Poole Harbour Developmement

[jonno]

Many are moving away from traditional armouring in favour of a synthetic solution such as Geobags & Geotubes with the scour apron having a very strong woven polypropylene.

[Hawser Trunnion]

Many are moving away from traditional armouring in favour of a synthetic solution such as Geobags & Geotubes with the scour apron having a very strong woven polypropylene.

 

Very interesting. I rather wondered if there were any solutions available which utilised modern materials.

 

I would venture to suggest that PHC should give consideration to replacing the stone at RoRo 2 with something like this as part of the South Quay development. In this way they would acquire two substantial roro berths. I take it this modern armouring doesn't pose the same risk to larger ships as stone or concrete.

[G4rth]

On 13/02/2017 at 08:21, quincy said:

Work should start today on Poole south quay.

http://shipmanagementinternational.com/work-starts-on-first-phase-of-phc-masterplan/

[Hawser Trunnion]

5 hours ago, G4rth said:

http://shipmanagementinternational.com/work-starts-on-first-phase-of-phc-masterplan/

I see the maximum length for ships accessing Poole Harbour is now 220m and the cost of the project has risen to £10 millions.  Accordingly I do wonder what the reaction would be to a rival operator(s) wanting to establish ferry services from the port.  As I have previously suggested this South Quay project has the potential to change the character of the Port of Poole.

 

[Gareth]

17 hours ago, Hawser Trunnion said:

I see the maximum length for ships accessing Poole Harbour is now 220m

 

Not sure if that's true at the moment HT.  The way I read the article, that's what it will be when the project is finished.

 

 

17 hours ago, Hawser Trunnion said:

South Quay project has the potential to change the character of the Port of Poole.

 

I can see the benefits of the project from a commercial and economic point of view.  But do you think changing the character of the port would be a good thing HT?  For me it's present character has a lot of charm; it would be a shame to lose that.

[Hawser Trunnion]

8 hours ago, Gareth said:

Not sure if that's true at the moment HT.  The way I read the article, that's what it will be when the project is finished.

 

 

I can see the benefits of the project from a commercial and economic point of view.  But do you think changing the character of the port would be a good thing HT?  For me it's present character has a lot of charm; it would be a shame to lose that.

I did choose my words carefully!  Also I think it's important to differentiate between the Port, i.e. the commercial docks, and the Harbour at Poole.

I did say access the Harbour which means a ship up to 220m max length can get through Brownsea Road and transit the deep water channel.  Until South Quay is complete berthing at the port is rather more problematical, I agree.

PHC have always been to keen to stress that Poole is a working port and always has been and isn't some quaint little place with the odd little coaster calling.  When I suggest changing the character I mean the port accepting much larger vessels than have previously been associated with Poole.  The Harbour as distinct from the Port willl remain much the same.  I don't see why it should change.  However what impact South Quay will have on the Port and what interest it will generate from the international shipping community remains to be seen.

[Gareth]

Fair comment HT, and I take your point about the distinction between the Port and the Harbour.

In fact, there's no reason to think (is there?) that, just because 220m will be the maximum length the port can accommodate, that is also the limit of what can navigate the entrance to the harbour.  I agree that the implication is that (unless any works are planned to modify the entrance as well, which I am not aware of) the harbour must be navigable now by ships 220m long.  But it could well be navigable by ships longer than this.  We don't know - and there wouldn't be any point as they would not be able to dock or turn round up at the Port - but it doesn't necessarily follow that just because 220m can, by inference from the article, enter the harbour, that this figure represents the current limit.

[Hawser Trunnion]

13 hours ago, Gareth said:

Fair comment HT, and I take your point about the distinction between the Port and the Harbour.

In fact, there's no reason to think (is there?) that, just because 220m will be the maximum length the port can accommodate, that is also the limit of what can navigate the entrance to the harbour.  I agree that the implication is that (unless any works are planned to modify the entrance as well, which I am not aware of) the harbour must be navigable now by ships 220m long.  But it could well be navigable by ships longer than this.  We don't know - and there wouldn't be any point as they would not be able to dock or turn round up at the Port - but it doesn't necessarily follow that just because 220m can, by inference from the article, enter the harbour, that this figure represents the current limit.

