Pilothouse Forward Design – Will We Ever See Another Built?

[Pete in Holland MI]

Another thing to consider is the ease of communications over greater distances. When ships were built 100 years ago, communication to the other end of the boat was marginal at best, and only if you were near a speaking tube. Having radios allows crew members to be nearly anywhere on the boat and still have clear communications to the wheelhouse.

Having the wheel house to the rear, with a guy with a radio at the bow as the captain's other set of eyes, is easy today, and impossible 100+ years ago.

Pete

[JMarx]

Thanks for all the thoughts and insights…sounds like the end of an era, but everything changes with time.

This discussion reminded me of the true longevity of these classic pilothouse-forward freighters. (interesting to consider that most of these ships still sailing were launched back when automobiles had tailfins and only AM radio…) Glad to hear that they continue to receive upgrades and am hoping we’ll be riding and watching these classic boats for many years to come…

[Guest]

Bill, thank you for your post on the Cape Breton Miner. She was indeed, a wonderful ship and I used to look forward to her calls at Duluth. The only problem that she had was her crew. I have never seen a crew that could cause more trouble than her crew. It usually took three to four squads of Police to get a man tied into a basket in order to get him ashore and off to jail. It seemed that there would be at least one event like that on every call. Only boat that I can remember that had such a consistent problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxLfNFr33uo

[Jerry at Duluth]

Bill, thank you for your post on the Cape Breton Miner. She was indeed, a wonderful ship and I used to look forward to her calls at Duluth. The only problem that she had was her crew. I have never seen a crew that could cause more trouble than her crew. It usually took three to four squads of Police to get a man tied into a basket in order to get him ashore and off to jail. It seemed that there would be at least one event like that on every call. Only boat that I can remember that had such a consistent problem.

[badger]

the steam turbines could be wheelhouse controled as the bridge was aft and right over the engine room i assume the ontario power was exactly the same

[Guest]

There was talk in the late-70s when Interlake Steamship got the Republic Steel ore float, that they wanted to bring the Mormac freighter, Mormacglen to the lakes and convert her to a 826-foot forward-boom self-unloader, with what I assume would have been a forward pilothouse.

[William Lafferty]

The vessel that started this trend was the Cape Breton Mner, which as I have claimed here and elsewhere was probably the most innovative in its totality of any vessel ever built on the Great Lakes. Its accommodations-aft design was arrived at to placate its classification society, Lloyds. Upper Lakes wanted the vessel to spend winters on saltwater, but Lloyds would not allow a bow-mounted pilothouse and placing it further aft would reduce the vessel's overall cubic capacity. It was for this reason that Canada Cement's Bulkarier (I will never get used to that spelling) a third-of-a-century earlier had its pilothouse set back about a quarter of the vessel's length since the British Corporation would not classify a vessel its owners intended for ocean service that had a pilothouse on its forecastle. Even before that, in World War I vessels requisitioned for war service often had the pilothouse moved aft somewhat, probably the last existing example being the Captain C. D. Secord. It's safe to say that that classification stipulation has certainly changed over the years.

[Guest]

I recall a comment here in the forums that even when there were more Canadian and U.S. shipbuilding yards, costs drove out the sweeps and graceful curves of the lakers. The rounded symmetry of the 50s and 60s era funnels and structures were replaced by the squared lines of the single accommodation / control cabins of later years.

[MarcE]

I liked sailing on the classic steamers because you usually got your own room. When i sailed, the classics had no ac.
With the aft end house boats you had ac and a roommate.
When I sailed, that was the general concensus among the other sailors i sailed with.

[Guest]

For all the reasons stated the easy answer is no, but there is a lot of retro things these days so if somebody wanted to do it spend a bit more it cold be done you never know!

[Darryl]

I’m a casual reader of this discussion board – had a question for those that better understand the industry..

As a "casual reader" here you may or may not know this, but a number of classic ore freighters with their pilothouses forward have been rebuilt in the last few years, and it is possible more will under go this conversion from steam engine to diesel in the years ahead. At this time they are also getting more automation. Consequently, these ships will be around for many years to come. Under Photo Galleries, See Fleet Photos, check Interlake and the M/V Munson under Great Lakes Fleet.

[GuestfromEU]

There are some recently constructed ocean trading ships with accommodations forward, though it is not common. Heavy-lift project cargo ships commonly use this design (see the common Lakes visitors in the fleet of BigLift Shipping).

Semi-submersible, heavy transport ships also commonly have accommodations (and machinery spaces) at the bow. These are the ships which "sink" down into the water, a load (another ship, project cargo, etc) is floated over the sunken part of the heavy-lift ship, and ballast pumped out to raise the ship out of the water. The Boskalis/Dockwise fleet is a primary example. Again, the large, uninterrupted deck space (with potential for cargo to overhang the rear) proves the accommodation forward design is beneficial.

