Large ATB's Vs. Product Tankers- comparissons and opinions

The new Legacy Class ATBs from Crowley

Ok…to be fair most ATB tugs look strange when out of the notch, but I’m sorry, these tugs are just plain UGLY. The stern looks interesting, and the propulsion “pods” are cool, but when it came time to design the house, the designers must have been tired and decided to stack a couple blocks on each other and call it a day. Too bad really, because many of Jensen’s other designs look pretty bad-ass (Titan Class, PRT Class & new Ocean Class).

I’m told that even though the new Legacy tugs are under 1600, Crowley still crews them with at least [I]some[/I] unlimited licenses because the oil majors like the bigger licenses (at least at the top). So, if thats the case, then what’s the point? I thought the reason ATB’s exist was so operators could save on payroll? Most of our new mates on the conventional and harbor boats are from the academies, I’m sure they have no problem finding guys with their 3rds who are happy to work on the ATBs. Other than the higher compensation expected from the unlimited guys in the wheelhouse and in the basement, I can’t imagine that the crew compliment for the Legacy is that much smaller (if any) than a tanker of the same capacity?? I haven’t worked on ATBs or tankers, but I can tell you that there is no shortage of unlimited mates on the other tugs, and I’d be shocked to learn that the wheelhouse of even the smaller ATBs wasn’t stacked with unlimited tickets.

Looking back at the the beginning of the ATB program on the West Coast, there were many detractors that didn’t believe us “ignorant tugboat guys” could do the job. We wound up with a good mix of hands off the ships and tugs. Some very talented people.

Even with a bumpy start, the ATBs were so successful, a lot of older tonnage was laid up before they OPA 90ed out. The result was a sizeable layoff. Another caviat was the “unlimited deck officers” found they could not sail on ATBs because they had no towing endorsement. (hence the ATB towing endorsement) Some of them morphed into vettors and PCRs with a permanent hard-on for the ATBs…Interesting times…

Interesting topic “highseasmechanic” thank you for creating this thread. I think the comparison between ATBs and Tankers has been and will be for years to come a hot topic for mariners, ship owners, and charterers.
I’m not an expert, but from what I understand most older ATBs were not initially purpose built, instead they were conversions from older wire tow boats. Several of these boats are 30+ years old and still working today. These boats were fitted with either an Intercon system or a Bludworth system. The Intercon system is a larger capital investment than the Bludworth, and occupies the largest amount of space, which could otherwise be used for crew quarters or fuel storage capacity. The Intercon system is reliable to keep you in the notch in all sea conditions, and I consider the ride to be comfortable. The Bludworth system is less expensive takes up less space and is also nicknamed the “Jesus Clamp”. It works well in a head sea, but particular angles of pitch or mechanical failure could cause the tug to be kicked out of the barge’s notch, and the ride is not always comfortable.
In regards to new ATB construction most all companies are going with the Intercon system. I think capital costs of ATBs are lower because there are more US shipyards that can compete to build tugs and barges than there are yards that can compete to built ships. Besides making ATBs less expensive it also makes them quicker to produce. However I would guess that the charter rates that most ATBs earn are <75% of what ships typically get. I think the Crowley 750 series was built to compete for 100% Tanker rates by being able to match speed and load quantities of a Tanker. This apparently hasn’t been as successful as they expected. Will this cause Crowley to have to discount their rate to Marathon Oil?
Operating costs for an ATB are likely less due to smaller crews(8 people on most), lower wages than a tanker(not that tankers are the highest salaries in the maritime industry either), tug/barge flexibility. An example of tug/barge flexibility would be if you are going to a shipyard period and need to dry dock the tug to do work, but the barge passed a UWILD and doesn’t need to be drydocked. You could be a saving several hundred thousand dollars by working on the barge alongside a pier and not having to pay for an extended dry dock period. Another point of savings could be while the barge is conducting cargo operations the tug may be able to get out of the notch and go get fuel, water, load stores, etc. This could potentially save time and money. ATBs will also typically only use one tug for docking/sailing as opposed to two tugs which ships normally use. Over the course of a vessels life cycle that could add up to a significant amount I presume. I would suspect the regulatory requirement costs are very close if not more for an ATB b/c you have to pay surveyors, inspectors, insurance, etc. for two separate vessels. Tugs still have to meet ISM safety management requirements, ABS load line & tonnage, IOPP, Engine air pollution, Vessel Response, GMDSS, etc……. plus you have several of the same requirements for the barge including: COI, FCC, USCG financial responsibility, etc…… By the way ATBs are attracting more and more unlimited licenses. After working on ships I thought it would be difficult to operate with such few people on a tug, but I actually find it pleasant. The shorter rotations are nice as well.

