CSLFAN wrote:I'm not sure what the "safest" means but if means sitting inactive for the next 20 years you may have a winner...the Ryerson is not needed...her sisters Block and Sykes spend more of their time in the sand and stone trade than ore...if I had to change my bet I would say maybe 2% on Callaway or Valo...but both are steamers and who really owns Valo...and there are 3 boats on the wall --Cort, LAT and Clarke...and with each passing day and less coal to haul the footers become more available..why is it that the U.S. fleets have all these old boats sitting around and the Canadians have none ??
There has been discussion on the fact that it costs a lot of $$$$$ to construct a NEW U.S. hull, as it must be Jones Act COMPLIANT and therefore must be built in the U.S. Canadians, on the other hand, when they need a new ship can just call up their buddies in China or Croatia and order a new ship for delivery just over a year into the future for a fraction of the cost of a new U.S. built ship.
And by the way, Valo is owned by Lower Lakes Towing. Safest is meant that the vessel is in the better condition of many that are laid up currently and if there is a need that could arise for an additional hull, the Ryerson would be a decent candidate due to her relatively good hull condition. The Block and Sykes don't carry sand cargoes at all, only stone and slag when they are not engaged in the ore trade. The Block usually runs ore down from the head of Lake Superior down to the Cliffs mills on Southern Lake Michigan and picks up a load of stone to take back up to the head of Superior. She fills in occasionally on the Lake Michigan stone runs when they need additional capacity. The Sykes is normally on the Lake Michigan stone runs, but also runs slag out of Indiana Harbor and occasionally does the ore and backhaul stone trip.
The future of Great Lakes shipping is not as bleak as you are illusioned to think.
Don't forget about the many vessels 78 feet wide. The Corps has time and time again refused them passage through the Mac though technically they would fit.
By the the time they finish constructing the new lock at the soo they will probably not need it. The boats mentioned earlier in this post that could be going to scrap and the fact that coal is on the decline the 1000 footers will begin to sit at the wall as there won’t be enough cargo to keep the footers busy. That’s really the only reason they need a lock of that size is for the footers.
I'm not sure what the "safest" means but if means sitting inactive for the next 20 years you may have a winner...the Ryerson is not needed...her sisters Block and Sykes spend more of their time in the sand and stone trade than ore....if I had to change my bet I would say maybe 2% on Callaway or Valo....but both are steamers and who really owns Valo...and there are 3 boats on the wall --Cort, LAT and Clarke...and with each passing day and less coal to haul the footers become more available..why is it that the U.S. fleets have all these old boats sitting around and the Canadians have none ???
CSLFAN wrote:Lets put the money on the table...I'll put the odds at ZERO...and these will never haul another cargo: McKee Sons, CTC # !, Ryerson, Tecumseh, Sherwin, Valo, Callaway and Blough. And in the next 2 to 3 years the list will grow by 3 and 2 footers will be on the wall. If you want to see something interesting {or depressing} look on U Tube for video of stored railroad locomotives and coal hoppers it stretches for miles..coal is done.
I'd still say the Ryerson is the safest on that list as she is the most intact and in decent condition.
Lets put the money on the table....I'll put the odds at ZERO.....and these will never haul another cargo: McKee Sons, CTC # !, Ryerson, Tecumseh, Sherwin, Valo, Callaway and Blough. And in the next 2 to 3 years the list will grow by 3 and 2 footers will be on the wall. If you want to see something interesting {or depressing} look on U Tube for video of stored railroad locomotives and coal hoppers it stretches for miles..coal is done.
So what other ship(s) in the history of world wide shipping has sat in layup for 45 years to get put back into service? Before 2019 I'd say there was an 40/60 chance of the Sherwin coming back out. Now I would but the odds at 15/85.
Guest wrote:Shipyard costs have risen way more than people think. It's very expensive to crop and renew. You need to hand weld, stage scaffolding, rig lifting. Fit a modern diesel in a boat designed for a coal fired boiler? I think the cost may be closer to $35 million.
Building new in modules is way more efficient and you end up will all new everything. And exactly the boat you need not a compromise.
It's only the "G" strake that needs replacing. Other areas of pitting would be capped by welding. The pitting does not affect the internal structure, but yes, the keel and part of the double bottom would be replaced with a new section that has a reduced double bottom height along with the conveyor and hogbacks.
I don't know the status of the fuel oil tanks that were installed in place of the coal bunker, but the steam turbine and boilers were removed in September-October 2008 before work was stopped at Sturgeon Bay.
But that was 14 years ago who knows what else is going on with that aging hull. With the price of scrap metal high right now i don't know why they still hang on to this ship.
How far away was the Sherwin from the Fitz went it went down?
Guest wrote:Shipyard costs have risen way more than people think. It's very expensive to crop and renew. You need to hand weld, stage scaffolding, rig lifting. Fit a modern diesel in a boat designed for a coal fired boiler? I think the cost may be closer to $35 million.
Building new in modules is way more efficient and you end up will all new everything. And exactly the boat you need not a compromise.
