Boatnerd Discussion Forum

by **Guest** » December 3, 2015, 1:19 pm

The two new ships that Algoma just announced both are said to have aft mounting booms

by **Guest** » December 3, 2015, 1:03 pm

Ron wrote:Thank you all for the several answers that are informative. The logic is explained but still leaves me cold about the fore mounted box. In general, I'm disappointed with designs of the newer ships on the great lakes. Mostly all are Canadian since the US has not built any new ships. The ships from the 1970's mostly are long strait sided hulls, with all cabins aft. This started a trend which resulted in the end of conventional designed ships. I do cherish the few remaining ships on the lakes with fore and aft cabins. I'm aware of the designs of, and the changes of cargo capacity of different ships. I guess I'm in past times which may explain why I do not like the appearance of the present ships (except the few traditional Lakers). I still like the open fly bridge on the old boats. If you would, please answer how the crews manned the open fly bridge in the winter.
Thanks to all
Ron

I believe the open fly bridges were manned throughout the navigational season regardless of the weather just as schooners were before them. You must also consider that enclosed pilothouses only came about to protect the increasingly sophisticated and delicate navigational equipment and not the crew itself.

by **Ron** » December 3, 2015, 12:05 pm

Thank you all for the several answers that are informative. The logic is explained but still leaves me cold about the fore mounted box. In general, I'm disappointed with designs of the newer ships on the great lakes. Mostly all are Canadian since the US has not built any new ships. The ships from the 1970's mostly are long strait sided hulls, with all cabins aft. This started a trend which resulted in the end of conventional designed ships. I do cherish the few remaining ships on the lakes with fore and aft cabins. I'm aware of the designs of, and the changes of cargo capacity of different ships. I guess I'm in past times which may explain why I do not like the appearance of the present ships (except the few traditional Lakers). I still like the open fly bridge on the old boats. If you would, please answer how the crews manned the open fly bridge in the winter.
Thanks to all
Ron

by **RTNerd** » December 2, 2015, 8:54 pm

Here (in part) is the US Coast Guard visibility rule:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
46CFR §92.03-1 Navigation bridge visibility.

Each cargo and miscellaneous vessel which is 100 meters (328 feet) or more in length and contracted for on or after September 7, 1990, must meet the following requirements:

(a) The field of vision from the navigation bridge, whether the vessel is in a laden or unladen condition, must be such that:

(1) From the conning position, the view of the sea surface is not obscured forward of the bow by more than the lesser of two ship lengths or 500 meters (1,640 feet) from dead ahead to 10 degrees on either side of the vessel. Within this arc of visibility any blind sector caused by cargo, cargo gear, or other permanent obstruction must not exceed 5 degrees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Say the pilothouse is 500 feet aft of the unloading casing, the obstruction could be up to 43.7' wide and comply with the 5 degree limit (500 x tan 5 degrees). Since unloading casings are often 20 to 24 feet wide, complying with the rule is possible.

by **guest** » December 2, 2015, 6:21 pm

https://www.ems-tech.net/news-media/ems ... g-systems/

by **Guest** » December 2, 2015, 10:03 am

GL Engineer wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:don't think she will win any beauty awards. I would not want to be at the helm --vision ahead must be a real problem.
The setup may look like it has poor sight lines but they must be adequate to do the job. Would anyone purposely build a boat with such poor visibility that there was a high risk of collision/allision ? I think not.
I can be certain that sight line tests were done on the design. If memory serves me to be correct I think Algoma did tests on one of their ships a few years ago. If visibility issues caused by such a small structure was a major issue many of the more modern container ships with containers stacked to the height of the bridge from bow to stern would never be able to navigate some of the most congested waterways in the world

Another advantage, beside dock accessibility, to putting the Boom and Loop Casing forward is a minimal loss of cubic cargo handling capacity. By comparison if the boom were to be mounted aft on the Manitoulin the vessel would have to be made longer to compensate for the lost capacity, making the ship too long to navigate rivers such as the Saginaw and Cuyahoga. With the boom forward the loop casing is mounted into the forecastle which is essentially taking advantage of wasted space

I have attached a picture of the Algowest downbound at Marysville, Michigan sometime during the mid-1990s prior to its self-unloading conversion in 1998. If memory serves me correctly, the purpose of the red banners on each side of the forward mast was to examine the visibility issues with a bow mounted unloading boom.

by **GL Engineer** » December 2, 2015, 7:56 am

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:don't think she will win any beauty awards. I would not want to be at the helm --vision ahead must be a real problem.
The setup may look like it has poor sight lines but they must be adequate to do the job. Would anyone purposely build a boat with such poor visibility that there was a high risk of collision/allision ? I think not.

