Boatnerd Discussion Forum

[quote="Duluth Guest" post_id=273344 time=1748901942]
I would assume that the requirement for additional longitudinal deck strapping outboard of the hatch girders was applicable to only those vessels that were not converted to self unloaders. George A. Sloan, J. Burton Ayers, Robert C. Norton, John T. Hutchinson and Richard Reiss never recieved this additional strapping. There's plenty of photographic evidence to confirm this. Willoglen, Sewell Avery, Steelton and E.G. Grace never received the addtional strapping either by the same level of photographic and video confirmation. Ashland didn't have the additional strapping in 1971 and I cannot speak for Cadillac ,Champlain or Frank Armstrong but I am wondering if the additional strapping was merely a recommendation, not a requirement, since it seems very few of the maritimers received it at all.
[/quote]

According to the article, "The U.S. Maritime Commission L6-Type Ore Carrier" by Gary S. Dewar in the Spring 1993 issue of Inland Seas the following received the load line increase: Thomas Wilson (6 inches), Sewell Avery (11 inches), Robert C. Stanley (10.5 inches), Cadillac (10.5 inches), Champlain (11 inches), Ashland (10.5 inches), Steelton (6 inches), J. Burton Ayers (6 inches), J. H. Hillman, Jr. (6 inches), E. G. Grace (11 inches) and Lehigh (7 inches). The deck strapping was a requirement for the load line change. It was up to owners to decide whether to spend the money to upgrade their Maritimers for the load line change or not. Some of the Maritimers that received deck strapping had the hatch girders notched, so that the deck strapping would fit under the hatch girder, which can make it tricky to see the strapping.

I would assume that the requirement for additional longitudinal deck strapping outboard of the hatch girders was applicable to only those vessels that were not converted to self unloaders. George A. Sloan, J. Burton Ayers, Robert C. Norton, John T. Hutchinson and Richard Reiss never recieved this additional strapping. There's plenty of photographic evidence to confirm this. Willoglen, Sewell Avery, Steelton and E.G. Grace never received the addtional strapping either by the same level of photographic and video confirmation. Ashland didn't have the additional strapping in 1971 and I cannot speak for Cadillac ,Champlain or Frank Armstrong but I am wondering if the additional strapping was merely a recommendation, not a requirement, since it seems very few of the maritimers received it at all.

[quote=Guest post_id=273293 time=1748043304]
The hull strapping was added along the sheer strake, outboard of the gunwale bar. It wasn't added longitudinally along the spar deck, as was done on the 1950s vessels that were lengthened in the 1970s.
[/quote]

Just to add what I wrote on May 23rd at 6:35 pm. The Maritimers did receive strapping along the sheer strake due to issues of locked in stress of the welded gunwale bar to sheer strake connection when built, that was subsequently changed to a riveted connection.

What I had forgot to add and William Lafferty mentioned, is that most Maritimers were given extra draft by the US Coast Guard in 1969 when the loadlines were amended. Amongst the process of granting the increased loadlines was a requirement for additional strapping to be added outboard of the longitudinal hatch girders (port and starboard) on the spar deck and running longitudinally.

The hull strapping was added along the sheer strake, outboard of the gunwale bar. It wasn't added longitudinally along the spar deck, as was done on the 1950s vessels that were lengthened in the 1970s.

Contemporary American Bureau of Shipping records indicate all these vessels had identical moulded dimensions and identical registered dimension when built. The beams were 60' moulded and 60.2' registered. There could be the unintentional mixing of moulded and registered beams when the book was prepared, interpreting 60.2' as 60'2," or a mathematical interpretation of what constitutes 0.2 feet. Is 2.4 inches closer to 2 inches or 3 inches? Do we round down or round up? Moulded beam dimensions exclude the thickness of the plating, while I believe in American usage the registered beam has been historically measured as the distance to the outer extreme edge of the hull plating. Wasn't the strapping done longitudinally atop the spar deck, anyway, with no effect on beam?

While looking through the Great Lakes Engineering Works book by the Marine Historical Society of Detroit, I have noticed some minor differences in the beam dimensions for many of the Maritime class ships that company built during World War II. While most sources quote the beams of these ships at 60’ the book gives some different beam dimensions for five of the ten ships that GLEW built during this program. This includes the Frank Purnell, George A. Sloan, and Richard J. Reiss having beams of 60’3” while the Cadillac and Steelton are reported as having beams of 60’2” in the book. Is it possible that these slight differences are due to the installation of strength strapping installed during the late 1960s and early 1970s for load line increases? I know this is a minor discrepancy but was just wondering why these vessels have slight differences in comparison to the other members of this class built by GLEW.