Incorrect Blough Information May 14, 2022 News Page

Discussion board focusing on Great Lakes Shipping Question & Answer. From beginner to expert all posts are welcome.
Guest

Re: Incorrect Blough Information May 14, 2022 News Page

Unread post by Guest »

The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) commenced a "bend widening" program in the Spring of 1971. Johnson Point was the first bend to be dredged so I don't understand why US Steel execs would have been "hiding out. Several other bends were widened between the Spring of 1971 into 1974.

Besides, Bethlehem Steel, their captains, Erie Marine, Marine Consultants and Designers and the USACE had discussions during the design of the Stewart J. Cort in 1967. The area of most concern was Johnson Point, as noted, due to the channel having a 27-foot depth on the west side and 21-feet on the east side, with a shelf slope on the east side. That's what the concern was about, but the captains had confidence that a thousand footer with twin-screws and rudders could navigate that area. I'm sure US Steel had similar discussions.

Both the Stewart J. Cort and Roger Blough were designed by Marine Consultants and Designers.

The Roger Blough was built with a shallow hull depth so she could fit under the gravity chutes of the ore docks in Duluth and Two Harbors. The modified ore dock in Two Harbors with shuttle booms to load 1,100 foot vessels didn't become operational until the Fall of 1978, shortly before the entry into service of Edwin H. Gott. So I think the shallowness to fit under the gravity chutes is what governed the length of the Blough. The Cort was designed to load at the conveyor docks of Silver Bay and Taconite Harbor.
Guest

Re: Incorrect Blough Information May 14, 2022 News Page

Unread post by Guest »

Jared wrote:The Roger Blough couldn't even have been made into a footer with her current dimensions correct?
From what I understand, the depth of the Blough, which apparently was restricted by the existing drydock at Lorain at the time, precludes a lengthening without a very expensive deepening of the hull.
Jared
Posts: 798
Joined: December 6, 2014, 4:51 pm

Re: Incorrect Blough Information May 14, 2022 News Page

Unread post by Jared »

The Roger Blough couldn't even have been made into a footer with her current dimensions correct?
FWE
Posts: 76
Joined: November 7, 2019, 7:14 am

Re: Incorrect Blough Information May 14, 2022 News Page

Unread post by FWE »

It was learned that on the maiden voyage of S.J.CORT, USS execs hid out at Johnston Point in the St Marys River to observe the upbound tight turn that the CORT effortlessly negotiated, leaving very dismayed.
BigRiver
Posts: 1090
Joined: April 28, 2010, 6:37 pm

Re: Incorrect Blough Information May 14, 2022 News Page

Unread post by BigRiver »

I have removed that information from the Boatnerd story. Nothing we can do about the original comment though. Sounds like the shipyard guy didn't know what he was talking about.
Guest

Incorrect Blough Information May 14, 2022 News Page

Unread post by Guest »

In the section of the May 14, 2022 News Page relating to the shipyard tours at Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, it was incorrectly reported in the article that the United States Steel originally planned to build the Roger Blough as a 1,000 footer but scaled back plans after its engine room fire in 1971. That is incorrect as the fire had no bearing on the length the vessel was built and in fact occurred during the very late stage of its construction as is correctly noted in the article. Rather, USS officials were unconvinced that a 1,000-foot vessel would be able to make some of the turns in the then existing channels in the St. Marys River and this was a key element in the design process, but as the Stewart J. Cort proved when it came out in 1972, the same year as the Blough, this concern was unfounded. I believe that the existing drydock facilities at Lorain, Ohio also played a role in the overall dimensions to which the Blough was built. Perhaps the person who wrote the original article for the Door County Pulse misinterpreted the information from the volunteer. Unfortunately, now that this information is out there in published form, it may be used in future works concerning the Roger Blough.
Post Reply