Yes, there are those who think ships longer than 220m could enter Poole Harbour especially if the deep water channel through Brownsea Road was straitened up further by dredging.

It seems to be accepted that the turning basin off the ferry port could also be enlarged by further dredging as required.  Thus longer vessels turning shouldn't be a difficulty.  Indeed recurring maintenance dredging is a feature of the Harbour as it is of many ports and harbours and the fill for South Quay once the perimeter has been sheet piled, as I understand it, is coming from the spoil from this recurring maintenance dredging.  I daresay there will be other sources as well.

If this South Quay does result in increased competition for BF it will be no-one's fault but their own.  If they were not intending to keep Cotentin at Poole for any appreciable length of time they shouldn't have asked PHC to carry out the capital dredge to take this larger replacement for Coutances and Purbeck.  If they hadn't made this request I doubt if it would have occurred.  As it is Poole will now be able to accommodate vessels even larger than Cotentin and doubtless will be doing so and this could include ferries if another operator should come along.  South Quay will have to be paid for

 

 

[Gareth]

Not sure it's a question of "fault", BF has only responded to market conditions as it has seen fit.  It's difficult to see any operator wanting to come in at Poole in direct competition to BF while BF is still there - if the demand for more sailings is there then BF already has more than enough capacity to cater for it (so by virtue of the fact that they don't it must surely be concluded that the demand is not there).

Whether there is a case for another operator to introduce different routes out of Poole is a different issue, and clearly with the redevelopment of the port the scope for the port catering for that is clearly there.  I hope it doesn't come back to bite PHC though, and that the extra capacity does end up getting used.  Would be an expensive white elephant if not.  Although, from what I can see, it looks as if they are more targeting the cruise ship market doesn't it?

As far as accommodating ships "bigger than Cotentin", the port clearly already does that.  Cotentin is only the same length as Armorique, and the Vissentinis that used to call at the port are much longer than that I believe?

Edited March 17, 2017 by Gareth

[Hawser Trunnion]

I was surprised the 187m Norman Asturias was able to berth at Poole's RoRo 3 I must admit.  I'd have thought she was too long.

I think we should remember we don't have a socialistic planned economy but a free market economy.  Thus if another operator wants to have a go at Poole-Cherbourg subject to berth availability etc they are free to do so.  The problem BF have is that they charge so much more for Poole-Cherbourg than Ports-Ouistreham.  I recently received a BF brochure through the post.  "Gourmet getaways to France" were advertised. "Travel as a foot passenger to:

Ouistreham from £74pp

Cherbourg from £93pp".

Why is Cherbourg more expensive bearing in mind it's the shorter crossing, at least from Poole.  If it's the HSC from Portsmouth they have in mind maybe they should have a separate tariff for Poole.  I see the offer is valid until late June.  In all events it shouldn't be too difficult to undercut BF.

But I must stop as I may be going off topic!

[Gareth]

Absolutely a competitor is free to do so if they wish, and absolutely should if they wish.  My point was, why would they want to if there is no demand?  (My premise is that, if the demand was there, BF would surely already be filling it).

Edited March 17, 2017 by Gareth

[Cabin-boy]

Maybe the food is better in Cherbourg than Ouistreham so they can get away with charging more.  Ed. 

Edited March 17, 2017 by Cabin-boy

[Gareth]

3 minutes ago, Cabin-boy said:

Maybe the food is better in Cherbourg than Ouistreham so they can get away with charging more.  Ed. 

I mis-read this at first Ed as suggesting that the food was better on the Cherbourg route than on the Ouistreham route.  Was going to challenge you but then realised what you meant!

Although, even with what you have said, it's questionable.  There are some excellent restaurants in both places.

[Cabin-boy]

Well Khaines speaks very highly of the McDonald's there. Ed. 

