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

Steam Packet to be sold

Recommended Posts

On 3/12/2019 at 9:41 AM, Whatnonsence said:

This is a far to sensible summary for our lot to begin to understand.

Put 100 million pounds some where in your report and it’s home and dry!

It is sensible, but it also vastly inflates the costs beyond what we are already talking about. 3 new builds instead of 1 or maybe 2? And building journey times around passenger demands would either reduce the number of sailings or increase the number of ships required to maintain a schedule with the desired/required number of sailings. And ship and more crew rotations perhaps?

Either way, while it might provide a more desirable service level overall, the costs.... would be somewhat higher than today. 

For a bit of comparison, here is the spec for the new Hammershus, which replaced a Ben half-sister, the Hammerodde on service to Bornholm this year. She's a bit longer than we're looking for, but with a lower passenger capacity, lower speed and a lower spec than we would want really. And she cost € 60 million, 3 years ago. 

https://www.shippax.com/backnet/media_archive/original/24e7b76befc75dda9762307c695bd442.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think they're going to 'Bloat' the Steam Packet?

Share this post


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

If you'e any sense at all you design the traveling time around customer preferences

I would normally agree, but cost here could be the limiting factor, we used to be able to cross the atlantic in 3 1/2 hrs but that speed was reserved for a very privileged few whilst the masses were content to do it in about 7hrs.

My crossing this weekend out Fri back Monday £334.00 TBH thats enough, speed is irrelevant if I cannot afford to use the service !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2019 at 9:55 PM, Manximus Aururaneus said:

 2. It is very rare in any major investment decision process to have some solid, long term, certainties on which to base your core assumptions (think financial services, offshore betting, technology investments etc. etc. etc. Here today - tomorrow?) - BUT, in this case - We know where Heysham is, Liverpool is, Douglas is, the depth of the Irish sea, the tides for the next 1,000 years, the silting rates, the harbour sizes, the (rough) population limits of the IOM etc. Good, solid, investment info - Gold dust!
 

Appreciate a lot of what you said in your long post but I do think the above is contradictory. You might know the population limits of the Island but as you yourself say, "financial services, offshore betting, technology investments etc. here today - tomorrow?"

If e-gaming takes flight to the extent that some aspects of the finance sector have, you have a whole new ball game in terms of the sustainability of the economic model and the population level. You might know the tides for the next 1000 years, but you have no clue what the economy will be in 10. We seem to have been a "one trick at a time" pony in the past few decades. We need to keep finding the next trick, or your 3 new boats will be as sparsely loaded as a December sailing from Uig to Lochmaddy. It would be just our luck after paying a commercial price for the shipping line.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, AlexMcC said:

It is sensible, but it also vastly inflates the costs beyond what we are already talking about. 3 new builds instead of 1 or maybe 2? And building journey times around passenger demands would either reduce the number of sailings or increase the number of ships required to maintain a schedule with the desired/required number of sailings. And ship and more crew rotations perhaps?

Either way, while it might provide a more desirable service level overall, the costs.... would be somewhat higher than today. 

For a bit of comparison, here is the spec for the new Hammershus, which replaced a Ben half-sister, the Hammerodde on service to Bornholm this year. She's a bit longer than we're looking for, but with a lower passenger capacity, lower speed and a lower spec than we would want really. And she cost € 60 million, 3 years ago. 

https://www.shippax.com/backnet/media_archive/original/24e7b76befc75dda9762307c695bd442.pdf

Yes, fully agree that we will never have 3 identical boats with identical engineering and spares. We never did, not even the superficially Identical sisters or side loaders.

Ship design evolves steadily.

Business modelling demands that you smooth out capital costs. Spread them. So we get a new boat in 2022, Hammershus took 28 months from commissioning to being in service. And it’s not clear if that includes early design work.

itd be better to wait until 2030 for boat 2 and 2040 for new boat three to keep steady turnover of tonnage, but neither SeaCat nor Ben will suit until 2030 so we are going for 2026/7 for boat 2. 

Having spare props and engines sounds attractive, but it’s expensive and re boilering or engining a boat is a big job. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/11/2019 at 4:18 PM, John Wright said:

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. 

And if we stuck a coulple of sails on it as well ( adding wind power ), and a discount for pasengers willing to row the oars ?

Edited by LightBulb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2019 at 9:34 PM, Frances said:

John - what port do you suggest? Fleetwood is nearer than Heysham (just, I think) but no longer any rail connection tho this is being sought and the port is tidal unless considerable dredging is done.
(on another note there is an email for you - maybe in your Spam box?)

