[BBC News] Ferry repairs to speed up service

[CEO Steam Packet Company]

ballaughbiker:

Viking uses nearly 5 tonnes per hour at normal service speed and carries 140-150 cars/vans and a little over 650 passengers.

Incat 050 fuel consumption is likely to be between 5-10% higher but she will carry 200 cars/vans and a little over 800 passengers.

 

Manxman2000:

Because the Steam Packet Company has an agreement with government, it is obliged to operate services that other operators on purely economic grounds would not. The Steam Packet Company continues to absorb the majority of the recent years price increases - only a small proportion is recovered by way of the fuel surcharges now applied. The agreement with government requires that a minimum speed for fastcraft is maintained. Fast craft services have been instrumental in growing visitor numbers to the Island and our own market research clearly indicates that passengers place a high priority on speed of sea travel. Many other operators are closing routes and slowing down their vessels. The agreement with government therefore ensures that we as Islanders continue to enjoy services that others are having taken away.

 

 

It would be fascinating to get some input from the IOMSPC on this fuel business:

 

a) can they save fuel by reducing speed and therefore save the need for fuel surcharges and pollute less?

 

b) will Incat 050 really burn up to 50% more fuel than Viking?

 

After a brief flurry of comments Mark Woodward seems to have developed 'man overboard' syndrome and his IOMSPC blog has also become rather anodyne. Is he the sort of CEO who likes positive comments only? Hopefully not but it's looking that way at present.

 

Maybe we need to have a Manxforum IOMSPC 'love-in'?

[molly]

ballaughbiker:

Viking uses nearly 5 tonnes per hour at normal service speed and carries 140-150 cars/vans and a little over 650 passengers.

Incat 050 fuel consumption is likely to be between 5-10% higher but she will carry 200 cars/vans and a little over 800 passengers.

 

Manxman2000:

Because the Steam Packet Company has an agreement with government, it is obliged to operate services that other operators on purely economic grounds would not. The Steam Packet Company continues to absorb the majority of the recent years price increases - only a small proportion is recovered by way of the fuel surcharges now applied. The agreement with government requires that a minimum speed for fastcraft is maintained. Fast craft services have been instrumental in growing visitor numbers to the Island and our own market research clearly indicates that passengers place a high priority on speed of sea travel. Many other operators are closing routes and slowing down their vessels. The agreement with government therefore ensures that we as Islanders continue to enjoy services that others are having taken away.

 

 

It would be fascinating to get some input from the IOMSPC on this fuel business:

 

a) can they save fuel by reducing speed and therefore save the need for fuel surcharges and pollute less?

 

b) will Incat 050 really burn up to 50% more fuel than Viking?

 

After a brief flurry of comments Mark Woodward seems to have developed 'man overboard' syndrome and his IOMSPC blog has also become rather anodyne. Is he the sort of CEO who likes positive comments only? Hopefully not but it's looking that way at present.

 

Maybe we need to have a Manxforum IOMSPC 'love-in'?

 

From the horses mouth! you got to respect that.

[manshimajin]

ballaughbiker:

Viking uses nearly 5 tonnes per hour at normal service speed and carries 140-150 cars/vans and a little over 650 passengers.

Incat 050 fuel consumption is likely to be between 5-10% higher but she will carry 200 cars/vans and a little over 800 passengers.

 

Manxman2000:

Because the Steam Packet Company has an agreement with government, it is obliged to operate services that other operators on purely economic grounds would not. The Steam Packet Company continues to absorb the majority of the recent years price increases - only a small proportion is recovered by way of the fuel surcharges now applied. The agreement with government requires that a minimum speed for fastcraft is maintained. Fast craft services have been instrumental in growing visitor numbers to the Island and our own market research clearly indicates that passengers place a high priority on speed of sea travel. Many other operators are closing routes and slowing down their vessels. The agreement with government therefore ensures that we as Islanders continue to enjoy services that others are having taken away.

