Jump to content
eagleeye

Wightlink port redevelopment & new G class

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, bekkia said:

You really don't like WL do you? Why exaggerate delays? And do you have any evidence for your statement regarding a 2nd hybrid ship or is this just supposition?

I have to say I agree with you, over the years and as far as I can remember he’s never said anything positive about WL. What was it the day?, VoW has caused a delay and it’s not even in service, it was being towed in. How was it suppose to get in?, wait till dark, I expect that would of been wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just annoys me. There's nothing to acknowledge the £30m spent on a new vessel, or £15m spent on sorting the double deck loading facilities, but as soon as there's a short delay it's immediately the fault of Wightlink and needs posting about.

What people often forget is that Wightlink have to operate in a really congested port with military and cross channel movements, Red Funnel only have container and cruise and often get priority over these vessels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/08/2018 at 15:50, adicat said:

Must be paying more cash to keep tug on. That's why day trips are so expensive now. They would have been better getting her in today and paying less fees.

Another example... The notion they would be paying hourly for a tow.... Ridiculous!

Share this post


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

And the reason it matters is.......?

(Everyone is entitled to his/her view 😉).

To be honest it's close on libelous at times. If you read Adicats posts and knew nothing else you would think Wightlink take deliberate actions to run late, and waste money hence inflating fares. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and view but it should be balanced and if necessary, evidence based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/08/2018 at 17:54, Gareth said:

I was wondering that exact question - why the tow.

The actual reason for the tow is because the MCA would not allow the vessel to sail from Turkey under her own power as there was no accommodation for the crew. This is obviously something which has changed in recent years. It's worth noting that the tow cost £800,000 for the 25 day voyage, around £32,000 per day.

I will be attending the Naming Ceremony in Fishbourne next month, I'll be sure to get some photos.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, TonyMWeaver said:

The actual reason for the tow is because the MCA would not allow the vessel to sail from Turkey under her own power as there was no accommodation for the crew. This is obviously something which has changed in recent years. It's worth noting that the tow cost £800,000 for the 25 day voyage, around £32,000 per day.

I will be attending the Naming Ceremony in Fishbourne next month, I'll be sure to get some photos.

Assuming St Cecilia goes to Delcomar... Will this cause issues with the delivery voyage for them or will it be reflagged and then not under MCA rulings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, TonyMWeaver said:

The actual reason for the tow is because the MCA would not allow the vessel to sail from Turkey under her own power as there was no accommodation for the crew. This is obviously something which has changed in recent years. It's worth noting that the tow cost £800,000 for the 25 day voyage, around £32,000 per day.

I will be attending the Naming Ceremony in Fishbourne next month, I'll be sure to get some photos.

Was that a fixed price, if they had bad weather and took a week longer was it the same price and less per day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where that comment came from re exaggerate. Reports from BBC that there were delays so take it up with them, I was speaking to a "top dog" last Friday and mentioned a possible name for a second vessel. He said they already had one. Please moderate your posts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, adicat said:

Not sure where that comment came from re exaggerate. Reports from BBC that there were delays so take it up with them, I was speaking to a "top dog" last Friday and mentioned a possible name for a second vessel. He said they already had one. Please moderate your posts.  

Don’t know who the moderate your post is aimed out but I certainly won’t, it’s my view of your comments. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The post about causing delays was started with the word Ironically and an imoje and was  not a serious comment on delays. I could see the weather was bad and the tugs were struggling and after all the good weather we have had it was just bad luck. Wightlink themselves were showing delays on their website and earlier this week I heard on the radio about 1 hour delays but it did not say what had caused them. Then on their website it said technical/mechanical issues or something to that effect so a tongue in cheek comment re a vessel possibly sulking as it was being sold.

Since privatisation a lot of company's have charged a lot of money for services and not reinvested quickly enough. Look at the poor people in Lancashire who have had hose pipe bans after a good spell of weather. In this day and age there should be no excuse for such behaviour as they say they pay the big salaries to get the right people but decades later still hose pipe bans and did I hear they lose quite a substantial amount of water through leaks due to old pipes. Yes they may be investing but not enough.

We have chaos on the railways with new timetables being cancelled yet they bang on about investment. Then they say fares need to go up to pay for the investment yet the service does not get any better for some customers. Nice new trains but same delays. 

Wightlink have in my opinion let the Portsmouth route run down for far too many years to the situation where they will have 4 different style vessels running. This wont be ideal. There have been so many Summers where in peak time rarely did they manage to keep to timetable on August Saturdays. When the 4 Saints first came in they were superb and delays were minimal even double decking both ways. When St Clare came in there seemed to be a distinct down turn on the fortunes of the route even though she was portrayed as the flagship. It has taken 17 years to rectify her loading and turn round times. Quite a long time for the poor paying public to put up with. The double deck loading has solved the problems with the Clare but should have happened a lot earlier than 2017.

Sadly the investment was later than they perhaps would have liked but the Lymington situation should never have got to where it did. Everything should have been rubber stamped and then the type, size and number of vessels needed could be worked out and how they could operate. Its not like the C class suddenly became 35 years old. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh and I do wish VoW a long and happy time ploughing the Solent and hope she is a great success.

The new ticket office building is nice and light and having the café upstairs seems to have been a wise decision as always quite busy especially because the people in lanes 17-31 are already up there and at the moment being just the Clare using the upper car park means they can take there time getting a drink if another vessel is in as they know they wot be on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure if all things go well and performance is as expected, then with St Faith's age at nearly 30 it would be a reasonable to assume another. With all these things I guess anything that needs tinkering with will then be on the next one as is usually the case. All the Saint class ferries had some minor differences, some more noticeable than others I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure. St Clare has plenty of life left in her yet and with the reduced timetable and increased individual ship capacity it looks like she and VoW will do all the heavy lifting with some backup from a Wight class.

The problems from a customer viewpoint are that the convenient half hour service has been lost which will inconvenience a lot of people and Wightlink are left vulnerable if one of the two big ships is hospitalised due to a breakdown as capacity will then be severely compromised while it is out of service.

No doubt VoW will be pleasant to travel on which is a plus point but the underlying policy seems to be cost cutting in reducing the number of operational vessels and thus the need to pay their crews and other costs. Shareholder interests therefore trump customer interests by a significant margin.

In these circumstances why would Wightlink add another high capacity ship to the route?

Wightlink's priority will be to fill the vessels thay have as far as possible. There is no incentive to add extra capacity for customer convenience if three vessels would be frequently running below full capacity and it is hardly likely that the IoW Council would subsidise such a policy.

So overall, we are seeing some modernisation but the underlying service standard is probably falling.

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

×