I’m glad I could bring such an interesting topic of discussion to the table. I know the Legacy is designed to operate with a crew of 14 and that they are getting a ships charter rate with their current charter. However speed and fuel consumption have been a problem lately, so it remains to be seen how it will pan out. I’m not so sure on the ATB being cheaper to operate. The larger ATB’s require pilots to operate out of the notch due to their size limiting their ability to separate from the barge and go to a lay dock. Even with the size of the tugs, there is still lack of room for a proper machine shop, spare parts storage, and equipment to complete large repairs. Therefore you rely on shore support, which is not cheap, to come and help you fix if not fix your problems for you. A ship is much more self sufficient in that their is room to work and proper equipment to complete larger repairs if need be. The large ATB’s still require two tugs to dock at a terminal.

I’m surprised that they have not put bow thrusters in the barge to eliminate the use of a tug, but I would guess that the oil companies still prefer a tug to be there just in case?

I haven’t heard of vary many ATB’s with bow thrusters. I know OSG has two 340,000bbl ATBs with bow thrusters. Both of those units were fitted with bow thrusters to assist going alongside ships for lighter in the Delaware Bay. I seem to remember seeing an Express Maine ATB using a bow thruster on one of their coal barges. Not that thrusters don’t have their advantages, but the cons to bow thrusters are that most of them only generate thrust at a 90 degree angle to the hull, and they are obviously fixed in one position. An assist tug is much more versatile as it can be used to back or push at any angle, and from almost any position alongside the hull. The requirement for assist tugs vary between oil majors, as well as pilots, captains, and probably companies. I’ve never worked aboard a vessel with controllable pitch propellers such as the Legacy, but I could imagine how a second tug on the stern would be helpful.

[QUOTE=highseasmechanic;65518] The larger ATB’s require pilots to operate out of the notch due to their size limiting their ability to separate from the barge and go to a lay dock.[/QUOTE]

Several of the captains I sailed with have offered up a few guffaws about this as it is a new company requirement only.

The reason given for no bow thruster initially was assist tugs were required at all oil terminals on the west coast.
But then I have seen a few times the captain was happy to have an assist tug in lieu of a bow thruster.

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;65319]The way I understand it the regulatory cost of an unlimited vessel vs a limited vessel is also vastly different. If MARAD truly cared about a us merchant marine they would try to decrease those regulatory costs so it was economically viable to run coastal ships instead of ATBs.[/QUOTE]

Again…what he said! I have seen the Legacy in the Miss. river 3x now and I just can’t figure out how that thing is not a ship. This is really getting ridiculous with all the smoke and mirrors game with all the unlimited tonnage crap going on. It really irks me when I see some of these dredges that are unlimited but my vessel (stone Buccaneer) isn’t. It amazes me that a company will go out of their way to make sure they stay under the magical 1600 ton mark. I wish I could see the companies books and see the comparison in savings to see if it is really worth it.

Anyway, It really is an impressive looking unit.

[QUOTE=linky2121;65543]Again…what he said! I have seen the Legacy in the Miss. river 3x now and I just can’t figure out how that thing is not a ship. This is really getting ridiculous with all the smoke and mirrors game with all the unlimited tonnage crap going on. It really irks me when I see some of these dredges that are unlimited but my vessel (stone Buccaneer) isn’t. It amazes me that a company will go out of their way to make sure they stay under the magical 1600 ton mark. I wish I could see the companies books and see the comparison in savings to see if it is really worth it.

