Fitzgerald Question

Discussion board focusing on Great Lakes Shipping Question & Answer. From beginner to expert all posts are welcome.
hausen
Posts: 803
Joined: July 2, 2010, 1:36 pm

Re: Fitzgerald Question

Unread post by hausen »

(moderators: you can merge this with my previously-submitted post if you like)

A correction to the date estimate for Roger's photo - Governor Miller is reported by the Scanner, v. 13 n. 1 (October 1980) as being towed downbound at the Soo on 14th August 1980. Perhaps this photo is from mid-summer 1980.
hausen
Posts: 803
Joined: July 2, 2010, 1:36 pm

Re: Fitzgerald Question

Unread post by hausen »

RogerKYS wrote:Awaiting the torch, not sure if this is Duluth or SUperior.
That's Duluth. The old Berwind Fuel Co. Dock #2, immediately to the north of the Duluth-side approach to Burlington Northern's Grassy Point Draw swing bridge. By the time this picture was taken, the dock was listed on nautical charts as being owned by Minnesota Power & Light.

At the far left of the photo, the concrete support piers/towers for the new US 2 bridge (later named in honor of Richard I. Bong) can be seen being poured/constructed. That would likely put this photo somewhere in the summer 1981 to summer '83 date range.
Guest

Re: Fitzgerald Question

Unread post by Guest »

RogerKYS wrote:Awaiting the torch, not sure if this is Duluth or SUperior.
Roger, that would have been taken in Duluth in the Spring of 1980. The TMHS layup in the February 1980 issue of Scanner ( https://www.maritimehistoryofthegreatla ... sp?ID=s006 ) shows the Governor Miller, William A. Irvin and Horace Johnson laidup in that city. Also, the Governor Miller went overseas for scrapping in September of that year.

- Brian
BigRiver
Posts: 1090
Joined: April 28, 2010, 6:37 pm

Re: Fitzgerald Question

Unread post by BigRiver »

Awaiting the torch, not sure if this is Duluth or SUperior.
Attachments
US Steel scrap fleet.JPG
Scott

Re: Fitzgerald Question

Unread post by Scott »

Somehow I'd forgotten about the recession of the 80's. I seem to recall also a labor strike on the boats during the 80's that sent the one of the fleets to temporary layup? Living in Duluth at the time I was amazed driving by the ore docks and seeing the increasing number of ships that were being tied up there (most for future scrapping). The fact that the recession did not spare a few of the new 1,000 footers also confirms that had she not sunk, the Fitz could very well have gone to the wall permanently. Good discussion.
badger

Re: Fitzgerald Question

Unread post by badger »

when the arthur b. homer was being scrapped in port colborne someone (crew member?) painted on her hull "730s you could be next" perhaps some boat nerd has a photo?
a guest

Re: Fitzgerald Question

Unread post by a guest »

The decision would have been up to the owner: Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, not Columbia Transportation who chartered it.
Guest

Re: Fitzgerald Question

Unread post by Guest »

I believe that the Fitzgerald would have been converted to a self-unloader had she not sunk. Why? Well, because she on a 25-year charter and I'm very sure that the charter specified that Columbia had to find cargoes for her at the expense of their other ships. (The same thing occurred to Wilson Marine when they chartered the C4s). And even if the keel was an issue, it wouldn't matter because it would have been removed in a self-unloader conversion because the height of her tank-tops would have been lowered, but the additional stiffening from the structural changes would have actually made her stronger.

If you notice the trips the Edmund Fitzgerald made in 1975, many were Superior to Detroit, Duluth to Indiana Harbor and Silver Bay to Ashtabula. Normally she was on the Silver Bay to Toledo run, but due to the 1974-75 recession she was put on the other runs to keep her from being laid-up. (Interlake Steamship in the Summer of 1975 actually laid-up the majority of their fleet for a few weeks due to a lack of cargo.)

Planning for the Columbia Transportation self-unloader conversions started in mid-1979, at least based on a self-unloader conversion plan I have for the Courtney Burton in my possession. And the Armco, Reserve and Middletown conversions were planned in the same time-frame.

In 1979, no one had any idea that the 1980 recession would be bad. As stated earlier, many of the older vessels were fitted out in April 1980, but went back into layup in May.

List of Ships Laid-up Permanently in May 1980

Sharon - May 8, 1980
Robert C. Norton - May 9, 1980
Sylvania - May 10, 1980
Eugene W. Pargny - May 19, 1980
Ralph H. Watson - May 16, 1980

The Arthur B. Homer was laid-up on October 4, 1980, not because of any deficiency, but because she had became redundant with the entry into service of the Burns Harbor a couple of weeks earlier. (Bethlehem Steel was trying to sell her to another fleet in 1981).

Many vessels of similar age to the Homer were laid-up in the Summer of 1980. In that year, 81,723,442 net tons of iron ore were moved on the Great Lakes. The following year, iron ore somewhat recovered to 83,893,203 net tons. Shipping started out strong, but by early August, the economy slowed down, with a sharp decline in early September 1981.

