Boatnerd Discussion Forum

by **Don_Detloff** » March 11, 2015, 8:24 am

Guest wrote:I'm an Admiral in the Navy and NASA Astronaut...

Brian Williams, is that you? LOL

by **Guest** » March 10, 2015, 6:19 pm

Guest wrote:John from brighton,

The Boothe is a little louder, but it's not bad. Louder outside than in. Does not bother me.

As far as how nice, the rooms and general interior is done up nice. Better than any of the 70s and 80s boats. The rooms are a bit smaller, but firnishings, and such are better by far.

Thanks. Always good to hear from those that sail.

by **Guest** » March 10, 2015, 5:45 pm

I'm an Admiral in the Navy and NASA Astronaut...
Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be --or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.

by **Guest** » March 9, 2015, 10:34 pm

John from brighton,

The Boothe is a little louder, but it's not bad. Louder outside than in. Does not bother me.

As far as how nice, the rooms and general interior is done up nice. Better than any of the 70s and 80s boats. The rooms are a bit smaller, but firnishings, and such are better by far.

by **WM4504** » March 9, 2015, 7:42 pm

The moderators are neither pro or con for ASC. They just try and keep order around this site, ASC maintenance that's a hoot till they sold us down the river I saw their maintenance program. Wait till it breaks and then fix it.

by **Guest** » March 8, 2015, 7:48 pm

Clarkjol, you are very misinformed about ASC. I work as a master for ASC and I assure you, GATX is shipping company in addition to a railroad company. A tremendous amount of money and effort are being invested into our fleet this winter which likely dwarfs the other Great Lakes fleets. Clearly you are pro-Interlake which I respect but please don't dis ASC who has been on the lakes for over a century and clearly is the leader on the lakes. I find that the moderators often delete my defense of ASC comments as they seem to be anti-ASC themselves so I hope this makes it through. ASC is leading the other fleets in so many ways and I am proud to work for them.

by **johnfrombrighton** » March 8, 2015, 5:14 pm

Guest wrote:Both the Trader and Contender have a bit of camber. The inside of the Ken Boothe is very nice, easy to live on. The technology in place on the barge make life easier also. As pretty as they are, I'll take the Boothe/Contender any day over the steamboat.

I was in a small boat on St Clair River this summer. The Boothe went by upbound; it sounded very loud compared to the footers. Is the Boothe loud inside? How does it compare to other boats for living quarters/interior noise?

by **clarkjol** » March 8, 2015, 3:08 pm

In response to your question Interlake vs ASC, it's a tale of two very different companies. Interlake is a shipping company first and foremost.
Therefore Interlake puts its best foot forward and takes great care of their lakers. Interlake does a lot of entertaining of customers and occasionaly politicians, bureaucrats and shipping insiders. Another thing
to remember, Interlake is privately owned, no stockholders to report to.
A sister company is Moran Towing.

ASC on the other hand is a subsidiary of GATX Corp. GATX is well known in railroad circles for leasing tank cars and other rail cars. GATX also is in the railroad locomotive leasing business. ASC is not the "big dog" in the GATX portfolio and therefore doesn't always get the most attention
from corporate office.

by **Guest** » March 8, 2015, 11:00 am

Both the Trader and Contender have a bit of camber. The inside of the Ken Boothe is very nice, easy to live on. The technology in place on the barge make life easier also. As pretty as they are, I'll take the Boothe/Contender any day over the steamboat.

by **Guest** » March 8, 2015, 9:42 am

You are right in that I shouldn't have presumed to speak for all Boatnerds. However, you are wrong in thinking that I was referring to all ATBs. It may be hard to tell, but the top 2 photos are Newbuilds. Round bows, no sheer, and from viewing them when docked next to them - no camber either.
The bottom 2 are converted Lakers. They have traditional "pointed" bows, sheer (most noticable toward the bow) and, having worked on the Buckeye (now LLT's Lewis Kuber - the 3rd photo) Camber to the deck.
Having begun working on the Lakes more than 30 years ago, I m very aware of the Companies' need to economize. However one thing I don't understand. I worked on the '76-built James R. Barker. Her & her 2 sisters (1 which came out in '80) are pretty nice boats - elevators, air-conditioning, Built with extra cabins for cadets or technicians, completely-finished cabin walls & ceilings. I also worked on the American Mariner. Air-conditioned, no need for an elevator No forward trim lights, depth-finder that had been broken for 2 years, broken King Gauges, (on her several years ago, maybe depth-finder & Gauges are now fixed) mostly 2 to a cabin (unlicensed), unfinished walls & ceilings (lovely view of pipes & conduit). Here's the Question. Both were built during "hard times". Why the difference? Is Interlake unaware of the need to economize? Do they like to waste their money? Is Interlake that much more prosperous than ASC? In other words, even with a strong need to economize, you don't have to cut to the bare bone.

