Mississippi Queen to Madison - Update

I am afraid that the article underestimates the amount of re-construction that the MQ would require:

"Huffman said the Mississippi Queen also has been gutted and essentially mothballed for the past two years. The owners at one point had started to renovate the boat but stopped in midstream. “It would take $1 million to finish that renovation alone,” Huffman said."

I tend to agree with your analysis. $1 million would probably be enough to remove all the mold. The number I have heard for the total renovations is more in the neighborhood of 30-40 million.

Thats a pretty good estimate Roger. She was projected to cost 28 mil when she was built, she went over forty. Knowing that boat the way I do from top to bottom at least 30 mil to do it right. The article was nice but the picture was of the DQ. Heck I'd of sent him I a good pic of the MQ.

I was wondering when this paper would hit the newstand. Since the editor knows me, and knows I have some large boats, he called and asked some questions for this MQ article. $1 million was just a guess off the top of my head. I was thinking of a figure that would more or less "stabilize" the boat, not necessarily make it operational for overnight passengers again, which would require several $million.

I'm sure $1 million would at least buy the paint to keep the exterior looking good, which would be important to the Madison chamber of commerce.

I didn't mention this in the article, but my other concern is: Does Madison really want to block a lot of nice river view with this boat? I'm all for saving the MQ, but I'm not sure this is the best move for Madison. Still, I think it is all just in the "dream" stage right now.

Does Madison really need this many more hotel rooms? Any "boatel" really needs to keep a decent rate of occupancy to keep up with the additional maintenance costs tassocated with a boat or ship that a regular hotel doesn't encounter. While considerably bigger I know, but its no secret the Queen Mary ocean liner in Long Beach has never really been profitable and is in need of some major repairs and upkeep, and look how big of a city its in and the amount of tourist attarctions located within minutes of it. I'm just concerned that if someone was to sink the required money into the MQ to make this work, is Madison going to be able to recover those costs?

RE: 'MQ in Madison/QUEEN MARY.'
Hi, Phillip, Steve & steamboating colleagues:
Great insights on the MQ proposal for Madison etc. I only know what I read/see in the media and that's pretty dicey at times. Correct about a docked vessel with added 'marine expenses' operating as a 'boatel' or even a big floating restaurant/meeting center. The plans of mice and men so often go awry. All it takes it money--and lots of it. Yet, such plans take dedication, imagination, vision and big financing. The MQ was in my time, in spite of her on-going criticism, still one of my favorites next to the DQ.

I've boarded/toured the QUEEN MARY in Long Beach after knowing the ship during her Atlantic express service days. They've had lots of problems there over the years with on-going maintenance being just one. The MARY was pretty dismal when I boarded her some years back for a tour. A lot was in disarray with some fine salons totally stripped out. Her three massive funnels were in bad shape and had to be totally reconstructed. Teak decks in bad shape but I understand work has been done to repair that. I watched a maintenance man with a big scraper and hand pump paint sprayer going around to hit the high spots. It was chilling to the point of 'spooky' not sensing the subtle tremor and sensation of a massive ship cooled down and not in operation with stewards and crew bustling around in their chores and duties. The old saying, "You can never go home" hit me hard. Things may be better now and no doubt some on .org who've been aboard the ship can correct me. Incidentally, when turned over by CUNARD her turbines were 'disabled' to end any further use as an operating ship.

'Word' came the other day that the big plans for the recently retired CUNARD liner QE-2 in Dubai may be in trouble also. The international financial crisis has hit them there over what to do with the ship. One statement was "possibly be offered for scrap." [?] I sailed the QE-2 her first year in service under steam. Frank Prudent has been aboard her a number of times and no doubt may know more. Off to Arizona and back latter part of next week.
Well, what do I know?

Coal Haven Landing, Ohio River.

I was told by company people in the know that the MQ's fix-em-up, turn her into the uber-flagship costs were pegged at 16 million, no hint of a WAG involved here.

However this was an estimate before construction drawings were created and bidding commenced, was an estimate as of March 2007 and was 'BM'...before mold...Though I'm having a hard time seeing how mold is an expensive thing to get rid of, usually pretty easy, lots of gases available to brighten her up...

So, based on my experience===> the estimate is usually 10% low of the actual design and the owner's true desires, there will be at least 10% change orders during construction for "oops", and then there is inflation for two years since the estimate...

Make it an even 23 million...but keep in mind this is for an uber-flagship, not a floating multi-bar restaurant, something that will be much less extravegant, I'm thinking about 2/3 of an expected cost to refurbish with fancy-schmantcy staterooms with ultra bathrooms .

But what do I know...I got my fingers crossed, Madison is a huge improvement over what is happening to her now. I'm praying for Madison at this stage...

under the MQ...

