Ryerson

Discussion board focusing on Great Lakes Shipping Question & Answer. From beginner to expert all posts are welcome.
Guest

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Guest »

Another consideration for the Ryerson is where are you going to find the steam engineers. It took them 2 years to hire a permanent 1st Assistant Engineer for the Sykes. Any fool can be 3rd but the higher licenses like 1st and Chief are getting more difficult to find.
Shipwatcher1
Posts: 489
Joined: April 19, 2011, 4:01 pm

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Shipwatcher1 »

Jon Paul wrote: November 5, 2022, 1:23 pm Ive never been one for rumors as my years on here show but talked to a friend yesterday off the Sykes and he said there is rumor circulating around Cliffs/CML about the Ryerson. They are looking at possibly modifying it to carry the HBI product coming out of Ironvile. It would remain gearless and have modifications to the hatches and cargo hold. Also re-powering.
With many of the mills including Algoma switching to EAF over the next decade Cliffs would be in the vertically advantageous position of mining, milling and supplying HBI stock and being able to deliver it. Im not sure how a basically 4 x 2" iron ingot would be loaded but Im not an engineer lol
Would certainly be interesting to see if that plays out. I think it would certainly be a record if she came back after this long at the wall now.
Scott

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Scott »

Guest wrote: October 9, 2022, 8:24 pm Unfortunately the Ryerson, Blough, and Sherwin will never sail again. The Callaway will be modified and will live another day just not in her current form.
Thanks for keeping the rumor mill churning
Guest

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Guest »

Good info. I hadn’t researched the nuggets that far to know they were ok in BOF.
Jon Paul
Posts: 888
Joined: December 14, 2017, 8:37 pm

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Jon Paul »

According to Cliffs Ironville website the HBI ingots are compatible with BOF and EAF steel making plants and reduces carbon emissions. Sounds like they are positioning themselves for the future.
Guest

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Guest »

Interesting although I’m trying to see the advantage in that for anywhere other than Algoma soo. All other plants already using the nuggets are within easy rail and truck delivery from Toledo. Seems more handling and cost to drop it at Indiana harbor for rail truck transshipment even with water economies of scale. If it happens it’s a shot in the arm for a declining Great Lakes shipping industry. Hope it does
Jon Paul
Posts: 888
Joined: December 14, 2017, 8:37 pm

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Jon Paul »

Ive never been one for rumors as my years on here show but talked to a friend yesterday off the Sykes and he said there is rumor circulating around Cliffs/CML about the Ryerson. They are looking at possibly modifying it to carry the HBI product coming out of Ironvile. It would remain gearless and have modifications to the hatches and cargo hold. Also re-powering.
With many of the mills including Algoma switching to EAF over the next decade Cliffs would be in the vertically advantageous position of mining, milling and supplying HBI stock and being able to deliver it. Im not sure how a basically 4 x 2" iron ingot would be loaded but Im not an engineer lol
Andrew

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Andrew »

The CG was surprised at the amount of pitting on the hull of the John Sherwin. They won't release the Ryerson for a dead ship tow until they put her in the drydock. The Sherwin was drydocked at Fraser before she was towed out. Drydocking the Ryerson at Fraser would defeat the purpose of towing her to Sturgeon for the owners, they just want to drydock her once for a hull inspection and then move forward with whatever they want to do with her.
Guest

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Guest »

Andrew wrote: October 10, 2022, 2:41 pm Heard the owners have a beef with Fraser and that they are trying to get a Coast Guard certification to tow her to BayShip for a survey, but the Coast Guard hasn't allowed it yet. Would not be surprised to see the Ryerson sail again, especially considering Interlake just proved that boxed holds and self-unloading gear can go together. Eventually, a decision will be made on her, and it may be in the economic downturn that seems to be looming that they'll get a good price on a conversion. I know there's some issues with iron in the river system of Duluth/Superior, but beyond that, the hull is in good shape and hasn't seen nearly the use and abuse.
What could possibly be the hold-up with the Coast Guard for a tow to Sturgeon Bay? The Ryerson would be moved "dead ship" which is done all the time and in many instances with ships that have sat around longer than the Ryerson with one being the John Sherwin.
GuestfromEU
Posts: 359
Joined: December 7, 2014, 10:33 am

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by GuestfromEU »

Vessels with lower cargo capacity and ability to trade with more options are absolutely the future. However, the cost of shortening the AAA-class, in addition to required the re-powering to be competitive, would be a poor proposition. To remove the 96 foot sections is a complex task. The engineering preparation alone would be costly, further compounded by the true time and material cost of the modifications. It's not as simple as chopping out the added sections - electrical work and modifications to the self-unloading system would be costly, and the hull stability engineering also requires calculations and approvals - just because the ship is returned to original dimensions does not mean the process is streamlined. Stability and construction rules have changed since the 1950's and the ship would need to comply with current class rules of construction. In the end it would result in a ship that would be re-powered and returned to service, but the ship is still 70+ years old, and a high cost was invested to attain this asset. Why this is a bad option is evident in why Interlake elected to build the Mark Barker. Like renovating an old house, at a certain point it is not economical when compared to tearing down and building new.

