Steam Packet Warns Of Disruption To Sailings

[Non-Believer]

Sadly, I'm beginning to think that there may have been more than an element of vanity in the speccing and commissioning of Manxman. Yes, she's a new boat, modern design and superbly appointed, by all accounts. But did we need to go so big? On what figures and needs was the size predicated?

If we have to sail a boat that size back and forward half empty for 50%+ of the year on the above consumption figures, what chance of making money or breaking even?

[Frances]

The speed restriction is a significant problem as combined with the slower turnaround in harbour and the slower freight loading it means it usually cannot keep to the 2 return journeys Douglas-Heysham within 24 hours unless freight is left behind - this was seen a few weeks ago when one return journey was cancelled (blamed on weather) to allow the time table to be recovered and Arrow was recalled to handle freight.

My own suggestion is to get the Ben back into service for the rest of the winter season and use the time to fix the resonance problem on Manxman - but even then the additional fuel cost will be significant in Summer sailings unless the full capacity of passengers is restored - recall this was restricted due to the emergency evacuation method adopted.

[newaccount]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

Sadly, I'm beginning to think that there may have been more than an element of vanity in the speccing and commissioning of Manxman. Yes, she's a new boat, modern design and superbly appointed, by all accounts. But did we need to go so big? On what figures and needs was the size predicated?

If we have to sail a boat that size back and forward half empty for 50%+ of the year on the above consumption figures, what chance of making money or breaking even?

Population growth 📈

[Roger Mexico]

12 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Sadly, I'm beginning to think that there may have been more than an element of vanity in the speccing and commissioning of Manxman. Yes, she's a new boat, modern design and superbly appointed, by all accounts. But did we need to go so big? On what figures and needs was the size predicated?

If we have to sail a boat that size back and forward half empty for 50%+ of the year on the above consumption figures, what chance of making money or breaking even?

One interesting question is whose vanity.  Did the desire for a bigger boat and the associated extras come from the previous ownership and management?  Or was there pressure from government even before the purchase or tampering afterwards, before and after the management change?

I've no doubt the blame will be put on the public though.  According to the timeline:

To help us understand what is important to our customers and gauge public views as we prepared for major investment in our fleet, we launched a survey in November 2019. Island Global Research was commissioned to carry out the research, with the aim to identify which on-board facilities and services were considered most important to our passengers.

[...]In April, we released a detailed summary of the survey findings following our analysis. It was found that the following on-board services and facilities were considered important by our passengers: 

• wider choice of food and drink
• more portable device charging points
• an increase in the number of standard cabins available
• a larger and more comfortable area for passengers travelling with pets
• a children’s play area suitable for a wider range of ages
• larger lifts from the vehicle deck

No doubt the increase in facilities, that were seen as a 'nice to have' will be put forward as the reason for the increased size of the boat, just as all complaints over the Landing Stage fiasco are answered with "But people said they wanted to go to Liverpool". 

Of course no one was asked if they wanted all the extras if the boat couldn't sail for large parts of the Winter, just as no one asked if they would be prepared to pay £80 million for the privilege of going to Liverpool by sea.

[Two-lane]

I think this is the document:

https://www.islandglobalresearch.com/View?id=2154

There does not seem to be the question "And how much are you willing to pay for this..."

 

[Albert Tatlock]

Few, if none (other than the management), asked for crew living on board I'm sure. That's probably 50% of the size problem. 

[emesde]

The government have owned the steam packet since early 2018.

I cannot think of any situation where they would not have had the major influence on the type of boat that was required. Had it been a privately owned company for the last 5 years we would have ended up with a very different configuration. 

With all the experts and experience our politicians and civil service have l  would imagine committees  decided on every stage of this build. And we all know what happened when committees tried to design a horse.. 

[WTF]

well we ended up with a longer runway we didn't need as a vanity project for a certain MHK that wanted our airport to be better than Jersey , seems the boat is the same ,  built it and they will come just doesn't seem to work for us.

[Banker]

2 hours ago, Frances said:

The speed restriction is a significant problem as combined with the slower turnaround in harbour and the slower freight loading it means it usually cannot keep to the 2 return journeys Douglas-Heysham within 24 hours unless freight is left behind - this was seen a few weeks ago when one return journey was cancelled (blamed on weather) to allow the time table to be recovered and Arrow was recalled to handle freight.

My own suggestion is to get the Ben back into service for the rest of the winter season and use the time to fix the resonance problem on Manxman - but even then the additional fuel cost will be significant in Summer sailings unless the full capacity of passengers is restored - recall this was restricted due to the emergency evacuation method adopted.

Anyone know when speed restrictions will stop?

[John Wright]

12 minutes ago, Banker said:

Anyone know when speed restrictions will stop?

Presumably, if what @Kipper99 says is correct, when they’ve sorted, repaired, replaced the propulsion unit that’s causing it.

[Frances]

That is not I suggest a weekend job - the boat will be out of commission for some time - thus leave it til March and hope Mannanan can cope using Arrow (1 return journey/day) or get the Ben back into service and fix Manxman.

As for the list of 'it would be nice' - no-one I think would see this as giving a boat whose windage prevents it from running for many days in Winter - they were minor changes that could easily have been fitted in a boat of similar spec to the Ben.

[Two-lane]

What's the deal with the motor vibration. Was it evident during the delivery trip, or has it started during service - either way there are questions.

[Banker]

3 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

What's the deal with the motor vibration. Was it evident during the delivery trip, or has it started during service - either way there are questions.

I’ve never noticed it on my 3 journeys on it

[John Wright]

1 minute ago, Banker said:

I’ve never noticed it on my 3 journeys on it

Because they’re voluntarily operating at below the speed that triggers it.

Bit like vibrations in a car with wheels out of balance. It’s only apparent as vibrations at certain speeds.

[Banker]

Tonight’s sailings canceled, doesn’t seem too bad but presumably rough at sea, doesn’t bode well for next week’s sailings when lots of people will be traveling for Xmas holidays