Ryerson questions

[BigB]

There was talk back in April in the trade publication "Metal Bulletin" that Severstal Dearborn was mulling the rebuilding of the "B" blast furnace that was damaged a few years ago. If so, than the John Sherwin would be reactivated.

[Denny]

Are you referring to when the Cornelius was chartered from ASC to Inland Steel from 1994-1999? The Cornelius went on a charter to replace the Ryerson during that period as she was in layup and Inland need a spare boat at the time. In 1997 though the Ryerson was reactivated and sailed I think it was for two years before going back to layup. Then in 1999 the Cornelius went back to ASC her charter ending with Inland Steel.

[Guest]

If they did decide to bareboat charter, would the ACorn be a good option? I mean she's in lay-up and she was charted before...

[RLM916]

Heard a few weeks ago on a thread that Interlake might be moving the John Sherwin back to Sturgeon Bay for conversion? Any truth to that?

Also, I saw it mentioned here I think that Interlake might consider a charter of American Valor (Armco) from ASC. If so, would that not preclude the need to convert the Sherwin?

[guest2]

The Sherwin has fuel tank issues also, but the main reason for a boom fwd. is that Interlake delivers to the Rouge plant and they want a boom fwd. boat to deliver ore further up the dock.

[Guest]

Inland's plan had the boom mounted at the stern although I can't speak to any possible limitations it would've had with fuel capacity and such.

The Sherwin has issues that would've caused a bow mounted unloading system though.

[Brent]

I have seen several drawings of the Ryerson as a selfunloader and all of tem have had the boom forward. I was told by reliable people that the way the fuel tanks are configured would make it very costly to do a boom aft and also limit the amount offuel she could carry. This is one of the reasons that they talk of repowering as well as the SU conversion at the same time. Would all this really be worth it when there are selfunloaders out there sitting at the wall? If additional tonnage was needed they could always bare boat charter to cover any shortage.

[Guest]

Also look under the link to John Belliveau's works. Once there, go to the "other works gallery."

Here you'll find a drawing of the Ryerson he has done where he simply adds the Sykes unloading system to the Ryerson. Gives us an idea. Also the below mentioned blueprint drawing is there as well, plus some other interesting stuff.

[Guest]

The Ryerson page in the Fleet Gallery has a drawing of the self unloading system when the company investigated it in the 1990's. Follows her lines and doesn't look too bad.

The company has studied it and has even developed plans for it. I believe there are even some exterior drawings out there that the company allowed to be released if someone wants to search those out to get an idea of how she'd look if it were done.

[Guest]

Extensive hold reconfiguration is a given if the Ryerson was to be converted to a self unloader. As I recall, the Sykes required similar adjustments and was also built to be a dedicated ore boat.

The company has studied it and has even developed plans for it. I believe there are even some exterior drawings out there that the company allowed to be released if someone wants to search those out to get an idea of how she'd look if it were done.

The limiting factor for the Ryerson and being converted to a self-unloader is demand and not design limitations. Cargo demand would have to rise sufficiently and for an extended period for it to happen. Such a move would likely require a long-term contract to guarantee she'd have cargo to haul to justify the investment.

And now, it's likely that repowering would also be a necessity with the planned phasing out of steam power by the EPA.

[ChrisW]

I have heard that the Conflow unloader was damaged in a storm. Is there really any proof to that or was that an excuse to get rid of a costly experiment. Just wondering if any Gordon Leitch sailors know the truth about that.

[Guest]

You still need a boom with a reclaimer style system, sloping the hold would take away a lot of capacity for coal and stone, not as bad as ore since the hold is never filled all the way anyways

[Guest]

Nope not the Misener style, the ULS boat style, belt down the middle, and front end loaders to push cargo to belt. Could such a conversion even be done. Didn't the Henry Ford II have a system like that? If so was she built that way?

[Denny]

Just look at the photos of when the Gordon C. Leitch which was the former Ralph Misener had her self-unloading unit on her deck. She was one ugly looking boat to look at and photograph that is for certain. One of the best things to become of the Leitch when she was the Ralph Misener, was when that unloading equipment was taken off of her. Sad to see her go to scrap as she was a true classic when she didn't have the self-unloader on her deck.

[Guest]

Why not make it a reclaimer type like some of the Canadian boats? Just curious.

[hausen]

2) Some people think that not having a boom contributes greatly to her classic good looks.

I wonder what she'd look like with a shuttle conveyor just forward of her aft cabins like the Edgar B. Speer.

[Randy S]

2) Some people think that not having a boom contributes greatly to her classic good looks.

I don't think she would look too bad with a forward A-Frame and boom set up, but again, it is Costly and reduces capacity.

[Denny]

Why would the want to build a barge to replace the Block as she was built in 1976 and can carry just as much cargo as a barge can and she has been a steady, dependable and reliable carrier for most of her career? I can see why they may want to replace the Sykes with a barge someday as she was built back in the 1950's and still has her original steam turbine engine I think and is also a smaller vessel compared to today's modern size ships.

[Guest]

1) If they made her longer than 740' I'd for sure never be able to see her transit the Welland again.

2) Some people think that not having a boom contributes greatly to her classic good looks.

I know, I'm being selfish, but I miss Fast Eddie...

[Andrew]

The Ryerson's holds are built in a box shape, since she was built to haul as much taconite as possible. The holds on self-unloaders are sloped to allow for cargo movement to the belt on the bottom of the hold. The Ryerson's size compared to her capacity (27,000 tons) is not enough to make the owners consider having a boom installed, since a self-unloading unit cuts your capacity considerably. There is not enough economy support to lengthen her, since a lengthening job costs almost as much as a new ship. Barging her would be foolish unless the owners wanted to convert her to a self-unloader, which brings us back to the start of my answer. Frankly, the Ryerson will come out when the demand is back and her owners need her. She has gone through this same pattern all her life; there is no reason to assume this layup is any different from any other- she will be back when the taconite prices go up.