I do not foresee the Ryerson returning to economical service in Seaway voyages. The cargo capacity is less than Algoma or CSL gearless ships, or even the self-unloaders. Those ships were optimized for Seaway trading whereas the Ryerson cannot compete on capacity or efficiency. The fuel consumption of the Ryerson as a steam plant is probably double the Trillium or Equinox ships. Re-powering the Ryerson is not economically attractive when considering the end result - much like the AAA-class, the cargo capacity and economics cannot compete with a new ship.

US shipowners are not interested in direct competition with Canadian operators with regards to the Seaway grain or iron ore trade. It is far more economical for Canadian owners to monopolize this trade when factoring the USD/CAD exchange and subsequent lower cost of Canadian ship operations, and ships optimized for the Seaway trade. Even the John J Boland or similar existing Seawaymax ships in the US fleet are not competitive with new ships.

Future ships built for US owners will likely be similar in design to the Mark Barker. Agility to trade in many sectors and adapt to economics is crucial since future trades are unknown, but even a layman can understand the declining cargo lift capacity. Coal-fired power stations converting to natural gas (or shuttering), the cyclical nature of the iron ore sector, future conversion of integrated mills to electric arc furnaces, and even the construction aggregate industry all pose challenges for the future. Some of these factors are known - the iron ore fluctuations have been around forever - but there is the unknown of the coal trade. This is one reason CSL and Algoma pursue overseas ventures in an effort to diversify the income stream. Those two companies market themselves publicly as Great Lakes ship operators, but in truth much of the company revenue is from the international ventures.

It would be fascinating to see these aged ships continue trading, don't get me wrong. But shipping is a business and there needs to be sound financial decisions taken to justify any capital improvements to the fleet. In any event, significant upgrades like re-powering are not attractive at this time due to long delivery times from manufacturers for critical components like engines and electrical, further compounded by high costs. A simple electric motor that may have cost USD 500 in 2020 now costs USD 900, for example. Extrapolate these costs over the total project expenditures and it's reasonable to say the project cost could be millions more in today's date compared to a the past. At least Interlake fixed the construction contract before inflation and material shortages came to full effect.
Guest

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Guest »

Looking at the way the other fleets are positioning themselves for the future of shipping the GLF does not have very desirable ships. We will be moving into an era of multi cargo ships that can deliver to smaller river ports. IMHO I believe the AAA’s have the brightest future with repowerings and removing the lengthened sections.
Andrew

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Andrew »

CN pulled their fleet off the sale table. To my knowledge, the fleet is no longer for sale, at least for the time being.
Jared
Posts: 798
Joined: December 6, 2014, 4:51 pm

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Jared »

Guest wrote: October 11, 2022, 3:56 pm Wouldn't a re-engined steamer need to meet the emission standards of today? No way the Blough's engines meet those without scrubbers.

Why wouldn't CN Railway just keep the insurance settlement? Aren't they trying to get out of the shipping business?
Maybe CN wants the cake and eat it also. They get the insurance payout for the Blough, and then the hull is sold off to another buyer with the rest of the fleet leaving them paid twice for one ship.
Guest

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Guest »

Guest wrote: October 11, 2022, 8:13 am
Guest wrote: October 10, 2022, 7:27 pm Could the engines on the Blough be used to repower any of GLF's steamers? It sounds like they are undamaged from the fire.
They're 50 years old. So even if it made financial sense which I don't believe it does, I doubt EPA standards would even allow for it.

While the engine is a significant portion of the cost in a repowering project, I believe the shipyard cost to be even more for all the necessary engineering work, clearing out the engine room, and installing everything. To cut corners by using engines with so many miles under their belt, perhaps lackluster parts availability, poor fuel economy by comparison to modern options, and so on doesn't make economic sense.

