Boatnerd Discussion Forum

If Great Lakes Fleet did lengthen their ships or if other vessels were modified or one day built to the new max size that the new lock could accomodate (but which the Poe can't), they'd then be in the same situation if the new lock went down for an extended period that this new lock is supposed to provide an insurance policy for.

They're not making this huge investment in a new lock to accommodate traffic demands. The Poe and the MacArthur Lock offer more than adequate capacity for today's needs and tomorrow's. They're doing this so that the significant amount of traffic flowing through on ships that are too large for the MacArthur Lock wouldn't be brought to a grinding halt and cause a lot of economic damage if the 65+ year old Poe Lock had a major failure that took it out of action for several months during the shipping season.

The point here is to protect the supply chain, not to potentially just recreate the issue all over again on a larger scale. Granted it's difficult to foresee it actually being a problem any time soon if a larger lock was built given how industry and power generation is evolving or declining around the lakes which seems to naturally be pushing US fleets towards smaller and more flexible vessels like the Mark W. Barker.

But who knows what might be the case in a generation? The investment might be viewed as a mistake by making an expensive project even more expensive with dimensions no carrier will ever take advantage of. But if a larger than Poe size lock was built and larger vessels were allowed, who's to say that US fleets wouldn't slowly transition to an even smaller pool of larger giants one day as the footers age? They'd then again be locked to a single chamber at the Soo all over again, which was the point this project was supposed to fix.

There was some talk in the early 1970s of ships with a beam of 130 feet beam and 1,300 foot length, but that went nowhere because of the amount of dredging that would be needed in the connecting channels, along with the widening of the bends in the St. Marys river to accommodate such vessels. Such an endeavor would be far too costly. Besides, no one is contemplating another 1,000 foot vessel much less a larger one.

In the late-70s there was quite a bit of discussion in regards to building 1,100 foot vessels. Both the Edwin H. Gott and Edgar B. Speer were built with additional length a possibility. In fact, during the Summer of 1976, testing of the passage of such vessels were conducted at the Soo, with the Presque Isle and Roger Blough tying up at approach walls and being spotted in the Poe Lock in the position a 1,100 foot vessel would be located in the Poe Lock chamber.

Sorry if this has been answered before, but apparently the terms new soo lock are too general to search.

Is there any logistical, construction or operational reason that the new lock has to mirror the current Poe Lock?

Could the new lock be 150, 200 or more feet wide and maybe 1,500 feet long? Weren’t the Davis and Sabin locks a similar length?

Squinty