Dunoon is on the south east coast of the magnificent Cowal peninsula, on the inner Firth of Clyde. Just across the water is the major conurbation of Inverclyde, virtually a continuation of Glasgow, Scotland’s largest city by a considerable margin.
This position makes the town and part of the peninsula viable commuting territory; and the town has a history, if not a present, of being a visitor destination for residents of the city of Glasgow.
Dunoon’s transport services
Just over a year ago, the Scottish Government implemented its mishandled decision to replace the underused hourly vehicle and passenger service between Gourock and Dunoon with a passenger only service.
The decision was governed by a European legal ruling that while a passenger service could be subsidised, a vehicular one could not. From the evidence, it was clear that an unsubsidised vehicle service on this route was not financially viable. This was borne out by the fact that no commercial interest in providing such a service emerged from the tendering process.
The winning tender, from newco Argyll Ferries, was for a shuttle service with 60 sailings a day, 30 in each direction – based on the use of the only two suitable passenger ferries on the market. It is not known what boats the competing bidders were proposing to use, so without contradiction of this assertion, one must assume it to be correct.
The Argyll Ferries service starts at 6.45 Monday to Saturday with the last ferry out leaving Dunoon at 23.10 – with an 00.10 and an 01.25 on Fridays and Saturdays. On Sundays – with 30 sailings a day, 15 in each direction, the first boat out leaves at 08.50 and the last at 22.50.
At the Gourock end, the first boat from Monday to Saturday leaves at 06.20 and the last at 22.50 – with a 23.40 and an 01.00 on Fridays and Saturdays. On Sundays the first boat our of Gourock leaves at 08.20 and the last at 22.20.
Is there anywhere in Argyll and the Isles that has a 25 minute long bus service running at this frequency?
This town centre to town centre foot passenger service service is complemented by the 20 minute Western Ferries vehicle and passenger shuttle service from the northern edge of Dunoon (Hunter’s Quay) to the southern edge of Gourock (McInroys Point).
Western Ferries provides 86 services a day, 43 in each direction, from Mondays to Thursdays. The first boat out of Hunter’s Quay leaves at 06.10 and the last at 22.00. At McInroyls Point, the first boat leaves at 06.30 and the last at 22.30.
On Fridays, Western runs 102 services, 51 out of Hunter’s Quay, starting at 06.10 and finishing at 23.30; and 51 out of McInroy’s Point, starting at 06.30 and finishing at midnight.
On Saturdays Western runs 94 services, 47 in each direction, The Dunoon end starts at 07.00 and ends at 23.30; Gourock starts at 7.30 with the last boat out at midnight.
On Sundays, this route sees 80 services, 40 in each direction; starting at 07.00 from Dunoon, with the last boat at midnight; with the first boat out of Gourock at 07.30 and the last at midnight.
Thumbnail of Dunoon’s total ferry service provision
Together these two ferry services for Dunoon deliver:
- Mondays to Thursday inclusive: 72 services out of Dunoon daily – earliest out at 06.10, latest out at 23.10; and 72 services into Dunoon daily, earliest in at 06.45, latest in at 23.05.
- Fridays: 81 services out and 81 services out; earliest out at 6.10, latest out at 01.25; earliest in at 06.45, latest in at 01.25.
- Saturdays: 77 services out and 77 services in; earliest out at 06.45, latest out at 02.25; earliest in at 06.45,latest in at 01.25.
- Sundays: 55 services out and 55 services in; earliest out at 07.00, latest out at 23.30; earliest in at 07.50, latest in at 00.20.
These ferry services also keep Dunoon and the Cowal peninsula free of the loss of access and egress that the rest of Argyll suffers when the arterial A83 road is closed with one of its landslides.
Additional access routes
It should be noted that both of these ferry services – the dedicated passenger shuttle from Argyll Ferries and the vehicle with passenger capacity shuttle from Western Ferries – support a town which has a first class road out of the Cowal peninsula, offering alternative access to Glasgow (2 hours) or further into Argyll and north to Oban and the Highlands.
It also has access to a 25 minute vehicle and passenger ferry service across Loch Fyne from Portavadie (in southwest Cowal) to Tarbert in Kintyre, with onward access to the ferry to Islay about 10 minutes away at Kennacraig and road access to Campbeltown and the Mull of Kintyre.
McGill’s bus service run no fewer than 10 returns a day from Dunoon to Glasgow; there is a direct train connection to Glasgow at Gourock for foot passengers using Argyll Ferries; and simple calculation shows that the Western Ferries service with onward connections to Glasgow – a 90 minute journey, is cheaper than driving from Dunoon to Glasgow by road, a journey of 2 hours.
The ‘Poor me’ syndrome
With all of this to support Dunoon, the ferry fantasists daily feel hard done by. There are, as evidenced in comments on articles on this site, endless threats, moans and complaints about Dunoon’s predicament.
In the face of such baselsss whinges, there are also panicking politicians without the spine to say what everyone else – infinitely worse served – sees plainly: ‘Count yourselves damned lucky’.
Is there anywhere else in Argyll and the Isles with this total level of access and transport services?
What the ferry fantasists want
The fantasists want the town centre to town centre ferry to be a second vehicle and passenger service – just because it used to be. They do not want to lose the Western Ferries service. They just want even more, regardless of the lack of need and regardless of the cost to the taxpayer.
This will not happen. There is no economic or environmental case to support it.
And imagine the fury from Campbeltown if the government somehow bought off Dunoon’s pampered ferry moaners while the genuinely remote Kintyre peninsular town cannot even get the A83 section that serves it raised to trunk status (yet).
Cause for complaint
The problem that feeds the continuing complaint from Dunoon’s fantasy faction is that there is a mismatch between the two boats servicing the Argyll Ferries passenger route and the berthing facilities available to them at either destination.
