View Full Version : Northern Isles Ferry Contract
orkneycadian
03-Sep-11, 10:00
What views across the water on the renewal of the ferry contract next year? Its been a fairly hot topic in the local media here - Same over there?
So far, it appears that the key issues are the debundling of the routes, i.e. bidders can tender for the Pentland Firth route but not the Aberdeen routes, or vice versa and whether or not the tender criteria will include a requirement to maintain the Scrabster - Stromness route should a "debundled bidder" prefer a different route. So far, it seems that at least the following companies have expressed an interest (in media reports anyway)
Northlink
Pentland Ferries
Streamline Shipping
Northlink must be getting worried considering the amount of advertising they are doing at the moment - Nearly every week in The Orcadian they have big adverts (often full page) and their banners keep popping up at events round the county.
What are the views of Caithnessians if the ferry operator and/or the port(s) for the alleged lifeline service were to change?
I think the Caithness view is the usual ambivalence, the vast majority see it as only being a "lifeline" service for Orkney, the insularity and dependence culture that has developed in Caithness (more so Thurso, and it really pains me to say that) are clearly visible.
Tugmistress
03-Sep-11, 10:16
I'm just hoping all of us at scrabster still have a job next year! it will directly affect about 30 people if not a few more.
how true it is i don't know but i heard a whisper that stagecoach were also going to show an interest - as i say thoug, take that with a pinch of salt.
orkneycadian
03-Sep-11, 10:20
Irrespective of route or operator, there would still be the requirement for similar shore staff would there not? Vehicles still need mashalling, tugmasters tugged, ropes caught and in the case of the present operator, passports scrutinised ;)!
Tugmistress
03-Sep-11, 10:35
but would that be the case if banksy won the tender? he would run from gills surely? and he already has his own staff :(
good luck to Andrew (banksy) and all his staff for the future fantastic job done at Gills
orkneycadian
03-Sep-11, 11:37
but would that be the case if banksy won the tender? he would run from gills surely? and he already has his own staff :(
I guess that depends how it pans out. If the tender criteria says "Thou must operate the Hamnavola from Scrabster" (or as could be predicted, "Though must operate the Hamnavola from Scrabster, and must have at least 10 years experience operating the Hamnavola..." ;) ! ), then it might be business as usual.
If it did go to another port, then its been mooted that a second ship would be put on the route. If that were the case, surely a lot more staff needed?
I think ive just given rep to the wrong post. If you dont understand my comments then it wasnt intended for you. make the most of it. :lol:
If Scrabster is removed, how are all the tourists arriving at the north coast by public transport going to get to the boat for Orkney?
I think the Caithness view is the usual ambivalence, the vast majority see it as only being a "lifeline" service for Orkney, the insularity and dependence culture that has developed in Caithness (more so Thurso, and it really pains me to say that) are clearly visible.
Spot on Scotsboy. That was my immediate reaction. Its only a lifeline for Orkney.
As a local loon your perception from a distance is more objective than mine. I'm always happy to see my blindspots.
Hope you dont mind if i lift this post and start another thread with your comments? Later though. Im in a rush unless you start one yourself.
orkneycadian
03-Sep-11, 12:00
If Scrabster is removed, how are all the tourists arriving at the north coast by public transport going to get to the boat for Orkney?
I imagine Stagecoach might be interested in amending their timetables and routings to suit....
And the Scottish Governmental could donate all the tram tracks that might not be needed for Edinburgh after all to create a 3rd spurline from Georgemas! ;)
I think the Caithness view is the usual ambivalence, the vast majority see it as only being a "lifeline" service for Orkney, the insularity and dependence culture that has developed in Caithness (more so Thurso, and it really pains me to say that) are clearly visible.
Caithness has an insular attitude to the Orkney ferry? That takes a bit of working out.
Dependence culture? Should Thurso people have shunned available Dounreay jobs because the jobs were too "dependent?" Should they shun jobs in a subsidised port and ferry too?
Caithness has an insular attitude to the Orkney ferry? That takes a bit of working out.
