Lower Lakes ship updates

[garbear]

I was told - and this was back in the day - that the excessive loading time and change in seaway tolls had a negative impact on grain shipments from the Saginaw River. Last Canadian laker loading grain in Saginaw was Canadoc in late 1980's, last saltie was Kapitonas Stulphinas in the 1990's.

I remember there was a saltie before the Stulphinas that took on a partial load and then came up here to the Twin Ports to finish. Also think she ran aground in the Saginaw River.

Yes that was LT Argosy, they ran aground when the D&M railroad bridge was slow to open.
It's a shame grain is no longer shipped out of here, the Lower Lakes vessels are perfect for it. Back in the day the Canadian self-unloaders of the Reoch fleet would bring stone inbound and load grain for an outbound cargo.

I remember in the 70s to early 80s before I moved to Duluth there were 20 boats a year loading grain on the Saginaw River. It is a shame. I even remember reading in the news page about 3 years ago someone that had connections to shipping on the River said that within a couple yrs. you'd see grain shipping return. Certainly didn't happen.

[Guest]

I was told - and this was back in the day - that the excessive loading time and change in seaway tolls had a negative impact on grain shipments from the Saginaw River. Last Canadian laker loading grain in Saginaw was Canadoc in late 1980's, last saltie was Kapitonas Stulphinas in the 1990's.

I remember there was a saltie before the Stulphinas that took on a partial load and then came up here to the Twin Ports to finish. Also think she ran aground in the Saginaw River.

Yes that was LT Argosy, they ran aground when the D&M railroad bridge was slow to open.
It's a shame grain is no longer shipped out of here, the Lower Lakes vessels are perfect for it. Back in the day the Canadian self-unloaders of the Reoch fleet would bring stone inbound and load grain for an outbound cargo.

[Mr Link]

Here is link to a report (in PDF format) from Michigan State University that provides a snapshot of the Great Lakes grain trade circa 1982. I always like looking at commodity "flow charts" like the ones on PDF pages 39-41. I never knew so much wheat was once exported out of Houston.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... Y_cgg-g51c

[Guest]

Last November's news articles about the CTC No. 1 being moved or scrapped appear to originated from the director of the public port authority for the area, the Illinois International Port District. He was concerned about the image and aesthetics that having a large, long unused ship sitting around give the port. I understand his concerns, and I'm sure Rand does as well. However I suspect the Port District has limited power to tell a private dock owner what they can and can't dock on their own property.

At any rate, if there was ever an agreement between Rand and the Port District to move the ship, it appears to have been delayed. Or this might have just been an attempt to publicly pressure Rand into taking action.

I can vouch for what Mr. Link posted, just a lot of hot air from the current port authority director. Looking at current scrap metal prices the CTC #1 isn't going anywhere.

[garbear]

I was told - and this was back in the day - that the excessive loading time and change in seaway tolls had a negative impact on grain shipments from the Saginaw River. Last Canadian laker loading grain in Saginaw was Canadoc in late 1980's, last saltie was Kapitonas Stulphinas in the 1990's.

I remember there was a saltie before the Stulphinas that took on a partial load and then came up here to the Twin Ports to finish. Also think she ran aground in the Saginaw River.

[Bay City Guest]

I was told - and this was back in the day - that the excessive loading time and change in seaway tolls had a negative impact on grain shipments from the Saginaw River. Last Canadian laker loading grain in Saginaw was Canadoc in late 1980's, last saltie was Kapitonas Stulphinas in the 1990's.

[garbear]

I remember when I got interested in shipping Chicago was really a grain shipping hub. At the time those two elevators were operated by Continental and the Indiana Farm Bureau. Cargill had an elevator. Continental operated what is now COFCO, and I believe there was a General Mills or Rialto elevator. Now there's just COFCO.

Coincidentally, last week I put together a list of grain elevators on the Calumet River in the early 1960s. Lake Calumet, already discussed, is excluded:

Continental Grain Company, 93rd Street and river, 600 thousand bushels
Norris Grain Company, 98th and river, 2.15 million bushels
Norris Grain Company, 102nd Street, 2.8 millions bushels
General Mills, Inc. (Rialto), 104th Street
Louis Dreyfus & Company (Irondale), 107th Street, 2.75 million bushels
Central Soya Company (Elevator A), 117th Street and river, 6.8 bushels
Cargill, Inc. (Northwestern), 122nd Street and river, 23 million bushels.

