Jump to content

Gareth

BFE Staff
  • Content Count

    6,425
  • Joined

Everything posted by Gareth

  1. Well I’m very impressed! Not many people can see that far into the future. You could make a fortune with that talent!
  2. Wow - that’s a bold prediction! 🤣
  3. The point is that they don’t take bookings with no intention of transporting you on the route booked and at the time booked for. So they won’t have taken a booking for a Cork sailing if their intention at the time of taking the booking was not to run the sailing.
  4. BF wouldn’t take a booking if they were not intending to honour it.
  5. Sorry for the misunderstanding - people have used “leave” to mean “pull out” previously in the thread.
  6. I don’t follow hf - you think if Cork makes money they’ll leave? Doesn’t make sense.
  7. Once she’s back at Plymouth full-time, she’ll be able to get three of those in per week if BF pulls out of Cork! And a nice little dash across to Roscoff (or St Malo! 😉) on the remaining day! 😀
  8. I think the point of interest is that the engine was removed disassembled, and will the new one be installed the same way (to be assembled in situ), or will the fully assembled engine be loaded in?
  9. It would actually be a first in the history in the company. An ignominious one. It would be the first time ever that the company has, as Brittany Ferries, stopped operating to a port. They’ve closed down routes before, but never pulled out of a particular port entirely.
  10. Technically, it wouldn’t have been “back” for Venturer. And for Valiant, only imasmuch as she spent a year(ish) at Felixstowe when new before moving to her home before moving to Southampton. The main Felixstowe SVs were never jumboised (fortunately for them!). I was going to mention that Zeebrugge did not cater for twin loading in those days. Which took me on to thinking about the peculiar situation in which FE6 and FE7 were jumboised for twin loading and then operated throughout their time at Zeebrugge to a port that did not enable them to load twinly!
  11. Interesting gents. Tarby, your last paragraph puts a timescale on this that puts it after the jumboisation of the SVs. That puts that jumboisation into a new perspective in terms of what TT’s plans were for them - in other words, they were never intended to be anything other than a short-term stop-gap. And then P&O flogged them for another 15 years!
  12. That sounds very unlike TT tarby! TT got a lot wrong in the mid 80s. One of which was turning down an invitation from the Port of Caen to team up with them to develop a new ferry terminal at Ouistreham! (They were quite happy at Cherbourg and Le Havre. So BF was approached instead....and the rest is history!).
  13. In other words, load the shell and assemble the engine in situ? Presumably, the fact that the shell itself needs replacing means the original problem with the engine must have been in the casing.
  14. I believe the whole Superfast concept was designed for the Mediterranean. To my knowledge, none of them were designed for Northern European use.
  15. Yes, I was wondering whether the cut-out panel is being kept somewhere ready to be welded back in, or whether a new panel will be fabricated. Done properly I’m sure you won’t be able to tell she was cut open. A good surgeon doesn’t leave a visible scar!
  16. LD tried that (using none other than Etretat, in her original guise), and it didn’t work.
  17. Yes. And that his reason for thinking that Bretagne must stay in the fleet is because she is called Bretagne! It may be that we should not draw too much inference from his opinions! 😀
  18. It might well have been, I can’t remember. I do remember that she used to be in Portsmouth in the evening, and I once saw her mid-Channel heading to Portsmouth early afternoon, which would fit with what I described, but honestly I can’t remember. The 3-day repeating schedule was her pattern of operation in later years, after she stopped sailing to Cherbourg. When she was first introduced she used to run Portsmouth-Cherbourg rotations twice (?) a week. In those days she ran twice a week to Bilbao, and I don’t remember two-nighters being a regular occurrence. But it’s possible there may have been a weekly 2-nighter in the schedule somewhere, and that may well have been on the northbound leg.
  19. Every other one! I can’t remember which way round it was for sure, but all her sailings in one direction were 2-nighters. I think it was the southbound sailing. She ran a 3-day repeating schedule. So I think she left Portsmouth in the evening every third day, then reached Bilbao after 2 nights at sea. The northbound sailing then took around 30 hours, leaving Bilbao around lunchtime and reaching Portsmouth the following teatime.
  20. Not at all - I didn’t mean my post sarcastically (sorry if it came across that way). The two may not be connected - so it may be a clue or it may not be 😀
  21. The fact that this thread started with a rumour about the Cork service stopping end Feb might give a clue to that?
  22. And as far as the “full speed” issue is concerned - no route will be scheduled on the basis of the ship operating at full speed all the time. Something always needs to be kept in reserve, and full speed is only really possible on a flat sea in any case. If the Flexer quoted top speed is 22 knots, then you can be sure that the published schedule will not require more than 20 knots, if that.
  23. It would be very unwise to allow less than 3 hours turnaround time for Portsmouth-Spain ferries. As David says, you need some leeway for late arrival, and there is no valid comparison with twin-loading shuttle routes like Portsmouth-Ouistreham.
  24. She, unusually for Gdansk, went into the floating dock bow-first.
×
×
  • Create New...