Is the Badger the last coal-burning steam (piston! -- compounded uniflow engines) power in regular passenger service?
I guess the steam power plant is hidden away, and it doesn't make chuffing and snorting sounds owing to a condensing cycle, and people on the dock don't get to see pistons and siderods moving. But it is the last of its kind.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
She represent the last of the modern coal burning steamships that were so prevelant during the 40's, 50's and 60's. Growing up on the western end of lake Erie, it was very common to look out and see the out lines of the upbound or down bound steamers and see the tale tell line of black smoke following the ship. Its good to have the old badger around. Not lot of smoke now a days, but the same smells and aromas.
Cheers
Some former coal burners remain active on the Great Lakes. The SS Herbert C. Jackson for instance, all set to be repowered this coming winter layup and the final steamship in the Interlakes fleet, was launched in 1958 as a coal burner and wasn't converted to oil firing until the winter 1974-75 layup.
But the Badger is not only the last active coal burner of any type in commercial service on the Lakes, she's easily the last steamship left in regular passenger service on the Great Lakes.
Toronto has the sidewheeler Trillium in service for their ferry fleet with her original triple expansion reciprocating steam engine, but she's usually reserved for special occasions. Otherwise, she sits as a backup vessel rather than as part of the daily operating fleet. Her boilers were converted to oil firing many years ago.
The Badger's pair of Skinner Unaflows are likely the last of their kind aboard any type of vessel (Other than what's left of the parts donors aboard her sistership, the SS Spartan). The SS James Norris with her 5 cylinder Skinner Unaflow was retired after the 2011 season and subsequently scrapped by new owner Algoma Central Marine rather than proceed with a diesel repowering project that Upper Lakes Shipping had already purchased an engine for.
And the 1906 built St. Marys Challenger, powered by a 4 cylinder Unaflow after being repowered in 1950, was barged during the winter 2013/2014 layup and is now pushed by a tug that connects via an articulated connection system in a notch at her stern.
The only possible survivor that I'm aware of that made it to the 2000's is the Casa Grande class dock landing ship ROCS Chung Cheng. Launched in 1945 as the USS Comstock, she was sold to Taiwan with her pair of Skinner Unaflows intact.
Details on if she kept her powerplant in Taiwanese service or was repowered have never been clear and some reports state that she was retired back around 2012. Her current status is unknown to me.
Some friends of mine were on the Badger last summer, they said you're not allowed into the engine room. A shame. They let people into the engine room of the SS John Brown about ten years ago when it came to Toronto as a port stop on it's way to Ohio for some hull repairs. Reciprocating engine, not sure if it's a Skinner. You couldn't go down the lower level of the engine room, only a gallery deck around the upper part of the cylinders. So, there's that one and another Liberty ship on the west coast, the SS Jeremiah O'Brien.
In other news, she's getting towed to Sturgeon Bay for her Coast Guard mandated 5 year survey at Bay Shipbuilding sometime this month. Probably already there, actually.
That won't please the naysayer or two that were insistent that she was doomed and that Lake Michigan Carferry was broke, but that quarter of a million dollar or so reinvestment into her will make her good to go for another five years (I think that's just about the going rate for a drydocking, hull survey, repairs, and a paint job these days).
54light15Some friends of mine were on the Badger last summer, they said you're not allowed into the engine room. A shame. They let people into the engine room of the SS John Brown about ten years ago when it came to Toronto as a port stop on it's way to Ohio for some hull repairs.
Not too surprising given that she's a working ship rather than a museum ship. I think during the annual Boatnerd cruise though that they give engine room and pilothouse tours.
54light15Reciprocating engine, not sure if it's a Skinner.
Liberty ships had traditional triple-expansion reciprocating steam engines, not Skinner Unaflows.
That allowed the shipyard to build them itself, conserving steam turbines, uniflows (Skinner Unaflows were common engines for medium size warships like escort carriers where speed wasn't crucial), and diesels for other installations.
And it also allowed many sailors that had stopped sailing during the depression years to jump right back in where they had left off.
You can take tours, including the engine room, of the former carferry City of Milwaukee museum ship, docked in Manistee about 20 miles north of Ludington.
I live in Michigan and we go up there to watch it every once and a while, and its really cool. I might have some pictures somewhere,but i dont know.
A fine old ship, god hope the epa will allow her to live.
They should, realistically one old coal-burner isn't going to have any perceptible environmental impact.
The EPA and the ferry company signed an agreement, whereby coal ash collecting equipment was installed on the Badger last year. I have not heard that there are any further problems.
They'll be back though since there's still coal emissions from her stack.
Some didn't think so, but I think several things that they did with their recently concluded saga was very much proactive. They're the ones for instance that first told the EPA that they thought there was a potential solution for the ash issue and initiated the investigation of alternatives on their own free will and dime, before there were any signs of the troubles that were about to befall them.
I hope that continues and they try to stay one step ahead of things. Scrubber technology is making advancements and we're seeing some advanced systems aboard lake freighters these days to fight air emissions from their diesel engines, for one example. Algoma's Equinox class for instance has exhaust gas scrubbers that remove over 95% of sulfur oxide emissions.
Perhaps now is the time to start taking a look at this area if they haven't already done so.
Awe man, what good is steamer if you can't enjoy the smells and sounds. Although the crossing's is always fun.
There is another coal burner here in Canada, the S.S. Segwun, based at Gravenhurst, Ontario. A beautiful ship, reciprocating engine and propeller driven and built in the 1880s as a side-wheeler. There's also the Wanda, a reciprocating ship with a water-tube boiler which is based there as well, but an oil burner. On the Segwun (I've been in the engine room) there is what looks like a large toilet which is the ash ejecter system that dumps the ash directly into the lake.
To me though, including a ship like RMS Segwun would be like telling someone that the steam era in the US and Canada on mainlines didn't end in 1960 because locomotives like MILW 261 operate excursions.
She's essentially a museum ship in tourist service, rather than a common carrier.
http://realmuskoka.com/
Either way, both the badger and the RMS segwum, are treasures in their own rights.
Yeah well the Badger is slow as molasses at crossing Lake Michigan and I am really surprised the railroads did not invest more in a faster car ferry across the lake. Seems the U.S. Navy is the only organization experimenting with high speed powerplants these days. If they could invent a cross lake Ferry service that could cross the Lake in two hours.....possibly a hydrofoil, perhaps that might bring some of the cross lake rail service back.
They were fast when new. They had an 18 mph cruising speed versus the previous best of 14. A lot of effort went into tank testing to create the ideal hull profile for them. And they're faster than almost all freighters today on the Great Lakes. Don't forget that even in 1952, they were freight vessels first and foremost.
CMStPnP Yeah well the Badger is slow as molasses at crossing Lake Michigan and I am really surprised the railroads did not invest more in a faster car ferry across the lake. Seems the U.S. Navy is the only organization experimenting with high speed powerplants these days. If they could invent a cross lake Ferry service that could cross the Lake in two hours.....possibly a hydrofoil, perhaps that might bring some of the cross lake rail service back.
For cars, you probably need a catamaran-type. How about this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSC_Villum_Clausen
It could probably make the Manitowoc crossing in 80-90 minutes
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
There is a high speed ferry (for cars) between Milwaukee and Muskegon, MI. I assume that it competes to some extent with the Badger. Takes 2 1/2 hours.
http://www.lake-express.com/
BtrainBob There is a high speed ferry (for cars) between Milwaukee and Muskegon, MI. I assume that it competes to some extent with the Badger. Takes 2 1/2 hours. http://www.lake-express.com/
Yeah, but I bet its Diesel . . . or worse yet, a gas turbine
To my wallet, prices seem a little pricey - with vehicle charges not including an operator and a one way adult fare at $86.50 + unspecified surcharages; an automobile is $94; motorcycle is $44; motortricycle is $60.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
My Sister who is Amtrak Phobic takes that ferry sometimes. It cannot run in rough lake conditions (lots of people puke), my guess is they scrimped on stabilizers or it is relatively small / lightweight. Also it is fast but it is also only a 118 mile width of the lake. Surely we can do better in this day and age with possibly a hydrofoil.......maybe?
Geeze, what is the top speed (classified) of our Nuke Carriers. Got to be 55-60 mph by now........easily with a Nuke plant.
I believe another feather in the Badgers cap is it can travel through light ice over conditions on the lake as it has a reinforced hull that will break ice up to a specific thickness..........read somewhere this was true, might not be as I am relying on my memory again which can be faulty. Lake Express is only a fair weather Ferry and cancels the trip in anything resembling moderately rough seas. Too unreliable for rail service, IMO.
schlimmFor cars, you probably need a catamaran-type. How about this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSC_Villum_Clausen It could probably make the Manitowoc crossing in 80-90 minutes
Yup 55 mph is Modern, IMO but I think they could do better by 5-10 mph. So even if they got that service up and running and it took rail cars. With the congestion around Chicago I think they could reinstate a Michigan to West Coast service that could cut almost a day out of transit time if they had a dock in Wisconsin and the train departed after marshalling the cars off the Ferry.
Thats why I am surprised CP or CN hasn't partnered with a MI railroad for this. Interestingly I think CN's track to Manitowoc is still in really decent shape I was just up there last August and it looks like Class I track most of the way into the city of Manitowoc.
I think the former GB&W is gone or torn up by now East of Green Bay.
Leo Ames- the Wenonah is diesel powered. I was aboard it when it was being built and spoke to a guy there and he said that they wanted it to be steam powered, they had found a boiler that they could use but the time it would have taken to find an engine would have taken too long and cost too much. Not six months later I was in a warehouse in Forest Hill in Toronto and there were the contents of the marine museum that had closed down at Harbourfront. And naturally there were several reciprocating engines that would have been suitable and they were just sitting there gathering dust. I wonder if they're still there?
BaltACD BtrainBob There is a high speed ferry (for cars) between Milwaukee and Muskegon, MI. I assume that it competes to some extent with the Badger. Takes 2 1/2 hours. http://www.lake-express.com/ To my wallet, prices seem a little pricey - with vehicle charges not including an operator and a one way adult fare at $86.50 + unspecified surcharages; an automobile is $94; motorcycle is $44; motortricycle is $60.
