Merged:Northern Yacht/Oops

Right side up

She is now got the right side up. We just came from the marina and she is now sitting on her bottom. They were priming pumps to continue to remove water. She is a very very tall boat. I hope they are able to save her, but it fear it will cost a lot to put her right (assuming that is even possible).

MV Salish Lady said:

She is now got the right side up. We just came from the marina and she is now sitting on her bottom. They were priming pumps to continue to remove water. She is a very very tall boat. I hope they are able to save her, but it fear it will cost a lot to put her right (assuming that is even possible).

Click to expand...

She can be saved, but by whom. Who owns her now? Who wants her? If you're the buyer do you want her as she sits? But that may be all you can get. And I was glad to see earlier she had been pulled and water removed.

Who finishes her? Someone arranges to on site? Moves to a shipyard nearby? Delta? I say them as they have finished a Northern before.

BandB said:

She can be saved, but by whom. Who owns her now? Who wants her? If you're the buyer do you want her as she sits? But that may be all you can get. And I was glad to see earlier she had been pulled and water removed.

Who finishes her? Someone arranges to on site? Moves to a shipyard nearby? Delta? I say them as they have finished a Northern before.

Click to expand...

I have no answers but did I mention how tall she is? I know nothing about the design of a ship, but to my eye it just looks wrong. I would be surprised to see her sold to another buyer. It would be hard to make the case to pay the kind of money for a boat that tipped over on launch and filled with sea water. By the way did I mention how tall she is?

MV Salish Lady said:

I have no answers but did I mention how tall she is? I know nothing about the design of a ship, but to my eye it just looks wrong. I would be surprised to see her sold to another buyer. It would be hard to make the case to pay the kind of money for a boat that tipped over on launch and filled with sea water. By the way did I mention how tall she is?

Click to expand...

Is she tall? Yes, I think you mentioned. And everyone who ever looked at it did. The boat doesn't look normal. She appears to be an 80' lengthened and then just a lot added on up top. And it was done while reducing weight. I'm finding it very strange to see builders who work hard to reduce a boat's weight with lighter materials only to have to add more ballast. Also, the original drawings and depictions done before construction showed her tall but sure didn't appear as tall as she turned out. And I still don't get those five windows right at the waterline, but thank god for them. That's how they got the last guy out, by busting one of them out.

I don't know if she could be salvaged and made something nice. Wouldn't be the only boat out there that requires extreme amounts of ballast for balance. Or what about removing the upper decks? I picture the hull sitting in a shipyard for a long time and people asking why is that there. I laughed at Hatteras's yard not long ago. Very nice facility but they have what I'd label a "mold junk yard" and a "stand junk yard". Even a couple of molds down a drive and by themselves back in the woods. I don't know if any of those are ones they use or will ever use or not. Just funny to see.

Someone may do something with this hull five years from now. But the boat as is may be all the buyer can get. If he had a contract that gave him title, then it's his. If he didn't, then he has nothing.

Oh, I don't think you noticed, but it's very tall.

Here is the pre-construction picture they created to show what was planned. It apparently changed colors and names along the way.

http://www.superyachttimes.com/editorial/8/article/id/7363

Moonstruck said:

How sad. The whole town could suffer ramifications from this.

Click to expand...

It's always sad when companies close and people lose their jobs. But for clarification, Northern Marine had become a very small employer in recent years, building one custom boat at a time over 2 or 3 years. Most people who live in Anacortes didn't even know they were there. There are never more than a dozen cars parked by their building at any given time.

The big employer(s) in Anacortes have always been Dakota Creek ship yard (they're a steel ship fabricator) 160' Ocean going tugs, 115' Crab boats, etc. etc.; The two oil refineries (Tesoro and Shell) who employ thousands, Naval Air Station Whidbey and Boeing to the south. There are also four large marinas and a flourishing yacht size dry storage facility supporting both the pleasure boat and the commercial fishing fleet.

You are most likely correct. . . someone will buy their name and equipment from bankruptcy and they will be up and running under new ownership.

time lapse of refloating

Their name is now worthless or nearly so. Who knows how much of the equipment is secured. Molds may be sold. Not for a great deal though.

Here's a video of it being righted:

He beat me to it, so link removed.

