monasqueen Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 Bens dry-docking has been delayed so that she can take tomorrow mornings round trip to Heysham, as poor Viking cannot go out into the expected wind. The afternoon sailing is in doubt, and people are being advised to swap to the Bens morning sailing. How much more proof do the company need that a 2nd proper all weather vessel is the only way forward? Looking ahead, it seems there might be a bit of wind on Saturday, Grand National Day - watch this space -Wind map Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VikingRaider Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply I gave earlier "Yet again a stunning vindication of the SPCo's decision to rely on a boat totally unfit for the Irish Sea. Over the next 2 weeks freight will still get through courtesy of the Triumph but the passenger traffic is basically stuffed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 What you are saying is based on the erroneous conclusion that the Viking is unsuitable for service on the Irish Sea. The majority of scheduled sailings have gone ahead, and the SP can't be expected to keep a second vessel around purely in case of bad weather. The term 'all-weather' is bandied about, but it seems to be actually meaningless. Even the Ben has had to have sailings cancelled due to bad weather over the winter. If the SP were to invest in a slower and inevitably larger vessel that could sail more reliably than the Viking, the actual number of sailings not cancelled as a result would be pretty small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcCann Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 What you are saying is based on the erroneous conclusion that the Viking is unsuitable for service on the Irish Sea. The majority of scheduled sailings have gone ahead, and the SP can't be expected to keep a second vessel around purely in case of bad weather. The term 'all-weather' is bandied about, but it seems to be actually meaningless. Even the Ben has had to have sailings cancelled due to bad weather over the winter. If the SP were to invest in a slower and inevitably larger vessel that could sail more reliably than the Viking, the actual number of sailings not cancelled as a result would be pretty small. I wouldn't consider three in the last four days to be pretty small. I believe the ben managed to sail on each of those days as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted March 31, 2008 Author Share Posted March 31, 2008 Ben has had to cancel some sailings - OVER THE WINTER. This is not supposed to be winter. Viking has been demonstrating a complete failure to be available for service when needed during what in previous years has been deemed to be the summer season. The "second vessel" would not just be in case of inclement weather - it would be a reliable all year round life-line, for links to places such as Ireland - remember, the first Dublin round trip of this year was cancelled. Viking is all that passengers have between a rock and a hard place for the next fortnight. Presumably Steam Packet are praying hard to the gods that the wind will not blow. What will happen if it does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=^..^= Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 I was on the friday morning sailing that went out for a few mins and came back to harbour. It was certainly a fun few minutes ! One interesting thing I heard was about the fuel economy on the viking - does it really use more fuel in one round trip than the Ben uses in a week ? How can we justify that ? the decision for me should not be about if it can sail or not or if its faster but why are the IoMSPCO considering a vessel that destroys so much more of our depleting fuel stocks ? At this rate it won;t be long before we are back on Steam power ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 What you are saying is based on the erroneous conclusion that the Viking is unsuitable for service on the Irish Sea. The majority of scheduled sailings have gone ahead, and the SP can't be expected to keep a second vessel around purely in case of bad weather. The term 'all-weather' is bandied about, but it seems to be actually meaningless. Even the Ben has had to have sailings cancelled due to bad weather over the winter. If the SP were to invest in a slower and inevitably larger vessel that could sail more reliably than the Viking, the actual number of sailings not cancelled as a result would be pretty small. My family have lived on Douglas Harbour for generations and my first job on leaving school was a pantry boy on the Mona's Queen I dont remember the SPC ever canceling a sailing due to bad weather until the 1990s, I can remember one trip from Liverpool in January 1984 on the Lady of Man when we were the only ship still sailing on the Irish Sea The reality is that the SPC no longer have any truly "all weather vessels" I would only suffer the Steam Packet now if I had to take a car, in the last five years I have used the boat four times compared with around forty flights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 One interesting thing I heard was about the fuel economy on the viking - does it really use more fuel in one round trip than the Ben uses in a week ? How can we justify that ? the decision for me should not be about if it can sail or not or if its faster but why are the IoMSPCO considering a vessel that destroys so much more of our depleting fuel stocks ? At this rate it won;t be long before we are back on Steam power ! Can't remember the exact figures, but it sounds possible - all the seacats burn fuel at an amazing rate. You've got the slow Ben running steadily with a relatively slow moving (and hence efficient) propeller vs a tin can with 4 massive engines that have to move huge amounts of water every second to achieve propulsion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtj73 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 One interesting thing I heard was about the fuel economy on the viking - does it really use more fuel in one round trip than the Ben uses in a week ? How can we justify that ? the decision for me should not be about if it can sail or not or if its faster but why are the IoMSPCO considering a vessel that destroys so much more of our depleting fuel stocks ? At this rate it won;t be long before we are back on Steam power ! Can't remember the exact figures, but it sounds possible - all the seacats burn fuel at an amazing rate. You've got the slow Ben running steadily with a relatively slow moving (and hence efficient) propeller vs a tin can with 4 massive engines that have to move huge amounts of water every second to achieve propulsion. This is an interesting subject, can anyone in the know tell us how many litres of fuel these use on a round trip? The one round trip compared to week with the Ben sounds a bit far fetched though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcCann Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 One interesting thing I heard was about the fuel economy on the viking - does it really use more fuel in one round trip than the Ben uses in a week ? How can we justify that ? the decision for me should not be about if it can sail or not or if its faster but why are the IoMSPCO considering a vessel that destroys so much more of our depleting fuel stocks ? I never realised that. Well if the Viking pisses off the environmentals then I'm all for keeping it. A few cancelled sailings is a small price to pay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.