Oh wait, I saw your ship earlier this year and I put that in there to have a little humor, I was filming your ship going by and the Jackson was passed the bridge and I didn’t think they would salute but all the sudden when I realized the Jackson was short and I could fit the whole ship in one picture, I said “Oh this one’s actually-“ and then you heard the salute. But that’s really cool that you work on it. Safe travels to your next voyage!
The real reason is two fold: 1) Crews are much smaller than they used to be, 2) Ship owners desire to maximize cargo capacity and therefore profits. So. smaller deck, engine and steward crews are housed together in one superstructure aft over engine spaces. It's almost always about the money. Hope that helps.
The forward pilot house design was characteristic of Great Lakes freighters in earlier times before radar or walkie talkies, and the place for the watchman to watch and listen for other ships when in fog, confined waters or poor visibility would be at the stem of the ship. The mate would be right behind him in the pilot house window and easy to communicate with. Today we have radios for the watchman and mate, but the watchman still has to be up forward. The whalebacks had the pilot house aft, but they were much shorter. With the pilot house aft, the crew can be kept in one house, and most of the machinery in close proximity.
Nice video! a few things, the last forward pilot house to be built was the Algosoo, and you should put a photo on the screen of the ship you are talking about.
Thanks, I did not know the last forward one was Algosoo, I must’ve been thinking about the American side of ships, also yes I should do that soon, but once again thank you
I was a very lucky young boy. My Uncle was an Engineer on the great lake freighters. From early 70's to the two thousands. I got to ride in A unloading Hewlett in Cleveland harbor. And also got to be aboard several ships. Later I was A ship keeper on the " Indiana harbor ". And I am a very nostalgic man. Front pilot houses are more cool. Yet, sadly, the great lake freighters aren't the the same, as the way the jobs aren't as they were either.
I operate a shiploader at the Goderich salt mine....the Algoma boats are our main carrier ....ive loaded thousands and thousands of hatches by now....I enjoy your channel ...thanks
As always another great vid and im happy i subscribed to your channel, now im thinking they stopped making forward house pilot freighters is just in case of a collision as its much safer to have the pilot house at the stern of a ship, i personally prefer the forward end pilot house ships but sadly we are slowly losing them, have toured on a few of them in Sarnia Ontario as well as been to a few christenings up there as well, keep up the great work and love your vids
Awesome video. I like the format. Nice and relevant photos with a clear and understandable narration. I think the only thing I would add in a technical video like this would maybe be a side/profile view of various/similar hull and superstructure types. Photos are always great, but I also like a good blueprint image once in a while.
I have been watching your content and am enjoying learning so much. Ye I’m 50 and in the past few years I have really gotten into the history of navy wrecks. This led me to the Great Lakes Ships which I’m learning more about each day.
@@mtcemngr5292 You didn't read my post, I said I agreed with Mike, the newer rear house ships look like a barge with a building set on the stern. Read before you comment.
The same reason the railroad eliminated the caboose and all the crew...money! Both could run by remote so the need for a deck or cab remains only for liability issues.
I think it's wonderful that you looked into the change. I'm not the only one who wants to know. I do like the Pilot house in the Bow not because it is or isn't the best way to design the Vessel. If I could afford one surplus I would buy it and put it on a point as another guy did and make a home of it. Good work . More please if youve time. 😁
Thanks for the information! Subbed… I’ve been getting videos(and posting on RU-vid) from Mackinac island of ships going by… it’s always neat to learn more about them..
I actually like the forward pilot house designs on the ships on the great lakes compared to the ones that is in the rear of ships of today the ones that still sail are great just wish they would make a come back
I kinda like the back houses, and although front houses lol cool, you have to remember they’re not efficient, and when a ship gets slammed by waves, or dipped into the sea, the pilot house is gonna get pounded
They actually added 2 last year to the Great lakes fleet. One built in America and one from Netherlands. There hasn't been need for them till now as shipping shutdown other places. First built in the U.S. in 40 years since 1981.
I believe it has more to do with economics than anything else. It is cheaper to build one structure than two. and it leaves more space up front for a cargo hold. I don't know this for sure, just my thoughts. I still prefer the looks of a classic straight decker though.
This is one of my pet peeves about great lakes freighters, I can't stand pilothoues on the stern, I can put up with it because I just applied to the Interlake steamship company but it would certainly be a eyesore if I ended up on one, I would just be thankful enough to be working on one.
I think main reason is profit - to increase cargo capacity. They have to build aft superstructure much higher than usual, to have better view. The downside of it, except loosing classical lake freighter aesthetics, is that inside of aft superstructure is incredibly noisy because of diesel engine's superchargers or turbochargers. You can hear this annoying whistling sound in video about Paul R Tregurtha accommodations.
Another reason why they moved the bridge to the stern of the ship is because on a more modern ship you have the cabins, motor and bridge in one area thus you have more cargo space which means more money.
