Boatnerd Discussion Forum

Will wrote:The Miner suffers from another problem her engines only burn diesel, and when fuel prices go up she is too expensive to run. I have heard she was running on only 1 of her 4 engines to save fuel. Her hull I am not sure on.

If the Canadian Miner'shull is OK but it is her diesel-burning engines that make her too expensive to run, why doesn't ULS replace her engines with Diesels that run on heavy oil from one of their other laid up ships like the Canadian RangerorCanadian Prospector?

Does anyone know where Captain Lewis went after they retired the Gordon C Leitch?I gave Him a ride to the Vidio store last Year when He was loading at Harvest states in Superior.

Few- Fall eh

The Shelley seems to keep busy despite the expensive to run Fairbanks-Morse diesels.

Too bad about the Leader, always liked those old Papachristidis boats. She had an interesting name, Feux-Follets. How do you say that?

Jeff G wrote:The Shelley has a similar problem though right? Aren't the Fairbanks-Morse very expensive to run?

They can only burn diesel so they can be very expensive, when diesel is at over $1000 a ton, it just isn't cost efficient.

Guest wrote:They didn't call her Canadian Leaker for nothing.

No they didn't call her the leaker for nothing, her cargo holds are very thin and her tunnels feel springy, not much metal there at all.

They didn't call her Canadian Leaker for nothing.

Also, reviewing my shots of the Leader taken throughout the past year laid up in Hamilton, it seems she's leaked at least once and been pumped out. Draft markings tell all.

Bruno wrote:Don not forget that when the Shelly came back , she almost have self ballasting ballast tanks. Twice the vessel got fined for being overdraft in the seaway because her ballast tanks were filling up on their own... How worn out is that? Its like an old car, the paint might look nice but you repair one part and it the other that gives-up, at one point you ask yourself how long can I keep going like this. Its the same for ships.

Did the Shelley have this problem as the Algocen, or is this a ailment she currently suffers from? What about Hailfax and Gordon C. Leitch? I'm sure Halifax is rotten and worn. but the Leitch must be worth repairing?

A shortage of hulls will increase freight rates. Also, not much investment has been put back into the merchant marine. The engine hours on a Great Lakes ship's propulsion diesel is truly amazing. Many manufactures recommend major block and crank replacement between 90,000 and 120,000 hours. Many of these ships are in the 150,000+ range. The 80s, 90 s and the 2000s have been a horrible time for die hard boat nerds. I will always remember the Paterson, Ford, cliffs, Hanna, Halco, and P&H Boats. With constantly shrinking manufacturing and cheap foreign competition, I don't for see it getting better

If the fore and aft sections are in good shape, would it be cost effective to just cut it in two and build a new mid section?

The Shelley has a similar problem though right? Aren't the Fairbanks-Morse very expensive to run?

TWilush wrote:Is this a similar problem to what has laid up the Canadian Miner and Leader? I know Provider got tank and other hull work before she returned to service last summer

The Leader is in need of major steel work her tanks are all rusted out, and the cost is to high.

The Miner suffers from another problem her engines only burn diesel, and when fuel prices go up she is too expensive to run. I have heard she was running on only 1 of her 4 engines to save fuel. Her hull I am not sure on.

Is this a similar problem to what has laid up the Canadian Miner and Leader? I know Provider got tank and other hull work before she returned to service last summer.

Don not forget that when the Shelly came back , she almost have self ballasting ballast tanks. Twice the vessel got fined for being overdraft in the seaway because her ballast tanks were filling up on their own... How worn out is that? Its like an old car, the paint might look nice but you repair one part and it the other that gives-up, at one point you ask yourself how long can I keep going like this. Its the same for ships.

Not to bring up an old post but I had a question about some of the "scrapped" Canadian lakers.

Why in the past a few of the Canadian boats that were inactive (Teakglen/Maritime Trader) and one which had been sold for scrap three years prior (Algocen/JW Shelley) come back if they were allegedly in bad shape? Or were they really? I remember back in 2005 I was told the Algocen had beat up ballast tanks from saltwater in the seaway but here she has been active for a few years now in seemingly fine shape. I find it kind of interesting that these two boats are the only boat in their respective fleet as well unlike being bought by another large company. These companies don't want to scoop up any boats like the Leader? What was the reason the Shelley and Trader returned to service in the first place?

It's likely that many of the vessels are at the point where the cost of the work that would be needed to make them passable and keep them that way for even just the next few years is getting pretty substantial. The Canadian lakers that trade out into the Gulf of St. Lawrence spend a lot of time with salt water in their ballast tanks and it just eats their midsections away from the inside out. Why spend all that money on an old worn-out boat that will still need retirement or a complete rebuild soon anyway when for the same amount of money you could be well on your way to a brand new ship (if the import tariff is dropped) that'll last another 40-60 years?

If the hulls are there and able to be used, why would the companies want new construction? I think what confuses me is that if there is cargo to be carried, the boats are able to carry (and I understand that some of the vessels are not in good shape due to carrying salt), and if other companies could purchase and use them, why can't the current owner use them instead of going for new (foreign) construction?

Thanks

Boat Brad wrote:Makes sense. Specifically which boats are we talking about? I looked at the 2009-2010 Winter Layup page, but I'm not sure how up-to-date that is. Of note were Canadian Leader, Canadian Miner and Algomarine.

The following Canadian lakers are currently laid up and are likely retired for good:

Algoisle, Algonorth, Algontario, Agawa Canyon, Sauniere, Halifax, Canadian Leader, Canadian Miner, Canadian Prospector, Canadian Ranger, Gordon C. Leitch.

A lot of this depends on whether or not the Canadian government drops the import tariff on foreign-built vessels. Nothing seems to have happened regarding this issue for several months now. If the tariff is dropped, all the above listed ships plus several more will probably go to scrap, and we'll see a whole bevy of new Canadian lakers. If the tariff stays a few of the ships listed above might be refurbished/rebuilt and returned to service, but a lot of them have been stretched and stretched again beyond their planned lifespans and would need major work to sail again.

Algomarine is running. Was up at the Soo on Tuesday.

Makes sense. Specifically which boats are we talking about? I looked at the 2009-2010 Winter Layup page, but I'm not sure how up-to-date that is. Of note were Canadian Leader, Canadian Miner and Algomarine.