Jump to content

HONFLEUR - New Build for Ouistreham Route - CANCELLED


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, tarbyonline said:

Poundworld have a closing down sale on at the moment, so maybe there?

In all seriousness, the accommodation modules were actually built by two different yards.  The subcontractor subcontracted the centre module out to another company (Holm Construction) based elsewhere in Gdansk, and built the forward and aft modules themselves.

Highlights the need to have a project manager in complete control of all aspects of the operation when multiple yards are involved, to be fair It’s the way they’ve built planes for years so shouldn’t have been an issue in the slightest.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That may well be the view being presented for now, but things can change. My point being that until the several thousand tons of hull sat floating actually have a decided future, I wouldn't 100% disco

I get the impression we've put more hours into this thread than the German shipyard have into the real ship. Ed. 

And don't forget that the ship's real achievement was the production of zero CO2 emissions, zero waste water and zero satisfied passengers for the whole of the 2019 summer season. Ed. 

Posted Images

19 minutes ago, tarbyonline said:

Since its been posted publicly elsewhere, the word is that the measurements of W.B. YEATS accommodation module are off by around 1 metre.  82cm to be exact!  IF this is true (and I'd heard similar from a few different independent sources before it became public) Brittany Ferries will be quite concerned.

Too big/wide or too small/narrow? They can either have an extra club-class cabin or an extra couple of kennels. 😲 Ed. 

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

Too big/wide or too small/narrow? They can either have an extra club-class cabin or an extra couple of kennels. 😲 Ed. 

If only it was so simple.  The three accommodation modules were delivered with much of the interior, wiring, and pipework already installed.  It should have been a case of just connecting everything.  If one of the modules is out of alignment by almost a metre then I imagine those connections are not going to line up very well.

 

5 hours ago, neilcvx said:

Highlights the need to have a project manager in complete control of all aspects of the operation when multiple yards are involved, to be fair It’s the way they’ve built planes for years so shouldn’t have been an issue in the slightest.

Project management was outsourced.  To the same organisation that is project managing Honfleur...

https://www.km.kongsberg.com/ks/web/nokbg0238.nsf/AllWeb/54ABC8D1F54E9258C125818D003DEFB3?OpenDocument 

Speculating here, but the difference could be in the fact the sub-contractor sub-contracted out the centre module.  Normally I understand the superstructure of FSG builds is provided by Marine Project themselves directly.  For this big build though they had to sub-contract out again.  We are talking about 3 yards in 2 different countries on their first project of its type so perhaps it isn't that surprising that something major might have gone wrong.  Basically instead of attaching a single accommodation section to the hull, they have three which all need to line up.

Edited by tarbyonline
Link to post
Share on other sites

The steel measurements are fine, It's the height of the internal ceilings in the centre module, the void spaces don't align. They are too high making them too shallow. I believe all of the internal pre fitted finished walls, ceilings etc have all had to be ripped out an replaced.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tarbyonline said:

If only it was so simple.  The three accommodation modules were delivered with much of the interior, wiring, and pipework already installed.  It should have been a case of just connecting everything.  If one of the modules is out of alignment by almost a metre then I imagine those connections are not going to line up very well.

Thanks. I had a feeling you were going to say that. I had visions of each cabin width-ways across the beam being 8cm too wide making it a nightmare to reconfigure. As jonno says it's the heights which are wrong, that's going to mean staircases and lift-shafts which don't match up and no spaces to run the pipes and cabling etc. 

I guess there will be some pretty tense discussions going on between BF and FSG (which I've now worked out stands for Frankly Shoddy Geometry) to perhaps place a permanent BF-appointed project inspector to double check every aspect of Honfluer's progress. Ed, 

Edited by Cabin-boy
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair to FSG and Marine Projects their architecture is accurate, it was Holm who miss read it. I have a feeling such a small player won't be used again. As @Tarbyonline points out, it's also interesting that Konsberg are involved when FSG have their swanky new project management and design HQ in Hamburg which has only been open a couple of years, the guy I've spoken to  believes they're ready for more complex builds rather than just their more simplistic RoRo and ConRo designs.

FSG were planning to build a second hall on land adjacent to the rowing club but I think it's been shelved due to their full order book until 2022 with a revised plan to just build a second pier to the left of the current hall. At the moment if they need further moorings they tend to use the opposite harbour which they have to pay for.

Info is courtesy of Dr Broder Hinrichsen.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the architecture was, a you say, accurate. It's just rather hard to believe that nobody bothered to check compatibility before trying to marry the two halves together. Rejecting the accommodation module entirely before delivery would have put the onus on the supplier to take responsibility and rectify the mistake at their yard rather than reflecting badly on FSG. Ed. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cabin-boy said:

Of course the architecture was, a you say, accurate. It's just rather hard to believe that nobody bothered to check compatibility before trying to marry the two halves together. Rejecting the accommodation module entirely before delivery would have put the onus on the supplier to take responsibility and rectify the mistake at their yard rather than reflecting badly on FSG. Ed. 

It would also leave them totally without the centre accommodation module for which construction could have to start from scratch.  It would be unlikely that the vessel would be delivered any quicker anyway as the rectification work would still need done.

The steel was all cut by Gdansk Shipyard Group IIRC.