Anyway, It really is an impressive looking unit.[/QUOTE]
There are “company specific” license endorsements for the dredges over 1600 tons just as there are “company specfic ATB TOARs”.

Retracting pins and getting onto the emergency hawser should be interesting. I wonder if they have actually done that for the TOAR check-off???

The way I understand it the regulatory cost of an unlimited vessel vs a limited vessel is also vastly different. If MARAD truly cared about a us merchant marine they would try to decrease those regulatory costs so it was economically viable to run coastal ships instead of ATBs

First the unlimited tonnage mariner demanding more $$$ is a red herring issue. We all want to be paid well but just look at the AMO driving down wages for their unlimited tonnage members and they seem to get plenty of takers. The big difference here is in the manning levels. 8 mariners to run a combined unit equivalent to a 30000dwt tanker is going to cost one hell of alot less to run than a proper ship! Hence why I always say that the whole reason that ATB’s even exist is for that simple reason alone.

Second, forget effing MarAd for anything. They are toothless sloths when it comes to doing a damn thing to revitatize our industry. I honestly have no idea what the hell they do anymore except act as custodians for the Ready Reserve and deadship mothball fleets (during a sealift mobilization, the RRF ships are controlled by MSC and TRANSCOM) and to DEMAND more $$$ from Congress for that unbelievable massive septic pit called the USMMA and of course, to create cushy government positions for the graduates of that fine institution of higher maritime learning and knowledge.

The USCG should be the ones to look hard at the safety issues related to the low manning levels of ATB’s and the concurrent mariner fatigue that results. One big spill from an ATB barge and watch and see how the manning would go up to ship levels! Of course, barring any accident, the Coast Guard will just go along with the companies and keep things just as they are. They are toothless as well until they are forced to make changes.

All of Express coastwise barges have thrusters. They have vanes & you can thrust fwd & back along with port & starboard. They are nice but they aren’t strong.

It’s note worthy to look at how tug operators have trimmed the size of their crews. Tugs of less than 10,000 HP generally burn only #2 diesel and carry only two engineers. The tugs which are over 10,000 HP generally burn heavy fuel oil and carry 4 engineers. To aid the small compliment of engineers on-board tugs outside vendors are frequently used to repair equipment, etc. This cuts down on storage of non crucial spare parts, and you can get a warranty on the repairs. The steward’s department if there is one usually consists of only one person. Most boats do their own grub shopping as well, so you don’t have chandler fees. The deck department normally consists of a captain, two mates, and two ABs. Its not unusual for ABs to be assigned engine maintenance such as oil changes, etc on the barge. The >300,000 bbl barges require more ABs because they are more cumbersome to tie up / sail. The larger barges also generally carry an extra engineer to keep the up with the larger generators, pumps, etc.

[I]“Other than the higher compensation expected from the unlimited guys in the wheelhouse and in the basement, I can’t imagine that the crew compliment for the Legacy is that much smaller (if any) than a tanker of the same capacity?”[/I]
In our outfit, licenses for the “OTBE Nicole Class” designed boats are mostly 1600 tickets for Master and C/M, We couldn’t fit more than 10 without hot bunking any additional people. The barges (up to 150k bbls) are considered unmanned.
(OTBE; Ocean Tug and Barge Engineering. Bob Hill’s group)