The SS Badger fare (one way) is cheaper: $66.00 per adult + a $5.00 security fee + $66.00 for a car, $39.00 for a motorcycle.
CMStPnPGeeze, what is the top speed (classified) of our Nuke Carriers. Got to be 55-60 mph by now........easily with a Nuke plant.
From checking online it looks like top speed of both the Nimitz and brand new Gerald Ford classes is 30-35+ mph. Maybe the true speed is classified and is a bit higher, but far from 60. The first nuclear carrier, Enterprise was almost 39 mph. By contrast, the conventional Forrestal class top speed was 39 mph; Kitty Hawks were ~37 mph.
Ships speeds are measured in knots, not miles per hour! The S.S. United States could do better than 35 knots and its hull design was classified until it was retired in 1968. Whenever it was dry docked, the lower part of the hull would have canvas awnings covering it.
Since we're talking ship speeds now, the USS Wisconsin broke 39 knots in Chesapeake Bay in 1945. Not too shabby for a nearly 900' battleship. :)
And her sistership the New Jersey sustained 35 + knots for over six hours on her shakedown cruise in 1968 when she was reactivated for service in Vietnam (A job she did too well at since the North complained in Paris that she was a "destabilizing influence" and Washington in their infinite wisdom sent her back to mothballs and killed a few more pilots on jobs that 16" battleship shells could've handled in a region where most targets were within range of her main guns).
And I think the top speed of super carriers remains classified right on down to the Forrestal, which is one of a good half dozen or so American victims in the last 20-25 years that I think is a tragic loss for maritime preservation. The Nimitz class hull profile is an evolution of the Forrestal and Kitty Hawk classes, so they've kept a tight lid on it.
She was the last US carrier laid down with an axial flight deck, first launched with a angled deck, first super carrier, was a survivor of a horrible fire off the coast of Vietnam that came close to forcing her to be abandoned, saw a lot of active service in Vietnam, and she was oil fired and had no nuclear worries that would prevent her preservation these days with the navy's no nuclear museum policy of recent years (Despite the Nautilus and America's sole nuclear powered cargo ship being preserved in earlier years and security and preservation of her nuclear engine room spaces for decades to come being cheaper than the cost of scrapping).
If a super carrier is to be preserved, her history made her the best candidate. Not many selections left these days that are even possible. I think only the Kennedy and Kitty Hawk haven't had their death warrants signed or already been disposed of via scuttling or scrapping down in Brownsville, remaining on donation hold the last I heard.
CMStPnPI believe another feather in the Badgers cap is it can travel through light ice over conditions on the lake as it has a reinforced hull that will break ice up to a specific thickness..........read somewhere this was true, might not be as I am relying on my memory again which can be faulty. Lake Express is only a fair weather Ferry and cancels the trip in anything resembling moderately rough seas. Too unreliable for rail service, IMO.
She was built for year round service and can indeed break a lot of ice. And she's a good heavy weather ship and is able to maintain service, safety, and passenger comfort in conditions that her competitor stays at port for.
These are "friend of a friend" stories so take 'em for what they're worth.
When I was in the Marines back in the 70's a friend had a Navy buddy stationed on the Nimitz. They were cruising the Mediterranian when a Russian destroyer pulled in close and started to pace them. The Nimitz' skipper broadcast to the crew, "Stand by, we're going to have some fun with this guy! All hands clear the flight deck!"
Well, to coin a phrase, they "Put the pedal to the metal" and the Nimitz RAN away from the Russian tin can. The Nimitz' bow came out of the water like a speedboat, estimated speed was over 50 knots.
The other story is of a Nimitz class skipper who was in a hurry to get home after a Med deployment. When they cleared the Straits of Gibraltar they opened up the throttles and ran from Gibraltar to Norfolk in four days.
THAT particular captain, however, got himself relieved for that stunt.
Again, take it for what it's worth.
54light15 Ships speeds are measured in knots, not miles per hour! The S.S. United States could do better than 35 knots and its hull design was classified until it was retired in 1968. Whenever it was dry docked, the lower part of the hull would have canvas awnings covering it.
I know. I converted to mph from knots because most folks understand mph better than knots or kmh. The top speeds are classified but my cousin who was a Rear Admiral once let me know that the reported figures were "pretty close" to the actual.
The SS United States (there is a conservancy project) had a service speed of 32 knots (37 mph) and top speed a fantastic 38.32 knots (44.1 mph).
And the small "Jeep" carriers built by Henry Kaiser had a top speed of 18 knots. Most of them were powered with Skinner Uniflow engines that had been designed for Great Lakes boats. They did serve well, to their limit, despite having a hull so thin that the primers on 8" Japanese shells did not set the explosives off as they passed through both sides of the carriers--and then exploded when they hit the water on the other side (the water was harder than the hulls).
Reference: Volume II of Jerome T. Hagen's War in the Pacific, pp.209-210.
Johnny
CMStPnP schlimm For cars, you probably need a catamaran-type. How about this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSC_Villum_Clausen It could probably make the Manitowoc crossing in 80-90 minutes Yup 55 mph is Modern, IMO but I think they could do better by 5-10 mph. So even if they got that service up and running and it took rail cars. With the congestion around Chicago I think they could reinstate a Michigan to West Coast service that could cut almost a day out of transit time if they had a dock in Wisconsin and the train departed after marshalling the cars off the Ferry. Thats why I am surprised CP or CN hasn't partnered with a MI railroad for this. Interestingly I think CN's track to Manitowoc is still in really decent shape I was just up there last August and it looks like Class I track most of the way into the city of Manitowoc. I think the former GB&W is gone or torn up by now East of Green Bay.
schlimm For cars, you probably need a catamaran-type. How about this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSC_Villum_Clausen It could probably make the Manitowoc crossing in 80-90 minutes
CN (GTW) use to have a Muskegon-Milwaukee car ferry, but abandoned it in the mid 1970s. A carferry that could make the crossing in 2 hours would not make much of a difference. I rode the C&O and AA ferries in the early 80s. The crossing took 4 hours and the loading took about 2 hours, so there was a crossing about every 6 hours, or two round trips per day. the problem is that the Badger could only hold 34 (40ft) cars. So it would take 2 days to carry a 136 car freight train of 40' cars across the lake. A 2 hour crossing time would only knock off 16 hours off the 48 hour time for a full train. The carferry operators usuallly had 2 or more boats going at a time. Faster Chicago transfer transit times are what killed the carferries.
54light15Ships speeds are measured in knots,
Yes I know this as well but converted the Navy Nuke Carriers estimated speed from knots to MPH because most people have no clue how fast a knot is. New Navy ships have a LOT of HP.....go on YOUTUBE and search for "evasive turn", the newer ships just bulldoze millions of gallons of water sideways when they do their sharp turns, amazing to watch on video.....got to put a lot of strain on the structure and rudder both.
People state the M1 tank can only do 45 mph. However I have seen it move a LOT FASTER than that........and again DoD does not want folks to know the actual top speed so one can only estimate using other Defense sources.
Speaking of carriers, when my ship, the U.S.S. Guam was in the yards in Philly, there was a carrier in reserve, an Essex class with a straight flight deck tied up next to two of the battleships, I think the Wisconsin and New Jersey but I could be wrong about that. I was there from 1975-76 and I ate my share of cheese steaks!
Also, not to get away from ships, but the Sloane Museum in Flint, Michigan has a 1943 Buick Wildcat that can still travel at over 60 miles per hour! It's a tank destroyer and the manager of the museum, a young woman said that she rode in it on the old test track and it was fast!
54light, I was in the Philly Navy Yard in May of 1975, and those two battlewagons were the Iowa and the Wisconsin. The Marine Officer Selection Office threw a party for us newly commisssioned lieutenants and a visit to the battleships was part of the agenda. I'll never forget the broadside silhouettes of those ships as the tour bus approached, majestic, powerful, and to use an overused word, awesome.
As they were in mothballs the exterior conditions of the two ships was terrible, peeling paint, rotting decks, but still an impressive sight.
I remember the Guam, an LPH, correct? I spent a few days on her sister ship, the USS Iwo Jima a few years later.
If my records are correct, all Essex class vessels with axial flight decks were gone by then. Any chance it was a few years earlier? Several made it into the 1970's before being sold for scrap.
The Franklin, held in reserve awaiting a final rebuilding design to be settled upon for accomodating jet aircraft (due to her great condition after being repaired after massive wartime damage), became the victim of the super carrier and never was recommissioned. She was sold for scrap in 1966 and never returned to service. The Bunker Hill similarly didn't see a postwar career and was scrapped in 1973 after years serving as an electronics test hulk.
That only leaves the USS Boxer (Retired in 1969/Scrapped 1971), the USS Leyte (Retired in 1959/Scrapped 1970), the USS Princeton (Retired in 1970, scrapped 1971), the USS Tarawa (Retired in 1960, scrapped in 1968), the USS Valley Forge (Retired in 1970 and scrapped in 1971), the USS Philippine Sea (Retired in 1966, scrapped in 1973), and the USS Lake Champlain (Retired in 1966, scrapped in 1972) for ships that didn't receive the angled flight deck.
Is early 1974 a possibility? I show the USS Antietam as having been mothballed there after retirement until being sold for scrap that year. She was the world's first carrier to receive an angled flight deck, but otherwise maintained her classic appearance and didn't see further significant modernization. So she still had her wooden flight deck, the 5" deck guns, the open bow, etc.
If not, at least one must've sat around in Philly for a few years before the scrapper got down to business (Some of my dates are just the year they were sold for scrap)? Not an impossibility that a scrapper had a backlog with the cutbacks in 1970 or so that saw a lot of the wartime fleet be disposed of during that time.
"That allowed the shipyard to build them itself, conserving steam turbines, uniflows (Skinner Unaflows were common engines for medium size warships like escort carriers where speed wasn't crucial), and diesels for other installations."