Dependence culture? Should Thurso people have shunned available Dounreay jobs because the jobs were too "dependent?" Should they shun jobs in a subsidised port and ferry too?
I said that I think the view will be one of ambivalence towards the ferry issue, and have seen little evidence of any positive discussions about the benefit of the ferry link to Caithness.
I also see little evidence of the skills and benefits provided to the community by Dounreay being used to enhance the community by those who still work and reside in Thurso, my opinion, but after spending the last 3 weeks there I was depressed at the state (physically and psychologically) of the town.
I said that I think the view will be one of ambivalence towards the ferry issue, and have seen little evidence of any positive discussions about the benefit of the ferry link to Caithness.
I think the reason for the 'ambivalence' is the cost of the ferries. I would use them a lot more if the fares were cheaper, say a day return. When I move up here I envisaged us having days out in Orkney but that is impossible due to the high cost. For 2 people I think it is between £120 & £150 return. A very expensive day out when you add your spending money when over there.
Our one day out there was in the JOG coach trip ferry, very enjoyable but would not want to repeat it for every visit.
If the fares were lower and locals could use it then maybe more people would take an interest in it.
Looking t it from a different angle I know how important it is to the local economy and if one of the ferry routes were cut it would be a disaster for a lot of folk, both sides of the crossing.
orkneycadian
03-Sep-11, 16:45
One of the potential bidders has stated in the past that if they were to be given the same level of subsidy as the current operator, then the fares would be abolished. That would make for a cheaper day out to Orkney!
One of the potential bidders has stated in the past that if they were to be given the same level of subsidy as the current operator, then the fares would be abolished. That would make for a cheaper day out to Orkney!
I remember that being said.
Only problem is I wouldn't be keen on the Causewaymire losing A9 status. Might happen if they revert to previous.
ywindythesecond
03-Sep-11, 21:54
You can't build a new harbour or pier every few years just because the operating contract changes. Whoever wins, there will still be a service from Scrabster and from Gills using the same boats and mostly the same people.
I imagine Stagecoach might be interested in amending their timetables and routings to suit....
And the Scottish Governmental could donate all the tram tracks that might not be needed for Edinburgh after all to create a 3rd spurline from Georgemas! ;)
Think you will find that there is already a bus link to inverness from Gills Bay the X99 (stagecoach). From Gills Bay (ferry terminal) to Inverness (change bus at dunbeath) connects up to all sailings.
Diane :)
Bill Fernie
03-Sep-11, 22:17
I think the reason for the 'ambivalence' is the cost of the ferries. I would use them a lot more if the fares were cheaper, say a day return. When I move up here I envisaged us having days out in Orkney but that is impossible due to the high cost. For 2 people I think it is between £120 & £150 return. A very expensive day out when you add your spending money when over there.
Our one day out there was in the JOG coach trip ferry, very enjoyable but would not want to repeat it for every visit.
If the fares were lower and locals could use it then maybe more people would take an interest in it.
Looking t it from a different angle I know how important it is to the local economy and if one of the ferry routes were cut it would be a disaster for a lot of folk, both sides of the crossing.
I don't understand the prices you quote. Yes you may pay that on certain ferries and certain times. But I just looked up Pentland Ferries fares and chose to go on foot from Gills to St Margaret's Hope and return the next day. The price was £26 return. So for two its £52. Seems pretty good to me. Of course its more expensive if you take the car. But Orkney does have buses to get around and you could take the tour there. Or go via the John O'Groats Ferry which is also very resaonable and use the connecting bus service to Kirkwall. It is £30 to take your car one way so £60 return. Northlink from Scrabster is more expensive but a larger ferry so it depends on what size of boat you like to travel on.
orkneycadian
03-Sep-11, 22:50
You can't build a new harbour or pier every few years just because the operating contract changes. Whoever wins, there will still be a service from Scrabster and from Gills using the same boats and mostly the same people.
Yes, the cynic in me thinks that too, and that the tender criteria will be loaded towards maintaining the status quo to avoid egg on face. If its still the same boats, plying the same route, then unless the speed is reduced, it'll still be the same fuel consumption, and the same level of subsidy required to support it.
