GaryPotter Posted July 21, 2016 Author Share Posted July 21, 2016 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. Options? I'm sorry but for what? I've worked within this side of the Manx economy and I genuinely believe there is no money to be made when you weigh it up against the cost of investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 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. We have just the lady currently in charge of harbours to have the vision to take on such a project... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ta laue y jouyl ayn Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 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. Have you any idea how much it would cost to modify the harbour to take larger vessels? Long millions, that would never be recouped. You are Anne Reynolds and I claim my five pounds!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxie44 Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 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 Yes I know you were trying to be clever. You really are silly, I was merely stating facts, as I see them, as was ' Notwell ' if you disagree then say why. I meant no offence to anyone, and have no intention in getting involved in petty arguing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 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. Options? I'm sorry but for what? I've worked within this side of the Manx economy and I genuinely believe there is no money to be made when you weigh it up against the cost of investment. One of the main issues with berthing in Douglas is that the vessel must be able to operate within the confines of the outer harbour, that's why we have smaller vessels than others that ply the Irish Sea. Having a larger operating and berthing area opens up more options and therefore more operators. I seriously cannot believe we are throwing money at loading/discharging point for passengers only. Why? If it was PAX and freight I could understand it, but for PAX only I believe it will not be money well spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 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. Have you any idea how much it would cost to modify the harbour to take larger vessels? Long millions, that would never be recouped. You are Anne Reynolds and I claim my five pounds!! Imagine going through the UA shit every 20/25 years..... why, when the only thing stopping other ferry companies from making a serious bid is that they can't use their existing vessels because they're too big for Douglas harbour? The big picture is being missed here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 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. We have just the lady currently in charge of harbours to have the vision to take on such a project... I don't doubt that but does she have the vision to build it AND make it profitable for the Island? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 so we get a bigger harbour and can take bigger vessels. Where are they going to sail to/from. cant be Heysham or Fleetwood, they couldn't take bigger vessels. So that leaves Birkenhead or Holyhead. Birkenhead has capacity issues already and belongs to one operator, so we would be tied to them. Does anyone really want to go to Holyhead and have the long drive along the A55? So we do get bigger vessels, we get one round trip a day instead of two. How is any of this to the benefit of the Island? Triangle trips are a nightmare, have you ever been on one? I have. The loading takes for ever to ensure you sort out what goes where for coming off first. It puts the full journey at risk because it takes longer because of diverting, manoeuvring berthing, disembarkation and loading. If you had a choice of a direct ferry to Belfast or Dublin at x hours or one that went via IoM at x+2 hours, which would you choose? The amount of IoM to Ireland freight and passengers would be low volume. UK IRL would always be priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 @ JW. Surely Heysham takes bigger ships? Always used to although I can't claim to have studied the matter. Agree with you about triangulars. Non-starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 The seatrucks aren't any bigger than the Ben, its silting up, that is why we have timetable shifts at low tides. Its many years since anything bigger. The Dukes were same size (giving my age away) and really nothing the Steam Ppacket has operated or Manx Line was bigger. Its draft that's important at Heysham, in the harbour and in the channel on the way in, not length or width (although width may have implications for the link span connection as it may become offset and length has implications for the current turn round in harbour manoeuvre ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 so we get a bigger harbour and can take bigger vessels. Where are they going to sail to/from. cant be Heysham or Fleetwood, they couldn't take bigger vessels. So that leaves Birkenhead or Holyhead. Birkenhead has capacity issues already and belongs to one operator, so we would be tied to them. Does anyone really want to go to Holyhead and have the long drive along the A55? So we do get bigger vessels, we get one round trip a day instead of two. How is any of this to the benefit of the Island? Triangle trips are a nightmare, have you ever been on one? I have. The loading takes for ever to ensure you sort out what goes where for