Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
craggy_steve

Steam Packet to be sold

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

That’s how I read it, and fully agree.

Generally I think it’s a good framework.

My main concern is the boat replacement schedule, type and cost.

If this is going to be long term and even out capital costs replacement tonnage needs to be every 10 years, so we get a flagship, work horse second ( the ex flag ship ) and a back up ( the oldest boat ) each with a 30 year life.

Im not in favour of a fast craft. And I’m not sure about a quicker conventional craft. At 25kts you still cant get 3 complete rotations a day taking into account passage time, loading/unloading, then there’s refuelling, provisioning, Staff changeover and cleaning. Then there’s the cost implication. That extra few knots will double fuel consumption.

Ive a great concern about ship building costs and timetables.

4 years ago the Steam Packet claimed 2 new boats would cost £170million. The CalMac Assets order for two 102 metre RoPax was £97million, now £105m, But 18 months late, and the final cost over run is anticipated at 50%.

It's my concern as well with the combination/timescales etc. for replacement vessels, and perhaps its a point worth making when it's up for debate, perhaps via an MHK? (Maybe I'm being too optimistic...) But as with all things, make a simple, clear argument for debate and it becomes obvious for all.

I'm thinking about a faster speed option for summer Liverpool sailings and stretching the schedule, say for TT. I'm not a marine architect but having an extra engine so 2/3 could be used most of the time and the third for when needed would spread things out a bit. The Ben adds extra flexibility in the summer period to provide the extra Irish elements when required, or the Ben could substitute for one of the other vessels on the Heysham run while it does the extra occasional Irish sailing. Plenty of combinations. 

The nostalgic part of me would love to see them built at Cammell Lairds, but China probably the cheaper bet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what's coming out of this is we have bought ourselves the flexibility to arrange the services to suit the island and not private sector shareholders. Of course that doesn't guarantee it'll run any more efficiently or profitably but at least it'll give a veneer of accountability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accountability?

They're setting Harmful up as the fall guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Ive a great concern about ship building costs and timetables.

4 years ago the Steam Packet claimed 2 new boats would cost £170million. The CalMac Assets order for two 102 metre RoPax was £97million, now £105m, But 18 months late, and the final cost over run is anticipated at 50%.

Isn't situation that effectively calmac is state owned and therefore were forced to build in Scotland, to support the ship building industry that had long departed for eastern/more efficient/cheaper yards?

Yards claiming there were numerous design changes along the way increasing costs..

Goverment procurement fiasco shocker!! (And not ours for once!)

However, tend to agree you're only getting one new vessel with £70m, and as the Thames consultant says, should look to build another with someone like Condor, who are also in need of replacement tonnage, to reduce unit price and share design costs.

Vital you get the vessel specification right from the start...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Donald Trumps said:

I have extracted the 'report' from Thames Head Shipping Advisors Limited from where MOPR has buried it in the Tynwald gumph

Read it carefully folks!

 

thamesheadshippingconsuiltantsiomspcreport.pdf

That’s not the Heads of Agreement 

Its here at page 26-50

http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/20182021/2019-GD-0009.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

Isn't situation that effectively calmac is state owned and therefore were forced to build in Scotland, to support the ship building industry that had long departed for eastern/more efficient/cheaper yards?

Yards claiming there were numerous design changes along the way increasing costs..

Goverment procurement fiasco shocker!! (And not ours for once!)

However, tend to agree you're only getting one new vessel with £70m, and as the Thames consultant says, should look to build another with someone like Condor, who are also in need of replacement tonnage, to reduce unit price and share design costs.

Vital you get the vessel specification right from the start...

Yes there’s clearly been poor procurement and hidden subsidy with soft loans between SNP cronies. It’s likely the yard will collapse if the cost over run isn’t paid.

However other Northern European yards don’t fare much better.

First of class is never easy. 

Yes, working with Condor might be good, in theory, but pragmatically not possible until their ownership is resolved. There aren’t funds to commission, the fund it’s owned by is closed.

Boats 2, 3, 4 etc, in series will be cheaper, and better as long as 1 is built, snagged and ironed out.

Part of problem with CalMac 2 is they’re being built in tandem, so no learning curve. Both end up with same issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Yes, working with Condor might be good, in theory, but pragmatically not possible until their ownership is resolved. There aren’t funds to commission, the fund it’s owned by is closed.