The cynic in me also thinks that the debundling is something of a PR exercise to give the appearance of a level playing field - Only time will tell!
Walter Ego
04-Sep-11, 08:32
Gills isn't accessable if the wind and tide is wrong. Plus it hasn't got the infrastructure to cope with the amount of vehicles required. The service would be continuing from Scrabster regardless of who operates it.
I don't understand the prices you quote. Yes you may pay that on certain ferries and certain times. But I just looked up Pentland Ferries fares and chose to go on foot from Gills to St Margaret's Hope and return the next day. The price was £26 return. So for two its £52. Seems pretty good to me. Of course its more expensive if you take the car. But Orkney does have buses to get around and you could take the tour there. Or go via the John O'Groats Ferry which is also very resaonable and use the connecting bus service to Kirkwall. It is £30 to take your car one way so £60 return. Northlink from Scrabster is more expensive but a larger ferry so it depends on what size of boat you like to travel on.
At peak season the scrabster ferry of £136, can't check Gills as the site is down but you say that it is £112. i am taking the price of a car as if you want to tour, a car is better than the bus. If you are just wanting to visit say Kirkwall then maybe the bus might be OK. I would say that anyone who wants to visit 2 or 3 places or just go where the fancy takes them then the car is what most people would use. Therefore i come back to the argument that a cost of £112 or £136 just to get over there does put a lot of people off. Strange how the trains & buses seem to realise that day return tickets increases traffic, why would it not increase traffic on the ferries?
Tugmistress
04-Sep-11, 11:06
I don't know the total ins and outs of it but we have discussed this at length at work, it seems it is something to do with being a susidised route and not allowed to go 'into competition' with any other operators in the area offering a similar service. the prices are set by the government it seems and a day return is not allowed for some stupid reasoning :(
Gills isn't accessable if the wind and tide is wrong. Plus it hasn't got the infrastructure to cope with the amount of vehicles required. The service would be continuing from Scrabster regardless of who operates it.
Could you explain your statement a bit please
I don't know the total ins and outs of it but we have discussed this at length at work, it seems it is something to do with being a susidised route and not allowed to go 'into competition' with any other operators in the area offering a similar service. the prices are set by the government it seems and a day return is not allowed for some stupid reasoning :(
Does this also apply to Gills? i asked both companies last year and neither of them said that in their reply. i would of thought they would of if correct. They just said something like, we are happy with out pricing
orkneycadian
04-Sep-11, 17:08
Does this also apply to Gills?......
......They just said something like, we are happy with out pricing
I think then, you have your answer to the question you just posed!
Tugmistress
04-Sep-11, 20:19
no it doesn't apply to gills but i am 99% certain that because of the government subsidies that a 'price war' cannot be put in place by the subsidised route.
I've said this before. How can anyone successfully tender against a nationalised company that owns the boats and the piers and gets a subsidy.
The same thing occured with Calmac a couple of years ago, a small operator spent a fortune putting a tender together to be told dont be daft. (I paraphrase).
I've said this before. How can anyone successfully tender against a nationalised company that owns the boats and the piers and gets a subsidy.
The same thing occured with Calmac a couple of years ago, a small operator spent a fortune putting a tender together to be told dont be daft. (I paraphrase).
CalMac do not own the boats or piers for the Orkney & Shetland Service. The Royal Bank Leasing Company own the boats. The Islands Councils in Orkney & Shetland own the piers in the islands. Scrabster Harbour Trust own the pier at Scrabster and Aberdeen Harbour Board own the piers in Aberdeen. This applies to all the Terminal Buildings as well.
And Tugs is correct about the pricing. Northlink are not permitted to reduce fares to attract more custom as this would be considered as an unfair advantage to the companies which operate without a subsidy.
I think that it is ridiculous that public money is spent on subsidies if somebody else can provide a suitable service without subsidy.
I suppose the question is can they?
Could the Gills boat provide the required service?
Can it operate in the same sea/weather states?
