Boatnerd Discussion Forum

I spent hours chipping,painting and scrubbing Cliffs green and thought it was the most distinctive. In 1974 when I started sailing I was with Columbia and there were 500+ boats just on the US side. Even in open lake it was rare not to have 6-7 boats in view at any time.
A Cliffer was easily recognizable at a distance during the day

I never saw a Cliffs boat or their unique color scheme only in pictures. There is an old 35mm photo in the early 1980s my late Dad took while on a vacation at the Soo of the Cliffs Victory. However the photo is very poor in quality and doesn’t show the entire length of the ship just the bow in the Poe Lock. A little off topic but, as far as hull color schemes in my opinion one of the best was Pioneer. I loved with a passion their hull scheme colors and I for one would give anything to see that orange and red back again! At least I don’t think it was too hard on the eyes plus, those ships were usually well kept up and nice looking with that scheme as well. Just my two cents only. I miss the Saskatchewan Pioneer bad!

jlew715 wrote:

hausen wrote:one can't help but wonder whether Cleveland Cliffs is examining the prospect of purchasing that combined pool of vessels

What I would give to see a ship painted Cleveland Cliffs green & black..

I recall the Cleveland Cliffs scheme as being one of the most pleasing of the various fleet colors on the lakes. The green on the superstructure would appear to be in different shades according to the light and for some strange reason I always thought it looked best in rainy and cloudy conditions but that is just a personal preference. Other than when the Boyer and Mather still wore Cliffs colors while museum ships, I doubt that most of the current boatnerd fanbase has ever seen a Cliffs ship in operation.

If Cleveland Cliffs reenters the shipping business, which I highly doubt, I would not be surprised to see the company go with a more standard scheme than going retro. In this, I hope I'm mistaken but only the future will tell.

jlew715 wrote:

hausen wrote:one can't help but wonder whether Cleveland Cliffs is examining the prospect of purchasing that combined pool of vessels

What I would give to see a ship painted Cleveland Cliffs green & black..

Heavens no! White superstructure retain less heat and the paint is cheaper and in my personal opinion, looks better. The off white cream of Olgebay was also pleasing to the eye.

Well, Cleveland Cliffs seems to be an "end user" of the pellets produced by all their mines, including those newly acquired. That is to say, AK Steel plants and the former Arcelor Mittal USA mills are end users in the production of steel. The Central Marine Logistics part of this situation is "problematic". Since AM USA is no longer in the picture, CML is the one coordinating the delivery of materials to the new Cleveland Cliffs assets AK Steel mills & Arcelor Mittal mills. But CML no longer has the backing of Arcelor Mittal. I have a dog in this fight. I speak respectfully for those on the boats and ashore who work for CML. I hope the rights and proper assessments of the CML people are honored.

Expect VanEnkevort to be owned by Cliffs soon.

Alex wrote:Jon Paul,

Just so I have it right, I take it Cliffs then was a producer, supplier and shipper of their own pellets, but not an end user?

You are correct Alex. This is rather a unique situation they find themselves in now

Jon Paul,

Just so I have it right, I take it Cliffs then was a producer, supplier and shipper of their own pellets, but not an end user?

Guest wrote:Very seldom if never do you see companies leave then get back into the shipping business, Cliffs will do whatever makes the most business sense which usually means letting companies fight over contracts for the lowest bid.

While I would have agreed with you in most circumstances I believe this is a whole different situation. In the past Cliffs was somewhat of a common carrier while also delivering their ore to customers. Sailing for Cliffs in the 70's we delivered coal to Port Washington as well as red iron ore from Superior to Huron and Duluth to Conneaut along with loads of Cliffs pellets all over the lakes.
The demise of Cliffs fleet in the early 80's was more related to losing the Republic contract and not having any self-unloaders other than the Greene and the Sterling to compete with other common carriers.
Now Cliffs is in a situation where they own the pellets they will use and also the end user at their mills.
They will not be scrambling for contracts and loads to keep any boats they purchase in service.
Whether they purchase boats and operate them under a subsidiary or start their own fleet under the Cliffs flag remains to be seen.

hausen wrote:one can't help but wonder whether Cleveland Cliffs is examining the prospect of purchasing that combined pool of vessels

What I would give to see a ship painted Cleveland Cliffs green & black...

Very seldom if never do you see companies leave then get back into the shipping business, Cliffs will do whatever makes the most business sense which usually means letting companies fight over contracts for the lowest bid.

Cliffs has taken a methodical approach in expanding their control of all aspects of their mining and now steel making business. To leave the vital link between the two, the shipping of raw materials such limestone and pellets to a charter or a contract would surprise me given this paradigm.
My best though highly speculative guess is they buy some of the ASC boats most suited for their needs.

