Ron wrote:I also do not like the new ships. They may be built to be functional and I have been interested in the designs, engines and techonology put into them. In truth, my feelings towards them also include the 1,000 footers and other aft island freighters. I'll drive some miles to see the Alpena but not drive a mile to see any aft island ship. They have no character in their exterior appearance.
As to the tug/barge vessels, they are the worse of all.
The only aft island ships I like are the Collingwood builds, ie Algowood and her sisters. The rest don't do anything for me.
Regarding Chief's post, the ability to identify one of the classics by her specific features or lack of features is so very true.
I think what we are all trying to say in our way is that the new ships don't seem to have a "Personality" like the traditional lake freighters did. Back in the good old days you could tell a ship from a couple miles away by a certain something that a ship had. The way whistle was mounted, number of pilot house windows. Each had something a little different from another. The new ships are as alike a bowling pins. Maybe as they get older they will get a "personality" of their own but doubtful. You have to look at them and appreciate the workmanship in them, but it's not our workmanship--BY that I mean the people of the Great Lakes Community both American and Canadian. I look back at some of the beautiful ships built by Collingwood, Port Weller and Canadian Vickers. Two of which and my favorites and are getting ready to be scrapped.
I also do not like the new ships. They may be built to be functional and I have been interested in the designs, engines and techonology put into them. In truth, my feelings towards them also include the 1,000 footers and other aft island freighters. I'll drive some miles to see the Alpena but not drive a mile to see any aft island ship. They have no character in their exterior appearance.
As to the tug/barge vessels, they are the worse of all.
Just my 2 cents. Give me the old boats like the Cliff's Victory.[/quote]
One can hardly refer to the Cliffs Victory as "old boat" since there never was another like her. Exceptional? Yes. Beautiful? Yes. But not from the same mold as hundreds of other "straight deckers".
astz wrote:Aesthetics aside (these are working ships after all) I am concerned about their longevity being so lightly built compared to their predecessors. Whereas we could count on seeing a Canadian laker
trade for 5 or even 6 decades, these ships are 3 decade ships at the most. How are the economics going to play out considering they are $40 million dollars apiece? I guess the guys doing the math will be retired so it will be someone elses problem. Or maybe they are counting on everything being built in China by then and no great lakes trade to worry about. Troubling thought!
That doesn't make much sense. Most of the existing Canadian fleet was also built with around a 30 year (or much less in the case of a few existing CSL boats) lifespan in mind, but were nursed along until now because of the dropping of government shipbuilding subsidies in the late 80's combined with the 25% import tariff; the operators had no choice but to keep them around. Now that they can build freely again, there is no reason to artificially extend these vessel's lifespans beyond their initial design. If it was feasible to build in Canadian shipyards, the same train of thought would apply.
I too am finding it hard to be enthusiastic about the new Algoma and CSL ships. I'm thinking perhaps some of the allure (for myself anyways) of Great Lakes ships is the fact that the vast majority of them were built (or rebuilt) on the lakes. It is disappointing that these ships could not have been built in domestic shipyards.
Aesthetics aside (these are working ships after all) I am concerned about their longevity being so lightly built compared to their predecessors. Whereas we could count on seeing a Canadian laker
trade for 5 or even 6 decades, these ships are 3 decade ships at the most. How are the economics going to play out considering they are $40 million dollars apiece? I guess the guys doing the math will be retired so it will be someone elses problem. Or maybe they are counting on everything being built in China by then and no great lakes trade to worry about. Troubling thought!
I'm finding it difficult to get really excited about the new boats. Appearance-wise they're quite bland. So far the Trilliums have the edge in appearance but that's not saying much IMHO.
I think the Trillium Class lakers actually look pretty good. We will have to see about the Algomas; self unloaders sometimes look better on a single superstructure ship.
I think the new C.S.L. ships look much better than the new Algoma ships! The pilot house windows in the Algoma boats maybe functionaly (better for visibility), but they do not look good being all oversized! Just my 2 cents. Nothing will compare to the earlier U.S and Canadian built boats, as far as looks go though!
I spent most of my time on the Lakes on "Traditional" ships (forward cabins & pilothouse, after cabins). This being so, I can't understand all the delirium over the new CSL & Algoma boats. Pure functionality supposably explains their unattractive appearance (as one Boatnerd said "they look like they were built from Lego blocks"). They certainly aren't traditional. Although the ships I was on were built to be purely functional, they also had some attractiveness built into them.
They aren't even Canadian boats (they will have Canadian crews). They weren't built in Collingwood, at Davie, Vickers, or Port Weller, but China. Like a foreign car bought by a Canadian, they aren't Canadian but remain foreign. Are they the equal of what they replace, attractive Canadian ships like the Algocape, Gordon C. Leitch, V.W. Shelley, Quebecois, Montrealais, Algoma Provider and others. Who knows? But you get what you pay for.