Edited by tarbyonline
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jonno said:

To be fair to FSG and Marine Projects their architecture is accurate, it was Holm who miss read it. I have a feeling such a small player won't be used again. As @Tarbyonline points out, it's also interesting that Konsberg are involved when FSG have their swanky new project management and design HQ in Hamburg which has only been open a couple of years, the guy I've spoken to  believes they're ready for more complex builds rather than just their more simplistic RoRo and ConRo designs.

FSG were planning to build a second hall on land adjacent to the rowing club but I think it's been shelved due to their full order book until 2022 with a revised plan to just build a second pier to the left of the current hall. At the moment if they need further moorings they tend to use the opposite harbour which they have to pay for.

Info is courtesy of Dr Broder Hinrichsen.

It was perhaps more cost efficient to give Kongsberg the entire EPCI package rather than break it up.  

I get the feeling our friend Brice Robinson and his associates might be spending quite a bit of time in Poland anyway! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, tarbyonline said:

It would also leave them totally without the centre accommodation module for which construction could have to start from scratch.  It would be unlikely that the vessel would be delivered any quicker anyway as the rectification work would still need done.

The steel was all cut by Gdansk Shipyard Group IIRC.

I certainly agree it would be no quicker but I suspect that at this stage IF are probably more worried about actually getting a finished, 100% perfect, working vessel than some botched job. Whatever happens next it will be too late for this summer season so they might a well go for penalty compensation from the shipyard, rework their marketing for next summer, offer a free out-season round-Ireland cruise (or similar fam-trip style discovery option) for their displaced passengers and then sit down to negotiate a massive discount on the next one - if they still want to bother with it. Ed. 

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

I certainly agree it would be no quicker but I suspect that at this stage IF are probably more worried about actually getting a finished, 100% perfect, working vessel than some botched job. Whatever happens next it will be too late for this summer season so they might a well go for penalty compensation from the shipyard, rework their marketing for next summer, offer a free out-season round-Ireland cruise (or similar fam-trip style discovery option) for their displaced passengers and then sit down to negotiate a massive discount on the next one - if they still want to bother with it. Ed. 

Maybe they should go for a name change  while they are at it , Using a name already in use seems to have brought them nothing but bad luck .

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

I certainly agree it would be no quicker but I suspect that at this stage IF are probably more worried about actually getting a finished, 100% perfect, working vessel than some botched job. Whatever happens next it will be too late for this summer season so they might a well go for penalty compensation from the shipyard, rework their marketing for next summer, offer a free out-season round-Ireland cruise (or similar fam-trip style discovery option) for their displaced passengers and then sit down to negotiate a massive discount on the next one - if they still want to bother with it. Ed. 

At the moment they aren't even offering passengers the compensation they should be getting under EU legislation, so I wouldn't hold my breath.  A €150 online non-transferable discount for a sailing with Irish Ferries to France NEXT YEAR applied directly to the account under which the booking was made is all they seem to be offering.  Passengers transferred to Oscar Wilde have got a box of chocolates and a bottle of wine which probably cost less than the additional petrol or diesel for them to drive to Rosslare, but its a nice gesture at least.  Given the nightmare some passengers have had a its small one.

The people I really most sorry for are the ones transferred to Epsilon who are now finding their sailing cancelled (again) as Irish Ferries are using her at Holyhead instead!!!!  Some of them are not being told until they are already in France.  It appears the process of making alternative arrangements is also rather drawn out with people spending much of their holiday working out how they are going to get home (and in some cases having to pay any additional costs themselves).  Brittany Ferries have got a bit of land-bridge business from it I believe.

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

Maybe they should go for a name change  while they are at it , Using a name already in use seems to have brought them nothing but bad luck .

I can see the logic for that, to draw a line under the recent setbacks and begin operating a vessel with no legacy issues for new customers (particularly those in France who have not been aware of the delays). However, I doubt they will do so as there must have been a certain sum already spent on documentation, internal signage, branded products and the like that would then have to be written off too. I doubt they need any extra costs at present. Having said that, I did suggest two names during the competition phase, neither of which mysteriously ever won. The 'Dracula' option was a wildcard but seems to tie in with the current curse afflicting the vessel and the second was 'J M Synge' which I suppose could still be an option for the second ship down the line. Ed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, georgem7 said:

http://www.brittany-ferries.co.uk/fleet/cruise-ferries/honfleur/accommodation


I don't how long this page has been up but I thought it would be relevant here. It does appear to have 2 berth cabins - although the image used is shown to be a 4 berth. It would be interesting to see if they are like the 2 berth insides on the rest of the fleet. 

Only 4 berth pet cabins as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

New timetable is out.  HONFLEUR is set to debut in July.  What could possibly go wrong???

At least they seem to have a backup vessel in the shape of ETRETAT as she's not on the France timetable that I can see.  Im guessing they are pretty confident that the measurements are correct this time as well.  Is BDS not back to DFDS in April though?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tarbyonline said:

New timetable is out.  HONFLEUR is set to debut in July.  What could possibly go wrong???

At least they seem to have a backup vessel in the shape of ETRETAT as she's not on the France timetable that I can see.  Im guessing they are pretty confident that the measurements are correct this time as well.  Is BDS not back to DFDS in April though?

http://www.brittany-ferries.co.uk/ferry-routes/ferries-spain/portsmouth-bilbao/timetable

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Andy changed the title to HONFLEUR - Arriving in 2019
  • Gareth locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...