Boatnerd Discussion Forum

A turbine getting "rebuilt" simply pertains to it getting some new blades installed on the rotor, or some maintenance done to the bearings if necessary, and inspected throughout the interior since the case is seperated for such work.

Don't forget the St. Marys Challenger. She's a steamer and still going strong.

And I don't see why the Fortitude, Valor, Victory, and Ryerson won't be out and about again once the demand for cargo rises to the levels they were before the recession. They're not retired so I'd still consider them active steamers, even if they didn't see service.

Could this rumored turbine rebuild perhaps be for one of those that was laid up in preparation to bring her out next season?

Gary Schweitzer wrote:

Remaining active US-flagged steamers: Anderson, Callaway, Clarke, Munson, Kaye Barker, Jackson, Sykes.

Don't forget the Alpena-oldest operating steamer with original power plant.

Good call, thanks!

Remaining active US-flagged steamers: Anderson, Callaway, Clarke, Munson, Kaye Barker, Jackson, Sykes.

Don't forget the Alpena-oldest operating steamer with original power plant.

They burn IFO 380 at roughly $476.00 a ton or IFO 180 at $489.00 a ton. Different prices at different places, this is a price from Singapore and 200 other ports. The differnece of the two fuels is the viscosity one of these have to be preheated. I would think the IFO 380, or maybe both. MGO and MDO are more expensive fuels $600.00 to $700.00 a ton or more. Marine Gas Oil and Marine Diesel Oil. These two latter fuels have a low viscosity, or resistance of a liquid to flow, don't have to be preheated. Correct me if I am wrong. Its been ahile since I worked the enginroom, my dealing with the lakes was a coal burner.

Most diesel-powered lakers do not burn diesel fuel. They burn bunker oil instead

Now I'm confused. So the cost of bunker vs. diesel fuels is irrelevant?

Most diesel-powered lakers do not burn diesel fuel. They burn bunker oil instead.

Diesel is going for around $600 or more per ton. Allowing for powering auxiliaries such as lights, heat or air conditioning, galley, navigation instruments, etc., a large, slow-running marine Diesel should burn about 0.4 pounds fuel per horsepower hour. That would equate to 5,600 horsepower hours per 2240 pound long ton of Diesel fuel burned in a Diesel engine.

A turbine plant in reasonably good shape should burn somewhere between 0.6 and 0.8 pounds per horsepower hour, including auxiliary operations. That would equate to 3,733 to 2,800 horsepower hours per ton of Bunker fuel burned in a steam turbine plant. If you have Bunker fuel going for about $200 per ton, then to produce 5,600 horsepower hours in a steam turbine plant is going to cost between $300 and $400 compared to the $600 in a Diesel plant. That represents a considerable advantage in fuel costs for s steam plant over a Diesel plant.

I would have to check the Marine Manning Guide to determine the crew requirements for a steam verses Diesel ship to see if the increased crew for a steam ship would off-set the lower fuel costs. However, you have to also compare the costs of rebuilding the turbine compared to the cost of totally replacing the power plant of the ship. Diesels are not cheap. Theriault Marine is advertising a 360 horsepower Diesel auxiliary generator set for $56,500. A large marine diesel is going to cost a lot more. I can easily see how a company can crunch all of the numbers and decide to stay with a steam plant.

I understand what you mean, but the price of bunker C alone would discourage anyone from running turbines, at one time Oil companies could not give the bunker c away at $20.00 a ton now past $200.00 a ton, any operation,refit, or replacement, can only mean the company is going to keep the boat longer than we think.

The price of $200.00 a ton was quoted from over twenty years ago.

After reading the News Channel the only indication of a vessel being repowered from turbine to diesel is the Michipicoten, built American in 1952, now a Canadian flagged vessel. She will be repowered this Winter.

oldseadog wrote:I am sure any shipyard would accept any vessel from both sides of the fence. What the poster meant was that a medium size American flagged laker, was due for a rebuilding of her turbine(s), why they would want to rebuild a turbine is beyond me, in this day and time turbines are an expensive power plant to operate, swapping a turbine for a diesel makes more sense.

It would depend on how much longer the owning company expects to operate the vessel. Rebuilding a turbine is a maintenance expense that can be charged off against taxes in one year, while replacing the turbine with a new set of diesels is a capital expense that would be depreciated over probably 5 to 10 years as a minimum. Also, replacing the turbine plant with a diesel plant would require an extended dry dock period, while depending on what needs to be done to the turbine, like replacing worn turbine blades, can be done during lay up without necessarily being in dry dock.

I am sure any shipyard would accept any vessel from both sides of the fence. What the poster meant was that a medium size American flagged laker, was due for a rebuilding of her turbine(s), why they would want to rebuild a turbine is beyond me, in this day and time turbines are an expensive power plant to operate, swapping a turbine for a diesel makes more sense.

I'm pretty sure Bay Ship would be glad to accept any vessel be it American or Canadian for winter work.

Michipicoten is Canadian-flagged.

Remaining active US-flagged steamers: Anderson, Callaway, Clarke, Munson, Kaye Barker, Jackson, Sykes.

I am not sure if they are referring to the Michpicoten possibly as
she is to be re-powered from steam turbine to diesel power this
coming winter so, I assume she will have her steam turbines then
removed for installation of the new engines.

An article in the boatnerd news says a medium sized US flag laker will be having its steam turbine rebuilt this Winter. Which laker is this going to be? Thanks.