Coal vs. Oil fired ship construction

[Jon Paul]

True, but Hanna often had one its boats, before they laid them all up at the old shipyard at Ecorse, laid up at the "old B&O coal dock". This is opposite the Jonik dock & the site of the state boat launch facility. Cliffs also had boat laid there. Across the river, on the east side, Steinbrenner had boats laid up in 1975. Hanna's Paul H. Carnahan laid up in August of that year at the old B&O dock.

When I was on Charles M White we laid up the winter of '76 and fit out in the spring of '77 next to Joseph Thompson at the old B & O Dock in Lorain.

[William Lafferty]

Studies done by the United States Shipping Board showed that on average a ton of oil takes up 5 cf less space than a ton of coal, while the heat conversion efficiency was 80% for oil and 65% for coal. This yielded a 40% savings in bunker space for an oil-fired steamship that could be applied to cargo carriage and a reduction in engine room crew, and (although not a factor on the Great Lakes) a cruising range extended two to three times over that of a coal-fired vessel, depending upon size and speed. I looked at anthracite and fuel oil prices 1949-1955 and they stayed fairly consistent, even while anthracite use in the transportation sector was nearly cut in half during that period, reflecting the Dieselization of the railroads and shipping as well as the conversion of vessels from coal- to oil-fired. Price differential seems not have been a concern, and would probably have been in favor of oil. Oil was clearly better, even though it generally had to be kept heated, but as I state below I think the wide availability of coal and perhaps for operators to gain discounts from suppliers (who were often their customers, too) led at some point to a cost-benefit analysis resulting in coal-firing. Or, it could be the Great Lakes maritime industry's innate technological conservatism. For example, without the need for boilers and a reduced bunker capacity and manning need, the Diesel-powered vessel was perfect for the Welland and St. Lawrence canals where prescribed vessel dimensions made the absence of boilers and coal bunkers (and the flexibility of an internal combustion power plant) made for increased cargo capacity within a given outboard parameter. Somewhere here I have a study made back when the first (and woefully underpowered) Diesel canallers came to the lakes from Europe, and the overall cost savings compared to a coal-fired steam canaller were truly significant. Despite great advancements in Diesel marine engineering after World War I, no Great Lakes operator (other than Ford) contemplated Diesels, save for the few but pioneering motor ships that exploited the New York State Barge Canal. As I recall, by any metric the Pargny's conversion to Diesel resulted in a more efficient and economical vessel compared to the Williams with its conversion to steam turbine and oil-fired boilers. Nevertheless, the next year USS built the Anderson, Callaway, and Clarke with steam turbines and water tube, oil-fired boilers.

[Guest]

I would assume that the price of coal at the time was another factor in the choice of coal or oil. I'm too young to remember but I believe coal was used extensively for heating homes through the 1950s and for some years beyond. With its widespread distribution and heavy volume, it seems logical that the price may have been lower than oil.

From another perspective, which of these two fuels burns the best for operating a ship?

[pcolachap]

True, but Hanna often had one its boats, before they laid them all up at the old shipyard at Ecorse, laid up at the "old B&O coal dock". This is opposite the Jonik dock & the site of the state boat launch facility. Cliffs also had boat laid there. Across the river, on the east side, Steinbrenner had boats laid up in 1975. Hanna's Paul H. Carnahan laid up in August of that year at the old B&O dock.

[hugh3]

having grown up in Lorain post-shipyard days, its hard to imagine what that all looked like.

wish there were some videos of that yard from back then.

Most of the boats layed up in Lorain back in the day were tied up at Nation Tube up at the turn of the river owned by USS at the time.

[shirtofgreen]

were you allowed to just pitch the ashes over the side?

When I started sailing back in 1956, USS was running 55 boats. They would layup @ 8/10 boats in Lorain Ohio. During layup/fitout the Engineers were still burning coal to supply heat/hot water to the crew still aboard. All the ashes and other material discarded from repairs and such was deposited out on the spar deck. First trip after leaving fitout dock was usually across Lake Erie towards SE Shoal. First job for the deck crew after clearing the break wall was to throw everything laying on deck over the side. Now remember this was for every boat laying up in Lorain for year after year. I can just visualize a trail out in the lake of ashes, and anything else that was tossed, for miles after miles on a course from Lorain towards SE Shoal..

having grown up in lorain post-shipyard days, its hard to imagine what that all looked like.

wish there were some videos of that yard from back then.

