Page 1 of 1

Re: Ship reconstruction tonnage changes

Posted: August 11, 2010, 2:02 am
by sh71382
Thanks, that really helps answer several questions.

Re: Ship reconstruction tonnage changes

Posted: August 10, 2010, 2:44 pm
by Guest
In most cases I think you'll find it was the change from hold beams and stanchions to arch construction. In the case of J.B. Ford, that's what it was (job done at Conneaut, presumably during the winter). Before 1905 all the bulk freighters had the beams and stanchions, which were great hindrances to unloading, and a large majority had the change made. Pittsburgh made a lot of these conversions during the '20s.

Ship reconstruction tonnage changes

Posted: August 10, 2010, 12:31 am
by sh71382
Hello I have been doing some research on the JB Ford and noted that in 1916 she had a tonnage change from 4787 gross as built, to 4132 gross tons. Several other boats of the era and a little earlier had similar reconstructions or tonnage changes in the late teens early twenties, like the Zenith City, Queen City, Maunaloa, James J. Hill. Some vessels only had a loss of a couple hundred tons while others show a higher loss of tonnage, sometimes the net tons dropped 1000. I dont understand any of what it is showing, could some one perhaps explain to me what went on, that caused this tonnage change? Was it switching over to steel hatches, vs wooden hatches? Was it changing construction style over to arch? Or was it simply something was changed that got more exemptions? I would really appreciate learning more as to what made this tonnage change. Thank you. -Steve