Boatnerd Discussion Forum

Yes, you're right. North was 259', South 290'.

MilwBob wrote:Juniata/Octarara/Tionesta
China/Japan/India
North & South American

While similar in appearance, I thought the North was a good deal shorter than the South.

MilwBob wrote:Pere Marquette 18(i) & Milwaukee (nee-Manistique Marquette & Northern No. 1) were sisters. Have heard the Marquette & Bessemer No. 2(i) was also a sister but am not so sure as there are differences in beam and tonnage. In any event all 3 were the only cross-lake ferries that were lost.

I'll have to get back to my reference materials to verify for certain, but I don't believe any of them were true sisters. The M&B #2 was definitely not, as it was built on a different hull and had no passenger cabins. There was a large group of the Pere Marquette boats built on the same hull but I believe only the #19 and #20 were true sisters. The #18 had extensive passenger accommodations while the #17 had minimal. The #15, #19, and #20 had none. There were also significant differences in their powerplants.

The Milwaukee had extensive passenger accommodations also, but I believe her powerplant was nowhere near the same (the PM #18 was the most powerful of the lot by a longshot) and may in fact have contributed to her demise. Speculation on my part, but she had enough less power that she may have had trouble making headway when she turned back toward the Wisconsin shoreline, if that is in fact what she did.

Pere Marquette 18(i) & Milwaukee (nee-Manistique Marquette & Northern No. 1) were sisters. Have heard the Marquette & Bessemer No. 2(i) was also a sister but am not so sure as there are differences in beam and tonnage. In any event all 3 were the only cross-lake ferries that were lost.

Juniata/Octarara/Tionesta
China/Japan/India
North & South American

And still more...

Ann Arbor No. 1 and No. 2

Pere Marquette 19 and 20

Maitland No. 1 and Ann Arbor No. 6

Pere Marquette 21 and 22, Grand Rapids, Madison, Ann Arbor No. 7, City of Milwaukee (essentially the same with *very* minor modifications between them)

City of Saginaw 31, City of Flint 32

Spartan and Badger (as built)

Adding to the list of sister ships:

Col. James M. Schoonmaker 1911 and William P. Snyder Jr. 1912
L.E. Block and Harry Coulby 1927
John Hulst and Ralph H. Watson 1938
Governor Miller and William A. Irvin 1938
Leon Fraser (now Alpena), Enders M. Voorhees, A.H. Ferbert, Benjamin F. Fairless, and Irving S. Olds 1942
The A-1 design (Cuyahoga) and B-1 design (Manistee) Maritimers 1943
Coverdale and Hochelaga 1949
Sir James Dunn and Stadacona 1952
James Norris and Gordon C. Leitch 1952

William G. Mather, Joe Frantz and William A. Reiss. Essentially with some minor differences.

Mike, my late father-in-law, Vern Dishnow, sailed with your dad in those early years with Reiss. He kept in contact with him after he went with Hanna and would bump into him over the years of sailing. In the nineties, he and I would take day and overnight trips around the Great Lakes visiting his old shipmates, but we never got over to Ashtabula.

Ken Niemi, reissrecollections@hotmail.com

Hello Capt Metz, No, I'm afraid not. My dad went sailing in 1933 for Reiss aboard the Clemens A. Reiss out of Ashtabula. He went with Hanna in '41 and retired off the Joe Thompson; Master (Geo. M. Humphrey) in the fall of 82. I enjoy and admire all of your posts.
Respectfully, Mike

I was the last skipper to sail the ( Albert E. Heekin) in 1982 but she was then called The Judith M. Pierson. I also signed aboard the (Lewis H.Hill ) as deckhand in 1966 but she was known as the Valley Camp. But I heard she was full of rust so I changed my mind. I sailed with a Capt Garvey in 1980 aboard the S/S Newberry any relation?

A previous post only listed two twin sisterships of the 1917 built 550 foot steamers: The Louis W. Hill hull 721, later Valley Camp, and the William A. Amberg hull 723, later the Albert E. Heekin. However, a third twin was hull 722, the Carmi A. Thompson, which last sailed for Comet Enterprises, Quebec & Ontario Transportation, as Thorold from 1963 to 1971 when it was sold for scrap - the first of this trio scrapped, thus easily forgotten. The William A. Amberg/Albert E. Heekin had the longest sailing career of the three: It was Silver Bay of Republic Steel and Kinsman later, then sold to become the Judeth M. Pierson of the Soo River Co. in 1975, and the Fernglen of P & H briefly in 1982 before its sale for scrap. Thus, the Valley Camp - a fine museum ship at the Soo, was part of a trio of twin sisters.

My dad, Thomas P. Garvey sailed as a mate on the Heekin in 1946 & the Hill in 48 & 49. Mike

Here are Two Sister Ships, they are identical;
Albert E. Heekin Hull # 723
Lewis H. Hill Hull # 721

Guest wrote:The term sister ship has always meant built off the same plans and identical in build.

"The generally accepted commercial distinction of a sister ship are Type: Identical main type (Bulk, Tank, RoRo, etc.) DWT: +/- 10% on the DWT (So if the ship is 100,000 DWT, then 90,000 to 110,000 DWT) Built: +/- 5 years (So if the ship is built in 1965, then built 1960-1970) Builder: Identical shipbuilding company name (Not the ship yard location or the Country of build)"

The critical overriding criteria is the same hull design, and yes similar, but not necessarily identical plans. The half-sister term is also applicable in certain cases. You will have a hard time convincing me that for example, the Simcoe and Algocen were not sisters despite some variation in arrangement.

The term sister ship has always meant built off the same plans and identical in build.

Not arguing here, but I think the term "sister ship" needs to be explained and agreed upon. To one person a ship may be a sister and to another it may not be. Taken from Algoma Progress fleet photo gallery "Though substantially different in outward appearance, at the time of her launch, the Canadian Progress was considered a near "sister ship" to the Canadian Century in basic hull design and hold configuration" That being said, a near sister doesnt even have to look like its sibling to be considered a sister. I realize I was comparing the Progress and Olympic as well as the Transport and Enterprise, but I wanted to include that statement based on the topic of this thread. So in the end, the stern on the Enterprise and Transport wouldnt even be a factor. Another statement from the Algoma Transport photo page "The Canadian Transport(2), and the nearly identical Canadian Enterprise"
Maybe I am wrong on the Olympic and Progress, but I agree to disagree on the Transport-Enterprise. In the end, a sister ship just seems to be more of a personal preferance than an actually classification.

Progress and Olympic are quite dissimilar as far as stern accomodation blocks go. There are probably more differences than that; the two ships were built 8 years apart.

Enterprise and Transport have distinctly different stern-end hull designs.

I sailed the Progress and Olympic and they are not sister ships.

How about the Algoma Progress and Algoma Olympic as sisters. Also the Algoma Transport and Algoma Enterprise as sisters?

Both sets are almost identical from the outside.