Argyll's online broadsheet.

RW I am just using your and newsroom’s …

Comment posted Another part of the cost of the A83 closure by ferryman.

RW I am just using your and newsroom’s usual type of argument e.g. ; the A83 situation has been known about for years. Obviously there is no real demand otherwise some enterprising company would have introduced a solution. In any case people are spoiled for choice it is not as if there is only one road to Cambeltown, so what is the problem?

Why are you talking about ferries anyway is yourmind closed to the idea of a tunnel? Our MSP Mike Russell is going to build one to Ireland remember, so what is your problem?

ferryman also commented

  • I think I have just been abused again.
  • RW: by the way I have never said I am an expert. I just use the ferries and know something about them – unlike you.
  • RW: So now we need two similar boats for the pontoons to work. Would you like to add more caveats to your evolving idea?

    Why not admit that if the boats that are to be used on the route are unknown, and you yourself have said neither of the existing boats is suitable, spending £4M on pontoons (which need to be designed for the boats that will use them) is a nonsense ?

  • RW: you wrote:

    “Robert Wakeham says:
    June 20, 2012 at 8:46 pm

    Ferryman – I go on about gangways because they tend to be so bloody awful; pontoons aren’t designed to suit particular boats”

    and now you are saying

    “Robert Wakeham says:
    August 5, 2012 at 8:02 pm

    ….The question of freeboard is a red herring – of course pontoons are a workable option, and of course there’d be a problem with different boats with different freeboards”

    So in your first post pontoon design is independent of the boats using them. Then, once the problem is pointed out to you you come up with the latter post where you completely change your position and start denying your original stance.

    Your posts on the A83 are following a similar path. Firstly you say there is only a thin layer of loose ground, but latterly become worried about large boulders once 1,200 tons of rubble fall on the roadside.

    You mentioned an apology, when will you be posting it?

  • RW:”The use of linkspans for passenger access is a botch-up”.

    Sure Robert, so what are the advantages of installing pontoons, at a cost of £4M, over using the existing linkspans?

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 ]

    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