by **Jon Paul** » March 7, 2015, 7:05 pm

I'm sorry Guest, I didn't see any clear distinction about which ATB's you were referencing in your post. Seeing there more conversions then new built, I assumed you were referring to ATB's in general. I would never presume to speak for "most boatnerds" about what they would prefer but I feel that its better to have the conversation's still out there sailing than having them end up like the American Fortitude and dozens of other old lakers, scrap. Sentiment doesn't correlate to profitability in today's cut throat Great Lakes shipping industry. The first ship I sailed on was built in 1906, The MV J. R. Sensibar, I was thrilled when it went Canadian after its days with Columbia came to an end but that was short lived.
The reality is that when the new ship building started in the 70's, the boxy strait line design was most economical and that trend will continue in any future ships built.

by **Guest** » March 7, 2015, 11:49 am

Jon Paul wrote:I would take the ATB's any day of the week. At least they have some of the old familiar graceful lines of a laker...curve of the deck from bow to stern, the cambered deck athwart-ships, a flaired bow.
Basically the footers are a large strait lined rectangular box for a cargo hold with a blunt round bow and boxy after cabins.

Jon Paul, the only ATBs with "the old familiar graceful lines of a laker" are those made from cut-down Lakers. I, like most Boatnerds, would rather have seen them continue sailing as complete ships.
The newbuild ATBs (and any "Foooter" ATB would have to be a newbuild) have all the boxiness of the footers you dislike. All you have to do is look at the Joyce VanEnkevort/Great Lakes Trader and Ken Boothe/Lakes Contender. As boxy as any footer. The only newbuild ATBs without the "blunt round bow" of all footers (except the Stewart Cort) are the barges Innovation & Integrity.

by **Jon Paul** » March 5, 2015, 11:27 am

bob wrote:no offence to the men and woman that sail on the atbs but the traditional 1000 footers are my favorite, just the size and look they have is more appealing than an atb.it would be interesting to see how much change there would be in the superstructure if they built a new footer like the style of the current ones, I would imagine they would have larger windows like the new csl ships.

I would take the ATB's any day of the week. At least they have some of the old familiar graceful lines of a laker...curve of the deck from bow to stern, the cambered deck athwart-ships, a flaired bow.
Basically the footers are a large strait lined rectangular box for a cargo hold with a blunt round bow and boxy after cabins.
But then I realize maybe its a bit of sour grapes on my part because a great any of us lost our sailing jobs when the footers came on line, lol

by **Guest** » March 2, 2015, 11:26 am

Ships the size of 1,100 feet can use the Poe Lock. The Corps of Engineers did a trial where a thousand-footer acting as a 1,100 footer transited the Poe Lock in 1976. U. S. Steel had an option on the Edwin H. Gott to build it 1,100 feet, but they never exercised it.

by **bob** » March 2, 2015, 10:12 am

no offence to the men and woman that sail on the atbs but the traditional 1000 footers are my favorite, just the size and look they have is more appealing than an atb.it would be interesting to see how much change there would be in the superstructure if they built a new footer like the style of the current ones, I would imagine they would have larger windows like the new csl ships.

by **Denny** » March 2, 2015, 9:25 am

Some have asked and mentioned "What is the longest ship that can fit inside the Poe Lock at the Soo?" Many have questioned if the Paul R. Tregurtha at 1,013 feet in length is the biggest that can fit in the Poe Lock? The answer is No, as I believe I have heard and read that if they were to build any new ships someday, then the largest they can go is up to 1,100 feet in length. The Poe Lock has a length of 1,200 feet so, a new ship would be just short of the entire length of the Poe Lock. I don't recall where I heard this from but, I am 100% sure though that someone told me this or that I had read this somewhere. Hope that this information helps.

by **Guest** » March 1, 2015, 6:54 pm

Guest wrote:1972. Why did they only build one Presque Isle?

I believe originally the plan by Litton/Wilson was to build several tugs and a larger number of barges. When the tug would drop off the loaded barge on the lower lakes it would back haul one of the empty one to the lakehead. It is covered in the book Master Of The Inland Seas: The Story Of Capt. Thomas Wison And The Fleet That Bore His Name.

by **Middle rouge** » March 1, 2015, 6:13 pm

Guest wrote:1972. Why did they only build one Presque Isle?

Presque isle is an ITB, different from an ATB. it was found that ITBs do not operate vessel well. when underway, an ITB is essentially one unit. Unlike a ATB, which can have some independence from the barge when underway, an ITB can't move.

by **Guest** » March 1, 2015, 1:37 pm

1972. Why did they only build one Presque Isle?

by **PDBLK25** » March 1, 2015, 1:18 pm

Mr Link wrote: the breadth and depth is almost identical to the Paul R. Tregurtha. They run with a crew of 14, or 7 less than a ship of the same capacity.

When I was on the MV. James R. Barker (a thousand-footer & 9 feet shorter than sister, the Paul R. Tregurtha) we ran with a crew of 18. That's 4 more men than Crowley's oil-carrying ATBs. This type of manning may make a traditional footer more attractive than a 1000-foot ATB (which uses more fuel, and carries less, than a traditional ship of the same size).

Boatnerd Discussion Forum

footers

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers

Re: footers