Boatnerd Discussion Forum

I would say the people voicing their opinion are doing so because in some cases donors lose money to these "start up" groups and get burned. I guess it should be a moral responsibility for the group leaders to question with all intentions, whether or not the idea is even sound in the first place. Not every donor has money to throw around. When they do donate, the group has the obligation to make sure its used in the appropiate manner as well as to a project that is actually feasible in the first place.

I don't think anyone is bashing the effort, but rather saying that there are other existing museums that should be focused on first.

I said the same thing about the Edson, and frankly I will be surprised if the Edson is successful and still a museum within 10 years.

Why is everyone bashing the effort? Even if they fail, atleast they can say they tried. I'm sure the people who are trying to save her know all of the challenges of trying to save a vessel. I didn't see this much negativity towards saving the USS Edson, which has No connections to the lake. Why not support them, not necessarily financially, but morally.

the reasoning in the last two posts is hard to counter. I think the JBF project is well-intentioned, but I'm concerned that it's emotional draw and the adrenaline it produces may prove hard to sustain once its cost is firmed up, and the logistics are ironed out.

The cost alone may be prohibitive without a sugar daddy willing to step forward with a sizable startup fund.

Unless Alpena is a great tourist destination, and the Alpena area's population is metropolitan, old JBF may not be much of an attraction at all.

Has a volunteer group been identified? It takes many hands to work a project like this, a large contingent of which would need to come from the Alpena area to keep things going if JBF ever gets there. Has Alpena's Chamber of Commerce been surveyed for their interest or assist? Has any advice been gathered from the folks involved with the Irvin-Mather-Schoonmaker projects? Some great advice is probably available for the asking.

When all of the above bases -and the umpteen I've omitted- have been analyzed, a report should be posted publicly before anyone is solicited for funds. Further, a system should be developed to track donations, to permit pro-rata refunds should the project ultimately be grounded on the rocks of reality.

I agree with tha last post, there is limited interest in the exisiting museums and as the clout of the indusstry wains and there are fewer former sailors this can only continue. A static rusting lake vessel may be unique and interesting to the few die hard Boatnerds but has very little appeal to the broader public and the costs of maintaining it are enourmous.
LEts support the Meteor, Valley Camp SHoomaker et al.

The question I have is how many more pre-WWII steamships do we need to save as museums?

We have a ton of them already, and some of them are in jeopardy now for lack of funds. Adding one more isn't going to help the financial situations of any of them. The idea of towing the ship to Alpena (the group wants to drydock it first) and depositing it there doesn't seem to make it feasible - I highly doubt the ship can draw enough people in Alpena to make it work.

Really, these type of groups should be focused on ensuring that the current museum ships are in financially sound condition and not try and add another museum ship that's going to compete for an already-shrinking number of dollars available to save this kind of stuff.

Guest wrote:Keep in mind that saving the boat, as difficult as that can be, often is the easy part. You have to find affordable waterfront where you can dock the vessel. If you want to run it as a successful attraction, you have to find affordable waterfront that's convenient to the public. Then there's staffing, public safety, etc.

True, but not much affordable waterfront available. If it is affordable, it's probably in some backwater out-of-the-way location you normally would not want to be in. The City of Milwaukee people finally had to secure a loan to buy the property they're at now, nobody had too much interest in helping us secure a location.

Actually, only one of us had anything to do with the Northeastern Maritime Historical Foundation and the effort to save the Harriman, and just like you and everybody else who donated money, time, and energy to what was ultimately a failed effort, I too "drank the Kool-Aid" in what seemed like a worthwhile attempt to save one of those classic Huron Cement steamers. I helped out by creating the NMHF website and some other publicity materials, but for all intents and purposes, NMHF was run by one man with a very ambitious dream, an innovative plan for funding it, and a knack for wheeling and dealing and making us all believe he could actually pull it off. Ultimately, he wasn’t able to close the deal, and was left with a collection of homeless tugboats and no means of supporting them when the money ran out. I’m not going to go into the details here, but feel free to contact me and I will gladly answer your questions to the best of my ability. As the saying goes, good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions.

The Great Lakes Steamship Society, by contrast, is truly a group effort, with some talented and well-connected people involved. Unlike NMHF’s lofty goal of creating a Great Lakes version of Mystic Seaport, GLSS is focused on saving one ship. All donations towards the J.B. Ford project go towards the effort to save the ship, with no other projects to drain our resources. If you are uncomfortable with donating money towards a project that may or may not succeed, there is also the option of making a pledge, which will only be collected once we own the ship. The bottom line is these things don’t save themselves. We may fail, we may succeed, but there is only one possible outcome if we don’t at least try.

[quote="Guest"]If it was based on enthusiasm yes, but in all honesty knowing some of the players, they don't have a chance of coming up with the funding they need to make this happen.