Can it cope with the required amount of cars/lorries?
Could it operate from Scrabster? If not, Does Gill need to be/could Gills be upgraded to provide the required facilities?
If the answers above are yes, I don't want to see my taxes spent boosting the profits of Northlink or anyone else.
Tugmistress
05-Sep-11, 08:36
I think that it is ridiculous that public money is spent on subsidies if somebody else can provide a suitable service without subsidy.
I suppose the question is can they?
Could the Gills boat provide the required service?
Can it operate in the same sea/weather states?
Can it cope with the required amount of cars/lorries?
Could it operate from Scrabster? If not, Does Gill need to be/could Gills be upgraded to provide the required facilities?
If the answers above are yes, I don't want to see my taxes spent boosting the profits of Northlink or anyone else.
I'll try and answer to the best of my limited knowledge
1) required service - maybe - yes it goes back and forth already that's about my understanding of what you are asking
2) no - there are conditions in winter mainly, though in summer too when gills can't sail due to the wind/tide/swell etc whether it be due to actual crossing conditions or berthing conditions - and yes i know the hamnavoe cancels too but not as often.
3) in winter maybe unless no sailings due to weather, in summer not a chance - hamnavoe in summer has a lot of sailings where the car deck is full to capacity which is more than gills can carry, also you have to bear in mind that (as i understand it) lorries etc have to either reverse on or off as there are 'wings' on the gills ferry they cannot fit underneath. i can see this also having an affect in winter as to what it could carry.
4) not a clue lol
Having travelled both routes I know which service I prefer!
Whilst I agree that peak season fares are high, with the current cost of fuel that is to be expected as any one who owns a car will realise all too readily.
There has to be a service to the islands, subsidised or not, as without it orkneycadians would be in dire straits.
Whilst many who live on the Caithness side of the water can be very blasé about the matter, I suspect that there are a fair number of jobs that rely on the service and Scrabster Port Authority would loose quite a substantial amount in income were it withdrawn.
I too suspect that we will end up with very much the status quo despite all the blustering from The Scottish Parliament.
Lizz, I too have travelled both routes and like you I much prefer the Scrabster Ferry, more comfort, ok a little more expensive, the Gills ferry to me was cheap and tacky, and the constant smell of hamburgers wafting through the seating accomm. put me off.
I was lucky I think, my trip on the Gills ferry was in calm weather, I would not like to be on her if the seas got a bit lumpy, and that can happen in the Firth.
Someone up North can refresh my memory....was the first pier at Gills not washed away in a storm one winter?
Walter Ego
06-Sep-11, 11:00
Could you explain your statement a bit please
Certainly:
Gills isn't accessable if the wind and tide is wrong. Plus it hasn't got the infrastructure to cope with the amount of vehicles required. The service would be continuing from Scrabster regardless of who operates it.
Hope this helps.......
Duncansby
06-Sep-11, 12:32
Lizz, I too have travelled both routes and like you I much prefer the Scrabster Ferry, more comfort, ok a little more expensive, the Gills ferry to me was cheap and tacky, and the constant smell of hamburgers wafting through the seating accomm. put me off.
I was lucky I think, my trip on the Gills ferry was in calm weather, I would not like to be on her if the seas got a bit lumpy, and that can happen in the Firth.
Someone up North can refresh my memory....was the first pier at Gills not washed away in a storm one winter?
Your havering Golach ;) the pier was never washed away! The linkspan was damaged in a storm when Orkney Island Ferries were operating a crossing but since then an awful lot of work has been going on to upgrade the facilities and infrastructure at Gills.
Personally I much prefer the Gills crossing, it's cheaper, faster, more economical and environmentally friendly - I don't see the point in a ferry that has a crossing of 1.5hrs having a restaurant and cinema on board! I've never found the crossing uncomfortable, overly rocky or tacky.
