Boatnerd Discussion Forum

There is going to be some natural attrition in the great lakes fleets as we have seen with the passing of more Maritime Class boats this past year.
Honestly I'm amazed that the 3 AmShip River Class boats are still going considering how they were built, their heavy work load over the past years with GRN/LLT and how rough they look now.
As boats meet the end of their service lives and fleet sizes adjust to changing business patterns I think things will balance out.
The reality is that a boats versitility and economy will dictate what remains and what goes to scrap.
As Ive mentioned on other threads, I'm not as pessimistic as some about the future of Great Lakes Shipping. Six decades of boat watching and having lost my sailing career when Cliffs basically sold the fleet out from under us, I have seen many changes but the economy of GL bulk shipping remains.
So does the value of boats currently out of service when compared to building new tonnage on the US side.

Guest wrote:

Guest wrote:How many boats will the US fleet need in 5 years? The answer to that question will determine the fate of the Burns Harbor or Sherwin.

Who said anything about the Burns Harbor?

Perhaps referring to the vulnerability of the entire composition of the US fleet? ie-everything from active thousand-foot carriers to long idled units.

Meant the Blough

Guest wrote:How many boats will the US fleet need in 5 years? The answer to that question will determine the fate of the Burns Harbor or Sherwin.

Who said anything about the Burns Harbor?

How many boats will the US fleet need in 5 years? The answer to that question will determine the fate of the Burns Harbor or Sherwin.

All of theses point being made here are why I don't believe you will see the Bough go for scrap.
Its in better shape than the Sherwin or Ryerson even fire damaged and has far more upside for versatility.

youve brought up a very good point. glad you piped up!

The one thing about the Ryerson that could hold her back from running is the lack of steam engineers especially those with higher (1st A/E, Chief) licenses. Plus that first year it was to run would be a pipe fitter's nightmare!! Overtime like that turns into blood money!! It took the Sykes 2 years to find a permanent 1st Assistant recently. All the mechanical stuff has been talked about but I haven't heard anyone talk about manning which is why I piped up!

Just a guess but I could see the Sherwin being shrunk and then converted to a forward boom 730 would make her very versatile!

This is a question that people who are un schooled in the maritime industry seem to fail to understand. Let us take the Ryerson for an example. If the owner wanted to replace the vessel, it would cost well in excess of one hundred million dollars to do so. On the other hand, they could dry dock the vessel, do a five year inspection and have the vessel out and running for a minute fraction of that cost and do it in 30 to 45 days. It is a little like a fire department that has one or two trucks that never seem to be used. They sit idle but they are there and ready when or if needed without having to take the time and money to purchase new trucks. The Sherwin could be cut down to a barge or have a new engine installed for far less cost and time than it would take to build a new vessel. So, some would say, why did Interlake build the new Mark Barker instead of using the Sherwin. The Barker is a specially designed ship for some specific cargoes which the Sherwin would not be suitable for. I hope that this will help some to better understand the industry.
Jerry

guest wrote:I wonder if there is some kind of tax write off?? As the Americans tend to hold on to retired ships. " C.T.C. NO.1" Comes to my mind

Building Jones Act compliant vessels costs a lot of money. Hulls that still potentially have use to them or have parts to keep other ships in service are kept around to keep other vessels in service as long as possible. The CTC was kept around for parts for the other Maritimers that were owned by Lower Lakes/Grand River. Now that most of them are gone, it is likely she won't be kept around. Keep in mind she was actually in USE as a cement storage barge at the St. Marys Cement South Chicago Terminal up until 2009 when she was acquired by Grand River Navigation.

The Sherwin is still a practically "new" hull by Great Lakes standards, even though she is 64 years old, the hull has only seen 23 years of service. If Interlake were to need a vessel of her size range, they could take her back to the shipyard and have the repower and self-unloader conversion completed for much less than the cost of building a new vessel. Many ask why they built the new Mark W. Barker when they have the Sherwin sitting around, but the fact of the matter is that their customers needed capacity in the river class market, so the Sherwin would have been well over 150' too long, making more sense to build a new river class ship to meet the demands of their customers and hold onto the Sherwin for another day (or as insurance for her sister the Oberstar).

I wonder if there is some kind of tax write off?? As the Americans tend to hold on to retired ships. " C.T.C. NO.1" Comes to my mind

Primarily, Interlake owns the dock- it costs nothing to let her sit. Secondary: you never know what a hull might be good for someday. She’ll never sail again, but she could be (relatively) quickly cut to a barge, or maybe someday scrap prices will skyrocket for who knows why. She’s not worth nothing, and if she sits there for free and they don’t have an immediate need, then no harm no foul as far as the company is concerned.

What is the point of the owners hanging onto the John Sherwin all these years surely she is past the point of ever sailing again?