Deepwater for Cruise Ships

[cheeky boy]

What about Conister rock?

 

ETA Cheekyboy, it's too cold here for cycle lanes and there are too many cars on the road. I have stopped road walking because the car fumes were too much for me and...as an ex-smoker I don't need any more poison in my lungs (lol, did you know I stopped smoking?)

"Too cold for cycle lanes?" I'm failing to understand your point

[cheeky boy]

 

 

Orkney got £4 million into the local economy from cruise passengers

 

With a deepwater ship berth costing in the hundreds of millions I cannot see any way of repaying the cost before the thing wears out

 

To give you an example of a cheaper tourism investment look at Majorca. They had funds available and were considering building yet another marina, instead they invested in making the islands roads cycle friendly by widening some of the main routes and putting a 1.5 meter wide cycleway on one side

The result was a massive uptake in cycle holidays in the spring & autumn when the weather was cool enough

I was there last April and they had 25,000 cyclists a week going through the place, using hotels, cafes, bike hire shops, the airlines & ferries and spending considerably more than a tea & scone day tripper

 

A huge and ongoing return for a modest investment

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-30794701

 

 

The estimated economic benefit to Orkney was £7m in 2016, the total cost of their berth was £29m (original in 2002 and then extension in 2013)

 

The deep water berth will not cost "hundreds of millions" and its expected lifespan is 100 years.

 

The £50m includes an estimate for shore-side infrastructure modifications, and is only an estimate based on feasibility study designs, not the final design.

 

As stated, the business case detailing ownership/funding/revenues has to stack up, and this is the next step.

 

If the project gets the go-ahead based on a sound business case, and for whatever reason the assumptions in the business case do not materialise over the longer term, there is still the option to sell the asset, as clearly it is moveable and it has 100 year design life. This also mitigates the financial risk.

 

 

 

Can we just stand back for a second an take in what is being proposed here

 

A 170 meter linkspan to a floating pontoon anchored on the outside of the current breakwater, this structure will then have ships from 20,000 to 60,000 tons berthed alongside

 

If you consider the structure in isolation it may make sense, but when you put in in the context of the location it is a ludicrous proposal

 

Anyone unfamiliar with conditions in that area should take a drive to the breakwater and park above the old coastguard stores

 

On the surface it holds the biggest swells between here & Langness, the reasons being that there is a large reef which rises up in line with the lighthouse and pushes up the sea being driven toward it by the prevailing wind. These conditions are amplified when the tide ebbs and runs into the oncoming swell

 

There is a tidal range of up to 10 meters and swells there frequently make 7 metres, The tidal flow exceeds 6 knots on a spring

 

Oil & gas rig technology could be used to place a structure in this area with no problems, trying to berth a ship alongside it in adverse conditions would be a prospect only the skipper of the Costa Concordia would contemplate.

There is also the scenario of berthing alongside it in calm conditions the morning and discharging the passengers then having to leave the berth when the wind gets up and having the passengers re-embark by ships boat back in the bay

All of must have seen footage of rig support vessels trying to supply oil rigs in open water, a highly dangerous task.

 

My background is rooted in the Manx tourist industry, my great grandparents came here and bought a hotel on the prom over 100 years ago, my grandparents, parents and parents in-law all had hotels. My own restaurants derived around 30% of their turnover from visitors

I have a lot of faith in the Island as a tourist destination, but this scheme, in this location is ill advised and will make us a laughing stock

[2112]

Well !

Mr/Mrs/Miss IOMSA has already posted on here maybe he and Mark Robertshaw can come on and shoot down all the negative posters , self included?

I thought that Notwell usually comes onto every thread and shoots down every negative poster. Edited January 24, 2017 by 2112

[Lxxx]

Well !

Mr/Mrs/Miss IOMSA has already posted on here maybe he and Mark Robertshaw can come on and shoot down all the negative posters , self included?

 

Why would they want to do that when they can just bamboozle the people who hold the purse strings instead.

[notwell]

 

Well !

Mr/Mrs/Miss IOMSA has already posted on here maybe he and Mark Robertshaw can come on and shoot down all the negative posters , self included?

I thought that Notwell usually comes onto every thread and shoots down every negative poster.

 

Not at all. But every post you put on tends to be negative so I guess that will be your impression because I pull you for it.