 

Mark thank you for contributing to the discussion. As you would see from the comments people are thinking seriously and constructively about the essential ferry link from the island to UK and Ireland. Forum Members are also sharing their views on ways that they hope the service can continue to operate effectively in times of increasing fuel costs, economic uncertainties and general rising inflation.

 

You have said that "we as Islanders continue to enjoy services that others are having taken away" and that our own market research clearly indicates that passengers place a high priority on speed of sea travel.

 

I have made 6 return journeys using IOMSPC so far this year and expect to make another 3 or 4. Noone has so far asked me whether I would prefer higher ferry costs and fuel surcharges or slower crossing times (or whether I would prefer the IOMSPC to have slower crossing times or higher CO2 emissions - your announcements do say that you care for the environment).

 

Are these questions your own market research has asked? or have they simply focused on whether people prefer quicker or slower crossing times? I suspect that making the link between crossing times, costs and carbon footprint could come up with a rather different answer. If you have just asked do you prefer faster crossing times it is almost certain that people would say 'Yes'

 

Looking at your timetables it appears that the IOM-Heysham service has a total daily sailing time of 14 hours (10 hours port time), IOM-Liverpool a daily sailing time of 10 hours (14 hours port time - assuming twice daily service) and the Irish services 6 hours sailing time, or 12 hours if Belfast and Dublin fall on the same day (18 or 12 hours port time).

 

IF sailing a bit slower (and it is still sailing fast on the Viking and Snaefell!) saves a significant amount of fuel it would appear that there is some stretch available in the timetables to accommodate this. If the Stena Line figures are accurate (ie 16% speed reduction equates to 40% fuel reduction) then potentially there is an enormous saving in fuel that can be traded off against limited increases in crossing times (eg 36 minutes on the Heysham crossing) that appear to be able to be accommodated within the timetables and the Agreement.

 

According to a Tynwald report over 60% of the IOMSPC revenue comes from freight traffic (presumably mostly from Heysham). Would freight operators prefer you to hold costs (or minimise increases) by slowing crossing times a little or for the Ben to stick to its current schedule and to face significant increases in charges? This is also a matte of considerable interest to Manx residents who end up paying the increased freight costs through increased retail prices.

 

You have also said that The agreement with government requires that a minimum speed for fastcraft is maintained. . I could not find reference to this in the Agreement but may be missing the para. In any case is the 'minimum speed' you refer to the service speed the vessels are operating to or less than that? I would have thought that in these exceptional times any rational Government or Public Service person would fully support economy measures that save fuel and limit inflation in costs. If the IOMSPC has raised this matter with Government and they have said 'We want high speed crossings not fuel economy' the Island population should know about this as it may be forcing you to operate in a straight-jacket that the general population do not want. We might have to lobby our representatives on this matter.

 

As a general comment it could be a good idea for the IOMSPC to raise publically the trade off between crossing times, fuel economies and pricing. If the company is in fact absorbing most of these increases there could also be a responsibility to shareholders to raise the matter.

 

Travelling fast may be sexy...but travelling at the most economic speed may be better for the environment and the hip pocket nerve!

 

I trust that you will take these comments in the constructive spirit in which they are made. The IOMSPC is a vital part of the Island's fabric and economic life so it is inevitable that many of us are vitally interested in its affairs!!!

 

Your willingness to comment is much appreciated - I hope the same applies to our comments and ideas.

[Snaefell050]

Fascinated by this fuel burn. Does anyone know if 4 tonnes an hour is about right. What payload can the Seacat carry for burning this huge amount of fuel?

 

From what information I have found out and about, the SNAEFELL consumes c. 3 tonnes per hour, and I think can hold about 40 tonnes.

 

Viking uses nearly 5 tonnes per hour at normal service speed and carries 140-150 cars/vans and a little over 650 passengers.

Incat 050 fuel consumption is likely to be between 5-10% higher but she will carry 200 cars/vans and a little over 800 passengers.

