Boatnerd Discussion Forum

Most US shups were built to a much higher standard, knowing that they would not be replaced due to Jones Act. G Tugs for example were built to a very high ABS standard.
Several Canadian ships I know of were built for 30 years or less lifespan, with new forebodys or total scrapping in mind.

I agree with most of the comments so far - all are contributing factors - but a very important key to this was mentioned in the first reply. The high cost of replacement due to the Jones Act is a huge reason why so many US companies have kept their aging vessels afloat, and also have been a contributing factor why they have walked away from the salt cargoes and the St. Lawrence trades.

I know a lot of people turn up their noses when they see the salties come into the system and think that they are junk compared to our beloved lakers, but the reality is they are far more efficient and run under more stringent requirements. A ship with 1960’s technology and equipment is simply not as efficient as a ship built in the 2000’s.

my guess would be the exposure to salt, both in the ballast systems and in the cargo hold have alot to do with the faster rate of wear. look at the algoway, algorail, and agawa canyon. those three are in sad shape from all the salt they haul.

While salt water is a factor many of the Canadian fleet were built with the thought they would be retired in 30 years. Most are long past that.

I don't know if I'm seeing it right, but it also seems like Canadian companies don't have any fear of hauling salt with their boats either. Some American firms strictly do not touch that stuff with some of their boats.

-B in B

trading into salt water and salt water ballast is also a contributing factor

Many Canadian ships trading to Lower St-Lawrence ports and Gulf of St-Lawrence sail in salt water compared to many US land locked ships and lakers remain on the Great Lakes in fresh water. Quite a difference as to longivity.

If you compare average vessel lifespan of great lakes ships from 1950 on, American vessels win out easily. This is likely due, as you said to the wear and tear of constant lockage in the St. Lawrence and Welland Canal, as well as the larger quantity of Canadian lakers built in that time period, corresponding with the opening of the Seaway.

American vessels typically only have to deal with the Soo locks, and there are relatively fewer hulls to begin with. Canadian companies had a surplus of vessels, and as demand averaged downward scrapping became a more viable option, and if needed, they could more easily be replaced. American companies need to keep their vessels going due to the high cost of replacement because of the Jones act.

Many Canadian ships built or rebuilt in the 1960s and '70s have been scrapped (or are to be scrapped) or recieved new forebodies (Canadian Hunter, Canadian Mariner, Tarantau, Saguenay, Algonorth, Algontario, Canadian Miner, Canadian Leader, Halifax, etc.) while US ships built in the early to late 1950s (Anderson, Clarke, American Valor, Charles M. Beeghly, Herbert C. Jackson, etc.) are considered to have many more good sailing years left in them. What accounts for this difference? Is Seaway sailing that much harder on the ships? Are the Canadian companies that much harder on their ships? Or are the Canadian companies more willing to scrap ships rather than make large-scale repairs to them?