[woody2]

could tarmac over the rail and tramway, save a few quid and tax the bikealists

[Andy Onchan]

 

 

 

Orkney got £4 million into the local economy from cruise passengers

 

With a deepwater ship berth costing in the hundreds of millions I cannot see any way of repaying the cost before the thing wears out

 

To give you an example of a cheaper tourism investment look at Majorca. They had funds available and were considering building yet another marina, instead they invested in making the islands roads cycle friendly by widening some of the main routes and putting a 1.5 meter wide cycleway on one side

The result was a massive uptake in cycle holidays in the spring & autumn when the weather was cool enough

I was there last April and they had 25,000 cyclists a week going through the place, using hotels, cafes, bike hire shops, the airlines & ferries and spending considerably more than a tea & scone day tripper

 

A huge and ongoing return for a modest investment

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-30794701

 

 

The estimated economic benefit to Orkney was £7m in 2016, the total cost of their berth was £29m (original in 2002 and then extension in 2013)

 

The deep water berth will not cost "hundreds of millions" and its expected lifespan is 100 years.

 

The £50m includes an estimate for shore-side infrastructure modifications, and is only an estimate based on feasibility study designs, not the final design.

 

As stated, the business case detailing ownership/funding/revenues has to stack up, and this is the next step.

 

If the project gets the go-ahead based on a sound business case, and for whatever reason the assumptions in the business case do not materialise over the longer term, there is still the option to sell the asset, as clearly it is moveable and it has 100 year design life. This also mitigates the financial risk.

 

 

 

Can we just stand back for a second an take in what is being proposed here

 

A 170 meter linkspan to a floating pontoon anchored on the outside of the current breakwater, this structure will then have ships from 20,000 to 60,000 tons berthed alongside

 

If you consider the structure in isolation it may make sense, but when you put in in the context of the location it is a ludicrous proposal

 

Anyone unfamiliar with conditions in that area should take a drive to the breakwater and park above the old coastguard stores

 

On the surface it holds the biggest swells between here & Langness, the reasons being that there is a large reef which rises up in line with the lighthouse and pushes up the sea being driven toward it by the prevailing wind. These conditions are amplified when the tide ebbs and runs into the oncoming swell

 

There is a tidal range of up to 10 meters and swells there frequently make 7 metres, The tidal flow exceeds 6 knots on a spring

 

Oil & gas rig technology could be used to place a structure in this area with no problems, trying to berth a ship alongside it in adverse conditions would be a prospect only the skipper of the Costa Concordia would contemplate.

There is also the scenario of berthing alongside it in calm conditions the morning and discharging the passengers then having to leave the berth when the wind gets up and having the passengers re-embark by ships boat back in the bay

All of must have seen footage of rig support vessels trying to supply oil rigs in open water, a highly dangerous task.

 

My background is rooted in the Manx tourist industry, my great grandparents came here and bought a hotel on the prom over 100 years ago, my grandparents, parents and parents in-law all had hotels. My own restaurants derived around 30% of their turnover from visitors

I have a lot of faith in the Island as a tourist destination, but this scheme, in this location is ill advised and will make us a laughing stock

 

 

When you say "this location is ill advised", what other location have you in mind?

[homarus]

Mark Robertshaw''s ass!

[the stinking enigma]

there must have been a half decent geological reason to build the pier specifically in ramsey. stick the horse trams on it. win win

[thebees]

Ramsey has already got all the best stuff, give them the horse trams too. Ha, it's always sunny in Ramsey and it's flat Cheekyboy could even have his bike tracks laid up there.

[Albert Tatlock]

No. No. No.

 

No. No. No. No. No.

 

 

...and No.

[Albert Tatlock]

I'm so looking forward to our local women welcoming all these visitors as they get off the cruise ships...with gifts of boxed kippers, and wearing necklaces of Manx Knobs.

[homarus]

there must have been a half decent geological reason to build the pier specifically in ramsey. stick the horse trams on it. win win

 

Well that's the Victorians for you !!!

Brilliant engineers and scholars that they were , fancy building a pier in the most sheltered spot on the Island and working with nature ,how sensible is that ?

Only drawback is the low water levels are quite shallow and would require either extensive dredging or Ramsey pier being extended further out which could negate the shelter aspect somewhat.