Tugmistress
06-Sep-11, 12:51
Personally I much prefer the Gills crossing, it's cheaper, faster, more economical and environmentally friendly - I don't see the point in a ferry that has a crossing of 1.5hrs having a restaurant and cinema on board! I've never found the crossing uncomfortable, overly rocky or tacky.
it's not really that much faster, maybe 15 minutes ish, yes it's cheaper in summer season but when i priced up for a car and trailer in winter season gills was £1.50 cheaper, i don't know enough about all the bits to comment on environmentally friendly etc and i think you are confusing the 2 larger vessels (Hjaltland and Hrossey) with the Hamnavoe as the Hamnavoe doesn't have a cinema on board lol yes it has a cafe/restaurant and a shop and a kids area and a bar though :)
I suppose personal preference of route/ship is just that, personal, so each will go with what they are comfortable with :)
NickInTheNorth
06-Sep-11, 13:04
Can someone clarify a couple of points for me.
1.) does the Northlink service still receive a government subsidy
2.) does any other operator currently providing a ferry service between Caithness and Orkney receive any subsidy
Duncansby
06-Sep-11, 13:19
it's not really that much faster, maybe 15 minutes ish, yes it's cheaper in summer season but when i priced up for a car and trailer in winter season gills was £1.50 cheaper, i don't know enough about all the bits to comment on environmentally friendly etc and i think you are confusing the 2 larger vessels (Hjaltland and Hrossey) with the Hamnavoe as the Hamnavoe doesn't have a cinema on board lol yes it has a cafe/restaurant and a shop and a kids area and a bar though :)
I suppose personal preference of route/ship is just that, personal, so each will go with what they are comfortable with :)
Ah, my mistake I thought all three were the same. I thought the Scrabster crossing was 1.5hrs?
Precisely, and we are lucky that we do have a choice about which route to take.
Tugmistress
06-Sep-11, 13:55
Can someone clarify a couple of points for me.
1.) does the Northlink service still receive a government subsidy
2.) does any other operator currently providing a ferry service between Caithness and Orkney receive any subsidy
1) yes, but when it is paid i do not know (as in an ongoing payment or a total at the beginning of the contract)
2) no
Ah, my mistake I thought all three were the same. I thought the Scrabster crossing was 1.5hrs?
Precisely, and we are lucky that we do have a choice about which route to take.
the crossing is advertised as 1.5 hours, but can take as little as 1 hour and 10 minutes dependent on weather and tide conditions - same will be true of the gills bay ferry i am sure.
NickInTheNorth
06-Sep-11, 14:02
1) yes, but when it is paid i do not know (as in an ongoing payment or a total at the beginning of the contract)
2) no
So given that a private company can operate a ferry service between Caithness and Orkney I cannot understand why it is necessary for what is effectively a state owned company to receive a subsidy to run a service between Caithness and Orkney.
I am not advocating scrapping the Scrabster route, but surely it needs to be looked at very closely to see why this route needs the subsidy and the Gills service does not.
Your havering Golach ;) the pier was never washed away! The linkspan was damaged in a storm when Orkney Island Ferries were operating a crossing but since then an awful lot of work has been going on to upgrade the facilities and infrastructure at Gills.
Oh I am sorry Duncansby, I was under the illusion that the so called linkspan was part of the infrastructure/pier and it was washed away and was recovered somewhere about Wick. Put it down to age, my memory fails me at times.
Tugmistress
06-Sep-11, 14:34
So given that a private company can operate a ferry service between Caithness and Orkney I cannot understand why it is necessary for what is effectively a state owned company to receive a subsidy to run a service between Caithness and Orkney.
I am not advocating scrapping the Scrabster route, but surely it needs to be looked at very closely to see why this route needs the subsidy and the Gills service does not.
ok my limited knowledge now puts me out of this discussion as i don't understand the politics or reasons so i will leave someone else to answer this :)
It would be great to challenge the Pentland Hero and give him the subsidy. Then see if he can deliver free fairs.
orkneycadian
07-Sep-11, 01:50
it's not really that much faster, maybe 15 minutes ish, yes it's cheaper in summer season but when i priced up for a car and trailer in winter season gills was £1.50 cheaper
Not sure how that works - Comparing Northlinks Low rates and Pentland Ferries all round rates (thouht they use to have winter rates too? Never mind....)
