Return to Great Lakes & Seaway Shipping Great Lakes & Seaway Shipping Online
Discussion Boards
Please click to visit our sponsor
It is currently February 19, 2018, 2:57 am

FAQ | Instructions | Help
Search for:



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair Keel Laying in 1974
Unread postPosted: February 14, 2018, 8:46 am 
To add to the confusion, Hull 716 (that became the Walter J. McCarthy), was originally allocated for a second 770-foot self-unloader, similar to the St. Clair.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair Keel Laying in 1974
Unread postPosted: February 14, 2018, 8:39 am 
I've read the same paper from SNAME as you did regarding the Presque Isle.

The loop-belt used in the Bayship thousand footers, same as the AmShip thousand footers, were, I believe supplied by Stephens-Adamson. The Stewart J. Cort's self-unloading system was supplied by Hewitt-Robinson, a subsidiary of Litton Industries.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair Keel Laying in 1974
Unread postPosted: February 13, 2018, 11:18 pm 

Joined: December 7, 2014, 10:33 am
Posts: 69
Yes, RA Stearn is the firm I was thinking of - thank you for the correction.

Interesting to note that Bay Engineering is tied to them.

Marine Consultants & Designers was a error on my end in connection with Bay Shipbuilding. I recently read a paper on the Presque Isle and recalled MC&D named in the paper.

Was Stephens-Adamson involved in the unloading machinery design or supplier? I recall them supplying material for various Canadian ships c.1970s-80s. Not sure if they worked with Bay Shipbuilding. I believe at one time, Stephens-Adamson was owned in part by Allis Chalmers? Being a Wisconsin company, AC may have supplied many parts to Bay Shipbuilding as standard machinery, in terms of pumps, controls, etc. I know Bay Shipbuilding tended to use local vendors for many items - did American Shipbuilding do the same with Ohio-based vendors?


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bayship Footer Contracts
Unread postPosted: February 13, 2018, 8:34 pm 
Attached are two early news paper articles about the first Bayship footer contracts. The first / lower article is dated Feb. 28 1974 and has the firm building (3) footers for ASC. The second article is from Feb. 18 1975 and has (4) footers contracted, (2) for ASC and (2) for Bethlehem steel. I suspect that ASC sold the Berth rights to USS for the Gott and Bethlehem bought their own berth rights.


Attachments:
footers 1.jpg
footers 1.jpg [ 38.92 KiB | Viewed 522 times ]
footers 2.jpg
footers 2.jpg [ 46.18 KiB | Viewed 522 times ]
Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair Keel Laying in 1974
Unread postPosted: February 13, 2018, 7:57 pm 
ST. Clair keel laying image attached


Attachments:
IMG_2192 (2).JPG
IMG_2192 (2).JPG [ 65.24 KiB | Viewed 551 times ]
Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair Keel Laying in 1974
Unread postPosted: February 13, 2018, 5:22 pm 

Joined: March 13, 2010, 10:51 am
Posts: 1058
Richard Stearn joined the Leathem D. Smith Shiobuilding Company in 1940 almost directly after graduating from the Webb Institure and co-ordinated Smith's massive World War II building program with the Navy an Maritime Commission. When Smith drowned in a boating accident Stearn established R. A. Stearn, Inc., at Sturgeon Bay and establishe a close relationship with Christy Corporation when after Christenson, who had been Smith's superintendent, took over Smith's yard. His most notable designs are probably the Badger and Spartan in that period. Stearn became, in essence, the in-house naval architect for Christy and later Bay Ship. I'm sure he was the supervising naval architect on the Bay boats. He certainly was for the Gott. H. C. Downer formed H. C. Downer & Associates at Cleveland in 1951 and in 1954 Wilson Marine Transit Company bought it and made Downer a vice president. Downer left in 1959 and in 1963 the firm became Marine Consultants & Designers, still a part of Wilson, and eventually Litton, and designed, among others, the Blough and Cort. It had a close working relationship with American Ship Building.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair Keel Laying in 1974
Unread postPosted: February 13, 2018, 4:18 pm 
R. A. Stearn is the design firm that designed nearly all of Bay Shipbuilding's ships and conversions. It was founded by Robert Stearn, who sold the business to Joseph Fischer in 1986. Today, R. A. Stearn is known as Bay Engineering.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair Keel Laying in 1974
Unread postPosted: February 13, 2018, 2:20 pm 
Was that actually the designer or just a drafting company that drew the technical drawings?