Both boats – the twin-hulled MV Ali Cat and the monohulled Argyll Flyer – were built for side access from pontoons. They have to operate with stern access to linkspans, making for awkward manoeuvering of the ships in berthing, undermining user confidence in the operation.
This is aggravated by the skittish performance of the Ali Cat, whose hull form sees her work on the surface and prone to windage. She is also a particularly ugly boat with side doors unmatched to her superstructure, looking as if they’re out of B&Q, alien in the maritime environment.
All passenger boats today are light, to minimise the financial and environmental load of fuel burning and thereby to reduce running and insurance costs and fare prices.
Both of the boats serving this route have suffered cancellations of sailings in poor weather, particularly in the early days of the service, when technical breakdowns were also a feature. For much of the year cancellations have been few and technical breakdowns almost non-existent.
It is worth remembering that the tender was scored 90% on cost and 10% on quality. This immediately penalised any bid based on the provision of vehicle or larger passenger ferries. Any such bid would almost certainly have lost the contract on cost grounds alone. The tender therefore offered a disincentive to put together and tender a vehicle ferry solution.
This should not be a focus for renewed complaints of ‘We wus done’ from the Dunoon ferry fantasists. The commercial reality remains the imperative – an unsubsidised vehicle ferry between Gourock and Dunoon town centres is financially unsustainable – and business judgment supports that.
The Ali Cat, though, continues to be a focus for complaint. While both safe and suitable for the route, she may have been the only available choice for it but came with unfortunate baggage. She had a known local history of unfortunate incidents of wind-affected gangway access at Dunoon pier, which by luck, did not result in injuries.
She can be an uncomfortable ride in certain conditions. This has become the focus of a convenient scaremongering campaign by those who want to see this service become a second vehicle and passenger service between the town centres.
The major outcome of the scare campaign has been an increase of nervousness in passengers, less familiar than one might expect with the behaviour of water and pre-conditioned now to expect the Ali Cat to be frightening.
No one in responsibility has any doubt that this boat is operated within clear safety guidelines. No public service operator could do otherwise, let alone a company like Argyll Ferries that is owned by the Scottish government.
But the discomfort she can offer, particularly in the heavier winds and livelier wave conditions of winter, lends credence to the scare campaign that has left some passengers genuinely fearful.
This does not mean that the boat is unsafe – but fear is not what most people buy a ticket to experience. The obvious solution in safe but uncomfortable conditions for the Ali Cat – of timing journeys to use the Argyll Flyer – does not seem to occur and it is not in the interests of the fright campaigners to promote it.
And there is always the road, with the level of bus service to which the rest of Argyll is accustomed.
The greatest damage done by the ongoing scaremongering is to undermine the confidence of the uninformed incoming travelling public in all ferry services. In the case of Dunoon, this has the capacity to reduce traffic - and business – to the town; and to drive residents away from Argyll Ferries to Western Ferries.
Dunoon has a formal Ferries Action Group and supporters dedicated to pursuing three objectives:
- to get a second vehicle and passenger service restored to the town centre route;
- to get new boats for the passenger service;
- to get the Road Equivalent Tariff (RET) scheme applied to the Gourock-Dunoon route.
Legal and financial realities
The Scottish Government awarded the contract for the subsidised passenger ferry service between Gouock and Dunoon to Argyll Ferries, after a normal competitive tendering process on a common specification.
This has implications, as does the government’s end ownership 0f the David MacBrayne group of companies (to which Argyll Ferries belongs) that provide most west coast ferry services; and CMAL, the company owning most of the infrastructure that supports these services, the boats, piers, harbours etc.
The government awarded the contract to Argyll Ferries for the services on the boats it now provides.
The first issue here is that this contract must run its course. Were the government – even if it were feasible and defensible on financial and environmental grounds – to change this contract midstream to a vehicle and passenger service from Argyll Ferries, it would be open to a legal challenge it could not win under competition law.
Argyll Ferries could pay for one or two replacement boats within the course of the current contract – but would have to do so from its own resources and at its own cost – which it could not afford to do, having already made an investment of more than £2m in the two existing boats..
Were the Scottish Government in any way to assist it to replace its boats, it would again face an unwinnable challenge under competition law, with Argyll Ferries seen to be exclusively privileged over its competitors in being given replacement boats, once the contract was in operation.
The fact is that legal issues on contract and competition render unachievable - from the outset – the first two objectives of the Dunoon Ferries Action Group.
When this contract expires – on 29th June 2017 – it is open to the government to offer for competitive tender whatever new contract for whatever type of service it wishes. The economics of the situation will, though, remain unanswerably resistant to a competing vehicle service running between Dunoon and Gourock town centres.
Until then, the route will have to be served by the Ali Cat and the Argyll Flyer.
The Ferries Action Group would be better advised to campaign for what is achievable, for what would make a better service from the current Argyll Ferries fleet.
The answer to this is pontoon berthing at both Gourock and Dunoon. There is no legal impediment to the government providing these – because any operators would be free to pay dues and make use of these.
However such an improvement is currently unacceptable to the Ferries Action Group – because it would undermine the (non-existent) case for abandoning the passenger services. In failing to campaign for pontoon berthing for this reason, the action group are themselves responsible for the continuing inadequacies of this service as a whole.
The subsidy barrier
At the moment, the town centres passenger ferry route is subsidised to the tune of £2 million per annum.
The provision of two vehicle and passenger boats to a successor service would require a subsidy of around £8 million per annum in loan or leasing costs. Such a service would earn around £1 million per annum in vehicle passage fees. Together these sums would see the annual subsidy required rise from £2 million to £7 million.
The bigger and heavier boats required for vehicle carriage and their far greater loaded weight at sea would increase fuel costs, staffing levels and costs and insurance costs. This would make for higher vehicle fares and heavier state subsidies to cover the increased cost of carrying passengers on such a service. Berthing dues alone, payable to harbour authorities, would increase under this scenario by something approaching £1m.
