pain to work on after the salt gets at them. Every bolt, bushing, & fitting must be completely rotten, & frozen on every inch of those machines.

Maybe a dumb set of questions but who runs the front end loaders? Stevedores or ship crew? How were they fueled and serviced while on board?

I just checked CSL's website, and only the CSL Assiniboine has the flat-bottom/front-end loader system, whereas the CSL Niagara, Rt. Hon. Paul Martin and CSL Laurentian have the traditional gravity unloading system.

The only CSL vessel with a flat bottom is Assiniboine. She has a garage for the front end loaders. Part of the reason was she was rebuilt with a lower budget then her sister ships. When Canadian Century was rebuilt to the John D. Leitch they removed the reclaimer and replaced it with a garage and two front end loaders. You still get the high cubic capacity but with less maintenance, easier to upgrade and a machinery that is very well known to lots of technicians.

The lack of screen bulkheads does not affect the strength of the hull. I asked the late Alex Elliott, the naval architect who designed those ships what changes had to be done when ULS started to run Canadian Olympic on the salt run from Magdeleine Islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. He said they had to add a little strengthening to the bow. This was to meet the big waves of the Gulf. Although no bigger that those of Lake Superior a vessel would meet more of them for a longer period of time. The strength of the hull is in the arches.

Guest wrote:The Algoma Navigator and CSL's rebuilt self-unloaders (CSL Assiniboine, etc) have a flat cargo hold bottom, but instead of using reclaimers, they use front-end unloaders to move the cargo to the centre belt. Here is video of CSL Assiniboine unloading salt: http://youtu.be/bxni92d4dn4

The fleet gallery describes CSL Niagara as having hopper type cargo holds rather than flat bottomed. The details about the RHPJM and the Laurentian aren't as clear. Do those last two have flat bottomed holds ?

How and where are the front loaders stored? I assume in the cargo hold but if cubic capacity is such an important factor, how do they keep them from taking up too much space and yet be able to get them out and use them...TIA

The John D. Leitch had a reclaimer system as built. I was told the lack of screen bulkheads made her very "springy" -- enough to scare the crew on some trips down to salt water.

The Algoma Navigator and CSL's rebuilt self-unloaders (CSL Assiniboine, etc) have a flat cargo hold bottom, but instead of using reclaimers, they use front-end unloaders to move the cargo to the centre belt. Here is video of CSL Assiniboine unloading salt: http://youtu.be/bxni92d4dn4

The Algoma Progress, Algoma Olympic, Algoma Enterprise and Algoma Transport all have one cargo hold. The John D. Leith before her rebuilding had one cargo hold, too, though I don't know if this has changed. The Henry Ford II had two cargo holds. The Ford's cargo hold setup was very similar to the ULS self-unloaders and her reclaimer can be clearly seen in a video done by J. Burke of the Great Lakes Historical Society.

I wonder what the actual numbers are. I'm sure ship owners do all sorts of studies on efficiency. In the long term, is a large cubic capaicty boat with the reclaimer worth the extra equipment cost, the extra maintenance cost, & the extra operational labor when compared to a gravity fed system? It would seem to me that even if they do carry a lot more & even if they do unload it fast, there sure seems to be more of the gravity type being built. When was the last time a new ship was built with a reclaimer? Is there anything new being done today with gravity fed ship construction that may be allowing for more of a match in capacity with an older reclaimer style boat?

Starting at about 2:18 into the clip at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvNOdRQA_RY
you can see a crewman using a hose/high pressure stream of something to enlarge a hole in the caked salt. The mechanical fingers are stationary at that point, which I'm sure is appreciated by the worker!

I find it hard to believe that they would be using water (what a mess!), so is it a "salt blaster", a mix of salt and air, kind of like a humongous sand blaster?