I have had some experience on two distinctly different types of ATBs. I ran one with a Bludworth system for several years. The tug was kind of purpose built in that the stern portion was two old WWII tug hulls mated together with the rest of the boat built around it. The original Bludworth system certainly has its shortcomings and they are multiplied when proper maintenance is not carried out. I had forgotten about the “Jesus Clamp” nickname and it is pretty appropriate. The only thing holding the tug in in the notch is a hydraulic clamp, about a foot (guessing here, too many years ago) in diameter that is compressed onto a vertical bar, about three inches thick in the forward end of the notch. The tug pivots on the axis of this bow clamp. In the crotch of the clamp is a consumable wear bar that is semicircular in profile and that is what controls the “ejection angle”. As the bar wears and erodes the profile, well the ejection angle decreases. Keeping the tug tight in the notch are the side pads. On the system that I operated, the starboard pads were fixed with the port side movable (at times). Grease is then pumped out to the pads continuously to provide lubrication. I can’t really describe the emergency pad lubrication system that we installed, however I am sure that the statute of limitations has passed. Suffice to say that the wrong grade of grease/lubrication will create quite the sheen. . .

I also spent about six months on the Belcher ITB, which was easily one of the worst conceived ideas that I had ever seen. The tug was fitted with a slow speed diesel (rated at 15.5Khp). The pushing system was primitive and ineffectual. It consisted of hydraulically operated rams on the back deck that were connected to large poly facing hawsers. On the bow of the tug was an axle with a row of airplane tires that allowed the tug to ride up and down in the notch. To keep the tug tight in the notch, there were glycerin filled bladders with greased pads. There is little wonder that one of them is on the bottom in one of the deepest part of the Gulf.
I have been ejected from the notch with a Bludworth system and can tell you that it is not a pleasant experience. Needless to say that this kind of thing does not happen in calm weather and the tug is not really designed to operate out of the notch. On the Belcher system boat, we had issues with the bladders and had to operate on the string and THAT wasn’t much fun, either. The really came to fore when shortening the wire one sunny day. Of course no one in the wheelhouse had any hawser experience and a great time was had by all. Nothing more fun that retrieving the barge when the towing wire runs off the winch. Just what IS the hand brake for, anyway?
It can be rather disconcerting to ride an ATB with the Bludworth system. In seas, it is like being on a ship with a broken back. It IS a much better ride than on the string, but the bow clamp can make some VERY interesting noises at times. I have not operated an Intercon system, however as an engineer, the mechanical type of connection makes more sense than the “squeeze the crap out of the bar” type of connection.
As far as bow thrusters, the Bludworth unit that I sailed on had a bow thruster, but it rarely worked. The last time we operated it was after I was there about six months. There was a puff of smoke from the motor space vent and it was never used again. There were other issues with the unit. When loaded, the unit could be very difficult to steer unless the trim of the barge was just right. Because of the way it was built, there were also some systemic mechanical issues with the gearboxes and stern tubes. There was a large machinery space with two workbenches, however we had no lathe and I often improvised replacement parts with the welding machine, grinder and drill press.

Most of the mates/deck officers onboard the Bludworth unit were hawser mates, although I don’t believe that it was a requirement. We had a crew of 11 when I first started working on the Vessel. After a few months, I was able to get another engineer added to my department. The crew was made up of a Master, Chief Mate and Second Mate, two ABs and on OS, two Tankermen, three engineers (with the addition of one) and a cook. We had two 20 cylinder EMDs for power. We did what repairs we could on our own with the parts that we had. It wasn’t too often, but for the larger jobs we did bring in contract repair companies; most of which dealt with either the gearboxes or the pushing system.

Gawd… Makes me sort of misty, just thinking about the Sea Skimmer! You have dredged up old memories I have been trying to suppress for years. THANKS! Now where is that therapists’ number.

But seriously, I never worked on her, but her exploits were reknowned down in the GOM. The company I used to work for tried to buy her from DOW chemical. I guess its a good thing the deal fell through!

On to the original question.

I have found (having been employed on ATB ‘like’ vessels since 1981) that even before the term was universal, and there just a handful of units that were semi rigidly connected (IIRC that is the term that was used prior to ATB) the main and only consistent concept with the tug and barge idea has been to slash crew compliment. Cut costs, and slash wages.

