Jump to content
quincy

Poole Harbour Developmement

Recommended Posts

Looking at the plans for this development, am I right in thinking that one consequence of it will be the lengthening of berth 2? In which case will Poole then have 2 roro berths capable of accommodating cruise ferries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking at the plans for this development, am I right in thinking that one consequence of it will be the lengthening of berth 2? In which case will Poole then have 2 roro berths capable of accommodating cruise ferries?

 

I believe this to be the case. The move may derive from LD Lines days when Poole had to accommodate both Barfleur and Norman Asturias overnight. They got away with it with the aid of Yokohama fenders at RoRo 2 for Barfleur. However PHC have been keen on being able to accept medium size cruise ships for a long time now. It seems the operators of such ships are correspondingly keen to call at Poole.

 

Then PHC also want to accept larger freighters able to load Sunseeker products for worldwide distribution rather than sending them to Southampton as now.

 

What effect the lengthened RoRo 2 will have is anyone's guess. I believe there are no plans to do anything to the linkspan but then if the need should arise ..... There are such things as adaptor barges etc.

 

Actually in a sense the work has already started since the preliminary dredging has been carried out. I imagine the sheet piling starts today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking at the plans for this development, am I right in thinking that one consequence of it will be the lengthening of berth 2? In which case will Poole then have 2 roro berths capable of accommodating cruise ferries?

 

A slight increase in quay length for berth two but the majority of the work is to create a new south facing quay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A slight increase in quay length for berth two but the majority of the work is to create a new south facing quay.

 

Yes I know the new quay is the major project, it just looks at if extending berth 2 might be a by-product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Slight increase!". What does this mean in actual figures, I.e. how much longer will it be compared with what it was? I think people are going by the chart at www.phc.co.uk which would suggest something a bit more than slight. PHC have acknowledged the present quay length at RoRo 2 is inadequate for anything other than HSC or small conventional coasters. One would have thought that if they are spending £8 millions on the project bringing RoRo 2 into the modern age should be part of it though I do accept the main aim is to provide a further and bigger quay -- for conventional vessels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Local Notices to Mariners referring to the South Quay development under Updates on the PHC website indicate what is going on.

 

Yes, that's what I was looking at too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder... The PHC are already a little "off" in a similar way to Milford Haven. Both advertise their double deck linkspan as being able to serve RoRo's & RoPax' upto 150m in length. Interesting as both have had 187m Visentini's on them and Barfleur is pushing 159m.

 

I'd like to know what could be accommodated on Poole's berth 2 just with a dolphin and outrigger. I think Barfy would fit easily especially as the PHC will need to dredge the middle channel to 9m and significantly widen the turning basin.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Slight increase!". What does this mean in actual figures, I.e. how much longer will it be compared with what it was? I think people are going by the chart at www.phc.co.uk which would suggest something a bit more than slight. PHC have acknowledged the present quay length at RoRo 2 is inadequate for anything other than HSC or small conventional coasters. One would have thought that if they are spending £8 millions on the project bringing RoRo 2 into the modern age should be part of it though I do accept the main aim is to provide a further and bigger quay -- for conventional vessels.

 

 

Using a more detailed plan and positions it looks to be about 20 metres beyond the existing dolphin which would give berth 2 about 145m of quayside and then 180 metres of new south facing quay.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to be something odd about RoRo 2. Why did they need Yokohama fenders there to berth Barfleur? Maybe the dolphin doesn't align with the quayside, e.g. it's too far out and reduces the max length of ship that can berth there. If something like this be the case hopefully they will eliminate it during the course of the current work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems to be something odd about RoRo 2. Why did they need Yokohama fenders there to berth Barfleur? Maybe the dolphin doesn't align with the quayside, e.g. it's too far out and reduces the max length of ship that can berth there. If something like this be the case hopefully they will eliminate it during the course of the current work.

 

Is the base of the quay armoured against the waterjet blast from the Condor fastcraft like the linkspan foundations are? Maybe deep enough to not be an issue for fastcrat but a bit to close for comfort for Barfleur so Yokohama fenders to keep her clear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe RoRo 2 is armoured against the scour produced both by the waterjet thrust from HSCs and the wash from ships' propellers. I believe Purbeck stone was put down on the harbour bed at this point for this purpose. RoRo 3 is similarly armoured but with a kind of concrete mat to prevent the scour produced by ships' propellers undermining the sheet piling at the quay.