Chicago had been the world's largest grain shipping port until overtaken by the Canadian lakehead around the time of World War I. The Central Soya elevator is now owned by COFCO, which means owned by the Red Chinese government which also owns the Jones Island elevator at Milwaukee.

Thanks for the information. I probably started paying attention to grain shipping when I sailed in the 70s. I have always found it interesting. Always was intrigued by the grain shipping on the Saginaw River. Why did it end? was it lack of dredging or the cost? Seems like boats like the Florence Spirit or the Wagenborg ships could still load there. Thanks again William.

[William Lafferty]

I remember when I got interested in shipping Chicago was really a grain shipping hub. At the time those two elevators were operated by Continental and the Indiana Farm Bureau. Cargill had an elevator. Continental operated what is now COFCO, and I believe there was a General Mills or Rialto elevator. Now there's just COFCO.

Coincidentally, last week I put together a list of grain elevators on the Calumet River in the early 1960s. Lake Calumet, already discussed, is excluded:

Continental Grain Company, 93rd Street and river, 600 thousand bushels
Norris Grain Company, 98th and river, 2.15 million bushels
Norris Grain Company, 102nd Street, 2.8 millions bushels
General Mills, Inc. (Rialto), 104th Street
Louis Dreyfus & Company (Irondale), 107th Street, 2.75 million bushels
Central Soya Company (Elevator A), 117th Street and river, 6.8 bushels
Cargill, Inc. (Northwestern), 122nd Street and river, 23 million bushels.

Chicago had been the world's largest grain shipping port until overtaken by the Canadian lakehead around the time of World War I. The Central Soya elevator is now owned by COFCO, which means owned by the Red Chinese government which also owns the Jones Island elevator at Milwaukee.

[garbear]

If the Port District is having issues with aesthetics they should just take a look at the 2 abandoned grain elevators on Lake Calumet. Pretty sad.

The Illinois international Port District (originally the Chicago Regional Port District) owns the elevators, part of the $24 million bond issue the state offered in 1954. The CRPD initially secured forty-year leases for the structures, No. 1 to the Illinois Grain Corporation and No. 2 to the Rice Grain Corporation. The district advertised for bidders for leases on the structures in 2008, five year minimum at $300000 a year, and I do know that three-quarters were leased. No idea what the current status is, but if the port district wanted to raze them, they can. If they found the money. Trivia: The first vessel to unload grain at the facility was Buckeye's Harry Wm. Hosford, 15 April 1957, at No. 2.

I remember when I got interested in shipping Chicago was really a grain shipping hub. At the time those two elevators were operated by Continental and the Indiana Farm Bureau. Cargill had an elevator. Continental operated what is now COFCO, and I believe there was a General Mills or Rialto elevator. Now there's just COFCO.

[William Lafferty]

If the Port District is having issues with aesthetics they should just take a look at the 2 abandoned grain elevators on Lake Calumet. Pretty sad.

The Illinois international Port District (originally the Chicago Regional Port District) owns the elevators, part of the $24 million bond issue the state offered in 1954. The CRPD initially secured forty-year leases for the structures, No. 1 to the Illinois Grain Corporation and No. 2 to the Rice Grain Corporation. The district advertised for bidders for leases on the structures in 2008, five year minimum at $300000 a year, and I do know that three-quarters were leased. No idea what the current status is, but if the port district wanted to raze them, they can. If they found the money. Trivia: The first vessel to unload grain at the facility was Buckeye's Harry Wm. Hosford, 15 April 1957, at No. 2.

[Guest]

Last November's news articles about the CTC No. 1 being moved or scrapped appear to originated from the director of the public port authority for the area, the Illinois International Port District. He was concerned about the image and aesthetics that having a large, long unused ship sitting around give the port. I understand his concerns, and I'm sure Rand does as well. However I suspect the Port District has limited power to tell a private dock owner what they can and can't dock on their own property.

At any rate, if there was ever an agreement between Rand and the Port District to move the ship, it appears to have been delayed. Or this might have just been an attempt to publicly pressure Rand into taking action.

If the Port District is having issues with aesthetics they should just take a look at the 2 abandoned grain elevators on Lake Calumet. Pretty sad.