- Brian
Denny

Re: Fitzgerald Question

Unread post by Denny »

Roger is correct about the Blough’s layup during that time. A few more that went to the wall, I seem to recall the Courtney Burton was one? She was also converted to a self-unloader in the 1980s yet due to the downturn in the Economy then, she too wasn’t spared. I seem to recall reading about some of the 1,000 footers too that were laid-up during the 1980s as well? Not sure but I think a couple that were laid up back then for a long time were the James R. Barker and Indiana Harbor if I am correct? Not sure of any other 1,000 footers but those two I seem to recall reading about once I think?
garbear

Re: Fitzgerald Question

Unread post by garbear »

RogerKYS wrote:Re what guest said below, the collapse of the steel industry at that time and the resultant scrapping of many, many ships came amazingly fast. We were stunned at how quickly things changed. I recall in either the 1981 or 1982 season some US Steel vessels fit out in April and were laid up by May. Many never ran again. Vessels were being towed away for scrap in threes, many of which should have had years of service ahead. Even the nearly new Roger Blough was not spared. She was laid up at Sturgeon Bay from September 12, 1981 through September 25, 1987.
Sailed the Watson from fit-out to lay-up in 1979. She came out until May of 1980, laid up and she never sailed again. She was in great shape, but was on the outside in 1980.
BigRiver
Posts: 1090
Joined: April 28, 2010, 6:37 pm

Re: Fitzgerald Question

Unread post by BigRiver »

Re what guest said below, the collapse of the steel industry at that time and the resultant scrapping of many, many ships came amazingly fast. We were stunned at how quickly things changed. I recall in either the 1981 or 1982 season some US Steel vessels fit out in April and were laid up by May. Many never ran again. Vessels were being towed away for scrap in threes, many of which should have had years of service ahead. Even the nearly new Roger Blough was not spared. She was laid up at Sturgeon Bay from September 12, 1981 through September 25, 1987.
Guest

Re: Fitzgerald Question

Unread post by Guest »

Darryl wrote:Tend to agree with Denny for all the same reasons. Plus, they were aware of possibly a loose keel. I heard Bethlehem did not hesitate much on scrapping the Homer early.
The scrapping of the Homer had everything to do with economics and nothing to do with the loss of the Fitzgerald. Anyone who lived through those times will understand what happened to the industrial base of this country during the time. The significant loss of demand along with the construction of three thousand footers for Bethlehem Steel during the 1970s and into 1980 spelled the end of the Homer and not some hidden design or construction flaw. What strange is at the time there was no talk connecting the two ships as being relevant to the Homer being scrapped. Rather, Ttis connection seems to have come much later and likely from people that were not even alive at the time of the Fitzgerald sinking.

As for the loose keel on the Fitzgerald, that theory if my memory is correct stems from comments made by one of the vessel's regular cooks who also acted as a shipkeeper and was, luckily, not on board for the last trip. Although he may have been privy to some talk aboard ship what qualifications he had as a naval engineer or architect makes his assertions somewhat dubious in my opinion. If the ship had a loose keel it would have required a large number of people ranging from its owners, coast guard inspectors, and even its crew to keep this problem quiet. What would have been the goal of this coverup in comparison to the risk involved? Had anyone ever brought this supposed problem to light before the cook made his claims after the accident? What if he had never made this assertion? Did it ever surface from anywhere else during the investigation? I guess everyone loves a conspiracy even when it is likely one never existed.
Darryl

Re: Fitzgerald Question

Unread post by Darryl »

Tend to agree with Denny for all the same reasons. Plus, they were aware of possibly a loose keel. I heard Bethlehem did not hesitate much on scrapping the Homer early.
Denny

Re: Fitzgerald Question

Unread post by Denny »

Difficult to say and answer your question. Originally the Fitz when it was built had a 25 year contract from 1958 to 1983. I'm not sure if there was ever anything said or mentioned about possibly lengthening her the way that her sistership the Homer was done or not? Also remember that we had a really bad recession during the 1980's that sent many a laker to the tie-up wall with many of them NEVER sailing again. Some were not even converted to self-unloaders or lengthened and with the downturn in the Economy at that time, that was a small reason for many ships not to be converted to a self-unloader or lengthened. So, point is since the Fitz had a contract that was to expire around 1983 or so I would guess and say that she probably wouldn't have been converted to a self-unloader or lengthened. Sad as it is to say, had she not foundered in Lake Superior on that terrible stormy night I would say that in time she probably most likely would've ended up going for scrap during the 1980's recession.
Scott

Fitzgerald Question

Unread post by Scott »

I know this has been broached before but I must have missed it. Had the Fitzgerald not been lost in 1975, what are the chances that she would have been converted to a self unloader and still in service? The Anderson obviously was converted after that time. I recall seeing drawings of a possible Ryerson conversion as well. Anyway, just curious.
Post Reply