The front cover of a prospectus presented to the Community Council at Campbeltown announces: ‘Launch of Vehicle and Passenger Ferry Troon-Campbeltown-Ballycastle’.
Before anyone gets over excited, as soon as you move to the inside page, this is modified to ‘Establishment of vehicle and passenger ferry…’
This sums up the proposition.
What is being launched here is a very large kite, to try to attract investors for something that exists only in the imagination.
La-La land
The proposition is so far astray of reality that it says:
- Troon: ‘sits in the beautiful and under rated Dumfries and Galloway’
- discusses unemployment problems in Dumfries and Galloway, an area it is clearly certain affects Troon
- says Campbeltown and South Kintyre are cut off from supplies when the road closes with landslides;
- describes the leg of the route from Campbeltown to Ballycastle as crossing ‘St George’s Channel’ [between south east Ireland and south Wales] – where it helpfully notes that ‘the weather is unpredictable’
Navigation just might be a bit of a lucky dip here.
These and other rather major flaws in the proposers’ understanding of the operation they themselves are promoting are proof of the hot air below this kite.
An empty vessel
There is no boat – only boats they might buy if they had the money.
There appears to be no upfront money. The ‘project’ is looking for investment of £5 million – on the promise of an operation that will return a profit in only its second year of operation.
Commercially, that would be some trick.
And we have around ten years to go before we start to clear the long depression caused by the banks, with the euro still to play to whatever finale emerges. Where can the markets they claim possibly come from?
If these guys were that good and if the estimated markets on the route were this hot, they’d be household names and Troon, Campbeltown and Ballycastle would already have such a route and booming local economies.
As they say, if it looks too good to be true, it ain’t.
If this kite stayed aloft, the plan is to contract the service to Barry Shipping, an Irish company with no track record and established only a year ago in 2011.
The very repetitive prospectus is riddled with errors of fact and understanding and with omissions. A few examples are:
- There is no mention of security services or costs which are unavoidable.
- Kintyre Express, which has been running a small fast passenger service on the Campbeltown-Ballycastle route for three years, is described as taking 11 hours for the passage. We never knew Redbay Boats were pedal powered.
- ‘This service will be standalone – not part of government nor funded by it…’ – yet it has approached VisitScotland and Argyll and Bute Council for support.
- Kintyre and Campbeltown are described as suffering from ‘distance from public transport’ – yet there are two daily flights between Campbeltown and Glasgow and four return coach services a day between Campbeltown and Glasgow in winter, five in summer.
- Potential investors are to be reassured by the statement that the three year only, late 1990s, previous service from Campbeltown to Ballycastle [operated latterly by Sea Containers] received no public subsidy – yet there were the matters of a deeply depressed vessel purchase price [see below] and the building of shore facilities – terminal buildings, linkspans etc to support the venture.
- The prospectus has knocked off images and logos throughout its presentation, lifted without permission from other companies websites, like P&O - and added (as under the ‘cross sales’ section) in a manner which implies support from these companies.
A one-ship operation
What is proposed is a year round one-ship operation.
A one-ship job creates three immediate problems:
- annual maintenance/refit time out of schedule [which the proposal, unsurprisingly, does not mention];
- no service at all, with no warning – if the one boat hits a technical problem – yet the prospectus makes great play of its certainty to attract a large freight market through ‘frequency and reliabiity’ – neither of which can possibly be promised or delivered by a one-ship operation;
- able only to offer a one-in-one-out service on a route as long as this one – the journey time from Troon to Ballycastle, calling at Campbeltown, being just under 6 hours each way.
This last matter gives the lie to the general claim the prospectus makes for selling the route to a ‘day escapes’ market.
The schedule proposed for this one ship to be based at Troon would see only Troon able to offer day trips out [and not in] – and to Campbeltown, not to Ballycastle, with immediate turnaround at the two ports beyond Troon.
Residents of Campbeltown and Ballycastle would be able to ‘escape’ only if they overnighted and, in the case of Ballycastle to Troon, it would have be two nights. The boat would arrive in Troon at 7.45 in the evening and leave at 7.30 in the morning. So, unless the night life in Troon, year round, is quite something, a ‘day escape’ to the Ayrshire coastal town would cost two nights of time and money for the benefit of one day in Troon. And no harm to Troon, but what has it got that would support that sort of draw?
Would it stay the course?
This proposition has no intention of lasting.
Even if this kite got off the ground, it has, in its own declarations, its eye on fast departure.
Moreover, where it assumes that the operation would be successful, moving into profit in year two, it takes care to talk of the need for an ‘exit strategy’.
