Jump to content
eagleeye

Wightlink port redevelopment & new G class

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, adicat said:

Looking at her colours, is this going to be the new corporate colours from next time round or is VOW going to be the green one and the others remain as they are.

I thought the livery was to boast her green credentials. I'd have thought in general the colours would stay as they are given they are derived from the 'W' flag.

Share this post


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

Short and dumpy like her namesake then...

If they call the next one Albert of Wight it'll be longer, that's for sure, but the bow will have some strange metal appendages hanging off the front. 😮 Ed

(I doubt the mods will let that pass - sorry guys!) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cabin-boy said:

If they call the next one Albert of Wight it'll be longer, that's for sure, but the bow will have some strange metal appendages hanging off the front. 😮 Ed

(I doubt the mods will let that pass - sorry guys!) 

Well, they have to tie her up somehow :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its going back some 40 years where there were 2 large ferries and the 2 really outdated ferries that really had no place in the 1980s. Now we have VOW v Faith and Cecelia, A 2 class service, if your lucky and get on VOW then you will say what a wonderful crossing and vessel but if you end up on the others, you will think what a run down company.

This is what happens when investment is so long in coming on a route. The huge error was investing so much in Lymington. There was no requirement for increased capacity, it was the age of the vessels that was an issue and should have been addressed years before. Certainly only 2 were required as hourly for such a parochial service would suffice. So wasted 33% of the investment on the 3rd vessel which could have gone towards a second new one for Portsmouth.

 

I still do not understand why with St Clare they went back to a central bridge to a larger vessel with a bridge at 1 end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2018 at 15:15, captjack said:

First and last time she’ll fly a Turkish flag

I don't know, give or take 30 years...

6 hours ago, adicat said:

I still do not understand why with St Clare they went back to a central bridge to a larger vessel with a bridge at 1 end.

Agreed. I did ask when they had one of the open days, and they said about it not making much difference. Then again, the turn around outside Fisbourne is pretty rapid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/02/2018 at 16:44, The Ferry Man said:

I don't know, give or take 30 years...

Agreed. I did ask when they had one of the open days, and they said about it not making much difference. Then again, the turn around outside Fisbourne is pretty rapid

My guess is this ferry's all about efficiency, and a directional hull can be far cleaner through the water, saving on fuel. Another factor is that the prow of the ship isn't visible from St Clare's bridge, meaning they need cameras to see what's going on. Not sure if that's cured by placing the bridge forward on VoW.

Share this post


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

My guess is this ferry's all about efficiency, and a directional hull can be far cleaner through the water, saving on fuel. Another factor is that the prow of the ship isn't visible from St Clare's bridge, meaning they need cameras to see what's going on. Not sure if that's cured by placing the bridge forward on VoW.

But you can’t see the stern prow on the old Saints or either prow on the Clare, only the Clare has cameras and to be honest although their good for a quick look you don’t really use them for berthing, it’s all done by marks on the belting and piles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the cruise ship style front you expect to see a pointed bow not what looks like a wedge of cheese that someone has chopped the nose off (bad etiquette by the way)... 

Share this post


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

With the cruise ship style front you expect to see a pointed bow not what looks like a wedge of cheese that someone has chopped the nose off (bad etiquette by the way)... 

It’s practical and functional, what did you want, clamshell doors and a proper bow ?, more money, more complex, more to go wrong, longer to fix and if it did have that you wouldn’t be able to open the doors anyway because of the jaws that hold bow/stern when alongside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had gone for the lesser rounded front and stayed more traditional it wouldn't look so odd, that's all. Ship design nowadays has lost all its graceful lines and attractive shapes. We all like nice looking buildings as a load of horrible ones makes the landscape look depressing. We don't want a future of terrible looking ships on the oceans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most ro-ro cross-Solent ferries were described as ugly when new. The St Class certainly were - huge boxy things with oversized bridge and ugly square funnels, as was St Clare, not to mention Red Funnel's single-ended Castle sisters. The original Raptors were originally quite pleasing on the eye in my opinion, before being stretched. But they all grow on you, and we remember them all with fondness now :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, CyberMatt said:

