Posted by Paul Erspamer on October 24, 19103 at 02:23:37:
We all know about the carferry "Milwaukee", lost off Milwaukee's northern suburbs on Oct. 22,
1929, but not found until 1976 (but, happily, well within safe diving limits!!). And there's been
much discussion on this board recently about the Pere Marquette 18, lost 19 or 20 miles off
Sheboygan, Wisconsin on Sept. 9, 1910. As most of us know, the PM 18 had a wireless, and
called for and received help from a sister ship, the PM 17, which arrived just as PM 18 listed
heavily to starboard, and sank stern first. There were 33 survivors, and apparently 28 deaths.
Before this desperate final act, PM 18's Captain Kilty ordered that many of the freight cars
be run off the stern to lighten ship (to deal with an influx of water filling the lower compartments
(perhaps from a fractured stern tube, a broken stern gland, or maybe a failed sea cock.
But realistically, I'm looking at NOAA Chart No. 14903, showing the west shore of Lake Michigan
out to mid-lake in the Sheboygan area. All the depths in the areas about 20 miles east of
Sheboygan are over 350 feet! I agree, it would be terrific to find PM 18, but for those of us
who dive, well 350 + feet may as well be in the Marianas Trench, unless you own a submersible.
In reading through the comments about PM 18, only Ross Richardson mentioned the near-
sister to PM 18 and S.S. Milwaukee, the "Marquette & Bessemer No. 2", lost in (you guessed
it) another miserable autumn storm, but this time on Lake Erie, presumable somewhere between
its last port of Conneaut, Ohio and its destination, Port Stanley, Ontario, with over 30 freight
cars on board, and the loss of its entire crew (variously reported as 31 to 38 crew, and perhaps
one unfortunate passenger.
Now there were three major carferry disasters in the Great Lakes in the 20th Century: The
Marquette & Bessemer No. 2, on Dec. 7, 1909, the PM 18 the following year on Sept. 9, 1910,
and the Milwaukee on Oct. 22, 1929. All three involved total losses, all involved 338-foot
railroad carferries (338 x 55 x 19.5), and all were constructed by American Shipbuilding in
Cleveland, Ohio. Of the three, only PM 18 had a wireless, so only PM 18 got any help when
it ran into trouble, and only PM 18 had any survivors. After the losses of near-sisters M & B
No. 2 and PM 18 within ten months, somebody apparently looked at the design (none of these
ships were originally equipped with stern gates). Milwaukee was then retro-fitted with a
stern gate, the twisted remains of which can still be seen dangling from its stern in a little over
100 feet.
My point is that, with one exception, all the signs point to us hearing first about the M & B
No. 2 being found, way ahead of the PM 18. For one thing, there are a whole lot of divers
searching for the M & B No. 2 right now, and there almost seems to be a coordinated effort
of sorts to cooperate on search areas and grids. For another, Lake Erie is a lot smaller and
shallower lake. Think about it. Most of Lake Erie is 100 feet in depth or less, and the deepest
point in the entire lake is only 200 feet! Lake Michigan has a whole lot of underwater real
estate, including the entire area off Sheboygan, at depths greater than 300 feet, and the
deepest spot on Lake Michigan is well over 800 feet. The only thing PM 18 has going for
it, is that it left survivors from its crew, plus the crew of the Pere Marquette 17, who saw it
sink and who have left at least a rough idea (no GPS coordinates in 1910, sadly!) where it is.
But that advantage is largely offset by the fact that searchers for the M & B No. 2 have already
covered such a wide area of likely resting spots, on both sides of Long Point on the Canadian
Lake Erie shore, and along a wide swath between Erieau and Conneaut, and Port Stanley
and Conneaut.
So there you have it. My money is on the Marquette & Bessemer No. 2. I'm betting that
those of us who love the carferry Milwaukee will be loading our dive gear into our cars in the
next two or three summers to visit the Canadian Lake Erie shore, and compare notes on the
similarities and differences between the two wrecks.
If you think about it, what's really amazing is that the M & B No. 2 hasn't been found already
(if indeed it hasn't -- I got an e-mail about a week ago from an Ontario boater, reporting yet
another rumor that some divers were sent out to investigate a pinched underwater gas line
[Come on -- are there gas lines just laid along the lake floor anywhere in the Great Lakes?]
they dropped
directly onto four railroad cars on the bottom, and found the gas line draped right over them, and
and over a nearby shadowy object which of course turned out to be the M & B -- but they're
keeping quiet until they can have some fun exploring to their heart's content before reporting
it, etc. etc)
But I digress. The thing is, how the heck has it taken so long to find a ship that must stand
(as the Milwaukee does) at least 40 feet off the bottom, in a lake with an average depth of
100 feet!!!??? You'd think your depth sounder/fish locater/sidescan sonar would jump off
its mounting when you idled over this underwater office building, wouldn't you??
And that returns me to my original reaction to all the talk in this forum about finding the PM
18. I hope we do find it, and soon. But look how long it's taken to find the M & B No. 2,
in what you'd have to think is a much smaller and shallower target area.