It's only the "G" strake that needs replacing. Other areas of pitting would be capped by welding. The pitting does not affect the internal structure, but yes, the keel and part of the double bottom would be replaced with a new section that has a reduced double bottom height along with the conveyor and hogbacks.
I don't know the status of the fuel oil tanks that were installed in place of the coal bunker, but the steam turbine and boilers were removed in September-October 2008 before work was stopped at Sturgeon Bay.
This is a screen capture from the ABS Record showing the findings from a survey in November 2008 of the John Sherwin when she was drydocked. I tried to post to the new discussion board but my attempts at uploading the image hasn't worked.
Guest wrote:The John Sherwin was out on Lake Superior the night the Fitz went down correct?
The John Sherwin was on Lake Superior on November 10th. She reported winds of 40 knots and 12 foot waves. Cason J. Callaway on Lake Superior reported 48 knot winds and 18-foot waves. Philip R. Clarke had 42 knot winds and 13-foot waves. Arthur M. Anderson reported at 7pm of 50-knots, from the WNW 16-foot waves.
On Lake Huron, John Dykstra reported 60 knot winds, gusting to 70 knots and 15-foot waves. J. Burton Ayers had 46-knot winds and 20-foot waves. Middletown reported 50-knot winds and 16-foot waves. John Dykstra reported the highest wind report for the 1975 navigation season. These reports are synoptic observations that were part of the NWS cooperating vessel program. Reports are made at 0000, 0600, 1200 and 1800GMT. There were winds of 75 knots and 25-foot waves reported by vessels at the height of the storm, but they weren't formally sent to the NWS so they aren't part of the official record.
Shipyard costs have risen way more than people think. It's very expensive to crop and renew. You need to hand weld, stage scaffolding, rig lifting. Fit a modern diesel in a boat designed for a coal fired boiler? I think the cost may be closer to $35 million.
Building new in modules is way more efficient and you end up will all new everything. And exactly the boat you need not a compromise.
I really have the same question. I don't understand why they continue to hold on to the vessel. I do know that the hull has some serious issues and a new engine, complete overhaul, self unloader, and new hull plating is going to cost upward of 15-20 million. I don't think a vessel that large is going to be a great option to barge either. If they were going to cut it down by 120 feet, I don't know why they built the Mark Barker. Maybe with scrap prices so high, we'll finally see her go.
Why has interlake held onto the sherwin for so many years? I could see like back in 2006 or 2008 when they were going to convert her and bring her back out but now the ship has been sitting for an additional 14 years and looks to be in pretty rough shape. I think it would cost way too much money to bring her back to life. Maybe making a barge out of her would be the most cost effective. I personally don’t think we’ll ever see her sail again but who knows.
When they convert her all speculation of course, make sure she can fit through the seaway and carry all sorts of cargos not just ore! Make sure she has high cubic capacity!
If it's true that the John Sherwin might already need some steel replacement on her shell plating near or just above the turn of her bilge, and since converting the Sherwin to a self-unloader would already inherently include a significant amount of internal reconstruction, wonder whether she might be a viable candidate for a partial widening job, similar to what was done with CSL Tadoussac, Algoville/Tim S. Dool, Atlantic Huron, and John D. Leitch about 20 years ago. If combined with a creatively strategic shortening of her overal length by 66', Interlake could make for themselves a 740' x 78', Seawaymax -sized ship, the one size of laker they don't quite have in their fleet at the moment.
Another option, if Interlake were ever looking to utilize a Seawaymax sized ship, would be to perform a charter or ownership 'swap' with Central Marine Logistics: Interlake could offer an 806' x 75' John Sherwin, newly converted to a self-unloader and with new ultra-efficient engines, in exchange for, say, Joseph L. BLock.
Again, that's all wild speculation, offered solely for the enjoyment of thinking through such scenarios.
Although shipping on the Great Lakes is certain to remain in some form it is hard to not be pessimistic about the future when ships are being scrapped with no direct replacements. The US fleet is likely in for a major downsizing throughout the balance of this decade as the vast proportion of its self-powered vessels are well over 50 years old with many having reached or nearing the 70-year mark. As these ships are retired how many replacements will be built? While the Great Lakes shipping industry has shown itself capable of adapting to new trades to survive the dwindling number of available ships may impart its own limitations in the future. For example, with fewer ships available potential customers with low to moderate annual tonnage requirements may find they have no option in employing waterborne transportation for their needs as shipping companies may not have excess capacity to offer. Although such a situation may generate some business for tug/barge operators it is also possible that this tonnage may require an alternative method of transportation. There is no doubt that the most efficient method to move bulk cargoes is by water. However, what will be the tonnage requirements of the future now that coal for power generation is on its way out even as the steel industry moves more and more toward electric arc furnace production? What would be the situation today had Cliffs not entered into the steel production business? Furthermore, what could have happened to Cliffs' core raw material business in the event they hadn't taken such a move? In any case, there is little doubt that the US fleet will continue to shrink in the near future with the number of operational ships likely to be around half of what is currently sailing within the next 10 years. As someone that has had an interest in Great Lakes shipping spanning six decades, I certainly hope I'm incorrect in these assumptions. Like I said, not trying to be overly pessimistic but attempting to present a realistic viewpoint.