Campbeltown has sore experience of ‘exit strategies’ for such operations. The kite that was the Argyll and Antrim Steam Packet Company, which morphed into Sea Containers, had an ‘exit strategy’ to remember. This embraced talking the silly UK Government of the day into selling it the MV Claymore for a peppercorn; running the route - with no care whatsoever for its survival - for the minimum three year contract time – and then closing it down; and selling the Claymore for £1 million.
This outfit say clearly in their pitch to potential investors: ‘Return to investors will come through two area and/or both:
- Dividend generation – commit to maximum dividend within legal framework
- Purchase – the sale or merger of the operation with another operator.
The intention is to try to find a few gulls and get out.
It should be noted that the same team are involved in another and simultaneous kite flying exercise - this time as Norwegian Seaways, where ‘Grants are being sought from the Regional Growth Fund which, if successful, would see the return of the ferry from North Shields to Norway.
They would appear to be targeting their efforts on depressed areas where government bodies and local authorities might be overly keen to throw public money in the direction of anybody who offered to try anything.
The gulls
This lot thought first of Oban but were directed to Troon-Campbeltown-Ballycastle by no less a maritime industry expert than – VisisScotland.
The newbies at Argyll and Bute Council – who have no more idea than VisitScotland – are also stroking their chins and looking thoughtful. It’s a good look for the cameras but does not imply knowledge or nous.
None of these guys can have read the prospectus.
Is not surprising that VisitScotland accepts that Troon is in Dumfries and Galloway – or that the route will cross the St George;s Channel’ – but it seems reasonable to expect that councillors from Kintyre and more widely from Argyll and Bute would know better.
And neither VisitScotland nor the Council seem to grasp the impossibility of a business plan that touts a one ship service like this on a route like this to go into profit in only its second year.
One has to ask whether VisitScotland and Argyll and Bute Council actually scrutinise and verify anything – or whether they simply listen to sales pitches and are easily impressed? This performance does not engender confidence.
If one single penny of public money goes into a project like this, public sector credibility will sustain even more damage and the row will be stratospheric.
Our investigations are continuing and we will update as necessary. And anyone reading the Project Alba prospectus [attached below in three sections to make downloading quicker] should do so soberly and with brain engaged. They literally do not even know where they are going.
Note: Below is the prospectus, divided into three sections, each with 8-11 pages.
How long did you take tlo read the prospectus before banging out this completely dismissive article?
You say “Kintyre Express, which has been running a small fast passenger service on the Campbeltown-Ballycastle route for three years, is described as taking 11 hours for the passage.”
What the prospectus actually says if you take time to read it is: The route is served by small boats (Redbay Stormforce 11m) crossing in 2 hours.
This is something you have managed to significantly misread on only p2 of the report. I can’t find the reference to St George’s Channel either though the report does refer quite clearly and correctly to the North Channel on the same page.
I can’t be bothered going through the rest of it, but I think this is indicative of the amount of time you spent and care you took in reading it before your desperation for another scathing ‘scoop’ got the better of you. You really should stay away from seagoing subjects – you seem to be unable to report them correctly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We’ve obviously read the report a great deal more carefully than you have. Keep reading.
Unlike you, we could be bothered to read it fully and carefully. They do say 11 hours for the Kintyre Express crossing.
In another paragraph they offer an alternative passage time of 2 hours for Kintyre Express.
Facts in this report are often unstable.
The reality for the KE crossing is a scheduled time of 25% less than that – 1 hour 30 minutes – with the time generally achieved around 1 hour 15 minutes and the fastest commercial passage logged at 1 hour 7 minutes.
These are just facts – but hey, what do facts matter?
You are clearly the ideal investor for a lark like this. All you have to do is choose your sub-species: white-headed, kittiwake, herring…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
They do say 11 hours for the Kintyre Express crossing.
Care to point to where in the document it says this, as I am unable to find it. What page is it on?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I can’t find the reference to St George’s Channel”
Last page of part 2, under the heading ‘Adverse Weather’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks Jim. Did you spot the ’11 hour crossing’ blooper as well?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s in the tables at the end of the 3rd section.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The current crossing from Troon to Larne takes 2 hours but only runs between March and October. It is a pain driving down to Stranraer so I can see the attraction in crossing Troon-Cambeltown-Ballycastle even with a longer crossing.
The Cambeltown-Ballycastle crossing would attract tourist traffic. Troon-Cambeltown would give commercial traffic an alternative route avoiding the A83. Cost and reliability are of course very important.
The point surely is that while Government invests in rail, bridges and roads (£650m for an Aberdeen bypass!) it ignores ferry services.
