Steve Bratina wrote:A question from a novice in ships. With the economic advantage that ships have to haul goods, is it because there is nothing to fill the holds with at this time that we are getting rid of good ships? ... I would also think that the price of scrapping a vessel in good condition would not even cover the cost of a new boat.
I don't think Algoma is getting rid of a ship in good condition in this case. What's being communicated in this thread is that
Richelieu /
Algocape was most certainly a good ship, and likely lasted longer than her designers intended. Like most Canadian lakers, she spent a significant part of her career in the salt water of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, however, and that wreaked havoc on much of her internal steel (ballast tanks and systems, etc.). She was a gearless bulker meaning shoreside equipment did the job of unloading her. About half of the cargoes she delivered over the years were iron ore / iron ore pellets, and that shoreside unloading process can be less than kind to cargo hold steel. If I'm not mistaken, word around here for the last few years was that
Algocape was pretty worn out and had gotten to the point where continuing to replace the rotten steel throughout her tanks and holds was no longer going to be cost-effective.
Steve Bratina wrote:
Has there ever been any thought of just having a mass storage location like the U S does with Navy ships?
There have certainly been times and locations when this has effectively happened, though the decisions on whether, where, and when to place ships into long-term layup is the domain of the owning company, and to my knowledge has never been coordinated on a larger scale on the Great Lakes. One of the bigger examples: as the massive U.S. Steel fleet began showing its age, natural ore deposits were exhausted, and the U.S. economy experienced cyclical downturns from the late 1950s through the 1970s, U.S. Steel periodically had many ships in long-term layup at several locations around the Great Lakes, especially places like Duluth-Superior and Milwaukee. Other American companies often had similar layup fleets at ports like Buffalo and especially Toledo. There have been many, many occasions where the economy picked up or another company purchased a laid-up laker with a new trade in mind, and ships that had been in layup for years returned to service. On the Canadian side, the grain trade out of Thunder Bay saw some big fluctuations during its long overall decline from the boom years of the late '70s -early '80s down to the relatively stable levels reached in the early 2000s and continued today. Some seasons rode the ever-decreasing average, some seasons saw sharp temporary upticks in the amount of grain going down the Seaway. While this process unfolded (and while the large fleet of 1960s-vintage bulkers was still younger and in better shape), Canadian companies held many ships in reserve at ports like Thunder Bay, Sarnia, Toronto, and Montreal during the quieter years or seasons, and activated them during busier times.
Today, Lower Lakes Towing holds the retired laker
CTC No. 1 in reserve as a replacement for a future retirement from its fleet. Interlake Steamship Company's
John Sherwin, in long-term layup since 1981, has come very close several times to being reactivated, and rumors are circulating again about her being towed to Sturgeon Bay for the work that would be necessary to bring her back to service. American Steamship Co. is holding on to the
American Victory at Superior and the
American Valor and
American Fortitude at Toledo, and Arcelor-Mittal has the
Edward L. Ryerson at Superior as well. All of these ships are held in long-term layup because those companies know that these ships are still in great shape and it's much more expensive to build new American freighters than it would be to return these ships to service if demand were to increase.
