[BBC News] Fuel costs cause ferry price rise

[WTF]

if they dropped speed by 10% they would save about 20% in fuel costs

 

so if they dropped speed by 50%, would they save 100% on fuel costs?

[jimbms]

if they dropped speed by 10% they would save about 20% in fuel costs

 

so if they dropped speed by 50%, would they save 100% on fuel costs?

WTF, You need to brush up on your energy calculations, a motor involved in fluid (and by fluid I mean in the physics sense i.e. liquid or gas) transit, if via an invertor the speed is reduced to 80% then the energy required for the fluid transfer will be reduced by 49% even more if some other factors are utilised like flux induction and recovery, after that the energy saving drops off, in the same way if you look at the "S" curve of energy use on an invertor driven motor then yes a 10% speed drop would be roughly a 20% ish saving. But if the said motor is running as a motional drive of a solid then the saving will although be good will only be proportional to the speed drop. Now as the Viking motor and the new incat one run by in simple terms sucking water in and shoving it out faster then the savings mentioned in the first exampe the ones to be considered. Hope this assists anyone who may be confused about the mathematics of fluid motion in proportion to energy use.

[manshimajin]

what is needed is a strategy from the IOM government on what it expects from its off island transport service providers and a commitment to work with the licenceholder as a true partner to the greater benefit of the island. What we do not need is a sea or air user agreement that basically provides for a bus service.

Probably the Government would argue that the current Agreement is precisely what you describe and that it was the 'best deal' they could negotiate with the IOMSPC owners. When an essential service is being provided by foreign owners in a limited competition environment I suspect that this gives them a great capacity to apply the screws in negotiation. But it certainly does not seem to create a collaborative situation where your kind of lateral thinking is applied.

 

WTF: so if they dropped speed by 50%, would they save 100% on fuel costs

Of course not but the use of fuel increases exponentially with speed. No doubt there is a difference between single and dual hulls too. The good old RN has limited its fleet speed to 14 knots when on training exercises to be able to afford to go to sea. The 20% is a quote from Stena and also from the German Ship Owners Association. On the current schedules the IOMSPC ships spend quite a lot of time in port each day so the potential is there to do something. Presumably lorry owners would not be that concerned with a speed reduction as they would still get a twice a day service to Heysham. Foot and car passengers no doubt have mixed views but I doubt that 30 minutes extra would be the end of the world if it helped to keep prices down.

[Sebrof]

What we do not need is a sea or air user agreement that basically provides for a bus service.

 

Bus service = cheap, regular, reliable.

 

Sounds OK to me.

 

S

[triskelion]

What we do not need is a sea or air user agreement that basically provides for a bus service.

 

Bus service = cheap, regular, reliable.

 

Sounds OK to me.

 

S

The Steam Packet essentially is these already though. These points have benn gone over and over again, usually with the "Not-totally anti-SP" lot doing all the legwork as regards providing actual evidence and facts rather than speculation.

 

Compared to other operators, the Steam Packet is actually fairly cheap, or at least about equal.

 

Macquarie Bank does not own the Steam Packet, it is but one of the shareholders, with the rest being largely pension funds, as is often the case. Macquarie simply led the bid.

 

I cannot see how 'proper competition' would help. Passenger volumes are already too low to provide much to compete over. Furthermore, does the Steam Packet not own the facilities at Pier Head and Heysham? It also owns the other linkspan in Douglas Harbour, so would have an advantage over any other entrant anyway.

 

As for slowing down to conserve fuel, what would that do to turnaround times? There could well be legitimate reasons for them to maintain the speed (like that)

[Sebrof]

Compared to other operators, the Steam Packet is actually fairly cheap, or at least about equal.

 

Which comparable operators are you referring to? You are in the habit of making unsupported assertions, which on investigation do not always stand up.

 

Macquarie Bank does not own the Steam Packet, it is but one of the shareholders, with the rest being largely pension funds, as is often the case. Macquarie simply led the bid.

 

How do you square that statement with the following announcement from Macquarie?

 

"Macquarie Bank Limited (MBL) announced today it has acquired 100 per cent of the Isle of Man Steam Packet Group Limited (Steam Packet) from Montagu Private Equity for a total consideration of ₤225 million (A$526 million)."

 

Even if they have since disposed of part of their 100% shareholding, you do need to choose your words more carefully. Saying "Macquarie Bank does not own the Steam Packet" is like saying that a husband and wife who own a house in joint names do not own it.

 

I suspect that the Australian pension funds mentioned on the SP website are managed by Macquarie, and that Macquarie effectively has total control of the Packet.

 

I cannot see how 'proper competition' would help. Passenger volumes are already too low to provide much to compete over. Furthermore, does the Steam Packet not own the facilities at Pier Head and Heysham? It also owns the other linkspan in Douglas Harbour, so would have an advantage over any other entrant anyway.

 

I think every sensible person recognises that competition wouldn't be practicable. There simply isn't enough traffic. Because of this we are left with a monopoly, and the perennial question is whether the the User Agreement (and how it is monitored and implemented) offers sufficient protection from abuse of monopoly power.

 

As for slowing down to conserve fuel, what would that do to turnaround times? There could well be legitimate reasons for them to maintain the speed (like that)

 

Well, obviously, there is not a lot of scope to slow down the Ben, but the cats could slow down considerably. However, is that what people want? I suggest that there should be a two-tier price structure, with slow, cheap travel on the Ben, and fast, expensive travel on the cats.

 

S

[monasqueen]

Furthermore, does the Steam Packet not own the facilities at Pier Head and Heysham?

