[QUOTE=cappy208;69904]Not a lot. But the technology is 1. In its infancy, 15,years or so; 2. Subject to improper meddling by an industry that has recently come upon more stringent regulations and oversight which (IMHO) just waiting to be subverted to the companies (AWO) wants and needs.
In my experience there is NO country wide database available. The individual companies play the info close to the vest.[/QUOTE]
ATB’s have been around a little longer than 15 years, the Bludworth system, and Autobar have both been around since the late 60’s or early 70’s. Robert Bludworth built a couple boats with his system on them in the early 70’s. The Betty Wood and her sister ship for Gulf Coast transit were built in 1973 with the Autobar system. The ATB I used to sail on, and her sister ship was built in 1979 with a bludworth system, at Atlantic Marine in Jacksonville. Maritrans started using the Intercon system on some of there boats not long after that, maybe in the middle 80’s or so. The ATB I used to sail on built in 79 is still working hard to this day up on the great lakes pushing around a converted steam ship still with the bludworth system.
[QUOTE=highseasmechanic;70016]The ATB Legacy/750-1 has a crew of 14. The work gets done, but still quite a bit for a crew used to being on a ship. It is coming along.[/QUOTE]
I’d call the crew list you posted a fair manning of the vessel but what does the COI have for minimum safe manning?
I didn’t read all the way threw this thread but I know for sure the atb’s are under manned. The company’s are asking mariners to do things that are against regs in order to get things done cause they don’t have enough man power on board. I’m not going to say which companies or how I know but it is absolutely a real problem. I hope the coast guard does catch up to it and realize the issue is a safety concern!
[QUOTE=highseasmechanic;70016]The ATB Legacy/750-1 has a crew of 14. The work gets done, but still quite a bit for a crew used to being on a ship. It is coming along.
Master
Chief mate
2nd mate
3rd mate
C/E
1rst engineer
2nd engineer
3rd engineer
3 AB/Tankerman
2 Utilities
1 Cook[/QUOTE]
There are a lot of factors that determine work load, crew experience, degree of familiarization, schedule, regulations and so forth but I wasn’t aware that there was that many licensed officers aboard. This is the same number I have and is actually one more crew then the 1200 + ft long Emma Maersk.
The next question is the one c. captain asked - what is the minimum required manning?
The Reliance class tugs require only 1 licensed engineer. Moran’s newest ATB requires 3 licensed engineers. Smaller tug, less HP, far less equipment to keep up…go figure…
I meant the current breed of technology. Bludworth is NOT an example I would hold up as a stalwart method of connection.
Looking around this forum one can find people who were ON the Sea Skimmer when she was over torqued and ejected. Until intercon and Jak came along the technology and advances that we have now. (Hydraulic pressing up. And auto tension)
The main thing that has changed is the tugs having been built/converted are NOT retaining the ability to transition to tow. True, some are. Most don’t. Never mind the loss of experience among the crew.
There’s a reason why companies are building ATB’s rather than ships. With a crew of 7-9 payroll is 1/3 that of an equivalent tanker. Of course discharge should include the gross tonnage of the barge. It’s not like the barge goes away or anything. You can thank the Coast Guard for rolling over and playing dead by allowing less than a safe number of crew on board ATB’s. But industry says that’s the way we want it so the CG says, “Oh, Okay.” Hooligan’s navy.
[QUOTE=highseasmechanic;70248]Master
2 mates
2 ab tankerman
chief engineer
2 assistant engineers
According to the specs the tug is 1565 grt.[/QUOTE]
So the COI just calls for 2 mates with no Ch/mate specified. That puts the the screws to the holder of an unlimited ch/mate’s license to advance to master. Is that the same for a 1st asst?
The 1rst Engineer is merely a title in name. Technically they are all just assistant engineers. An engineer with a 3rds license can sail as 1rst as an example.
[QUOTE=cappy208;70041]I meant the current breed of technology. Bludworth is NOT an example I would hold up as a stalwart method of connection.
Looking around this forum one can find people who were ON the Sea Skimmer when she was over torqued and ejected. Until intercon and Jak came along the technology and advances that we have now. (Hydraulic pressing up. And auto tension)
The main thing that has changed is the tugs having been built/converted are NOT retaining the ability to transition to tow. True, some are. Most don’t. Never mind the loss of experience among the crew.[/QUOTE]
There is no hydraulic pressing in Intercon units, except for emergency backup, when hydraulic motor rotates shaft, just like electric motor does.
Also, does anybody know with any certainty where does the USCG stand in regard to doing away with ridiculous loophole rules of “tonnage openings” and “ballast tanks” and switching to ITC rules? It sure seems that things are going in that direction, but this could be just an illusion or they could be going in that direction for another sixty years. What is the official view? Tugsailor posted some upbeat perspective, I hope this comes true and soon, but I’d like some facts to support it. Thanks
[QUOTE=Holder;70498]There is no hydraulic pressing in Intercon units, except for emergency backup, when hydraulic motor rotates shaft, just like electric motor does. /QUOTE]
I think what he was refering to was hydraulic load cell reference pressures.
[QUOTE=cappy208;70041]I meant the current breed of technology. Bludworth is NOT an example I would hold up as a stalwart method of connection.
