Jump to content

Deepwater for Cruise Ships


Manx Bean

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

Seriously though,  PGW's madcap ideas and yours are not that different. Both mental.

Proposing a deepwater berth for the isle of man is as mental as proposing the  earth is flat??  That's a bit of a stretch.

Look, if the figures don't work, they don't work and I'd be happy to accept that, but it would be 'mental' not to look in detail at and seriously assess the economics of a port redevelopment, and the opportunities it could bring.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

Look, if the figures don't work, they don't work and I'd be happy to accept that, but it would be 'mental' not to look in detail at and seriously assess the economics of a port redevelopment, and the opportunities it could bring.

So put a £number on the "opportunities" then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, b4mbi said:

Proposing a deepwater berth for the isle of man is as mental as proposing the  earth is flat??  That's a bit of a stretch.

Look, if the figures don't work, they don't work and I'd be happy to accept that, but it would be 'mental' not to look in detail at and seriously assess the economics of a port redevelopment, and the opportunities it could bring.

 

All round the world countries are expanding the size and depth of their ports. Ships are getting bigger. In fact one reason why there are fewer shipbrokers in say London is because when it comes to chartering then one ship can do the work of several.

In my day we chartered maybe 6 ships of 20,000 tons to shift 120,000 tons of cargo now one ship can do the lot and more besides.

For a long time ships, especially ships for charter and dry bulk cargo, had been built long and narrow as a proviso that they might have had to transit the Panama Canal. This was a restriction. However, until recently not many ships were using the canal and so now its locks have been widened to take ships of broader beam and greater tonnage.

Douglas harbour is in much the same position. It is of the past. It is hard to get ships on the market that will fit. The tonnage chartered in by the Steampacket is old and small as that is all that is left over from earlier times. The modern tonnage is too big for Douglas so the Steampacket as in the case of "the Ben" had an adapted design constructed.

If you want to charter in or replace the Steampacket or enable other service providers to call then you need to be like the rest of the world, follow the trend and adapt your harbour to fit the ships.

I post a link.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjp89yC5ODXAhXJLFAKHTHpDF4QFgg_MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fworldmaritimenews.com%2Farchives%2F195764%2Fexpanded-panama-canal-opens-its-locks%2F&usg=AOvVaw3ktb1WZXbForMP6RC_RIta

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, b4mbi said:

 

@craggy It's a port redevelopment that is being proposed, incorporating a deep water berth that can take cruise ships and potentially bigger ro-pax vessels.

 

 

Then that's what needs to be sold to the public, clearly. I can believe a case for redeveloping / modernising Douglas port, but the cruise business case is a questionable add-on - questionable in both ROI and desirability. As a port modernisation of Douglas will likely also largely kill freight in Ramsey the business case needs to include the economic impacts to the North. The biggest benefit here is clearly the ability to handle a wider range of bigger ro-pax & freight vessels, eliminating dependency on specially commissioned smaller vessels.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 Looking at how this topic from the beginning   it seems that   Governments well paid and taxpayer insulated dreamers along with the well connectedmovers and shakers behind the scenes  are determined to progress this fairy tale come hell or high water .

 First they show the stupid plebs a pretty picture with a proposed berth opposite the tower of refuge ,they when pointed out that they would have to dynamite half the existing pier structures and bay to make it work ,they proclaim !

"" Ah but the cruise liner berth was never meant for there ,it's going to be a pontoon structure outside the existing breakwater "".

Again when pointed out that the new proposed  location for the pontoon structure is smack in the middle of the tidal flow and prevailing winds and is dangerous they say!

  "" Ah but it's not going to be a pontoon structure but permanent ""

  When the feedback from the public remains negative pointing out that if it's such a winner that they should not need  any taxpayer funding ,they then then change tack again !

    "" Ah but it's not just a cruise liner berth but a proposed full port redevelopment ""

 They are like scum sucking bottom feeding shape shifting barnacles this lot , and a symptom of all that has been wrong and wasteful  with this Island over decades, but they're hanging on for dear life  because they can almost taste the money, and as per  time honored proven model will be long gone by the time the shit hits the fan .

 Say it again ,in proposed location it's a dangerous plan .  :)

P.S.

  I've included the smiley as I don't want to seem too negative!

 

 

 

 

Edited by homarus
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, b4mbi said:

Here's a figure for you. How about £15m per annum ebitda for your beloved iomspc on average since 2012. Where does that money go? Not back into the local economy, it goes to pay interest on their debt.

Why else would they propose an agreement out to 2040's? Because they can't afford to invest in new tonnage without it.

If you're happy with the way things are, then you're one of those rare people that don't complain about ferry prices and are happy that the majority of their profit goes to Portugal rather than stays on the Island.

@craggy It's a port redevelopment that is being proposed, incorporating a deep water berth that can take cruise ships and potentially bigger ro-pax vessels.

 

 

do you think IOMSP will agree without having full control.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...