SS United States

Not a great deal of patriotism being shown over there! You bought the QM so thought this one would be a certainty. Saw her myself late one evening in the Delaware and she has got charisma.

Nationalism, any kind of tribalism is just a scam by TPTB to keep their money and power securely rolling in

Perhaps emotion will save it, but huge amounts of $$$ will be needed.
I read with great sadness the current plight of the South Steyne, another charismatic steam ship with an amazing history. If you can save yours it will be a huge achievement. Remember, the accommodation it will offer will, without much change, fall far short of current cruising patrons expectations.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...k=63b4ea697391cf1b09e533cd9cf99b40-1517112242

Gudday mate, reckon you oughta get you countries sorted. This is NZ we beat you guys twice for the America’s Cup remember - still got it as I recall.
What would I know about an Aussie ferry boat - p.s. heard of the All Blacks [emoji6]

These classic passenger liners have always been a love of mine. I've read everything I can about them, I've built models of them, I've got them hanging on my walls, and I've stayed aboard the Queen Mary. I used to work at a museum where this was our primary subject matter. Nobody wants to see the Big U sailing again more than I do. Hell, I've even been suckered into donating money to the cause (not much.)

It's not going to happen.

There's not enough support. There's not enough money. She needs too much work. There have already been several attempts to salvage her, and every single one has failed. It's sad to see her go, but it's time.

Those ocean liners were much more graceful looking than the overgrown hotels passing for cruise ships.

Your absolutely correct!
Days when naval architects could consider aesthetics.
Listen guys $3 each you would have a $1b - I’ll put in my 3 bucks [emoji15]

Fletcher500 said:

The big yards in the U.S are doing Naval and MSC (I believe they have a different name now) which are crewed by merchant marine officers. They are not building cruise ships, tankers, or container ships in the U.S.

Its not economical and doesn't make sense on many levels, but I think its sad to see these old steam ships go away. A big part of our history.

Click to expand...

Akers Shipbuilding in Philadelphia IS building tankers. Crowley has had several Jones act tankers delivered. I believe OSG (Over Sea Group) has had tankers delivered as well. Akers is the old Philadelphia Naval ship yard.

Post 27
Noticed the typo as well
Beam is 101 feet

She will be scrapped. If government money isn't involved (shouldn't be ), it's not economically feasible to make her some sort of building next to a dock. Also, because of decks design, it wouldn't work well as a large public access building such as a mall or museum. Finally too much time has passed from when she stopped running for the emotional attachment. If it was going to work, it should have been done 30 years ago when she was no longer profitable as a ship. Her only hope is for someone with more money than common sense.

Ted

Nomad Willy said:

Lots of wood boats are savable at that age.
They may need to drydock to find out.

So if the first two responders think it’s “toast” I’ll bet they can’t tell if the hull has rusted from the outside in or from the inside out.
Other than the hull plating what else would be toast? She’s in fresh water in PA I would assume. There was an old sailing ship in the south end of Lake Union in Seattle that was 100 years old many years ago. Lots older than the SSUS. Don’t recall what happened to her but she was very much afloat. Most of her wood features were probably rotten or replaced.
I’m not going to “invest” in the possibility of the SSUS being sound however I suspect at this point nobody knows.

Click to expand...

You speak of the Wawona....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wawona_(schooner)

In the 90s, during one of my fits of dogooderism, I was heavily involved in the attempt to make the USS Cabot CVL 28 (WW II carrier) the into a museum ship. She was in reasonably good shape, having just come off active duty with the Spanish Navy.

Even though we had a good deal of ship construction/repair experience on the board, and generous assistant from Ingalls, everyone (me included) severely underestimated the costs (restoration + ongoing O&M) to make it work.

Our governing precept was that the project had to be self sustaining without government support (other people's money). Reality reared its ugly head. She's razor blades today.

CaptRonn said:

If the people wanting to save it had to put up their own money it would be long gone.

Click to expand...

Much as I wish beautiful, old ships like this could be saved, CaptRonn's comment above is the bottom line. Unless some billionaire comes along (a few millionaires won't be enough), and decides to dedicate a significant portion of his net worth to this project, it's not going to happen.

And I would be absolutely against any plan to get the government involved. That would not be an appropriate use of tax dollars.

So... how much was spent on the raising of the Hunley or the Monitor?

Sailor of Fortune said:

Akers Shipbuilding in Philadelphia IS building tankers. Crowley has had several Jones act tankers delivered. I believe OSG (Over Sea Group) has had tankers delivered as well. Akers is the old Philadelphia Naval ship yard.

Click to expand...

I didn't realize that. How large, and how many tankers are Akers/OSG putting out per year?