Didn't the Peter A. B. Widener spend some time on Lake Calumet as a storage barge? I recall seeing it a Chuck Norris movie from the mid-1980s. Also, wasn't the John Sherwin used for grain storage on Lake Calumet during the late 1990s early 2000s? I know the L. E. Block was used for a brief period in the area to store cement before being sent back to Escanaba.

[garbear]

Last November's news articles about the CTC No. 1 being moved or scrapped appear to originated from the director of the public port authority for the area, the Illinois International Port District. He was concerned about the image and aesthetics that having a large, long unused ship sitting around give the port. I understand his concerns, and I'm sure Rand does as well. However I suspect the Port District has limited power to tell a private dock owner what they can and can't dock on their own property.

At any rate, if there was ever an agreement between Rand and the Port District to move the ship, it appears to have been delayed. Or this might have just been an attempt to publicly pressure Rand into taking action.

If the Port District is having issues with aesthetics they should just take a look at the 2 abandoned grain elevators on Lake Calumet. Pretty sad.

[Mr Link]

Last November's news articles about the CTC No. 1 being moved or scrapped appear to originated from the director of the public port authority for the area, the Illinois International Port District. He was concerned about the image and aesthetics that having a large, long unused ship sitting around give the port. I understand his concerns, and I'm sure Rand does as well. However I suspect the Port District has limited power to tell a private dock owner what they can and can't dock on their own property.

At any rate, if there was ever an agreement between Rand and the Port District to move the ship, it appears to have been delayed. Or this might have just been an attempt to publicly pressure Rand into taking action.

[Denny]

Has there been any news or updates regarding the CTC #1 which has been in long-term lay-up at Chicago? I thought that I read and heard it from here on this forum and discussion page that at some point, they were headed for scrap and that they would be moved from Chicago and possibly towed maybe to Port Colborne? However, this news is several months old and I haven't seen anything new relating to this since then. Any updates and news is appreciated.

[Chris M]

Still on schedule last I was told

[Guest]

Has the repowering of the Valor been put off due to the economic slowdown from the virus, or is it still on schedule?

[PDBLK25]

[quoteJ The Victory was the same age as today's Lee Tregurtha and both underwent the same conversion in the '60s to become freighters: the original bow and sterns mated to new cargo holds. The Victory was perfect size for use in the Seaway and LLT would've most likely repowered it like they have with the other former steamers.[/quote]

A J makes the exact point my earlier post tried to make. If the American Victory had been in LLT's hands, it would be her they would be planning to Dieselize. Her dimensions make her a perfect fit for their fleet. Plus, according to your Boatnerd News of a few days back (the "On This Day" feature), she is actually one day newer than the Lee Tregurtha.

[A J]

Lower Lakes purchased her from Algoma, the Victory was already a very old boat, serving in WWII, and unfortunately wouldn't have seen service even if LLT got her.

The Victory was the same age as today's Lee Tregurtha and both underwent the same conversion in the '60s to become freighters: the original bow and sterns mated to new cargo holds. The Victory was perfect size for use in the Seaway and LLT would've most likely repowered it like they have with the other former steamers.

[Guest]

It's ironic how it worked out.

The American Fortitude also would've been a good fit. It sounded as if she was in the best overall shape of the three and would've slotted in well with their river class fleet, while still being large enough to be useful on occasional Seaway runs like the Michipicoten.

The one that seems the least well suited to their typical needs and perhaps had the most well worn hull, is the one that they ended up with. But I'm sure if economic conditions allow plans to proceed, a refitted American Valor could be a very useful asset for them for years to come.

They must have a niche on the Canadian side she can fill and have confidence that said business has a future, if they're pursuing the deal. She's a very untypical Canadian flagged laker thanks to the restrictions her size presents.

If I'm not mistaken, the American Valor is the longest vessel ever put under the Canadian flag for service on the Great Lakes. It does, however, have a smaller carrying capacity in comparison to other Canadian ships active in the Seaway trade.

[Guest]

I probably missed it somewhere, but how did Lower Lakes get the Valor? ASC sold it to Algoma. Too bad they didn't own the Americ can Victory. Her size would have made her perfect for Lower Lakes.

Lower Lakes purchased her from Algoma, the Victory was already a very old boat, serving in WWII, and unfortunately wouldn't have seen service even if LLT got her.