You could sail to scotland, the shortest point from the IOM, it is only a short hop, maybe 20 miles, then by car at 70mph on the motorway, if you did it that way, what would the difference in time from IOM to Heysham be ?

Share this post


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

You could sail to scotland, the shortest point from the IOM, it is only a short hop, maybe 20 miles, then by car at 70mph on the motorway, if you did it that way, what would the difference in time from IOM to Heysham be ?

Which motorway are you thinking there?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that isn't a short hop, 20 miles from the Isle of Man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailing to Ardrossan was always horrible. However always loved the Llandudno sail. 

Sail to Wales is the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LightBulb said:

You could sail to scotland, the shortest point from the IOM, it is only a short hop, maybe 20 miles, then by car at 70mph on the motorway, if you did it that way, what would the difference in time from IOM to Heysham be ?

Which port from, which port to, and with what motorway connections?

You have to choose a Port ( on both sides ) with existing infrastructure, roads, linkspan, passenger facilities, security.

So that’s Douglas. Not Point of Ayre. Not even Ramsey.

Heres a marked up map.

 

CA31935D-C0C8-42E2-B62A-5AF5C20AC66C.jpeg

The drive Heysham from Stranraer or Cairnryan is about 3 hours 30 minutes. It’s a long haul up the M6 over Shap, to Carlisle and Gretna, before you turn off to Dumfries. The road after Dumfries isn’t dual carriageway. It’s why Stena succeed from Liverpool and Sea Truck from Heysham. It’s a longer sea crossing also. 

Its the same with Barrow, or the north Cumbrian ports. Even if they had adequate port facilities, which they don’t, their road/rail connections aren’t good. Barrow is 90 minutes to Heysham, on a good day, 2 on most. Whitehaven, Maryport, Workington about 2 to 2.5 hours. I’ve timed to M6 Lancaster North/Bay Gateway interchange.

Just to give you some idea of how dumb your sugggestion is Glasgow to Heysham (168 miles) is only 30 minutes more than Glasgow to Stranraer (86 miles). The roads in the south west of Scotland are poor. You won’t be doing 70mph. More like 35.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, AlexMcC said:

It is sensible, but it also vastly inflates the costs beyond what we are already talking about. 3 new builds instead of 1 or maybe 2? And building journey times around passenger demands would either reduce the number of sailings or increase the number of ships required to maintain a schedule with the desired/required number of sailings. And ship and more crew rotations perhaps?

Either way, while it might provide a more desirable service level overall, the costs.... would be somewhat higher than today. 

For a bit of comparison, here is the spec for the new Hammershus, which replaced a Ben half-sister, the Hammerodde on service to Bornholm this year. She's a bit longer than we're looking for, but with a lower passenger capacity, lower speed and a lower spec than we would want really. And she cost € 60 million, 3 years ago. 

https://www.shippax.com/backnet/media_archive/original/24e7b76befc75dda9762307c695bd442.pdf

 

22 hours ago, John Wright said:

Yes, fully agree that we will never have 3 identical boats with identical engineering and spares. We never did, not even the superficially Identical sisters or side loaders.

Ship design evolves steadily.

Business modelling demands that you smooth out capital costs. Spread them. So we get a new boat in 2022, Hammershus took 28 months from commissioning to being in service. And it’s not clear if that includes early design work.

itd be better to wait until 2030 for boat 2 and 2040 for new boat three to keep steady turnover of tonnage, but neither SeaCat nor Ben will suit until 2030 so we are going for 2026/7 for boat 2. 

Having spare props and engines sounds attractive, but it’s expensive and re boilering or engining a boat is a big job. 

With respect, my points are being misunderstood. Three identical boats does not involve any greater capital cost - in fact it means less capital expenditure. 

The point about three identical boats (or whatever the final number is best calculated to be) indeed does not make sense unless you also include my second point - i.e. That you take a long-term (say 100 year) view. Never have I said that you buy all three at the outset - but you do decide on the overall deign at the outset.

Of course ship design evolves - I've been involved in that evolution since the 1970's - but Liverpool Heysham Douglas and the Irish Sea are not going to change their Lat & Long anytime soon!

Decide on the need - then produce a vessel design to meet that need as best you can - then commission one vessel (not three) with a design lifetime involving a realistic possibility of a re-sale i.e. say 18 - 21 years instead of 30 years where you only have 'scrap' value.

