Boatnerd Discussion Forum

by **hugh3** » July 10, 2018, 5:50 am

I believe there is/was a charge to use a Canadian lock. No charge to use American lock.

by **Guest 2** » July 9, 2018, 5:27 pm

Good explanation hausen. Although I'm not sure about a new lock on the Canadian side is as ( I want to say easy but not sure if it's right) as it would be on the American side having the space with removing the Davis and Sabin. My opinion (as a Canadian) is that the USACE does a very good job of traffic flow and maintenance of the Soo Locks. Why not keep traffic flowing there like we do in the locks on our side where things are established. Just my opinion

by **hausen** » July 9, 2018, 12:08 pm

MikeCDN wrote:Thank you for all the replies.

My question is now:

Why don't we ( Canadians ) put a lock in to accommodate these vessels? I love the relationship our two nations have and with this - could we not assist with another lock?

M.

Canadians certainly could, but they already handle a large share of the duty of managing locks elsewhere in the system.

Let's look at what we'd consider to be Canadian traffic through the Soo: either loaded in a Canadian port aboard Canadian-flagged or overseas-flagged vessels, or carried aboard Canadian-flagged ships loaded at U.S. ports. The majority of that traffic flow is downbound cargoes destined for Hamilton or ports on the St. Lawrence River and Gulf. Ore from western Lake Superior heads for Nanticoke but also Hamilton and Quebec, grain and Potash from Thunder Bay head to a few Upper Lakes ports but mostly down the Welland and Seaway to Montreal and points beyond.

Of the nine locks a ship transits in order to get from Lake Superior to, say, Hamilton, eight of them are Canadian.

Of the sixteen locks a ship transits in order to get from Lake Superior to Montreal and beyond, thirteen are Canadian.

Seems fine and fair that the U.S. does the heavy lifting at Sault Ste. Marie.

by **MikeCDN** » July 9, 2018, 12:51 am

Thank you for all the replies.

My question is now:

Why don't we ( Canadians ) put a lock in to accommodate these vessels? I love the relationship our two nations have and with this - could we not assist with another lock?

M.

by **Shipwatcher1** » July 8, 2018, 1:59 pm

I had always heard that the Sabin lock was deactivated in 1989. Also, sometime in 2008, the Robert S Pierson locked down through the Davis lock for some reason. I am not sure if that lock has been used since. Last I knew, it was still operational, but not used ever.

by **BigRiver** » July 6, 2018, 2:38 pm

The CSL package freighters also used that lock. Here's an undated Hal Jackson photo of the Eskimo in the chamber.

by **BigRiver** » July 6, 2018, 2:35 pm

Yes the Amoco tankers and the Yankcanuck often used the Canadian lock as did the D.C. Everest. I took this picture in 1978,

by **Guest** » July 6, 2018, 7:34 am

I don't know exactly what was the last commercial freight vessel to use the Canadian Lock, but I believe among the last were the CSL package freighters and the crane ship Yankcanuck. From my own research for a project I'm currently working on, I found that the Amoco Indiana punctured its hull at the Canadian Lock in July of 1982, so it appears that the Amoco steam tankers may have also used the locks until their retirement during the early 1980s.

by **Guest** » July 5, 2018, 5:08 pm

The last ship to use the Canadian Lock, was the tour boat Chief Shingwauk on July 22, 1987, when a 200-foot section of the wall moved 4 inches. She was quickly backed out of the lock. The Davis Lock was opened on July 25, 1987 to handle the overflow.

In the Summer of 1988, the USACE operated both the MacArthur and Poe and activated the Sabin Lock for ice cream boats and pleasure craft.

The Canadian Lock at the Soo has subsequently been rebuilt to smaller dimensions. As a result, the need for keeping the Davis and Sabin Locks in stand-by waned.

by **MikeCDN** » July 4, 2018, 11:01 pm

Where could I find pictures of these locks being used last?

What was the last ship to use the Canadian lock before the collapse?

M.

by **Guest** » July 4, 2018, 7:58 am

Both the Davis and Sabin Lock have deteriation of the bedrock under them and that's the reason why both locks would be demolished when constructing the new lock.

by **MikeCDN** » July 3, 2018, 11:46 pm

Guest wrote:The MacArthur Lock would not be affected by the construction of the new lock - if it's ever built. I'm not convinced it will be built - while the administration, area senators and congress officials want it built, Congress holds the purse strings and there is no guarantee if they will provide funding for construction.