[Blue Zoo]

Related to what connections the company had...the Imperial Oil tankers were oil fired, at a time when most canallers were coal fired

[hugh3]

were you allowed to just pitch the ashes over the side?

When I started sailing back in 1956, USS was running 55 boats. They would layup @ 8/10 boats in Lorain Ohio. During layup/fitout the Engineers were still burning coal to supply heat/hot water to the crew still aboard. All the ashes and other material discarded from repairs and such was deposited out on the spar deck. First trip after leaving fitout dock was usually across Lake Erie towards SE Shoal. First job for the deck crew after clearing the break wall was to throw everything laying on deck over the side. Now remember this was for every boat laying up in Lorain for year after year. I can just visualize a trail out in the lake of ashes, and anything else that was tossed, for miles after miles on a course from Lorain towards SE Shoal....

[pcolachap]

When Hanna built the Ernest T. Weir in the early 50s, they chose to make her a coal burner because they had investments in several coal companies. They also had fueling stations across the Lakes, North West Hanna fuels comes to mind. I remember fueling at Dock 26 in Cleveland on the Matthew Andrews when I made a trip with dad in the early 60s. The Lime Island fuel dock was another Hanna facility.
Regards, Mike

[Guest]

Actually they would flush the ashes out into the lake. The Edmund Fitzgerald as built had a system that would drop the ash into grates, which was mixed with water and an ash sump would discharge the water-ash mixture into the lake.

[custom500]

were you allowed to just pitch the ashes over the side?

[William Lafferty]

Coal was far more available even into into the early 1960s, especially since the lower Great Lakes sat astride the vast coal fields extending from Illinois into Pennsylvania. I believe the Detour coaling station lasted in operation until the '70s. In 1942, for example, the American side boasted 59 dedicated coal bunkering facilities spread across 22 different ports. This would remain fairly constant into the 1950s and even 1960s. There were but 8 oil bunkering facilities, and several of these were merely rail cars or tank trucks brought alongside the vessel where available. There were none at the Port of Chicago, for example, but two did exist at Indiana Harbor, the canal size placing a restriction on what vessels could use them. Lorain, Buffalo, and Chicago also offered water borne coal bunkering, but only Detroit had waterborne bunkering, using the barge Fueloi. It made perfect sense to continue to use coal into the 1950s, especially as advances in combustion technology made coal-fired boilers more efficient. The vessels you cite had easy access to coal bunkering on their regular routes, while, as you point out, the C & O had, literally, a main line to coal country. Growing concerns about pollution would contribute to the demise of coal on the lakes afterwards, but that's another story.

[custom500]

As I recall there was a lot of talk at the time about how we would soon run out of oil. By specifying coal, they might have felt they were looking to the future.

[Guest]

With the Fitzgerald being built for an insurance company with the intention of it being contracted out to a shipping operator did the decision to use a coal-fired powerplant reflect that coal was both cheaper and more readily available at the time? This brings up another question. When the Fitzgerald was converted from coal to oil in the early 1970s, did Northwestern Mutual or Columbia Transportation pay for the conversion? How are such decisions made with bareboat charters?

[Guest]

Well it was a little shortsighted but you can't use todays eyes too look at it you have to remember the people making these decisions had been brought up on coal, there were new buildings built in the same time frame that burnt coal for heat so it wasn't just ships, and I assume some of the reasons were ready known access to coal where maybe fuel oil was less plentiful on the lakes.

[Guest]

Does anyone have any insight as to why some ships built during the 1950s were designed to burn coal while most others were fueled by oil? For example, the John Sherwin and Edmund Fitzgerald burned coal when they first came out. I believe that two close relatives of these particular ships, Shenango II and Arthur B. Homer, were both built to burn oil? I seem to recall that C&O had their car ferries built to burn coal as they were active in the movement of that commodity at the time. Was this also the case with some vessel owners when choosing the fuel type for their ships? It just seems that the coal fired lake freighters built during the 1950s were converted to oil within 20 years of their construction so is this an example of a shortsighted decision on their part? What are the advantages and disadvantages between the fuel types?