No shipyard built the engines. They were Hamilton-Standard engines, built by Hamilton-Standard, Joshua Hendey Machine Tools, Iron Fireman, and others. Liberty builders were not established shipbuilders. Those were occupied with military vessels. The war production board governed who built what and they would have never allowed a huge foundry and machine shop just for one company and one type of engine. Shipyards built ships. Foundries poured iron. Machine shops machined what ever was within their capabilities. Huge companies might venture into new ground, such as Ford with B24s and Chrysler with tanks. These were extensions of their primary specialty which was assembly.
Leo_Ames Since we're talking ship speeds now, the USS Wisconsin broke 39 knots in Chesapeake Bay in 1945. Not too shabby for a nearly 900' battleship. :) And her sistership the New Jersey sustained 35 + knots for over six hours on her shakedown cruise in 1968 when she was reactivated for service in Vietnam (A job she did too well at since the North complained in Paris that she was a "destabilizing influence" and Washington in their infinite wisdom sent her back to mothballs and killed a few more pilots on jobs that 16" battleship shells could've handled in a region where most targets were within range of her main guns). And I think the top speed of super carriers remains classified right on down to the Forrestal, which is one of a good half dozen or so American victims in the last 20-25 years that I think is a tragic loss for maritime preservation. The Nimitz class hull profile is an evolution of the Forrestal and Kitty Hawk classes, so they've kept a tight lid on it. She was the last US carrier laid down with an axial flight deck, first launched with a angled deck, first super carrier, was a survivor of a horrible fire off the coast of Vietnam that came close to forcing her to be abandoned, saw a lot of active service in Vietnam, and she was oil fired and had no nuclear worries that would prevent her preservation these days with the navy's no nuclear museum policy of recent years (Despite the Nautilus and America's sole nuclear powered cargo ship being preserved in earlier years and security and preservation of her nuclear engine room spaces for decades to come being cheaper than the cost of scrapping). If a super carrier is to be preserved, her history made her the best candidate. Not many selections left these days that are even possible. I think only the Kennedy and Kitty Hawk haven't had their death warrants signed or already been disposed of via scuttling or scrapping down in Brownsville, remaining on donation hold the last I heard. CMStPnP I believe another feather in the Badgers cap is it can travel through light ice over conditions on the lake as it has a reinforced hull that will break ice up to a specific thickness..........read somewhere this was true, might not be as I am relying on my memory again which can be faulty. Lake Express is only a fair weather Ferry and cancels the trip in anything resembling moderately rough seas. Too unreliable for rail service, IMO. She was built for year round service and can indeed break a lot of ice. And she's a good heavy weather ship and is able to maintain service, safety, and passenger comfort in conditions that her competitor stays at port for.
CMStPnP I believe another feather in the Badgers cap is it can travel through light ice over conditions on the lake as it has a reinforced hull that will break ice up to a specific thickness..........read somewhere this was true, might not be as I am relying on my memory again which can be faulty. Lake Express is only a fair weather Ferry and cancels the trip in anything resembling moderately rough seas. Too unreliable for rail service, IMO.
There is NO museum ship with an intact reactor. The Savannah has none but the auxillary boiler is intact.
Firelock, the Guam was LPH-9. I came aboard in June of 1974 and we were on a Med cruise from that October to the following spring and then we went into the yards in Philadelphia and left the yards just before the Bicentennnial. I absolutely remember the straight flight deck carrier moored outboard of the two battleships. I'm pretty sure it was an Essex class as the island had that angled smokestack at its stern part. There were a lot of other interesting ships sitting in the reserve fleet, some WW2 cruisers and lots of early destroyers that were tiny compared to now. Don't know the class of them, sadly.
Another thing, we were supposed to go to New York for the Bicentennial, but our captain had other ideas. We spent the entire summer cruising past Virginia Beach having drills. We'd pull in on Friday and out again on Monday and there were guys who would pay $100.00 to have someone take thier weekend duty so they could see their families. It was so weird, being at sea and watching Norfolk television.
Interesting 54light, I remember the Iowa moored dockside and the Wisconsin moored outboard of Iowa, but don't remember a carrier moored outboard of both at all. Maybe I was overwhelmed by the battleships and just didn't notice.
I do remember those WW2 era mothballed cruisers, 8" gun ships if I remember correctly. Don't remember their names, however.
There were several submarines in the reserve fleet also and they were in the process of selling them to Venezuela as I recall. There was one very large cruiser that looked odd as it had its turrets removed to be converted to a communications ship. I imagine all those ships had long ago been turned into Toyotas. We used to say about the Guam, "Sell this thing to Gillette!" It was sunk as a target in 1999 near Bermuda.
54light15Also, not to get away from ships, but the Sloane Museum in Flint, Michigan has a 1943 Buick Wildcat that can still travel at over 60 miles per hour!
You mean Hellcat, don't you? M18, "the GMC made by Buick..."
Nope, it was called a Wildcat. There's a lot of concept cars in the Sloane museum, such as the Bill Mitchell designed "Silver Arrow" based on a Buick Riviera and other interesting cars. They have a restoration shop there that is a fantasy land for anyone who restores old cars. There's everything a restorer could want! It's part of a local college's program and when I was there the project was a 1953 Buick Skylark convertible.
tdmidget "That allowed the shipyard to build them itself, conserving steam turbines, uniflows (Skinner Unaflows were common engines for medium size warships like escort carriers where speed wasn't crucial), and diesels for other installations." No shipyard built the engines. They were Hamilton-Standard engines, built by Hamilton-Standard, Joshua Hendey Machine Tools, Iron Fireman, and others. Liberty builders were not established shipbuilders.
No shipyard built the engines. They were Hamilton-Standard engines, built by Hamilton-Standard, Joshua Hendey Machine Tools, Iron Fireman, and others. Liberty builders were not established shipbuilders.
Thanks
I'm most familiar with the Great Lakes and here, the shipyard that built the vessel typically built the reciprocating steam engine that went into her.
The main point stands though that going with this older design of propulsion allowed sailers that hadn't been on the oceans recently to go back to sea with technology they were already trained on and intimately familiar with, while allowing the conservation of the limited industrial capacity for producing equipment like reduction gears to be assigned to vessels where they were most needed (such as warships and fleet oilers in the case of geared steam turbines).
The Badger will depart at 9:30 tomorrow morning for her tow to Sturgeon Bay.
tdmidgetThere is NO museum ship with an intact reactor. The Savannah has none but the auxillary boiler is intact.
Then how did they extract it from the Nautilus without partially scrapping her?
54light15Nope, it was called a Wildcat. There's a lot of concept cars in the Sloane museum, such as the Bill Mitchell designed "Silver Arrow" based on a Buick Riviera and other interesting cars.
The first Wildcat wasn't until 1953, and was (and probably still is) almost certainly capable of far more than a piddling 60 mph...
(If I'm not mistaken, that's the Sloan Museum's Wildcat II in the background... note that none of these Buicks has a gun of appreciable size...)
Now, there was a Wildcat in the '40s, and it did have guns, and a radial engine, like the tank destroyer -- but it was made by Grumman and had wings.
http://sloanlongway.org/sloan-museum/collections-of-sloan-longway/automotive-collection/1944-buick-m18-hellcat-tank-destroyer
http://sloanlongway.org/sloan-museum/collections-of-sloan-longway/automotive-collection/1954-buick-wildcat-ii
I coulda sworn she said Wildcat. I guess I stand corrected! And I am familiar with the F3F Wildcat made by Grumman. I think the Hellcat is a nicer looking airplane, though. The later Tigercat and Bearcat were the last flowering of piston-powered Gummans I think unless you include that floatplane with the pusher propellor whose name escapes me.
54light15 ... unless you include that floatplane with the pusher propellor whose name escapes me.
I don't remember a Grumman pusher amphibian. Republic had the Seabee that turned into the Spencer Air Car, and there is the glorious family of Lake amphibians... is it one of those?
Not to say that Grumman didn't have some of the finest small amphibians anywhere. One of them is the basis for the somewhat amazing Turbine Mallard.
Right, the Republic Seabee! Jeez, what was I thinking? My airplane nollij is fading away. Funny, considering I grew up not far from thier plant in Farmingdale, New York and the old man kept his Stinson there.
Here in Canada there are a lot of Lake Amphibians and other floatplanes. Many of the cottages up North have seaplanes tied up outside. More like mansions than cottages, naturally but that's another subject.
Not a pleasure trip for everyone. Truckers save a lot of miles and traffic congestion of the northern Indiana and Chicago by taking the old girl.
For the rest of us, its a pleasure Trip.
Leo_Ames The Badger will depart at 9:30 tomorrow morning for her tow to Sturgeon Bay. tdmidget There is NO museum ship with an intact reactor. The Savannah has none but the auxillary boiler is intact. Then how did they extract it from the Nautilus without partially scrapping her?
tdmidget There is NO museum ship with an intact reactor. The Savannah has none but the auxillary boiler is intact.
It was dumped into the ocean as were the other early reactors. The naval shipyard at Mare island spent almost 2 years on the decommissioning and reconstruction as a museum. Decomissioning a nuclear submarine consists foremost of removal of the reactor segment of the hull. Most are stored at the Hanford reservation but the early ones were dumped at sea.
CMStPnP wrote;
Using the S.S. Badger or other ferry across the lake to bypass Chicago would be a bit of a trip with the old C&O line across Michigan gone. Having to go south from Ludington to Grand Rapids to the CSX would likely add enough time to make Chicago as quicker.
Bad fire in Bayship's drydock in the stern of the Alpena, which is docked with the Badger for her 5 year survey also. She's the oldest operating steamer in the American fleet and has been extensively damaged it sounds in her crew accomodations and galley, although her engine room spaces seem to have escaped harm. I think the Badger is fine though.
I hope that she's not a write off or that this leads to her being notched and turned into an ATB. :(
Thought that I'd bump this thread and say that the Badger passed her 5 year with flying colors and is back at her home port. And her drydock companion, the SS Apena, is being rebuilt for continued service as a steam powered freighter after her recent incident in drydock that heavily damaged her aft section.
