by Andrew » April 20, 2022, 11:19 am
This thread is liable to generate quite a bit of conversation, because there are plenty of rumors as to why.
The truth: the Arthur B. Homer was just another casualty of the downturn of the 80s, especially in the wake of Bethlehem owning three new 1000 footers. In fact, Bethlehem was originally going to have a fourth, but because of the 80s downturn, it didn't happen. Many of the casualties of the 80s were old, outdated ships that were being replaced by the 1000 footers, but some, like the William Clay Ford, George M. Humphrey, and Arthur B. Homer were scrapped because their owners were not in a good economic situation. Had they been converted to self-unloaders, chances are much higher that they would have been sold to other companies, but other companies didn't want the financial burden of having to convert them.
The rumor mill: Dudley Paquette and a number of people in the know, including some people who supposedly had ties to Fraser and the NTSB claimed that the vessel was not seaworthy and had some structural issues. Paquette's supposed proof of this was that the president of NTSB, who rode along on the Edward L. Ryerson when he was captain, told Dudley that he had requested to take a trip on the Homer and was denied by Bethlehem. Further supposed "proof" is that the Homer is the sister to the Fitz, and that she was structurally unsound. Claims made about the Fitz were naturally made about the Homer after the sinking- frankly, many people I believe made too much of the connection of the Morrell and Townsend and applied it to the Homer and Fitz. Since Paquette argues a stress fracture sank the vessel, the claim is that the keel and hull plating being erroneous is a key part of the argument. Logically, then, one would assume the same of the Homer. Certain people even go farther and claim that Oglebay Norton and other execs wanted to make sure the Homer never got examined and that's why she was mothballed and eventually scrapped. The size of the vessel at the time of scrapping- 826 feet- is what people think is odd. People argue that the vessel was too big to logically be scrapped (even though there was talk of footers and the Blough going to scrap during this time!).
I don't buy any of the rumors. I think it was just a classic case of a fleet that couldn't afford to run her anymore, and yet another example of a vessel gone well before her time. Any connection to the Fitz is simply that they were sisters. Despite what people say about the Fitz, the issues she had, while not common, did occur from time to time, and she was the workhorse of the fleet, so wear and tear was expected. I don't think a 17 year old ship sinks because she's already starting to fall apart, especially when we have ships four times her age still plying the lakes with no issues.
This thread is liable to generate quite a bit of conversation, because there are plenty of rumors as to why.
The truth: the Arthur B. Homer was just another casualty of the downturn of the 80s, especially in the wake of Bethlehem owning three new 1000 footers. In fact, Bethlehem was originally going to have a fourth, but because of the 80s downturn, it didn't happen. Many of the casualties of the 80s were old, outdated ships that were being replaced by the 1000 footers, but some, like the William Clay Ford, George M. Humphrey, and Arthur B. Homer were scrapped because their owners were not in a good economic situation. Had they been converted to self-unloaders, chances are much higher that they would have been sold to other companies, but other companies didn't want the financial burden of having to convert them.
The rumor mill: Dudley Paquette and a number of people in the know, including some people who supposedly had ties to Fraser and the NTSB claimed that the vessel was not seaworthy and had some structural issues. Paquette's supposed proof of this was that the president of NTSB, who rode along on the Edward L. Ryerson when he was captain, told Dudley that he had requested to take a trip on the Homer and was denied by Bethlehem. Further supposed "proof" is that the Homer is the sister to the Fitz, and that she was structurally unsound. Claims made about the Fitz were naturally made about the Homer after the sinking- frankly, many people I believe made too much of the connection of the Morrell and Townsend and applied it to the Homer and Fitz. Since Paquette argues a stress fracture sank the vessel, the claim is that the keel and hull plating being erroneous is a key part of the argument. Logically, then, one would assume the same of the Homer. Certain people even go farther and claim that Oglebay Norton and other execs wanted to make sure the Homer never got examined and that's why she was mothballed and eventually scrapped. The size of the vessel at the time of scrapping- 826 feet- is what people think is odd. People argue that the vessel was too big to logically be scrapped (even though there was talk of footers and the Blough going to scrap during this time!).
I don't buy any of the rumors. I think it was just a classic case of a fleet that couldn't afford to run her anymore, and yet another example of a vessel gone well before her time. Any connection to the Fitz is simply that they were sisters. Despite what people say about the Fitz, the issues she had, while not common, did occur from time to time, and she was the workhorse of the fleet, so wear and tear was expected. I don't think a 17 year old ship sinks because she's already starting to fall apart, especially when we have ships four times her age still plying the lakes with no issues.