Record tonnage through the Soo??

[guest235789]

Regarding lengthening a footer for increased capacity. I can recall talk when the Poe lock was finished in 1969 of building a 1500 foot lock so they could build 1200 foot boats,but captains then said no. There were tight enough turns they had to make without another 200 feet to deal with. Rock Cut is a very precise turn and the Paul R. Tregurtha missed it a while back and blocked off the downbound channel for what a week?, plus the damage fore and aft. I'll take the shorter boat.

That had nothing to do with her length.

[Chris M]

You'll never seem them lengthen a footer

[Bob]

Was hoping to see a new build ship with a length of 1100 feet. Curious to know what gross tonnage a ship of that size could carry. I’m certain that one of that size will never be built as the coal trade is slowing down and that’s probably what a ship that size would mostly carry.

[djwmusk65]

Regarding lengthening a footer for increased capacity. I can recall talk when the Poe lock was finished in 1969 of building a 1500 foot lock so they could build 1200 foot boats,but captains then said no. There were tight enough turns they had to make without another 200 feet to deal with. Rock Cut is a very precise turn and the Paul R. Tregurtha missed it a while back and blocked off the downbound channel for what a week?, plus the damage fore and aft. I'll take the shorter boat.

[Shipwatcher1]

Another option for owners of thousand footers to increase capacity is increasing length by adding an additional 96 feet to the hull. The regulations under the Federal Register allow vessels of 1,100 feet to transit the Poe Lock.

Such vessels would need to have additional deck winches installed mid-ship and use a slightly different locking procedure that would add 10 minutes to the existing lockage transit time. Such procedures were tested in the Summer of 1976 by using the Roger Blough and Stewart J. Cort to simulate passages of 1,100 foot vessels. Such a ship could take advantage of the extra tons carried via extra length, while a deeper draft would only have merit when water levels are at a high phase.

Would never happen

[Guest]

Another option for owners of thousand footers to increase capacity is increasing length by adding an additional 96 feet to the hull. The regulations under the Federal Register allow vessels of 1,100 feet to transit the Poe Lock.

Such vessels would need to have additional deck winches installed mid-ship and use a slightly different locking procedure that would add 10 minutes to the existing lockage transit time. Such procedures were tested in the Summer of 1976 by using the Roger Blough and Stewart J. Cort to simulate passages of 1,100 foot vessels. Such a ship could take advantage of the extra tons carried via extra length, while a deeper draft would only have merit when water levels are at a high phase.

[GuestfromEU]

Regardless of the unit of measure for max capacity, if max mid-summer draft is 34' then wouldn't they need CG approval to load deeper ?

Not only Coast Guard approval but Class approval. USA-flagged ships on the Great Lakes are not subject to SOLAS provisions, but Load Line Certificates are issued by Class (ABS, in this case), with the USCG also enforcing. To load deeper than the registered load line is not possible, and is in fact illegal. While the Soo Locks and St Mary's River is the controlling factor in Lake Superior load originations, ships calling at Escanaba to load (assuming it was an option) would not be permitted to load any deeper than their Load Line states.

Full listing of 46 CFR Part 45, Great Lakes Load Lines, can be found here:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR ... part45.xml

Reference 46 CFR §§ 42.15 for exemption information. No provision is allowed for exemptions based on economic factors.

Reference 46 CFR §§ 42.139 for side scuttle information. The Engine Room gangway hatches must be 20 inches, or 2.5% of the breadth of the ship (31.5 inches for a 105' breadth thousand footer), whichever is greater, above the loaded waterline. As mentioned already, the gangway doors would need to be removed and filled with a fully-welded shell plate patch.

As for structural modifications required for the Bay Ship footers, I would assume this is possible, yes. Is the economic gain worth the investment? Additional steel would be required to augment the hull framing to accommodate the stress increase of more cargo (and less reserve buoyancy). Extra steel increases the deadweight of the ship, causing it to be deeper in the water on its own, without cargo. The stability booklet would be re-written, new inclining experiment, new ballast tank tables, etc. It's a lot of work for a non-guaranteed payoff on return. The high water levels are temporary, with the result being a lot of work for a (potential) short-term gain.

[Guest]

Could the Bayship thousand footers load to a draft deeper than 34 feet? Yes they can! Their scantlings in the ballast tanks allow a future draft of 38 feet. But to do so they would need structural modifications - i.e., changes to the location of the engine room door and strapping on deck. But owners won't do such modifications unless they have such water depths on a regular basis and that would mean dredging. And then the limit would be the 32 feet depth over the lock sills at the Poe and the new lock.

[Lakercapt]

Oh that I wish we could all be on the same page. I remember the first time I came up the great lakes on a salty as mate and as loading at Rail to Water in the Calumet River. They told me the tonnage and I was totally confused. There was no way we could have loaded this much into the cargo hold. I questioned the tonnage several times before I was informed it was short tons (whatever this was to us foreigners)
The rest of the world now uses tonnes which is 1000kg and is easy for all to understand and is not confusing!!

[Guest]

People are confusing short tons (Net) with long tons (Gross). The Indiana Harbor's 76,930 net tons converts to 68,687 gross tons. The 78,850 tons maximum capacity for the Bayship thousand footers is in gross tons. A difference of 10,000 gross tons.

Regardless of the unit of measure for max capacity, if max mid-summer draft is 34' then wouldn't they need CG approval to load deeper ?