Quick question, could it be that the overwhelming number of rearward wheelhouse freighter Captains from "salties" over the dwindling number of forward wheelhouse Captains? Were these Captains demanding the rearward wheelhouse no matter what? Curious
My theory is that the forward pilot house design isn't necessarily gone. But no one has built a freighter in such a long time. I think the most recent built freighter was in 2018? I can't remember...but before that, the last true freighter built for the lakes was all the way back in the early 80s with the tregurtha. And she was a thousand footer. I think that had the economy been in a much much better place...we would potentially see a lot more new freighters on the lakes, some potentially with forward pilot houses to continue traditional styles...and some thousand footers
@@stancedstyfon1234 August 13, 2022 I met it at the dock in Detroit before it ever had a load. Didn’t have scratches from the locks yet either. It’s the first of a new class with Tier 4 emissions and uses DEF like most modern diesel trucks. I got some nice pics that day.
As The SalMaris notes, crews are much smaller today. From the mid 19th, and well into the 20th centuries, those vessels were powered by reciprocating steam engines, with coal-fired boilers. Not only was crew required to operate and maintain the engines, but numerous hands were needed to handle the coal. Add to that the required space for coal storage, it makes sense that since it was so crowded back aft, the bridge, chart house, captain’s quarters, etc, would be up forward. Engineering crew size would have shrunk with the advent of oil fired boilers, then steam turbine power and finally Diesel power. It’s said that today’s “snipes” don’t even get their hands dirty. I have Always loved those ships. (Anybody remember back in the ‘60s when SS Montrose sank in the Detroit River and fetched up on her side, up under the Ambassador Bridge? Some said- “Damn Salty! Had no business in those waters in the First place!”)
Economics plain and simple. Lake freighters are expensive commercial vehicles. Every inch of space not devoted to cargo is an inch not generating money. It is really that simple at the end of the day. If one is going to take up any part of the ship with cabin and living facilities it simply makes more sense cargo wise to do it once on the craft rather than twice. Mariners themselves will advance arguments for and against forward pilot house as far as ease of navigation,however at the end of the day economics makes the current trend established of on rear cabin configuration the cheapest way to go in order to get the most cargo space overall. Engines are smaller and more powerful now, less actual crew is needed and modern electronics make the forward location of the pilot house is less of a necessity in the design. In the design phase one configuration can be simply designed to address all the needs and that cabin/operative structure can be married up to what amounts to a barge in front of it. It's a simplification. It cuts out miles of wiring and redundancy in materials needed to produce a multi million dollar craft. In private commercial enterprise, the bottom line is the only line!
Forward pilot house with aft engineering space puts an incredible amount of strain on the "spine" of the vessel. Weight at 1 end = good weight at both ends = not good.
Hey, consider a rode nt1 mic, the mic you're using now sounds like a blue tooth lol, or at least get a neewer nw700 with an average interface Your subs will double fast! You have good content man, just need better audio! 🙃
The Cort wasn’t the last ship to be built with the forward pilot house design. It was the only thousand-footer to be built with that design. Also, the Fitz wouldn’t have magically not nose-dived if it was a stern-ender, cause the common theory on how it would nose-dive is that a wave (similar to waves that passed the Arthur M Anderson, which was following the fitz, not long before) swept up the stern and pushed the bow down. This would still happen with a stern ender. The only way it wouldn’t is the added bulk of the thousand-footers preventing it. And arguments that the fitz’ crew would have been fine in a nosedive situation if the pilot house is at the back technically isn’t correct either, cause all 29 crewmen died, including the engine workers who were in the stern Not to mention that the fitz was the last vessel to go down on the lakes. Not a single ship has wrecked in 47 years, and there are still plenty of forward-pilot house ships on the lakes. The AAA-class freighters (Kaye E Barker & Arthur M Anderson as examples), are all older than the fitz, having been built in 1952, and they have not sunk, nor has Alpena or Lee Tregurtha, the two oldest ships on the lakes, both sporting forward pilot houses. I think the main reason they made the change is because diesel engines were smaller than steam turbines, so there was more space on the stern for a pilot house, and stern-Enders are considered safer and more reliable because of, as the person in the video said, the captain can see much more of the ship. Then again, it’s the Great Lakes, so unless you’re in a storm, you won’t really need to see the entire ship from the pilot house, since the waters are generally calm compared to the oceans.
I know the Cort wasn’t the least forward pilot house ship, and with the Fitz, I was technically trying to state that having the pilot house in the front, it’s very dangerous in waves but with it in the back, it’s a lot safer because the pilot house is not directly being hit by the waves.
I don't know squat about these ships, but using the commentators logic I guess we should build all vehicles with the pilot in the rear -cars, planes, trucks, you name it. Apparently it is more important to know where you have been than where you are going. Now I've already admitted I'm stupid about these things, so don't waste your time reiterating it.
Oh for f ck sake. The Maxima is a salt water vessel that occasionally comes to the lakes. She has a sea axe now. Look it up before you make A STUPID UNEDUCATED comment.