If the Blough is done the only value her engines have past scrap value is if there's demand for parts from remaining operators of that model of Pielstick engine. Then they could be parted out with their in-demand components sold for more than their scrap value. I would think Interlake would be interested for one.

Creating a spare parts pool was one of the reasons behind repowering the Paul R. Tregurtha. Components like crankshafts have several months lead time if ordered new and Interlake realized that there was a very real possibility that one of them could be put out of service for an extended period at the height of the shipping season due to a parts failure on their aging engines. The Tregurtha's parted out engines gave them some breathing room.
Didn't the Blough receive new engines sometime in the 1990s?
Guest

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Guest »

Wouldn't a re-engined steamer need to meet the emission standards of today? No way the Blough's engines meet those without scrubbers.

Why wouldn't CN Railway just keep the insurance settlement? Aren't they trying to get out of the shipping business?
Guest

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Guest »

The box holds of the Ryerson and the Mark W. Barker are not comparable, except for shape. The Ryerson's ballast tanks are far larger and would

And the box-holds with self-unloader system is nothing new. The Upper Lakes Shipping had been doing it for decades, first with the Canadian Century back in 1967 (that used a reclaimer).

Jack Leitch in the mid-1990s invented a revised system, where instead of the reclaimer (expensive to maintain - and prone to breakdowns) and replaced it with two wheeled front-end loaders to push the cargo to the center belt. Most of the later Canadian self-unloader rebuilds used this system, but the Mark W. Barker is the first ship in the US, to use such a system. Interlake had the foresight to build the Barker with larger hatches so she can carry outsized cargo, if so needed.

Getting back to the Ryerson, I'm concerned about her hull. She's been docked in and around Fraser Shipyard for 14 years, and she must have some pitting to her hull by now. Possibly not as severe as is seen with the William A. Irvin and the John Sherwin, but some degree of pitting.
Guest

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Guest »

Guest wrote: October 10, 2022, 7:27 pm Could the engines on the Blough be used to repower any of GLF's steamers? It sounds like they are undamaged from the fire.
They're 50 years old. So even if it made financial sense which I don't believe it does, I doubt EPA standards would even allow for it.

While the engine is a significant portion of the cost in a repowering project, I believe the shipyard cost to be even more for all the necessary engineering work, clearing out the engine room, and installing everything. To cut corners by using engines with so many miles under their belt, perhaps lackluster parts availability, poor fuel economy by comparison to modern options, and so on doesn't make economic sense.

If the Blough is done the only value her engines have past scrap value is if there's demand for parts from remaining operators of that model of Pielstick engine. Then they could be parted out with their in-demand components sold for more than their scrap value. I would think Interlake would be interested for one.

Creating a spare parts pool was one of the reasons behind repowering the Paul R. Tregurtha. Components like crankshafts have several months lead time if ordered new and Interlake realized that there was a very real possibility that one of them could be put out of service for an extended period at the height of the shipping season due to a parts failure on their aging engines. The Tregurtha's parted out engines gave them some breathing room.
Andrew

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Andrew »

I was actually wondering the exact same thing. Its designed for a single screw so one would think theres a chance..
Guest

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Guest »

Could the engines on the Blough be used to repower any of GLF's steamers? It sounds like they are undamaged from the fire.
Andrew

Re: Ryerson

Unread post by Andrew »

Heard the owners have a beef with Fraser and that they are trying to get a Coast Guard certification to tow her to BayShip for a survey, but the Coast Guard hasn't allowed it yet. Would not be surprised to see the Ryerson sail again, especially considering Interlake just proved that boxed holds and self-unloading gear can go together. Eventually, a decision will be made on her, and it may be in the economic downturn that seems to be looming that they'll get a good price on a conversion. I know there's some issues with iron in the river system of Duluth/Superior, but beyond that, the hull is in good shape and hasn't seen nearly the use and abuse.

Blough is probably done, sadly, but with her engines apparently undamaged, that's not a guarantee.

Callaway is anyone's guess, but if there's a big insurance payout from the Blough, I could see GLF putting work into the hull and a new engine. Again, anyone's guess. I heard there were rumors of her being sold, but I have yet to see any of those rumors substantiated. I find it hard to believe that GLF would sell to a US competitor like VanEnkevort and I doubt Rand is in a financial position to do anything to her, especially since they have an equivalent hull already at the wall in the American Valor.

With all three of these ships, and with the entire industry, it's all hearsay until official word comes from the company. Scrap steel was at a very high price for a while, so one would think that if the fleets were in any hurry to get rid of them, it would have been when the prices were good.
Post Reply