 

No. The ports and linkspans are owned by MDHC (Mersey Docks and Harbour Company). That becomes very clear if you read back through the Packet's blogs - if anything goes wrong with a linkspan, with resulting delays, the fault is firmly put down to MDHC.

 

I believe that the Steam Packet actually owns very little other than a couple of ships.

[Frances]

I believe that the Steam Packet actually owns very little other than a couple of ships.

yes they paid 200M or so for permission to run a monopoly - not for any capital equipment (any real estate had been or was quickly sold) - draw your own conclusions as to profit level

[localyokel]

yes they paid 200M or so for permission to run a monopoly - not for any capital equipment (any real estate had been or was quickly sold) - draw your own conclusions as to profit level

 

That's strictly not true Frances, they did get at least £8m from the government (ie. us) for the plot of land that sits across the road from exactly the same sized plot of land they are trying to give away free to encourage development on the old bus station.

[manshimajin]

Well, obviously, there is not a lot of scope to slow down the Ben, but the cats could slow down considerably. However, is that what people want? I suggest that there should be a two-tier price structure, with slow, cheap travel on the Ben, and fast, expensive travel on the cats.

S

If you look at the timetables there does seem to be time to slow the Ben crossing times down by about 10%.

 

The current 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).

 

A 10% increase in crossing time is approximately 21 minutes per crossing or 1 hour 20 minutes per day. So port time would be approximately 8 hours 40 minutes per day giving 2 hours 10 minutes each time to unload and load. I would have thought a well organised team could manage that. For example Irish Ferries are able to do this on their twice daily return sailings on the Rosslare-Pembroke route.

[oldmanxfella]

If you look at the timetables there does seem to be time to slow the Ben crossing times down by about 10%.

 

I think the Seacat is doing it automatically ... late setting off again tonight. I don't think its been less than at least an hour late all week.

[Gladys]

What we do not need is a sea or air user agreement that basically provides for a bus service.

 

Bus service = cheap, regular, reliable.

 

Sounds OK to me.

 

S

I don't agree, a bus service would provide a straightforward service which divides the cost of the service plus profit by the expected number of passengers and there is your price, and your service. It need not necessarily be cheap, regular or reliable. What it certainly will not do is bring other non-fare related benefits, nor will it operate unless there is sufficient volume to bring an assured level of profitability.

 

A well thought out and strongly negotiated user agreement could carry benefits such as concessionary fares for certain priority groups, be it cargo or passengers, subsidised freight for on-island manufacturers, etc. It just seems that the current user agreement doesn't really secure added benefit for the island.

 

Completely off the wall, but we are used to being served by a dedicated provider, the IOMSPCo in all its ownership guises, why not investigate having a large passenger and freight carrier provide the service within their existing set up? The benefits would be the access to a fleet of vessels that could cover mechanical problems, sharp peaks in demand such as TT and more specailised vessels. The downside, of course, is that we would probably end up with the bus service Sebrof would like and may not meet all our needs, but surely it is worth a look at?

[ponderer]

Well, obviously, there is not a lot of scope to slow down the Ben, but the cats could slow down considerably. However, is that what people want? I suggest that there should be a two-tier price structure, with slow, cheap travel on the Ben, and fast, expensive travel on the cats.

S

If you look at the timetables there does seem to be time to slow the Ben crossing times down by about 10%.

 

The current 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).

 

A 10% increase in crossing time is approximately 21 minutes per crossing or 1 hour 20 minutes per day. So port time would be approximately 8 hours 40 minutes per day giving 2 hours 10 minutes each time to unload and load. I would have thought a well organised team could manage that. For example Irish Ferries are able to do this on their twice daily return sailings on the Rosslare-Pembroke route.

I think Manshimajin is right about this. There should be scope for speed reductions without disrupting the service too much. If there is a 2-tier price structure then there should be a surcharge to cover the extra cost of carbon involved in the fuel inefficient faster service. Could Mersey Docks and Harbour be challenged to reduce energy use when the vessels have berthed - which presumably would cut costs?

 

One extra concern is this regular lateness of the vessels leaving. This surely increases the risk that it will speed up to catch up on lost time so incur extra energy costs. Does anybody know why its late so often?

[Sebrof]

Well, obviously, there is not a lot of scope to slow down the Ben, but the cats could slow down considerably. However, is that what people want? I suggest that there should be a two-tier price structure, with slow, cheap travel on the Ben, and fast, expensive travel on the cats.

S

If you look at the timetables there does seem to be time to slow the Ben crossing times down by about 10%.

 

The current 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).

 

A 10% increase in crossing time is approximately 21 minutes per crossing or 1 hour 20 minutes per day. So port time would be approximately 8 hours 40 minutes per day giving 2 hours 10 minutes each time to unload and load. I would have thought a well organised team could manage that. For example Irish Ferries are able to do this on their twice daily return sailings on the Rosslare-Pembroke route.

I think Manshimajin is right about this. There should be scope for speed reductions without disrupting the service too much. If there is a 2-tier price structure then there should be a surcharge to cover the extra cost of carbon involved in the fuel inefficient faster service. Could Mersey Docks and Harbour be challenged to reduce energy use when the vessels have berthed - which presumably would cut costs?

 

One extra concern is this regular lateness of the vessels leaving. This surely increases the risk that it will speed up to catch up on lost time so incur extra energy costs. Does anybody know why its late so often?

 

The fact that the Ben is often late is the reason why I said there is "not a lot" of scope to slow down. There is some, but it's not huge.

 

S