And happily the Badger has finally received her long sought National Historic Landmark designation.
Ol' Dick in Illinois probably isn't a happy camper today.
Although I've never seen Badger except in photos, this is very good news. Anything anyone can do to keep the heritage of steam power going is worth it.
Good news about Alpena, too. Weren't those old ore boats magnificent vessels? When I get to Cleveland and look out onto the lake, it's dismaying to see nothing coming into or out of the harbor, while only 40 or so years ago it seemed there was always an ore boat coming and going.
Enjoy both ships for me, Leo. Be sure to post a few photos here.
And may God bless Strs. Badger & Alpena and all who sail on them.
NKP guy Although I've never seen Badger except in photos, this is very good news. Anything anyone can do to keep the heritage of steam power going is worth it. Good news about Alpena, too. Weren't those old ore boats magnificent vessels? When I get to Cleveland and look out onto the lake, it's dismaying to see nothing coming into or out of the harbor, while only 40 or so years ago it seemed there was always an ore boat coming and going. Enjoy both ships for me, Leo. Be sure to post a few photos here. And may God bless Strs. Badger & Alpena and all who sail on them.
Remember it taking a hour to go from B&O's Clark Ave. yard to Whiskey Island as the route had multiple drawbridges and the vessels traversing the Cuyahoga River to deliver their cargo or return to the lake for the next trip. What entered the river bow first went back to the lake stern first with tugs manuvering the vessels in both directions.
Apparently they jumped the gun a bit on the Badger Historical Landmark status. Not everyone has officially signed off yet. The local Congressman was also having to backtrack. Hopefully it will become official soon.
http://www.imediaethics.org/associated-press-retracts-steamship-car-ferry-s-s-badger-not-a-national-historic-landmark/
great article. A friend and her family rode the Badger over 30 years from Chicago,and I didn't even know if it was still running. Glad to hear it is.
Seems worth bumping this thread to state that as of last Thursday, the SS Badger is officially a National Historic Landmark.
The Department of the Interior made the announcement, so it's the real deal this time. Hopefully it's an asset to Lake Michigan Carferry in the coming years and if nothing else, it's nice to see this vessel be honored with the desigination.
Nkp guy I can remember this time of year when their be a dozen or so Lakers laid up in the Cleveland harbor. Never forget the sight of a steamer on the horizon, seeing only the front house and stack leaving a trail of coal smoke. Some time progress sucks.
Perfectly put, Mr. Willison. I can see in my mind's eye exactly the scene you describe. In early March the boats were readied for the season and the Cuyahoga bridges began to go up & down with greater frequency. Great Lakes Towing Company's tug boats also got into the action and coal smoke scented the air of the Flats once again. Over in Ashtabula the local Catholic priest every year went down to the harbor and blessed the ore boats & their crews for the new season. (In Gates Mills, outside of Cleveland in "hunt country" the Episcopal rector used to bless the foxhounds at the start of that season!)
Speaking of ore boats and Ashtabula, I think I read that CSX is closing the loading docks there; I'll bet that's the end of the Ashtabula to Youngstown line that saw NKP 765's two fantrips last year.
Lake Erie seems empty without all those working boats.
And it will only be getting worse. Lots of depressing news over on Boatnerd.com this winter I'm afraid. The war on coal, steel dumping, and the lackluster economy is really doing a number on Great Lakes shipping right now.
Even some brand new vessels on the Canadian side may sit this season out or not come out until the Fall grain rush, leaving little hope for most of the remaining older ships like the last traditional Seawaymax vessels with forward pilothouses. There could sadly be about 10 ships on the Canadian side that sailed last year and won't be back out again, with Algoma Central alone announcing the retirement of 5 of their 24 lakers (And one of their 8 tankers).
And GATX's American Steamship Company plans to have four of their modern 70's/80's era vessels at the wall this season, including the 1000' Indiana Harbor. Canadian National's Great Lakes Fleet will have the Roger Blough and 1-2 of their 50's steamships at the wall.
And there are rumors that the FM OP's in Lower Lake's Manitoba may be forever stilled, which was the last classic Canadian built straightdecker in service.
The only forward pilothouses on the Canadian side this season may very well be the river class vessels Algoway and Algorail, with their OP's on borrowed time as their replacements take shape in Croatia for 2017, and five reflagged American hulls in the Lower Lakes fleet.
And one of those American ships in Lower Lake's Canadian fleet, the Manistee, is questionable and her likely replacement is due from China later this year. She was one of 16 wartime "Maritimers" built during the 1940's to meet cargo demands for the war effort and has carried a lot of salt and needed a lot of steel work just to sail the latter part of last year. Sounded like a temporary band-aid for a few more trips rather than a long-term fix that secured her future for 5-10 more years.
When things hopefully smooth out, the fleet on the Lakes will sadly look much different. Worst it has been since 1980, with even the recession in 2008 not having as big of an effect on the Great Lakes as we're seeing right now.
We'll sadly likely see 1/3 of the tonnage on the Canadian side disappear and see most of the idle American fleet of steamships go to scrap. Little incentive to retain tonnage that needs to be heavily upgraded to be useful, like the Edward L. Ryerson that needs to be rebuilt for self-unloading, despite decades of life left in them.
When even modern ships are sitting the season out at the wall and the picture doesn't promise to be improving, there's no sense paying dock fees for these idle classics. Hard to imagine Interlake for instance ever needing to repower the 806' John Sherwin, one of the largest ships on the Great Lakes, and install self-unloading capabilities.
That was a project that was finally announced in the summer of 2008 after she had been sitting idle all the way since the 1980 recession before I was even born. She had just arrived at the shipyard and had her steam plant ripped out when the economic mess in September 2008 hit and it was all cancelled.
She was Interlake's insurance for better times, since a modernization of her would be far cheaper than building new at a Great Lakes shipyard. Hard to imagine the dream ever happening now that they'll be lucky to keep their active fleet active.
I could even see one of the 13 thousand footers going to scrap in the next five years or entering a decades long layup like the Sherwin, but at least the Badger is safe for now. :)
Bob, we did the same thing on lake Erie in Huron and Sandusky. It was amazing to pace them when they were light, and watch the propellers thrashing 1/2 out of the water.
Its been a slow passage in the lakes since the 1990's. First the passage of steam and now the era of the forward pilot houses upon us. Time to get out the cameras.
Happily, the forward pilothouse thankfully has many more years left on the American side thanks to a handful of vessels that have been modernized or likely to be so in the near future to meet the upcoming EPA mandate. They will just have diesels in them instead.
There will still be American steam for a while yet though. Ignoring classics like the Ryerson that are in long-term layup, I still count several active steamers.
The Wilfred Sykes is busy every season just as she has been since her construction restarted the shipbuilding industry on the lakes in the late 1940's after over five years without building a new laker (Overthrowing the ill fated Carl D. Bradley long reign as "Queen of the Lakes" in the process). The Alpena, a shortened former US Steel "Super" that was converted for the cement trade back around 1990, is being rebuilt after her drydock fire this winter and will be steaming this season. And the three former US Steel AAA's sailing for GLF are still steamers and at least two should sail this season.
Two losses this winter though that were active last season. The SS John G. Munson, a contemporary of the AAA's in the US Steel fleet but built as a self-unloader in the early 50's for their Bradley cement subsidiary, is being repowered right now with state of the art MAK's. While it could very well spell the permanent retirement of one of the three AAA's (The 4 have been trading off for five years or so, taking turns sitting out each season), this assures the Munson a future as long as there's cargo to haul.
And Interlake Steamship is also repowering their final steamer, the Herbert C. Jackson, with a pair of state of the art MAK's as well.
http://www.interlake-steamship.com/index.php/news/ss-herbert-c-jackson-repowering-press-release.html
Sad, but their classic lines will keep sailing on hopefully for 30 more years.
What ever happened to the infamous Medusa Challenger?
Infamous?
This long-time favorite of many boatnerds from 1906 was renamed the St. Mary's Challenger a decade or so ago and kept steaming until the end of the 2014 season. During the winter 14/15 layup, she was turned into an articulated barge pushed by a tug in a notch in her stern.
Not aware of any major incidents during her life as a powered vessel. She was a safe and productive carrier that contributed significantly to the war effort for two world wars and enjoyed a nearly 110 year career as a powered vessel and is still earning her keep to this day, albeit in a less romantic state.
Seems safe to say that her longevity as a cargo vessel is unrivaled and more than likely will never be matched.
Skinner engine installed 1950:
and some contemporary details about the conversion are here.
Reading between the lines, the engine was not saved, which is a pity.
Sad ending for an old work horse.
Leo_AmesInfamous?
Yes. It was called that in Chicago because it was regarded as the ship with a jinx, since the bridges over the river often got stuck in the up position for hours as it passed through with a load of cement. This seemed to mostly happen with the Medusa. Obviously it was just a coincidence, but the legend stuck since it happened almost every year.
For those less familiar with Great Lakes shipping, here's some pictures of her from through the years.
Lauched in 1906 by the Great Lakes Engineering Works in Ecorse, here she is as the SS William P. Snyder, which was the name that she sailed as under the Shenango Steamship banner for the first two decades of her life.
In 1926, she was sold to the Stewart Furnance Company, a subsidiary of the Pickands Mather & Company, and renamed as the Elton Hoyt II. She was passed on to the Youngstown Steamship Company in 1929 and then to the Interlake Steamship Company in 1930, all owned by the Pickands Mather & Co.
According to the entry for her in the Great Lakes Ships We Remember book series, she indeed had a major incident in 1950 when she suffered a head-on collision with the SS Enders M. Voorhees in the Straits of Mackinac. This presumably was the impetus for a major rebuilding that season that extended her lifespan and allowed her to keep steaming into the 21st century.
During that shipyard period, her original triple reciprocating engine was replaced with a Skinner Marine Unaflow, fed by two modern oil fired water tube boilers. Renamed the Alex D. Chrisholm in 1952 to free the name for a brand new vessel, she continued for Interlake until idled in 1962 due to the explosion in laker size in the 1950's that was making scores of ships of her size obsolete. With years of life left, she was thus sold in 1966 to Medusa Portland Cement to start her 2nd career.
