ForArgyll.com: Argyll's online broadsheet.

A fair summary of that article is that …

Comment posted MCA serves Argyll Ferries with improvement notice by ferryman.

A fair summary of that article is that Argyll Ferries can only sail the AliCat if its Master judges conditions are “fine clear and settled with a sea state such as to cause only moderate rolling and/or pitching” is that not correct?

ferryman also commented

  • I travel regularly as both a vehicle and a foot passenger.

    Loss of the Streaker service has made my travel both as a foot passenger and as a vehicle driver worse.

    If the bathtubs don’t run I don’t care if there is a gold plated moving walkway in Gourock taking me direct from the boat to the train – it is of no use.

  • Er … they would be able to travel between Gourock and Dunoon? Is that not their main objective?

    Can you point me towards any discussions that took place previously where the elderly and disabled were complaining about the difficulties getting between the streaker service and the train?

    They certainly are complaining now. They are saying they are missing hospital appointments, they feel unsafe and even unable to travel on the bathtubs and they have even taken Alex Salmond to task on the issue on national radio.

  • I have no idea about Gourock I guess the taxpayer can fork out £2M there for pontoons so that Transport Scotland and CalMac can claim to have made “improvements”. The bathtubs still will not sail in what is normal weather for the Firth of Clyde though.

    The current bathtubs cost £2M. Pontoons at Dunoon, which now clearly serve no purpose, would have cost £2M, pontoons at Gourock will also cost around £2M.
    So those in power, for some obscure reason, seem happy to throw away £6M (plus how much per year in running costs) on a service that does not work rather than invest in seaworthy vessels providing a reliable service.

    Where is the logic, where is the common sense, where is the acting in for the public good?

  • There is a large sign saying the passenger service will run from the linkspan at the old pier for a week from 23/July.

    This must surely torpedo any further nonsense about spending £2M to install pontoons in Dunoon.

    The bathtubs will be able to come alongside much more easily to the old pier. It keeps the listed pier in use as a working pier, and passenger facilities are already in place.

    What possible additional benefits would pontoons confer to justify spending £2M ?

  • George you are making a very simple and straightforward point that Newsroom (aka soapbox) just has not grasped.

    Most of the traffic going to and from McInroy’s point goes via Gourock. Most of the traffic going to and from Hunter’s Quay goes via Kirn.
    For a lot of people the town centre route was better at both ends, it cut congestion and travel time and the cost was comparable.

Recent comments by ferryman

  • Responses to Scottish Government’s Information Day on potential Gourock-Dunoon ferry service
    As usual newsroom bends things by quoting the MVA report as saying the vehicle service ‘could be feasible’.

    In fact the reports states; “This study has therefore demonstrated that, given the assumptions made and analysis
    undertaken here,a passenger and vehicle ferry service IS feasible.”
    [ see section 9.1.10 http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/files/documents/reports/j278759/j278759.pdf ]

    I am not surprised that Serco are interested in what is Scotland’s busiest vehicle ferry route particularly when the competition turns such a massive profit margin from poorly located ports.

    If Serco have wider ambitions for ferries in Scotland, as it seems they do, then Dunoon Gourock would make sense.

  • Scottish Government moves on Clyde and Hebridean Ferry Services provision
    “A lifeline ferry service is required in order for a community to be viable.”

    So Dunoon is lifeline then – good.

  • Scottish Government moves on Clyde and Hebridean Ferry Services provision
    Newsroom says that Dunoon Gourock is “not a lifeline service”.

    I think Dunoon Gourock is an essential lifeline service but obviously Soapbox aka Newsroom does not.

    So where is the definition of “lifeline” so that we can decide who is correct?

    The answer is that there is no definition – Transport Scotland shall decide, route by route, to whom that applies.

    As to contractual terms, look at Dunoon Gourock, anybody can run anything there is absolutely no contractual need for the service to be reliable. So if your route is goung to be tendered in this way you are totally unprotected.

    Of course Dunoon Gourock is only a piddling little route – well no, according to the Scottish Government it is the most important Scottish route for vehicle transport and significant even on European terms, but that of course is not enough to make it lifeline in Newsroom’s eyes.

  • So what will Transport Scotland talk to Brussels about on Dunoon-Gourock ferry?
    Read the report.

    The taxpayer and the people of Dunoon/Cowal can have a passenger only service and pay a subsidy for it.

    Alternatively they can pay the same subsidy and get a passenger and vehicle service.

    Of course if they choose the vehicle service then the subsidy is paid back via berthing fees both to the Scottish Government and Argyll and Bute Council – in other words to the public purse it is for practical purposes free (which the passenger only service is not). Not only that but the operator of the vehicle service makes a larger profit.

    All of which in a Scottish Government produced report meets all EC requirements.

  • Lairds powering on to get Western’s boats completed
    So they are not actually as promised going to be in service for the games this year?

    If they were in service what would the additional car carrying capacity and people carrying capacity per hour have been?

powered by SEO Super Comments

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·


Related Articles & Comments