Boatnerd Discussion Forum

Chief wrote:The one thing that killed the Clay and Homer was when they were lengthened. If they had been left at the length they were built at there is a good chance that they could have been sold Canadian and probably would have survived into the 90's. As for the Fitz I still don't understand the fascination people have with her. Many other ships have gone to the bottom and you hear very little about them. Is it the mystery involved in that no one knows what happened to her or the song about her sinking?

The fascination is she sank in what is considered modern times. Besides access to weather forecasting she had radar and radio. Add that she sank without a radio call and with her entire crew the reason for her loss makes for endless conjecture by everyone from experts to casual observers. The result is a modern day titanic type mystery.

When the Fitzgerald was lost, Oglebay Norton's Columbia Transportation Division was undergoing a major fleet renewal process that lasted into the early 1980s. For example, in 1974 the newly-built Wolverine entered service, the lengthened Armco reentered service, and two of their straight deck bulk carriers, the J. Burton Ayers and Crispin Oglebay, were converted into self-unloaders. Additionally, the Reserve was lengthened from 647 to 767 feet in 1975. The lengthening of the Armco and Reserve combined with a drop in ore movements during this timeframe most likely negated the immediate need for a direct replacement for the Fitzgerald. During 1975-76, the Paul Thayer and William R. Roesch were acquired from Kinsman and placed into operation under a subsidiary named the Pringle Transit Company. Following the loss of their flagship, Oglebay Norton continued its fleet renewal process with the purchase of the Ernest T. Weir in 1978, and the building of the of Fred R. White Jr. in 1979, and finally the construction of the 1,000 foot Columbia Star in 1981. Between 1981 and 1983, four ships were converted into self-unloaders, these being the Armco, Courtney Burton, Middletown, and Reserve. Incidentally, the mention of Oglebay Norton considering the purchase of the Sparrows Point made by a previous poster, later came to fruition when this ship was acquired from Bethlehem Steel in 1991 and renamed the Buckeye.

Yes the Courtney Burton was the flagship. I don't recall hearing that the Columbia Star was ever the flagship of the fleet as I believe it was always the Burton for ON. Basically I was referring to the ships that Oglebay Norton had on their roster during the 1975 season up until the 1980's when we had the economic disaster and many lakers were laid-up and some went to scrap. If the Fitz had not sank and would have later been sold for scrap, "What ship do you think from ON might have been the new flagship?" Before the Fitz was the flagship and built in 1958, I believe I heard the Armco was once the flagship and also before the Armco was built it was the Frantz at one time as well.

I believe the Courtney Burton became the flagship until the Columbia Star came into service.

I do have a few thoughts and a question or two in adding to the thread. No pun intended but, when the Fitz was built in 1958 she was chartered to Oglebay Norton on a 25 year lease which was to expire in 1983. Also, she was owned by Nortwestern Mutual Life but chartered to ON and was also their "flagship as well." If she would have survived that night of November 10, 1975 it remains to be seen if she would have been converted or scrapped based solely on speculation. However, assuming then that she would've been scrapped what vessel in the ON fleet would have become their new flagship? If memory serves me correctly, didn't she end up (the Fitz) replacing the Armco which was the former flagship?

Let me put out a few statistics, in 1975 89.5 millions nets tons of ore was hauled (includes US and Canada). That was down from a peak of 105.9 million in 1973. The year 1975 was down due to the severe 1973-75 recession. Ore demand didn't reach a peak until 1979 when 103.1 million tons was hauled. 1980/81 was another recession period and in 1980 only 81.7 millions tons was moved, while there was slight recovery in the first part of 1981, until the bottom dropped out in September of that year. Still 83.9 million tons was hauled. Demand kept dropping in 1982 at only 43.1 million tons. It wasn't until 1998 that demand reached a post-1982 peak of 72.3 million tons.

It's true that Oglebay Norton didn't seek out a replacement for the Fitz right away. Instead they fitted out the Thomas Wilson and William A. Reiss in 1976 as replacements until more economical tonnage could be found. They found it in the Ernest T. Weir, though at one time they were looking at the Sparrows Point. Sparrows Point had been damaged in the St. Lawrence Seaway in the Fall of 1977, and she had been laid-up at American Shipbuilding in Lorain, Ohio while Bethlehem Steel decided if they should put the considerable sums of money into her repair or sell her to another operator. Bethlehem decided to keep her.

