Sister ships to one off vessels

Discussion board focusing on Great Lakes Shipping Question & Answer. From beginner to expert all posts are welcome.
Guest

Re: Sister ships to one off vessels

Unread post by Guest »

Bethlehem Steel was dissatisfied with the amount of time it had taken for the Stewart J. Cort to be built and they had told Litton Industries / Erie Marine in 1972 that they would not order another ship from them.

In late December 1973, with demand strong for steel and iron ore, they placed an order for three more vessels of the Stewart J. Cort's design. When the Cort was ordered in December 1968, Bethlehem Steel had an option for up to five additional vessels of the Cort-type. But since Bethlehem Steel had told Erie Marine in 1972 that they would never order another vessel from them, the yard had commenced shutdown of the shipbuilding facility, keeping only enough people for the construction of the Presque Isle.

Erie Marine refused to honour the option they and Bethlehem Steel had signed back in 1968, and as a result Bethlehem Steel sued for breech of contract, and the case went to the Pennsylvania Supreme Cort where Bethlehem Steel lost.

I've never heard of US Steel planning a sister to the Blough. Both the Roger Blough and Stewart J. Cort were designed by Marine Consultants and Designers, but as everyone can see - they are vastly different, except for forward and aft cabins. Stewart J. Cort was designed to load at conveyor docks - either Taconite Harbor or Silver Bay (the BN #5 dock hadn't existed yet.) While the Roger Blough was designed to load at existing gravity chute ore docks at either Two Harbors or Duluth, which limited her hull depth so she could fit under the chutes. The hull depth limited the Roger Blough's length, as the maximum length to depth ratio for Great Lakes vessels is 21. It was found that as Great Lakes vessels starting approaching a length to depth ratio of 18 or higher, they would have an increased tendency for "springing". In fact, both the Roger Blough and Stewart J. Cort were instrumented with hull stress gauges as part of a program to study the phenomena of "springing" and what design changes would be needed for 1,100 foot vessels that were being discussed in the late-1970s.

American Steamship had an option for a sister to the St. Clair, and a near duplicate of the Roger M. Kyes, except with a 45 foot hull depth. Both options were changed to other vessels in 1974.
Guest

Re: Sister ships to one off vessels

Unread post by Guest »

I believe the Edward L. Ryerson and the Adam E. Cornelius (later Sarah Spencer) shared the same basic hull design although both had quite differing design features that made them far from being sister ships. As for the hull design, this is what I have heard over the years and don't have blueprints for comparison so I don't know the validity of this assertion.
CSLFAN

Re: Sister ships to one off vessels

Unread post by CSLFAN »

+I don't ever recall talk of a 2nd Blough....there was concern about the bends in the river and then the Cort showed this was not a problem. And the Blough was 1972 and Presque Isle 1973 followed by Gott 79 and Speer 80 so Blough was built as a one of a kind deal. After the Cort was built there was talk of 2 more just like her but that of course never happened.
Jared
Posts: 798
Joined: December 6, 2014, 4:51 pm

Sister ships to one off vessels

Unread post by Jared »

I have had a couple thoughts on whether or not sister ships were planned for a few vessels.

My first question revolves around the Roger Blough. I have an old book from the late 1960s that feature the impressionalist image of the Roger Blough as US Steel's first supership. Did they have any plans to or even rumors of another vessel that was almost identical to the Blough? Or was she a one off to begin with?

My second question revolves around the Edward Ryerson. I see from a few other designs that the Canadian fleet that mimick her design in length and unique pilothouses, but not dead on look alike.

My third question revolves around the 3 hulls from River Rouge shipbuilding (Fitzgerald, Homer, Jackson) and why the Jackson was built as the runt of the litter and did not look anything like the other 2. Was it because of specific specifications from Interlake? Was the Beeghly, Burton and Sherwin the template for the Jackson instead of the Fitzgerald and Homer? It seems that by the middle 60s the American fleets stopped building ships until the Blough and footers.

The last question revolves around the Stewart Cort. Was there any plans by Bethlehem Steel for a second fore and aft footer?
Post Reply