Comment posted Research reveals shock insights into reality of Dunoon ferry service provision by ferryman.
Trigger: what have you done!!! RW will start prattling on about gangways again.
You have made an interesting comment though. The number of passengers on a ferry have to be accounted for. Strictly speaking it should not set sail until the master knows how many are aboard as he has to stay within the limits of his passenger certificate.
Some statistics have been quoting foot passengers only (i.e. less those in vehicles) , but how did they get those figures particularly if they were passing bus passengers up the gangway?
It sounds like the foot passenger only statistics must be some kind of guestimate rather than an actual record of usage.
ferryman also commented
- That is pretty much as I thought, so a record was kept of the total number of passengers, but no record of how many were on foot and how many were in vehicles. This means that any statistics showing foot passengers only are a guestimate of some kind.
- I believe CalMac did at one time offer discounts to regular commercial users to try to increase usage and profits on the already profitable vehicle portion of its service. My understanding is that WF somehow managed to stop that – can’t have competition.
It would be good to know what WF’s current rates are for commercial vehicles particularly HGVs.
- No, Caimbeul said Western charged £110, but CalMac (Cowal ferries) quoted £78. So WF were £32 or 41% more expensive.
The CalMac price sounds a lot more reasonable for a van, and the vehicle portion of the service was still turning a profit.
No doubt WF could charge a premium because of the poor timetable CalMac were forced to operate, commercial traffic cannot hang about (drivers to pay, goods to deliver). Now of course there is no competition at all.
- Prices will be even higher now.
I have just got a commercial quote for a van, return, Dover Calais with DFDS for £240 inc. VAT which I make £204 excluding VAT.
The crossing is 90 minutes which is six time longer than WF.
So the DFDS equivalent of the WF crossing is £34 (£204/6).
In other words the WF crossing is over 3 times the cost of the DFDS crossing (£110/£34), based on time. The DFDS ships all have a cruising speed above 20knots, so in terms of distance the WF rate is even worse. On top of that DFDS has all sorts of facilities making the crossing more comfortable and so even better value.It would be interesting to know what the current WF fares are particularly for HGVs.
We need competition on this route. High fares will feed through to all goods and services and also prevent the Firth of Clyde being used when the A83 is blocked.
- The historic pier was excluded from the tender. That eliminated the two seaworthy vehicle ferries that could have been available in the ridiculous timetable.
Now, as we have just seen, the contract was varied to allow use of the historic pier. There is no reason historic pier should not continue to be used or for its exclusion from the original tender. Somebody had it in for the vehicle service.
Recent comments by ferryman
- Reminder: Argyll Ferries on ‘refit’ service schedule
The scottish Government has failed to deliver on the transferable ferry tickets it was going to setup. The bus scheme is a bodge that adds anything upto two hours to travel time.Any news on what they are going to do for Cowal Games or are they just going to try another gamble on the weather.
- New Campbeltown ferry pilot – a whale beached before it starts
They did not refuse to give car/ferry passenger service to Dunoon – they took it away!They went back on a maniefesto committment to provide new vehicle ferries and then to cap it all they made an incompetent botch by putting in a totally and uttery unreliable passenger only service.
- Inexplicable blame game from MSP on lack of cross-ticketing on Dunoon ferries
“no carrier could justify running a heavier and thirstier craft than necessary”The “than necessary” is the critical point. If you are specifying a commuter service to get people to and from work, hospital college etc. then it is necessary and perfectly possible to specify vessels able to operate reliably on the Clyde.
What you do not do is accept vessels which regularly and repeatedly fail to run for days at a time.
Newsroom wrote “physical facts are the physical facts”, they are indeed and the current bathtubs are far too small for reliable operation. In any case the Ali Cat was operating unreliably on the route already so her current performance is no surprise.
- Inexplicable blame game from MSP on lack of cross-ticketing on Dunoon ferries
I take exception to your statement that “The Argyll Ferries’ passenger boats, being necessarily lighter craft, are more prone to delay and cancellation in a bit of a blow”.Transport Scotland should have specified vessels able to provide a reliable service. They did not hence the problem.
Also the gentleman referred to in the article in the Observer concluded by saying he did not want a lot of energy devoted to cross ticketing etc he wanted it devoted to the getting his town centre ferry service taking him to the trains to work.
That of course makes sense because even if he could transfer totally reliably to and from Western at no cost at all he would still be late for work.
- Western Ferries: new sailings, inflation rises in fares – and protection for concessions
“the consensus seemed to be that they would be too expensive to be used as passenger only ferries”Exactly. Here you have ferries known to be reliable in the sea conditions on the route, able to operate at a fantastic profit when carrying vehicles but not economic carrying only passengers.
AF are suspended again today, they were off all day yesterday, because they use bathtubs not remotely suited for the purpose to which they are being put.
The sensible thing is to use larger ferries on the town centre route and let them carry vehicles. As CalMac demonstrated, before the Government of the day stopped them, putting on more sailings increased revenue and cut subsidy.
powered by SEO Super Comments