Once routes are established traffic and businesses build up round them. The Government though does not boot-strap the process. Sea routes are natural motorways and quite a green way of moving goods, but the Government just ignores them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Can’t find Scottish Ferries, Scottish Ferries Bareboat or Scottish Ferries Management at Companies House or Duedil websites. Either they have very recently registered or don’t exist. I wouldn’t regard this as any form of defining prospectus, but it’s interesting that persons have taken the time to prepare it to some considerable scope and depth. I would suggest that ForArgyll re-read it, I didn’t get the same understanding, and agree with the previous contributors views, but I do agree the Financials are lightweight, and are likely to be toast in the long run. But isn’t it good that someone asks the what if?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We assume that investors, including public bodies who might consider support, would take pause at the financials – if they understood them.
We spent 12 hours reading this report very carefully so don’t assume that we are unaware of any of the detail.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“…public bodies who might consider support, would take pause at the financials”.
What are the “financials” of;
Forth road Bridges, Edinburgh Trams, Borders Trains, Sleeper trains, Aberdeen bypass, the road network in general?
It is one of the roles of Government to put infrastructure in place. Individual links may not seem profitable, but whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Unfortunately the Government is blind to ferries and so to the needs of a large part of Scotland, even though only relatively modest levels of investment are required.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, ForArgyll agreed – This clearly is a “punt or Kite” not too dissimilar to the many offers of investments in diamond mines in Kenya. But it’s certainly got you going. Any chance of an in-depth interview with document’s originators?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Or even some ‘background’ on them?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Hamish Beaton and Robert Wakeham: We’re working on this.
We understand that one of the proposers, Mr Paul Woodbury, described in the prospectus as having ‘a background in onboard services’ has talked to the local paper – which could be said to be something of a soft option.
What has to get one going is the fact that Campbeltown is at a point where it can be successful – if it does the work itself. There is real evidence that people are believing in their town – with good reason – and are hopeful.
What Campbeltown does not need is this sort of jig, which can only lead to its current optimism and energy replaced with a renewed sense of failure and despair.
There are no quick fixes – but if Campbeltown is prepared to do the hard yards for a while, do the thinking and the groundwork in pulling itself up, we see it – on the basis of work we’ve been doing – as the town in Argyll with the most chance of making a real step change to sustainability.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interesting proposal, good luck to them. The only obvious issues I can see are;
1. The vessel is large for the route; load factors are likely to be poor outside of May-August.
2. Running a year-round service with a single vessel is going to require a robust source of charter tonnage to cover overhaul periods(a minimum of 2 weeks per annum, possibly more) and mechanical failure.
3. I disagree that Claymore was underpowered; personal experience suggests otherwise. It’s a moot point however as Claymore is definitely not available. Also the suggestion that Sea Containers didn’t get a subsidy is just silly.
4. Donald Kelly didn’t think the traffic between Ayrshire and Kintyre was worth the effort and I think he’s right. See also here, here, here, and here
Newsroom, what were they planning to do in Oban? The only obvious commercial prospect is a ferry to Mull, but Calmac are entrenched on that route.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We have no information yet on what their proposal for Oban was – or if it was, in fact, only a non-specific enquiry to VisitScotland about some sort of an Oban operation – which led to VisitScotland coming up with the current wheeze.
The North Shields notion shows that they are doing a sweep of prospecting to see if anything can be stood up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For God’s sake don’t get the Government involved – as it stands it only £5m or so thats going to go down the toilet – get the Scottish Public Sector involved and it would be at least £50m!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m a regular reader of forargyll.com, I enjoy the content, you often have stories that the OT and other news sources don’t cover. However sometimes I struggle a bit with the tone of certain pieces on the site.
My immediate thought after reading this article was that your previous coverage of Kintyre Express’s operation (which has always been glowing in its praise) has negatively affected your stance towards this proposal.
Is that the case?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pleased that someone else said it first but – yes, this had occurred to me as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ref.scottish ferries ltd. i,m sure i read somewhere that p&o had acquired this company name prior to the now postponed hebridean and clyde ferries tender.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Prommpted by this, we did a quick search and have found that when P&O, not so long ago, ran the Northern Isles services, they did so through P&O Scottish Ferries Ltd. This corporate identity may well still belong to them but be dormant.
This might have been called ‘Scottish Ferries’ for short but we doubt it is an envelope for this current Troon-Campbeltown-Ballycastle operation. Why? Because the name P&O would offer immediate reassurance to potential investors, including public sector funders – and to the three proposed destinations.
This also does not say, though, that P&O may not have set up a new company as Scottish Ferries Ltd – as opposed to P&O Scottish Ferries Ltd – in advance of the mothballing of the Clyde and Hebridean contract until well after 2014.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. For the avoidance of any doubt, Sea Containers were massively subsidised with regard to the setup costs of the North Channel operation. To all intents and purposes, they were gifted the Claymore by the Tory incumbents at the Scottish Office for what seemed to me, and to many others at the time, an outrageously low price, and the Campbeltown linkspan etc came out of the public purse too. No doubt, the same can be said for the shore operation on the Ballycastle side.