During her rebuilding for cement service, she received new deckhouses, including the installation of a modern pilothouse and a streamlined stack (Her 3rd, as the pictures show). In 1998, Medusa was sold to Southdown and she was renamed the Southdown Challenger. Then Cemex took ownership but before her planned renaming ever happened, she become the property of St. Mary's Cement and took on her last name as a ship.
And of course, here she is as she appears today in her 3rd major iteration, going through a lift bridge where her regular passage seems to have created a bit of a reputation.
In some ways her heavily cut down state, getting power from an outside source, and still doing a useful job is remisicent of a slug conversion.
If I may present it, here is a short lesson in the definition of two words. "Straight" means "unbending," and a straight way can be wide. "Strait" means "constricting" or "narrow," and a strait passage can be winding.
I know that, but carelessness and neglecting to reread it before hitting the post button resulted in the error.
At least I spared you from having to correct my spelling of Mackinac, since that's usually where people make their mistake. It's Mackinaw only for the village. The water passage, island, city, and the bridge and the ferry service that it replaced all use Mackinac.
Leo_Ames ... At least I spared you from having to correct my spelling of Mackinac, since that's usually where people make their mistake. It's Mackinaw only for the village. The water passage, island, city, and the bridge and the ferry service that it replaced all use Mackinac.
...
And to confuse everyone further, both spellings are pronounced Mackinaw.
The Coast Guard for a couple of decades even had a ship with each name. The famous Great Lakes icebreaker that was retired a few years ago and turned into a museum ship was the Mackinaw, while an ocean going cutter was named the Mackinac.
They built a replacement Mackinaw, but the new one looks more like (to my untrained eye) a buoy tender than an ice braker.
A lot of people around the lakes think so, too. She'll never be looked upon as attractive I think it's safe to say. Gets the job done though it seems with some major advantages over the classic Mackinaw like versatility and low running cost, and a few drawbacks as well.
One thing that I think is of concern after a few bad winters for ice until this one is downtime. Whenever she's not working due to mechanical issues, the ice breaking capability on the lakes is drastically reduced. So there's a push to build her a sistership to better handle difficult winters like we had in 2013 and 2014 that were stressing the resources to deal with ice.
Also a push right now to finally get rolling with a second Poe sized lock at Sault Saint Marie to ensure that traffic keeps flowing on even the largest of freighters if something ever knocks the Poe out for weeks or even months before repairs are completed (Such as a collapse like happened at the Canadian lock at the Soo 20 years ago or so).
Traffic may be down on the lakes, but at least there's significant investment going into the industry by both vessel operators and the government on both sides of the border to make what's left more effective and capable.
I agree that they need another Poe size lock and another big Icebraker, however, the Senate signed a resolution saying that climate change was real, so I guess they don't feel we need more icebreakers. The Canadians are building a new international bridge at Detroit for both of us, so maybe they would build a new large Soo lock. Wait, I just answered my own question. They will get their money back for the bridge from tolls, whereas I don't think there are lock tolls.
I'm not sure at the Soo, but there are user fees on the Welland Canal and St. Lawrence Seaway system (Including for Eisenhower and Snell Locks, the sole American locks in the Seaway system).
Even for Canadian ships not needing pilots due to having an experienced crew on the Seaway that has made enough trips to be qualified to sail it solo, they still have to pay tolls. They just went up 2% for this upcoming season in fact.
So I wouldn't be surprised if the US does similarly at Sault Saint Marie. [Edit: Looks like the Harbor Maintenance Fund is the avenue used to fund the Soo]
Leo_Ames Infamous? This long-time favorite of many boatnerds from 1906 was renamed the St. Mary's Challenger a decade or so ago and kept steaming until the end of the 2014 season. During the winter 14/15 layup, she was turned into an articulated barge pushed by a tug in a notch in her stern. Not aware of any major incidents during her life as a powered vessel. She was a safe and productive carrier that contributed significantly to the war effort for two world wars and enjoyed a nearly 110 year career as a powered vessel and is still earning her keep to this day, albeit in a less romantic state. Seems safe to say that her longevity as a cargo vessel is unrivaled and more than likely will never be matched.
Per Mr. Ames comment I can't think of a steam-powered vessel with that kind of service life, but there WAS a sailing ship with a service life that's got her beat.
Her name was the "Truelove," built in Philadelphia in 1764 she hauled cargo but spent most of her life as a whaler, reverting to cargo hauling in 1867. She was finally declared unseaworthy and broken up in 1888, having sailed for 124 years.
Truly remarkable. How that ship must have been built!
That's quite a life.
I'm aware of several more steel examples that are notable for their long life that continue on to this day.
Russia has a naval ship, the Kommuna, that's involved in salvage and submarine rescue duties. I believe she's still still in service despite dating from 1912, although I've heard talk of retirement and being turned into a museum ship recently. But as of last year, she was still in commission. Legend has it that her hull doesn't rust, but that the formula for the steel used on her has been lost.
And we're not talking something that's in commission for honorary purposes that perhaps isn't even afloat like HMS Victory, shore establishments like HMS Caroline was until the Royal Navy retired her recently (A WWI era cruiser that was at the Battle of Jutland), etc. But rather, a ship that's still able to move under her own power that's still doing a real job at sea.
And the Lake Champlain Transportation Company has a ferry on the Port Kent - Burlington run that was built in 1913. She's named the Adirondack and while heavily rebuilt just like the St. Mary's Challenger was, her hull largely dates from over a century ago.
Firelock76 Leo_Ames Infamous? This long-time favorite of many boatnerds from 1906 was renamed the St. Mary's Challenger a decade or so ago and kept steaming until the end of the 2014 season. During the winter 14/15 layup, she was turned into an articulated barge pushed by a tug in a notch in her stern. Not aware of any major incidents during her life as a powered vessel. She was a safe and productive carrier that contributed significantly to the war effort for two world wars and enjoyed a nearly 110 year career as a powered vessel and is still earning her keep to this day, albeit in a less romantic state. Seems safe to say that her longevity as a cargo vessel is unrivaled and more than likely will never be matched. Per Mr. Ames comment I can't think of a steam-powered vessel with that kind of service life, but there WAS a sailing ship with a service life that's got her beat. Her name was the "Truelove," built in Philadelphia in 1764 she hauled cargo but spent most of her life as a whaler, reverting to cargo hauling in 1867. She was finally declared unseaworthy and broken up in 1888, having sailed for 124 years. Truly remarkable. How that ship must have been built!
Leo_Ames Infamous? This long-time favorite of many boatnerds from 1906 was renamed the St. Mary's Challenger a decade or so ago and kept steaming until the end of the 2014 season. During the winter 14/15 layup, she was turned into an articulated barge pushed by a tug in a notch in her stern. Not aware of any major incidents during her life as a powered vessel. She was a safe and productive carrier that contributed significantly to the war effort for two world wars and enjoyed a nearly 110 year career as a powered vessel and is still earning her keep to this day, albeit in a less romantic state. Seems safe to say that her longevity as a cargo vessel is unrivaled and more than likely will never be matched. Per Mr. Ames comment I can't think of a steam-powered vessel with that kind of service life, but there WAS a sailing ship with a service life that's got her beat.
Considering the wood construction of the time - I wonder if any piece of wood made it for the entire 124 years.
Sort of like the 'antique' hammer, only had 4 new handles and 2 new heads.
Couldn't tell you if the whole, original ship made it to 124 years, the author of the book I got the story from didn't go into that kind of detail, although I'm sure there was some replacement over the years, if not hull members then the masts or spars or other scantlings around the ship.
I will say this much, most wooden ships built during the great age of sail were never expected to last that long. Fifteen to twenty years was usually the expected life, although if the ship was exceptionally well built or an exceptionally good sailer like the USS Constitution or HMS Victory and the Truelove they'd try to keep it in service as long as they possible could.
Some ships were lousy as well, they weren't all masterpieces. There were 40 men-of-war built for the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars that were so poorly built the RN crews called them "The Forty Thieves." Another story.
FWIW, the Star of India is still afloat 153 years after being built. It is part of the San Diego Maritime Museum collection.
"Star of India," absolutely right, and doesn't she still sail?
IIRC, she gets taken out a few times a year for a cruise around San Diego Bay. She's definitely the pride of the Maritime Museum.
Cool! Then I suppose we can can say that Star of India at 153 years old is the champ, still afloat and still earning her keep.
She's a museum ship though and hasn't been in commercial service since 1923.
While her longevity is no less impressive and she's still doing a job by giving pleasure and educating recent generations on maritime history, it's a bit of a different situation.
She's like someone that's retired but keeps very busy volunteering. They're still working, but they're still considered to be retired even if they're busier than they ever were when they were drawing a paycheck.
OK then, "Truelove" still has the record.
They have been dumping the coal ash into the lake for years and getting away with it.
woody9 They have been dumping the coal ash into the lake for years and getting away with it.
And was there a point to that?
Can't save the lake from everything, a little coal ash along with some coal smoke, what's better on warm summer evening. Just like old times.
There's probably enough crud and unspeakables up to and including Jimmy Hoffa on the bottom of that lake than any of us can possibly imagine.
A little coal ash now and then ain't gonna hurt it.
If you don't think coal ash hurts the Great Lakes, think again. Here is the fish consumption guide for the area of Michigan around the Badger's home port. A safe amount of ash in the lakes was passed long ago, and its going to take a long time for them to clean themselves up.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/MDCH_EAT_SAFE_FISH_GUIDE_-_NORTHWEST_MI_WEB_455357_7.pdf
OK Mike, we went 'round and 'round on this subject a while ago on another "Badger" thread, you, me, and quite a few other people.
We're not going to change each other's minds.
We'll just have to agree to disagee.
Right on fire lock, or just make the human race go away. Because regardless of what we do, we are going to harm the environment. The coal power fired steamer is an endangered species, let's try to save one.
I must say that I'm surprised that the Badger got such passionate criticism when far higher levels of mercury pollution happen around the Great Lakes with the EPA's consent, in concentrated areas, and with no public outcry.