I, too, live in Philly and often see that sad, lovely old ship. I've met Susan Gibbs. I know Steven Ujifusa, who wrote the book; a good read: A Man and His Ship | Book by Steven Ujifusa | Official Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster

The problems with saving that ship are quite great: 1, She's an ocean liner and there are reasons that there are essentially no others remaining, certainly none in service. 2, Ocean liners were built for transportation in the days before ubiquitous aircraft passenger service; thus their shape, speed, horsepower, and sea keeping abilities are quite different than floating hotels and amusement parks. 3, The SSUS is pretty darned extreme even for a fast ocean liner. She's basically a very large destroyer, sharp, narrow, huge engines. She was intended to be a troop carrier like the other older ocean liners became during the two major wars. 4, Norwegian Cruise Lines bought her with the thought of taking advantage of the Jones Act and converting her to a Stateside cruise ship; they soon discovered that she isn't a cruise ship but an empty hull with huge engines and no interior volume for a cruise ship's 'amenities'. (Recall that NCL bought the ocean liner SS France, added two decks of staterooms, took out half her boilers, ran her for a couple decades. They failed to maintain the other boilers, one of which then blew up killing some crew. And eventually had her scrapped in India.) 5, Carnival tried the same ideas and commissioned engineering studies to confirm NCAs conclusion. 6, Despite those rusty decks you see in aerial photographs, SSUS is in pretty decent structural condition according to the engineering studies.

So! All the SSUS is possibly good for is something large and land based with a certain cachet. Lots of square footage. Low floor-to-floor heights. Lots of space w/o adequate windows (think of any office you've been in that has small portholes widely spaced?). I think the low floor to floor heights is the major problem. Whole, snazzy old office buildings cannot be updated because of that; there's no room for ductwork, plumbing, sprinkler piping, electrical, or computer wiring.

A museum ship she's not; there's nothing left and what was there originally was pretty spartan: removable painted steel panels with marinite core (foamed concrete with asbestos fiber reinforcement. Now sold w/o the asbestos.). Even the luxury spaces were pretty plain, however decorated with non-flammable 'art'.

I, for one, among many - but a few too few, apparently - wish that somebody will find her cachet adequate to overcome the problems.

well...heres a few examples...

http://www.phillyshipyard.com/s.cfm/4-35/Completed-projects

but in reality, so what?

as long as our economy employs enough people and supports a strong government.....

we all can be fortune tellers and assistance towers for all I care.... ��

Fletcher500 said:

I didn't realize that. How large, and how many tankers are Akers/OSG putting out per year?

Click to expand...

I listed earlier a long list of those building ships in the US. Austal, Bollinger, Edison Chouest, Fincantieri, General Dynamics, Huntington Ingalls, Keppel, Philly, Vigor, and Halter. Most of those are building 1 to 2 a year but some, like Chouest, build a lot of ships. Now, most of what Chouest builds go to the Gulf and Oil industry.

Sailor of Fortune said:

Akers Shipbuilding in Philadelphia IS building tankers. Crowley has had several Jones act tankers delivered. I believe OSG (Over Sea Group) has had tankers delivered as well. Akers is the old Philadelphia Naval ship yard.

Click to expand...

This is indeed good news.

BandB said:

I listed earlier a long list of those building ships in the US. Austal, Bollinger, Edison Chouest, Fincantieri, General Dynamics, Huntington Ingalls, Keppel, Philly, Vigor, and Halter. Most of those are building 1 to 2 a year but some, like Chouest, build a lot of ships. Now, most of what Chouest builds go to the Gulf and Oil industry.

Click to expand...

This thread is about large ships, so I was specifically asking about Oil Tankers (VLCC), Big Cruise Ships, and Container Ships (say 11,000 TEU and up). It was my understanding that these were not being constructed in the U.S., except for Naval and their MSC counterpart. IE, there may be Product Carriers (not VLCC's) and other large vessels being constructed in the noted yards, but not the large variety. I only quickly googled some of the sites you have noted, and they describe building large shore supply ships, big tugs, and repair of larger vessels,but they do not appear to be involved in the construction of large ships.

Fletcher500 said:

This thread is about large ships, so I was specifically asking about Oil Tankers (VLCC), Big Cruise Ships, and Container Ships (say 11,000 TEU and up). It was my understanding that these were not being constructed in the U.S., except for Naval and their MSC counterpart. IE, there may be Product Carriers (not VLCC's) and other large vessels being constructed in the noted yards, but not the large variety. I only quickly googled some of the sites you have noted, and they describe building large shore supply ships, big tugs, and repair of larger vessels,but they do not appear to be involved in the construction of large ships.

Click to expand...