2. What’s the point in having a very big nationalised ferry operator if it can’t take the initiative in speculative projects directed towards economic development? Since Colin Paterson retired as MD of Calmac, the willingness of its management to be enterprising seems to have greatly diminished. So why have a Calmac at all, if it is so constrained by EU tendering rules, management stasis or whatever, that its residual role is simply to behave like a private sector contractor or franchise operator?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good luck getting an answer to that question before 2014. I find it frustrating as there seems to be plenty of expensively acquired knowledge within CalMac but they are not permitted to use it freely or have access to funds for speculative efforts like this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Surely the easiest , cheapest and most effective solution would be to use the Ardrossan to Brodick ferries extending the route to Campbeltown with a Friday afternoon/evening passage and a return trip on Sunday afternoon /evening .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There’s not much point to a Kintyre-Ayrshire ferry, it would save little time(landslides not withstanding) and cost more than the fuel to drive round. Even with a hefty RET subsidy the route makes little sense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Would it not save a lot of driving hours for hauliers? Hopefully when the SG gets around to building two new purpose built ferries for Arran, to go with the newly announced super-terminal at Brodick, one of them will be able to take an occasional dauner across to Campbeltown.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s likely to be a long wait for the 2 ferries! WTD restrictions might make it worthwhile for hauliers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
db: you mention an RET subsidy, but isn’t there a possibility of such a service attracting a subsidy for reducing wear & tear on the A83/82, in the same way as the subsidy for shipment of timber by sea?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There’s a logical argument for it, whether that would ever translate into a subsidy from Transport Scotland is anyone’s guess; one of Vestas’ conditions for investing in their plant on Kintyre was a ferry link, a promise which neither government ever honoured.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Most of the ferry traffic between Ireland and Scotland is going to or from the Scottish Central Belt, using the shortest crossing, and not particularly interested in a lengthy scenic detour via Ballycastle and Campbeltown. Tourists may be tempted, though that traffic is summer-only, and bank repayments are year-round. The problem with a 2-stage service is that anything wanting to get on at Campbeltown will either have to have an empty space left for it on the previous leg, or something similar getting off, and in practice these things seldom balance. And I don’t think that the ( large and expensive ) Ardrossan-Brodick boat can ” just take a dauner ” to Campbeltown … not unless cost is no object.
Kintyre Express, on the other hand, has shown that something can indeed be done, and though their fares are admittedly rather high, but it is still by far the cheapest and quickest way of making the crossing. The problem for KE is how to make a step-change to
high-speed vessels of somewhat larger capacity, as this would involve certification changes and an increase in crew, all of which would affect their cost structure and the route economics.
making the crossing
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s certainly a very different kettle of fish; going from the current vessels to operating a car ferry with a passenger certificate would be a big step, but there’s a market there to be tapped. It just needs careful planning.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Have you seen the ticket price of the Redbay ‘express’ between Troon and Campbeltown?..well above some would-be passangers pockets! , even although it would be an exilerating run. Maybe bigger vessels would be a feasible service between Troon or Ardrossan to Campbeltown whilst dropping any idea of the Ballycastle extension but if it were financially feasible , don’t you think that the boys at Calmac or Western would have had a look at it? The strings are falling off the big kite being flown. It would indeed need two vessels for any service and absolutely no gaurantee that the public would entertain it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Golf is a major draw for visitors to the Ayrshire coast. Given the lack of golf courses around Mid Argyll (in comparison) I can see many Golf fanatics using a crossing from Campbeltown..
Lads /LassiesGolf breaks….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kintyre Express run a pioneering fast passenger ferry service – and a charter service – for golfers between Troon and Campbeltown [and from Campbeltown over to the championship courses on the north Antrim coast in Northern Ireland]. They run an executive coach for parties out to the two world class courses at Machrihanish.
This service has been doing good business and seems to be about the right scale and speed for the demand.
The notion of a large vehicle and passenger ferry between Campbeltown and Ardrossan [not Troon] is, on the evidence, over scale for the real but specialist golfing market.
The worry with this is that the well meaning but underinformed might support – and fund – the provision of a large ferry which there is no evidence the route and the market would support.
This would leave Campbeltown with another undeserved failure – and that record of two major ferry failures would simply deter government and council from further initiatives.
In our view, what will benefit Campbeltown most is the development of services into its highly able airport [we're talking runway, not terminal - but that can be ramped up].
This would see international visitors flying into Glasgow and out again to Campbeltown; or into Belfast or Dublin and on to Campbeltown.
Allied to this, support for the development of the well judged and market savvy small and medium passenger ferries from Kintyre Express would see Campbeltown well set up for both volume and flexibility and without the high failure risk associated with a large vehicle and passenger ferry for a route unproven and improbable at that level.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0