Boatnerd Discussion Forum

Why wasn't the Homer and Ford put into a long term layup like the Sherwin? I think that is what baffles all of us. I just can't see why seemingly brand new boats were sent to the breakers, even if the economy is bad. It dosnt cost much to have a inoperable vessel

Although the Ford fleet engaged in some outside business beginning in the early 1980s, this was probably more of an attempt to keep their vessels active rather than expand the operations of their fleet. In 1983 the Ernest R. Breech was chartered out to haul cargoes outside of Ford's needs which saw this vessel being placed into the grain trade. The same type of scenario witnessed the Henry Ford II also being employed in trades outside of traditional patterns. As a self-unloader, this ship was able to compete for outside business. In its later days, however, the Henry Ford II was employed in hauling salt for AKZO, which corroded her cargo hold and she never operated past the 1988 shipping season. If the significant recession in the steel industry had not occurred during the early 1980s it is likely that the William Clay Ford (1) would have been converted into a self-unloader at some point had Ford retained a shipping fleet. With only 1 elderly self-unloader and 4 straight deck bulk carriers at the beginning of the 1980s, the Ford fleet was hardly in a position to expand its shipping operations into outside markets. Incidently, when Ford left the shipping business in 1989 one of the primary reasons given for such a move was the fact that fear that the idling of one of its two active vessels (Benson Ford (3) & William Clay Ford (2)) would drastically interupt the flow of raw materials into Rouge Steel.

Guest wrote:FYI.the Detroit Edison was lengthened only 72" in 1966

Thanks for the correction. I couldn't remember the particulars, I know a 1967 copy my Dad has of "Know Your Ships" has a picture of her cut in two. I believe my uncle was an officer on her sometime in the 1970s.

FYI.the Detroit Edison was lengthened only 72" in 1966

I sailed with Ford on the John Dykstra in 1968. At lay up we use to paint the hull of the ship before we could leave for home. Ford kept their ships in tip top shape and was a good company to sail for. If you were and officer you could rent a new Ford every year. I sail with Capt. Gus, 1 st. Mate Ted Cogswell & 3 rd Mate Mark Ganney

The Detroit Edison's bottom damage was fully repaired and she was returned to service afterwards. It wasn't a factor in her retirement. Declining cargo tonnages and ASC's massive fleet renewal program during the 70's and early 80's did her in. Even her sister, the John J. Boland, spent years in layup in the 80's and only sailed in the 90's since the Cornelius was on lease to another fleet. They just didn't have the cargo for her to haul so she went to the breakers.

On a different note. That is a great video. I have had the pleasure to sail with or meet most of the officers seen in the film. Sailed with Dale Lindstrum, master of K.E. Barker and Mauthe('92 and ,93), Scotty Seavoy, mate K.E. Barker(i think), Tom McMullen mate Mesabi Miner and had the pleasure to meet Jim Nuzzo on Wm. G. Mather museum. All outstanding mariners. And we all know the bravery of Capt. Erickson and his crew in 1975. It sure was sad when they received the call that, that trip would be its last. The Clay with her Ford paint job and tender care was maybe the most attractive of the AAA's.(maybe a discussion for another blog)

The Detroit Edison mentioned earlier suffered severe bottom damage if I remember right. Don't recall the particulars - if anyone knows what happened, please post. I have a feeling the Detroit Edison if still around would be a Lower Lakes boat now - probably doing quite well.

Ford was a captive fleet for years. But they decided to compete for cargos in the early 80's and needed to be competitive, both to keep hauling Ford's own cargos and to capture outside contracts, which mandated self unloading capabilities to survive. Purchasing two self unloaders from Cliff's, which wanted out of the shipping business, was cheaper than converting the William Clay Ford and one of their other ships to self unloaders. As noted, the two ships were already hauling many shipments for Ford thanks to them changing away from a captive fleet since Ford's ships like the William Clay Ford had to charge higher and were losing Ford's own business to other carriers like Cleveland Cliff's with self unloaders.

First of all, as was noted none of the six (out of eight) AAA-class vessels were converted to self-unloaders at the same time they were lengthened. Seven on the vessels were lengthened 120' in the mid-1970s and six of those were converted to self-unloaders in the early 1980s. The William Clay Ford wasn't scrapped until 1989, that that would have been approximately 15 years after she was lengthened. The 1980s was not a good time for the Great Lakes shipping industry. Arthur B. Homer was a newer, bigger ship than the Ford that had been lengthened as well, but scrapped about the same time. Even fairly new (at the time) self-unloaders like Detroit Edison got scrapped in the 1980s. She too and been lengthened (98') in 1967.

Yeh they did buy the Sterling and Green if you watch the youtube video that is posted they reference it 12-million to convert the Ford, if you haven't watch that video it is fantastice it documents the Fords last trip

I think Ford seen the witting on the wall, they scrapped all of there ships and got and outside carrier to haul their iron ore

I would tend to believe that the primary reason as to why the William Clay Ford (1) was never converted into a self-unloader was due to the fact that the ship was the last such vessel of its class to be lengthened during the 1970s. It must be realized that many of the US flagged ships converted into self-unloaders during the 1970s and 1980s had been previously lengthened during the early to late 1970s. During this time, no such ship received both reconstructions simaultaneously. By the early 1980s when the AAA class began to be converted into self-unloaders, the situation had changed drastically and Ford was able to purchase both the Edward B. Greene and Walter A. Sterling from the Cleveland Cliffs fleet as that organization's Great Lakes shipping operations came to an end. As both were self-unloaders they were very effective in replacing any lost capacity through the idling and subsequent scrapping of the William Clay Ford (1) and Benson Ford (2). It should be remembered that during the dark days of the early 1980s, several ships were scrapped at a relatively young age. In some cases, even ships converted into self-unloaders would be idled for prolonged periods during this timeframe. Ford did have the Henry Ford II converted into a self-unloader in 1974, so there is a possibility that a such a conversion was considered at one time for the William Clay Ford (1) at some point before the Cleveland Cliffs boats became available. Incidently, both the Greene and Sterling began carrying taconite into the Rouge Plant on a regular basis beginning in May 1984, prior to their sale later that year. An additonal factor in the decision not to convert the William Clay Ford (1) into a self-unloader was that the Ford fleet's primary purspose was to supply that company's raw material transportation needs, and thus did not have an extensive trading pattern of serving outside customers.

Probably the same reason that the Homer and Sherwin were never converted. Could have been an issue with tanks, hull design, or the fact that other self-unloaders were available to buy cheaper then a conversion. Didn't Ford buy the Sterling and Green about the same time?

Is there a reason why the William Clay Ford was not converted to a self unloader when it was lengthened in 1979? Seems like spectacularly bad planning to make the investment into the lengthening and then sell the boat for scrap 5 years later because it wasn't a self-unloader.