To this point, all the postings have been about the MQ's superstructure. There was even one idea floated about removing the superstructure and using her hull as a landing barge. Folks, the hull is in dire need of repairs. You might remember near the end of her last cruising season, her St. Paul - St. Louis trip ended prematurely and quietly in Alton. Her hull 'sprung a leak' there and had to have temporary repairs done to make it to the end of the season. She hasn't been pulled up into a drydock since, and no permanent repairs have been made. While at Perry St. a year or so ago, water came in from the same problem area. So all the fancy deck plans are worthless if they are submerged...hull repairs are expensive and not glamourous like redoing the lounges into atriums and so on. The PRESIDENT's end as a casino and so as a certified vessel came because of the expensive and extensive hull repairs she needed, which gave the owner the perfect excuse for the new windowless, pilothouseless, smokestackless 'boat' now trashing the Davenport riverfront. The MQ could reenact the towing of the STE. GENEVIEVE to Tall Stacks if the hull isn't attended to prior to the move to Madison.

New Chapters for 2 Queens

All the discussions about the DQ and the MQ plans make me grateful that, should all this come to pass as advertised, their futures are a lot brighter than they appeared a couple of months ago. The Legendary One looks like she will at least have a shot at continued, albeit non-cruising, life. And if the Magnificent One makes it somehow in Madison that will also please me since I have a special place in my heart for her, having been part of her last crew.

But Chattanooga and Madison??? Nice places to be sure, especially Madison. But I would have hoped for more visible locations, like Cincinnatti for the DQ. But perhaps that's nitpicking.

Both destinations are surely preferable to the alternatives.

Should the math work out that someday the AQ becomes the only Queen afloat under power, visits to Madison and Chatanooga will certainly become highlights. Talk about your reunions!

And who knows, maybe the DQ is just in the bullpen.

If nothing else, the life I've led as a working steamboater has certainly provided some surprises, both good and bad. So anything is possible.

Paul

Right you are, Judy! That small Madison newspaper was only asking me how they would hold a boat that size. I forgot that the MQ needs some hull work. Not sure they would have printed that, had I mentioned it. (I think they were looking for an "up-beat" story, and not so much pessimism, and I was already giving them less than optimistic info). Didn't know they would even print my cost guestimate, but extensive hull work will add a few more $millions to the total.

Of course, for long term mooring, it won't work to just land the MQ at Madison like they do for boarding passengers. There is so much fluctuation in the river level below Markland that they would need to build a mooring cell (in my opinion) to hold it properly. Moorings cells ain't cheap either!

The developer still has lots of spending requirements in the unfinished River Mill project. Assuming they somehow find the cash to also do the MQ (stabilize the hull issues, remodel the interior, or at least make the outside look good at first), they are still looking at months to get all the permits. And if they get all the permits without problem, then there will be months waiting while a mooring cell is being built. I just don't see this project happening...

OK, I'll open up the huge Pandora's box here...What does the Coast Guard have to do with a "floating static display" like the MQ in Madison and the DQ in Chattanooga?

Capt Steve, you mention "hull work" required for the MQ...I'll bite, this is a Coast Guard requirement for a "working" hull, correct? Does hull condition even come into play for a "static" display? Why do the Coasties give a rat's about something that is essentially floating and never under power?

The question is: are there different USCG requirements for your wharfboat versus the Barbara H?

Bruno Krause;15749 wrote:

Why do the Coasties give a rat's about something that is essentially floating and never under power?

B,

The operative phrase here is "essentially floating". Having been aboard when the "hull work" became necessary, I suspect that without the hull work, "essentailly floating" may eventually cease to be an option.

Paul

I could be wrong about this, but I've heard, in certain cases, the Coast Guard may "wash their hands" to some degree, of certain permanently moored arrangements, at least as far as regular inspections go.

Seems like I remember a story about CG inspectors down in the hull of a vessel (the Admiral?) and in tight quarters, turned around and put his elbow thru the hull. And after that, they didn't want to mess with the liability of it all. I don't know.. Maybe Jim Blum could chime in on this one(?).

To answer your question:
> are there different USCG requirements for your wharfboat versus the Barbara H?

They inspect the Barbara H because we allow the public aboard at events. They do not inspect our private wharfboat (former Str. Loretta Howard).

Another good question would be: Did the CG inspect the Wake Robin when it was used as a public halloween attraction boat? It had hull problems, yet the public was allowed aboard..

One word should explain the involvement the USCG would have concerning those two steamboats: NOTHING. Without a Certificate of Inspection (COI), the Coasties have "washed their hands", not somewhat, but fully of their inspections. That is not to say the D&MQ will not be inspected, but they will become under the local jurisdictions of the building and fire codes of the communities where they will be located. And those local codes may be far more rigid that what they experienced when a COI framed under glass and screwed to the wall in the pilothouse.

