Boatnerd Discussion Forum

Since the Davis Lock is 1350 feet by 80 feet, why can't it be used to accommodate the longer than 740 footers in the event the Poe goes down. Also why is it not being used right now other than the economic slump. Next in my previous post I ment to say gates not gars but spell check felt different

Important to remember that it is not a question of what is needed. Nothing Whether Locks or icebreakers) is needed, we need to decide whether it is worth the investment or not.

Personally, I think there are more important things to invest in on the great lakes the a backup for the Poe. Not to say that a third lock might not be worth it (No comment on that question) just there are other things of higher priority.

When you look at an air view of the Locks, it looks so easy to build a bigger lock by just removing the island between the Davis and the Sabin lock and putting gars at the ends. I also have heard that at the present time, the Davis can be used if needed . Granted it will not accommodate anything bigger than the McArthur but it could speed things up a bit if the Poe were to go down for an extended period.

Let's not forget about some of the saltwater vessels or salties as well that travel through the Soo Locks. Most all of the ones that are owned by Fednav are 78 foot wide and has to use the Poe Lock as are most from another Canadian firm Canfornav as I believe most of theirs as well are 78 foot wide. Granted and yes I know that the salties don't use the locks as often as the U.S. and Canadian ships do but, if the Poe were to go down though some of the salties that are 78 foot wide may not be able to use the Mac due to their width unless they may get special permission to use it. Another firm that has most of their ships at 78 foot beams is Polsteam as many of their ships are also at 77 to 78 feet wide and has to use the Poe. All I am doing is just adding my two cents and point to all of this.

U. S. Steel had a plan in 1979 to use the Irvin L. Clymer as a stand-by vessel in case the Poe Lock was to go down for whatever reason. That plan didn't go farther than the planning stage, of course.

I did a very quick, back-of-the-envelope calculation, and came up with 16 vessels only able to use the Poe Lock, due to size or length. They have a per-trip capacity of 897,000 tons. The vessels that could use the MacArthur Lock would number 25, with a trip capacity of 593,500 tons.

BTW, one of the reasons why the MacArthur Lock was built -besides the war - was because the railroad bridge became jammed in the Fall of 1940, blocking use of the Davis and Sabin Locks.

The topic of a new Soo Lock always brings up interesting points and discussion. Why is the only idea always narrowed to the push of a new lock? The Corps of Engineers do a fine job maintaining the locks and keep boats moving. If the concern is that great, be inventive, think of a back up system. There are many boats, which fit the Mac Lock, that can be put into service if the Poe were to go do down. How about a conveyor system as well that would span beyond the length of the locks, a system that self-unloaders convey into and the cargo be sent either up or down to a ship loader or loaders. Docks at either end of the lakes employ such systems for moving product. This idea is simply a back up. If the Poe Lock were to go down, it's very doubtful all the boats that require the Poe would be all trapped together on the same side. At the same time The Corps would be very diligent and get the Poe back in service, like they did with the Mac last summer. The same kind of just in case thinking could go toward other transportation as well. How about build another Mackinac Bridge? Or another bridge to connect Soo Mich. and Soo Ont.? Anyway, time to step off the soap box.

Really it's five of the eight locks of the Welland Canal. Lock 8 may not do much (up & down wise), but if it's out of operation, then ships aren't getting through.

For those not sure, Locks 4, 5, and 6 are twinned.

Steve

Kind of a fun,or maybe not so fun fact about the Sherwin,every time Interlake talks,or starts to put money into the Sherwin the Economy takes a dive!,this last boom We had when the Ryerson was Evan running they gutted the Engine room and were all ready to put a boom on and put Her in Service,and than We got this real big down turn We are still trying to swim out of! mn brett

All the newer "Seawaymax" class of Canadian lakers cannot use the Mac Lock. Mac Lock is limited to 767x75 under special handling conditions, but normal use by 730x75 lakers. With the remaining Canadian 730's coming to end of their careers, the Poe Lock will see more usage.
Wish the US and Canadian Coast Guard would build 2 icebreakers, 1 US and 1 Cdn both using shared design to reduce overall investment. Don't see why they would need to be separate designs as they're operating in same environment and need to be multi-mission anyway.

