Scottish Ferries

Is Ardrossan getting the upgrade needed, it’s just delayed?

It’s not ‘delayed’ as such, there has been the expectation that it will happen – part of the brief for the ferries was contingent on it happening, but nothing has actually been actioned. Renewing the ferries and upgrading the port are two sides of the same coin – the brief for the ferry being contingent on the upgrading of the dock. But while one has been failing to finish the other has been failing to start. And while it has been failing to start the costs of labour and materials have been increasing meaning that any deal between Peel Ports, the council and the gov was based on an out of date budget. So until an agreement is reached on that the position is really less than not having started. They couldn’t start tomorrow.

Troon is the right size / shape for the ferry to operate from there but can’t supply the gas the new ferries run on. The move to Troon was supposed to have started and ended before the new ferries arrived. Its expected to park a big barge full of gas next to it for refuelling but that is then too slow a refuelling process to keep a full timetable and the barge would have to travel back and forth to Kent to restock.

Is Ardrossan getting the upgrade needed, it’s just delayed? A temporary move to Troon then?

Or…?

There’s “plenty*” if you search the Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald, basically Troon was reactivated to handle the ferries whilst Ardrossan is closed for the upgrades. This has had a load of councillors on soap boxes desperate to be noticed telling anyone who will listen it’s all a conspiracy to move the ferries permenantly and demanding all the usual nonsense that will end up making it such a bawache it’ll be a self fulfilling prophecy. Clydeport (Peel) also seem to be doing sweet fa to move things along.

*usual local paper shite

apart from there not being any refuelling facilities for the new hybrid ferries

Presumably they’ll take bunkers the same way as any other ship in the harbour which I’d imagine will be off the back of another ship when off duty. I am surprised that there’s no fuel provision in a purpose built fuel terminal though.

Presumably they’ll take bunkers the same way as any other ship in the harbour

All the other ships run on LNG?

Last week it took me 3 hours to get to a dental appointment in Oban, 36 miles away because the direct ferry was fully booked – I had to drive 80-odd miles and take 2 ferries instead.

Appreciate it was a while ago you posted this – but is Mull not big enough to sustain its own dental practice? But then I’m equally as surprised that you needed to drive once in Oban – unless you are saying the ferry was fully booked for foot passengers too.

Ferry services could undoubtedly be better – but it’s only because we are used to luxuries of modern life that we notice it.  Even 60 years ago the level of service, speed, operating conditions available today would have been unthinkable.  That’s not to say we should leave the islands and remote communities behind as the rest of the country marches towards comfort and success – but like bridges perfect ferries might be a double edged sword.

All the other ships run on LNG?

Nope.

Isn’t that the point of the Sannox and Rosa being dual fuel? AFAIK there’s no gas infrastructure to refuel them at Ardrossan either so until there’s is they would have to run on diesel only. The damnable thing is there’s a rail head at Troon where you could conceivably shuttle ISO tanks to the harbour but that’s not really realistic.

Isn’t that the point of the Sannox and Rosa being dual fuel? AFAIK there’s no gas infrastructure to refuel them at Ardrossan either so until there’s is they would have to run on diesel only. The damnable thing is there’s a rail head at Troon where you could conceivably shuttle ISO tanks to the harbour but that’s not really realistic.

Its not really a worry when the LNG pipes inside the ship don’t exist either. I suspect in time the LNG will be forgotten and will have just wasted years and millions of $$$ and not a single person will get punished!

“Clydeport (Peel) also seem to be doing sweet fa to move things along.”

Just pure speculation here but is there a game of bluff being played here between Peel Ports and the taxpayer in the shape of the council, Transport Scotland/CMAL and the SCottish govt.

Ardrossan is the obvious port for Arran services as it is the shortest crossing amd has a railway station. So Peel obviously want to retain in the long term the berthing fees from Calmac while spending as little as possible on maintaining and/or upgrading the berths.  So any further delay will strengthen their hand by increasing public pressure for a solution.

The history of the Scottish govt negotiating with private companies doesn’t fill me with confidence though.