Hate to disagree with my esteemed friend Shipyard Sam but I'm afraid the "nothing" part is just a little too easy. I've been involved with too many "permanently moored vessel" scenarios to buy in to the "nothing". The Coast Guard has a complete volume in its Marine Safety Manual in regards to regulations and continuing inspections on the "permanently moored vessel" situation. I've spent hours and volumes of paper work on this subject. The first job is to convince the Coast Guard that a subject vessel meets their standards for a "permanently moored vessel", that alone is a mind boggling task.

It would take a ream of paper to detail what's involved. Sam's right in that once you get past all the hurdles with the Coast Guard the real tough stuff hits the fan with both local and State regulations and all of that has to meet Coast Guard approval before they will designate and sign off on the "permanently moored vessel" status.

Now after all that is done the Coast Guard will, at least yearly, inspect the vessel to make sure that its status meets the original conditions.

In addition, in a situation like at Madison, the Coast Guard will have a LOT to say in the permit process with the Corps of Engineers.

In the MQ at Madison process it will take time, money and a sense of humor.

Ok, so a little over-simplification of the boring initial details, but with one simple letter, the Eighth USCG has decreed that all casino boats within their district will no longer have a valid COI after the stroke of midnight, 31 December 2009. No if's, and's, or but's. Kaput. Finis. All-Gone. Adios.

Did I miss something?

No, you didn't miss anything. After all your time in the casino boat business you know how money talks. The casino group had the money to hire a fleet of sharp attorneys and lobbyiest types to manage to have the Coast Guard set up a whole new set of reg's as to the casino boats. That resulted in what will occur on 12-31-09. The CG was truly thrilled to get the casino boat monkey off their backs.

Casino power

...just as in Iowa where the Legislature banned smoking in ALL public places for health reasons - except for the gambling floors on the casino boats. Money doesn't talk, it YELLS!

Does this include casinos that do get under way every so often? I know that around here the permanently moored casinos still had to have a full compliment of crew and officers according to CG requirements. Will the DQ be required to do the same while in Chattanooga? This is a real gray area, or better still, a shut out fog.

According to many newspaper accounts at the time, it was the Coast Guard who declared the GOLDENROD SHOWBOAT UNsafe in 2003 and closed the boat to the public. That old showboat (built in 1909) was placed on a surplus steel DPC barge in 1947, with the old wooden hull being set down into it. The GOLDENROD ceased traveling in 1937 and was permanently moored at the St. Louis levee from then until 1990, when she was sold to the city of St. Charles, Missouri. After the 2003 closure, the city decided it was time to get rid of the boat and, after a brief sojourn back at St. Louis, she now resides on the Illinois River near Kampsville.

Prior to this, I hadn't heard of the CG having much to do with stationary vessels.

Blowin' Smoke

Smoking is banned for passengers and employees on the GV1 in Elgin, IL. Employees getting off work cannot light, up even in their cars, until their wheels cross the property line. Isn't no smoking on public property a state-wide law throughout Illinois?

There is also growing sentiment among some 8th USCG District casino companies to KEEP the Coasties inspecting the gamlin' boats. Supposedly, an Illini company already has a lawsuit in the works to prevent the Blues from dropping the 8th-D COI's at the end of this year.

Judy's right about the bucks, but in this case is now apparent that having the casino boats inspected by ABS will be far more expensive than having the Coast Guard do the job. The Guard has an inspection program in place whereby the boats may be self-inspected and the Coasties drop by ever three months to verify the crew's work, so the long, drawn-out inspections are a relic of the past for those participating in the program called the Streamlined Inspection Program (SIP).

Yes, smoking is banned everywhere in public in Illinois, including the casinos. That has been in effect over a year now. So when Iowa pulled the exception for the casinos bit, naturally Illinois started whining again about not a level playing field...I can see them winning an exception, if we can ever get our legislature back to legislating....
on another front, has anyone heard anything about our 'fleet' which is now empty because they've moved into the land-based place?
Casino RI diesel sternwheeler
Effie Afton (Mateur) towboat
TG Gerow towboat
Ockerson dredge
They are all sitting in place at the RI levee, but I expect them to be moved somewhere when the river opens, but where?

Sam, you are correct about the USCG being a better regulatory agency in many cases. When I worked full-time for the Memphis Queen company in the late 1980's-early 1990's, we outfitted a barge with a large commercial kitchen for catering purposes. The city wanted ALL waste water (which was all gray water) pumped up the hill and piped to city sewers, which would have been expensive and a logistical nightmare from the standpoint of fluctuating river levels, etc. The company convinced the USCG to affix an inspection sticker to the barge, and voila!, gray water could then be discharged overboard.