Some of this group had a similar effort to save the Harriman, slick looking website asking for donations. It folded and I never got an answer where my donation went.

There are exemptions in the Americans with Disabilities Act for documented historic properties. It would be physically impossible and cost-prohibitive to make certain properties totally accessible to those with physical disabilities. This would include historic ships and lighthouses. While I can sympathize/empathize with the desire to accommodate everyone, the damage inflicted on a historic property has to be considered, as the process could be very destructive. The involved modifications -- some of which could approach a massive scale -- would destroy the physical and historic integrity of the property and the "sense of place." I have actually heard of people arguing for the building of exterior elevators for lighthouses. Imagine what that would look like and how it would spoil the appearance of a historic lighthouse when you are trying to imagine yourself in the place of a lightkeeper at some isolated 19th C. setting.

Part of making up for that is what is called "alternative experience" where, for example, a professional and thorough film documentary could be made that shows what an "able-bodied" person would see on a normal tour. On a ship, this could be a "hard-hat" tour through engineering spaces down to the bilges. A lighthouse could have a camera at the top that would at least allow someone at ground level to see what the point-of-view looks like from the top of the tower. Photographic documentation of the lamp/lens and other features displayed at ground level would show what the lamp room looks like. The NOAA camera that is at the top of Fort Gratiot Lighthouse actually helps in that secondary capacity, as an example. These alternative opportunities can even be shown online for those who are physically or otherwise incapable of visiting the site, just like everyone watches the ships lock through at the Soo from their desktop at work.

Brent wrote:Seeing the condition of the paint, I can assume that it is lead be based. The disposal of all the paint chips is going to be a little on the pricey side. I someone wanted to save a ship why didn't someone save to E.M. Ford with the nice quad engine in her?

The E.M. Ford was in better condition than the J.B. Ford, however the ship was rebuilt multiple times and barely had any recognizable features from her turn of the century days. While the J.B. Ford still very much resembles her original configuration. I also know that not all museum ships have complete tour for handicap access for the public. Ships that come to mind are the City of Milwaukee and the Meteor. I tend to agree though that if this project even has a shot of getting off the ground the company who currently owns the ship will have to donate the ship for a $1 (which they are probably willing to do) and cover the removal of lead paint (which probably won't happen).

Seeing the condition of the paint, I can assume that it is lead be based. The disposal of all the paint chips is going to be a little on the pricey side. I someone wanted to save a ship why didn't someone save to E.M. Ford with the nice quad engine in her?

When I mentioned handicapped access I was thinking as a museum. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act most places open to the public have to have an access for the handicapped. . As for ladders and head knockers having sailed for almost 30 years I have seen a few and still have the lumps on my head to prove it.

Off topic, but great symmetry on the stern picture!

No she doesnt. When she was still in use as a transfer barge her prop was on land about 20 feet forward of her. Photos attached as proof. Also when she was drydocked all of the opens were sealed off, contact Fraser Shipyards and ask.

Her prop was torched off and tube sealed as the prop was sitting
Next to her in dry dock torched at the shaft and all her sea chests and openings were indeed plated over. Her bow thruster tube is even sealed with a plate inside the tube. This from visual dockside inspection, from Lafarge and Fraser shipyard as sources.

Chris M wrote:Yes and all other openings to the water were sealed

No, she very much still has the shaft and prop. There may have been some permanent sealing of the stern tube though.

Some more issues with having a ship as a museum.

Painting, It takes a lot of labor and paint to keep up a vessel. Time takes it's toll on ship metal. A good example is the USS Texas Museum that is fighting corrosion constantly and can barely keep the ship afloat. The JB is pobably almost as old or older, even if it has been in fresh water all it's career.

Periodic drydocking.

Handicapped access: most ships were never designed to have any form of handicapped access. In fact, the ladders are very steep and unsafe even for people without handcaps. A lot of headknockers also.

Shore power is needed and conversion from older forms of power (example: DC power) is expensive for any kind of motors (heating). Lighting is easier, but bringing power up to code is very expensive.

Fire protection and bilge water alarms. Probably non existant.

Having done this before the three biggest things are access to the vessel, utilities and insurance. I would guess around 25 grand for insurance, and utilities another 12. Getting people on and off the ship is a big one and you also have to consider handicap access. Whom ever does this had better have 100 grand in the bank just to get things rolling. To get an idea of costs, talk to the museum in Port Huron that had Bramble.

Keep in mind that saving the boat, as difficult as that can be, often is the easy part. You have to find affordable waterfront where you can dock the vessel. If you want to run it as a successful attraction, you have to find affordable waterfront that's convenient to the public. Then there's staffing, public safety, etc.

Has anything like bells and other fittings gone missing during layup on other freighters? even the ones that are sailing the next year?