Boatnerd Discussion Forum

I forgot to add that the Canadians could easily utilize ATB's. Building an integrated system from scratch like the Presque Isle can be done within the footprint of a powered vessel and offer similar capacity for a similar sized vessel.

Things like the K&K conversions a few years ago aren't utilizing tugs build specifically for the job in question and as a result creates a vessel with a significant increase in size compared to its past self.

And they could build these new ATB's in China since the import question isn't any different. That they don't despite a likely cheaper vessel (A simplified galley, less crew accommodations, and so on with the only real added cost over a ship being the connection system) with fewer crew and less stringent regulations throughout its operational life speaks volumes I think.

They went with powered ships primarily for fuel efficiency. It's the same reason that Lower Lakes, Interlake, Great Lakes Fleet (Didn't they repower one of their footers?), Algoma Central, and pretty much everyone else have engaged in more expensive repowerings of older vessels instead of barges and why only repowerings represent current plans for the near future.

I suspect when the time comes for the remaining operational steamers to be converted that most all will be repowered as long as their services are still called for and the economy is in solid enough shape to create a justifiable return on investment projection. The only question mark might be the Alpena but I believe that she often engages in long hauls unlike the Challenger so I bet even she will be repowered when the day comes.

Jbren1 wrote:Another new factor will be repowering with LNG fueled engines as Interlake says they'll do with their 1000 footers. That means lower fuel costs and less $ penalty for poorer hydronamics, as the LNG infrastructure is established and assuming the prices remain far below oil as they are now.

I thought about mentioning LNG since it does cloud the issue but decided not to. I think we're going to just have to play the waiting game to see what sort of revolution, if any, this holds for the Lakes. But it certainly could change conventional thinking.

But for some anecdotal evidence of what I'm saying, look at Interlake's own plans. Despite the huge investment at play, they're still going to be ships rather than ATV conversions.

If ATB's are such a good deal where operational cost are concerned and for a more economical conversion over repowering (The two reasons older vessels are barged), this certainly lends skepticism of the old tale that ATB's are the future.

Jbren1 wrote:Though OTOH it also means more room required for the fuel tanks which is in favor of ships (Interlake plans to put big silo-shaped LNG tanks on the aft decks)

They're just doing that to save money to minimize reconstruction of the existing stern. There's no reason why a tug built to the scale of the Presque Isle's couldn't have internal LNG tanks.

Jbren1 wrote:Also though there haven't been *that* many repowerings of big steam lakers. I wouldn't consider the replacement of old Enterprises and Pielsticks on 1000' ers with Mak M43's, or the re-enginings CSL is doing at Bay Ship, as being relevant to ATB v ship: of course in an existing diesel ship the most economical method to modernize its powerplant is just to slot in new engines of similar physical size and change as little else as possible.

That's not true, a huge reason why many of these ATB conversions have happened is because the conversion is cheaper than repowering. Look at the estimates for the St. Mary's Challenger or the reasons why K&K barged the Buckeye and Reserve (Which ran about half of what a repowering job like Interlake has done for their old steamers would've cost).

The premium solution is repowering which more affluent fleets have universally embraced like Lower Lakes. It's a higher initial capital cost than barging but the fuel savings is extremely attractive and more than compensates for the increased crew size and tightened regulations compared to a ATB.

I agree with some of that but disagree with some too. The Canadian situation is now totally different. They can build ships in China for as little as 25% what it would cost in the US. At those radically lower capital costs the equation of ship investment is totally different. IOW I 100% agree the *Canadians* won't build large ATB's, for the capital cost reason as well as the tighter length constraint of the Welland/Seaway which their big ships constantly use but US lakers hardly ever do. I don't think you can infer anything much about the US situation from the Canadian, now that the Canadian operators have the full green light to build in China.

As far as US building costs it's not purely the technical aspects of cost building ship or barge in same yard, but also the commercial fact you can increase competition by buying a barge outside the lakes, like Lake Contender. I don't know if DonJon can really be a considered a full competitor to Fincantieri/Bay though they eventually turned out one big barge, and otherwise Bay doesn't necessarily have a strong reason to really sharpen its pencil building new ships. A given barge yard outside the lakes is more likely to have an incentive at a given time to give a good price, and the Gulf cost structure is just lower. And just as regulatory considerations impact tug/barge manning, they also do affect building cost somewhat also. If you look at coastal oil trades, ATB's are strong contenders, including over distances similar to those of long lakes runs, although new tanker (ships) are also built.

