Boatnerd Discussion Forum

cpfan wrote:

algowest wrote:Anyone know why the PRC departed from Bowmanville and instead of crossing lake to Canal, headed east towards Prince Edward (east end Lake Ontario) and is now headed west towards Canal?
TIA

burning off excess fuel??

Weather...

algowest wrote:Anyone know why the PRC departed from Bowmanville and instead of crossing lake to Canal, headed east towards Prince Edward (east end Lake Ontario) and is now headed west towards Canal?
TIA

burning off excess fuel??

Anyone know why the PRC departed from Bowmanville and instead of crossing lake to Canal, headed east towards Prince Edward (east end Lake Ontario) and is now headed west towards Canal?
TIA

In answering cpfan's question of "Which ship will be the next to carry the cement clinker?" I would think it would be the Jackman as she has the "dust reclaimers on her similar to what was put on the Cresswell years ago." In fact, I want to say that I believe it was back during the opening of the 2004 shipping season that both the Cresswell and the Jackman received the dust reclaimer systems? The Jackman did not seem to carry as much clinker cargoes though as the Cresswell did. Some talked about the clinker loads that the Cresswell has carried. Remember prior to 2001 when at that time, the Louis R. Desmarais became the CSL Laurentien, they also carried lots of clinker loads. Look at what happened then to the cargo hold of the Desmarais! Those cement clinker cargoes about destroyed that cargo hold and look at how ugly its paint job got about like the Cresswell now. Just look at the comparisons of the two ships and the cargoes that they carried. Hop that I am right!

Shipwatcher, I think clinker is more abrasive than the other cement caustic problems. cpfan, I hope it's a fun one because I miss the Montealais doing the regular run.

Boatgguy wrote:As for salt trade no the ship carrying cement clinker has destroyed its lifespan

Which raises the question...which ship will be the next to carry cement clinker??

Thanks, Steve

Boatgguy wrote:The rumours may be comical but working for the company and knowing the ship will be without engine and needing 14 million dollars work SCRAPPO it is!! As for salt trade no the ship carrying cement clinker has destroyed its lifespan

Is cement clinker corrosive as well, or just an abusive cargo for the holds and machinery?

The rumours may be comical but working for the company and knowing the ship will be without engine and needing 14 million dollars work SCRAPPO it is!! As for salt trade no the ship carrying cement clinker has destroyed its lifespan

tugboathunter wrote:I think you have it backwards, Denny. Cresswell's engines have been doing fine. It was the Jackman that had engine problems which caused her to lay up early. The Cresswell will indeed be scrapped, as boatguy was intending to say.

The words of your most excellent blog are haunting me right now. "Strange to Think I'll Miss Them all". I never imagined the Cresswell would be gone so soon. I thought she was safe for another decade.

Assume ballast tank internal steel corrosion is the reason for scrapping. So, she's elected a "parts ship" for Jackman. Same Mak engine on both. All the years of running grain/ore through the Seaway and saltwater have taken their toll on internal tanks.

I believe types of cargo carried are less of the reason here.
Cargo holds can have steel easily replaced through hatch openings, however, when the ballast tanks steel rusts, there's no easy way to replace that steel (expensive repairs). Also noticed Cresswell was due soon for her 5 year, whereas Jackman had her survey and associated repairs in 2014.

These scrap rumors get a bit comical until it is actually confirmed by company.

Those years on the salt run must have taken an heavy toll on the Creswell. Its surprising that a ship converted into a self-unloader back in 1998 had reached the end of its career already. I assume the freight rates for carrying salt are high enough to justify employing such a vessel in this trade?

I think you have it backwards, Denny. Cresswell's engines have been doing fine. It was the Jackman that had engine problems which caused her to lay up early. The Cresswell will indeed be scrapped, as boatguy was intending to say.

I am assuming that you meant that the engine will be scrapped and not the boat correct? If they are going to remove the engine then from the Cresswell and put it into the Jackman, would they have any issues then with the Jackman's engines? As some I believe I have seen on here have said, "Didn't the Cresswell have some sort of engine issues this year or something like that?" The Jackman so it seemed at least, seemed to be running okay this year with her engines. Maybe I am just missing something here? Then again, the Jackman arrived at Port Colborne on November 26 to make repairs and lay-up and has been there ever since as well.

Laying up in Port Colbourne after last cement trip. Will have engine removed and placed into Capt Henry Jackman!! Than Scrappo!!

can anyone tell me where the peter r creswell is going to lay-up this year thanks