Today this is as true as it ever was. The units I started out on were direct replacements for two Gulf tankers IIRC the Gulf Supreme and Gulf Solar. I recall wandering over to the Gulf ship in Port Arthur and found my way to the chiefs office. I was asking him about work on the ships. He was pretty derisive about how we couldn’t keep up with our 11 man crew and time would tell when we lost the contract to his 29 man crew. Of course them being more efficient and all… We see where that ended up!

The main comments are centering around crew efficiency, cost, wages, and work ethic. I have worked conventional tugs, ATB’s, and petroleum barge towing. One of the HARDEST things is creq/unit cohesion. The company I work for now has little to no company wide unanimity or oversight on the ATB’s. Most of the Tankerman are from conventional barges. They are used to being ‘the lone show’ and don’t fit in well with a large complement. (Not that a crew of 7 is large…). But this seems to be an all occurring, industry wide issue. This is a relatively new thing, with the Tankerman being barge crew. Some of them don’t’get it’ that they are a part of the larger ATB crew. This will add to the frustration if you decide to go onto an ATB. You will likely be the ONLY licensed engineer aboard (excepting a very few that have two) and you will be pulling maintenance on the whole unit. Although the Tankerman will be doing the oil changes on the barge, if one of the TICs forgets to fill the day tank and the generator dies, you will be the one who has to go on the barge to bleed it.

[QUOTE=cappy208;65808]Gawd… Makes me sort of misty, just thinking about the Sea Skimmer! You have dredged up old memories I have been trying to suppress for years. THANKS! Now where is that therapists’ number.

But seriously, I never worked on her, but her exploits were reknowned down in the GOM. The company I used to work for tried to buy her from DOW chemical. I guess its a good thing the deal fell through!

On to the original question.

I have found (having been employed on ATB ‘like’ vessels since 1981) that even before the term was universal, and there just a handful of units that were semi rigidly connected (IIRC that is the term that was used prior to ATB) the main and only consistent concept with the tug and barge idea has been to slash crew compliment. Cut costs, and slash wages.

Today this is as true as it ever was. The units I started out on were direct replacements for two Gulf tankers IIRC the Gulf Supreme and Gulf Solar. I recall wandering over to the Gulf ship in Port Arthur and found my way to the chiefs office. I was asking him about work on the ships. He was pretty derisive about how we couldn’t keep up with our 11 man crew and time would tell when we lost the contract to his 29 man crew. Of course them being more efficient and all… We see where that ended up!

The main comments are centering around crew efficiency, cost, wages, and work ethic. I have worked conventional tugs, ATB’s, and petroleum barge towing. One of the HARDEST things is creq/unit cohesion. The company I work for now has little to no company wide unanimity or oversight on the ATB’s. Most of the Tankerman are from conventional barges. They are used to being ‘the lone show’ and don’t fit in well with a large complement. (Not that a crew of 7 is large…). But this seems to be an all occurring, industry wide issue. This is a relatively new thing, with the Tankerman being barge crew. Some of them don’t’get it’ that they are a part of the larger ATB crew. This will add to the frustration if you decide to go onto an ATB. You will likely be the ONLY licensed engineer aboard (excepting a very few that have two) and you will be pulling maintenance on the whole unit. Although the Tankerman will be doing the oil changes on the barge, if one of the TICs forgets to fill the day tank and the generator dies, you will be the one who has to go on the barge to bleed it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, the SEA SKIMMER/PLAQUEMINE. I have been outed. I will say this about the crew we had when I was onboard. It was pretty clear that the tankermen worked for the Chief Mate and at his direction. One of the reasons that I put my foot down and got another engineer was just for the fact that you cited. When I worked on the hawser, I was the only engineer, and that was fine since I only ever saw the barge in port, and expect for the out ports like Port au Prince and Mobile, I never had to touch the barge or the equipment, except to get ashore from Isla Grande and get on up to Willie’s. On the SEA SKIMMER and being in the notch, the barge was always there and always needing maintenance. I probably could have worked full time in keeping the mechanical seals in the deep well cargo pumps. It just got to be too much to try and have two engineers to carry the work load. Often, after standing my 12 hours of watch, I would be up on the barge carrying out repairs. The only thing that the tankermen were allowed to operate was the crane (and they screwed that up so bad that we had to institute a crane training plan and issue certificates). The engineers kept the day tank full, started, paralleled and stopped the generators and did all of the mechanical maintenance on both the tug and the barge.

