Derek Flint Posted June 7, 2021 Share Posted June 7, 2021 53 minutes ago, John Wright said: It was Mr Pumblechook obsequious as well large hard-breathing, middle-aged, slow man, prosperous and complacent, not only lazy and out-of-touch; but also a horrible snob, at least that’s what I recall from my Great Expectations O level Sounds like I’ve met the brief then? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Posted June 7, 2021 Share Posted June 7, 2021 5 hours ago, Derek Flint said: Msybe it should go something like this? "The Chief Minister today announced the closure of the project to build a dedicated ferry terminal in The Mersey. After being given notice that the existing facility at Pier Head was to be developed to serve Liverpool's growing presence on the UK cruise map, The Isle of Man Government had considered a number of options to continue to offer a sea link to the popular north west city. The development of a bespoke site at Princes Half Tide Dock was the favoured solutions, despite planning issues determining that it could not be used as a freight port, thus maintaining reliance on Heysham, some ninety minutes to the north of the city. At the time, the project was scoped to cost around £15m, which met projections with the Island's strategy to build tourism and culture links with Liverpool. The Chief Minister said; "Unfortunately, the last eighteen months have thrown up monumental challenges for both the hard working project team in the DOI, and for ourselves in Government. Fundamentally, COVID has changed the way we travel for the foreseeable future, both by land and sea, and there has been an urgent need to rationalise our approach as we look ahead. But moreso, the scheme has been beset with a number of significant and expensive technical difficulties, which has caused the projected end costs to now be significantly in excess of anything that was originally envisaged or budgeted for. The Island, like every other nation on earth, is entering a period of long recovery from the financial impacts and implications of Covid. It is for this reason that I, after consultation with my colleagues in COMIN, have today taken the regrettable but necessary decision to end our involvement with this project, and review our strategic transport requirements. There is, of course, a financial loss with this approach, but it is our opinion that it is better to stop now, and reduce the long term burden on the Island that continuing would have brought. As with everything, there are lessons to be learned, but I am firmly of the opinion that much of what is before us today could not have been foreseen. " Unfortunately this won’t happen, unfortunately they’re committed to throwing good money after bad and the Manx taxpayer has been royally shafted, aided and abetted by Peel Ports. Bet they’re laughing all the way to the bank, having got the better of the poor simpletons at DOI. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Flint Posted June 7, 2021 Share Posted June 7, 2021 1 hour ago, Attila said: Unfortunately this won’t happen, unfortunately they’re committed to throwing good money after bad and the Manx taxpayer has been royally shafted, aided and abetted by Peel Ports. Bet they’re laughing all the way to the bank, having got the better of the poor simpletons at DOI. Hey, I tried. Its very sad. I miss the Island so much, but not this bit. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanShimmin Posted June 7, 2021 Share Posted June 7, 2021 (edited) I honestly wonder how much effort was put into researching different options. Associated British Ports still have a linkspan at Fleetwood and plenty of room for a marshaling yard and to build a small passenger terminal. https://www.abports.co.uk/locations/fleetwood/ Yes it needs plenty of dredging but I highly doubt it would be £50m+ of dredging and a small pax terminal. It could have replaced both Heysham and Liverpool Edited June 7, 2021 by AlanShimmin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Flint Posted June 8, 2021 Share Posted June 8, 2021 9 hours ago, AlanShimmin said: I honestly wonder how much effort was put into researching different options. Associated British Ports still have a linkspan at Fleetwood and plenty of room for a marshaling yard and to build a small passenger terminal. https://www.abports.co.uk/locations/fleetwood/ Yes it needs plenty of dredging but I highly doubt it would be £50m+ of dredging and a small pax terminal. It could have replaced both Heysham and Liverpool It’s the obsession with Liverpool that is the problem. That and a lack of reality in terms of the actual transport needs 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebean Posted June 8, 2021 Share Posted June 8, 2021 (edited) I expect the project will continue, despite the increasing expense and the final bill will be stomach-churning, to the average taxpayer and resident at least. Sometime in the future, the then IOM Government will make a decision with advice from Steam Packet to discontinue the use of the terminal on the grounds of the cost of operating it and passenger numbers. This will happen at a point where anyone who could be blamed is no longer in a position to be held to account and the "lessons learned" conclusion can be used with the least possible impact. It is the way we do it, apparently. Edited June 8, 2021 by joebean Typo 3 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted June 8, 2021 Share Posted June 8, 2021 Just how logistically difficult could it have been, to get people who wanted to go to Liverpool centre, to there from Heysham. We have ended up with an eye wateringly expensive project, on, and I quote from a mariner, " the worst part of the Mersey for manoeuvring and silting". I wonder statistically just how many people per sailing would require transport to Liverpool, they would be foot passengers, some of whom would be met by relatives, and some would have their own arrangements. What would be left, and what could have been done to cater for that demand ? Has that been looked at in a serious manner ? I suspect not. The drive to showcase a project on the Mersey front has outridden all common sense or consideration of the taxpayer. When the health service have the begging bowl out and all other frontline services are starved of cash this is an absolute nonsense at what 60 to 100 million, plus ongoing costs which are never in the world going to be met by passenger numbers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Duck of Atholl Posted June 8, 2021 Share Posted June 8, 2021 54 minutes ago, Derek Flint said: It’s the obsession with Liverpool that is the problem. That and a lack of reality in terms of the actual transport needs Exactly this. Footy, Liverpool 1 access to the Manchester M6 corridor were the primary drivers. Regardless of the sage considerations here of the Great manx forumites, if there was no direct link to Liverpool there would be uproar. