Boatnerd Discussion Forum

by **guest** » January 7, 2020, 5:02 pm

All of the work listed previously was optional on the owners part with the focus on crew comfort and trade efficiencies. Requirements for the "Canadianization" aspect deal mainly with safety. So, in addition to that listed she also had a new fire detection system, internal phone system, water mist system for the E/R, fire doors, fire dampers, quick closing valves, PA system, additional SCBA's, just to name a few items. The list is pretty extensive.

by **Guest** » January 7, 2020, 12:11 pm

I do agree with Guest I'd rather sail on the worst ship in the world with a great crew, than a great ship with a bad crew!

by **Shipwatcher1** » January 7, 2020, 7:32 am

guest wrote:For the last two seasons the Compass has performed flawlessly. She has had her accommodations cleaned up and modernized, her bridge gutted and upgraded, her hull blasted and painted, her cargo holds blasted and painted, her two M/E overhauled & cooling system improved, her SU system has gone through and continues to be upgraded, and her crew, both officers and unlicensed, have enjoyed their time on board.
Yes, she is lightly built, but given her age she is in very good condition, as are most ships that have traded mainly in the upper great lakes.

I find it strange to hear negative comments from previous crew members; for after 45 years sailing I can say I have enjoyed every ship I have had the pleasure of working on. Sure they all had quirks, but at the end of the day it's the crew that make the job enjoyable, not the ship itself.

When a ship is brought under Canadian registry, they have to be upgraded to meet current standards, right? If so, that would explain the scope of all that work performed.

by **Guest** » January 7, 2020, 6:31 am

Well said guest

by **guest** » January 6, 2020, 9:54 pm

For the last two seasons the Compass has performed flawlessly. She has had her accommodations cleaned up and modernized, her bridge gutted and upgraded, her hull blasted and painted, her cargo holds blasted and painted, her two M/E overhauled & cooling system improved, her SU system has gone through and continues to be upgraded, and her crew, both officers and unlicensed, have enjoyed their time on board.
Yes, she is lightly built, but given her age she is in very good condition, as are most ships that have traded mainly in the upper great lakes.

I find it strange to hear negative comments from previous crew members; for after 45 years sailing I can say I have enjoyed every ship I have had the pleasure of working on. Sure they all had quirks, but at the end of the day it's the crew that make the job enjoyable, not the ship itself.

by **Guest** » January 6, 2020, 9:19 pm

Hulls 901, 902 were built for Kinsman. Hull 903 was built for Kinsman but ended up in the Columbia Transportation fleet due to anti-trust violations by Kinsman when they purchased the Wildon fleet and were forced to divest most of their fleet; either through sales to other operators or scrappings.

Of course, Hulls 901 and 902 were first operated by Kinsman but in 1975 they went to Columbia's, Pringle Transit subsidiary due to different union affiliations.

ASC's Hull 201 was to have a sister, but with a 45-foot hull depth.

by **Guest** » January 6, 2020, 6:47 pm

orangeshirt wrote:It was always my impression that hulls 901, 902, 903 (Lorain) and hull 201 (Toledo) were built to bare minimums, no extras. Just enough to be functional, no frills. I remember be told at the time they were being built that they were designed to last twenty years. There is a huge difference between them and the previous boat (Roger Blough) and the Footers that were built later. If you didn't know better, you wouldn't think they came from the same shipyard. I went out on sea trials on the 901 (William R. Roesch), Hull 201 (Roger M. Kyes) and hull 903 (Wolverine) and remember thinking at the time, Wow, This is the future? Hull 904 was cancelled and never built. The footers that came later were much, much better. In today's terminology, I guess you could say the 901, 902, 903 and 201 were not user friendly and un-ergonomic. However, they do have nice lines and looked good on the outside when cleaned up.

Weren't these ships originally intended to be built by American Ship Building on speculation of selling them to other operators? Or did the respective companies for which they entered service contract them?

by **orangeshirt** » January 6, 2020, 3:42 pm

It was always my impression that hulls 901, 902, 903 (Lorain) and hull 201 (Toledo) were built to bare minimums, no extras. Just enough to be functional, no frills. I remember be told at the time they were being built that they were designed to last twenty years. There is a huge difference between them and the previous boat (Roger Blough) and the Footers that were built later. If you didn't know better, you wouldn't think they came from the same shipyard. I went out on sea trials on the 901 (William R. Roesch), Hull 201 (Roger M. Kyes) and hull 903 (Wolverine) and remember thinking at the time, Wow, This is the future? Hull 904 was cancelled and never built. The footers that came later were much, much better. In today's terminology, I guess you could say the 901, 902, 903 and 201 were not user friendly and un-ergonomic. However, they do have nice lines and looked good on the outside when cleaned up.

by **GuestfromEU** » January 6, 2020, 6:44 am

Some thoughts:

The Compass, like the other AmShip builds of similar design, are horrid ships. Built like a tin can and as cheap as possible, nonetheless, they have made money for their owners several times over by now. To be fair, the BayShip 1970's builds were not anything special either, especially when compared to new ships (even the new China-built Equinox and Trillium class).

The Compass and Buffalo have EMD engines, which cannot burn IFO. The price differential between High Sulphur FO and Low Sulphur MGO is near 100% right now.