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair Keel Laying in 1974
Unread postPosted: February 13, 2018, 12:11 pm 
I just took a quick photo to show who the designer of the BayShip thousand footers was.


Attachments:
20180213_120513-747x1328.jpg
20180213_120513-747x1328.jpg [ 276.67 KiB | Viewed 734 times ]
Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair Keel Laying in 1974
Unread postPosted: February 12, 2018, 9:00 pm 

Joined: December 7, 2014, 10:33 am
Posts: 69
As pointed out, building slots are not the same as selling rights to a hull under construction (or beyond a letter of intent stage). If ASC declined the option for a vessel, and forfeited the rights to said option, the shipyard has the right to market that spot to another client.

Likewise, I do not believe Bay Shipbuilding owned rights to any vessel they built. My memory is likely wrong here, but was not Marine Consultants & Designers (or similar name) responsible for the design of the ships built at Bay Shipbuilding at that time? While shipyards certainly do produce their own ship architecture, especially nowadays, an independent naval architecture and marine engineering firm will review the plans (or more than not, they will design the ship from the beginning). In this case, US Steel could have easily purchased the rights to build the Speer at a yard of their choosing. As long as the naval architect was compensated, they do not care what yard builds their design.

Like buying a new, pre-construction house in a modern development, you (the buyer) may be shown some standard plans, along with basic options to change at a minor cost. More substantial changes, like a larger garage, fourth bedroom, etc. are much higher change orders. A shipyard works similarly, where a basic design is presented for sale. The shipowner will be able to make smaller cost changes, such as main engine manufacturer, auxiliary machinery brands, interior joinery/color scheme, etc. Changing to the magnitude of an extra deck (MV Burns Harbor), cargo hold arrangement (MV Edwin H Gott), or others are more significant in cost and materials procurement. Class and the USCG must also approve these revisions, which require further review than a simple change of using ABB switchgear compared to Siemens.

Side note, I spent several years in Korea, at Hyundai Heavy Industries and Samsung Heavy Industries doing commissioning and acceptance proving for a firm specializing in this work. My concentration was on VLCC's, though we did some Post Panamax containership work as well. Much of the machinery and sub-assemblies/equipment is common to all of the yards, and it was not unheard of to see Samsung drawings in my office at Ulsan (Hyundai yard). While Bay Shipbuilding and American Shipbuilding were different in the sense they used different engines, auxiliary machinery (pumps, coolers, etc.), in present-day Korea, all of these components are sourced from the same manufacturers. Hyundai electric motors on a Samsung-built ship, Keystone valves, Dae Jin anchors, Kang Rim boilers, Kongsberg automation...it's all common to most ships, no matter which Korean yard builds the ship itself. This is seen in the USA on ships built at Aker Philadelphia and NASSCO San Diego...they build ships designed by Hyundai and Daewoo, respectively. Much of the internal components and machinery of the ships are the same Korean manufacture, all down to the same light switches, floor tile, main engines, generators, etc.

