Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[offshoremanxman]

1 hour ago, Ringy Rose said:

The Ben takes four hours (ish) on the Heysham route. The Manxman will take four hours (ish) on the Heysham route.

It can go faster, and will go faster if there are delays, but then it would use more fuel, and more fuel makes the ticket price higher. And we’re talking a lot more fuel- IIRC 5 knots faster pretty much doubles the fuel burn.

If you wish to stick root veg up your arse do book a cabin though. It’s frowned upon in public areas.

The Ben takes a lot less than that to Heysham. 

[Moghrey Mie]

Don't most people drive to the port and then go onboard in their cars? Why do we need  £70 million terminus?

[HelmutX]

8 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

The Ben takes a lot less than that to Heysham. 

Actually, if you take a moment and read the booking confirmation, from gates close to arrival, it's 4-1/2hrs. and in reality it will be 4+hrs.

[Ringy Rose]

11 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

The Ben takes a lot less than that to Heysham. 

The actual journey time depends on the tides and the weather, but it is timetabled at 3hr45. Which is what the Manxman will be timetabled at.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Ringy Rose

[Ringy Rose]

10 hours ago, Moghrey Mie said:

Don't most people drive to the port and then go onboard in their cars? Why do we need  £70 million terminus?

Waiting at Liverpool with your car is pretty grim now. Not to mention the fact the current linkspan is in the way of the cruise terminal and they want the Steam Packet gone.

The cost is down the daft location they chose, it’s not the building costing £70m but all the remedial work and scour protection, but staying put wasn’t an option.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Ringy Rose

[asitis]

1 minute ago, Ringy Rose said:

Waiting at Liverpool with your car is pretty grim now. Not to mention the fact the current linkspan is in the way of the cruise terminal and they want the Steam Packet gone.

The cost is down the daft location they chose, it’s not the building costing £70m but all the remedial work and scour protection, but staying put wasn’t an option.

Which brings us nicely back to the beginning , is Liverpool worth 100 million plus ongoing costs !

[finlo]

5 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

Waiting at Liverpool with your car is pretty grim now. Not to mention the fact the current linkspan is in the way of the cruise terminal and they want the Steam Packet gone.

The cost is down the daft location they chose, it’s not the building costing £70m but all the remedial work and scour protection, but staying put wasn’t an option.

I thought the plans for the cruise terminal extension had been abandoned?

[Ringy Rose]

1 minute ago, asitis said:

Which brings us nicely back to the beginning , is Liverpool worth 100 million plus ongoing costs !

I’d say a Liverpool/Merseyside terminal is important, for us as well as tourists. Heysham’s fine if you’re taking a car but an absolute ballache if you’re a foot passenger. And for Liverpool, by the time you’ve fannied on getting to Ronaldsway then fannied around getting from Speke, the boat’s as quick as flying.

Birkenhead wasn’t an option because Stena spent a lot of money upgrading their linkspans there to fit their new e-Flexer ferries. That’s why the winter weekend Ben trips stopped, I understand the linkspans aren’t compatible.

But the location they chose is really not the best.

[Ringy Rose]

8 minutes ago, finlo said:

I thought the plans for the cruise terminal extension had been abandoned?

I don’t know but it wouldn’t surprise me, but it’s why the decision was made to move. And having made the decision to move, and having spent the money, we’re kinda stuck with it. Otherwise we’ve just cleaned up Peel Holdings’ land for them and have nothing to show.

As for the cost, being government at least we have a vague idea. Stena have just made a similar lease agreement with Peel for their Birkenhead site but have not disclosed the cost.

[Dirty Buggane]

Vague. Vague is the question is there life on other planets.

The total cost of Liverpool terminus is a question that can not/will not be answered.

[WTF]

42 minutes ago, asitis said:

 is Liverpool worth 100 million plus ongoing costs !

erm er erm er erm er, dunno la.

[asitis]

11 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Josem seems to have got Chris Thomas on Twitter who was denying the original cost presented to Tynwald was £18M to be funded by a private developer (Peel Ports) and equally refusing to confirm whether we’ve hit the £100M yet. I’m not sure how Thomas can defend this absolute shit show bonfire of vanities to the degree he is. By any conventional benchmark this is an absolute disaster and it still won’t be working until next year. 

But then withdrew, as they foresaw the unforeseeable difficulties ! Chris Thomas must think the Manx taxpayers are all subnormal to swallow his reciting of the company line FFS.

[Non-Believer]

The coverage on this thread from the very start gives the incremental rises in the cost of this project, contributors have flagged them up as they have been released.

It started as "no cost to the Manx taxpayer", rose to £3M and then spiralled to where we are now. Hooper reckoned to me that it was going to be £100M nearly 2 years ago during his Election campaign, after 2 years more and then the forecast of nearly another year, Lord only knows what it will hit.

Thomas is just doing his duty of defending his Dept to the hilt, as have his predecessors. The record shows the results of that policy.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Non-Believer
Typo

[Non-Believer]

1 minute ago, offshoremanxman said:

The bit that I still can’t fathom is who on earth decided that the mighty DOI could do a better job than Peel Ports one of the largest and most established port developers in Europe? I mean seriously. They offered but someone somewhere seriously thought “no we can do a much better job of managing this ourselves” tell Peel to piss off. 

Peel knew the land was shite and told IoMG that at the time of purchase negotiation. From memory (I stand to be corrected), Peel's own proposal was to build a facility a little further up the estuary, that obviously raised Manx panic on the grounds of lack of convenience to Liverpool One and Anfield pilgrims.

So "somebody" made the decision to go ahead with what we have embarked on, obviously cost wasn't a priority consideration but it wasn't their money and they didn't have any experience of port development/construction (maybe the same people with no experience of Promenade construction either, as Beaman's flagged up?).

Chris Thomas is trying to defend the indefensible and is doing it by trying to be reticent about the costs. It will out in the end though. Maybe after his career is finished.

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, finlo said:

I thought the plans for the cruise terminal extension had been abandoned?

The City Council have withdrawn their funding, but were "now seeking a private sector partner to take the scheme forward".  It's also interesting that they are losing £450,000 a year running the current one.  Cruises aren't perhaps the guaranteed money-spinner some would like you to think.