These are the two incidents I remember.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985 ... hip-owners

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/11/24/nyreg ... eaway.html

While I see the need for a 2nd lock and fully support it since a significant portion of the US fleet regularly depends on it along with millions of dollars in commerce, it's worth mentioning that four of the seven locks on the Welland Canal are singles and all seven locks on the Seaway are.

So not being twinned isn't exactly unusual on the Great Lakes. And this much larger system with numerous opportunities for failure has demonstrated that the system can be reliable with minimum outages for many decades at a time. I can only recall one that lasted three weeks or so and otherwise, we're talking hours rather than weeks.

It could even be argued that the Soo is better positioned than the rest of the system for such emergencies. The MacArthur Lock would still be able to handle a fair bit of the traffic if the Poe were to go down.

And it also provides an opportunity if there's significant downtime on the Poe to perhaps set up a transfer system to partially alleviate the problem to keep some of the larger vessels going, by shuttling cargo through the MacArthur Lock.

If the Poe Lock were to fail and go down for a period of time, it would not be the end of the world. The full resources of the Army Corp of Engineers would work 24/7 to make any fixes and the lock would be operational quickly. The LAST thing the American taxpayer needs is to fund another lock at the Soo when there are two perfectly fine locks in operation on the American side. And there are only a dozen or so boats that truly require the size provided by the Poe Lock, so any temporary disruption of service due to breakdown would be inconvenient yes, but hardly devastating to Great Lakes shipping.

Another Poe lock would be a large waist of tax dollars. The existing Poe lock is adequate for today's shrinking traffic. Smaller boats could be used to handle the shrinking demand for this product. The need for another ice breaker would also be a waist of money. The Canadian breakers do a great job and our new Mac is always broken down when we need a breaker.

Guest wrote:Another Poe size lock is not needed. A total waste of government spending dollars. The same applies to the need for another Mackinaw class icebreaker.

What happens if the Poe is out of commission for an extended period of time? What happens to the boat traffic that can only use the Poe? Your view is rather myopic when it comes to the need of another Poe size lock.

Sherwin doesn't fit the mac lock after lengthening

Another Poe size lock is not needed. A total waste of government spending dollars. The same applies to the need for another Mackinaw class icebreaker.

davidmerrill wrote:With all of the smaller boats sitting at the wall, they could be pressed back into service to fill in some. Would be nice to see the Sherwin back in services but she has probably been canibolized so bad it wouldn't take too long.

I came across this site a few months ago. I'm sure most boatnerds have seen it, so I'm probably not showing anything new.
The Sherwin would be too big to use the Mac if something happened to the Poe. She could only run to Escanaba if the Poe went out of service. Don't think the steel industry in the Great Lakes region will ever rebound enough to warrant fitting out the long term laid up boats.

http://www.nailhed.com/2014/09/drummond ... y-own.html

tugboat wrote:You are wrong about Great Lakes Trader and Lakes Contender, they could fit thru Mac Lock. It would just mean disconnecting tug and two lockages.

Physically those barges would fit. However, if you go by the Corps regulations they are too wide. The Mac is supposed to be limited to a 75' beam. It was not changed when the seaway did.

With all of the smaller boats sitting at the wall, they could be pressed back into service to fill in some. Would be nice to see the Sherwin back in services but she has probably been canibolized so bad it wouldn't take too long.

tugboat wrote:You are wrong about Great Lakes Trader and Lakes Contender, they could fit thru Mac Lock. It would just mean disconnecting tug and two lockages.

You are correct but it would also require the assistance of tugs to pull the barges out of the locks and moor then on the approach piers until the main tugs cleared the lock. Then all the extra work of reattaching.
The point is that if the Poe is down and all traffic has to use the MacArthur it would create a logistical nightmare and backups that would only be exacerbated by breaking up tug/barge combos and locking separately.