Boatnerd Discussion Forum

by **Guest** » November 6, 2010, 2:03 pm

Affirmative.

by **Rob** » November 6, 2010, 1:45 pm

Isn't that the tip of the propeller clearly visible in front of the rudder?

by **gyroplanes** » November 3, 2010, 11:27 am

Here is a picture of the stern quarter from Nov 2009

by **gyroplanes** » November 3, 2010, 11:25 am

I was told by a St Marys employee that they were waiting for the scrap metal price to go up.

by **Guest** » November 2, 2010, 6:06 pm

Isn't she a sister-ship to the Willowglen and could the Goderich Elevator Co. use her as a storage hull?

by **seadog** » November 2, 2010, 1:24 pm

talking about cement i believe the tug seaeagle 2 and her cement barge are headed for the miller cement silo in owen sound ontario

by **Guest** » November 2, 2010, 8:46 am

I am trying to remember some previous posts about the C.T.C No. 1. Isn't there some significant structural damage from years of ice pressure on the hull plates? I thought the keel has hogged or sagged beyond any use other than storage.

by **wlbblw** » November 1, 2010, 9:06 pm

I was under the impression that the conversion was only an austure one as this was just a storage and transfer barge. I thought that a conversion to a full on cement carrier would be a lot more involved? Anyway, if anything, I'd say they would either scrap it, or convert it to a barge before returning it to service as a ship.
One other thing about St. Mary's that I've never understood is that they own a cement terminal in Buffalo, on the waterfront, but they don't get boat cargoes.

-B in B

by **Blake Kishler** » November 1, 2010, 8:41 am

While it would be great to see this boat running again, one also has to consider that in the 1980s, the C.T.C. No. 1 was converted to a fully functional cement carrier, even though she never sailed in that capacity. So in addition to refurbishing the quarters, upgrading equipment, and (likely) re-powering, she would need to have her self-unloading system removed and cargo hold overhauled before she could carry other cargoes.

by **Guest** » October 31, 2010, 9:56 pm

One could imagine that she is pretty-well stripped of anything that would lend itself to operating as a self-propelled vessel. Is there anything still within the boat from her days as a steamer? Total refurbishing, refitting and repowering would probably be necessary. Just a guess on my part. Any other opinions?

by **bhale849** » October 31, 2010, 8:38 pm

No, I have not seen the C.T.C. No. 1 listed as for sale. However, I have heard repeatedly that Her owners - St. Marys Cement - want to scrap Her. As they would most likely get more than scrap-value from any party wanting to operate her as a ship or barge (and the only ones that could use Her to compete with St. Marys is another cement company). I was just wondering if any of the most-likely candidates to make use of Her had shown any interest.

by **Guest** » October 31, 2010, 2:16 pm

I didn't realize she was for sale? Did you see it listed somewhere?

by **bhale849** » October 31, 2010, 1:41 pm

Has anyone (such as Voyageur Marine or Vanguard Shipping) shown any interest in operating the C.T.C. No. 1 as a ship? I would imagine her hull to still be in good shape, as she has not sailed for 28 years (she sat as a barge). Her Mid-Summer Draft capacity (as a steamer - equipped with a lighter, more-compact Diesel Plant; I think her capacity would be increased) is only 350 tonnes less than Voyageur's MV. Maritime Trader, making her potentially an excellent grain carrier. Considering all this in her favor, plus the fact that she is one of the very few available hulls left on the Lakes; has anyone shown interest in her?

Boatnerd Discussion Forum

C.T.C. No. 1

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: C.T.C. No. 1

Re: C.T.C. No. 1

Re: C.T.C. No. 1

Re: C.T.C. No. 1

Re: C.T.C. No. 1

Re: C.T.C. No. 1

Re: C.T.C. No. 1

Re: C.T.C. No. 1

Re: C.T.C. No. 1

Re: C.T.C. No. 1

Re: C.T.C. No. 1

Re: C.T.C. No. 1

Re: C.T.C. No. 1

C.T.C. No. 1