Offshore oil exploration drillships also have accommodations forward, machinery spaces aft. This is so the ship's deck space can be used for the drilling and production machinery, with the forward accommodations designed for visibility of the navigation crew.

Offshore supply vessels use accommodation forward designs for more open deck space. Some "new" designs using an accommodation aft with traditional forecastle bow have been tried, but they are not catching on.

What all of those above generally have in common is diesel-electric propulsion. In this manner, the engine room can be placed anywhere, or at least with more freedom in design. The electric motors which drive the propellers, azimuth thrusters, or power the azipod propulsion units, are installed local to the unit (e.g. diesel engine generator up forward, electric drive motor aft in front of the propellor). In other cases, such as the BigLift ships, the engine rooms are located aft, so variations do exist.

The idea of extra cabling and machinery being a deciding factor is not always so clear. If the ship's designed trade proves a forward-located accommodation and bridge will be better, then the shipowner will specify it. The cost of extra machinery and steel is an additional cost, but not a dealbreaker and ongoing maintenance for the ship's life cycle is relatively minor. That said, the ultimate goal of shipbuilding is to do it as low cost as possible.

The above-noted ships are some examples of most ships with this design. That they are all specialized ships, engaging in niche trades. There is no justifiable reason to build a simple bulk carrier with forward accommodations as was done in the past, the same as oil tankers are no longer designed with an amidship accommodation/bridge. In this case, the cost/benefit does not offer any advantage to building a two-house, fore and aft ship.

[Lakercapt]

Having sailed on both types I think in my opinion the pilothouse aft is far superior. The view of the whole boat is better than, when the pilothouse is for'd you spend a lot of time in close waters looking aft to see where the stern s in relation to the channel.
The reasons have been said in other posts but the primary one is the cost associated with the forward pilothouse.

[Charlie]

As stated in less someone come up with a really good reason I believe "NO" we will never see it again in a freighter on fresh or salt water

Cost is the big reason. Its cheaper to add another floor than running pipes wires heat AC up through the cargo wholes.

With the new video cameras that work day/night a boom up forward is not a problem; and if you need real eyes you send a man up front to look.

Cost and customer demand are whats driving ship design.
If you think not look at the cruse ships and all the crap they have on them and they keep changing stuff to get you to come back and spend money
a bulkier just needs a big whole to fill and empty to make money

just my 2 cents
charlie

[guest346]

You will likely not see another forward house vessel built as it takes away from carrying capacity comparing two vessels of similar size. It takes more steel to build two houses, one forward and one aft, than it does to just build one slightly larger house aft. Also simplicity of design. Forward house vessels have significantly more wiring and piping. Double the number of MSD systems and potable sytems. Double the amount of potable water and effluent holding tanks (maybe, depends on design). It is a lot simpler to just keep everything aft.

[Guest]

I sailed on both styles of lake vessels. Much preferred the traditional
Pilot house forward ships.

[Guest]

I think the only chance would've been had regulations required a reasonably unobstructed line of sight from the pilothouse. Then with the new found recognition that a forward mounted boom can be pretty handy, perhaps we'd of seen something happen.

But obviously as seen by the ATB Ashtabula and ships like the new Manitoulin, Algoma Innovator, and the upcoming Interlake new build, a camera system is viewed by regulators as sufficient enough to compensate for their inherent visibility issues.

[Guest]

Will never happen again. It was phased out for a reason.

The pilothouse as the stern model is more efficient, and once you are used to it the view is better from there for manuvering.

[JMarx]

I’m a casual reader of this discussion board – had a question for those that better understand the industry...

The pilothouse forward design of Great Lakes bulk carriers has been around since the early days of moving iron ore. The obvious benefit is the long uninterrupted cargo space with the pilothouse pushed forward to the bow, providing better visibility for maneuvering the rivers/canals. I’ve always been a fan of the unique profile and character that comes with the fore/aft deckhouse.

It seems Lake Freighter design has reached a tipping point where all newer boats have the single superstructure aft. I assume this configuration is cheaper to build, more efficient to operate, and that the forward pilothouse navigation benefit has diminished with technology. Two questions:

1. Do those that work / have worked the boats prefer the single rear superstructure to the traditional pilothouse forward design? (seems beneficial to having the crew centrally located in the rear) Perhaps it’s apples and oranges given the different age/era of the ships…

2. Looking forward, is there any reason to build a pilothouse forward ship? Are there scenarios where a single superstructure aft configuration creates an issue? (too tall for bridges, too difficult to maneuver in canals, etc.)

Just wondering if we’ll ever see another classic traditional pilothouse forward Laker built… thoughts?