I can be certain that sight line tests were done on the design. If memory serves me to be correct I think Algoma did tests on one of their ships a few years ago. If visibility issues caused by such a small structure was a major issue many of the more modern container ships with containers stacked to the height of the bridge from bow to stern would never be able to navigate some of the most congested waterways in the world

Another advantage, beside dock accessibility, to putting the Boom and Loop Casing forward is a minimal loss of cubic cargo handling capacity. By comparison if the boom were to be mounted aft on the Manitoulin the vessel would have to be made longer to compensate for the lost capacity, making the ship too long to navigate rivers such as the Saginaw and Cuyahoga. With the boom forward the loop casing is mounted into the forecastle which is essentially taking advantage of wasted space

by **wlbblw** » November 30, 2015, 10:56 pm

A good example is the Sand Supply Wharf in Buffalo. The navigation channel ends right at the unloading apron & a forward mounted boom keeps the long length of the boat from having to extend up past the dredged channel & decreases the risk of running her into the mud. This way, only the bow goes up near the shallower water & not the entire hull, props, & rudders. A bow mounted boom keeps them from having to shove as far ahead into the goop as a conventional stern mounted boom. Form, follows function.

by **Guest** » November 30, 2015, 10:40 pm

Guest wrote:don't think she will win any beauty awards. I would not want to be at the helm --vision ahead must be a real problem.

The setup may look like it has poor sight lines but they must be adequate to do the job. Would anyone purposely build a boat with such poor visibility that there was a high risk of collision/allision ? I think not.

by **Guest** » November 30, 2015, 7:16 pm

don't think she will win any beauty awards. I would not want to be at the helm --vision ahead must be a real problem.

by **algowest** » November 30, 2015, 6:20 pm

According to reports, all 5 Equinox self-unloaders on order are forward-mounted booms. This includes (3) 740's and (2) 650's.

by **Guest** » November 30, 2015, 5:06 pm

There are certain unloading locations that are difficult, if not impossible, to serve with a stern mounted boom. I believe this is primarily due to the boom's pivot point distance to the bow or stern of the vessel (depending on the type of unloading configuration).
For example, the Robert S. Pierson's boom has a pivot point located 142 feet from its stern, while the Mississagi's bow mounted boom is only 98 feet from it stem.

by **toledoboatphotographer** » November 30, 2015, 4:11 pm

Several of the new Algoma self unloaders to be built will have the bow mounted self unloaders similar to the Manitoulin.

by **Guest** » November 30, 2015, 4:00 pm

Manitoulin was designed in North America. If her boom was mounted aft, she would be completely useless to many of the customers that LLT services. That would not be a wise investment.

by **cpfan** » November 30, 2015, 12:26 pm

Ron:

Did you realize that Manitoulin is not a scratch build? Perhaps the engineers felt that the old tanker stern from Lalandia Swan could not accomodate a stern mounted self-unloader.

Not sure why you are knocking Chinese ships because of this one conversion. The self-unloaders built for Algoma and CSL in China have the rear SUs.

OTOH, companies do not build ships for boatnerds, they build them to suit their requirements. Presumably that is why Algoma is having some ships built with front SUs in CROATIA, not China.

Since the design is from Algoma or LLT or CSL, I do not think it is appropriate to knock a country's ship builders.

Steve

by **Guest** » November 30, 2015, 12:21 pm

It was mounted forward to reach certain unloading docks, not for aesthetics. It reminds me of the conversions of the Frontenac or one of the similar Algoma boats just up front instead of stern mounted. While built in China where was the engineering done?
I guess it doesn't matter, function not aesthetics.

by **Ron** » November 30, 2015, 12:10 pm

Just saw pictures of the Manitoulin and the placement of the self unloading equipment was a surprise. I believe this large structure with the unloading boom located on the fore deck to be unpleasing and disappointing. Surely, there had to have better options to accommodate the machinery, a better placement of it. So many other great lakes self unloaders have a rear mounted structure which is less of a obstruction to vision. Why is it necessary to change to a front placement of the unloader? I cannot believe it allows for a greater efficiency in unloading a ship.
I'm sorry to say that this design does not speak well of the Chinese ships.
Ron

Boatnerd Discussion Forum

New self unloading canadian ships.

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: New self unloading canadian ships.

Re: New self unloading canadian ships.

Re: New self unloading canadian ships.

Re: New self unloading canadian ships.

Re: New self unloading canadian ships.

Re: New self unloading canadian ships.

Re: New self unloading canadian ships.

Re: New self unloading canadian ships.

Re: New self unloading canadian ships.

Re: New self unloading canadian ships.

Re: New self unloading canadian ships.

Re: New self unloading canadian ships.

Re: New self unloading canadian ships.

Re: New self unloading canadian ships.

Re: New self unloading canadian ships.

Re: New self unloading canadian ships.

Re: New self unloading canadian ships.

New self unloading canadian ships.