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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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?
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
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Yeah, but I bet its Diesel . . . or worse yet, a gas turbine
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
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.
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
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.
Either way, both the badger and the RMS segwum, are treasures in their own rights.
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/
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.
Awe man, what good is steamer if you can't enjoy the smells and sounds. Although the crossing's is always fun.
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.
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 should, realistically one old coal-burner isn't going to have any perceptible environmental impact.
A fine old ship, god hope the epa will allow her to live.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.