Now, as for whether the William Clay Ford and Arthur B. Homer should have been kept at their original lengths and possible sold Canadian. They would not have been efficient at carrying grain.

As an example, the Arthur B. Homer (before lengthening) had a wheat capacity of 18,750 tons. Compared to a similar-sized Canadian ship from around the same time period (Comeaudoc). The Comeaudoc had a capacity of 24,420. Nearly 5,700 tons more than the Homer. The Canadian and American bulkers in that era were built for different trades.

The American straight-deckers were designed to haul iron ore, with the occasional coal or stone cargo. Very rarely grain. The Canadian bulkers, on the other hand, were built to carry grain to the St. Lawrence and back-haul iron ore back to the Great Lakes.

scott wrote:Also, consider the possibility that the Fitz had survived November 1975 but with storm damage. Would she have even been repaired?

Without the foresight of what would occur over the next 10 years, and given the economic conditions of the mid 1970s, there is every reason to believe the Fitzgerald would have been repaired unless the damage was so severe it outweighed the expenditure. If in fact, the Fitzgerald would have not been repaired it is possible that a second unit such as the Fred R. White Jr. (American Courage) would have been built. Although its a common assumption that the Ernest T. Weir was purchased solely to replace the Fitzgerald, this may not be entirely true. The Weir became excess tonnage in the National Steel fleet following the construction of their 1000 foot George A. Stinson (American Spirit) in 1978. That same year Oglebay Norton purchased the Weir, renaming it Courtney Burton. I would venture to say the three year interval between the Fitzgerald sinking and the Weir purchase makes me somewhat suspect that it was acquired to directly replace the tonnage of their lost ship (I have never seen any reference to Oglebay Norton chartering this or any other vessel following the loss of the Fitzgerald). Furthermore, following the Weir purchase, the Ashland and Thomas Wilson were both idled at end of the 1979 season, well before the dramatic changes in the steel industry during the early to mid-1980s. In the end, this is just conjecture on my part. It would be interesting to hear from anyone connected with Oglebay Norton at the time to relate what impact the loss of the Fitzgerald had on their shipping operations.

Chief wrote: As for the Fitz I still don't understand the fascination people have with her. Many other ships have gone to the bottom and you hear very little about them. Is it the mystery involved in that no one knows what happened to her or the song about her sinking?

I think that the fascination is with the fact that it happened in "modern" times, and as you stated - no one knows exactly what caused her to go down. There are tons of theories, but no hard facts.

Chief wrote:The one thing that killed the Clay and Homer was when they were lengthened. If they had been left at the length they were built at there is a good chance that they could have been sold Canadian and probably would have survived into the 90's. As for the Fitz I still don't understand the fascination people have with her. Many other ships have gone to the bottom and you hear very little about them. Is it the mystery involved in that no one knows what happened to her or the song about her sinking?

Those two would be no good for Canadian fleets due to their poor cubic capacity as ore carriers, making them inefficient in the grain trade. This is the same reason the Ryerson and the Falk/Carnahan etc. were laid up or sold for scrap instead of being re flagged.

The one thing that killed the Clay and Homer was when they were lengthened. If they had been left at the length they were built at there is a good chance that they could have been sold Canadian and probably would have survived into the 90's. As for the Fitz I still don't understand the fascination people have with her. Many other ships have gone to the bottom and you hear very little about them. Is it the mystery involved in that no one knows what happened to her or the song about her sinking?

I would also think that if she did not go down in 75' very few of us here would be taking about her or her uneventful career.

All very good points indeed. I had forgotten that the Stewart J Cort came online in 1972, so in 1975 events were already in motion to replace many smaller lakers. Knowing how events unfolded with the coming of the "supercarrier" 1,000 footers, it's easy to assume that the Mighty Fitz would have been scrapped. Also, consider the possibility that the Fitz had survived November 1975 but with storm damage. Would she have even been repaired? The days of the straight Decker were coming to a sad ending.