The newbuilds have better coatings in the tunnel and cargo holds compared to the Compass and Buffalo. These newer, better coatings have better resistance to the corrosive effects of salt cargoes. I do not know if the Buffalo or Compass have Teflon linings in the cargo holds.

As another poster noted, the Equinox-class has a larger carrying capacity as well. That is a major deciding factor when assigning ships orders.

by **guest** » January 6, 2020, 5:18 am

Algoma did a forebody replacement on the Algobay now Radcliffe R Latimer And where going to do the Algoport but it was lost on the trip over to china.

by **Denny** » January 5, 2020, 10:29 pm

When the Algoma Compass once sailed for American Steamship and then later went on charter to Inland Steel in the 1990s, I sure thought at that time that she looked GREAT in Inland Steel colors! When she returned to ASC after the charter to Inland Steel later on that is, needless to say she never looked as good or great as she did during her charter and time with Inland Steel. Just my opinion and two cents only here on this.

by **Guest** » January 5, 2020, 9:37 pm

What is it about the Algoma Compass (ex. Roger M, Kyes, ex. Adam E. Cornelius) that makes the crews consider it "junk"? People are making a blanket statement that "she's junk" but how does she compare to other ships built at the same time, such as John J. Boland (ex. Charles E. Wilson)? Both ships use EMD engines, so it can't be that.

Is it the crews quarters, sound deadening, fit and finish?

Frankly, I've always been surprised that neither Upper Lakes nor Algoma Central did a mid-life rebuild of their 1970s/1980s built self-unloaders ships with new forebodies as CSL did in the late 1990s/early 2000s. Algoma Central obviously decided to "do without" and that a mid-life rebuild wasn't the best use of shareholder and banks money. But Upper Lakes, being a pioneer of constructing fore-body replacements for existing ships (such as Canadian Navigator and Canadian Prospector), would seem to me of being a natural to undertake such a program on ships such as Canadian Progress and Canadian Olympic.

by **Guest** » January 5, 2020, 8:18 pm

Don't forget that banks require a minimum revenue target. If your revenue goes below a certain level, then cuts have to be made - and often that means jobs are lost.

In shipping, it's "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without."

by **Guest** » January 5, 2020, 6:20 pm

tugboathunter wrote:The Compass was not well-liked among ASC crewmembers either, I think the consensus is that it has always been a piece of junk.

That's a pity. I rather like her unique look.

by **Guest** » January 5, 2020, 5:38 pm

Does the Compass have EMD's and how do they compare to the MAK's in the Aird and Wood I know the MAK's had more horsepower and could burn heavy fuel.

by **Guest** » January 5, 2020, 5:35 pm

Hausen said it correctly some times ideas to us regular working folk don't make sense which in a publicly traded company usually means more money for shareholders,thats why sometimes you will see very shortsighted decisions like slight downturn in economy close mill that makes the least money strip it and sell parts shows on the books like we made profits CEO gets bonus everyone happy except workers who lost jobs! Im sure Algoma did the math cheaper to buy and run Compass than put needed repairs into the other 3.

by **Guest** » January 5, 2020, 5:12 pm

AMEN to that. I crewed it in 1974 as temp watchman and couldn’t wait to get off her. Buddy of mine sailed her in the 90s when it was chartered to Inland Steel. He said he hated it so bad he almost quit sailing, lol.

by **tugboathunter** » January 5, 2020, 2:04 pm

The Compass was not well-liked among ASC crewmembers either, I think the consensus is that it has always been a piece of junk.

by **hausen** » January 5, 2020, 1:34 pm

Guest wrote:Everyone understands the purchase of the Buffalo to augment and replace the 650s nobody understands the Compass, the Lake,Aird, and Wood were such nicer ships guys were saying they didn't know who they P O"d to get stuck on the Compass.

The Compass isn't that different in size from the new river class ships Algoma has ordered. 680' x 78' vs 650' x 78'. Even if the Lake, Aird, & Wood started out as good ships they must've been pretty beaten up and worn out by the end of their lifespans. Although the Compass is often described as a ship of rather "basic" quality, her hull and holds might've been in better shape. The Lake, Aird, and Wood had long careers of hauling salt, squeezing through multiple locks per trip on the Welland / Seaway, and/or operating in salt water out past Quebec City. Compass has not spent much time doing those things that are notoriously hard on Canadian lakers.

Algoma might view the Compass as a temporary holdover until replaced by future fleet expansion, or as a cheap buy / marginal carrier that they can operate when times are busy for river class contracts. The purpose of that organization is profit. Their main priority is to maximize the amount of company-generated revenue that can be extracted from company operations and paid out to shareholders on a relatively short-term time scale. That often makes for decisions that leave the people who do the work on the ships and the people with big-picture views about what a healthy, long-lived shipping operation looks like scratching their heads.

by **Guest** » January 4, 2020, 2:08 pm

Guest wrote:Everyone understands the purchase of the Buffalo to augment and replace the 650s nobody understands the Compass, the Lake,Aird, and Wood were such nicer ships guys were saying they didn't know who they P O"d to get stuck on the Compass.

They wouldn't have been able to get the Compass without getting the others.

Boatnerd Discussion Forum

Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.

Re: Algoma Buffalo and Compass Layup.