American Valor

[Guest]

So then to play devil’s advocate...why aren’t all current Lakers the old better design and 100 years old?

Not trying to agree or disagree with anyone, just for conversation.

[Brian Ferguson]

In my opinion, I would side that they may build boats to be more efficient now, but they were obviously built much sturdier in days of old. After interviewing some naval architects for some articles on shipping designs, I was told several times that the St. Marys Challenger is probably the sturdiest ship on the Lakes, even with brittle steel. Ships built early 20th century have much more framing and were built almost like tanks, while more modern ships are built cost-effectively, resulting in less framing, closer to minimum design requirements, and are less sturdy

I sailed on the Roger Blough and that's the sturdiest ship I ever set foot on and she'd be considered new. While older vessels may have had more steel and framing they needed extra steel because the quality of materials were not as good and the utilization of materials was not as precise. Science and engineering were not as good back then. Weaker steel needs more bracing, more belting, more rivets. Arguing a ship with a lessor amount of better materials is less robust is false. There's a great video of a modern mid sized 2000's car with a lot of aluminum and polymer in an offset crash test with a 1960's tank of a full size that was all steel and cast iron. The result the driver of the newer car would have survived, likely walked away, while the driver of the vintage lead sled would likely have perished. Point of association being there's more to "quality" and "durability" than the materials used. In the case of a lake boat ALL virtually have an infinitely extendable life span given the willingness of the owner to invest.

[custom500]

I saw a photo of her somewhere in fresh black and white paint. Sharp! I think they should keep her going just because she's a beautiful looking ship! And they DON'T make'em like that anymore!

[GuestfromEU]

Ships built with heavier scantlings equal higher lightship weight, which correlates to less cargo capacity. This is the reason ships are now built very different than 100 years past. A ship is built to haul cargo. Heavier construction works against this, therefore efficiency from a freight lifted viewpoint is reduced. Along with the mechanical component aspect previously noted, this is why the 1970s vintage "modern" ships are vastly more efficient from a shipowner side.

Only USA flag ships on the freshwater Great Lakes invites a discussion on the merits of keeping or returning a 70 year old ship in service. Elsewhere in the world, ships of this vintage would have been recycled by the 1980s, not only from condition, but also from reduced efficiency.

[Guest]

In my opinion, I would side that they may build boats to be more efficient now, but they were obviously built much sturdier in days of old. After interviewing some naval architects for some articles on shipping designs, I was told several times that the St. Marys Challenger is probably the sturdiest ship on the Lakes, even with brittle steel. Ships built early 20th century have much more framing and were built almost like tanks, while more modern ships are built cost-effectively, resulting in less framing, closer to minimum design requirements, and are less sturdy

[Cleveland Guest]

The older boats were built heavier than the more modern boats. The more modern designs are built closer to the required minimums, which have the advantage of increased cargo capacity and lower initial costs.

[Brian Ferguson]

The age of the Valor may be to an advantage, better built boat than the younger ones.

Can I dispel the rumor of "they don't build them like they used to"? I sailed on ships built in the 1940' 50's 70's and 80's and while we all have a romantic notion for the older ships a modern welded hull is every bit as tough if not tougher than a riveted hull. Also modern steel is inherently better than it's predecessor. When have you heard of a brittle steel fracture in a more "modern" hull? Also comparing the Valor to another ASC ship by size alone is an error when it's capacity that's a better measuring stick. The Sam Laud's capacity is all of 1000 tons less and she is more than 100' shorter, 2' narrower, and makes the same HP while using less fuel. She can call more ports, has engines that are infinitely rebuildable (there are hundreds of 50+ year old EMD locomotives still running). The 20 or some odd years between the Valor and Laud may not seem that long but in that time man when from primarily crossing the ocean by ship to landing on the moon. Everything about a newer ship is going to be better. While I'd love to see the Valor solider on I want to put my 2 cents in about "they don't build them like they used to".

[Guest]

CSL had Ashcroft, Donnaconna, Hagarty, the previously mentioned Lemoyne, Midland Prince, Osler, Prescott that were too large for the locks of the third Welland Canal. N.M. Patterson and Sons also had several vessels that were too large for the third Welland Canal locks.

Perhaps William Lafferty or Jay Bascom can add some additional information of which ships in Canadian lake fleets couldn't use the current Welland Canal until 1932.

[Guest]

The 633’ x 70’ Lemoyne (1926) for Canada Steamship Lines is an example. Not sure off the top of my head if there are other examples.