In the economic circumstances likely to last for at least another decade, what government is going to commit to this, against the unprecedented luxuriance of the service Dunoon already enjoys?
Of immediate impact though, is the fact that a subsidy over and above the current benchmark for a passenger-only service – which would be necessary to provide the vehicle service the fantasists desire – would be prima facie evidence that the Scottish Government was providing subsidy to procure a vehicle service – something it is aware it simply cannot do.
The RET conundrum
The ferry fantasists also have a happy, if naive, belief that all would be well if they could persuade the Scottish government to apply the Road Equivalent Tariff (RET) scheme to the vehicle and passenger service they blindly wants for the Dunoon to Gourock town centres route.
This is legally impossible since European Law prevents the government from subsidising a vehicle service on a route not classified as a ‘lifeline’ – as Gourock to Dunoon is not.
Despite this legal obstruction, were the government to attempt to introduce RET and apply it only to an Argyll Ferries vehicle and passenger service, it would immediately fall irretrievably foul of competition law in subsidising a state owned service to the disadvantage of a private sector competitor – as Western Ferries’ service is.
If the Scottish government were to find a way around EU law in applying the RET subsidy to this route, it would have no alternative but to make it available also to the Western service.
In the way that RET is calculated, all that this could achieve would be to make the Western service cheaper than a town centres service and legally beyond undercutting – while in some cases making it more expensive than it is today.
But the woodentops just don’t get this.
Try the maths.
Back in 2008 – so inflation has to be factored in – RET was set at a fixed rate per journey of £5 for a car – plus 60p per nautical mile on the distance of the route in question. For passengers, the RET rate was fixed at £2 per passenger per journey plus 10p per nautical mile on the specific route.
The route distance for Western Ferries is 2.2 nautical miles; and for the town centres route, 3.6 nautical miles. Under RET there is therefore no way that any operator on the town centres route can offer cheaper fares than the Western route.
Look now at the costs under RET for a car and driver.
The 2.2 nautical miles distance on the Western ferries route gives a single journey RET cost (as above) for car and driver of £8.54 at 2008 prices. The Retail Price Index (RPI – a standard measure of inflation) puts this at £9.50 today. A return journey for car and driver on the short route at these rates would cost £17.08 at 2008 prices or £19 today.
But today anyone, resident or visitor, can walk into Western Ferries’ office or one of its agents and buy a return ticket for a car and driver for £16.20; or a book of ten single journeys for £73, which makes one return journey £14.60.
Pier dues, which would be payable on the town centre service, but are not a cost incurred by Western Ferries which owns its own terminals, would swallow up some £6.80 out of each return ticket.
Under RET, multiple ticket discounts are currently not available so in fact the introduction of RET, if based on current principles and even if it were possible, could increase – not decrease – costs for vehicle services, in the case above by just over 34%.
The political shenanigans
Recent days have seen a synthetic frenzy whipped up about Argyll Ferries’ operation of the Ali Cat with loose allegations of disquiet on the part of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) about the safety of the boat and of its operation by the company.
This was a mischievous misrepresentation of the facts, relating to the requirement for the MV Ali Cat to have a certificate exempting it from carrying an onboard safety boat.
The need for the exemption is that, on the Scottish Government’s instructions, Argyll Ferries had to register the Ali Cat as a Class 4 boat. Class 4 boats, as opposed to Class 5, must carry an onboard safety boat, unless they have an MCA Exemption Certificate. The MCA draw lines across the Firth of Clyde, one for summer, one for winter purposes. In each case, ferries operating south of the line are, if Class 4, required to carry an onboard safety boat unless they have an Exemption Certificate.
The winter line, further north of course, moves up to between the Cloch Light on the east Clyde coast to the rather non-specific ‘Dunoon Pier’ on the west side. This is taken to mean the old and now unused timber pier, not to the new breakwater/linkspan, which is a modest number of metres to the south and is the one used by the two Argyll Ferries boats.
Having compelled the MV Ali Cat to operate under Class 4, all the Scottish Government had to do was ask the MCA to take the winter line to the new linkspan but it omitted to do so.
Had it either known or bothered to do this, MV Ali Cat could have operated year round as a Class 5 ferry, with no requirement to carry an onboard safety boat – and no need to apply for an Exemption Certificate.
Unusually, Argyll and Bute’s MSP, Michael Russell, has taken to the media in press releases with shrill headlines, condemning Argyll Ferries and CalMac, the senior ferry company in the David MacBrayne group, for unproven allegations.
He has done this in terms that, given the authority of their source, can do nothing but unnecessarily inflame public anxieties on the safety of the Argyll Ferries service.
He has also chosen to personalise the issue, with overt attacks on David MacBrayne Limited’s Group Chief Executive
which, given the direct responsibilities for the situation of the government in which he serves, seems misplaced criticism.
Given that Mr Russell’s stance is implicitly critical of the sequence of actions in this matter by the government in which he is a senior minister, this puts him directly at odds with the transport department.
Is it now a resignation issue for Mr Rissell that Argyll Ferries get new boats – or at least one replacement boat?
Does he understand the legal complexities of this issue?
His stance has been quite extraordinary.
It is the government in which he is a Cabinet Secretary:
- that changed the town centres ferry service between Gourock and Dunoon to a passenger only one;
- that awarded the contract to a new company set up for the purpose and placed in the ownership of Scottish Ministers, of which Mr Russell is of course one – and therefore a shareholder;
- that dictated that the MV Ali Cat be a Class 4 ferry;
- that left the winter line for safety boat exemption at the old Dunoon Pier when the Ali Cat berths a little to the south at the new linkspan.
It is unusual also for a senior Minister, who is one of those legally owning Argyll Ferries, to transmit his questions to its management via the media and in intemperate terms.
The west coast ferries are, in all but name, a public sector service, an in-house government provision. For a senior minster to arouse public anger at and mistrust of a publicly owned company in which he is himself a principal, must be unprecedented.