 

Thank you for the information Mr. Woodward.

[AlexMcC]

Just a quite note to add that Stena's HSS craft run on Marine Gas similar to the fuel used by aircraft, the cost savings are much greater for the reduction in fuel used, in that respect alone (as those craft are like a floating Motorway service station...)

 

I think maybe a public consultation would go down well? I suppose one reference is to look back to 1996 when the Seacat was widthdrawn the first time around. Not old enough to really remember that well though!

[Manxman2000]

Manshimajin has hit a number of nails on the proverbial head. And has a great grasp on the situation he makes many very valid points that could and should be answered by Mark Woodward and government.

 

Full marks to Mr Woodward for his earlier reply and in respect to him if I was his employer I would be very pleased with his reply, very protective of his company by placing much spin on the answer to obtain the “correct” answer. That is not to say he is entirely incorrect in all he has said. If the user agreement is so poor as to allow the SPC to ride rough shod over the population then he will take full advantage of this. It is then the fault of the politicians and the DOT for such crass insight at the time of the agreements conception.

 

But and it is a big but, in times we are now in with fuel costs rising to unprecedented levels, any responsible and sensible CEO and Government Ministers would be found to be looking for ways to save on fuel costs and keeping the fare costs down and presenting the package to the islanders and politicians. Good PR in my book.

 

I am sorry to say this but at PR Mr Woodward is no Hamish Ross and he must miss Geoff (the voice) Corkish

 

The government should conduct an onboard survey without loaded questions to gain the truth and not keep the outcome a secret.

 

Just think, additional 30 min to Heysham on the Ben with 500 passengers all having another cup of tea at £1.80 !!!

[Snaefell050]

I am sorry to say this but at PR Mr Woodward is no Hamish Ross and he must miss Geoff (the voice) Corkish

 

Although I think Hamish Ross was very good for the Company and Public Relations, I also think that Mark is good at Public Relations, for example his Blog, which I think is very good at getting the views of the travellers that use the Company. The fact that he has registered on here is another good step. As Mark has said in another thread, not many CEOs (in all types of companies) make themselves available to public contact, and I think Mark deserves the credit for doing so.

[pongo]

Stena's HSS craft run on Marine Gas similar to the fuel used by aircraft, the cost savings are much greater for the reduction in fuel used, in that respect alone (as those craft are like a floating Motorway service station...)

 

I wonder whether you could have another go at explaining that for me. I understand the bit about the fuel being cheaper - but I can't quite make sense of the sentence in total.

 

Those vessels have semi submerged hulls right ? And therefore burn more fuel than the cats - no? Is that what you are getting at? That the fuel is cheaper but they use relatively more of it to achieve a similar result? Sorry to be so thick.

 

ETA: again very impressed that someone from the IOMSPCo is actually coming here to answer questions.

[Snaefell050]

Stena's HSS craft run on Marine Gas similar to the fuel used by aircraft, the cost savings are much greater for the reduction in fuel used, in that respect alone (as those craft are like a floating Motorway service station...)

 

I wonder whether you could have another go at explaining that for me. I understand the bit about the fuel being cheaper - but I can't quite make sense of the sentence in total.

 

Those vessels have semi submerged hulls right ? And therefore burn more fuel than the cats - no? Is that what you are getting at? That the fuel is cheaper but they use relatively more of it to achieve a similar result? Sorry to be so thick.

 

ETA: again very impressed that someone from the IOMSPCo is actually coming here to answer questions.

 

The Stena HSS craft use fuel similar to aviation fuel, and hence burn a lot more fuel than the SeaCats, and the price of it in turn has led to the "slowing down" of the HSS craft.

[triskelion]

Manshimajin has hit a number of nails on the proverbial head. And has a great grasp on the situation he makes many very valid points that could and should be answered by Mark Woodward and government.