There’s not just a ferry fiasco – the Gupta scandal is even bigger

@xora Well considering they’re due to be fitted next month I’ll take your prediction with a shovel of salt.

@irc I’d say you’re on the money, I’d be happy to see the back of Peel tbh, they’re doing bugger all with what they have and don’t seem in much of a hurry to change that.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crg99g3yryro.amp

Ffs.

I get that the P&O berth was more accessible and Glennon use the other one for their barge BUT THERE IS A **** CATAMARAN BERTH IN TROON HARBOUR ALREADY!

Get the Arthur back and sort this shit out.

(I honestly know that’s not going to happen for a number of reasons, not least the fact it’s not been used in about 20 years)

Looks like we’re renting the old Manx ferry as well the catamaran, and even then we might be one or two big ferries short through winter maintenance until Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa arrive.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czj7deky2xpo.amp

^^^ apparently it’s too big for berthing at Ardrossan … so crossings remain 50% longer duration than they would be had Ardrossan had the promised investment in the harbour infrastructure years ago, Fiasco continues !

There is no way a larger ferry can berth at Ardrossan. The Caledonian Isles was on the limit.

^^^ there was a multimillion pound committed spend to reconfigure Ardrossan, which would have been largely completed now had it gone ahead as planned.  Sadly seems to be off the radar now and I wonder if it will ever happen..

The feeling here is that Troon is going to be the future and Ardrossan will never be developed.

It’s maybe not ideal, rail connections are poorer for instance, but we need stability. Businesses are suffering and I know of at least two families leaving the island because of the unreliable access to the mainland, the very demographic we need to come here and stay.

Nice to know we’re not the only people that can make a complete **** of buying a couple of ships: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk40rk54p7o

Too big for the islands, but could be just right* for sailing to Zeebrugge/Rotterdam for a couple of years

*actually no idea if they have cabins or other suitable amenities

Edit: 301 cabins. What are the modern laws on taking a “prize”?

The feeling here is that Troon is going to be the future and Ardrossan will never be developed.

I thought Troon was more susceptible to weather interruptions?

And am I right in thinking Peel Port or someone owns Ardrossan, a further complication in moving things forwards…

Yes Peel Ports is responsible for Ardrossan Harbour.

Unfortunately lack of investment has led to the Irish Berth being condemned and permanently closed, which has lost us the high wind docking option there.

Troon isn’t perfect either, Gourock is still used sometimes as the alternative harbour.

Untangling the connections between Calmac, CMAL, Peel Ports, and the Scottish government is a fun game.

Why has this become so f’d up with the ferries?

Can’t you just go to any shipyard in the world who’s already made a few ships close enough to what you want, and ask them to make a couple more for you over the course of the next decade?

^ You could, but then you would be losing the political point you were making when you awarded the contract just before the Indy Ref.

Competitive tenders.

New technologies.

Competing interests.

Politics.

Global supply chain issues.

There are four ferries being built in Turkey and the first of those is already delayed too, so it’s not just to do with local yards.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm23m3zx111o

So the Turks have one of those issues causing a two month delay, and the natives have all of them resulting in massively over budget and time.

Politics I expect is the root cause of the green “new technologies” issue. Delusions of grandeur and virtue signalling.

Typical public sector procurement balls up, aided by typical private sector suppliers eyeing up an easy fat payday from the public purse.

It seems to go beyond the boats though. It’s the landing areas / ramps / docks. All different in design.

And I go back to the chap who runs Pentland Ferries. He claimed that if he got the same per passenger/vehicle per mile subsidy as Northlink and Calmac, he would basically offer free travel to all.

Why has this become so f’d up with the ferries?