If, in his internal but publicised criticisms, he is not reined in by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport with the backing of the First Minister, it could look as if the government itself has some strange purpose in wishing to see pilloried a company which it owns and which is its direct servant.
We are quite unable to decode Mr Russell’s actions and can only imagine that he must, as something he perceives as a matter of grave principle, have decided that this is indeed a matter on which he will resign if he cannot be satisfied.
Where now?
Normally, one would suggest that a high level meeting of the key principals in the dispute – one senior representative each from Transport Scotland, Argyll Ferries, Western Ferries, CalMac, Dunoon Ferries Action Group, Argyll and Bute Council and Argyll and Bute’s MP, might be convened by Argyll and Bute’s MSP, acting as Chair.
In this case, Mr Russell’s partisan stance has disqualified him from acting in such a capacity. He could only be a peer participant in such a meeting, under an independent Chair.
But who has the personal authority and would command the breadth of respect necessary to hold the ring constructively at an event like this?
Where now? isn’t there a strong case for widening the scope of the surely inevitable review to include the Gourock – Kilcreggan and Helensburgh passenger routes, the role of the SPTE, and the integration of trains and ferries at Gourock?
And given the part that EU regulation plays, there should also be vigorous investigation of what European funds could (or rather, should) be available towards both capital and operating costs, given the important part these routes play (or could/should play) in the economic and social life of the region. Given all that, I’d nominate George Lyon to get stuck in. He knows the area, the people, and what the difference is between a good ferry service and a worse than mediocre botch-up. Who knows, he might even rescue the government from becoming the laughing stock that it deserves to be if it doesn’t wake up to the notion that there’s more to the economic health of this country than promoting golf developments for the wealthy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Like it or not, I think your article spells out all the relevant facts, and puts them into perspective. You have stated that Dunoon and Cowal have a ferry transport system to be envious of (with the need for some improvements). Enjoyed the article Newsroom.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Gourock and Dunoon pontoons, estimated at £4 million are on the ‘shovel-ready’ SNP gov wish list that is being demanded of the Coalition Westminster Government.
Expensive pontoons will not require many,if any shovels or help the 2 cruise tub boats get from one pontoon to the other pontoon.
As a ‘woodentop’ and a ‘fantasist’ who would rather be called (rightly) a member of the Dunoon/Gourock Ferry Action Group campaigning for what was promised in 2007 by Jim Mather….two passenger and car ferries with no restrictions on their timetable service accessing the link span in Dunoon for Ro Ro ferries.
A safe,frequent and reliable vehicle and passenger ferry service from Dunoon Town Centre to Gourock Rail Terminal is the DGFAG objective….. especially for the 30% of people living in Dunoon and Cowal who do not have access to a car.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
David: there’s surely a mismatch at Gourock between what’s fit for vehicles using the existing linkspan and what’s fit for passengers headed to & from the train – and as you say yourself 30% of the population don’t have a car.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Part of the problem at Gourock is the distance that the train station is from the ferry terminal. In itself, that’s not a new issue, but the recent rebuild of the station just emphasises the lack of joined-up thinking that the various transport bodies have in this country.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s surely where the SPTE should have been able to plan for, and ensure, effective coordination between train and ferry.
Unless there’s a recognised plan to install a pontoon at the station end of the platforms, it would appear that the SPTE either isn’t involved in public transport coordination at Gourock or is just plain useless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But SPT no longer have any authority over the trains,it would have to be a joint Transport Scotland and Argyll Ferries initiative.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
AWS right enough, but it’s surely complicated by SPTE being involved with the Gourock – Kilcreggan ‘service’ – are they not involved at all with the Dunoon route?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, I believe for Statutory Regional Transport Partnership purposes Dunoon is the responsibility of HITRANS, within Argyll & Bute SPT only have responsibility for Helensburgh & Lomond. This is slightly complicated by the fact that HITRANS are responsible for the Clyde Ferry User Group, which includes the Kilgreggan – Gourock service.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Point of fact. The Ali Cat would have required a Class 4 certificate before Argyll ferries started up. It would have needed it to do the runs to Loch Striven when it was carrying BBC people to and from the Maersk raft berthed there a couple of years ago as the loch is beyond Class 5 winter limits, and the runs were done between January and March 2010.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jim – we understand that Ali Cat had a Class 4 – and had to have it – when she was doing the runs to Loch Striven but that otherwise, working between Gourock and Dunoon – Class 5 waters – she didn’t need it.
The issue is complicated by the fact that the demarcation between class 5 and 4 waters changes between Summer and winter.
It’s the waters that dictate the licence which is why the Ali Cat was exposed to the discrepancy on Class 4 MCA exemption certificate because the government had not clarified with the MCA that the winter line should run to the new linkspan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is not complicated. The new linkspan is in Category D waters in the winter (November to March inclusive) that requires passenger vessels to hold Class IV certificates.
Interesting idea you had though Newsroom about moving the line for the categorisation of waters.
Category C waters, which Western’s route is currently defined to be in, should not be expected to have waves exceeding 1.2m at any time.
If you use Western ferries then the waves seem to be a wee bit bigger than that at times. That is certainly the case when they are having to sail backwards with part of the deckspace kept empty and the waves still pound into your car.
I think the Western vessels only hold Class V certificates (could be wrong on that) which is fine for Category C waters. However if the waters were recategorised to D then they would need to have their vessels recertified.
Be careful what you wish for Newsroom when you suggest the line can be moved to make life easier for Argyll Ferries – the result may not be what you expect and could have significant consequences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The usual newsroom soapbox piece masquerading as a news article.
It is hard to know where to start picking it apart as there is so much wrong.
“From the evidence, it was clear that an unsubsidised vehicle service on this route was not financially viable.” – incorrect. Both the EU investigation and the published accounts of the Streaker Service showed that the vehicle potion of the old service (despite being hamstrung in numerous ways) was operating unsubsidised as required by the EU regulations.
