by hausen » July 5, 2010, 5:59 pm
BoatBrad wrote:Does diesel always trump steam? The example that comes to mind is ULS's Montrealais and Quebecois, both active steamers, while diesel powered sister Canadian Miner is inactive, and even slated to be scrapped.
There are two disadvantages held by the Canadian Miner (and many other similar ships) that sent them to the wall earlier than one might expect. If I understand correctly, many Canadian ships were built with engines that burnt actual diesel fuel and not the heavy fuel oil / bunker oil used by most of the successful marine diesels on the lakes. Diesel is a lot more expensive than bunker oil/heavy fuel oil, so ships with setups like the Canadian Miner, depending on overall fuel efficiency, are sometimes actually at a disadvantage compared to steamers that can burn cheaper fuel.
When it comes to the Canadian ships that trade out into the salt water of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, another reason newer ships have retired while the Montrealais and Quebecois continue sailing is the quality of hull construction, the thickness of the steel, and the quality of maintenance given to the vessels over the years. That salt water wreaks havoc on ships' ballast tanks and hull exteriors. 2010 is so far out from the 1960s-70s in terms of the expected life spans of these ships that by now one built fairly sturdily with a longer life span in mind and with good maintenance over the years can easily outlast a hull that's 10 years younger but was built more lightly and not maintained as well. 40+ years out, that kind of stuff is a much bigger factor than the difference between being constructed in 1962 and 1969.
[quote="BoatBrad"]Does diesel always trump steam? The example that comes to mind is ULS's Montrealais and Quebecois, both active steamers, while diesel powered sister Canadian Miner is inactive, and even slated to be scrapped.[/quote]
There are two disadvantages held by the Canadian Miner (and many other similar ships) that sent them to the wall earlier than one might expect. If I understand correctly, many Canadian ships were built with engines that burnt actual diesel fuel and not the heavy fuel oil / bunker oil used by most of the successful marine diesels on the lakes. Diesel is a lot more expensive than bunker oil/heavy fuel oil, so ships with setups like the Canadian Miner, depending on overall fuel efficiency, are sometimes actually at a disadvantage compared to steamers that can burn cheaper fuel.
When it comes to the Canadian ships that trade out into the salt water of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, another reason newer ships have retired while the Montrealais and Quebecois continue sailing is the quality of hull construction, the thickness of the steel, and the quality of maintenance given to the vessels over the years. That salt water wreaks havoc on ships' ballast tanks and hull exteriors. 2010 is so far out from the 1960s-70s in terms of the expected life spans of these ships that by now one built fairly sturdily with a longer life span in mind and with good maintenance over the years can easily outlast a hull that's 10 years younger but was built more lightly and not maintained as well. 40+ years out, that kind of stuff is a much bigger factor than the difference between being constructed in 1962 and 1969.