Partly because its a political football – you can’t win:

– Order smelly oil burning boats and the opposition complain you missed the opportunity to lead the way in green tech
– Order “innovative” greener boats and you face the inevitable technical risk and get slated for virtue signalling
– Order large boats tailored to the “big routes” and someone will complain they lack the flexibility to move around the network
– Order smaller boats that might fit “anywhere” and others will complain you’ve specced them far too small
– Design for poor weather and you may be criticised for over-engineering (cost / time) for a few days a year
– Ignore the weather and you will be accused of being townies who don’t care if the islands are cut off for a week at a time
– Order from a Scottish yard, and the opposition will complain you let jobs and politics get ahead or financial sense
– Order from a foreign yard and they will complain that you let Scottish jobs and ecconomy suffer to save a few bucks
– Order with penalty clauses in your favour and the opposition will say you paid too much (because no private yard is going to actually carry the risk)
– Order with a contract that leaves you carrying the can for delays – and the opposition will claim you should have negotiated better terms
– Order with a “draft spec” and the opposition will say it was crazy to start a project without a final design and cost
– Wait for a final spec before starting and the opposition will say you have not actually started and are window dressing
– Design around a crew who live aboard and people will tell you thats bad for Island/Rural jobs
– Design around a crew who live ashore and you lose the flexibility to quickly redeploy the vessel (which may actually be what the previous people want).

Can’t you just go to any shipyard in the world who’s already made a few ships close enough to what you want, and ask them to make a couple more for you over the course of the next decade?

Because buying a ship is not typically a catalogue purchase.  Its not like mass production where the customer saves money by having everything exactly the same as everyone else.  Almost all big boats are actually prototypes – the builder and designer learns from each one how to make the next one better.  The power plant that was designed in a boat 10 years ago might no longer be available; the fuel load you want to carry (to give you range between refuelling) may be different; the regulatory approvals in the UK may be different; the height of the vessel for getting under bridges or working around dock infrastructure may matter more to some than others; draft (depth) certainly matters – and matters more in tidal waters than the med or baltic; range of angles the loading ramps work at to fit the docks etc.

The biggest issue though is the decision inertia.  Once a political decision is made to do it one way – reversing that decision is nigh on impossible even when it becomes logical to change based on new information.  Politicians (and their fan bases) often forget that the more noise they make about the other side being wrong the more entrenched their position often becomes.  Of course sometime they don’t care because the advantage of opposition is you don’t actually need a viable solution – just soundbites.

And I go back to the chap who runs Pentland Ferries. He claimed that if he got the same per passenger/vehicle per mile subsidy as Northlink and Calmac, he would basically offer free travel to all.

Western ferries in the clyde also throw around big claims.  I’m not saying they are 100% wrong – but I do treat bold claims with a pinch of salt.

A fair point, but there does seem to be something in the fact that Calmac and Northlink get significant subsidies (and state control) but other ferries such as Pentland, Western Ferries, even Orkney Council and Shetland Council funding, and wee things like Glenelg Community Trust or Cromarty Ferry all seem to keep running and dare I suggest quite successfully…

The counter argument is also that Calmac/Northlink have a much bigger network to service, a lot of which is less profitable than either Gourock to Dunoon or the short crossing to Orkney (and if there wasn’t competition, there would probably still be a car ferry from Gourock pier, and Northlink might need less subsidy, or it might not).

Channel Islands making a similar hash of re-tendering their ferry services for the next 15 years, and only Condor/BF own ships small enough to fit in the harbours; modern ferries <130m long are apparently not all that common….

Partly because its a political football – you can’t win:

While I accept the truth in some of your statements, you appear to be saying it’s actually impossible to design to tender, design and build a ferry successfully. I’m not sure I agree with that.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk40rk54p7o.amp

Ferry fiasco!

scotroutes
Full Member
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crk40rk54p7o.amp

Ferry fiasco!

Somebody posted that link yesterday

Yup, just looking into the finer details of my plan now https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/27-28/25/data.pdf

There’s a circle to be squared – providing lifeline services for remote communities vs the transportation of tourists and visitors that helps bring valuable revenue. In the midst of it, we have a complex organisation involving the Scottish government, Calmac ferry operations, CMAL the owners of the ships and some of the infrastructure, a whole host of local authorities who also own some of the port facilities and finally some private companies. At the moment the service is being delivered beyond stretch using ships that are beyond their planned working life – every week there’s some sort of crisis that results in breakdowns, boats being diverted and services  disrupted. The impact of last year’s ferry disruptions last year are still being felt – we’ve had fewer tour buses and day visitors this year and some businesses are closing for good as they’ve not recovered.