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted June 8, 2021 Share Posted June 8, 2021 3 minutes ago, The Duck of Atholl said: Exactly this. Footy, Liverpool 1 access to the Manchester M6 corridor were the primary drivers. Regardless of the sage considerations here of the Great manx forumites, if there was no direct link to Liverpool there would be uproar. If you are a responsible administration with crumbling infrastructure and front line services, you cannot justify blowing hundreds of millions on people who want to go to footy or shop at Liverpool 1. In respect of motorway links Heysham is now very well placed to join the network quickly and without issue. Some decisions in Government have to upset a number of people who take a differing view, that doesn't make the decision wrong. BTW the last time I went to Liverpool One the place was a shithole, and looked like tent city with homeless people everywhere, pestered by beggars, and nowhere to sit as the seats had been cordoned off to stop the homeless sleeping on them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Duck of Atholl Posted June 8, 2021 Share Posted June 8, 2021 2 minutes ago, asitis said: If you are a responsible administration with crumbling infrastructure and front line services, you cannot justify blowing hundreds of millions on people who want to go to footy or shop at Liverpool 1. In respect of motorway links Heysham is now very well placed to join the network quickly and without issue. Some decisions in Government have to upset a number of people who take a differing view, that doesn't make the decision wrong. BTW the last time I went to Liverpool One the place was a shithole, and looked like tent city with homeless people everywhere, pestered by beggars, and nowhere to sit as the seats had been cordoned off to stop the homeless sleeping on them. I don't disagree but the the decision will have been 'political' meaning the elected members wil,l instead of doing what's most prudent, have pandered to what they believe the voting public wanted. I'm sure a well aimed FOI would produce some potential site evaluations. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Flint Posted June 8, 2021 Share Posted June 8, 2021 11 minutes ago, The Duck of Atholl said: Exactly this. Footy, Liverpool 1 access to the Manchester M6 corridor were the primary drivers. Regardless of the sage considerations here of the Great manx forumites, if there was no direct link to Liverpool there would be uproar. A shouty minority win again. A bit like the horse tram debacle. I still remain unconvinced that a deal couldn't have been cut at Birkenhead. Even if they had to lay on free buses for a hundred years, it wouldn't have even scratched the surface of the level of expenditure we are seeing here. And the hospital would have had its new ED hub. We might have had a medical air bridge that could lift directly from the pad, rather than having to open up the airport every time its needed. we could have added the lighting gantry needed on 26 to let more planes get in when visibility is low, And probably even a shiny new sea terminal gateway at Douglas, setting the scene of the quality that should be aspired to. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptarmigan Posted June 8, 2021 Share Posted June 8, 2021 Birkenhead was a perfectly viable option, but no, it had to be Liverpool. I like the fact you can do a day trip to Liverpool and walk straight off the boat at the liver building....but I’m not sure I like it at any cost.... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted June 8, 2021 Share Posted June 8, 2021 1 minute ago, ptarmigan said: Birkenhead was a perfectly viable option, but no, it had to be Liverpool. I like the fact you can do a day trip to Liverpool and walk straight off the boat at the liver building....but I’m not sure I like it at any cost.... No, it wasn’t. It became unavailable after the alterations to the link spans to accommodate the e-flexer ferries that Stena have purchased. They have a double decker ramp to load/unload two decks at once. More than that we’ve only ever used for 3 hours a week. Single berthing between 12.30 and 14.00 on Saturdays and Sundays for 5 months a year. That’s very different to twice a day for 4 months of the year and once a day for 3 months a year and twice a week for the rest. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted June 8, 2021 Share Posted June 8, 2021 13 minutes ago, John Wright said: That’s very different to twice a day for 4 months of the year and once a day for 3 months a year and twice a week for the rest. I never actually thought of it like this in terms of usage, it makes the figures involved even more appalling ! Without freight the SPCO isn't a business, so why in hell we are spending this on a non freight terminal is beyond comprehension ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted June 8, 2021 Share Posted June 8, 2021 11 hours ago, AlanShimmin said: I honestly wonder how much effort was put into researching different options. Associated British Ports still have a linkspan at Fleetwood and plenty of room for a marshaling yard and to build a small passenger terminal. https://www.abports.co.uk/locations/fleetwood/ Yes it needs plenty of dredging but I highly doubt it would be £50m+ of dredging and a small pax terminal. It could have replaced both Heysham and Liverpool Public transport is very poor. The road links aren’t good. Fleetwood is even worse than Morecambe and Heysham. The dredging would be expensive and continuous. The link span needs total replacement. There are no passenger facilities. Heysham with Bay Gateway link to M6, and updated terminal, beats everywhere in the North West. Anywhere else is seasonal low volume. It’s the latter point that wasn’t considered. Because it’s low volume it’s not economic for us to develop or anyone else to provide. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.