B&B-you are right about NM being for sale, or at least actively seeking some investment capital. My partner has occasionally invested in some marine related businesses over the years and we were contacted by a business broker from Bellevue about 6 months ago. WE only had very preliminary discussions and he did not name the business, but it was obvious to us both that it was NM. The construction of this boat was a big part of his pitch.

The last time I was there- THIS was the boat they were rolling out. THIS is what a Northern should look like, not that "Marquis de Europa Tower" that rolled over.
It's like every time I see a pos Chevy- I ask myself- "why didn't they just keep building the popular pretty designs that people would still buy?".. change for the sake of change is stupid.

pilothouse king said:

The last time I was there- THIS was the boat they were rolling out. THIS is what a Northern should look like, not that "Marquis de Europe" that rolled over.
It's like every time I see a pos Chevy- I ask myself- "why didn't they just keep building the popular pretty designs that people would still buy?".. change for the sake of change is stupid.View attachment 30041

Click to expand...

I'm not adventurous when spending big money. Apparently some are. But I'd rather choose a hull that has been built many times. Even better if I've been on a few. May look dated, old fashioned, but floats and doesn't topple over, rides fine. A lot of people yell "do a custom build" and I'm "why? I don't choose to reinvent the wheel." Semi custom to me is the best of both worlds, proven hull and customize interior. The way people like Nordhavn do business and Westport and Hatteras. Or Grand Banks or American Tug. Guess I'm old and conservative except not old. Had I been wanting a Northern, I wouldn't have tried to then turn it into something else. Maybe even picked one they had built before.

They are not the first builder to try lighter and taller and find themselves with a stability issue. Now we don't know for sure they do have a stability issue. Maybe it was something else. But seeing the photo of that boat, I'd have said "no."

What's this "New World Yacht Builders" vs "Northern Marine" business?

http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s3/85-foot-yacht-capsizes-upon-launch-how-15083.html#post235517

After reading all this, I figured I'd look'em up. And I must say I LOVE their 58' F/V.

One thing to keep in mind is our collective impression is that the boat looks tall, but what we are really seeing is height vs length. We really cannot see the beam. It might be pretty wide, don't know.

If boat was stretched 30% longer but kept other dimensions, our eyes would not likely be so offended. But the roll stability would likely be the same.

I think it all comes back to ballasting and that crazy single point lift under the bow when it started floating off the rear cradle. Probably would have been the same if boat was 115' and much sleeker looking.

Probably would have been fine if they launched it bow first.

Conrad said:

What's this "New World Yacht Builders" vs "Northern Marine" business?

http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s3/85-foot-yacht-capsizes-upon-launch-how-15083.html#post235517

Click to expand...

Long Story. Bud Lemieux sold Northern. The buyers booted him out. About the time they brought Andy McDonald back in they declared bankruptcy. Working around that, Andy formed New World and started selling Northern under it's name. Then Bud, Andy and Randy Cowley bought the assets of the bankrupt Northern and so had the trade name under the entity of New World. Now the New World Northern closed. There are those who speculate that there will be another bankruptcy and Bud will buy it again from bankruptcy court. Might happen but not sure he'll be buying anything of value. A lot of time someone decides to pick up the pieces and continue, but it's seldom successful.

But one way or another Northern has been in turmoil for at least 6 or 7 years. They've never been big. To my best knowledge, they launched three boats in 2004 and 2007 and otherwise the most in a year is two. But they don't own the property or land. So you have the facilities, the molds, and the name. And the name wasn't selling many boats and as of the past two days it's value has shrunk dramatically. Two days ago mention Northern and first thought was "nice boat." Now it's "oh they're the ones that the boat rolled and sank and they closed the doors."

Ski in NC said:

One thing to keep in mind is our collective impression is that the boat looks tall, but what we are really seeing is height vs length. We really cannot see the beam. It might be pretty wide, don't know.

If boat was stretched 30% longer but kept other dimensions, our eyes would not likely be so offended. But the roll stability would likely be the same.

I think it all comes back to ballasting and that crazy single point lift under the bow when it started floating off the rear cradle. Probably would have been the same if boat was 115' and much sleeker looking.

Probably would have been fine if they launched it bow first.

Click to expand...

Well, the Insurer and the Coast Guard were planning stability tests before they use the crane to hoist it out. Maybe if they'd paid for a crane to launch it they wouldn't have had all this. Had to launch in darkness to get high tide.

