Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[Gladys]

26 minutes ago, code99 said:

Put your mind at rest. Crookall says: "There are lessons to be learnt from it”.  I am supremely reassured.

The Book of Many Lessons runs to more volumes than the Encyclopaedia Britannica but is never once taken off the shelf. 

[snowman]

Time for a memory refresh...

 

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=62076

 

 

’To be brutally honest, the reason for the additional cost started when AECOM [an American engineering company] was chosen as the designer of the project,’ he says. ’It turned out that various parts of the design were poor and not suitable.

’The Steam Packet didn’t trust the quality of the work carried out by AECOM and I understand John Sisk, the civil engineering contractor didn’t either so Royal HaskoningDHV [an engineering design consultancy] was brought in.

’Why AECOM is still involved in this project is questionable and adding unnecessary cost.’

 

The row revolves around the issue of ’scour protection’ at the terminal currently being built for Manx ferries in Liverpool.

 

He said that there was no unexpected increase in bow thruster power of the Manxman, the vessel that’s being built for the company in Korea.

He supplied plans that he said make it ’pretty clear that vessel thrusters are not the issue’.

Indeed, the fastcraft Manannan’s water jets were worse for ’scour’.

Port facilities experience seabed scour as a result of high-velocity propeller wash directed towards the berth structures, in particular during arrival and departure manoeuvers.

This scouring action can not only undermine the structural integrity of the marine structures, but also contribute to variations in the bottom profile due to deposition of the scoured material in other areas.

’The reason for the increase in scour protection is because the project team only recently asked us what level of thrust would be used by vessels during manoeuvres,’ Mr Ugland says.

He adds that the team had watched vessels dock in Douglas on CCTV.

But that is a ’protected port without much tidal flow effect’.

The team assumed that similar amount of thrust would be needed.

’What seems not to have been considered was a potential seven knots of tide in the River Mersey and westerly winds, which would require Manannan to use 100% thrust at around 30 degrees to the quay wall to push the vessel off,’ Mr Ugland says.

’At our meetings with the project team the Steam Packet has always stressed that this would not be an easy berth given the tidal range and flows.’

Mr Ugland says that protection at the berth would be strengthened by using rock armour bags on the river bed to piled protection with shuttering and backfill.

That would need a change to planning.

In turn, that will lead to more delays in the construction of the terminal because it would have to be installed before quay walls and the linkspan can be built.

’No doubt this will significantly impact the completion date, which is why when asked by the press recently we made reference to the Steam Packet likely not using the berth until spring 2023.’

[MadAsHell]

You don't get much after 2 years and 40 million!

Some interesting comments here;

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/isle-of-man-ferry-terminal-lw-princes-half-tide-dock-plot-c01-£30m-u-c.2100085/page-14

[Utah 01]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

The Book of Many Lessons

Nobody on the Parish Council would be able to read it, let alone learn from it - especially 'Posty' Crookhall.

[Utah 01]

15 hours ago, wingnut said:

How many of our MHK’s past or present have degrees in politics? 

Forget degrees - an 'O' level would be a good starting point.

[Utah 01]

19 hours ago, ellanvannin2010 said:

Holyhead as an option.

This Liverpool farce is up there with the power station scandal.  When the costs started to go up, 'we' should have walked away from the project but they saw the Manx bog-dwelling mugs coming a mile off when it was first proposed - lambs to the financial slaughter.

The M6 can be reached within an hour of Holyhead and was the obvious option to break the Peel Holdings stranglehold.

[snowman]

2 minutes ago, Utah 01 said:

The M6 can be reached within an hour of Holyhead 

How many speeding tickets do you think you would get ?

[Kopek]

Crookall seems to be talking sensibly, more honest than predecessor but what is going on behind the scenes we don't know.

[James Blonde]

1 minute ago, Kopek said:

Crookall seems to be talking sensibly, more honest than predecessor but what is going on behind the scenes we don't know.

I heard another big name from the DOI will be announcing their departure in January. 

[Kopek]

David llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch ?

[Kopek]

I'm not sure we should be running a ferry service for football fans and shoppers?

A Bus service from Heysham might suffice?

[Cambon]

56 minutes ago, Utah 01 said:

This Liverpool farce is up there with the power station scandal.  When the costs started to go up, 'we' should have walked away from the project but they saw the Manx bog-dwelling mugs coming a mile off when it was first proposed - lambs to the financial slaughter.

The M6 can be reached within an hour of Holyhead and was the obvious option to break the Peel Holdings stranglehold.

Should have just stuck with Heysham for freight and vehicles, and a smaller passenger only fast craft to Liverpool in the summer. 

This situation needs to stop now. Pull out. Even if there is a penalty clause of a few million, because it will not stop at £70 million. 

[James Blonde]

1 minute ago, Cambon said:

Should have just stuck with Heysham for freight and vehicles, and a smaller passenger only fast craft to Liverpool in the summer. 

This situation needs to stop now. Pull out. Even if there is a penalty clause of a few million, because it will not stop at £70 million. 

£125m+ for the final bill. Apparently they haven't even factored in a link span for the new terminal. 

[Andy Onchan]

On 12/2/2021 at 12:22 PM, CallMeCurious said:

So there is no urgency to approve this additional £30m+   As the workls are underway and contracts signed then there will be penalites for delays. In this case if the client is changing the spec, the contractor will have costs for just maintaining the site, calculated per day, for any delay that they have. While they are on site and working some of this delay can be absorbed but if the delay in approving and designing the changes delays progress on site then the clock is ticking.

Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LADs) I think it's called but I might be wrong

Remind me again.... how much did we pay Peel Ports for the lease?

[wingnut]

5 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

It’s more than that. If Peel Holdings removed their offer to develop the site for IOM government due to issues that were apparent after further surveys (as suggested above) then it’s pure arrogance if some absolute clown decided to still run with it rather than just write off the £3.5M spent (we could probably have sold the site on for a different application anyway) and move on. We’ve managed to turn £3.5M for the plot and a deal to develop it for us into over £70M of taxpayers money being committed. Frankly it’s insane, as is the person or persons who decided that we should continue with the site after one of the most successful development companies in the north apparently told us it wasn’t economically viable for them to develop for us. 

So what you’re saying is the project was signed off by a civil servant?