And I'm not talking about coal fired power plants that even back in 2005 before the war on coal, accounted for less than 60% of mercury pollution going into the lakes from man-made sources. I'm talking direct dumping from industrial activities into the Great Lake's watershed, with the EPA's consent, despite controls in place meant to prevent that (I posted a report that went into some detail on this, earlier in this or the other Badger thread from a few years ago).
Or the mercury fallout from China that is far worse on the Great Lakes, I bet, than when the numbers of Great Lakes coal fired steamers were easily counted in the hundreds (That I've never read one report on the mercury problem on the lakes that ever pointed a finger towards them when discussing the historical foundation that led us to the problem that exists today).
I said this before, but hopefully these groups band together to try to really combat the problem someday, and hopefully in a more productive fashion for the best interests of everyone. Simply scuttling the offender being targeted isn't how to best do it.
The goal shouldn't be just to stop or mitigate the problem, but to do so in such a way as to also preserve jobs, our economy, and our abilty to meet the needs of today's society. Have to have factories and such for that and simply outsourcing tasks deemed undesirable to 3rd world areas like China isn't the solution even if we don't care about their own conditions or the strength of our own economy, since the mess still finds its way to our shores.
Have to lead by example and simply offshoring our problem to somewhere else with next to no environmental controls isn't how to do it.
Firelock76We'll just have to agree to disagee.
That's my feelings, too.
The merits of the Badger or the value in the objections towards her have been debated to death by now and with everyone's viewpoints well established on what happily has been resolved to most everyone's satisfaction (Other than that of a particular competitor to the Badger).
Firelock76 OK Mike, we went 'round and 'round on this subject a while ago on another "Badger" thread, you, me, and quite a few other people. We're not going to change each other's minds. We'll just have to agree to disagee.
I thought the issue was settled when the Badger owner installed the ash collection system, however, after you and the other two posters brought the subject up again, I felt the need to answer.
MidlandMike Firelock76 OK Mike, we went 'round and 'round on this subject a while ago on another "Badger" thread, you, me, and quite a few other people. We're not going to change each other's minds. We'll just have to agree to disagee. I thought the issue was settled when the Badger owner installed the ash collection system, however, after you and the other two posters brought the subject up again, I felt the need to answer.
Exactkt. The issue will never end as long as polluters continue. And using the excuse that "others are polluting" is as lame as it is when a teen tries that one on his parents in regard to other "substances."
So you're actually saying that since there is still pollution from her, that the problem hasn't been taken care of yet?
Beautiful drone piloting, beautiful camera work, beautiful ship ... and all I keep thinking about is "why can't they do something about that awful lack of good combustion?"
schlimm Exactkt. The issue will never end as long as polluters continue. And using the excuse that "others are polluting" is as lame as it is when a teen tries that one on his parents in regard to other "substances."
With respect to the lameness of excuses and the non-lameness of arguments against excuses, I believe that whatever the laws on recreational drugs, an regardless as to whether they are legal such as alcohol in most places and marijuana starting in some states, parents should have the authority to proscribe their use by their minor children.
I also believe that a municipality should have the right to ban coal-burning locomotives or ships or boats if they enact such laws, or even ban windmills or cellphone towers if that is what their residents want to do.
But the analogy between coal smoke from the SS Badger or from a restored steam locomotive and the use of recreational drugs by teens is a weak one. Is a person drawing a moral equivalence from some persons deriving recreation from a steam locomotive excursion and minor child seeking recreation from drugs or alcohol that are either illegal or illegal for that child?
Do we want or even need a zero-tolerance policy for the emission of pollutants such as coal smoke? Are we going to extend that policy to backyard cooking, wood fireplaces, bonfires, and two-stroke engines in chainsaws, string trimmers, and motor scooters, all of which give off polluting smoke?
And who are these "polluters"? The word has an air of scapegoating as in "gangs", "Wall Street", "slum lords", "monied interests", "immigrants", "international banking" or other dog-whistle terms for whoever both the Far Right and the Far Left want to blame our difficulties upon.
The polluters are you, me, and you over there, and hey, you too. To the extent that we all drive cars (and ride trains, too) and eat farmed food, transport and refrigerate that food, and heat or cool our houses or even have houses to live in instead of sod huts, we all benefit from commercial activities that include combustion of fuels, smelting of metals, synthesis of chemicals, and the disposal of wastes.
Many of us conduct our lives without partaking of recreational drugs or in some cases, without consuming more than trace amounts of alcohol. But I doubt that any of us could live without placing some waste burden in the environment. That handling our natural biological waste has become a major industrial activity in the form of sewers and treatment plants is what distinguishes a "first world" society with much lower infectious disease rates and much longer life expentancy. And that industrial activity with its own pollution problems comes into play everytime you flush.
I guess if as a society we want to ban coal-burning steam excursions and ban the SS Badger, that is a choice we can make through our representative government. And maybe breathing the coal smoke is an anachronism that we can do away with, much like I doubt the historical recreation Colonial Williamsburg doesn't require its visitors to use Colonial Period rest room facilities.
If protecting the environment is a religion, I guess we can have a Religious Police chasing down sinners such as persons enjoying a campfire or a coal-burning steam locomotive excursion. If protecting the environment, on the other hand, is a balancing act between allowing some pollution, emission, or waste discharge of minimal impact while prohibiting, restricting, or regulating more serious sources of pollution, taking into account both the quantity of the pollution as well as the benefit people derive from conducting the activity, I believe there is a place to allow the SS Badger to continue to operate.
OvermodBeautiful drone piloting, beautiful camera work, beautiful ship ... and all I keep thinking about is "why can't they do something about that awful lack of good combustion?"
Since this is an official SS Badger video, the smoke may be for effect, such as the massive plumes created in railfan photo run-bys.
Wonderful work, though.
Great video, although I personally think that the coal smoke from her stack looks pretty clean and don't understand why that's even coming up. Any good RS3 would put her to shame in the smoke department.
It goes back to what I said earlier. People like Schlimm that happily pollute themselves left and right but take offense elsewhere for their cause to stop others, aren't going to stay away from the SS Badger for long or ever admit the environmental benefits that she does provide (All the mileage saved by trucks, for instance, from driving the long way around the lake).
She's not dumping coal ash any more, but they'll be dusting off their pitchforks soon enough in the name of their varying causes. Enjoy her while you still can since she might not survive the next round in a few years time as the same old groups and individuals like the corrupt Dick Durbin reorganize for the next assault.
Meanwhile I await Schlimm making public his plans on how to mitigate his own emissions, if he indeed has the zero tolerance policy he proclaimed towards pollution of any sort from any source.
NorthWest Overmod Since this is an official SS Badger video, the smoke may be for effect, such as the massive plumes created in railfan photo run-bys.
Overmod
Guys -- it's a technical point, not a call for social responsibility or an opening for anti-coal propaganda. It's nothing that better firing or heated overfire air wouldn't solve.
Almost every shot of the Badger I have seen has involved stringy plumes of black smoke. My argument is that there should no more be black smoke from a ship operating at steady-state design horsepower than there should be from big steam running consistently at its most efficient speed.
Now, I do have to agree that I don't like gratuitous pollution, be it kids 'rolling coal' or wasteful schlock for photo runbys. But you won't hear me arguing they should be banned -- just discouraged. And there is certainly no argument that the small amount of smoke from Badger represents an infinitesimal amount of additional air-quality reduction (except perhaps when the smoke blows down across the decks -- and it turns out that some of the passengers don't like that soft-coal bouquet) just as the nominal environmental 'gain' from holding the line on NOx in the Tier 4 final spec over relaxing it to what EMD could comfortably achieve cost-effectively is out of any rational proportion to the additional expense now needed to meet that spec.
But I repeat, surely there is a way to combust the particles in that smoke and not have to watch them disperse...
Overmod But I repeat, surely there is a way to combust the particles in that smoke and not have to watch them disperse...
I certainly endorse that position.
SS Badger provides commercial lake transportation, yes, but it is as much an exhibition of historical technology as is a coal-burning steam locomotive operated in excursion service. I regard such examples of coal-fired steam power not simply as historical reenactment of how it was done back in the day but as ongoing work in that technology.
As such, I endorse the view that coal-fired steam should be operated as efficiently, effectively, and cleanly as possible. With the Skinner Uniflow engine, the Badger represents as much a pinnacle of steam technology as the Pennsy T-1. As the Badger represented the best of its kind in its heyday, I support that it be operated according to best practices by today's technology.
OvermodBut I repeat, surely there is a way to combust the particles in that smoke and not have to watch them disperse...
Perhaps, but that coal smoke from that one vessel is so insignificant it hardly matters, the same as with all the operating steam engines. You need to look at this in the greater context of things, such as the world at large, and not be so narrow minded as some of these munincipalities and regional organizations are, and I have major objections to our own Bay Area(SF, CA) Air Quality Management Districts proposal to ban wood fireplaces in ALL homes, including those already existing and insisting they be replaced with either gas(gee, lets change from wood to gas, that helps) or fake electric wood fires, just because of a few particles from the burning wood...let's not take into account the expense you'll bring upon people that MUST convert if they ever want to sell there homes(and that is exactly what the proposal would do, if it stays in it's current form, as opposed to just scrapping the idea).
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Overmod Perhaps, but that coal smoke from that one vessel is so insignificant it hardly matters, the same as with all the operating steam engines. You need to look at this in the greater context of things, such as the world at large, and not be so narrow minded as some of these munincipalities and regional organizations are, and I have major objections to our own Bay Area(SF, CA) Air Quality Management Districts proposal to ban wood fireplaces in ALL homes, including those already existing and insisting they be replaced with either gas(gee, lets change from wood to gas, that helps) or fake electric wood fires, just because of a few particles from the burning wood...let's not take into account the expense you'll bring upon people that MUST convert if they ever want to sell there homes(and that is exactly what the proposal would do, if it stays in it's current form, as opposed to just scrapping the idea).
Considering the current 'tinder nature' of a lot of California - sparks from a fireplace......
