The Brief today about the "Last Coastal Steamsip" about to be cut up by the NPS (URL: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/03 ... tories.htm ) is very disturbing. Here, according to the report, is a very significant piece of American Marine history, that already has had a lot of taxpayers' money put into it, that is about to be cut up by our wonderful National Park Service (sarcasim here) so they can use the drydock for other "more significant" projects. I expect the cost of cutting up is probably not to far from the cost to make her floatable. What kind of preservation is this??? What can we do to help put pressure on to prevent this travisty? It's not Railroading, but it is Steam, and closely related.
S'
David Dewey

After some searching, I found the NPS Director's name AND email; Fran P. Mainella, Email: Director_Mainella%NPS@ios.doi.gov

So I sent her the following letter:

Honorable Director,
I recently read an article describing the emminent destruction of the last surviving coastal passenger steamship "Nobska" by the National Park Service. The article was at the URL http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/03 ... tories.htm
I find it most difficult to understand how an organization that is entrusted with the preservation of American history can act in such a manner to destroy an artifact that is recognized as being of national importance; one that is not beyond saving, and has already had much taxpayer dollars spent on its preservation. I can understand the desire to utilize the occupied drydock for other important preservation projects; but to destroy one to expidite another is very bad stewardship.
I don't know the expense of cutting up the Nobska, but it cannot be that much less than the expense of making the hull watertight enough to have the ship floated to another location for future restoration.
Please rethink this situation and don't be the one on watch when another significant piece of American history is willfully destroyed.
Sincerely,
David Dewey

I would suggest everyone interested send something similar, maybe we can make a difference??

I would suggest you include a check to cover the cost of immediately finishing the hull repairs necessary to allow it to float, or bring by your drydock to transfer it into. Reminding bureaucrats about their broader responsibilities doesn't generally impress them, absent the resources to allow them to effect a PR "victory".

Looks like somebody interested could acquire a steamboat with a good bit of heavy retoration completed at a relatively low cost right about now. Is there a private sector, for profit, economically viable reason for someone to want to do so?

dave

I just sent my e-mail to Director Mainella, paraphrasing what David said. If it helps save the boat, then it helps; if it fails, then it does, but it only took five minutes and didn't even cost me a stamp. If we can't take the time to do even that then we're a pretty sorry bunch.

If one of us who cared for this could write a check then I doub't that there would be an issue. Likewise, if there were a for profit, economically viable use for this ship that would retain its historic technological fabric - then I suspect that this issue would also be moot. What is important to realize is that this ship is nationally significant, and that part of the cost preserving it for future enjoyment by the public as a historic artifact (not renovating it for pleasure cruises) should be borne by the public.

Expecting the Nobska to become economically viable is the same as expecting Independence Hall or the WWII memorial to turn a profit or break even. Sure it could be done, but would these places be the same?

A good model for the Nobska would be for its eventual dispay in an east coast version of the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park http://www.nps.gov/safr/

Tom Cornillie

PS - Letters sent via USPS are generally given higher regard than e-mails. Usually the letters aren't closely read, but are simply counted. However, sending an e-mail is better than nothing.

This is a sad situation as the NOBSKA appears to be set to follow her sisters NEW BEDFORD and MARTHA'S VINEYARD to the scrapyard. But there is a great deal to be learned from this.

How about taking a look at a theoretical business plan?

"We propose to take an 80 year old triple expansion engine powered steamship that has suffered from years of neglect, and completely rebuild the vessel. We will remove all asbestos and leaded paint, perform complete structural repairs and replate the bottom, and bring the vessel into compliance with the latest Coast Guard requirements for a passenger vessel operating in coastal service, and install all the latest lifesaving and communications equipment. We will then hire a qualified staff with the required licenses for operating a steam powered vessel in passenger service. We will then place the vessel, which is unable to load automobile or truck traffic at existing facilities and can therefore carry only passengers on foot or with bicycles, in operation on an established route that is already serviced by a variety of diesel powered ships constructed 40 to 70 years after our vessel. We will operate profitably in this service."

Does anybody see any problems with this business plan?

Could such problems have been forseen perhaps ten to twenty years ago?

Does this remind you of any railroad restoration efforts?

(please take a number and stand in line to answer)

What's the worst they'll do? Cut it up? No threat there now.

Preservation of cultural resources is one of the primary missions of the NPS and they need to be reminded of that. And not just the convenient cultural resources. In our government it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. If the Nobska sqeaks enough, a grease monkey just might show up.