Year 1 = 1 new boat plus 2 existing (Ben & Arrow)

Year 7 = 2nd New boat plus back up

Year 14 = 3rd New boat - You are now at 'full class complement'. Each boat incorporates relatively minor improvements but stays to existing basic design.

Year 14 = start of new class design brief (learning from experience) with a view to replacing Boat 1 in year 21 - and repeat by selling each boat at age 21 (whatever).

To say that, because ship design evolves, you cannot have common class design is bollocks. Look across to Barrow to see how they have built submarines since 1953.

Dreadnought — one boat, 1959–1960

Look at how each class lasts longer and longer - because each class builds on the lessons learnt from previous classes and therefore gets closer and closer to 'Optimal'. Astute replacement already on drawing board - it may be different, but you can count on the fact that it WILL fit into Barrow and it WILL fit into Faslane, Devonport and Gibraltar - known, knowns.

Quote. "Having spare props and engines sounds attractive, but it’s expensive and re boilering or engining a boat is a big job."

I've changed literally hundreds of props and engines including taking a 16 cylinder MTU engine out of an in-refit passenger catamaran, removing gearbox from it (cannot be done with engine in boat) - remove engine from in-service boat, swap gearboxes over, put engine back into in-service craft. All done in 10 hours including slipping - boat back on the 6am first run Southampton to Cowes. 2 craft slippings, two engines out, swap boxes, one engine back in, relaunch - 10 hours, back on £10,000 fare income for the day (1990's).

Above only possible because the ZF Gearbox on the refit boat was identical to the knackered ZF gearbox on the in-service boat - result = zero down time. I was MD of the refit yard at the time and supervised the whole operation from slipway preparation to re-launch. An example based on real-life experience not guessing.

The new aircraft carriers (Queen Elizabeth and POW) ARE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED for fast replacement of engines - they are now located in 'Pods' (containers) under the flight deck control towers for just that reason. One Out - One In.

As I originally said, IOMG has an almost unique investment scenario whereby it does have many 'known knowns' (not all, but many) - there is therefore an opportunity to cease navel gazing and look through the Heads-Up-Display thinking 50 - 100 years ahead.

Look at what  past thinking has produced - a combination of Ben, Manannan, and Arrow and tell me I'm wrong to ask for a pause with some rational forward thinking - I'm not holding my breath mind.

"itd be better to wait until 2030 for boat 2 and 2040 for new boat three to keep steady turnover of tonnage, but neither SeaCat nor Ben will suit until 2030 so we are going for 2026/7 for boat 2."

The very fact the that 'we are going for 2026/7 for boat 2" rather than being in the position of being able to take the better option of "better to wait until 2030 for boat 2" demonstrates my point perfectly - why are we in this position in the first place? - Answer; Because short-term tactical decisions are having to be deployed to cover-up for the lack of long term strategical policy.

Time to switch on the HUD.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Manximus Aururaneus
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, John Wright said:

Which port from, which port to, and with what motorway connections?

You have to choose a Port ( on both sides ) with existing infrastructure, roads, linkspan, passenger facilities, security.

So that’s Douglas. Not Point of Ayre. Not even Ramsey.

Heres a marked up map.

 

CA31935D-C0C8-42E2-B62A-5AF5C20AC66C.jpeg

The drive Heysham from Stranraer or Cairnryan is about 3 hours 30 minutes. It’s a long haul up the M6 over Shap, to Carlisle and Gretna, before you turn off to Dumfries. The road after Dumfries isn’t dual carriageway. It’s why Stena succeed from Liverpool and Sea Truck from Heysham. It’s a longer sea crossing also. 

Its the same with Barrow, or the north Cumbrian ports. Even if they had adequate port facilities, which they don’t, their road/rail connections aren’t good. Barrow is 90 minutes to Heysham, on a good day, 2 on most. Whitehaven, Maryport, Workington about 2 to 2.5 hours. I’ve timed to M6 Lancaster North/Bay Gateway interchange.

Just to give you some idea of how dumb your sugggestion is Glasgow to Heysham (168 miles) is only 30 minutes more than Glasgow to Stranraer (86 miles). The roads in the south west of Scotland are poor. You won’t be doing 70mph. More like 35.

It's an idea that looks good on paper.   It's an idea that seems good before you put it on paper.     It's a bloody stupid idea.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've driven the A75 Stranraer/Kirkcudbright/Carlisle road on quite a few occasions. It's a nightmare. And goes on forever.

Non starter as a major road link for IoM.

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.

×