As I said earlier, the Ernest T. Weir was purchased as a replacement for the Fitz and that she was converted to a self-unloader two years after her purchase indicates to me that the Fitz would have been converted to a self-unloader. Oglebay Norton in the late 70s wanted to replace their older self-unloaders (G.A. Tomlinson, W.W. Holloway, J.R. Sensibar and Sylvania) with self-unloader conversions of their most modern straight-deckers (Armco, Reserve, Courtney Burton and Middletown.

Many in the steel industry in the early 80s thought that the downturn was a temporary lull and that the industry would come roaring back. Of course it didn't.

Take for example the William Clay Ford. During the winter of 1982-83 she had a new cargo-hold installed (new side-tanks and tank-tops) by Bay Shipbuilding. I'm sure that if Ford Motor had expected the downturn to be more than temporary, they would not have put the money into the William Clay Ford at that time. I don't think the cost of the cargo-hold renewal had been paid for when she was sold for scrapping in 1986.

That's why I think the Fitz would have been converted in the early 80s. Because many industry observers didn't think the downturn would be so severe and sustaining. It's as the downturn went into 1986 that industry decided this was permanent, that the halcyon days of old were gone, that we started to see ships such as George M. Humphrey, Willaim Clay Ford, Arthur M. Homer sold for scrapping.

Guest wrote: I would guess that when the charter concluded the Fitzgerald would have been idled (if in fact it would not already been sidelined) and since there would have been any real possibility of it being picked up by another fleet (US or Canadian), it would have made the one-way trip to the scrapyard.

Sorry should have read "there would not have been"

I fully agree with all of your points. Several assumptions have been made over the years concerning what would have been the Fitzgerald's ultimate fate had she not sank in 1975. Your third comment says it all. The fact that Columbia only chartered the vessel would have played a significant role in its future. Expiring in 1983, the charter would have concluded at what could be identified as the worst possible time for US flagged shipping operations of that decade. Although I have seen some mention of plans to lengthen the Fitzgerald in the same manner as the Homer, I doubt that this was ever given serious consideration by Oglebay Norton. Furthermore, when the charter expired, it is extremely doubtful that Oglebay Norton would have pursued an extension or a outright purchase considering the economic conditions at the time. I would guess that when the charter concluded the Fitzgerald would have been idled (if in fact it would not already been sidelined) and since there would have been any real possibility of it being picked up by another fleet (US or Canadian), it would have made the one-way trip to the scrapyard.

Lengthening was planned for the winter she sank, correct? If I recall, that trip in Nov. '75 was to be her last for that season, then lay-up early for some major work of some sort.

I beg to differ. Consider the following:

1. Ships like the Homer, Humphrey, Clay Ford, etc. were considered excess tonnage and scrapped in the early-mid 1980's.

2. The Reserve Was converted, but immediately went into lay up for a couple years, as did the Armco off and on during this time. Even footers were laid up.

3. Most telling was the fact that Oglebay Norton did not own the Fitz and her charter was due to expire in 1983. If they didn't have enough cargo to keep their own boats running, they certainly wouldn't have invested in conversion of a boat they didn't own, nor would Northwestern Mutual deemed it a sound financial investment at the time. Even today, none of the 3 Oglebay conversions are sailing. I think Oglebay would not have renewed the charter and Northwestern Mutual would have reluctantly scrapped the vessel as the best financial decision they could make at that time of huge downsizing and uncertainty in the industry.

My 2 cents....

The Fitz would have been converted to a self-unloader. Consider that Columbia Transportation purchased the Ernest T. Weir as a replacement for the Fitz, and that the Ernest T. Weir exists today as American Fortitude (though having been laid-up since November 2008) it's obvious to me that the Fitz would have been converted to a self-unloader in 1980, if it wasn't for that tragic night in 1975.

I would believe that the Fitz would have ended up like the Arthur B Homer and would have been in layup in the 80's when the scrapping frenzy was going on.

Just a few questions of curiosity.

1. What was the usual unloading by Hullets for 26,000 + tons of taconite pellets normally carried by the Edmund Fitzgerald?

2. Considering the first 1,000 footers came on scene in 1978 - 1980, what would the cost to Ogelbay Norton have been to convert the Fitzgerald to the self unloading technology of the day?

At 729 feet in length, I'm assuming the Fitzgerald would still be sailing today if not for the events of November 10, 1975. Of course, the footers would still have been built regardless.