Boatnerd Discussion Forum

Comparing a gas guzzling car that's purchased by the end user as a finished product to a piece of mid-level transportation industry equipment like a ship or barge that supllies the manufacturer of the end products is just ridiculous. Two different things there. Sports cars & speed boats, OR ships & trains, sure, but not a car & ship, like they say on MNF, c'mon man!

"Guest" I agree with ed. once the accountants took over, new designs turned ugly. I believe that designs can be eye pleasing as well as efficient. Once they lost their personality they also lost my interest.

Thank you Guest, well said and the same happened with me.

Guest wrote:I agree with ed. once the accountants took over, new designs turned ugly. I believe that designs can be eye pleasing as well as efficient. once they lost their personality they also lost my interest.
i have about eight pictures of ships in my office -- not one is of the new ugly boats.

I don't know if ugly is the right word, more like they turned generic. I can't say I hate the new ones, but I'm not going out of my way to find them either. The new ones are just the inevitably of time.

The classics were built in a better time economically. Where people had cash to show. Sadly the money, the pride and the prosperity are gone forever. Enjoy the classics while you still can.

So all cars and trucks are safe, functional and efficient? Not a chance and that's because the buyer is often willing to spend a bit more for something that looks good, even if it gets lower gas mileage, spends more time in the shop and costs more to insure. Not all accountants drive Honda Civics, it seems.

I agree with ed. once the accountants took over, new designs turned ugly. I believe that designs can be eye pleasing as well as efficient. once they lost their personality they also lost my interest.
i have about eight pictures of ships in my office -- not one is of the new ugly boats.

Guest wrote:You can complain all you want about the new boats, but it won't change a thing. They aren't being built so they look good in a photo. They are being built to be functional and safe. The forward booms are needed to unload at specific docks. Give up!! They aren't being built to tick off the boat watchers.

I understand the form/function application to ship design completely. My comment was meant only as a personal observation.

I've noticed this same attitude in the rail industry. Some hobbiests & fans just seem to live in their own little world where everything revolves around their wants & needs. It's all very strange to me. Things like this are built with one sole purpose in mind - make money. If it doesn't make money, it's of no use. Private business will design things the most efficient way they can. Look around. Industries are struggling. This isn't the boom times of the 50's. Yeah, accountants run the books. That's how business survives today. If they threw heaping gobs of money into building boats like the Ryerson, they'd all be bankrup. You gotta change with the times. I'm sure the complainers stood around lamenting the passage of time when sailing ships were replaced by wooden steamers & they were probably back on scene to do the same thing when steel replaced wood, & so on & so on. These are the same type of people that complained about diesels when steam locomotives became outdated. Then, when the 1st generation of the classic diesels of the 40's & 50's were leaving service & being cut up, they ran around like nuts trying to get pictures of them. Our line still runs Alco engines. The rail fans pop out of the woodwork to see them & they think they're the greatest thing. Guess what? They're old, they smoke like crazy & leak all over the place, they're uncomfortable to run & out dated. New equipment has all the modern features we drool over. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's great. They upgrade equipment & modernize for a reason. Sometimes that old junk has to go.

You can complain all you want about the new boats, but it won't change a thing. They aren't being built so they look good in a photo. They are being built to be functional and safe. The forward booms are needed to unload at specific docks. Give up!! They aren't being built to tick off the boat watchers.

ed wrote:I agree with bookworm. the new boats all look the same from the front or rear - more like a large barge with a motor. they all lack a personality. just like the steam whistles vs the newer air horns. you could always tell what boat it was by the sound of their steam whistles. once the accountants took over the industry -- everything became dollars and cents.

Probably going to get worse as time goes on. If ships get remotely controlled from land, they could literally end up being just a hull with an engine and rudder.

For mariners the forward boom on these new ships is just one more step toward compromised safety for improved economy. We've been slowly edging toward poorer and poorer visibility. If your prone to fishing in the rivers, or parking your tin boat in front of ships to get a good picture- don't assume the ship sees you!

I agree with bookworm. the new boats all look the same from the front or rear - more like a large barge with a motor. they all lack a personality. just like the steam whistles vs the newer air horns. you could always tell what boat it was by the sound of their steam whistles. once the accountants took over the industry -- everything became dollars and cents.

As a photographer, I like to be able to recognize an approaching ship without benefit of AIS. For the most part, I see the classic lakers as individualistic in design, with "personality" in both their bow-on and front profile presentations. The newer builds with rear pilot houses could be any ship from any fleet, and are unrecognizable until they get close enough to read their name.

Coincidentally I too am a terrestrial architect of long standing. Our buildings aren't supposed to leak and neither are boats, but the similarity between land bound and naval architecture ends there - for cargo ships at least. Passenger ships and yachts are another thing.
I guess the appeal to me for commercial ships is that their essential functionality is honest and unpretentious. That sometimes this is done with graceful lines or elegant fittings is a bonus, but is not essential to my enjoyment of them.
I am not trying to discredit the designers, builders or owners of the the Equinoxes and Trilliums. I just haven't warmed to them yet.

Just wondering what kind of feedback people have heard about visibility for the tug Defiance when pushing the barge Ashtabula which has a forward unloading boom. Especially as the tug does not have a wide wheelhouse like the Manitoulin.

