George m Humphrey

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF

Topic review

Expand view Topic review: George m Humphrey

Re: George m Humphrey

by Guest » September 28, 2021, 3:00 pm

The George M. Humphrey and Sherwin were near sisters. The former was oil-fueled, while the later at the beginning of her career was coal-fired. The Humphrey had wider and staggered hatches (like on the Canadian 730 footers of the 1960s) so that there would be a reduction in maintenance costs of the hatch-coamings when unloading at orebridge crane equipped ore docks, such as Great Lakes Steel at Zug Island.

The George M. Humphrey didn't last long on the lakes because of the structural change in the steel industry brought on by the severe steel recession in the early 1980s along with increased competition.

Iron ore demand dropped by 60% by 1982 and with the commissioning of the George A. Stinson in October 1978 plus the closure of several of National Steel facilities, the Humphrey, along with the Leon Falk, Jr., and Paul H. Carnahan were redundant and hence sent off for dismantling.

I was in my late teens when all this happened, and it was disheartening to see excellent vessels with many decades of work ahead of them, sent to the breakers.

At least they had longer lives than some ULCC tankers that only sailed for 6 to 8 years before dismantling in Taiwan or South Korea.

Re: George m Humphrey

by Guest » September 28, 2021, 2:18 pm

Humphrey, sherwin and Beeghley were sister ships. It was fleet she was with, and the economy and timing. National steel fleet all went quickly, except the Stinson and I believe they even looked at selling her.

George m Humphrey

by Bob » September 27, 2021, 11:41 pm

Was the George m Humphrey and the John sherwin sister ships? Why didn’t the Humphrey seem to last very long on the lakes?