And if you think that you need a therapist, how do you think that I feel, having sailed on the SEA SKIMMER for four years (or was it more?). In that four years, I think that I was onboard longer than anyone else. Just shows what a glutton for punishment I was. I was onboard when we were aground in Tampa Bay, under tow from the middle of the Gulf to Port Everglades, when ejected from the notch bound for Freeport (I was home during the east coast ejection, just as well); made the trip to Ecuador with soy bean oil . . . . . . I guess that I stayed because I am one that likes to solve puzzles and since there were no drawings and minimal information about the equipment, operating the tug and barge was like the ultimate engineer’s challenge.

There is no doubt in my mind that the whole purpose of the ATB system is to reduce manning costs. Now, when I was onboard the SEA SKIMMER, I worked for a ship management company. They make their money on how much they can save the owners/operators. In running a vessel, very few costs can be controlled. Fuel costs are subject to market pressures just as freight rates are. The only costs that can be controlled are personnel costs. Of course, often when personnel costs are cut too close to the bone, other things suffer such as maintenance, machinery repairs, collision and grounding repairs, etc. Can a ship do the job better and more cheaply? Well, with the increase in ATBs, it doesn’t seem that way. Maybe these two new tankers that are coming out of Mobile soon might make a difference. Who knows.

I would say, until we have a watershed moment (ala Valdez, Mauvilla, Scandia ) to force a change in USCG, company, charterer, and crew attitudes, addressing short crew, 6 and 6 for extended periods, CEMS, and efficiency I don’t think we will see change

It is actually pretty funny that ATBs are SO cheap that most are not subject to the same time charter constraints as ships. Time, speed, efficiency; none seems to make a difference to charterers. They just look at the.bottom line.

I got a chuckle at VSO class. The guy said:you must have a gangway watch. We all asked: who did you have in mind on a 7 man crew? We just ran fresh out of a spare Filipino!

[QUOTE=cappy208;65853]I would say, until we have a watershed moment (ala Valdez, Mauvilla, Scandia ) to force a change in USCG, company, charterer, and crew attitudes, addressing short crew, 6 and 6 for extended periods, CEMS, and efficiency I don’t think we will see change

It is actually pretty funny that ATBs are SO cheap that most are not subject to the same time charter constraints as ships. Time, speed, efficiency; none seems to make a difference to charterers. They just look at the.bottom line.

I got a chuckle at VSO class. The guy said:you must have a gangway watch. We all asked: who did you have in mind on a 7 man crew? We just ran fresh out of a spare Filipino![/QUOTE]

Exactly. When I worked with Crowley we had 8 onboard. Not that ships these days have large crews either. THAT should have everyone concerned. However, given my current profession, I don’t really mind. . . .

The low manning scale, lack of promised shore-based support, increased work-load and and wage plateau were instrumental in my opting for early pension. When the OPA90 rules and “hours worked” log was implemented, premium OT was taken out of our contract. When I pointed out on several occasions that I was regularly exceeding my hours, I was told to “learn to better manage my time”. After an epiphiny, I told them “I could manage my time very well with a fishing rod or shotgun”! My only regret is I didn’t retire a year eariler…

It seems the vetters, charterers, and customers are blithely ignorant ( or more like it willfully complicit) that any crew size less than 10 on any unit (disregarding stewards dept) means someone is working 6 and 6. The toll 6 and 6 takes is definitely measurable and affects the job. Then with the replacing of ships with ATBs, it is only getting worse. Heck, even ships have a two watch system with 4 hour mandatory OT tacked on. Short manning my ass.