N4712 said:

After reading all this, I figured I'd look'em up. And I must say I LOVE their 58' F/V. View attachment 30049

Click to expand...

At their best they were a good alternative to Nordhavn in the 57' and up sizes. Some strange interior use of space (as in I think a bit poor), but a lot of boat in their 57-86' boats. Like a lot of builders though they decided let's try bigger. A 151' Tri-Deck and this 90'. You wonder what if they'd built a 52' and a 47'. Maybe get a lift that could handle their boats too.

Beautiful color scheme. And WOW it doesn't even look like it should float upright. It is very attractive on the hard. Most boats look odd out of water like the waddling duck, I suppose.

Toolbuddie said:

Beautiful color scheme. And WOW it doesn't even look like it should float upright. It is very attractive on the hard. Most boats look odd out of water like the waddling duck, I suppose.

Click to expand...

Originally it was going to be red. I thought that looked good as well. I like people brightening their boats up a little.

As to floating, last I heard last night it was floating although still in a sling from the crane.

When it was commissioned it was also an 85' (Hull #8501), named "Blood Baron" and was schedule for launch in the summer of 2013. Seems like some things changed over time.

The owners rep stated that part of the reason they selected NM was they were willing to fully customize the boat to the owners requirements. So maybe criticism of the boats design and appearance shouldn't all be laid at the feet of NM totally. Would be interesting to know more about the owner.

I've toured and had their previous boats moored near me as they come off the line and they are truly beautiful inside. I can't say I'm overwhelmed by this particular boat. . . . But you know what they say. . . "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!"

Here's a guy I've taught with and what I know about him admire greatly..not to say it's all that much....his background and choice of boats brings something to the table as he is no "newbie". I'm also not saying that builders don't build a turkey every once and awhile or have a major downturn. I would be careful what I said about this incident before the facts are in (in much greater detail than here)...I learned in aviation safety training making guesses long before the investigation only usually makes you look stupid in the long run.

Devastation is the only way to describe the loss Bruce felt in 1994 when Zopilote was lost on an uncharted seamount 70 miles west of Ketchikan, Alaska.
The circumnavigation had covered about 35,000 miles. In total, Kessler had left about 100,000 miles in Zopilote's wake.
Like Zopilote, Spirit of Zopilote was designed by Steve Seaton, and built by Northern Marine. In the ensuing years, Bud Lemieux had left Delta Marine to start Northern in Anacortes, Washington, with Chuck Worst and Clifford Rome.

Bruce Kessler, Passagemaker of the Year - Trawlers & Trawlering

Edelweiss said:

The owners rep stated that part of the reason they selected NM was they were willing to fully customize the boat to the owners requirements. So maybe criticism of the boats design and appearance shouldn't all be laid at the feet of NM. Would be interesting to know more about the owner.
!"

Click to expand...

I think ultimately the blame is appropriately directed at NM regardless of anything else. However, I do believe the entire project merits question. You want to build longer, taller, lighter, no wider. You want to put portholes almost at the water line. No telling all the other things. Builders needing business don't know how to say no. This is the third US builder I can name without even thinking who had serious problems trying to build something outside their normal. Both of the other two ended up in the courts.

It's always "we want this.....but let's do this.....oh and this......lets make this change.....just a little more......oh and this can't hurt." Learning along the way is a dangerous way to operate. But then the boat changed I'm sure in small bits and pieces and maybe no one realized how they were adding up.

And a reminder. We don't know what caused this yet. The Coast Guard does have an Incident Management Team investigating.

BandB said:

And a reminder. We don't know what caused this yet. The Coast Guard does have an Incident Management Team investigating.

Click to expand...

Well. . . I will be watching for that report. . . . .

Because I've never read USCG Maritine Incident Investigation Report where it stated. . . ."Ultimately the vessel foundered due to the popular opinion that it was aesthetically ugly!! LOL

(My post was concerning the negative opinion of many, that the vessel was unattractive. Note the quote. . ."Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Had nothing to do with the seaworthiness, safety or cause of the accident!!)

Edelweiss said:

Well. . . I will be watching for that report. . . . .

Because I've never read USCG Maritine Incident Investigation Report where it stated. . . ."Ultimately the vessel foundered due to the popular opinion that it was aesthetically ugly!! LOL

(My post was concerning the negative opinion of many, that the vessel was unattractive. Note the quote. . ."Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Had nothing to do with the seaworthiness, safety or cause of the accident!!)

