Boatnerd Discussion Forum

I definitely agree about the internals being different for each company's needs. I was referring to the hull shape, not the internal design of the holds and tank arrangements. The Ryerson is definitely one of a kind in that aspect.

One of the big advantages of the Ryerson design was the ballast arrangement. She carried her ballast all the way to the spar deck. The tunnel was on the inside edge of the side tank and the side tanks were separated from the double bottom tanks. Because of this, she could remove the ballast very rapidly. Man times we loaded her at the Superior docks in under 2 hours. 26,000 tons in under two hours included pumping the ballast out. I don't ever remember her with any ballast in the double bottom tanks. Cleaning the mud out of her had to be a lot easier from the side tanks rather than the double bottom tanks.

While on the subject of cubes what was the purpose in building a ship that could only haul ore I understand it was a steel company but even hauling ore its not like it could carry anymore than a regular 730 and that goes for any ship with low cubic capacity.

[quote="Gerard Lawson"]That would be like saying that all canoes were built from the same plans because of the shape of their bows. The plans and the engineering for the Edward L. Ryerson were done for and paid for and owned by Inland Steel. Those plans were the property of Inland Steel and I would be surprised if they let some other fleet use them. I personally know that the internal structure is completely different as I have been through just about every part of both vessels during the time that I was the Agent for both of them.[/quote]

Your response brings up another question. How are the cargoes arranged for ships?

[quote="WA 4659"]
I have heard that the Ryerson hull was closely replicated in the Montrealais and Quebecois. I tend to believe this is a possiblity having looked at the bows and sterns of each. The hull shape is similar with the deck rise, the bow shape, though less flared, and the stern with the way the water flows, is all very similar.[/quote]

Papachristidis' [i]Montrealais[/i] (1962) and [i]Quebecois[/i] (1963) were Canadian Vickers builds that closely followed Vickers' design for the [i]John A. France[/i], built in 1960 for Misener (same year as the [i]Ryerson [/i] came out). Near-sisters included [i]J.N. McWatters[/i] (1961), [i]Don-de-Dieu[/i] b) [i]V.W. Scully[/i] (1965), and [i]Maplecliffe Hall[/i] (1966) While I'd agree to some superficial similarities in appearance, it's worth reiterating that the Vickers design was for maximum cubics, whereas this priority did not exist for captive-fleet vessels like [i]Ryerson[/i].

I never noticed the flared top of the bow on the Ryerson or Cornelius until this thread. Looks more like an ocean-goer of the era. Was this design unique to these two boats? A quick search of other Manitowoc boats didn't turn up any others. (Detroit Edison, John G. Munson etc.)

Ryerson's hatch covers are aluminum.

Technically the Ryerson does have "Wood Patent Hatches". They were patented by Capt. Joseph Wood in the 1920's and installed on the Willam C. Atwater. This is the common one piece design, later versions fitted with "Kestner Clamps" which snap on and off with a wrench instead of a button on at threaded rod being used to clamp them down. They just are bigger hatches and not on 24 foot centers.

I have heard that the Ryerson hull was closely replicated in the Montrealais and Quebecois. I tend to believe this is a possiblity having looked at the bows and sterns of each. The hull shape is similar with the deck rise, the bow shape, though less flared, and the stern with the way the water flows, is all very similar.

I will try to address two issues. First "wood patent hatches" has nothing to do with either ship. The [i]Ryerson[/i] has 1-piece steel hatches (stacked 4-high when loading or unloading). The [i]Cornelius[/i] had steel teiescoping hatches on 12-foot centers (she was the last laker built with telescoping hatches).
As for Mr. Lawson's comment, the framing sure was different. Besides 24' centers vs. 12' centers, the [i]Cornelius[/i] had a unique hull design in which the 1st 12 or so hatches were 6' above the rest of the spar-deck (adding extra capacity to make up for that lost by the unloader). The [i]Ryerson[/i] was designed to carry heavy, dense iron ore; optomizing cubic capacity was not a consideration. The [i]Cornelius[/i] was the ultimate in "cubic" boats. She was designed to carry the maximum amount of coal, stone, (sometimes grain) that could be squeezed into a hull of her dimensions. As far as similarities go, she is much closer in design to fellow Manitowoc ships, the [i]John J. Boland/Saginaw[/i] and the [i]John G. Munson[/i].
I hate to say it because I 1st sailed with Inland, and think they were the best fleet on the Lakes, whereas I've worked for ASC & have a much lower opinion of them. But if any "copying" were done it would have been Inland copying ASC's design as the [i]Cornelius[/i] came out in 1959, the [i]Edward L. Ryerson[/i] came out in 1960. However, I am sure there was no "copying", as the two ships are so different.

What does the reference to "wood patent hatches" have to do with any of the boats mentioned in the post about similarities? To the best of my knowledge, wooden hatches had long since disappeared by the time those boats were built.

That would be like saying that all canoes were built from the same plans because of the shape of their bows. The plans and the engineering for the Edward L. Ryerson were done for and paid for and owned by Inland Steel. Those plans were the property of Inland Steel and I would be surprised if they let some other fleet use them. I personally know that the internal structure is completely different as I have been through just about every part of both vessels during the time that I was the Agent for both of them.

I think you meant Arthur B. Homer and not the William Clay Ford.....or, even better, Herbert C. Jackson and Edmund Fitzgerald.

There are some similarities the bow shape is virtually the same as is the configuration of the stern cabins. It's kind of like in the situation of the William Clay Ford and and the Edmund Fitzgerald, although they're NOT sisters the Fitzgerald did have some details that were super sized or fancier versions of what was on the Clay Ford. It's like kids if they have the same parent they may not be twins but they have aspects in common, same goes for ship yards. The spar deck arrangement is different (telescoping vs wood patent hatches) and the interior of the holds are different but as for framing and construction style it's similar.

Look closely at these they have the same "flat spot" over the bow fair-lead, and very similar configurations of the after cabins, but different life-boar davits, mast, and stack. Under the skin there's probably some more similarities.
[img]http://www.boatnerd.com/pictures/fleet/thumbb/4elr211-18-06gw.jpg[/img]

[img]http://cdn2.shipspotting.com/photos/middle/2/1/4/67412.jpg[/img]

I have heard the comment that the Adam E. Cornelius (3) (Sarah Spencer) and Edward L. Ryerson shared many of the same hull design characteristics. I know they were built in the same shipyard with the Cornelius (3) being built immediately before the Ryerson. Other than their dimensions (and obviously the cabin arrangement) how closely related were these two ships? Thanks for any insights.