When demand calls for it, container ships are built in the US. All the ships TOTE and Crowley use are. TOTE recently had Orca Class Ships built for their use in Alaska. There are oil tankers built in the US. According to Overseas Shipholding Group there are 94 oil tankers currently in service and here's a Bloomberg article talking about the increase. General Dynamics built American Liberty, Constitution, and Independence for SEA-Vista.

The quantities are still small compared to the rest of the world, but it is happening. The only type vessel I am not aware of being built in the US recently is a Cruise Ship. I'm also not aware of any recent recreational vessels over 200', although Westport is working on 213' in their first steel yacht.

BandB said:

When demand calls for it, container ships are built in the US. All the ships TOTE and Crowley use are. TOTE recently had Orca Class Ships built for their use in Alaska. There are oil tankers built in the US. According to Overseas Shipholding Group there are 94 oil tankers currently in service and here's a Bloomberg article talking about the increase. General Dynamics built American Liberty, Constitution, and Independence for SEA-Vista.

The quantities are still small compared to the rest of the world, but it is happening. The only type vessel I am not aware of being built in the US recently is a Cruise Ship. I'm also not aware of any recent recreational vessels over 200', although Westport is working on 213' in their first steel yacht.

Click to expand...

Are they large (VLCC) Crude, and large TEU's container ships? There are smaller versions tankers, container ships, and cruise ships. A tanker can also be a "Product" carrier and it will lighter and off load VLCC's or do coastal runs to smaller ports. There are small 300 ft. long container ships that do the same. There are 400 ft. cruise ships which take people to Alaska or on coastal runs. None of these are what I am referring to.

If you have some hard data to show the types of ships I am describing are being built here, I would be interested to see it.

Fletcher500 said:

Are they large (VLCC) Crude, and large TEU's container ships? There are smaller versions tankers, container ships, and cruise ships. A tanker can also be a "Product" carrier and it will lighter and off load VLCC's or do coastal runs to smaller ports. There are small 300 ft. long container ships that do the same. There are 400 ft. cruise ships which take people to Alaska or on coastal runs. None of these are what I am referring to.

If you have some hard data to show the types of ships I am describing are being built here, I would be interested to see it.

Click to expand...

TOTE Alaska 839', 600 FEU.

Matson Kanaloa, 870', 3500 TEU

Independence, Constitution and Liberty, 610' 330,000 barrel capacity

Does The Jones Act require ships going between US Ports to be made in the US ? Perhaps that is the reason Tote and Crowley are building ships here. Not because it can be done competitively, or because they choose to...but because that's the only way they can serve their market. If they weren't required to build their ships here, would they still do it, or would go elsewhere ?

"The problems with saving that ship are quite great: 1, She's an ocean liner and there are reasons that there are essentially no others remaining, certainly none in service."

I would argue that the QM2 is indeed an ocean liner, and probably the last, as opposed to a 'cruise ship'. We have sailed her through some rough North Atlantic waters and she behaves beautifully. And she was build for the North Atlantic crossings.

Benthic2 said:

Does The Jones Act require ships going between US Ports to be made in the US ? Perhaps that is the reason Tote and Crowley are building ships here. Not because it can be done competitively, or because they choose to...but because that's the only way they can serve their market. If they weren't required to build their ships here, would they still do it, or would go elsewhere ?

Click to expand...

Yes, that is the reason most of these ships are built in the US. The act and various regulations are also some of the reasons others aren't buying US built ships. It has become US build for US and foreign for foreign. We see much of the same in crews where US boats must have US crews but then it's a challenge for US citizens to get jobs on other boats.

I can see both sides of it. We need to keep US shipyards busy, because we are always going to need ships for the Navy/Coast Guard/Etc., and we don't want to outsource that. But...we also like to believe in capitalism and the free market. We'd like to have mulitiple domestic ship yards bid on navy ships....but how many ship yards can stay busy without the US Gov't force feeding them jobs ?

Akers Philly Shipyard is building container ships as well as tankers. they have a unique manufacturing process where they build in sections and then put the sections together for varying lengths. My understanding is that they build there to meet the requirements of the "Jones Act". Their drydocks were originally used for Aircraft carriers so they are quite large. Every time I cross the Girard Point bridge to Philly International Airport their are at least two ships being assembled in drydock with sections stacked up waiting final assy. Its a pretty busy place.
John

BandB said:

TOTE Alaska 839', 600 FEU.

Matson Kanaloa, 870', 3500 TEU

Independence, Constitution and Liberty, 610' 330,000 barrel capacity

Click to expand...

Not in the VLCC or ULCC category for the tanker class, but these are good size ships, I will give you that. Good to see we still build some decent size ones.