[Guest]

People are confusing short tons (Net) with long tons (Gross). The Indiana Harbor's 76,930 net tons converts to 68,687 gross tons. The 78,850 tons maximum capacity for the Bayship thousand footers is in gross tons. A difference of 10,000 gross tons.

[Guest]

If the Escanaba ore loading dock was open now, would they be loading these Bay Ship 1000 footers to 80,000 tons, or even with the high water levels, they would be pushed to low in the water?

Most of them show a maximum capacity of 78,850 at their maximum mid-summer draft of 34 feet. I'm assuming they would need some sort of Coast Guard approval to load deeper, if that was even possible based on the available depth along the route.

[Guest]

GLF is playing it safe and loading to 29’-2”.

Beyond bragging rights, what is the purpose of carrying a record load ? Does the company achieve recognition that translates into future sales revenue ? It seems like a big risk to push the limits when the limiting depths at the lock sills, Rock Cut and other places offer very little room for error. Changes in wind direction can quickly effect depth. Getting slightly outside a channel could lead to heavy consequences. The customer doesn't get much benefit when the records are inching higher by a few hundred tons or less. I'm sure someone will add an extra 69.5+ tons and claim the first cargo over 78,000 tons. Not criticizing here; just questioning the practice.

[Darryl]

If the Escanaba ore loading dock was open now, would they be loading these Bay Ship 1000 footers to 80,000 tons, or even with the high water levels, they would be pushed to low in the water?

[Guest]

On Canadian boats going down the Seaway, the high water level are not the consideration for maximum loads.
The governing factor is the depth of water over the sills on the locks.
The water level in Lake Ontario is very high but to allow more water to escape (the dams at Iroquois control the outflow) would cause many problems i.e. current would change making navigation extremely hazardous and mostly unknown as this has to be experienced.
Sections of the Seaway are tough enough for the mariner without making it more difficult.

[garbear]

Thanks garbear as they must've had a change of orders then from the looks of it. No matter though as their last load of ore pellets was from Silver Bay so, if they load again there then I suppose then they can still top off their previous load. Look out everyone as I can see into my boatnerd crystal ball a load coming and another new record cargo of more than 77,000 tons and don't say or tell me that it can't and won't happen! After all the Indy's last load was at 76,930.5 nets tons so that in itself is very near and close to the 77,000 ton mark. So, I'm saying that at some point down the road that we should be seeing a load coming at or just above 77,000 or so tons of ore pellets. This is just unbelievable all of these large and record loads. Still would be interested in finding out about other cargoes such as coal, grain and stone if we've had any new cargo records set for any of those bulk commodities this year and salt as well? Surely with the record high water levels right now I am quite sure and certain that the other cargoes I had mentioned there has to be some large loads on all of them. At least for grain I know for a fact from watching DVD's that the Equinox-class ships at least the gearless bulkers can carry at least 30,000 tons of wheat on a trip along with the Trillium-class gearless bulkers as well for Canada Steamship Lines. Surely the Equinox and Trillium gearless bulkers have to be loading at least 30,000 or so tons of wheat a trip. Would be very interested in find out more on all this.[/quote]

Now I see the Indiana Harbor is showing a Two Harbors AIS again.

[Guest]

GLF is playing it safe and loading to 29’-2”.

[Denny]

Thanks garbear as they must've had a change of orders then from the looks of it. No matter though as their last load of ore pellets was from Silver Bay so, if they load again there then I suppose then they can still top off their previous load. Look out everyone as I can see into my boatnerd crystal ball a load coming and another new record cargo of more than 77,000 tons and don't say or tell me that it can't and won't happen! After all the Indy's last load was at 76,930.5 nets tons so that in itself is very near and close to the 77,000 ton mark. So, I'm saying that at some point down the road that we should be seeing a load coming at or just above 77,000 or so tons of ore pellets. This is just unbelievable all of these large and record loads. Still would be interested in finding out about other cargoes such as coal, grain and stone if we've had any new cargo records set for any of those bulk commodities this year and salt as well? Surely with the record high water levels right now I am quite sure and certain that the other cargoes I had mentioned there has to be some large loads on all of them. At least for grain I know for a fact from watching DVD's that the Equinox-class ships at least the gearless bulkers can carry at least 30,000 tons of wheat on a trip along with the Trillium-class gearless bulkers as well for Canada Steamship Lines. Surely the Equinox and Trillium gearless bulkers have to be loading at least 30,000 or so tons of wheat a trip. Would be very interested in find out more on all this.

[garbear]

I don't know who the First Mate and the Captain are sorry to say but I do see though on their AIS that they are due to load next up in Two Harbors on August 13 at 0600. Might this possibly end up then being another record load maybe? Yes I know the last load she took though came from Silver Bay to Indiana Harbor and also the American Integrity briefly held the record in early July when it had a load from Duluth to Zug Island. Other than those two loads most of these large loads have come from the Two Harbors Ore Dock so it will be interesting to see if the Indy can end up topping its own record. Interesting as could we see a new record then at over 77,000 tons? Hey she came awful close the last time and I say what the heck why not push the limits and just do it then!

Indiana Harbor is just going by Mackinac Island and she is now showing a Silver Bay destination.

[Guest]

Yea Denny, push the limits on the drafts at what cost. The deeper they load, the more these vessels will smell the bottom making them harder to maneuver. The limits for drafts are not just at the locks. The connecting channels, Vital Shoals, Rock cut channels have maximum drafts that are calculated by the water levels. Unless they put wheels under the Lakers, they risk rearranging the bottom of the ship.