Maybe IOMG should buy Condor too :) A Crown Dependencies Shipping Line.... #strongertogether

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

Maybe IOMG should buy Condor too :) A Crown Dependencies Shipping Line.... #strongertogether

I did whether an umbrella owning co could be established for Condor & IOMSPC to independently manage the operations

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2019 at 4:29 PM, John Wright said:

You can design construct RoPax that do 28-30knots 50-55kph but they are ruinously expensive to run.

The superfast ferry series design is an example. They were capable of those speeds, but now only operate at about 20kts. Cap Finisterre is one of the series.

The difference between 20 and 28kt is a near tripling  of fuel cost.

The problem we’ve got is that any boat which is true RoPax can’t carry freight from/to the new Liverpool terminal, except in emergencies, and even then there is no marshalling area, no tug masters and no stevedores.

The Steam Packet should have learned the cost penalty of keeping freight and passengers separate. Fast craft we’re a vanity project, with no commercial justification, forced on the Steam Packet by IoMG through the user agreement.

At least the new draft leaves it open for 2026.

Looks to me that there are three unsolved problems with the new agreement and logistics.

1. Lack of freight capacity to new Liverpool, meaning a RoPax can only carry passengers, ie half income earning capacity

2. Slower crossing times to Liverpool than a fast craft making shopping day trips to England difficult

3. Capacity issues at TT/MGP. A fast craft can do 3 round trips to/from Heysham or Liverpool each day at a pinch. A RoPax only 2. However keeping Ben as back up will extend her life and she could be used in peak periods for pax as well as freight back up for 10 years after she’s replaced.

I can’t see much change out of £70 million for a Ben replacement, nor it being ready until 2022. I hope that means we don’t end up with a 2nd hand clapped out, on the cheap, fast craft replacement in 2026.

The two new CalMac dual fuel RoPax (102 metres long, 1000 passengers,127 cars ) ordered in 2015/6 for £105 million are two years behind and subject to a large cost over run dispute.

Wartsita, the big Polish yard seem full for the next three years, with refurb, retro fit scrubbers and 10 new Brittany Ferries/Stena Hulls already booked.

What about pods, as opposed to props, are they not cheaper to run, and more efficient ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, LightBulb said:

What about pods, as opposed to props, are they not cheaper to run, and more efficient ?

The problem is that fuel consumption/speed isn’t a linear relationship. And fuel burn is directly related to emissions.

Every vessel gets a speed curve calculated during sea trials. 

Its not just displacement and hull design/resistance, it’s weather, state of sea, currents, trim, rough propeller action, how clean the hull is.

I’d hope the new boats would have the most efficient engines and propulsion delivery units ( propellers, pods, whatever ) economically available.

That doesn’t alter the fact that increasing speed by 25-30% will at least double fuel consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Wright said:

The problem is that fuel consumption/speed isn’t a linear relationship. And fuel burn is directly related to emissions.

Every vessel gets a speed curve calculated during sea trials. 

Its not just displacement and hull design/resistance, it’s weather, state of sea, currents, trim, rough propeller action, how clean the hull is.

I’d hope the new boats would have the most efficient engines and propulsion delivery units ( propellers, pods, whatever ) economically available.

That doesn’t alter the fact that increasing speed by 25-30% will at least double fuel consumption.

But if they had solar panells, there would be no fuel costs at all ?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LightBulb said:

But if they had solar panells, there would be no fuel costs at all ?

You’d have to have huge panels, even bigger ( very expensive ) batteries and back up power plant, reducing passenger and freight capacity and reducing speed so lengthening crossing time.

The relationship between power, fuel consumption, speed and emissions is calculated, as a rule of thumb, that engine power output is a third power function of speed. When the ship reduces its speed by 10%, engine power will be reduced by 27%. When sailing at a lower speed, for the same distance, the sailing time will be longer and the energy required becomes reduced by 19% (quadratic function). Fuel consumption, CO2 and SOX emissions are reduced in line with energy consumption. The NOX emissions are reduced in line with fuel consumption unless the engine load becomes very low. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite easy. If you want to travel quickly then pay more. Unfortunately it's not rocket science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all terribly confusing; why don’t they simply cut and paste the Wigan ferry agreement?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×