Boatnerd Discussion Forum

As someone who witnessed the turmoil in the Great Lakes shipping industry during the 1980s, I have to say that today there is even less of a reason to be optimistic about the future. One of the biggest differences between then and now is that the coal trade was still growing whereas today the coal trade for power consumption is in its final days. This trade will not recover as the facilities it served are being dismantled. That will be the end of the story unless new routes open up for export to other nations still using coal-fired power plants.

As for iron ore shipments, I would expect to see these continue their downward trend as has been the case for the past several decades. This comes from a variety of factors such as increased steel-making efficiency, imported steel, and the growth of minimills that use scrap steel. There appears to be little if any upgrades being done to the integrated steel mills upon which the majority of the ore moved on the lakes is required and as these plants age it will become increasingly difficult to justify their continued operation.

Although some might argue that cargoes have rebounded since the 2009 crash, the level to which the iron ore carriage has fallen skews the apparent health of the trade. For example in 2020 the ore trade amounted to 37.1 million net tons when in 2010 it was 42 million net tons. Compare this to 50 years earlier in which the ore carriage for the 1960 season, although good in terms of ore movements but not as good as several other seasons during the 1950s, amounted to just over 81 million net tons. The gradual, but steady decline of the domestic steel industry can be traced back to the 1950s steel labor strikes that allowed the influx of imported steel into the North American market. It is likely the downward trend in the movement of ore will bottom out eventually, but what that level will be is anyone's guess at least from an enthusiast standpoint without the benefit of experience with the inner workings of the steel industry.

The bottom line of all of this is that in the future there will be even fewer ships and more importantly fewer employment opportunities for those wishing to work on the lakes. There is no doubt building of the barge units over the past two decades and the Mark W. Barker currently in its final stages of construction are encouraging signs. However, the simple fact is that the next newest powered vessels in the US fleet are now 40 years old with several others now reaching 70 years in age. Although many of the older ships have been modernized, there can be little question that they will eventually need replacement within the next 10-20 years if there is sufficient demand. With no apparent plans to begin any new construction programs by any US operators, one must question what will the future hold for the US fleet.

Andrew wrote:The Clarke and Callaway sitting bodes poorly for the Blough. I was hopeful the Clarke would fit out this year, or at least for part of it. If there isn't even enough for the backhaulers to stay busy with smaller loads, it signifies that GLF doesn't have enough cargo to move.

Watching the AAAs is always a good indicator for the company's health. If the AAAs are sitting, it isn't a good sign.

Am really curious what will happen with the Callaway. The other two are in decent enough shape were that even if the fleet is for sale and a sale took place, I don't see them going to the heap.

I remember back in the 1980's when many boats, including new footer builds, were idled due to low ore demand. However, demand eventually picked up again.

The Clarke and Callaway sitting bodes poorly for the Blough. I was hopeful the Clarke would fit out this year, or at least for part of it. If there isn't even enough for the backhaulers to stay busy with smaller loads, it signifies that GLF doesn't have enough cargo to move.

Watching the AAAs is always a good indicator for the company's health. If the AAAs are sitting, it isn't a good sign.

Am really curious what will happen with the Callaway. The other two are in decent enough shape were that even if the fleet is for sale and a sale took place, I don't see them going to the heap.

If the blough isn’t fixed and sailing now when the market is good and most ships are sailing, then it isn’t looking good for it to sail in the future especially now that the fleet is for sale. I hope this isn’t the case and like everyone says time will tell.

Andrew wrote:Yeah, we'll have to wait and see. I'd say that the Anderson is a more valuable asset than the Blough though. She backhauls, so she's making more. The Blough is that awkward in between length and cargo capacity. I remember the rumors going around and just couldn't bring myself to admit the Anderson was done. Granted, there were a lot of experts claiming she was done, but I didn't think scrapping was imminent. Maybe I was just ignorant of how close she came to the torch. Jared, I'd love to hear more about how she got close to the end, but maybe there isn't much more to offer beyond what you've said already.

I recall being told that the ballest tanks were leaking like a sieve causing a ton of rust and corrosion underneath the self unloading "tunnels" (it was described to me as looking like a W shape). They even had to replace hull plates at the turn of the bilge. It wasn't that the damage was unfixable, but that will all the steel work that needed to be done was quite expensive for the company. They had the other AAA's and the Munson to take whatever the contract(s) cargo was. It was a very nasty and hard job to do the steel work and clean underneath the tunnel. That's all I recall.