[Guest]

I thing there are a few points to make about this. As one of the other posters noted, its is nearly impossible that the ASC was not in the works in some form when the Valo was purchased. As such, Rand has identified a need for it to pursue its acquisition. Additionally, it is now Canadian flagged and therefore its potential value or use cannot be compared too easily with ships like the American Mariner, H. Lee White, John J. Boland that are all still under the US flag as of now anyways. I personally feel that the Valo would be used primarily on the Marquette and Duluth/Superior ore runs to Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Due to its size, it is obviously going to be constrained to operating west of the Welland Canal. Does anyone know if any Canadian shipping companies ever owned a ship that was limited to service on Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, and Superior prior the construction of the current Welland Canal in the 1930s?

[Alex]

The newly-acquired vessels in the ASC fleet that are similar to the Valo (ex. American Valor, Armco) are no spring chickens themselves. H. Lee White (2) and John J. Boland (4) are 46 and 47 years old. That's only twenty years "younger" than the Valo. American Mariner is 40 years old but has a larger deadweight carrying capacity than the Valo and might not be the ship Rand would consider to be an equal replacement for her.

These younger ships have been mostly working through the last 12 years, gaining additional wear and tear while the Valo has been laid up. That may close the 'age gap' between the ships even more, especially when you consider that the Boland and White have been sailing for an owner that did not seem to have a particularly proactive stance toward vessel maintenance. On the other hand, they've been continually updated with the latest in navigational equipment and bridge equipment, and there's something to be said for the amount of general decay that can take shape on a ship when she's not being used. A lot of that might depend on how carefully Valo was "mothballed" and the kind of conditions she's exposed to her layup location.

If Valo is still in good shape, and it seems like she is, her age might not be as much of a disadvantage as one might think. She's got a more fuel efficient hull shape than the younger alternatives, and her shallower hull depth means that using her on the iron ore pellet run into the somewhat shallower slip at Algoma Steel keeps vessels like the Boland and White available to be utilized in trades that take better advantage of their larger cargo hold cubic capacity and/or ability to carry the same or more cargo as Valo at full Lakes/Seaway channel depth.

The age of the Valor may be to an advantage, better built boat than the younger ones.

[Guest]

If she is re powered she will definitely be more efficient than the other ships.

[hausen]

The newly-acquired vessels in the ASC fleet that are similar to the Valo (ex. American Valor, Armco) are no spring chickens themselves. H. Lee White (2) and John J. Boland (4) are 46 and 47 years old. That's only twenty years "younger" than the Valo. American Mariner is 40 years old but has a larger deadweight carrying capacity than the Valo and might not be the ship Rand would consider to be an equal replacement for her.

These younger ships have been mostly working through the last 12 years, gaining additional wear and tear while the Valo has been laid up. That may close the 'age gap' between the ships even more, especially when you consider that the Boland and White have been sailing for an owner that did not seem to have a particularly proactive stance toward vessel maintenance. On the other hand, they've been continually updated with the latest in navigational equipment and bridge equipment, and there's something to be said for the amount of general decay that can take shape on a ship when she's not being used. A lot of that might depend on how carefully Valo was "mothballed" and the kind of conditions she's exposed to her layup location.

If Valo is still in good shape, and it seems like she is, her age might not be as much of a disadvantage as one might think. She's got a more fuel efficient hull shape than the younger alternatives, and her shallower hull depth means that using her on the iron ore pellet run into the somewhat shallower slip at Algoma Steel keeps vessels like the Boland and White available to be utilized in trades that take better advantage of their larger cargo hold cubic capacity and/or ability to carry the same or more cargo as Valo at full Lakes/Seaway channel depth.

[Chris M]

With the Mississagi done this season, Manistee eventually heading to a scrapyard and the Tecumseh mostly not being repaired, they have plenty of reasons to repower her and get her back into service. Covid has just delayed the process. Also I'm sure when they were purchasing the Valor, they were already in talks to aquire ASC. Have to remember they not only got the fleet but also the contracts.

[Pazzo]

I haven't heard anything since the world got sick. And Rand purchasing American Steamship might have satisfied the need for extra vessels. I'm thinking that when the economy corrects itself, we'll see her get the tow to the scrapyard... I don't hope for it, but I can't see the justification for repowering her now.

I hope someone else has better information that proves me wrong. I literally know nothing about the insides of the industry and probably shouldn't play armchair executive.

[Guest]

Is the American Valor still scheduled to be put back into service?