[Gareth]

Just to take this (kind of) slightly back towards the main topic, HT just tryng to understand where you are coming from.  Is it your contention that you'd like to see another operator come in to go head-to-head with BF for the demand that is catered for at present?  And therefore, by implication, with the aim of eventually forcing BF out of the market at Poole by under-cuttting them, ultimately to replace them there?  Or is it more that you want another operator to come in to "teach BF a lesson" so that they up their game at Poole, with the inevitable outcome of the other operator eventually capitulating?  Or do you actually believe there is enough potential demand to be able to sustain 2 operators profitably on the same route?

[G4rth]

I'd always belived PHC, when they introduced the current port plans, that they did not envisage any increase in Ro-Ro traffic at Poole. At the time they stated that the current work being undertaken was to facilitate diversity in options avaliable to the port for other business. No mention was made of work being done to improve the port for larger ferries, quite the reverse.

[Khaines]

I always believed they are after larger cruise ships.  

[Khaines]

4 hours ago, Cabin-boy said:

Well Khaines speaks very highly of the McDonald's there. Ed. 

Oh yes, Maccy's is great - you will find that it's position, slightly away from the town centre means that when there are ships like Harmony of the Seas in dispersing all it's payload around the various cafes and restaurants in town, Maccy's is a quiet haven - they can't be asked to walk that far...😉

[Gareth]

Ah yes, that must be it.  The distance.  What else could explain it?! 😄

[hf_uk]

On 3/17/2017 at 16:16, Khaines said:

Oh yes, Maccy's is great - you will find that it's position, slightly away from the town centre means that when there are ships like Harmony of the Seas in dispersing all it's payload around the various cafes and restaurants in town, Maccy's is a quiet haven - they can't be asked to walk that far...😉

 

They should put one of these on Armorique:

Edited March 20, 2017 by hf_uk

[Khaines]

The Maccy's in the town centre is being refurbished so they might have one in there. 

[juliannewman]

No, the McDonalds in Poole has closed:

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/15008610.McDonald___s_in_Poole_High_Street_closes_tomorrow_after_34_years/

[Hawser Trunnion]

On 17/03/2017 at 13:09, Gareth said:

Just to take this (kind of) slightly back towards the main topic, HT just tryng to understand where you are coming from.  Is it your contention that you'd like to see another operator come in to go head-to-head with BF for the demand that is catered for at present?  And therefore, by implication, with the aim of eventually forcing BF out of the market at Poole by under-cuttting them, ultimately to replace them there?  Or is it more that you want another operator to come in to "teach BF a lesson" so that they up their game at Poole, with the inevitable outcome of the other operator eventually capitulating?  Or do you actually believe there is enough potential demand to be able to sustain 2 operators profitably on the same route?

I just happen to think Poole ferryport could be busier than it is, especially with services to France.

PHC will need to be flexible over the use to which South Quay is put as one of its envisioned users, Sunseeker, is now Chinese owned.  I guess the fear is they could move manufacture to China -- as has happened with MG Rover cars and LDV vans.

[Khaines]

2 hours ago, juliannewman said:

No, the McDonalds in Poole has closed:

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/15008610.McDonald___s_in_Poole_High_Street_closes_tomorrow_after_34_years/

I am talking about the one in BOURNEMOUTH town centre - not Poole, know that has closed, more's the pity.  Bournemouth's is having a massive upgrade with iPad tables and all - although the down and outs will probably trash it before long.

[Khaines]

1 hour ago, Hawser Trunnion said:

I just happen to think Poole ferryport could be busier than it is, especially with services to France.

PHC will need to be flexible over the use to which South Quay is put as one of its envisioned users, Sunseeker, is now Chinese owned.  I guess the fear is they could move manufacture to China -- as has happened with MG Rover cars and LDV vans.

Since the B word, can possibly imagine the Chinese doing this.  If they have any plans for this then no doubt we will hear vwry soon now now the B word date is set.