Sorry to hijack the thread. Thought some would be interested.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair Keel Laying in 1974
Unread postPosted: February 12, 2018, 6:56 pm 
I think some of the confusion here stems from the idea that ASC was to build a certain number of vessels but then cut back their plans due to a economic recession. I would tend to believe that we are dealing more with building slots rather than a ship intended for ASC being redesigned into one for US Steel or any other fleet. Although they share many general design characteristics, I assume that each of the footers built by Bay Shipbuilding would have been tailored to the needs of each individual customer. From what I have read, the use of the shuttle booms on the Blough, Gott, and Speer were influenced by labor issued involving the unions representing the USS fleet's straight decker fleet and the self-unloaders of it former Bradley Transportation Division. As USS contracted the American Ship Building Company to build the Edgar B. Speer at Lorain even as work was about to begin on the Gott at Sturgeon Bay, they must have held rights to the design to have another carrier built by a competitor's yard unless there was some type of licensing agreement. Incidentally, I recall USS filing a lawsuit against Bay Shipbuilding concerning the construction of the Gott, but have no information concerning the aspects of the case.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair Keel Laying in 1974
Unread postPosted: February 12, 2018, 5:49 pm 
Guest wrote:
The BayShip thousand footers have the exact same hull, but it's internally where the differences are. The Edwin H. Gott is in a different class compared to the other Bayship thousand footers. She has different machinery, self-unloading motors and belt widths, larger ballast tanks and smaller hatches as a result. The Gott was also designed for South Chicago and Conneaut besides Gary. In fact, US Steel was planning at the time of the Gott's design and construction, a new steel mill next to Conneaut, Ohio. A new unloading dock was planned for the east side of the existing ore dock and Edwin H. Gott would have been a prime vessel for that dock.

The other thousand footers; Walter J. McCarthy, Indiana Harbor, American Century, American Integrity and Burns Harbor all have the same machinery and self-unloading machinery. Generally their differences are in a different accomodation layout, extra walkways, watertight doors and in the case of the Burns Harbor (an extra deck level in the accomodation block) and 12" inch hatch coamings. (The Americam Integrity also has 12 inch hatch coamings.)


The Gott with the shuttle boom couldn't have unloaded in South Chicago. There was no unloading hopper.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair Keel Laying in 1974
Unread postPosted: February 12, 2018, 4:15 pm 
Let me re-phrase the question a little.

It was mentioned earlier that ASC ordered 5 footers but they only took delivery of 2 of them due to the 1974 recession: the Belle River and Indiana Harbor. I would consider these two boats sisters, twins. Bethlehem Steel took delivery of the ASC footer builds 3 & 4 and named them Lewis Wilson Foy and Burns Harbor. I would consider these two to be sisters to the Belle and Indy as well even through the Burns is a bit different. The last remaining ASC build, #5, became the Edwin H. Gott. Now, the Gott is substantially different than the others. So let me ask the question this way: Were all 5 of the ASC ordered footers originally meant to be sisters? If the answer is NO, how was ASC planning to use the Gott with the short boom and narrow hatches? Was ASC planning on using her on a Taconite-only run to Gary or Conneaut which were the only places that would accommodate that short shuttle boom at the time? I'm guessing that USS made some revisions to the design.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair Keel Laying in 1974
Unread postPosted: February 12, 2018, 3:13 pm 
The BayShip thousand footers have the exact same hull, but it's internally where the differences are. The Edwin H. Gott is in a different class compared to the other Bayship thousand footers. She has different machinery, self-unloading motors and belt widths, larger ballast tanks and smaller hatches as a result. The Gott was also designed for South Chicago and Conneaut besides Gary. In fact, US Steel was planning at the time of the Gott's design and construction, a new steel mill next to Conneaut, Ohio. A new unloading dock was planned for the east side of the existing ore dock and Edwin H. Gott would have been a prime vessel for that dock.

The other thousand footers; Walter J. McCarthy, Indiana Harbor, American Century, American Integrity and Burns Harbor all have the same machinery and self-unloading machinery. Generally their differences are in a different accomodation layout, extra walkways, watertight doors and in the case of the Burns Harbor (an extra deck level in the accomodation block) and 12" inch hatch coamings. (The Americam Integrity also has 12 inch hatch coamings.)


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: St. Clair Keel Laying in 1974
Unread postPosted: February 12, 2018, 12:36 pm 
Duluth Guest wrote:
So did each company alter the base design to suit their needs more appropriately or were the Gott and Burns Harbor always planned to be a little different than the rest of the "Bay Footers"? I was always under the impression that USS GLF altered the design of the Gott to better cater to the Two Harbors - Gary runs and to specifically haul taconite.


The Gott was always designed to haul taconite. Adding the deck boom didn't change what cargo she hauled.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Return to Great Lakes & Seaway Shipping  
Copyright Boatnerd.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Use of this site is based on the Terms of Use
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group