Flag away

John S and Ivan
When loading grain on Panamax and Cape sized Bulkers, with the deep hatch coamings fitted to many of these types of ships there were often large voids behind them which had to be taken into account when doing your grain stability calculations. To overcome this feeder holes were invariably fitted into the coamings where they extended into the hatch openings. If you had a finickty grain inspector in the USA you had to prove to him that these feeder holes would be sufficient for the grain to flow through and fill the voids behind them. This information was sometimes in the grain stability calculations provided by the ship yard/classification society but once when loading in New Orleans we had to wait for the grain to flow into these voids whilst topping off the grain and show that it had indeed filled the voids by showing him it had by observation from the access hatch. Some bulkers I was on had grain feeder hatches in the topside wing tanks consisted of bolted watertight manholes that could be removed and the topside tanks used as feeders, though I never saw them in use. Most likely this would have been due to having to clean them and then dry them before getting them passed fit for loading grain in, which would have resulted in long delays, especially if you needed these tanks full on arrival in order to fit under the grain elevators or bridges on passage up to the elevators.
The voids at the fwd and aft end of the hatches could seriously impact on your stability calculations unless you could prove that the openings in the hatch coamings were sufficient to allow the grain to flow through them and fill the voids DURING THE LOADING PROCESS. {my capitals} as to get clearance your stability calculations had to show that even allowing for these voids , settlement of cargo during the voyage that could allow the grain to shift, would not adversely affect the ships stability aka the calculations required to be made on a tween decker.
In the USA and Canada you had two Inspection bodies to satisfy. The USDA? for cleanliness and another body, whose name I forget, who used to check your stability calculations. They used their own templates for the calculations using ships hydrostatic data and grain calculations supplied by the Mate and on board, again, the ships stability book had a template for the calculations. With the advent of computer loading calculators this was even easier as so long as the owner paid for it, at a press of a button, the computer would work out the grain stability for you according to the Grain regulations.
rgds
JA

Re Bulkers, the ones I was on the upper wings were often used. If used on passage as ballast, had drop valves and could drop them direct to sea, in fact had to be empty when alongside as otherwise would flood the quay, unless you had water bags for every tank. The coaming was the feeder. Most types of grain the ship would fill out, if a light grain would probably have to use the wing tanks if not would leave empty, or just use the amount of wing tanks necessary and use also for trim of vessel. The cubic hold space on a bulker was similar to an ore carrier and were only boxes. No lengthwise row of bilge space and just a small hat box at after end of hold and could usually be cleaned out in 10 minutes and covered with burlap. They were work efficient and could not compare with the usual labour involved in loading a conventional cargo vessel. Would nearly always have the manhole doors off before loading grain in the upper wing tanks, they were usually built as feeders and was no harm in leaving the doors open when loaded and not in use, unless of course you expected to be holed on passage and needed the reserve buoyancy. Cheers JS

John S
When you were using your upper wing tanks for grain, on emptying them, either at sea or alongside if they needed to filled for air draft reasons, how long did it take you to clean and dry them? Did you do ballast exchange at sea to clean them from any muddy/dirty ballast water taken on whilst in the last discharge port?
From my recollections we never used them as on some of the Cape sized bulkers I was one the top side tanks were common with the double bottoms so these ships did not have feeder hatches in the top side tanks and we could load to the max. allowable Mississippi draft without the need for them.
rgds
JA

Guess we were lucky, never had to use the wing tanks as feeders on the bulkers I was on, but do remember the feeder holes in the coamings, wheat would flow through freely, corn could be troublesome at times, but normally flowed like marbles and many a man has found himself sitting on the deck because of the tumblehome syndrome on corn spill from the elevators, do these very large bulkers and VLCC's still have tumblehome? or are they just box shaped

I am referring to one of the few bulkers I was on, which was the Maratha Envoy. A 6 hold ship No4 was a floodable hold. She was according to Mitsuibishi able to go with two holds empty. So the owners in their wisdom had two holds fitted with car decks, Nos 4 and 5. There is no weight in cars on a 37,000 ddwt ship as such, with these two holds therefore out of commission re the carriage of deadweight cargos, they still insisted the ship could gow with a further 2 holds empty. So we loaded 2 holds with concentrates for passage from Australia to South Africa to load the 2 remaining holds with grain. I was Mate and kicked up a storm. Sat down and worked out the sheering stresses on every frame in the ship, she came within the limits just, for having 4 holds empty, this was for still water only, or alongside the berth. However they still insisted as the master had picked up my calculations and not read the still water only, and told the owners the ship could comply. I then had to go back and make the best of a bad job and work several upper wing tanks into the calculation to try and alleviate the bending stresses alone on the ship. We had almost flat seas from Southern Australia to Durban, thank god. The ship moaned and screeched all the way across and if she hadnt of been a new ship am sure she would of been another loss. On going home from Durban after 13 months away was given the cigar treatment in the London office told I was going master next trip, turned round and told them to stick it up their ass, and explained the basic rules of ship construction and stability to them. Apparently it was a very profitable charter for them, but could easily have been the death bed for 40 odd men. Cheers JS

John S
Were those car decks fixed or movable, i.e. taken out and stowed on deck?
Some of the Biiby, later Denholms, had that arrangement on the geared handy sized bulkers.
The alternate hatch loading arrangement, even though class approved, one the Cape and Panamax bulkers I was on, I always thought was wrong, despite what the loading calculator used to tell me. On a hatch cape size with holds 2, 4, 6,8 empty meant some 120,000 tons of iron ore spread amongst 5 hatches meant that you would have around 25,000 tons in each of those hatches and nothing in the adjacent ones and this iron ore being poured in at some 20,000 t.p.h. Not nice.
The only 30,000 ton bulkers I sailed one were geared with 5 hatches and 5 cranes. One of them had been specially adapted so as to carry concrete pre-built homes from the USA to North Africa. The holds were rigged out with removable beams upon which these homes were stowed. They were built in Jacksonville and somewhere else in the States by an outfit that was part owned by Joe De Maggio's,{of baseball fame} brother.
I sailed on a number of these with C.P. but were mainly employed in the timber trade with occasional trips with grain, steel etc.
rgds
JA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ivan Cloherty

Guess we were lucky, never had to use the wing tanks as feeders on the bulkers I was on, but do remember the feeder holes in the coamings, wheat would flow through freely, corn could be troublesome at times, but normally flowed like marbles and many a man has found himself sitting on the deck because of the tumblehome syndrome on corn spill from the elevators, do these very large bulkers and VLCC's still have tumblehome? or are they just box shaped

---

Ivan
Isn't tumblehome the inward slope of the ships hull above the load line to its joining with the freeboard deck, whereas the slope of the main deck is referred to as camber.
rgds
JA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Arton

Ivan
Isn't tumblehome the inward slope of the ships hull above the load line to its joining with the freeboard deck, whereas the slope of the main deck is referred to as camber.
rgds
JA

---

Your quite right John, I meant camber but somehow tumblehome got stuck in my brain, which in itself is a minor miracle as find it difficult to make anything stick in my brain these days. So do these large bulkers etc have camber, as it was quite pronounced on some of the ships in my era, as was tumblehome but not to the same extent.

always thought the tumbleholm was at the top of the gangway when i got to the top drunk and then tumbled home......honest i believed that regards cappy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cappy

always thought the tumbleholm was at the top of the gangway when i got to the top drunk and then tumbled home......honest i believed that regards cappy

---

A very reasonable assumption Cappy, one that i may well have experienced myself.