Todays blue sky "Thinking outside the box" dreamers and unicorn catchers, think building a floating pontoon in a very exposed location is the way to go but ,I suspect all they can see is the big money .

There are so many reasons for this folly not to go ahead,but hey IOM gov has signed up to so many loss making schemes in the past 20 odd years ,what's one more?"

 

ETA

Where's Peter Karran when you need him!

Edited January 25, 2017 by homarus

[cheeky boy]

 

 

 

 

Orkney got £4 million into the local economy from cruise passengers

 

With a deepwater ship berth costing in the hundreds of millions I cannot see any way of repaying the cost before the thing wears out

 

To give you an example of a cheaper tourism investment look at Majorca. They had funds available and were considering building yet another marina, instead they invested in making the islands roads cycle friendly by widening some of the main routes and putting a 1.5 meter wide cycleway on one side

The result was a massive uptake in cycle holidays in the spring & autumn when the weather was cool enough

I was there last April and they had 25,000 cyclists a week going through the place, using hotels, cafes, bike hire shops, the airlines & ferries and spending considerably more than a tea & scone day tripper

 

A huge and ongoing return for a modest investment

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-30794701

 

 

The estimated economic benefit to Orkney was £7m in 2016, the total cost of their berth was £29m (original in 2002 and then extension in 2013)

 

The deep water berth will not cost "hundreds of millions" and its expected lifespan is 100 years.

 

The £50m includes an estimate for shore-side infrastructure modifications, and is only an estimate based on feasibility study designs, not the final design.

 

As stated, the business case detailing ownership/funding/revenues has to stack up, and this is the next step.

 

If the project gets the go-ahead based on a sound business case, and for whatever reason the assumptions in the business case do not materialise over the longer term, there is still the option to sell the asset, as clearly it is moveable and it has 100 year design life. This also mitigates the financial risk.

 

 

 

Can we just stand back for a second an take in what is being proposed here

 

A 170 meter linkspan to a floating pontoon anchored on the outside of the current breakwater, this structure will then have ships from 20,000 to 60,000 tons berthed alongside

 

If you consider the structure in isolation it may make sense, but when you put in in the context of the location it is a ludicrous proposal

 

Anyone unfamiliar with conditions in that area should take a drive to the breakwater and park above the old coastguard stores

 

On the surface it holds the biggest swells between here & Langness, the reasons being that there is a large reef which rises up in line with the lighthouse and pushes up the sea being driven toward it by the prevailing wind. These conditions are amplified when the tide ebbs and runs into the oncoming swell

 

There is a tidal range of up to 10 meters and swells there frequently make 7 metres, The tidal flow exceeds 6 knots on a spring

 

Oil & gas rig technology could be used to place a structure in this area with no problems, trying to berth a ship alongside it in adverse conditions would be a prospect only the skipper of the Costa Concordia would contemplate.

There is also the scenario of berthing alongside it in calm conditions the morning and discharging the passengers then having to leave the berth when the wind gets up and having the passengers re-embark by ships boat back in the bay

All of must have seen footage of rig support vessels trying to supply oil rigs in open water, a highly dangerous task.

 

My background is rooted in the Manx tourist industry, my great grandparents came here and bought a hotel on the prom over 100 years ago, my grandparents, parents and parents in-law all had hotels. My own restaurants derived around 30% of their turnover from visitors

I have a lot of faith in the Island as a tourist destination, but this scheme, in this location is ill advised and will make us a laughing stock

 

 

When you say "this location is ill advised", what other location have you in mind?

 

 

 

I don't have another location in mind, I'm just pointing out the unsuitability of the proposed one

Edited January 25, 2017 by cheeky boy

[homarus]

I don't think so CB! If that were the case why would they have spent so much time/money schmoozing and pushing the Douglas location?

I think they really are that stupid!

 

All they need to do is speak to any skipper that works the coast of the IOM and they'd tell them what a stupid idea a floating pontoon is and I think a previous poster pointed out that a former SP captain recommended that the Pier extension should have been built opposite the Lighthouse but I don't think he would have ever envisaged a floating pontoon there.

I'm sure they could drive the posts deep enough to be solid but the pontoon would have to be linked to them and In big weather it would only take one link to fail and you could have a major incident on your hands .