Boatnerd Discussion Forum

I can't comment on whether or not upper lakes was happy with the conversions or not, but i can say they definitely were 2 of the ugliest conversions ever done , took 2 rather handsome vessels and just destroyed the looks.

I worked numerous years on both vessels and never heard that there were any regrets from the Company's part? To the contrary, they were pretty easy on fuel but were unfortunately pretty small carriers. The Explorer's later conversion to a river sized self unloader made her a versatile ship.

One cannot make a claim/thesis/argument with no details or evidence or "cannot remember"

The worst conversion jobs ever, can't remember the details but needless to say Upper Lakes was not happy with the results!

[quote]I believe that those two package freighters became available after being replaced on the Newfoundland route by container vessels.[/quote]
The [i]Chimo[/i] and [i]Cabot[/i] had been carrying containers in the Newfoundland service on deck. Container traffic grew and in fall 1981 both vessels were modified for the carriage of more containers ondeck and below deck, but only to 100 TEU. The following year Newfoundland Steamships, Ltd., chartered the [i]Catalina[/i], a dedicated container ship that had been so converted in 1970, and thus began a series of charters of container ships by the firm. The [i]Chimo[/i] and [i]Cabot[/i] were laid up at Sorel in 1982, the [i]Chimo[/i] running infrequently up until then, and in January 1983 Upper Lakes purchased the pair for $2.3 million.

Thanks for the replies! These two ships sure have interesting histories. So what I'm getting out of this is that for all practical purposes the Hilda Marjanne and Northern Venture were basically scrapped with the resulting Canadian Ranger and Canadian Explorer being considered rebuilds of the Chimo and Cabot.

I believe that those two package freighters became available after being replaced on the Newfoundland route by container vessels.

The [i]Hilda Marjanne[/i] had official number 300617 and its documentation was closed 6 April 1984. The [i]Chimo[/i]'s was 323030 as was the [i]Canadian Ranger[/i]. Its documentation was closed 10 June 2011.

The [i]Canadian Explorer[/i] received the forward section of the [i]Northern Venture[/i], official number 162918 (the registry of which was closed 9 November 1983) and the stern and powerplant of the [i]Cabot[/i]. The number of the [i]Northern Venture[/i] was so low relative to its contemporaries because it retained its original British official number awarded in 1947. The [i]Canadian Explorer[/i] retained the [i]Cabot[/i]'s official number, 323003, as did the [i]Canadian Transfer[/i] and [i]Algoma Transfer[/i] which used the stern and Sulzer powerplant of the [i]Cabot.[/i]

I think I have that all straight.

The [i]Chimo[/i] and [i]Cabot[/i] were near-sisters that ran for Clarke Steamship Co., Ltd. designed along the lines of the CSL stemwinder package freighters.

The Canadian Ranger assumed the Canadian registration number of the Chimo (323030). Hilda Marjanne's original Canadian registration was retired at the time of conversion.

When the forebody of the Hilda Marjanne was joined to the stern of the Chimo, the resulting Canadian Ranger kept the Chimo's Transport Canada number of 323030.
The joining of the Northern Venture to the Cabot produced the Canadian Explorer with a number of 323003.

When ULS had the Hilda Marjanne rebuilt with the stern of the Chimo in 1984, did the resulting Canadian Ranger retain its official registration it had before the conversion or did it assume that assigned to the Chimo? I thought I had read somewhere that the official registration stayed with the powerplant. The same question would also go with the Canadian Explorer.