Boatnerd Discussion Forum

Guest wrote:During the winter runs of the Seventies, the Army Corp made an exception and let the Anderson, Clarke and Callaway use the MacArthur lock while the Poe Lock was down for maintenance.

Thank you for reminding me of the ability of the 767 foot ore carriers to use the MacArthur Lock starting March 1, 1975 when the Poe Lock was closed for maintenance at that time. That's only available to such ships if the Poe Lock is expected to be out of service longer than 24 hours and at the USACE district commander. I had forgotten about that when I wrote about the relaxation of the length for the MacArthur Lock in the late 1950s from 715 to 730 feet.

During the winter runs of the Seventies, the Army Corp made an exception and let the Anderson, Clarke and Callaway use the Macarthur lock while the Poe Lock was down for maintenance.

Originally the US Army Corps of Engineers set the maximum length limit to 715 feet for the MacArthur Lock but it was later relaxed to 730 feet (around 1958). I think the designers of the Edmund Fitzgerald were probably in discussion with the US Army Corps of Engineers during the design phase so had some knowledge that that the maximim length would be 730 feet.

The St. Lawrence Seaway and Welland Canal had a length restriction of 715 feet into the early 1960s, though they permitted ships up to 730 feet to transit the system on a "not-to-delay" basis.

Guest wrote:

Mac Mackay wrote:The question in my mind is where did the 730 x 75 dimension come from? Why not 730 x 100 or 650 x 80 - those would seem to be better ratios.

Mac, I think the question should be asked is why were the Davis and Sabin Locks built to an 80 foot width? As that width is what prompted both the Canadian and US governments to build their future locks to that width. (Not including the 1969 Poe Lock). As for the length of 730 feet, it had been planned to have ships at 715 feet but in the early 1960s the length was increased to 730 feet then, eventually 736 feet and now 740 feet.

It's kind of the old adage of what came first, the chicken or the egg. In the case of the Great Lakes, it's always been the sizes of locks that governs the dimensions of a vessel.

ALways been curious- why was the Fitzgerald built to 729 feet instead of 730. Was there a lmit of must be under 730 feet at that time?

Guest wrote:

Mac Mackay wrote:The question in my mind is where did the 730 x 75 dimension come from? Why not 730 x 100 or 650 x 80 - those would seem to be better ratios.

Mac, I think the question should be asked is why were the Davis and Sabin Locks built to an 80 foot width? As that width is what prompted both the Canadian and US governments to build their future locks to that width. (Not including the 1969 Poe Lock). As for the length of 730 feet, it had been planned to have ships at 715 feet but in the early 1960s the length was increased to 730 feet then, eventually 736 feet and now 740 feet.

It's kind of the old adage of what came first, the chicken or the egg. In the case of the Great Lakes, it's always been the sizes of locks that governs the dimensions of a vessel.

Along with rivers and ports and docks that loaded and unloaded.

Mac Mackay wrote:The question in my mind is where did the 730 x 75 dimension come from? Why not 730 x 100 or 650 x 80 - those would seem to be better ratios.

Mac, I think the question should be asked is why were the Davis and Sabin Locks built to an 80 foot width? As that width is what prompted both the Canadian and US governments to build their future locks to that width. (Not including the 1969 Poe Lock). As for the length of 730 feet, it had been planned to have ships at 715 feet but in the early 1960s the length was increased to 730 feet then, eventually 736 feet and now 740 feet.

It's kind of the old adage of what came first, the chicken or the egg. In the case of the Great Lakes, it's always been the sizes of locks that governs the dimensions of a vessel.

In the pre-Seaway era the canallers were all over the place, trading to the east coast, and down to the Caribbean during both world wars, but regularly trading to Halifax, Sydney, etc.,

Cape Breton Miner and Ontario Power were built for ocean trade in the off season and were very different from "seawaymax" lakers. The self-unloader shape left lots of room for hull strengthening.

The question in my mind is where did the 730 x 75 dimension come from? Why not 730 x 100 or 650 x 80 - those would seem to be better ratios.

I remember seeing this on some great lakes ships built in the 60s seventies there documentation said that they could coast meaning they could follow the coast on the ocean I guess similar to what the Algocen did when they brought her back from New York?

That photo shows the Tadoussac and Sam Laud unloading coal into a large bulk-carrier in Sept Isles circa 1982. From 1981 and continuing for most of the 1980s, that trade was quite active. Due to draft limitations at the coal dock in Norfolk, VA the larger coal ships would top-up in Sept Isles due to the deep water in the area.

Since the US fleets didn't think they could be profitable operating on the St. Lawrence regularly, they basically gave the coal trade from the lakes to Sept Isles to the Canadians. That photo of the Sam Laud was a one-time event for her.

Some Canadian lakers operate east of the west end of Anticosti Island. CSLs Rimouski for years operated on the Havre-Saint-Pierre to Sorel titanium ore run and starting in 1964 Upper Lakes Shipping had their Cape Breton Miner and Ontario Power load coal from Cape Breton Island to the Toronto area for a contract they had with Ontario Hydro. Later Canada Steamship Lines operated their Saguenay in the same trade. Even today, the Trillium-class lakers load out of Havre-Saint-Pierre.