 

Full marks to Mr Woodward for his earlier reply and in respect to him if I was his employer I would be very pleased with his reply, very protective of his company by placing much spin on the answer to obtain the “correct” answer. That is not to say he is entirely incorrect in all he has said. If the user agreement is so poor as to allow the SPC to ride rough shod over the population then he will take full advantage of this. It is then the fault of the politicians and the DOT for such crass insight at the time of the agreements conception.

 

But and it is a big but, in times we are now in with fuel costs rising to unprecedented levels, any responsible and sensible CEO and Government Ministers would be found to be looking for ways to save on fuel costs and keeping the fare costs down and presenting the package to the islanders and politicians. Good PR in my book.

 

I am sorry to say this but at PR Mr Woodward is no Hamish Ross and he must miss Geoff (the voice) Corkish

 

The government should conduct an onboard survey without loaded questions to gain the truth and not keep the outcome a secret.

 

Just think, additional 30 min to Heysham on the Ben with 500 passengers all having another cup of tea at £1.80 !!!

What on Earth are talking about?

 

Running rough-shod over the population? huh?

 

It wasn't so long ago that people were complaining that the SPC didn't sail fast enough. Government can't just conduct an onboard survey of a private operator. I think you need to examine the context in which the User Agreement was first conceived, and bear in might that you can't describe fuel price rises as 'unprecedented' and then accuse the IoMG/DoT of 'crass insight.'

 

------------------------------

As for the questions in the SPC's market research, bear in mind the questions have to give useful answers. Passengers saying they prioritise speedy travel might seem like a no-brainer, but if they are putting that ahead of comfort, keeping costs down etc., it appears in a somewhat different light.

 

Furthermore if they were to ask questions such as 'In light of increasing fuel costs, would you accept slower crossing times in order to minimise increases in fares?' the answers they would get would be of dubious value because there are too many variables. What I mean is, people might accept slower crossing times in order to maintain lower fares, but only to a certain extent. At say, 3.5 hours crossing to Liverpool, people might think an extra £5/£10 was worth it, but see how it becomes increasingly complicated? And of course you can really ask those kind of questions in the abstract, because until people have experienced that kind of situation, how can they usefully comment?

[AlexMcC]

Stena's HSS craft run on Marine Gas similar to the fuel used by aircraft, the cost savings are much greater for the reduction in fuel used, in that respect alone (as those craft are like a floating Motorway service station...)

 

I wonder whether you could have another go at explaining that for me. I understand the bit about the fuel being cheaper - but I can't quite make sense of the sentence in total.

 

Those vessels have semi submerged hulls right ? And therefore burn more fuel than the cats - no? Is that what you are getting at? That the fuel is cheaper but they use relatively more of it to achieve a similar result? Sorry to be so thick.

 

ETA: again very impressed that someone from the IOMSPCo is actually coming here to answer questions.

 

The Stena HSS craft use fuel similar to aviation fuel, and hence burn a lot more fuel than the SeaCats, and the price of it in turn has led to the "slowing down" of the HSS craft.

 

It's just down to the cost of running those ships really. The HSS were designed to run full when the 'gas' she uses which is refined from oil (I think) was at $10 a barrel. They have never made a profit, and in current conditions, with pax numbers going down and costs going through the roof, the cut was more inevitable than with Incats or similar. I don't have the figures to hand but I think the fuel oil that 050 will use is about 50% cheaper than the gas they use. I suppose what I'm trying to say is directly comparing gas turbines which operate in a similar fashion to jet engines isn't the best comparison, nothing more!

[manshimajin]

The Stena HSS craft use fuel similar to aviation fuel, and hence burn a lot more fuel than the SeaCats, and the price of it in turn has led to the "slowing down" of the HSS craft.

 

This could be a specific policy in relation to the HSS but I also understand that Stena have adopted a fleet wide policy of slowing down to conserve fuel on fastcraft and conventional ships. The other company I have heard of doing this is Caledonian MacBrayne.