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR ... I have major objections to our own Bay Area(SF, CA) Air Quality Management Districts proposal to ban wood fireplaces in ALL homes, including those already existing and insisting they be replaced with either gas(gee, lets change from wood to gas, that helps) or fake electric wood fires, just because of a few particles from the burning wood...
You must not have spent any time in Boulder or Denver, to get an idea of what happens when widespread use of 'cheap' woodburning stoves -- even highly efficient European versions -- comes to be adopted.
The problem, as with photochemical smog from motor vehicles, isn't that 'just one more' added source causes tipover into trouble; it's that if it's legal or encouraged for one person then it has to be for everyone... and it doesn't take long before acrid, nasty woodsmoke starts to pose problems.
As a dedicated lover of wood-log fires in the fireplace -- I am singularly proud of getting one going in the taproom at the University Cottage Club, which has a roughly 12" x 12" flue 140 feet tall -- I strongly sympathize with any effort to keep Goliath from outlawing any form of wood fireplace. There is the usual Californian reliance on "fairness" that we see so often with respect to gun control, with about as much practical result vs. more well-targeted solutions. Unfortunately you'll have to have a revolution in the SF area before that would occur -- speed the day! but I don't think that's likely soon.
schlimmFrom checking online it looks like top speed of both the Nimitz and brand new Gerald Ford classes is 30-35+ mph. Maybe the true speed is classified and is a bit higher, but far from 60. The first nuclear carrier, Enterprise was almost 39 mph. By contrast, the conventional Forrestal class top speed was 39 mph; Kitty Hawks were ~37 mph.
Calculate it relative to waterline length and correct for the hydrodynamic improvements below the waterline; the additional speed above 'formula' then comes out of all proportion to the amount of shp required.
Remember that all the required horsepower has to go through the propellers with acceptable levels of cavitation; even with fancy blade shaping, bubbling and chemicals there's a limit to what you can do there. That will give you all the necessary understanding to calculate both the 'dash' speed and permissible recovery speed.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Overmod But I repeat, surely there is a way to combust the particles in that smoke and not have to watch them disperse... GERALD L MCFARLANE JR: Perhaps, but that coal smoke from that one vessel is so insignificant it hardly matters, the same as with all the operating steam engines.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR: Perhaps, but that coal smoke from that one vessel is so insignificant it hardly matters, the same as with all the operating steam engines.
Perhaps the Badger should be considered an operating museum, much like restored and operating steam locomotives? The for-profit status might need some fine tuning, but it seems like an exception can be made on that basis.
I think you have a good point. From a global stand point, the badger contributes an almost incalculable amount of pollution. She is, a living breathing window into the past. An exception needs to be made. When it comes to global pollution their are much bigger fish to fry.
IIRC the SS Badger has been designated a national historical landmark. Like tourist steam engines they seem to have an exemption on their smoke stack emissions. However, the Badgers previous problem (which they have corrected) was that they were slucing their ash pans directly into Lake Michigan. It was a difficult problem to handle on a ship, but they solved the problem. I don't think anyone would have tolerated a RR steam engine facility dumping their ashes into a river.
After seeing BaltACD's post of the drone video, I recalled recently watching a documentary video produced by the Badger people showing a lot of the onboard action both on the bridge and in the engine room. Enjoy!
Sounds like the days of the old Incan Superior, the last Great Lakes carferry, are coming to a close. She sailed from 1974-1992 hauling railcars between Thunder Bay and Superior, before moving to the Pacific Northwest where she has served since then as the Princess Superior.
But a new generation of vessels are on their way that will replace the Seaspan fleet serving the Vancouver-Vancouver Island route. Given her age, the time spent on salt water since leaving the Great Lakes in the early 1990's, and the small number of carferry routes across the world, I doubt she finds another home when retired in the coming months.
http://www.motorship.com/news101/lng/seaspan-ferries-takes-delivery-of-lng-hybrid
Leo_Ames Sounds like the days of the old Incan Superior, the last Great Lakes carferry, are coming to a close. She sailed from 1974-1992 hauling railcars between Thunder Bay and Superior, before moving to the Pacific Northwest where she has served since then as the Princess Superior. ...
Did this carferry used to haul rail cars to Vancouver Island?
Very interesting vessel, and a good looker, too. Can't seem to find out which 'General Motors' engines she has, though at 12-cylinder 2150 HP engines 645s seem plausible.
Yes, MidlandMike.
And I believe it was twin 12-645's, running at 800 rpm's or so.
Would be easy to confirm. Her 1st mate during her first seven years of operation posts at Boatnerd.com and just posted a story about her. I imagine he'd probably know. I'll ask and see what he says.
Will there be any carferries capable of handling rail cars, if the Vancouver Island line came back ?
Good question, but I'm not sure. Hopefully that's been taken into account.
As for the engines of the Incan Superior, her former 1st mate only remembered the horsepower and thought that they were GM's, but another helpful poster said that they indeed were twin 12-645E3s.
The Vancouver Island operation is still in use, though I am not sure how much trains get out of Nanaimo where the dock is. A barge is currently in use:
http://railpictures.net/photo/570443/
Ferries do seem to work well with EMD engines, with a good part of the Washington State Ferries having them. They are fun to ride on. Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJQDwGTF2Ls
Took my only trip on either the Badger (or the Spartan) back in 1963 and was impressed by the smooth docking handling coming into Ludington. Ship (boat, your choice) comes into the channel slowly, does a nice 180 turn while maintaining a small momentum toward the dock and then slows to a stop as it touches the dock. It was quite a contrast to the docking I experienced on a Staten Island ferry where the ship slid along the pole clusters pushing them a couple of feet to the side as we docked. Back in 63, the C&O ferry's were still carrying freight cars and autos were on an upper deck above the freight cars. One other memory was that the ship left Milwaukee about a minute before the scheduled 11:00 AM sailing time and I kept RR time. I watched the water churn behind the ship and there was a gap between the dock, and the ship at 10:59. It is nice to see it still operating.
On the Great Lakes, it's a boat, even when it's a 1000-foot long ore boat.
When I served aboard the USS Guam, the lifers and officers got mad if you called it a boat.
54light15When I served aboard the USS Guam, the lifers and officers got mad if you called it a boat.
How much of the Great Lakes did the USS Guam sail? Different mariners have different terminologies.
The closest we got to the great lakes was when we went from Norfolk to above the Arctic circle near Newfoundland for operations. Had to be called off, it was too damn cold! A ship can carry a boat, but a boat can't carry a ship. Salt water terminology, I guess.
The Great Lakes mariners have a terminology all their own, I've read it's because the Great Lakes sailors didn't come from salt water towns and citys as they did in the past, but from the farms and towns of the country's heartland.
But don't say they're not sailors! There's a story from World War Two, a US Navy reservist who was a Great Lakes mariner found himself on a ship caught in a full-blown North Atlantic gale. "Pretty bad, compared to the Great Lakes, huh?" a friend asked him.
"Oh yeah?" he replied. "Come try Lake Superior in November!"
Since it hasn't been mentioned, it seems apprioriate to add that the SS Badger started her season last weekend.
And yeah, you wouldn't catch me on Lake Superior in November. Spring can also bring some pretty bad storms and has been responsible for several of the significant storm losses of the past century on the Great Lakes.
This quote from Captain Jim Hobaugh of the buoy tender Woodrush about their search for survivors of the Edmund Fitzgerald, describes well just how nasty it can get out there on America's inland seas.
"We searched for three days in probably the roughest seas I've been in in my life, including the North Atlantic and hurricanes in the Gulf. Because you got three different seas from three different directions. At one point we rolled 51 degrees. It was a real quick snap roll, my XO went flying across the bridge and was actually standing on the port bulkhead. If the door had been open to the port bridge wing, he'd of went right on over the side. It was really bad..."
The ocean has swells of water that while it's rough, the ship's structure is supported. Lake Superior has a chop, which does not support the ship's structure- this caused the "Big Fitz" to break in half with a chop at the bow and at the stern leaving the middle unsupported. A friend in the Navy from Alpena, Michigan steamed on the Lakes, that's how he described it. Just out of interest, he served in ships boiler rooms, shoveling coal. 6 hours on, 6 hours off. For the first week of it he thought he was gonna die! He served with an old man who had been doing it all his life and survived by shoveling until the steam pressure went up, then sat on a coal pile and drank whisky until it was time to shovel again. Mike said that the ship was built in 1910 and this all happened in 1971.
No, she broke in half when she took a nose dive. That's something all the experts agree on due to the close proximity of the stern and bow sections on the bottom.
The opinion of Great Lakes sailors (Including the captain of the Arthur M, Anderson that was accompanying the Fitz and was in regular radio contact), the Lakes Carrier Association, Oglebay Norton/Columbia Steamship, and the initial NTSB report are that she bottomed out on Six Fathom Shoal.
The Coast Guard though got this turned around to blame the crew and deflect blame that the chart ships were using wasn't detailed enough to accurately show Six Fathom Shoal, with the NTSB then revising their conclusion to match (With some dissenters). The claim was ineffectual closure of the hatch covers, which is universally scoffed at by Great Lakes merchant mariners.
The popular opinion is that in rough seas with an inaccurate chart and a radar set that's out, that she got too close and barely bottomed out on rocks. From this point onward was when the captain was reporting that they were taking on water to the Anderson.
With the Fitzgerald gradually losing buoyancy and in a snow squall that temporary made the Anderson lose radar contact, the Anderson encountered the rare occurance of a quick succession of three huge rogue waves, nicknamed by Great Lakes sailors as the Three Sisters.
The intact Anderson survived it, but the Edmund Fitzgerald at her limits with buoyancy forward just about gone from flooding in the cargo hold, is believed to have been suddenly and catastrophically overwhelmed by one of these waves (Supported by such things as the lack of a SOS for a ship that had been in regular radio contact until moments before and no sign that the crew had time to abandon ship).
I can barely remember hearing about it, but I think that the "Carl D. Bradley" went down in Lake Michigan.
Yeah, it was Lake Michigan.
