Jump to content

Future of sea services up for debate


GaryPotter
 Share

Recommended Posts

on this occasion I would like to see the racket go bust. then a 'new' company consisting of the existing staff buy what assets there actually are from the liquidator and get to start fresh without the huge weight of debt the current company has.

That's just a complete nonsense.

 

What do you expect to spring up in its place? It's a £100m plus investment. What are you expecting? Some not for profit organisation to run a multi million pound business?

Edited by notwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's one of the issues with the Ben and Mannanan, they'll have to be greened at some stage, and given their age and expected life it isn't economically worthwhile.

 

Existing vessels will have grandfather rights for their lifetime. Similar to old locomotives. One of the reasons that early 1960s locos are still hard at work on UK railways is because if they bought new they would have to conform to prohibitively expensive emissions limits. So to avoid this you use something that is 10 times worse that doesn't have to comply because of its age.
MARPOL regulations give better grandfather rights, at tier 1 emission levels, to a pre 1990 boats. Ben is 1998. Most of the big ferry companies have greened their fleets to tier 2 or 3 levels recently.

 

The steam packet has very little debt, it was mainly written off in a restructuring exercise some years ago and more has been paid off since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It's one of the issues with the Ben and Mannanan, they'll have to be greened at some stage, and given their age and expected life it isn't economically worthwhile.

Existing vessels will have grandfather rights for their lifetime. Similar to old locomotives. One of the reasons that early 1960s locos are still hard at work on UK railways is because if they bought new they would have to conform to prohibitively expensive emissions limits. So to avoid this you use something that is 10 times worse that doesn't have to comply because of its age.
MARPOL regulations give better grandfather rights, at tier 1 emission levels, to a pre 1990 boats. Ben is 1998. Most of the big ferry companies have greened their fleets to tier 2 or 3 levels recently.

 

The steam packet has very little debt, it was mainly written off in a restructuring exercise some years ago and more has been paid off since.

 

It was halved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The steam packet has very little debt, it was mainly written off in a restructuring exercise some years ago and more has been paid off since.

 

Dont you mean it was hidden in a multitude of structures above the operating company ?

 

No, he means that a large portion of the debt was written off.

 

Which makes sense really for the bank that owns it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, what's it to be in LPL.... ROPAX or just PAX?

 

If it's PAX only then it's a waste of money. What's the point of securing land for a PAX only operation? There nothing remotely strategic about that.

 

I agree with John W insofar as the fast craft is concerned.... it doesn't work. 2 x conventional ROPAX would. But that requires both UK ports to have freight marshalling areas and that won't work at the half tide dock as it's predominantly residential.

This is a good point. It was mentioned in the debate that freight movements to and from the new terminal would be a no no. So if the fast craft becomes obsolete, what sort of vessel are we going to operate to it? It could become a white elephant.
Gawne said on the radio a few weeks ago the new Liverpool terminal could be used for freight but that Peel Ports wanted to restrict freight operations to only times when Heysham was unavailable.

 

I don't know the reason - I presume Peel Ports don't want too much freight going through the new Liverpool Waters development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So, what's it to be in LPL.... ROPAX or just PAX?

 

If it's PAX only then it's a waste of money. What's the point of securing land for a PAX only operation? There nothing remotely strategic about that.

 

I agree with John W insofar as the fast craft is concerned.... it doesn't work. 2 x conventional ROPAX would. But that requires both UK ports to have freight marshalling areas and that won't work at the half tide dock as it's predominantly residential.

This is a good point. It was mentioned in the debate that freight movements to and from the new terminal would be a no no. So if the fast craft becomes obsolete, what sort of vessel are we going to operate to it? It could become a white elephant.
Gawne said on the radio a few weeks ago the new Liverpool terminal could be used for freight but that Peel Ports wanted to restrict freight operations to only times when Heysham was unavailable.

 

I don't know the reason - I presume Peel Ports don't want too much freight going through the new Liverpool Waters development.

Surely if we own the land and the developer/operator of the terminal (other than Peel Ports) want to put freight through it, that's up to them? Assuming no environmental objections or difficulty with Liverpool Waters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be in everyone's best interests not to be beholden to Peel Holdings.

Take a look at Peel Holdings guff on Wikipedia , and then tell me that you don't believe we are already ' be holding ' to them. I believe Mr Whitiker and his son both live on the Island, so I would think with their influence , the Manx Government probably take notice of what they have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It would be in everyone's best interests not to be beholden to Peel Holdings.

Take a look at Peel Holdings guff on Wikipedia , and then tell me that you don't believe we are already ' be holding ' to them. I believe Mr Whitiker and his son both live on the Island, so I would think with their influence , the Manx Government probably take notice of what they have to say.

 

 

If you were trying to correct "notwell", you have failed, again laugh.png

 

Yes I know you were trying to be clever.

Edited by dilligaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As said before, we should be looking to see how we can modify/upgrade/expand Douglas harbour to take larger vessels, that opens up a whole new set of options. At the moment we are tied to current IOMSPCo vessels because they can come alongside with relative ease.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As said before, we should be looking to see how we can modify/upgrade/expand Douglas harbour to take larger vessels, that opens up a whole new set of options. At the moment we are tied to current IOMSPCo vessels because they can come alongside with relative ease.

 

It would be far easier to just wait until the sea level rises a few metres. thumbsup.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...