 

From the following quotes they are clearly not alone out there

 

Reuters 20 January 2008

 

That dramatic increase (in oil prices) has ship owners clambering onto a bandwagon to reduce speed as a way to save fuel and cut the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, said Hermann Klein, an executive at Germanischer Lloyd classification society.

 

"The number of shipping lines reducing speed to cut fuel costs has been growing steadily," Klein, whose organization runs safety surveys on more than 6,000 ships worldwide, told Reuters.

 

"Slowing down by 10 percent can lead to a 25 percent reduction in fuel use. Just last week a big Japanese container liner gave notice of its intention to slow down," he added.

 

The Telegraph

 

Reducing the standard cruising speed from 18 knots to 12 is one of several measures proposed at the highest levels to cope with tough spending limits imposed on the Navy in last year's Strategic Defence Review. One senior officer in the Ministry of Defence last week said: "Spending is extremely tight. We have to think of every possible way to save." Asked for examples of savings that were being considered, he cited the plan to reduce speed.

 

This does make me ponder Mark's statement:

 

Many other operators are closing routes and slowing down their vessels. The agreement with government therefore ensures that we as Islanders continue to enjoy services that others are having taken away.

 

Intuitively it does not seem to make sound commercial logic in the current economic environment that the IOM Government's Agreement with the IOMSPC is being used as a rationale for maintaining high service speeds (and higher CO2 emissions). Surely the Government should be encouraging the sole operator on the ferry routes to UK and Ireland to find ways of reducing operating expenses for the benefit of Islanders, commerce and tourism?

 

Perhaps Mark could comment a bit more on this and whether the tactic of other shipping companies to reduce service speed is a good one - particularly given that quote from Germanischer Lloyd that slowing down by 10% can save 25% of fuel (and presumably have a similarly beneficial effect on emssions).

[triskelion]

If he does reply to that last point, I would be fairly confident it would be something along the lines of 'individual circumstances'/'Up to them' etc.

 

Obviously it is a good idea if you want to save fuel, but if you can afford not to do it, why bother? Are the emissions of the SPC really that significant?

 

Regardless of what the IoMG should be encouraging the SPC to do, the User Agreement is a legally binding contract, which presents difficulties when you want to operate differently to what is specified.

[ballaughbiker]

Obviously it is a good idea if you want to save fuel, but if you can afford not to do it, why bother? Are the emissions of the SPC really that significant?

 

Well probably in percentage terms globally no. If everyone had that attitude we are going to knacker the planet quicker/run out of the stuff quicker. I had no idea that the fuel burn was so high. It's more than half the burn of a fully laded B747 (9 tonnes/hr) which I think has a payload of over 200 tonnes. Quite obviously the two vehicles have totally different uses, and of course would never be interchangable, but it puts the fuel burn into perpective. Whilst these vessels can probably carry more the 747, it is way over 10 times faster and therefore considerably more efficient.

 

Reducing the speed will probably have a small effect on the total world pollution as China will still pump out all the crap they do to keep us supplied with 'toys'. However, if everyone did something then maybe the world would be a better place. I for one would gladly sacrifice half an hour of my crossing time to significantly reduce the pollution from burning 35 gallons per mile.

 

Once again Mark, thanks for the info. Fuel surcharges are a little easier to bear when you know these figures!

[Pragmatopian]

Firstly I'm most impressed to see a company explaining its position in an open forum. I've never seen it before.

 

It makes no odds to me whether the crossing to Liverpool is 2.5 or 3.5 hours, so if it saves burning fuel then I'm all for it. If a large enough proportion of the voting public agree with this, then I see no reason why our elected representatives should not consider varying the service agreement as required.

 

All drivers can clearly see the impact increased fuel costs are having so it would be unreasonable to expect operators where fuel is a significant cost not to pass at lease part of this increase on to consumers. In addition to maintaining fare levels, burning less fuel would also have a positive environmental impact.