Page 1 of 1
Re: C.T.C. #1 Scrapping
Posted: November 29, 2019, 7:27 pm
by wlbblw
One odd thing about the article is the Port Director saying that the CTC will be removed for asthenic reasons & then he mentions that the dock can be re-used for other purposes...like docking a different ship or what the heck is he talking about??? What different purpose are you going to use a dock for up there at a grain elevator besides shipping purposes?
Re: C.T.C. #1 Scrapping
Posted: November 29, 2019, 1:51 pm
by Mr Link
Someone used to scrap a lot of barges (and a few ships) in the slip just to the north (where the St. Marys Cement terminal is at).
Re: C.T.C. #1 Scrapping
Posted: November 29, 2019, 1:15 pm
by Guest
Look for a scrapping facility at the Sheds.
Re: C.T.C. #1 Scrapping
Posted: November 29, 2019, 12:28 pm
by William Lafferty
The port director wants her removed to improve the "aesthetic" of his port.
I've been up the Calumet River. It's going to take a lot more than removing the CTC 1 to clean up the "aesthetic" of his port.
Ha. Maybe the folks at the golf course are complaining, although the vessel isn't visible to them, being between two giant and shabby grain elevators.
Re: C.T.C. #1 Scrapping
Posted: November 29, 2019, 11:40 am
by Guest
The port director wants her removed to improve the "aesthetic" of his port.
I've been up the Calumet River. It's going to take a lot more than removing the CTC 1 to clean up the "aesthetic" of his port.
Re: C.T.C. #1 Scrapping
Posted: November 29, 2019, 9:04 am
by deckstir
Has anyone heard Grand River Navigation's take on this yet? The Port Director told them to remove and scrap her. After she leaves his port, he has no say in the matter as to what happens to her. They may just have to find a parking place for her. They may still have plans for her.
It doesn't look good but scrap prices are down. Don't write her off until you hear LLT/GRN's take on what's going to happen.
Re: C.T.C. #1 Scrapping
Posted: November 28, 2019, 9:36 pm
by Denny
I thought the new ship being built in Croatia for Algoma the sistership if you will to the Innovator was supposed to be named the Intrepid right?
Re: C.T.C. #1 Scrapping
Posted: November 28, 2019, 9:18 pm
by wlbblw
Jon Paul wrote:
The time for CTC#1 to be utilized has passed but the idea that "smaller boats" aren't in demand is not the reality one would think.
Algoma obviously see's the value in building boats that fit their markets or they wouldn't have built the Algoma Endurance or Algoma Innovator at 650' . The new Interlake boat being built in Sturgeon Bay is also in that basic size niche.
These 2 companies represent some of the future trends in Great Lakes shipping and the right size boat for the market does matter.
The Innovator & Endurance are both 26,000 ton boats! The self-unloader converted Maritimers are only 15,000 tons. It’s no comparison. The smallest newer ones are close to twice the capacity of the older, smaller ones!
Re: C.T.C. #1 Scrapping
Posted: November 28, 2019, 3:46 pm
by Guest
My guess if she was going to be converted and flagged Canadian probably wouldn't cost much more to build a new one overseas
Re: C.T.C. #1 Scrapping
Posted: November 28, 2019, 10:24 am
by tugboathunter
This is more about the boats are 76 years old than anything else. The Manistee and Mississagi’s trade routes were not fundamentally different from the ones served by the company’s other vessels.
Re: C.T.C. #1 Scrapping
Posted: November 28, 2019, 9:56 am
by Jon Paul
wlbblw wrote:I don’t see much further demand for smaller boats. You still have the same amount of maintenance & upkeep on them along with the same labor costs on board without the higher volume of tonnage to pay the bills & make more profit. These days, in harder economic times, the term “Economy of Scale” says it all. I also noticed that no one seems to get small loads anymore & if they do, it’s a top off of a larger load.
The time for CTC#1 to be utilized has passed but the idea that "smaller boats" aren't in demand is not the reality one would think.
Algoma obviously see's the value in building boats that fit their markets or they wouldn't have built the Algoma Endurance or Algoma Innovator at 650' . The new Interlake boat being built in Sturgeon Bay is also in that basic size niche.
These 2 companies represent some of the future trends in Great Lakes shipping and the right size boat for the market does matter.
Re: C.T.C. #1 Scrapping
Posted: November 28, 2019, 8:12 am
by wlbblw
I don’t see much further demand for smaller boats. You still have the same amount of maintenance & upkeep on them along with the same labor costs on board without the higher volume of tonnage to pay the bills & make more profit. These days, in harder economic times, the term “Economy of Scale” says it all. I also noticed that no one seems to get small loads anymore & if they do, it’s a top off of a larger load.
C.T.C. #1 Scrapping
Posted: November 27, 2019, 6:37 pm
by Guest
With the reports of LLT intending to scrap the CTC #1 and that their Mississagi is apparently in bad shape along with its idled Manistee does this mean they are leaving the market that the these ships serve? I thought the CTC #1 was purchased as an asset for possible use under the US flag. I guess they don't seen any future demand in that.