What I meant was that the old strength standard from 1920 was outdated for vessels 700 feet to 1,000 feet. That's why a committee from the US Coast Guard, Canadian Department of Transport, American Bureau of Shipping and the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers was formed in the mid-1960s to study changes to the Great Lakes Vessel Strength Standard. But they needed empirical data in order to evaluate these changes, hence the need to install strain gauges on the Seaway Queen, Saguenay, Ontario Power and Edward L. Ryerson. Designers also needed data for the vessels that were planned to operate in the Gulf of St. Lawrence as the wave lengths are longer in that area.

Guest wrote:

Guest wrote:
The late 1960s were transition years in terms of Great Lakes vessel designs. The advent of the 730 to 1,000 foot vessels meant a complete re-evaluation of Great Lakes strength standards due to most of those vessels regularly going to the Gulf of St. Lawrence to load iron ore and encountering wave lengths longer than they encounter on the lakes.

No great lakes ship over 730 goes into the gulf of st lawrence

What is the story behind this?

Guest wrote: No great lakes ship over 730 goes into the gulf of st lawrence

Never mind the Gulf, no ship over 740 goes into the Welland Canal or St Lawrence Seaway.

No, Sept-Iles is considered on the river. The internationally accepted limit between the river and the gulf is west 64 degrees, 30 minutes, which is basically the western tip of Anticosti Island.

Guest wrote:

Guest wrote:
The late 1960s were transition years in terms of Great Lakes vessel designs. The advent of the 730 to 1,000 foot vessels meant a complete re-evaluation of Great Lakes strength standards due to most of those vessels regularly going to the Gulf of St. Lawrence to load iron ore and encountering wave lengths longer than they encounter on the lakes.

No great lakes ship over 730 goes into the gulf of st lawrence

Isn't Seven Islands on the Gulf?

Guest wrote:
The late 1960s were transition years in terms of Great Lakes vessel designs. The advent of the 730 to 1,000 foot vessels meant a complete re-evaluation of Great Lakes strength standards due to most of those vessels regularly going to the Gulf of St. Lawrence to load iron ore and encountering wave lengths longer than they encounter on the lakes.

No great lakes ship over 730 goes into the gulf of st lawrence

Guest wrote:A little off topic but if a shipowner went to a marine architect with plans for the Ryerson or say Ralph Misener and said modernize it but keep it basically the same how far off do you think in efficiency and cargo capacity would it be?

It is likely they would come up with designs that had a lot more straight lines and new powerplant and electrical arrangements. It costs a lot more to produce highly complex curves in steel than blocky structures.

Marine architects were conservative in their designs so that resulted in ships being over-built structurally in the first half of the 20th century. But a vessel being overbuilt doesn't mean stronger. Witness the structural failures of the Western Reserve, Daniel J. Morrell and Carl D. Bradley. On the other hand, those vessels had a bit of "slippage" in them due to their riveted construction meaning that nearly all, except for those mentioned, could survive a wave length over 700 feet in length.

The late 1960s were transition years in terms of Great Lakes vessel designs. The advent of the 730 to 1,000 foot vessels meant a complete re-evaluation of Great Lakes strength standards due to most of those vessels regularly going to the Gulf of St. Lawrence to load iron ore and encountering wave lengths longer than they encounter on the lakes.

The Roger Blough and Stewart J. Cort were built with high-strength steel girder flanges below her deck, except for the Cort which also has high-strength steel girder flanges in her hull bottom.

Ships like the American Valor that were built/lengthened to over 700 feet can suffer issues with "hull springing" which is a phenomena that is caused by a vessel's speed, wave frequency and encounter frequency of the hull, though it can be negated by a change in a vessel's heading.

The John J. Boland was the first laker to be built with high-strength steel throughout her hull. While this means a reduction in the size of the scantlings it still means that a marine architect has to allow for a certain amount of "wastage" due to corrosion over the life of a vessel. In the Boland's case, high strength steel allowed an overall weight savings of 14% over a vessel built entirely of mild steel.

A little off topic but if a shipowner went to a marine architect with plans for the Ryerson or say Ralph Misener and said modernize it but keep it basically the same how far off do you think in efficiency and cargo capacity would it be?

Lakers of that vintage were much longer lived than that.

I'd say that 1895-1905 vintage ships of say 400'-450' long started going en masse in 1946 or so with the job mostly done by 1965 (With most survivors afterwards sailing for Canadian fleets that bought aged US ships of modest size after the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway to help replace their canallers).

Ships of say 500'-600' of 1905-1920 vintage started going in the mid 1960's with the job largely finished by 1990.

Ships from the 1895-1920 vintage were mostly scrapped from 1946-54ish. Cargo capacity and maintenance played the biggest role. Few were lost due to storms, but considering their numbers, they have a decent safety record.