I do agree fuel and manning are other important considerations, with lower hydrodynamic efficiency of ATB v its smaller crew. Another new factor will be repowering with LNG fueled engines as Interlake says they'll do with their 1000 footers. That means lower fuel costs and less $ penalty for poorer hydronamics, as the LNG infrastructure is established and assuming the prices remain far below oil as they are now. Though OTOH it also means more room required for the fuel tanks which is in favor of ships (Interlake plans to put big silo-shaped LNG tanks on the aft decks)

Also though there haven't been *that* many repowerings of big steam lakers. I wouldn't consider the replacement of old Enterprises and Pielsticks on 1000' ers with Mak M43's, or the re-enginings CSL is doing at Bay Ship, as being relevant to ATB v ship: of course in an existing diesel ship the most economical method to modernize its powerplant is just to slot in new engines of similar physical size and change as little else as possible.

But when it comes to big US steam lakers going diesel recently it's really just, as with LNG, Interlake. That's a company which seems willing in general to step up with higher capital cost lower long term cost solutions. With the other 'major' companies which still have steam ships on their rosters it doesn't seem as clear. Great Lakes Fleet has no plans to do anything with its steamers yet AFAIK (do they?), and its seems ASC mainly doesn't operate its few remaining steamers.

Building a barge and tug from scratch I suspect isn't a significant savings over a ship where the initial cost is concerned.

Those two new builds happened since they believed that the operational savings in manning requirements and mandatory inspections would result in operational savings despite increased fuel usage due to a less efficient hull form back in the 1990's. That's why the Great Lakes Trader was built like it was and why the Lakes Contender was designed as such.

Not only have things like crew reductions helped a bit since then to close the gap somewhat, but rising fuel prices and most of all projections for the coming decades have swung the equation around. They represent the future as it stands about as well as the Presque Isle did 40 years ago.

If the savings were still there, you wouldn't see all these fleets repowering vessels in recent years or the Canadians buying new ships instead of new ATB's.

The lasting place for ATB's, at least unless crew sizes become more equalized someday and regulations are strengthened for vessels that essentially are ships, are the fringes of this industry.

"You won't see another mainstream American laker fleet barging a freighter. "

You could be right. You are right that the most recent major work on steam lakers has been diesel re-enginings rather barge conversions, except for pretty small ships like St Mary's Challenger.

However if lake traffic were to gradually increase (MARAD predicts so, interestingly, that coal won't grow but won't shrink and iron ore increase somewhat by 2040) or in the very long long run when even fresh water ships wear out, that is if and when any more actually new US lakers are needed, I think the equation might be different. There you're dealing with ultra-high new US building costs for new ships which can be at least somewhat ameliorated with tug-barge. In any case the newbuilding situation doesn't actively support your opinion. Maybe Lakes Contender and Great Lakes Trader are a bit old news at this point compared to more recent re-enginings of old ships, but the last real ship lakers built in the US are now *very* old news compared to either.

Algoport was built for a specific coastal run that did not materialize, so it only made sense the her "replacement" be Seawaymax. As with any other business owner, you're not going to turn away profitable lines of work, so if Algoma can replace the two 650's with Seawaymax and still service those customers, they will. If not serviceable by Seawaymax, they will shorten the Equinox design and have more economical and environmental replacements to utilize on the smaller port customer runs. Perhaps the boom will be bow-mounted as well.

Guest wrote:And another bit of anecdotal evidence that Algoma has no interest in providing less than Seawaymax size services is the Algoma Mariner. She's not far from being 100' longer than the vessel whose stern was intended to be recycled for her construction had the Algoport not sunk while under tow to the shipyard and is now the full 740' x 78' of a Seawaymax size vessel.

You won't see another mainstream American laker fleet barging a freighter. It was one and done the better part of 20 years ago now and that operator has repowered much of their fleet since then with plans on the books for further conversions.

Barging is good for the cash constrained operator since it can provide significant operational savings over 60-70 year old machinery at a much lower initial cost or for the operator with short runs. But on long runs for a healthy fleet, the ATB lost long ago as many repowerings are evidence of. And fuel prices and forecasts for the future continue to strengthen the argument for large vessels with long runs.

ATB'ing is and looks set to always be something for the fringes of this industry served by smaller and more specialized vessels. I wouldn't expect any more conversions or any large new builds like the Lakes Contender whose genesis dates back to the 90's and a time when it looked like it just might be the future of lakes shipping.

Guest wrote:It seems to me that the pending scrapping of the Algoma Transfer, along with the anticipated retirement of the Algorail and Algoway in a nearby timeframe, with no direct replacements being built for these vessels indicates that Algoma intends upon concentrating in the movement of cargo through the Seaway system utilizing only maximum sized carriers.