I think most ro-ro cross-Solent ferries were described as ugly when new. The St Class certainly were - huge boxy things with oversized bridge and ugly square funnels, as was St Clare, not to mention Red Funnel's single-ended Castle sisters. The original Raptors were originally quite pleasing on the eye in my opinion, before being stretched. But they all grow on you, and we remember them all with fondness now :) 

 

The C Class definitely were described as ugly, but look at the way they are remembered for their decades of service.  Elf and safety stopped people staying with their vehicles, remember going back to Lymington Pier with someone who had a car and we used to stay on the car deck.  I believe that is not allowed now,  I know people talked about dodging the spray coming over the bows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people have come to accept that the external appearance of ships is mainly driven by functional considerations these days. Onboard facilities are what matter. After all, when you are on the inside then generally you can't see the outside but there was a time when naval architects made an effort to achieve an aesthetic whole.

 

Brading.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cvabishop said:

After all, when you are on the inside then generally you can't see the outside.

 

Brading.jpg

Think that applies to clothes as well...😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shape of Victoria is all down to it fitting in gunwharf. The Fishbourne end is bigger so not so important.just hope they have allowed for the depth at Fishbourne as I am sure the Clare ran aground there on her first crossing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some bad choices have been made investing in this ship - the advantage Wightlink has had over RF has been frequency of sailings which they will lose with bigger slower ships. Then of course there is the complete lack of economies of scale - how many years is it going to take them to save enough money to buy 2 more of the G-class?? Shipping is a long term industry and the owners/management of RF understand that, I don't think WL do at all. Says a lot that they can't even retain or recruit enough crews to run a normal service if one captain is off with a cold.

It's a shame, I remember the WL of 10 years ago - friendly and efficient and no stress!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/02/2018 at 20:17, eagleeye said:

The shape of Victoria is all down to it fitting in gunwharf. The Fishbourne end is bigger so not so important.just hope they have allowed for the depth at Fishbourne as I am sure the Clare ran aground there on her first crossing 

Caedmon was built for Portsmouth - Fishbourne originally before she moved to join her sisters on the Lymington - Yarmouth route.  Cannot remember where I saw it, but remember a comment elsewhere (not on this site) about something to do with her side doors and not fitting at Pompey or something, when she was originally designed for Pompey.  Past couple of posts have brought to mind this.  Did she nearly lose a door or something - I know she lost a prow, but this was a door mishap or something and it was Pompey.  Someone suggested she had not been built for Pompey when she had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, LordDevereux said:

I think some bad choices have been made investing in this ship - the advantage Wightlink has had over RF has been frequency of sailings which they will lose with bigger slower ships.

Unfortunately, as a regular user for many years I'm inclined to agree.

 

I visit the island regularly, and although I still enjoy the ferry crossing the novelty has somewhat worn off after 25 years. Thus, I have two requirements from my cross-Solent operator - get me across in the shortest time, and keep my wait at the terminal to a minimum. I am a staunch defender of Wightlink but they have been losing the plot on the first point for nearly a decade and now it looks like the second is going to follow.

 

As a kid we used the Fishbourne route when it had the four identical Saints and I seem to recall it being a reasonably reliable 35mins. Once I was old enough to drive I switched to Lymington, where the C-class offered a 30min crossing every half an hour. Once the W-class turned up this service dropped markedly, with less frequent crossings which were slower. I switched back to Fishbourne as the next best option, although it seems slower than it used to be, normally taking 40mins plus in my experience. Nevertheless, there is generally still a ferry every half an hour, so if I get stuck in motorway traffic it's not a long wait (the reduction in night service is a nuisance though). Others may know better but I have long thought the St Clare is the reason for the slower service, I know she takes longer to load but I get the impression she is underpowered too. Only a couple of weeks ago I was surprised when I got into Portsmouth on Cecilia in 35mins like I used to - coincidentally or not, Clare was tied up out of use...

 

When all is said and done, if the Fishbourne service becomes hourly - and takes 45mins or more - why would I not go to the better customer service and better experience of Red Funnel on similar terms? And if other long-term customers like me are of the same mindset, Wightlink may have made a disastrous mistake in negating their biggest advantage 🤔

Edited by Pigeonrat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...