The plan for the new lock includes demolishing both the Sabin and Davis Locks, with the area where the Davis Lock currently exists being filled in.

For argument's sake:

Could they not just revamp the Sabin lock and leave the Davis lock?

Why couldn't they put a Poe-sized lock on our ( Canadian ) side?

M.

by **Guest** » July 3, 2018, 5:40 pm

The MacArthur Lock would not be affected by the construction of the new lock - if it's ever built. I'm not convinced it will be built - while the administration, area senators and congress officials want it built, Congress holds the purse strings and there is no guarantee if they will provide funding for construction.

The plan for the new lock includes demolishing both the Sabin and Davis Locks, with the area where the Davis Lock currently exists being filled in.

by **Guest** » July 3, 2018, 4:58 pm

A guest wrote:
Guest wrote:The amount of tonnage will not increase with a new lock at Sault Ste. Marie as the current arrangement is not the limiting factor of annual shipments. Lakes commerce is driven simply by customer demand and that dictates the size of the shipping fleet. Although a second Poe Lock sized lock would alleviate some traffic congestion, the primary consideration is to have a second lock in case the first is damaged or is taken out of commission for an extended period for repairs. In the end, however, shipping companies do not create demand, they only react to it.
Seldom mentioned is the often times boats wait to either load or unload at ports which makes any "congestion" at the Soo look like a stop at a rest area. A second lock would simply be an expensive convenience.

That's an interesting perspective. However, if an ore loading dock broke down and required a month to fix boats would go elsewhere. There is no alternative for many boats if the Poe broke down. A new lock can only be sold as a backup plan. It doesn't increase commerce but it could facilitate it should demand arise. It doesn't speed up overall trip times if loading and unloading docks experience congestion. Tell it like it is; it's a backup plan.

by **Denny** » July 3, 2018, 4:42 pm

There’s an interesting article about the new lock in today’s edition of the Detroit News if anyone is interested. They show a photo taken probably in the Spring of the Samuel Ridley locking up in the Poe. Sorry though as I don’t have the link to the story but, I’m sure someone will have it.

by **A guest** » July 3, 2018, 3:57 pm

Guest wrote:The amount of tonnage will not increase with a new lock at Sault Ste. Marie as the current arrangement is not the limiting factor of annual shipments. Lakes commerce is driven simply by customer demand and that dictates the size of the shipping fleet. Although a second Poe Lock sized lock would alleviate some traffic congestion, the primary consideration is to have a second lock in case the first is damaged or is taken out of commission for an extended period for repairs. In the end, however, shipping companies do not create demand, they only react to it.

Seldom mentioned is the often times boats wait to either load or unload at ports which makes any "congestion" at the Soo look like a stop at a rest area. A second lock would simply be an expensive convenience.

by **Guest** » July 3, 2018, 7:26 am

The amount of tonnage will not increase with a new lock at Sault Ste. Marie as the current arrangement is not the limiting factor of annual shipments. Lakes commerce is driven simply by customer demand and that dictates the size of the shipping fleet. Although a second Poe Lock sized lock would alleviate some traffic congestion, the primary consideration is to have a second lock in case the first is damaged or is taken out of commission for an extended period for repairs. In the end, however, shipping companies do not create demand, they only react to it.

by **Guest** » July 3, 2018, 7:14 am

Very true CDNMIKE lots of ships could be using the Davis when in ballast upbound.

by **MikeCDN** » July 2, 2018, 10:45 pm

I would have loved to have seen the Davis lock working when it was back in action not too long ago. It's too bad that they won't use it in some sort of capacity when there's a back up at the other two operational locks.

M.

by **garbear** » July 2, 2018, 10:27 pm

MikeCDN wrote:Will they keep the MacArthur lock running should they build another Poe-sized lock?

I ask as this because the amount of tonnage would increase and less waits on the St. Mary's River.

Thanks in advance,

M.

Probably would put the lock where the Davis and Sabin are, so I would think the Mac would keep running.

Boatnerd Discussion Forum

New Soo Lock

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock

Re: New Soo Lock