by Guest » May 12, 2025, 4:42 pm
Has there been any further activity on the C.T.C. No. 1? A few years ago there were reports that its departure from South Chicago for scrapping was imminent, but obviously that has yet to happen. I thought the comments by one of the port's spokespersons or director seemed quite excited that it was to leave as it was termed as an eyesore (or something to that effect). I believe it would take a lot more than the towing away of the C.T.C. No. 1 to beautify that area but oh well that is just my opinion.
I know that LLT/Rand purchased this vessel as a long term strategic capital asset primarily, I would suppose, in that it is a Jones Act compliant hull for its US operations. However, with the vessel now over 80 years old and configured to handle cement it would seem unlikely that a large investment would be warranted to bring it back into service especially given the economic conditions of today and the foreseeable future. Is the ship actually equipped as a standard cement carrier or is its handling equipment only configured to handle storage cargoes? I just find it odd that this vessel has not went to scrap as of yet when it would have to be most likely completely reconditioned and repowered to bring back into service. I would assume that it may be more possible to convert it into a self-unloading barge along the lines of what was done with the Joseph H. Thompson, Reserve, and Buckeye.
Has there been any further activity on the C.T.C. No. 1? A few years ago there were reports that its departure from South Chicago for scrapping was imminent, but obviously that has yet to happen. I thought the comments by one of the port's spokespersons or director seemed quite excited that it was to leave as it was termed as an eyesore (or something to that effect). I believe it would take a lot more than the towing away of the C.T.C. No. 1 to beautify that area but oh well that is just my opinion.
I know that LLT/Rand purchased this vessel as a long term strategic capital asset primarily, I would suppose, in that it is a Jones Act compliant hull for its US operations. However, with the vessel now over 80 years old and configured to handle cement it would seem unlikely that a large investment would be warranted to bring it back into service especially given the economic conditions of today and the foreseeable future. Is the ship actually equipped as a standard cement carrier or is its handling equipment only configured to handle storage cargoes? I just find it odd that this vessel has not went to scrap as of yet when it would have to be most likely completely reconditioned and repowered to bring back into service. I would assume that it may be more possible to convert it into a self-unloading barge along the lines of what was done with the Joseph H. Thompson, Reserve, and Buckeye.