Perhaps you're thinking of the SS Daniel J. Morrell. She foundered in a November storm on Lake Huron in the mid 1960's, the 2nd most recent major storm victim on the lakes. Much like how the Bradley only had two survivors, only one man survived the sinking of the Morrell (a crewmember that just passed away not very long ago).
Come to think of it, I wonder if 54light15 was partially also thinking of this wreck. While overshadowed by the Fitzgerald a decade later, it was also pretty well known in the region (I imagine it was just a blip on the national news though, with no song immortalizing it in public consciousness nor the mystique of sinking mysteriously with all hands lost). This 60 year old freighter broke in half due to wave action much like he said did the Fitzgerald in, with the stern continuing on under its own power for several miles before finally sinking.
A sistership of the same design, the Edward Y. Townsend, suffered similar structual failure in the same storm but managed to not completely break in half. The frequency of the waves and such was just right that these two despite 60 years of reliable and safe service, were stressed in just the right way that they both suffered near identical structual failures of the hull in the same storm.
Thank God for Gordon Lightfoot! If it wasn't for his song "Wreck Of The Edmund Fitzgerald" the "Big Fitz" would be just another forgotten Great Lakes sinking, only important to the families and friends of those lost.
Probably the last great shipwreck song that will ever be written, it will live for years. The lost ones couldn't ask for a better memorial.
And about ships taking a nose dive? Several years ago I watched a video shot from a Coast Guard C-130 of a ship in distress in an Atlantic gale. A cargo vessel, it was down at the bow when a massive wave swept over the foredeck and the sea just swallowed the ship up! And in less time than it takes to tell it, gone without a trace.
Until 9/11/2001 the most bone-chilling video I'd ever seen.
Leo_AmesYeah, it was Lake Michigan. Perhaps you're thinking of the SS Daniel J. Morrell. She foundered in a November storm on Lake Huron in the mid 1960's, the 2nd most recent major storm victim on the lakes. Much like how the Bradley only had two survivors, only one man survived the sinking of the Morrell (a crewmember that just passed away not very long ago). Come to think of it, I wonder if 54light15 was partially also thinking of this wreck. While overshadowed by the Fitzgerald a decade ago, it was also pretty well known in the region (I imagine it was just a blip on the national news though, with no song immortalizing it in public consciousness nor the mystique of sinking mysteriously with all hands lost). This 60 year old freighter broke in half due to wave action much like he said did the Fitzgerald in, with the stern continuing on under its own power for several miles before finally sinking. A sistership of the same design, the Edward Y. Townsend, suffered similar structual failure in the same storm but managed to not completely break in half. The frequency of the waves and such was just right that these two despite 60 years of reliable and safe service, were stressed in just the right way that they both suffered near identical structual failures of the hull in the same storm.
Come to think of it, I wonder if 54light15 was partially also thinking of this wreck. While overshadowed by the Fitzgerald a decade ago, it was also pretty well known in the region (I imagine it was just a blip on the national news though, with no song immortalizing it in public consciousness nor the mystique of sinking mysteriously with all hands lost). This 60 year old freighter broke in half due to wave action much like he said did the Fitzgerald in, with the stern continuing on under its own power for several miles before finally sinking.
One would think the Great Lakes shipbuilding craft learned a few things about structural integrity between constructing the Morrell and Townsend in 1906 and the building of the Fitzgerald in 1958.
One of the big factors in the troubles of the Morrell and the Townsend could have been the fact that they had endured 60 years of Great Lakes stresses - metal that is continually stressed will fail at some point in time.
Wear and tear certainly was a factor. Had it been younger in the lives of these two ships that were built from the same blueprints, they very well may have been just fine.
That said, there were a lot of 600'x60' freighters of this vintage that served well past this date. Only with the arrival of 13 thousand foot giants in the US fleet and the 1980 recession that decimated the steel industry did the scores of these workhorses, the Geeps of the US flagged Great Lakes merchant fleet for 75 years, start to be paraded with regularity to the scrapyard.
Yet most lived uneventful lives until economic factors more so than old age finally did them in, and got through storms without issue even well past this date (Although I would hope heavy weather captains, happily mostly extinct today, were few and far between on these oldies by the 1970's).
So I do believe something was unusual about that storm that stressed this hull design in just the right way that it led to structual failure. If not, it's still an interesting coincidence that these two ships served for well over half a century and had their careers ended in the same storm, from similar damage.
"Said , if you don't hit them right the bow will be on one and the stern on another with the middle out of the water. Eventially something gives."
That sounds like what my friend was talking about. Supported at either end, nothing in between.
By the way, I've met Gordon Lightfoot a few times, he lives in Toronto and shows up at tributes to Stompin' Tom Conners (Canda's late poet laureate.) Man, he is OLD!
54light15That sounds like what my friend was talking about. Supported at either end, nothing in between.
I think they're looking at it too literally, as though the ship were in a bathtub and you were making a wavetrain past it.
Better to consider the effect of buoyancy due to depth of water at different parts of the hull. What you get is the stern being held up (or lifted) by the volume of water under the after part, and the bow being lifted by the incident wave, with the center part being 'undersupported' in the trough. It would not require actual lifting of the center hull out of the water with the ends supported to produce substantial strain in particular regions of the hull -- which would probably not have been designed with that particular stress mode in mind.
I was amused by the 'shipbuilding has improved between 1910 and 1958' comment. That includes the years of the impromptu learning curve in built-to-a-price welded fabrication, as in the fold-up Liberty ships. Not that I'm making fun of a welded (vs hydraulically riveted) hull, just that progress was not always forward and (as with the large liners in the very early 20th Century) there might have been significant failure modes that the designers did not properly account for, either in layout and fabrication.
54light15Ship's speeds are measured in knots, not miles per hour!
But it's relatively simple to convert from kt to mph and vice versa, to make the speeds more familiar to lay readers -- as I hope was done in those references. (I am too lazy and disgusted to check myself.)
There is no free lunch in randomly-BS-augmented numbers for "classified" top speed of displacement hulls, any more than there is any reason to presume mach-4 or higher speeds for the Archangel family of aircraft. The physics of the hull imposes the effective speed limit for non-hydrofoil ships, and this is not a situation where, say, better 'water wetting' will give you dramatic improvement in actual hydrodynamic resistance (rather than just 'skin friction') even with a Yourkevitch bow. Remember that the power to drive the Enterprise at 4kt is only about 200hp -- you could get this out of a good bass-boat outboard. Compare this with the required shp to make even the unclassified speeds, with the hydrodynamic resistance continuing to rise at corresponding scale beyond that point.
ISTR some mention of one of the non-nuclear carriers reaching 43kt (or mph, I don't remember thinking about the units at the time) at one point during aircraft recovery, which I'd think would be at the ragged edge of the possible.
Leo_AmesYeah, it was Lake Michigan. Perhaps you're thinking of the SS Daniel J. Morrell. She foundered in a November storm on Lake Huron in the mid 1960's, the 2nd most recent major storm victim on the lakes. Much like how the Bradley only had two survivors, only one man survived the sinking of the Morrell (a crewmember that just passed away not very long ago).
I worked as a deckhand on the Str. Reiss Brothers in the summer of 1967 and the recent wreck of the Daniel J. Morrell was still on everyone's mind.
The guy across the hall from me in my college dorm was on the sister ship of the Morrell and at the other end of the lake the night the Morrell sank. His description of the storm that night has stayed with me for over fifty years. I remember him saying that that night the ship's master rousted everyone out of bed and had them assemble on deck with their lifejackets on. After some time they decided the worst was over and returned to quarters. Of course, they didn't learn of their sister ship's fate until the next day when the ferocious storm had abated.
Like railroading, sailing on the Great Lakes and working on its ships is sobering, dangerous work and it has cost the lives of many men over the years.
The Bradley sank Nov. 18, 1958. Another that sank on Nov. 29, 1966, was the Daniel J. Morrell. Broke in half in Lake Huron, in 70mph winds and 25 foot waves. They abandonded ship but the stern kept going with all the lights still on for another 4 or 5 miles before sinking............. Don't remember what ship/ships my uncle was on, just remember we loaded 4 adults and 3 kids into my grandparents 16' power boat to go out on the St. Clare River to wave to him as he went by. He always tried to let my grand parents know when.
Overmod54light15 Ship's speeds are measured in knots, not miles per hour!
On the lakes they don't use that salty lingo, its miles per hour. I use to sail on LAKE michigan and they use a language all their own such as "beating to weather" is "on the buck" and off the wind is "on the slide' for "broad reach". Some of those people would go ice boating on Lake Geneva in the winter at very high miles per hour. It might have something to do with the wind velocity in the weather reports was in miles per hour. Most sailrs on Lake Michigan learned to take a marine weather radion with them before going on the lake. You had about an hour to get off the lake after you heard about a squall line going through Rockford.
I sure didn't know that lake sailors used MPH. I learn something new every day. On my ship down in the engine room we generally just used the RPM of the main shaft to guess the speed and up on the bridge, they figured it out.
creepycrankOn the lakes they don't use that salty lingo
Crews on the ore boats frequently come from the Midwest's cities and farms, hence:
* for starters, they are called "boats" and not ships; (I'd like to see a ship attempt to launch one of these "boats");
* the "bow" is often called "up front", (I've even heard it termed "the pointy end"!);
* the "stern" is "the ass end";
* a "gunwale" is "the fence" (well, in fairness it consists of two wire ropes threaded through uprights, so it does resemble a fence);
* every door to the outside has a screen door;
* lake depths are often referred to in feet, not fathoms.
Two big takeaways from my time on the boats:
1. Hardest physical labor I have ever done, before or since;
2. Some of the best food I have ever eaten (and as much as a hungry college kid could want). Also, Best. Coffee. Ever. (Served in classic white china mugs.)
"The pointy end" "The ass end." Now, that's nautical!
I believe that the bridge was referred to as "the porch".
I am tempted to point out that a Cleveland Steamer is so called not for its reeking reminiscence of the old Cuyahoga but for its resemblance to a well-rusted whaleback ore boat...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.