coming off first. It puts the full journey at risk because it takes longer because of diverting, manoeuvring berthing, disembarkation and loading. If you had a choice of a direct ferry to Belfast or Dublin at x hours or one that went via IoM at x+2 hours, which would you choose? The amount of IoM to Ireland freight and passengers would be low volume. UK IRL would always be priority. Last bit first: triangulated routes are longer but are significantly cheaper and yes I have been on one in the Med. I'm not advocating that all services should be triangulated, of course there will need to be direct lanes but the opportunity to have connections to/from Belfast & Dublin with an all-year round service is better than no service at all. Heysham can take vessels up to 160M with a draught of 7M. Peel Ports development reports for Birkenhead says there are capacity issues but will be met by the proposed development to East Float basin (for trailer/container units) and construction of an additional berth. The questions is, would Peel Ports rather be in receipt of £3.5M from IOM taxpayers, plus the ongoing operating charges at the half-tide dock or spend £25M to develop Birkenhead? Why is it necessary to have two trips a day? A larger vessel would take more of everything, PAX and freight. Wouldn't that make it more profitable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 The seatrucks aren't any bigger than the Ben, its silting up, that is why we have timetable shifts at low tides. Its many years since anything bigger. The Dukes were same size (giving my age away) and really nothing the Steam Ppacket has operated or Manx Line was bigger. Its draft that's important at Heysham, in the harbour and in the channel on the way in, not length or width (although width may have implications for the link span connection as it may become offset and length has implications for the current turn round in harbour manoeuvre ) Peel Ports really don't like spending their own money do they? They'd much prefer someone else to come along with the cash and help them out. If Heysham is silted up then Peel should do something about it. Or as I suggested earlier spend money of developing Birkenhead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 so we get a bigger harbour and can take bigger vessels. Where are they going to sail to/from. cant be Heysham or Fleetwood, they couldn't take bigger vessels. So that leaves Birkenhead or Holyhead. Birkenhead has capacity issues already and belongs to one operator, so we would be tied to them. Does anyone really want to go to Holyhead and have the long drive along the A55? So we do get bigger vessels, we get one round trip a day instead of two. How is any of this to the benefit of the Island? Triangle trips are a nightmare, have you ever been on one? I have. The loading takes for ever to ensure you sort out what goes where for coming off first. It puts the full journey at risk because it takes longer because of diverting, manoeuvring berthing, disembarkation and loading. If you had a choice of a direct ferry to Belfast or Dublin at x hours or one that went via IoM at x+2 hours, which would you choose? The amount of IoM to Ireland freight and passengers would be low volume. UK IRL would always be priority. Last bit first: triangulated routes are longer but are significantly cheaper and yes I have been on one in the Med. I'm not advocating that all services should be triangulated, of course there will need to be direct lanes but the opportunity to have connections to/from Belfast & Dublin with an all-year round service is better than no service at all. Heysham can take vessels up to 160M with a draught of 7M. Peel Ports development reports for Birkenhead says there are capacity issues but will be met by the proposed development to East Float basin (for trailer/container units) and construction of an additional berth. The questions is, would Peel Ports rather be in receipt of £3.5M from IOM taxpayers, plus the ongoing operating charges at the half-tide dock or spend £25M to develop Birkenhead? Why is it necessary to have two trips a day? A larger vessel would take more of everything, PAX and freight. Wouldn't that make it more profitable? Heysham can take the bigger boats but only in favourable conditions and certain states of tide. Don't know how often you travel Andy, but I prefer a choice of morning or evening sailings. Assuming that majority revenue is freight lead that favours a 6am arrival here for stuff to be on shelves same morning. The Liverpool purchase doesn't make sense at all. It ties us to no freight or passenger only vessels. That doesn't make economic sense. What revenue implications are there for Peel if they sell the land to IOMG who then get a third party to build terminal and link span, floating bridges or berths? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 I'm sure I heard Minister Gawne state that Peel Holdings will be paying for the berth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Interesting to see that Elon Musk's HyperLoop is said to be capable of running underwater Could we have freight containers running through a seabed tunnel or submerged floating tube-bridge (SFTB)? http://www.forbes.com/sites/lauriewinkless/2016/07/22/could-norwegian-engineers-really-build-a-floating-tunnel-in-a-fjord/#4fdaac5a6878 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-race-to-create-elon-musks-hyperloop-heats-up-2015-12-18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.