“This was borne out by the fact that no commercial interest in providing such a service emerged from the tendering process.” – icorrect. The SNP went back on their promise to supply 2 vehicle ferries. All the tender showed was that a 6 year contract would not permit operators to recover costs of new vessels, and that vessels could not be provided in the timescales needed.
“Both boats – the twin-hulled MV Ali Cat and the monohulled Argyll Flyer – were built for side access from pontoons.” – incorrect. A linkspan is superior to a pontoon in every way. It is true that it is easier if the vessels don’t have to dock stern on. However next week Argyll ferries will be running to the old pier and using side access to its linkspan, no need for pontoons at a cost of £2M in Dunoon.
There is a lot of comparison between sailing times, buses and so on. The EU ruled that, for passengers, the town centre route could not be adequately replaced by Western/McGills. That is why the town centre route is allowed to be subsidised.
“These ferry services also keep Dunoon and the Cowal peninsula free of the loss of access and egress that the rest of Argyll suffers when the arterial A83 road is closed with one of its landslides.” – Correct!!! However you omit to point out that the Government has allowed the vital vehicle crossing of the Firth of Clyde to become a private monopoly with no control over fares/profits.
“Dunoon has a formal Ferries Action Group and supporters dedicated to pursuing three objectives” – incorrect. Their sole objective is; “Campaign to ensure the Government delivers a frequent, safe, reliable, vehicle & passenger ferry service from Dunoon town centre to Gourock rail terminal. Thus providing resilience, diversity and competition for cross Clyde transport to Cowal and beyond.”
“Until then, the route will have to be served by the Ali Cat and the Argyll Flyer.” – incorrect. Contracts can be changed and cancelled. The current contract has already been changed at least once. There is a letter in the Observer today where CalMac say there are helping work towards putting a larger boat on the route at least over the winter – not before time.
There is a lot of discussion about finances. Alex Neil is commissioning a financial review – why not wait until the results of that are known, it will be far better informed than any debate here.
RET, who mentioned RET? It is a scheme put forward by the Government, no doubt whether or not it is applicble will be covered in Alex Niel’s review. Certainly if there is only one vehicle ferry service on the route they should look at some way of capping its profits at a fair level. I think most people just want competition on the route.
“The need for the exemption is that, on the Scottish Government’s instructions, Argyll Ferries had to register the Ali Cat as a Class 4 boat.” – incorrect. Argyll Ferries operate in category C waters in the winter months. As a result they are required by UK legislation to have Class IV vessels.
“all the Scottish Government had to do was ask the MCA to take the winter line to the new linkspan but it omitted to do so.” – incorrect. A very interesting point though. The existing line could be moved, but that would involve monitoring wave heights etc. So newsroom (aka soapbox), what do you think the effect of such an exercise would be? I’ll give you a clue – they had to build a breakwater. As somebody who has used the ferries for several years I would hazard a guess that the line would not move south, as you suggest, but considerably further north. In other words Western might find itself operating in Category C waters in winter which might have signifcant impact on their operations.
A slightly hysterical article riddled with bias and inaccuracy – you will not get your cub reporter badge if you carry on like this newsroom.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘A slightly hysterical article riddled with bias and inaccuracy’ – and you’d have us believe that’s an impartial judgement from someone who’s careful to avoid hysteria, bias and inaccuracy, ‘ferryman’?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t run a blog dressed up as a news service. Though to be fair forArgyll do state they don’t attempt to give a balanced view and are giving their opinion.
I think often they just punt out provocative nonsense because they know it will result in more comments and hits on the website.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You might not run a blog but that doesn’t absolve you from assuming the role of ferry expert and then presenting some rather dubious notions as fact.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Unlike Newsroom (aka soapbox) I try to provide substantiated facts. If I cannot do so I indicate my uncertainty. Where I am giving opinion I try to make that clear.
Presumably that means I should get the press badge that forargyll does not have?
Can you please point to anywhere I have tried to pass of incorrect information as being factual?
I have just pointed out numerous factual inaccuracies in a forargyll piece, as yet I have not seen any response attempting to argue they were correct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Look in the mirror Mr Wakeman. If any one is presenting dubious notions as fact it’s yourself and For Argyll who seem to think that blissful ignorance is a substitute for expertise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not true, Kay Bee – you just demonstrate your own ignorance (or is it blinkered intolerance?) and your negative comments really don’t help the cause of seeking decent ferry services.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My ignorance born of living in this area since 1939! Sailed these waters for over 60 years. Been in the Royal navy have a commercial endorsed Yacht master licence. Have used every type of boat that has ever been used on the Clyde from Clyde steamers to the Maids, to the first car ferries to WF ferries to these dreadful totally unsuitable boats for what is classified as a lifeline service because The Peninsula we live on has been classified in European law as equivalent to an Island and the ferry service classified as an Essential Public Service. If you were to understand anything about this subject then you might have some useful comments to make. Rather than your own ill educated maunderings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An impressive pedigree, such enormous maritime experience makes some of your comments all the more puzzling – perhaps your high self-regard has bred a degree of arrogance that leads to intolerance. Tell me which notions you consider dubious and I’ll try and justify them; no guarantee that you’ll understand, but I can but try.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Ali Cat and the Argyll Flyer will – barring an act of God of some description – see out the current Argyll Ferries contract.
