Jump to content

Gareth

BFE Staff
  • Content Count

    5,763
  • Joined

Everything posted by Gareth

  1. One further observation - which may or may not be of any relevance - the rear number plate of the vehicle appears like it might be white rather than yellow (but hard to tell). If that’s the case, can we deduce that the vehicle was French rather than British?
  2. I agree hf - I’m slightly surprised a route to Lisbon hasn’t been on the cards since P&O pulled out in 1975.
  3. So, possible factors that may (some or all) have been at play: 1. In a rush to get off (perhaps exacerbated by perceived slowness of unloading). 2. Alcohol consumption during crossing. 3. Sight of railing hampered by sun. 4. Hit wrong pedal when railing finally seen. Have to say, I hadn’t appreciated how narrow the upper linkspan at Poole 3 is. You don’t often see single-width linkspans these days - I thought Newhaven was the only one still around.
  4. Linked to compensation claims?
  5. Thanks Brigitte. An angle on the saga that this photo brings into the scenario is the possibility of being dazzled by the setting sun. On the other hand, the other drivers seemed to manage.....
  6. If that's true then you can't help wondering whether it was deliberate.
  7. Except Lewis Hamilton usually manages to drive straight!
  8. To put things into perspective, the day Epsilon sailed into trouble, the decision to sail was predicated on a belief that the sea state would not exceed 8m. 8m was taken as the cut-off limit for safe passage. In practice what they experienced was something in excess of 10m. (Nothing else sailed that day as it happened, and the reason for that is because the forecast actually went up to 13.5m! But the master of Epsilon was expecting to be clear of the area by then. Not intending to turn this into a discussion of that incident, but the reason for mentioning it is the use of the 8m figure as the criterion for sailing. I suspect that is also somewhere close to BF’s criterion too, although the precise limit probably varies from ship to ship).
  9. You’ll be fine. 😉 They may start to think about it if the forecast wave height gets to about 8-10m I would think. But it’s not just wind speed and wave height that matters, it’s direction. A passage that would involve the ship being beam-on to a heavy sea would be more vulnerable than one where the sea is in running in front of or behind the ship. So it’s not a simple case of what the wave height will be. At 4.5 metres you have nothing to worry about. Enjoy your holiday! 😀
  10. You’ll be fine. 😉 They may start to think about it if the forecast wave height gets to about 6-8m I would think. But it’s not just wind speed and wave height that matters, it’s direction. A passage that would involve the ship being beam-on to a heavy sea would be more vulnerable than one where the sea is in running in front of or behind the ship. So it’s not a simple case of what the wave height will be. At 4.5 metres you have nothing to worry about. Enjoy your holiday! 😀
  11. Dear oh dear - lucky the railings were there. And how fast were they driving across the ramp for such a collision to cause injury?! 🙄
  12. Well that is always true. If we start to see cancellations across multiple routes and multiple ships at the same time then that may be related to sea state. Generally when NEX is cancelled that is to do with sea state, but her tolerance for wave height does not require much chop for her to be cancelled for regulatory reasons. As a general rule, weather cancellation of Spanish sailings tends to be sea-state related. Cancellation of Plymouth-Roscoff is often more to do with the safety of berthing and unberthing at Roscoff in exposed conditions, but can occasionally be sea-state related. It takes a lot (weather-wise) to cancel Ouistreham sailings, so if they get cancelled for weather reasons you know it must be bad out there. When Barfleur is cancelled and nothing else is (or only NEX is), you know that is nothing to do with sea state.
  13. I don’t know how we can make it clearer that Barfleur’s issues are nothing to do with sea conditions. They are to do with handling in Poole Harbour. There is nothing in the sea conditions that would require any cancellations.
  14. Yes, Poole Harbour is a very large flat expanse that provides no hindrances to the wind. The potential issues with scrubbers are twofold - firstly the windage on the superstructure (which I agree, Barfleur has only been minimally affected), but secondly the onboard electrical power supply. The effect that scrubbers have had on that for Barfleur is an unknown, but my perception is that her problems with wind at Poole have been worse in latter years.
  15. Partly berth availability, partly BF already run a service from Portsmouth, and partly Poole is where Barfleur is. She spends the night there. What's not entirely clear is what this underpowered thruster is attributable to. Some think it's scrubber-related, and some think it goes all the way back to when she was lengthened during her construction. Maybe it's a combination of the two. I don't remember it being an issue during her earlier years.
  16. I know. What about a Glasgow - Dublin route? Does that sound like it might have viable potential in its own right, and if so, how would the prospect of a direct transfer at Dublin to the Cherbourg ferry appeal?
  17. Nah, don’t get that one, you’ll have to explain! Magic Moments? Chocolate Folly? Mystery Box? 😉
  18. That’s been discussed a zillion times Paully. There are differing views but mine is that her bow thruster is underpowered and she struggles to get off the berth at Poole. If you search the forum you’ll find tug provision at Poole discussed, as well as a suspicion that BF may use weather as an excuse to cancel sailings that are lightly loaded. It’s certainly nothing to do with her ability to cope with a little chop. But cancelling Barfleur when the Caen ships continue to sail is almost routine practice for BF - it happens frequently.
  19. Cairryan-Belfast and Dublin-Cherbourg seems to be a realistic means of reducing driving time. According to Google, Glasgow-Cairnryan takes 2 hours and Belfast-Dublin takes 2 hours. Contrast that with Glasgow-Portsmouth, which theoretically takes 7 hours but probably more likely 8 hours with typical M6 traffic. Going via Ireland could halve the amount of driving needed to get to Cherbourg for anyone travelling from southern Scotland.
  20. At least it's still chocolate (unlike Refreshers)! 🤣 Anyway, I think we should have a Celebration of the high Quality Sweet jokes that have been posted. I need to go away and Digestive them a bit, but I'll be back After Eight.
  21. Hey how did you know?! 🤣
  22. Seems to me like the Wheels are coming off the Wagon.
  23. It's worth remembering that ships are built to be able to sail in just about anything that you might experience in the English Channel. Just look at Marine Traffic on a day when there is a storm blowing, and you will see that it is still full of vessels plying up and down it. A slight complication with ferries compared with other types of vessel is the open-plan nature of the vehicle deck and the danger that would be posed by cargo shifting around in it. But vehicles are chained down when there is any kind of heavy sea expected, and the chains do a remarkable job of securing vehicles in place. So any "safety" considerations that David referred to do not relate to the safety of the vessel itself, it relates to the safety of passengers on board. Conditions become unpleasant, and potentially hazardous, for passengers long before the vessel itself becomes in any danger. Most of the time that sailings are cancelled it is more to do with passenger comfort than anything else. But it would be very rare for such a cancellation in August, and would certainly require more severe conditions than the ones that are currently forecast.
  24. Thanks Millsy. Just talks about "gales or near gales". That means force 7 or 8. That's nothing that would cause BF to cancel.
×
×
  • Create New...