Rail and water interface: Pt. I–Whaleback vessels
in Duluth, Wolvin’s home town. During this consolidation period,
Wolvin moved quickly to name his fleet the Pittsburgh Steamship Company. This magnanimous gesture thus gave the naming honors to Carnegie’s old fleet. The new line adopted a hand- some livery (borrowed again from the Carnegie fleet) a Pullman Green hull, straw yellow cabins and a silver stack. Great Lakes marine observers quickly dubbed the fleet the “tin stackers.”20 The Pullman Green hulls were later painted an attractive oxide red color. Wolvin had always been a reluctant
SAULT STE. MARIE, MI; CIRCA 1904
The whaleback barge No. 105 is shown under tow in the Soo Locks in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, probably during the 1904 season. The action at the locks appears hot and heavy (as it usually was) on this pleasant summer day.
Upper Peninsula of Michigan, six Class I railroads, a fleet of 112 steamships and barges, and a capital stock of an astounding $1.5 billion. Table Two shows the ore-carrying fleet thus created. Morgan had consoli- dated the vessels of five Great Lakes bulk carriers into a fleet, as shown, of 69 steamers and 43 barges. Rocke- feller’s PSC fleet was absorbed in Feb- ruary-March, 1901. The Bessemer fleet
was added on May 17, 1901, the
Menominee and Mutual fleets (Ameri- can Steel Wire Co. fleet) joined on May 23, American Steamship on June 10. The new steamship company, with a total capacity of 10 million tons, was headed by savvy Great Lakes fleet manager, Augustus B. Wolvin. At its in- ception during February-June, 1901, the “Steel Trust Fleet” was the largest U.S. flag carrier. It was headquartered
player in this drama. His role was to organize and integrate the fleet. This he rapidly did and his tenure as fleet general manager was short-lived. On January 1, 1904, he relinquished his position in what was believed to be an amicable parting of the ways. He was replaced by the scrappy 39- year old English immigrant, Harry Coulby. Coulby was an experienced Great Lakes shipping manager, having risen to partner status in Pickands- Mather, which in 1893 won the con- tract to manage the ASBC fleet of whalebacks as well as the Minnesota Steamship fleet. He, thus, was well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the whalebacks. With the advent of the Steel Trust
Fleet, of course, both of those pieces of business were gone for Pickands-Math- er. In
early January, 1904, Coulby jumped ship from P-M to replace Au- gustus Wolvin at Pittsburgh Steam- ship Company. Coulby’s qualifications were well known to the management of the new steel corporation , and he was said to be the hand-picked favorite of Eldridge Gary. Coulby was known for his two domi-
nant characteristics: attacking ineffi- ciency and a relentless hammering of the maritime unions which challenged his control of his ships and men. In the former, he recognized that the new dominant bulk unloading technol- ogy on the Great Lakes, the Hulett Un- loader, was inconsistent with the hull design and the hatches of the whale- backs. These hatches, in particular, had to be hand-opened and were restricted in size to 8′×10′. New lakers delivered to PSC in early 1904 could each carry three times the payload of the largest whaleback steamers and could be un- loaded in about one-quarter of the time.
SAULT STE. MARIE, MI; CIRCA 1891
This hand-colored photo shows the Joseph L. Colbynavigating the Poe locks at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The whaleback was still owned by American Steel Barge Company (prior to its sale to the Bessemer Steamship Lines and rolling into the U.S. Steel fleet) so the oxide-red hull color is probably authentic. The three-eyed hawser is clearly shown as is the vessel’s anchor at rest on the deck. The Colby had seven hatches opening into three separate watertight compartments and could haul 2,000 tons of bulk cargo.
78
The economics of Great Lakes ore car- riage was based on the premise that each vessel would make 19 trips under load each navigation season. The slower hatch-opening and unloading regimes of the whalebacks made this number of payload trips very problematic.
OCTOBER 2012
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100