This statement from that article jumped out at me:

...money spent before 2000 on hull repairs resulted in expert work, so good that the hull today is within one-eighth inch of being true, stem to stern. "That hull is a thing of beauty, it's so well built."

Gov. Romney of Massachusetts likes boats...

Believe me, I'd love to be wrong on this one.

NPS has made their decision despite the ramifications inherent in their mission. Reconsideration will require them to set aside the other "higher priority" (read funded and/or politically powerful) projects that need to use the drydock. It appears that the proponents of this project have not been able to acquire enough of either money or clout to keep the others on the back burner or finish this one in a timely way.

Not all boats run in waters regulated my US maritime law. Limiting the considerations to only potential American operators is artificially narrowing the prospects for any viable use, rather than adaptive reuse. Wouldn't you ride her up the Amazon?

dave

Not meaning to go too far off this already 'off-topic' thread, but Dave, you must be a movie buff...

Werner Herzog's "Fitzcarraldo" comes to mind. Without getting into plotlines, an incredible film in which they actually haul a Nobska-esque steamship over a mountain through the jungle! The documentary about the making of this movie, called "Burden of Dreams" is terrific as well.


And to answer the question about the Amazon, they got bugs the size of turkeys down there...

Well, the Nobska is going to be cut up because the individuals with the legal authority (title to the boat) have dug a hole too deep to get out of. They made a lot of big plans, but really do not appear to have performed sound financial or logistical planning.

The government money spent on this ship was never meant to be the sole source of funding. It was seed money or a matching grant for other funds the Foundation was supposed to find to finish the job. Now maybe, if they had been smart and seen that the additional money was not coming fast enough, they would have limited their repairs to selected areas, so that the Nobska could still be floated out. Instead, they tore apart the hull without having the cash on hand to put it back together (analogous to the various steam locomotive kits we have all seen), and they did all this on borrowed real estate.

The main engine was packed up and shipped to a vocational school, with the intent of teaching skills to the students and getting engine work in the bargain. Who exactly was going to train the students and lead the project was apparently never defined, because years later the engine is still in pieces and the school wants it taken away. It was all a cute idea, but of course details and planning matter.

Sad as the Nobska story is, boats and ships are expensive to maintain, not to mention restore. The Nobska was a shell, a hull, a pilot house, and an engine, but no boilers, auxiliaries, or passenger accomodation (all that had been removed for restuarant conversion). Two complete steamers, the Columbia and the Ste. Claire, have sat in benign neglect since leaving service in 1990. They are much better candidates for a boat restoration (and some work is actually occurring on the Ste. Claire).

The Nobska is going to go the way of the SS Canadiana, the Brinkerhoff, the Alexander Hamilton, and others. It is sad, but those at fault simply failed to heed the lessons of the previous failures.

Folks,

With my e-mail address I am most likely too close to comment. But since my employer was mentioned, I will add that by law the SF Maritime Park can only deal with West Coast Maritime History.

However, the New Bedford National Historical Park now exists in a place that the Nobska used to call home.

And we should note that the vessel that is over due to get into the dry dock is the USS Constitution, the oldest American vessel of any sort! Well past her 200 years!

I am pleased to hear that that wonderful engine is out of her; perhaps it can be saved at a place like Mystic Seaport Museum.

Ted Miles

Ted,
Yes, the ships waiting to get into the drydock are very significant too--but what sense is there in desstroying one artifact, that has had MILLIONS already spent on its preservation to hurry the repairs on other artifacts? Now that the NPS owns both the steamship and the drydock, wouldn't the prudent thing be to spend the money on preservation instead of destruction and make the ship floatable enough to send it to storage elsewhere where it has the possiblitly of a future restoration??
I thought one of the main tenents of our profession was to "Do No Harm." (I am a museum curator, but can't act from my official position on this subject--I suspect we share this problem).
David D.

As Ted mentioned the New Bedford National Historic Park, let me just add that the City of New Bedford has a long history of missed opportunities to host historic vessels, including the whaleship that is now the centerpiece of Mystic Seaport and the WW2 Battleship that attracts visitors and conventions to nearby Fall River.

I heard recently that the engine is to be moved to storage in a business location in Fall River. There is a maritime museum there which is close to Battleship Cove. Mystic Seaport has not shown much interest in powered vessels. Remember the ferry that was allowed to deteriorate there?

Mystic Seaport operates the steam-powered "Sabino."