Don't forget about the Agawa Canyon going to scrap several years ago or the James Norris that was all set for repowering before ULS was absorbed by them. By their own admission, that was the best condition vessel that IMS ever scrapped.

And another bit of anecdotal evidence that Algoma has no interest in providing less than Seawaymax size services is the Algoma Mariner. She's not far from being 100' longer than the vessel whose stern was intended to be recycled for her construction had the Algoport not sunk while under tow to the shipyard and is now the full 740' x 78' of a Seawaymax size vessel.

It seems to me that the pending scrapping of the Algoma Transfer, along with the anticipated retirement of the Algorail and Algoway in a nearby timeframe, with no direct replacements being built for these vessels indicates that Algoma intends upon concentrating in the movement of cargo through the Seaway system utilizing only maximum sized carriers. Perhaps they are intending to compete head to head with CSL for this business and get away from the smaller (or more confined) ports served by ships such as the Algoway and Algorail?

Years ago I was told that if an ocean-going vessel was considered as built to a strength coefficient of 1, a typical laker's was .5, and a laker classed to trade down to Halifax needed to be .8.

Lakes-only ships are much weaker, in terms of main hull girder strength, than oceangoing ships. The key is that waves on the lakes are shorter (distance horizontally between peak and trough) than ocean waves, even though the lakes can be quite rough.

I think it's correct that big ATB bulker/self unloaders are not likely to ever be seen on the Canadian side, given two main facts:
-the Canadian ships often traverse the Welland Canal/Seaway where the length of the tug extending aft of the barge would directly subtract from the maximum possible length and therefore carrying capacity of the barge, unless the tug constantly moves in and out of the notch which isn't practical either.
-as seen in the new Algoma and CSL ships, Canadian operators are allowed to build their ships in China at a fraction what it would cost in Canada, and even back when the Canadians built their own lakers they were still generally cheaper than those built in the US.

But US ships rarely use the Welland/Seaway is rare, and no old steam lakers would exceed the length of the Poe Lock if cut down to barges, even if the tug increased their length. And all US operators are subject to sky high US shipyard costs (please note that's not blaming anyone, it's just a fact: it costs 3 or 4 times as much to build or do a major conversion on a merchant ship in the US as Far East). Therefore continued conversion of old US steam lakers to barges in ATB is quite likely IMO. In fact you might have seen a flurry of such activity already if the steam lakers hadn't gotten a special exemption from new EPA emissions rules. Although, some old steam lakers have also been repowered with diesels and that's possible as well. Likewise there's no great economic penalty to building a new Seaway max length barge on the Gulf Coast like Great Lakers Trader, since the Rube Goldberg process of getting it through the Seaway is only done once. Or you can just build a new large barge of that size on the lakes, like Lakes Contender. It seems barges of that size are economically viable for the US trades, but you could even build bigger ones up to the size of Presque Isle, almost the capacity of a true 1000 footer.

I think it's unlikely we'll see all new full ship lakers built on the US side again unless the US were to change the Jones Act to allow the US Lake Carriers to build in the Far East like CSL and Algoma can. If that change isn't made, and there's no sign it will be, then I think we'll see more or less barge conversions of older steamships and/or new barges depending how fast or if the overall US traffic levels increase.

Just my two cents based mainly on being an interested observer of the lakes ships from outside the industry, though long ago I was a naval architect and did some design and consulting work for lakes operators as a junior person.

Joe

The wave spacings are different on the lakes than on the ocean. A laker hull wouldn't fair as well as a saltie in those conditions.

Also from what I've heard the Algoport was "ripe", which means she was rotted out inside. Which is why they were seeking a new bow, but obviously she couldn't handle it.

Through all my years being around vessels I have always heard that the Great Lakes are rougher in some respects then the ocean. If this is true why do the new ships coming from China need deck stiffeners?
I have never personally made a study of wave action and how ships react, but having sailed all the lakes and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans there is a different how vessels react. I note in another thread about the Savic that the Coast Guard wanted deck stiffeners installed prior to her departure from the lakes. In another instance the Algoma ship that broke in two in her way to China, but that I believe was on the back side of a typhoon.