This is accurate and we have shown the precise evidence why – legally and financially – it is the case. It has also been confirmed with Argyll Ferries.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But not I fear if Alex Neil is to be believed and he should know He is after all Argyll Ferries ultimate Boss. Most of what you write newsroom is inaccurate, unresearched piffle. Clearly you have no journalistic training whatsoever. Educate yourself to the Clyde its history, the sea states, winds, the codes by which these vessels have to operate. Talk to people who are forced to use them to get to work when they are operating. Try to use Western Ferries to get to an appointment in Inverclyde by turning up on time for the last boat possible to get you there on time. Arrive close to the time of its scheduled departure and you will be very lucky if you can get on it. WF are not coping with the increased traffic they are now getting. Gourock is up in arms at the congestion created when a WF ferry comes in. Read responsible journals both online and in print to understand the facts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ferryman – “I think often they just punt out provocative nonsense because they know it will result in more comments and hits on the website”. Agree 100%. But isn’t it the truth that this blog has become pretty predictable and rather boring? Somewhat of a snorefest of epic proportions…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Facts are always SUCH a nuisance, aren’t they?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with you. But there is a serious problem here. forargyll projects itself as a news and information service, which it is not. People reading the blog may well be mislead into thinking its opinions are an accurate reflection of the way things are.
I would really much rather not waste my time refuting the drivel foragyll comes up with regarding the Firth of Clyde ferries but it is so important to so many people that it cannot go unchallenged.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@newsroom – although I have no idea if your figures and all your facts are correct, you have listed all the probable scenarios which will affect any action that the government may take. The subsidy one relating to increased costs if vehicle ferries were to be used, is a very interesting one. Yes, some do not like your article, but even with the mistakes, it does paint an interesting picture.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We would be interested to see any substantive challenge to any specific facts and evidences we have published.
The ‘rhubarb’ responses to uncomfortable evidence are predictable but this blinkered entrenchment is harming Dunoon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Newsroom is entitled to her view of any issue or individual in Argyll or elsewhere. However , unusually, I want to add three comments to this story which are mostly facts that I would have been delighted to give to Newsroom at any time h and which might cast a different light on some aspects of this the matter.
1) The regular breach of the Ali Cat’s exemption certificate was first noticed by Captain Sandy Ferguson, the former Marine Superintendent of Cal Mac. His view – as a senior and very experienced mariner of many years standing – was that this was a serious and indeed grave issue which potentially affected passenger safety. He remains of that view, I understand, and this opinion backed up by many years of actual seagoing is given veracity by the fact that the issuing of an “Improvement Notice” by the MCGA to a vessel within the Cal Mac fleet (albeit operated by a subsidiary) is an exceptionally unusual occurrence and may be unique.
2) When Captain Ferguson brought the issue to my attention in late May I was honour bound to raise it with the company and the relevant Minister. I did so immediately – in fact within an hour of meeting Captain Ferguson. However from that date until early July I have tried to resolve the issue without publicity. It was the failure of Cal Mac to take the matter seriously – when raised by Captain Ferguson (from February onwards) myself or the Ferry Action Group – which eventually meant that I had to raise it publicly. I also believed that the offensive threat of legal action made to Captain Ferguson when he raised the issue in a constructive letter to the Chief Executive of Cal Mac was wrong and that Capt Ferguson deserved an apology. I still do, and am still pursuing that with the Chief Executive and the Chairman.
3) This whole matter was and is an issue for the company to resolve, as the company has contracted to provide the service. My purpose in raising it with Government was to ensure that all facts were known by Government and that information was being built to judge whether the contractor was providing the service according to the conditions agreed. I had previously indicated I had doubts about that, as my constituents also have. That does not mean I sign on to any campaign or manifesto from any other individual or organisation nor does it mean that I am in irresolvable conflict with either the company or my colleagues in government. I am simply doing what I was elected to do last May, when local people chose me as their constituency Member of the Scottish Parliament.
I will be meeting the Board of Argyll Ferries in mid August, at their request, and I will continue to pursue the issue of safe transport on all routes in my constituency. That is my job and I make no apology for doing so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Come on Mike, “The regular breach of the Ali Cat’s exemption certificate”. If this was true and given the focus on this service, then the MCA would have shut down the service in line with their treatment of the Kilcreggan service. This could also have had serious implications for all of Cal Mac’s routes. The fact is that they haven’t, as bourne out by the MCA’s statement.
You also say that ” potentially affected passenger safety”. Remember that this company is owned directly owned by your Government, therefore are you suggesting that your own company would operate in such a way? Cal Mac have a wonderful approach to safety and a boss who is keenly focused on this.
“It was the failure of Cal Mac to take the matter seriously”, Cal Mac would simply never dismiss any issues with regards to safety. If there were any real safety concerns I am sure that Cal Mac would have stopped this service in an instant long before the MCA or your involvement.
Please stop this, for everyone’s sake. Again if there were any issues with regards the Ali Cat operating on this route, why was the tender given to Argyll in the first place by your government?
Moreover if they have, and I very much doubt that they have, been operating as per your statement, and you have known about this for a year and are only meeting with them in August, then I suggest that you, Cal Mac, Transport Scotland and your Ministerial colleagues may all be in same rowing boat heading up the same creek.
If you are wrong and CalMac have been operating in due regard to regulations, then I suggest that you apologise swiftly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Make no mistake this was an extremely serious breach.
What the MCA found was that vessels under the control of CalMac were operating without their Masters being in full understanding of the conditions imposed upon their vessels.
For a company of the size and standing of CalMac to be found in that position is very serious as it calls into question their entire compliance and safety regime.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
These ferries, both of them, are simply not fit for use for the purpose for which they are being put. Partly this has been covered up by ignoring the fact that the AliCat should not put to sea in conditions that are not “fine, clear and settled”. What is extremely serious thought is that the Masters of the vessels were not aware of this restriction , they in turn were responsible to CalMac and ultimately Scottish Ministers (e.g. Mr Russell) who are responsible for overseeing the safety regime
Transport Scotand accepted the AliCat as being a suitable vessel to provide a frequent year round ferry service. Given that it had a restriction to operate only in “fine, clear and settled weather”, and that this is the West Coast of Scotland what exactly were Transport Scotland and Scottish Ministers thinking about?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ferryman, you’ve been going on about this at length, for some time, and – while there clearly seems to have been a misunderstanding about the prescribed operating limits of the boats – are you really implying that the skippers are rubbish and putting the lives of people at risk?