 

I'd guess the fenders were to keep Barfleur away from the quay so as to clear the dolphin at the other end of the berth from the linkspan. This feature which I'd guess dates from long gone RoRo 1 days now seems to me to be something of an obstruction, more of an hindrance than a help, so I hope something is done about it during the course of the current work.

 

Incidentally the fenders are now used at RoRo 3 to allow MN Pelican to lower both her stern ramps.

Edited by Hawser Trunnion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two dolphins, one for berth 2 and one for the old berth 1. The one for berth 2 is lined up correctly for vessels using that berth and would have had the likes of Rozel, Beauport and Coutances up against it. I think the reason for the Yoko's was to keep Barfleur as far from the quay as possible. Both the dolphins are being removed as with the new quay going in they are redundant and an obstruction to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are two dolphins, one for berth 2 and one for the old berth 1. The one for berth 2 is lined up correctly for vessels using that berth and would have had the likes of Rozel, Beauport and Coutances up against it. I think the reason for the Yoko's was to keep Barfleur as far from the quay as possible. Both the dolphins are being removed as with the new quay going in they are redundant and an obstruction to work.

 

Why would they want to keep Barfleur away as far as possible from the quay?

 

I think it was the Ferry Publications magazine which reported that the Yokohama fenders are still in use at RoRo 3 for MN Pelican. Without them Pelican is too close to the quay to be able to lower her narrow port side ramp which gives access to the upper vehicle deck. With them she can. Poole port owns these items and they are part of the port's equipment to be deployed as necessary one would suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why would they want to keep Barfleur away as far as possible from the quay?

 

 

Because of the rock armour protecting the base of the quay posing a potential risk which also, I assume, was the reason she was kept away from the linkspan despite it being capable of accepting her stern ramp.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because of the rock armour protecting the base of the quay posing a potential risk which also, I assume, was the reason she was kept away from the linkspan despite it being capable of accepting her stern ramp.

 

Perhaps PHC should do something about RoRo 2 if it's been dedicated to HSCs to this degree.

 

I believe Berth 1 at Portsmouth has a concrete floor on the harbour bed underneath the HSC -- which these days is just NEx -- against the scour produced by waterjet thrust. But I'm sure I've seen Commodore Goodwill laying by there. Ports' Berth 1 is the continental ferry port's original ro-ro berth and maybe now as elsewhere able to take only the smaller vessels.

Edited by Hawser Trunnion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodwill tends to use berth 2 as a layby berth when both she and Clipper are in the harbour. I suppose she might fit berth 1, not sure - as you say, it was ferry port's original berth and therefore designed for Viking Victory at under 100m long - but I can't remember ever having seen her there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose necessity is the mother of invention etc, etc. I was once very surprised to see LD Lines' Norman Arrow berth at the PIP's Berth 5 which I thought was Condor's dedicated berth. I can only imagine NEx was on the HSC berth i.e. Berth 1. I don't suppose the scour produced by waterjet thrust was a problem on a one-off occasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because of the rock armour protecting the base of the quay posing a potential risk which also, I assume, was the reason she was kept away from the linkspan despite it being capable of accepting her stern ramp.

 

I suppose one should accept these Purbeck stone rocks and boulders have served Poole well for some time now. In addition to the CI HSC services which continue with Condor Lib there was the Cherbourg service operated by Condor Express on behalf of BF. But many would be surprised to learn Barfleur could also use this berth and also quite possibly MN Pelican as well provided the stone wasn't there. Maybe they should now be looking for some other method of armouring the harbour bed which wouldn't prevent much larger vessels berthing there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Goodwill tends to use berth 2 as a layby berth when both she and Clipper are in the harbour. I suppose she might fit berth 1, not sure - as you say, it was ferry port's original berth and therefore designed for Viking Victory at under 100m long - but I can't remember ever having seen her there.

 

 

The Goodwill used No 1 exclusively for many years along with her sister until No 5 was built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess it's the armouring that's the problem, limiting the draft of vessels that can berth. It's a serious matter, of course. Weymouth evidently neglected to do anything with dire consequences. Maybe it was this draft issue as much as money which led to the neglect.

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...