Partly because its a political football – you can’t win:

Sounds like a dictator of highland ferries is needed.

I’ll volunteer to do it for the next 30 years.

While I accept the truth in some of your statements, you appear to be saying it’s actually impossible to design to tender, design and build a ferry successfully. I’m not sure I agree with that.

Im sure it’s not impossible to successfully design/tender/build a ferry.  Depending of course how you define success*.  I am sceptical that it’s possible to do that in public view and achieve a result that the majority of people think was the optimal outcome!  I think it’s even harder when the people scrutinising your decisions are vested in your failure.  The same is true for all large infrastructure projects.

* whilst the Scottish Government and their civil servants have undoubtedly made a fist of this – my understanding of the commentators position is that success would mean:

– delivered fast
– large carrying capacity
– boats small enough to move/fit anywhere in the network
– drive innovative green tech
– support Scottish shipyard jobs
– delivered cheap
– high quality with long working life
– local shore based crews
– easily redeployable to other routes
– certainty in terms of delivery and expectation management
– politically acceptable stories about the progress
– longevity of the yard in scotland
– any delay/overspend is someone else’s problem

i don’t believe you can achieve ALL of those things in the same project.  Outcomes that might in the short term have been better for an island may not have been better for all islands in the long term.  Outcomes that might have been better for Calmac/CMAL may not have been better for Fergusson, or Inverclyde.  Etc.

There may be swings and roundabouts however that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a shambles.

” CMAL may have broken its own rules by allowing Ferguson to go ahead with its bid despite being unable to provide evidence of a builders refund guarantee, a mandatory financial safeguard

Ferguson obtained a 424-page document from a design consultant setting out CalMac’s technical requirements, while other bidders had to rely on a more limited 125-page specification. A key section of its bid was mostly cut-and-pasted from this longer document

The shipyard was allowed to significantly change its design halfway through the tender by developing a variant mentioned but discounted in its original submission. This change also allowed it to reduce its price by nearly £10m, making it more competitive

CMAL assessors held a “confidential” meeting with Ferguson, the only bidder to receive an in-person meeting”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-62986757

No Bueno.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7748x4x4l2o.amp

Issue is always going to be (as with Channel Islands, and Northlink) that suitably sized and suitably seaworthy ships are a bit thin on the ground.

Partly because its a political football – you can’t win:

You can win, but it requires a degree of wisdom and integrity to recognise that despite the fact that no choice is beyond reproach that doesn’t mean that every choice is equally valid.

The decision to build the boats in Scotland on economic nationalist grounds was the fatal one: it meant a tiny (or, as been proven, an empty) pool of viable suppliers, and that once awarded the supplier could do what they want because any delay or overrun or dispute would get steamrolled by the PRETERCT UR JERBS argument.

@irc – just because it’s a poisoned chalice doesn’t mean that you can’t still **** up on top of that!

@pca – im not convinced any yard would necessarily have coped better without the proper design spec.  Somewhere cheap using sweatshop labour might have seemed a good idea to the accountants but the Herald would have loved the headline “SNP Ferry human rights abuses whilst Port Glasgow left on scrap heap”.

the point is, if you were a normal ferry operator you would get to make all your bad decisions and change your mind without anyone making news headlines.  There’s huge waste and stupid mistakes, as there has been on every government procurement in my lifetime,  but an opposition and media frenzy on a few ships probably means much more complex but subtle issues are going without challenge.  Clearly it is too late to reverse most of the decisions now (which yard, which fuel source, etc) but I don’t think those shouting about those things realise the more they’ve shouted over the years the more entrenched it forces* the incumbents to become.  I’ve not heard any meaningful explanation what the alternatives are proposing to do in May 2026 – they must all be actually hoping the SNP leave the ferries in a better state so they don’t have to worry about it!

* I am aware that of course they are not actually forced to make bad decisions worse but Yah Boo politics does naturally lead to defensive rather than logical decisions and for some reason the media thinks u-turns are a sign of weakness.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13049368.foreign-steel-forth-bridge-is-scandal/