Or are you just indulging in a seemingly self-perpetuating whinge of epic proportions?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The waters in these parts are not forgiving.
The MCA stated that Masters of the the vessels operating this route were unaware of the conditions under which they should be operating.
That really is very damming.
Calmac oversee this operation so it their procedures that are called into question.
Is the position that Masters of the CalMac fleet do not know the conditions under which they operate?
Do you dispute the factual accuracy of this?
Do you dispute the MCA statement?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I dispute your over-blown take on this – and on a good deal else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glad our MSP has contributed to the discussion. Is it not criminal that Argyll Ferries have continued to break the law, and put the general public at risk, by continuing to disregard what has been pointed out to them? Why is the MSP not ensuring that criminal charges are being pursed if this is in fact the case?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Who says that Argyll Ferries broke the law? A retired company employee who has been part of the group that tried to tell everyone that the car ferry operation had to stay on place, or the regulatory body that oversees the operation of the current service? The MCA appears to be reasonably happy with the way things are otherwise they would have stepped in with big tackety boots and tied the Ali Cat up, just like they did with the Kilcreggan ferry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The MCA decided that the Masters of the vessels opertate by Argyll Ferries, who are controlled by CalMac, did not know what the law was!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you for providing the vehicle which gives the opportunity for comment on important current issues which impact on the area.
In contemplation of the confusing and conflicting conglomeration of complaints, criticisms challenges and corrections continually conveyed about the “facts” with regard to the ferries a thought comes to mind. There just has to be a correct version.
However, in the unlikely event of that appearing, and universal acceptance of such, please consider the following in any equation.
Some people are scared of sailing. I know those who preferred the former Cal Mac boats on the Dunoon route because they were more than apprehensive about sailing on Western Ferries. For these people the prospect of using Argyll Ferries is a nightmare. There is no chance they will use the service in anything more than a light breeze if that. Whilst difficult to quantify I believe this may well be significant to the extent that it is an unacceptable service.
The Castle House Museum, Dunoon has video of Ali Cat and the Argyll Flyer in summer which is very uncomfortable viewing to such people and they cannot watch it. For others, of course, such journeys have their attractions. Every ferry service has it moments and I well remember a near five hour Gourock – Dunoon crossing on Cal Mac.
What is very worrying and is difficult to quantify is the impact of the information given out at time of bad weather. Consider those intending to come to the Dunoon area. Strangers are entirely different from local residents who know and can assess the situation.
I have heard the announcements that Argyll Ferries is not running (and have looked out the window and seen that they are). Danger is that there is an assumption that this is taken to mean ALL ferries and intending visitors may consequently change their minds.
An alternative journey by road, by virtue of the same weather suffers from the same dubious warnings of the likelihood of landslide risk on the Rest and be Thankful. This conspires to strike Dunoon off the tourist map for at least that day maybe more. Would you bother if you had this uncertainty?
This is simply a travesty for any tourist destination. The time is now for any obstacle, no matter how small, to Dunoon’s and Argyll’s future welfare to be removed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This makes it sound as if the only sure long-term solution is a tunnel, but I’ll doubtless be shot down by the usual suspects for saying so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We’re you a POW in Colditz during the war grandad, ‘cos you never stop banging on about the tunnel?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve got good reason to, if you absorb all the criticism of the ferry service.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
forargyll please try to earn your reporters badge.
Argyll Ferries are reporting “disruption” to their services because the ferries will be using Dunoon’s historic old pier.
Not only does this revitalise the old pier which is a listed building, and which has superior facilities to those currently on shore, it is actually easier for the vessels to dock there thus negating the need to spend £2M on pontoons that do what ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Before she sailed for Argyll Ferries, MV Ali Cat had serious problems berthing at the pier in Dunoon, in attempting side embarcation and disembarcation by gangway. She then embarked and disembarked at the slip, which was hardly ideal.
The old pier is not appropriate to her intended embarcation and disembarcation – with a fixed deck requiring flexible angle gangway access, where pontoons offer identical access between deck and boat whatever the tidal state.
The issue you need to address is that if you campaign intelligently, you should be able to get pontoon access at both destinations – which would make berthing straightforward and comfortable for all concerned.
Whatever you do, for the legal and financial reasons we have laid out quite plainly, you are not going to be able to get a second vehicle ferry service nor, failing an act of God, can you get new passenger ships within the life of the current Argyll Ferries contract.
Our concern is that the sheer legal and fiscal ignorance in this campaign is doing real damage to Dunoon in casually undermining, through scaremongering, public confidence in ferries; and, by obstructing achievable improvements like pontoons -which would make things very much better – keeping the service less than it might be and condemning the town to continuing foolish ferment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Okay so what you are saying is that the bathtub chosen by Transport Scotland had serious difficulties using the historic pier.
Then it was contracted that she use the linkspan at the breakwater where apparently she has also has serious difficulties.
Your suggestion is to spend £2M to put in pontoons at which no doubt the AliCat will have serious difficulties berthing?
Get a grip here. Neither of the current bathtubs are remotely capable of handling the weather on this route reliably.
Rather than spending serious money tinkering with dubious “pontoons” why not buy some credible ships that are an asset for the area?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What on earth is this rabid allergy to pontoons? anyone would think they were an untried novelty, or an invention of the devil, rather than a proven answer to a very real problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ferryman – Yes the old pier has better passenger waiting facilities – whether the passenger boarding facilities are ok I don’t know – they weren’t for the ‘streakers’, and pontoons could well be an improvement if the ‘disrupted’ facility next week doesn’t match up..