Looking around this forum one can find people who were ON the Sea Skimmer when she was over torqued and ejected. Until intercon and Jak came along the technology and advances that we have now. (Hydraulic pressing up. And auto tension)
The main thing that has changed is the tugs having been built/converted are NOT retaining the ability to transition to tow. True, some are. Most don’t. Never mind the loss of experience among the crew.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I was onboard the SEA SKIMMER for one of her ejections. Not a pleasant experience to be sure. At least we weren’t too far out of Freeport, Texas when it happened. Your assessment of the Bludworth system is certainly correct. It was a bit better than the system that Belcher had on the TAMPA BAY and PORT EVERGLADES, but not by much. The SEA SKIMMER was plagued by other problems, outside of the connection system. I understand that she is still running, along with the barge PLAQUEMINE, although both have long been renamed. I was onboard some when Dixie Carriers were the operators, but I don’t know how she is performing now.
As far as the loss of towing experience on the crew, I can respond to that directly. While I was onboard the BELCHER PORT EVERGLADES (I seem to get all the good jobs, I know), we were running out of the notch because of a partial failure of the pushing system. Without even speaking of the poor ride, there were issues with the towing equipment and towing operations. There was little to no maintenance carried out on the towing winch. They barge was being towed against the air brake on the winch. When the second engineer went out on deck to start the winch as we were approaching Tampa on one voyage, he slipped due to the wet deck and rough ride, accidently hitting the air brake release. Since the hand brake was not engaged, the tow wire began to unspool at an uncontrolled rate. At least he had the presence of mind to jump into the engine room and bolt the hatch just before the clutch exploded and left divots in the bulkhead. We spent the next 15 hours “end for ending” the tow wire so that we could finally make up and proceed into Tampa. The hand brake wasn’t being used since none of the mates onboard had any towing experience. It would have been pointless anyway. It was frozen since it was never exercised or lubricated. I left the vessel very soon after the experience.
[QUOTE=Holder;70498]There is no hydraulic pressing in Intercon units, except for emergency backup, when hydraulic motor rotates shaft, just like electric motor does.
Also, does anybody know with any certainty where does the USCG stand in regard to doing away with ridiculous loophole rules of “tonnage openings” and “ballast tanks” and switching to ITC rules? It sure seems that things are going in that direction, but this could be just an illusion or they could be going in that direction for another sixty years. What is the official view? Tugsailor posted some upbeat perspective, I hope this comes true and soon, but I’d like some facts to support it. Thanks[/QUOTE]
Vessels that are admeasured under the ITC tonnage rules do not have tonnage doors or deep frames. Vessels that are admeasured under the old domestic rules do.
Incorrect. The intercon ram has a load cell which has about 1 1/2" of ‘give’ this is what the tug floats on for lateral cushion against the hard connection. The system senses the pressure as you ride and you can see the pressure graphically on the screens. The early intercon versions had to be manually pumped up as they lost pressure underway. Now it is automatic.
The early Jak systems likewise had no pressure on the pins. (Although I am hearing about this anecdotally) the new ones supposedly have a press up system to help dampen the side to side slamming prevelant in them.
[QUOTE=cappy208;70517]Incorrect. The intercon ram has a load cell which has about 1 1/2" of ‘give’ this is what the tug floats on for lateral cushion against the hard connection. The system senses the pressure as you ride and you can see the pressure graphically on the screens. The early intercon versions had to be manually pumped up as they lost pressure underway. Now it is automatic.[/QUOTE]
You’re correct about the cushion. The cushion comes from the initial charge pressure. (on the 50s it’s 250psi) The auto-tensioning is not from the pump, it’s done as the acme screw turns and forces the pin out. The thrust bearing is the back of the load cell.
[QUOTE=cappy208;70517]Incorrect. The intercon ram has a load cell which has about 1 1/2" of ‘give’ this is what the tug floats on for lateral cushion against the hard connection. The system senses the pressure as you ride and you can see the pressure graphically on the screens. The early intercon versions had to be manually pumped up as they lost pressure underway. Now it is automatic.
The early Jak systems likewise had no pressure on the pins. (Although I am hearing about this anecdotally) the new ones supposedly have a press up system to help dampen the side to side slamming prevelant in them.[/QUOTE]Well, sensing through the load cell is not hydraulic pressing. “Pumping up” is actually rotating a good old screw, not some hydraulic pump moving fluid.
[QUOTE=cmakin;70513]Vessels that are admeasured under the ITC tonnage rules do not have tonnage doors or deep frames. Vessels that are admeasured under the old domestic rules do.[/QUOTE]
But domestic rules can still apply, right? Will they be phased out?
[QUOTE=Holder;70544]Well, sensing through the load cell is not hydraulic pressing. “Pumping up” is actually rotating a good old screw, not some hydraulic pump moving fluid.[/QUOTE]
Regardless of how the pressure is found, the early systems did not have this hydraulic cushion built in. My response was to point out that compared to earlier connection mechanisms Intercon (and to a lesser degree JAK) are FAR superior systems and have made the ‘ride’ in the notch MUCH more reliable. The Intercon system of today is light years ahead of its predecessors that were crude and rough in comparison.
Your point is taken that the pressure is not “pumped” up, but fluid under several hundred pounds pressure does ‘something’ now that was not there two generations ago. This cushion has about 1 1/2" of absorption of stress, flex or what ever you want to call it. I do not have the amount of fluid involved in the Intercon load cells, but IIRC is is only around 10 gallons or so. Not a lot, but as it is a liquid under pressure in a closed vessel (and can’t be compressed any further) it works as a shock absorber of a type.