I vessels needs to flex a certain amount in heavy weather or it will break in two so why do they want to make them stiffer?

middlerouge wrote:

Randy M wrote:A...if instead of building the Equinox class, Algoma decided to just carve a notch in the Soo/Way/Qubecois/Montrealis and Tug and Barge them like so many other companies are doing/have done before

The canadians would not convert or build a barge to seawaymax size. Look when great lakes trader made her lone trip up the seaway- too time consuming to lock through

Joyce L. had to back out of the notch because together they were over 100 feet longer than Seawaymax. If an ATB was built to Seawaymax it would lock through like a laker, except that ATBs aren't as fuel efficient on long Seaway runs as lakers.

Randy M wrote:A...if instead of building the Equinox class, Algoma decided to just carve a notch in the Soo/Way/Qubecois/Montrealis and Tug and Barge them like so many other companies are doing/have done before

The canadians would not convert or build a barge to seawaymax size. Look when great lakes trader made her lone trip up the seaway- too time consuming to lock through

"Hey tradition is the enemy of progress."

New or old they all require the same attention called maintenance which is costly, this kills the profit margin, but thanks to depreciation and tax right offs the companies are still active because they do after all make money, and that is what makes the world go round today.
If the shipping companies were subsidized like the railroads in days gone by, maybe more shipping companies would be present today. One has to appreciate the lobby group.

Randy M wrote:A...if instead of building the Equinox class, Algoma decided to just carve a notch in the Soo/Way/Qubecois/Montrealis and Tug and Barge them like so many other companies are doing/have done before

I would hazard to predict that the days of a large-scale barge conversions is long past. Such conversions impart severe limitations for many trade routes. While such a reconstruction makes sense for a vessel such as the St. Mary's Challenger, which operates almost exclusively on Lake Michigan over relatively short trade routes. Such an option is almost non existent for the Canadian fleet as its ships are commonly employed on longer routes that carry them up the Seaway. Furthermore, as many of the Canadian flagged ships sold for demolition over the past few years were reaching some 50 years of service, their hulls would have required extensive work to keep them in service, regardless of a barge conversion. Additionally, the reduction in coal shipments to Canadian power plants has also negatively impacted that nation's Great Lakes fleet. I would further surmise that the consolidation of the Algoma and ULS fleets also brought about a over capacity situation that contributed heavily to the disposal of a number of units. The bottom line is that the ships we see going to the scrapyard have reached the end of their productive lives, a sad but ultimately inevitable fate for any ship ever built, including the new class we see entering service today.

Those were reported to be deck stiffeners for the Ocean Voyage and will be removed over the winter.

They look great But whats with the extra deck plate that runs about 3/4 the length of the deck From the pix in Duluth I dont see any scuppers Inside looks full of pipes and cable trays Would be a hard place to hose out

It is nice to see Algoma and CSL's commitment to the future of shipping on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway manifesting itself in a fleet renewal project of this scale. That being said, it is, however, sad to see the older units being retired. Ever since shipping began on the lakes, it has been evolving into what we have today. This process will continue for as long as there are ships plying the fresh waters of this wonderful transportation system.

I have enjoyed this thread very much, and I thank everyone who has shared their opinion. I am one of those who prefer the old ships, and would like to make a few points.
1. I am glad there are many fans who like the new ships and will go out of their way to see them. Our hobby would slowly disappear if that was not the case. Hopefully young people who never saw a traditional laker in operation will be as excited about seeing the Algoma Equinox and her sisters as I am about seeing the Alpena.
2. Change is always difficult. I'm sure that some boat fans in the late 19th century were appalled to see sailing vessels being replaced by steamers or converted into barges to be towed by steamers. I can imagine that some felt those new whalebacks were really ugly compared to a schooner. Then years later the wood hull steamers slowly disappeared. Perhaps some fans thought that those giant new steel ships were not worth looking at.
3. For some of us it may be just a matter of time to get used to the new ships. Back in the 70's I had zero interest in the new 1000-footers. Now I will watch them. And now that most of my beloved old cabins-forward and steam ships are gone, I have to either watch the new ships or not watch at all. I prefer to keep watching.
4. It was stated here that seeing the Chinese new-builds start service on the Lakes is seeing history. Absolutely right.
5. I am also a rail fan and again, for some of us, change can be difficult. I still remember the "old guys" back in the 60's telling me they would never watch diesel powered trains. For them, steam was still king! And it has "only" taken me 25 years to get used to seeing a freight train with no caboose.
6. I can understand that some current professional mariners may not share a fan's endless nostalgia for the old ships. If my job was to get a boat over the lakes and get it loaded and unloaded as quickly and efficiently as possible, I might be really happy to have a brand new ship, especially if it is more comfortable to live on!
7. For those of us who really treasure our memories of the old ships and mourn their loss, it is up to us to keep that history alive by supporting our ship museums with our donations and volunteer labor.