Click to expand...

Edelweiss said:

Well. . . I will be watching for that report. . . . .

Because I've never read USCG Maritine Incident Investigation Report where it stated. . . ."Ultimately the vessel foundered due to the popular opinion that it was aesthetically ugly!! LOL

(My post was concerning the negative opinion of many, that the vessel was unattractive. Note the quote. . ."Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Had nothing to do with the seaworthiness, safety or cause of the accident!!)

Click to expand...

Wifey B: Some boats are so ugly they're cute. This wasn't one of them either. They're generally small boats. I wouldn't be bothered by ugly if functional. Sometimes ugly even adds to function which was like what they were maybe trying to do here. More space, more space up top...oops got carried away. Like someone saying, but the galley and dining view is so much nicer without a lower helm. Well, so we'll stand in the galley, look out, and through our extraordinary powers drive the boat. I mean really. It didn't look so tall upside down in the water.

I take it from your posts BB that you sold the mythical NM stock short? Frankly, I'm puzzled by your seeming enthusiasm over this tragedy. But I'm sure it's just me and my smattering knowledge of the blood, sweat and tears Bud and group have put into NM for the past decade or more.

sunchaser said:

I take it from your posts BB that you sold the mythical NM stock short? Frankly, I'm puzzled by your seeming enthusiasm over this tragedy. But I'm sure it's just me and my smattering knowledge of the blood, sweat and tears Bud and group have put into NM for the past decade or more.

Click to expand...

I think in the end we will find out that one of the lateral supports gave way. The fact that the boat was so top heavy probably did not help and the tanks may have been empty which may represent a fair amount of ballast. I can see no way the people launching the boat will not receive scrutiny regarding negligence for improper bracing or inadequate inspection and maintenance of the equipment used to launch. Now its all guesses and its time to wait to see what the CG has to say.

Boat looks top heavy, but I think it will come down to the method of launch, not the boat that caused it to capsize. If they had used a crane with slings we would not be discussing this today. Dollies were too small, one of the stern supports gave way while the bow was still out of the the water, and away she went.

My guess is that the transport trailer failed, resulting in the boat leaning and then rolling over well before being fully in the water.

sunchaser said:

I take it from your posts BB that you sold the mythical NM stock short? Frankly, I'm puzzled by your seeming enthusiasm over this tragedy. But I'm sure it's just me and my smattering knowledge of the blood, sweat and tears Bud and group have put into NM for the past decade or more.

Click to expand...

You may take it I had no interest in buying any or all of their stock or having anything to do with the company nor do I now. But that really has nothing to do with my feelings here. I take no pleasure in the demise of Northern. But my sympathies don't lie with the owners, rather I feel horrible for all the others hurt as a result of things that have happened. I feel pain for the employees, the vendors and the multiple buyers with boats in production including the buyer of the boat that sank. When they have all been made whole then I'll feel differently.

Let's be clear, the management and ownership of the company is at fault here. Regardless of why the boat rolled and sank, they're the ones who had the responsibility to not let that happen. They are the ones who closed the doors. And you say a horrible accident led to that? Not within one day. The accident shouldn't have caused such. It should have been fully insured. And it shouldn't have happened. Boat tilts, you stop and continue? They should have had adequate protection and working capital. Management and ownership has responsibilities. They're the ones in control. A lot of others have been very hurt by this. I don't know the owners. I know they've been at it a long time. I feel on a personal basis for anyone who has encountered problems regardless of whether of their own causing. But Northern Marine hasn't been successful for many years. There obviously was some great imperative on their part to launch this boat right then, regardless. Doesn't really matter whether it's the dollies or the boat or both at fault.

So the greatest parts of my sympathy go to the little guys, the ones who did nothing wrong. The ones working just to support their family. The ones trusting the build of their boats to Northern. The ones who are highly unlikely to recover their money. Ownership returns the money to all those who have made payments and don't have boats to show for it, then I'll get on my knees and praise them for their sweat, tears, and honor.

It will be a long time sorting through all the specifics.

And for the record, I take generally this same stance every time a company closes in a manner like this. I feel deeply for those who lose so much through no fault of their own.

As to the company, just an entity, not a human. Well, although another legal entity, this is just a repeat of history. Doors close. Many hurt. Of course last time the current owners were able to buy the assets and restart the company.