rileynelson•1mo agoMost Upvoted

Found an old dredge log from the 1970s in a library in Duluth

I was looking through some local history stuff and came across a log from a cutterhead dredge working the St. Louis River. It noted they moved over 2,000 cubic yards in a single 10-hour shift. That's a lot, but what got me was the fuel burn they logged for that day, only 80 gallons. My modern rig would use triple that for the same output. Makes you think about how simple those old machines were. Anyone else run across old records that made you scratch your head?

3 comments

3 Comments

clark.robin1mo ago

That fuel efficiency is wild. Were they running a specific type of diesel engine back then, or was the dredge itself just a lot lighter with less hydraulic systems to power? I've seen old maintenance logs for draglines that mention using way less grease and oil than we do now. Makes me wonder if we've added complexity for precision but lost a ton in raw efficiency.

the_margaret1mo ago

My uncle worked on a bucket line dredge in the 70s that ran on a single, slow-turning Fairbanks-Morse engine. It just chugged along moving an insane amount of material on basically bunker fuel. You're right about the complexity creep. We swapped those simple, heavy-duty systems for a web of high-pressure hydraulics and electronic controls that need constant babysitting. The new gear is precise, but it feels like we're burning half the fuel just to power the systems that run the machine.

victorb1724d ago

@clark.robin that fuel efficiency thing is the same pattern you see everywhere now, we traded simple heavy work for fancy systems that just eat their own power.