Steve

I think the only example of a ship built for boat watchers and businesses alike would be the Edward Ryerson. Even the builders said that they built her for asthetics. Maybe the reason why she was the only one?

Guest wrote: .....Beauty is in the eye of the beholder ! We could debate that forever ;-)

Guest. Thank you for your comments.
I have no doubt that a lot of thought (and hard work) went into the design and construction of the Trillium and Equinox class boats. Not just by the designers and builders, but also from the owners and their personnel tasked with providing the proper specs, budgets and timing for the build and overseeing completion of the project with the successful introduction of new boats to the fleet. These are not easy jobs.
From experience, I know that having to solve other people’s problems, convince them that your solution is the best course of action and see the project through within the budget from beginning to end is no easy feat. When you consider that this must also be done perfectly, as quickly as possible and for the lowest possible fee, aesthetics can easily take a back seat. (If, it gets a seat at all.) Design is a tough racket! I’m sure shipping is too. Show me something that is easy.
I also would guess that based on your criteria of efficiency; dependability; safety and economics, the crews, management and ship owners would probably give the new vessels high scores. They should.
The ships are successful designs. They are however, not great designs.
Yes, we could debate functionality vs. aesthetics forever.
I doubt if this thread will go on that long though. :>)

Wawatam wrote:

Mac Mackay wrote: ..Different generations have different ideas of what is attractive, but there are certain things that make ships pleasing to the eye. Even in these days where the ruthless search for economy and efficiency seems to prevail over all else, you still get the odd element that stands out and you can say - someone was thinking beyond pure necessity, and did this because it looks better. When that happens, without taking away from the functionality, you end up with something memorable. I am still looking for that element in the Equinoxes and the Trillia.

I agree with you Mac Mackay.
My background is in Architecture – not Naval Architecture - but Building Architecture. I think I’m drawn to boat watching because to me, ships are mobile, floating buildings that can go anywhere navigable waters will take them. This to me is intriguing.
The design axiom ‘form follows function’ made famous by architect Louis Sullivan is as true today as it was in the late 19th century. The difference is in how it is executed.
Like commercial building designs, commercial ship designs must adhere to the design parameters of the era in which they are built. Economics is the driving force.
A strictly economical design is successful when the problem is solved as simply and cheaply as possible. This is pure engineering, it is commendable and it is what makes the world go around. Literally!
A strictly aesthetic design is successful when it is beautiful and appealing to the eye and emotions. It is unbridled design. It is a work of art.
Great design is an elegant solution to a problem that is both aesthetically pleasing and cost effective. A difficult achievement in any era and a rare commodity in 2015.
The new Trillium and Equinox class boats are not great designs.

I like you're descriptions of economical vs. aesthetic design practices. Very well stated ! Based on those comments, I think we would have to ask the ship owners and crews if the Trillium and Equinox vessels were well designed. I'm guessing their evaluation would be based on how efficiently, dependably, economically and safely the vessels operate. A lot of thought went into their design so they probably score high marks on those criteria. Are they good designs aesthetically ? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder ! We could debate that forever ;-)

Mac Mackay wrote: ....Different generations have different ideas of what is attractive, but there are certain things that make ships pleasing to the eye. Even in these days where the ruthless search for economy and efficiency seems to prevail over all else, you still get the odd element that stands out and you can say - someone was thinking beyond pure necessity, and did this because it looks better. When that happens, without taking away from the functionality, you end up with something memorable. I am still looking for that element in the Equinoxes and the Trillia.

I agree with you Mac Mackay.
My background is in Architecture – not Naval Architecture - but Building Architecture. I think I’m drawn to boat watching because to me, ships are mobile, floating buildings that can go anywhere navigable waters will take them. This to me is intriguing.
The design axiom ‘form follows function’ made famous by architect Louis Sullivan is as true today as it was in the late 19th century. The difference is in how it is executed.
Like commercial building designs, commercial ship designs must adhere to the design parameters of the era in which they are built. Economics is the driving force.
A strictly economical design is successful when the problem is solved as simply and cheaply as possible. This is pure engineering, it is commendable and it is what makes the world go around. Literally!
A strictly aesthetic design is successful when it is beautiful and appealing to the eye and emotions. It is unbridled design. It is a work of art.
Great design is an elegant solution to a problem that is both aesthetically pleasing and cost effective. A difficult achievement in any era and a rare commodity in 2015.
The new Trillium and Equinox class boats are not great designs.

Guest wrote:

garbear wrote:Having sailed on the Clarke and Watson I see where everyone is coming from as far as looks go. Once the boom was put on the Clarke I changed my tune. But I have to agree with Brian when it comes to they're making money, providing well paying jobs. They aren't being built with the boatwatcher in mind. Like I've said in a couple posts, if the Manitoulin ever loads in Two Harbors I'll drive the 25 miles from Duluth to see her.

Which came first the boat watcher, or the boat?

That's a tough one. I'll have to think about it.

garbear wrote:Having sailed on the Clarke and Watson I see where everyone is coming from as far as looks go. Once the boom was put on the Clarke I changed my tune. But I have to agree with Brian when it comes to they're making money, providing well paying jobs. They aren't being built with the boatwatcher in mind. Like I've said in a couple posts, if the Manitoulin ever loads in Two Harbors I'll drive the 25 miles from Duluth to see her.

Which came first the boat watcher, or the boat?