There were rumors in 1985 that the Blough was going to be scrapped. The Blough was laid up between 1981-87. The big difference between now and then was, western coal was doing well. When the steel industry was doing well, the Blough sailed because many 1000 footers were hauling coal. We all know that coal is going away and the competition to move taconite will increase. I expect we will see 1000 footers eventually being scrapped. Another factor is US Steel closed Zug Island and they cancelled plans to upgrade their mill in Pennsylvania. They are making a push to reduce greenhouse emissions. They announced in September that they plan to build a new mini-mill, probably in a Southern State. This new mill will use scrap steel.

Yeah, we'll have to wait and see. I'd say that the Anderson is a more valuable asset than the Blough though. She backhauls, so she's making more. The Blough is that awkward in between length and cargo capacity. I remember the rumors going around and just couldn't bring myself to admit the Anderson was done. Granted, there were a lot of experts claiming she was done, but I didn't think scrapping was imminent. Maybe I was just ignorant of how close she came to the torch. Jared, I'd love to hear more about how she got close to the end, but maybe there isn't much more to offer beyond what you've said already.

There needs to be an understanding as to why the Roger Blough was built as she was versus a typical thousand footer. Hindsight is always 20/20, but it's important to put the past into context.

When the Roger Blough was being designed in the mid-1960s by Marine Designers and Consultants (the same company that designed the Stewart J. Cort), they worked with US Steel officials for the basic dimensions.

The reason why they went with a shallow depth is so the Blough could fit under the chutes of the gravity ore docks at Two Harbors and Duluth. The distance from the waterline (varies with lake water levels) to the hinge point of the chute is 43 feet. That means that the Roger Blough with a hull depth of 41 feet can fit under the chutes and the angle is steep enough that the ore pellets will flow properly. DIMIR didn't modify their ore dock in Two Harbors for loading thousand footers until late 1978, though the Presque Isle with a hull depth of 46 feet first loaded at the Two Harbors gravity ore docks from her entry into service in mid-December 1974.

The length of 858 feet was governed by two factors. The classification societies allow a length to depth ratio of 21:1 so if you take the Blough's hull depth of 41'-6" and multiply it by 21 you get a value close to 858 feet. (Yes, I know it's calculated on the length between posts, but for arguments sake I'm using OA length.)

As for the Johnson Point issue, the USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers) in Spring 1972 commenced a Bend Widening Program in the St. Marys river to widen several bends. Course 8-9 (Johnson Point) was the first bend to be widened. The thousand footers vessels could use the bends as they existed, but the margin-of-safety was less in high wind events... so to increase safety and also for Winter Navigation, they were widened.

Roger Blough has been a favourite of mine, too, since I first saw her picture in the book, "Fate of the Lakes". Seeing that bow shot in the drydock at AmShip was impressive to a kid - and still is!

- Brian

In 2018 I would have swore up and down that the Anderson was going to scrap. In fact some of my earlier posts in this board reflect that opinion. Several shipyard workers, GLF employees, and industry experts told me personally that the Anderson was done for. Then we got news in the late winter of 2019 saying she'd be overhauled and put back into service. I'm hearing the same people echoing about the Blough also, but they've been wrong before. We just don't know and I think the company itself doesn't know either. It'll be a nail biter until we get actual news from the company.

Boy it will be a really sad day if or when the blough goes to scrap, she’s been my favorite ship since she came out. I know the blough has been kind of the the odd ship out for several seasons over her career due to her size and only being able to unload at 2 ports. I think that uss dropped the ball when they built her as for her shallow draft and not being a 1000 feet because they thought a 1000 footer couldn’t make the turn at Johnson point. It seems like such a waste if she goes to scrap when you look at the ship and the shape she’s in on the outside. I know that there was a lot of damage internally that a person can’t see and the cost of repair will probably be more than the ship cost originally. Just seems she’s going to scrap way before her time should be up.

The NTSB is still doing their investigation into the fire and as of October 31, hasn't released a report.

Some say she's finished, but if she really, we might not know until tow marks are painted on her bow and the tugs arrive to tow her to Port Colborne. CN is under no obligation to tell the public how extensive the damage is, if the Blough is being repaired or is a constructive total loss and has been abandoned to the underwriters.

When the St. Clair was abandoned to the underwriters after her constructive loss loss due to fire, the only way we knew is when proceeds from an insurance settlement was mentioned in a financial statement.

- Brian

All we have this year is several rumors from shipyard workers other people claiming it is done for, or they are just cleaning it or nothing decided yet. from the pictures I've seen throughout the year, I feel like they are emptying it out for the last time. i think all we can do is wait until CN finally releases a statement.

I went by the Blough on Friday and see they have a large shipping container on each end of the ship and garbage dumpsters on each end . I don’t know it’d they are cleaning her out or refurbishing her . Other than that I haven’t seen any activity on the boat lately.