Geest wrote:ASC/Rand/LLT/GRN is likely to be sold off again soon based on the average investment dwell time of AIP, so changes are going to be minor until the new owners take over. ASC barely see's a point to painting vessels as it is other than the parts that make money so dont hold your breath for a fleetwide repainting. Especially when one considers that such repainting takes place in drydock, which usually coincides with a 5yr haulout.

It should be emphasized that the wording being used in Geest's post and in this one hinge upon words such as "likely" and "if", words that acknowledge the uncertainty of this situation. That being said: If AIP is indeed looking to sell the ASC/Rand/LLT/GRN fleet during the next few years, one can't help but wonder whether Cleveland Cliffs is examining the prospect of purchasing that combined pool of vessels, or a select group of vessels from within it. Does not seem likely, but Cliffs has been making big bold moves and, well, stranger things have happened.

Happy New Year

American steamship is always been a subsidiary of whoever owned them. When GATX had them they were a subsidiary of GATX and were sold to lower lakes and if memory is right lower likes bottom as a separate company and were going to be run as a separate company from lower lakes. Things might've changed since but that was the original if memory serves me right.

If you go back to when GATX bought American and before American had trouble with owning too much of the market share after the purchase of the Reese fleet in the Gartland fleet and they had to sell vessels to get underneath the limit to get the federal government antitrust or something never forget what it was but it was down too many boats in the same market. All lower legs could end up the same way if they brought American and lower lakes together just the US division in American could put them in a monopoly that's what was ever monopoly in the Fed to step in enforcing the selloff or selloff the company.

As stated in previous posts that the owner of everything is used to just make in their money and bailing. American would be an easy entity to get rid of because it's a separate company from lower lakes were lower lakes is two companies in one and may be difficult to unload it because of that and may have to split the Canadian US divisions apart they may not they may be able to get a buyer for that but trying to take those two companies and put them into one is going to run into regulatory problem is a monopoly in the Great Lakes trade with the Department of Justice.

So from this armchair quarterback I don't see any big changes to ASC until they're sold again except may be the union contracts

Geest wrote:ASC/Rand/LLT/GRN is likely to be sold off again soon based on the average investment dwell time of AIP, so changes are going to be minor until the new owners take over. ASC barely see's a point to painting vessels as it is other than the parts that make money so dont hold your breath for a fleetwide repainting. Especially when one considers that such repainting takes place in drydock, which usually coincides with a 5yr haulout.

I would not be surprised to see a few of the ASC ships being retired within the next 5-10 years.

ASC/Rand/LLT/GRN is likely to be sold off again soon based on the average investment dwell time of AIP, so changes are going to be minor until the new owners take over. ASC barely see's a point to painting vessels as it is other than the parts that make money so dont hold your breath for a fleetwide repainting. Especially when one considers that such repainting takes place in drydock, which usually coincides with a 5yr haulout.

dd49 wrote:

hausen wrote:From this armchair observer's perspective, it would be a welcome change to see the ex-Oglebay Norton ships in the ASC fleet get relieved of the names they received upon sale to ASC in 2006. Would be more interested in seeing that occur before seeing any ASC ships getting a paint scheme change. Of course from a pure dollars & cents perspective it's expensive to change the name of a ship and it's expensive to change a paint scheme, so it doesn't seem like something that's likely to happen any time soon.

What's wrong with the names?

Again, very subjective and personal opinion, but the names seem kind of generic and several of them are almost insecure-sounding.

One could imagine that they could have used names from the past of the ASC fleet and its predecessors, such as Belle River, Nicolet, Hennepin, Chicago, Detroit Edison, or Consumers Power. Alternately they could have adopted names from the Oglebay Norton fleet or its predecessors, like Buckeye, Wolverine, Huron, Sylvania, or Wyandotte. They could have at least used a more relevant and assured-sounding set of names within the "American _____" scheme, e.g. American Challenger, American Champion, American Courier, American Merchant, American Navigator, American Supplier, American Vanguard, etc.

The company sent out a letter to crews, saying business as usual

Maybe lower lakes will become black that would be nice since the only time the grey looks good is the minute it exits the shipyard, just put the red stripe on everything!

hausen wrote:From this armchair observer's perspective, it would be a welcome change to see the ex-Oglebay Norton ships in the ASC fleet get relieved of the names they received upon sale to ASC in 2006. Would be more interested in seeing that occur before seeing any ASC ships getting a paint scheme change. Of course from a pure dollars & cents perspective it's expensive to change the name of a ship and it's expensive to change a paint scheme, so it doesn't seem like something that's likely to happen any time soon.

What's wrong with the names?