It might have escaped your notice that Argyll Ferries have adopted the same website format as Calmac, so just about any departure from the norm (including local roadworks) gets tagged as ‘disruption’ and can be rather misleading.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As somebody who actually uses the ferries I would expect that their performance over the next week using the linkspan at the historic pier will be superior to that at the linkspan at the breakwater.
That should be self evident because it is far easier for the ferries to come alongside at the historic pier.
So what exactly would pontoons add in Dunoon apart from a pricetag of £2M?
Also why exactly is the Argyll Ferry website reporting this change as a problem? As a regular user of the ferries I welcome it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Argyll Ferries website isn’t ‘reporting it as a problem’, it’s your misinterpretation of their use of the term ‘disruption’ that’s the problem. There does seem to be a pattern in your comments of misinterpreting other points of view to put them in a bad light when in fact they’re perfectly reasonable comment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In my opinion pontoons are not the answer.
When the Flyer crosses the Firth and passes McInroys Point, even though she must be a mile away she causes the Western ferries to bobble up and down despite being locked onto the car ramp at the time.
You would need pontoons with a larger displacement than the current car ferries to achieve the desired effect on embarkation.
The problem at Dunoon is that the boats have to manoeuvre in a confined area over their own wash. While the pontoons might be the same height above the water as the boats’ deck, since waves travel across water while going up and down the pontoon and the boat would not go up and down at the same time. Even once you have disembarked onto the pontoon the gangway to the land will be moving also.
The problem with the Flyer could be reduced by allowing her to travel across at her original design speed which should reduce the wash generally except that there is a speed limit on the Firth (12.5 knots I think) which prevents this. A higher speed would allow her to go further south, round the Gantocks before slowing down. The area behind the breakwater should then be calm as she enters it at low speed. This longer route would increase fuel consumption slightly.
Since the AlliCat already travels at max speed (as far as I am aware) I see no solution to her problems.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’ve obviously never seen the Argyll Flyer running at speed. It creates a huge wash at 20 knots.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pontoons can be designed to ‘go up and down’ within strictly defined limits, such that it does not compromise their effectiveness – and gangway movement would be so small as to be almost un-noticeable. I can’t help thinking that there’s a common perception of pontoons in terms of the structures in yacht marinas – which tend to be in sheltered harbours, much lighter and more buoyant, and thus sometimes capable of quite lively movement when hit by the wash of a boat.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Flyer at approx 200 tonnes would chew a pontoon up. A more reliable mooring would be against mid-ship piles with a vertically adjustable midship embarkation.
The tidal range is 4 mtrs which would also make designing for such a movement (of the gangway in a pontoon) difficult even if you were to overcome the punishment such a vessel would inflict on a pontoon.
Contrary to another’s opinion, the Flyer is a very sturdy and well equipped ship and is no bath tub.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good to see the Flyer recognised as the decent boat she is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Flyer is responsible for a substantial percentage of the cancellations. There is nothing basically wrong with either vessel if they are used for a task to which they are suited. They are not fit for the purpose of running a frequent ferry service on the Firth of Clyde carring the general public.
The root cause of the problem here is penny pinching. They have tried to run the passenger service at the lowest possible cost and come unstuck.
The Ali Cat needs to obey its sailing restrictions, or have a rescue boat fitted to remove the restriction. If she is too small to carry a rescue boat then they just need to use a larger boat.
To be reliable both boats need to be considerably larger. The bathtub service was disrupted again at the weekend. No doubt there was more exterme (normal) weather.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The second Arran boat was off yesterday too. And the Waverley sailed past Dunoon, and Largs, as well. Bigger boats? Enough said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Before you wax overly lyrical about the Waverley – lovely boat as she is, her docking record makes Ali Cat look boringly reliable.
Waverley has a history of heavy dockings – and on one amazing summer (2008) she managed to damage two piers on the south coast of England on two successive days – one on the mainland, Worthing Pier and one on the Isle of Wight, at Yarnouth.
http://forargyll.com/2008/09/and-the-waveley-hit-two-piers-down-south/
Both of these were in September 2008 and a month later her last cruise in the Clyde was disrupted.
http://forargyll.com/2008/10/waverleys-last-2008-argyll-cruise-disrupted/
She’s a lovely boat where Ali Cat is a dog, so to speak – but Ali Cat is not an unsafe boat and Waverley does have some injuries to her record in another heavy landing at a Clyde pier that saw some elderly passengers taken to hospital.
If you’re interested – technically, the Waverley’s docking difficulties in wind arise from her very nature, The water flow from the side paddles does not engage the rudder directly, making her hard to steer with any precision in certain wind states.
‘Be careful what you wish for’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We should all be very glad that we are not relying on Dunoon’s new linkspan for vehicular services this week, as there is a large crane, and scaffolding round the structure. Obviously major repairs being carried out – and it has never ever been used for a vehicle service!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Its a crying shame it has never been used. Perhaps the EU should ask for their money back as they provided part of the funding didn’t they.
The SNP have never given an explanation on why they went back on their manifesto commitment to deliver two vehicle ferries. If they had just delivered their promise it would have saved a lot of grief.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Has it not been used by Western Ferries to make sure it works…by the Waverley which has a history of damaging itself and piers….and people fishing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Argyll Flyer has been using the historic pier. It is obviously much easier for her to come alongside that at the new linkspan. Boarding by the side the entrance is low and narrow and they are using a terrible gangway, all problems that would apply equally to a pontoon though.
So, job done, £2M saved, no need wasting further time discussing pontoons in Dunoon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If (and it’s quite a big ‘if’) your supposition were to be correct, it would be to do with this particular boat and nothing at all to do with a pontoon. You’d be doing yourself a favour by staying within the realms of credibility, if that’s possible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: Argyll News: Russell stance on Argyll Ferries raises serious questions | For Argyll
Pingback: Argyll News: Dunoon ferry services: the supply and demand picture | For Argyll
Pingback: Argyll News: Gourock-Dunoon ferry: the authoritative position | For Argyll