Adult passenger - Northlink £14.60, Pentland Ferries £13.00
Car - Northlink - £46.10, Pentland Ferries £30
Trailer - Hard one - No online prices showing - Lets assume its a 6m caravan which is the closest they both publish - Northlink £51.00, Pentland Ferries - £30. Possible that Northlink would charge a 6m trailer as a 6m car, in which case its £46.10
Total costs 1 way - Northlink - £111.70 Pentland Ferries - £73.00
Where does the £1.50 difference come in? Was this taking into account Northlink staff discount?
i don't know enough about all the bits to comment on environmentally friendly etc
Fortunately, some has worked it out already!
http://www.pentlandferries.co.uk/environmentally_friendly.asp
(http://www.pentlandferries.co.uk/environmentally_friendly.asp)
It will be interesting to see what the criteria for tendering requires - After all, much of the issues with the present subsidised service originate from the spefication in the tender - For example, it requires a 1.5 hour crossing time, despite a very long (by comparison) route - By necessity, fuel consumption will be high, because thats whats needed to meet the specification. If the new specification still calls for a 1.5 hour crossing time AND to be run Scrabster to Stromness, then it would be hard to see how the costs (and therefore the subsidy) can be reduced, irrespective of the operating company.
Tugmistress
07-Sep-11, 06:51
no it did not include any discount, and i can quite assure you when i gave vehicle description and trailer description to both offices over the phone the difference was £1.50 :)
i've read that link from the gills website and to say it seems very biased is an understatement.
orkneycadian
07-Sep-11, 10:34
Have Northlink published any of their own fuel consumption data? I have scoured their webpage and can not find anything. The only reference to green issues is the likes of this....
http://www.northlinkferries.co.uk/Default.aspx.LocID-00gnew3bl.RefLocID-00g087.htm
(http://www.northlinkferries.co.uk/Default.aspx.LocID-00gnew3bl.RefLocID-00g087.htm)
.....which is very similar to the ad campaigns they have been running recently and highlights that they recycle glass bottles and other ship produced waste etc. No mention of fuel consumption. If some Northlink published data could found, that would certainly "unbias" the stats given on the Pentland Ferries Webpage.
Although I cannot find any data on an obviously Northlink site, this link has similar figures given by Professor Alf Baird of Napier University...
http://www.scottish-islands-federation.co.uk/ferries/ferry-reviw.htm
(http://www.scottish-islands-federation.co.uk/ferries/ferry-reviw.htm)
.... He seems to give a similar ratio of fuel consumptions for each crossing. I guess whats needed is the Northlink published figures so that it can be seen unbiasedly, though I guess it must be close to stretching the laws of physics if they can show that the Hamavoe uses less fuel than the Pentalina.
Now that catamaran technology has been shown to be viable in the Pentland Firth, I wonder if the new tender criteria will take that into account and perhaps suggest the vessels on the route (Srabster / Stromness at least) be upgraded to more efficient ships to reduce the fuel burden? The ships on the route are now 10 years old - Past the time many folk change their car at for a newer, more efficient one. If they are only leased, then it could be a good opportunity to drop that lease, and take on a new lease with the supplier of more efficient ships? Knowing the Scottish Government though, back in 2001 they will have signed a 99 year lease or some other unfeasibly long duration that ties them into the present supplier for a ridiculously long period of time!
The Hamnavoe has been upgraded for fuel efficiency, not sure how long ago but within the last few years although I am sure that some one will have the answer. I seem to remember that there is alot of information if you pull up the ships specification but I may be wrong on that.
It would also be interesting to find out how many sailings per annum are cancelled due to adverse weather conditions by both routes.
The Hamnavoe has a choice of routes to Stromness but I don't think The Pentalina has much choice in getting to St Margaret's Hope.
Tugmistress
07-Sep-11, 13:47
As lizz has stated it has had an upgrade for fuel efficiency, i do not know the current figures, but BEFORE the changes were made it was 2t of fuel per crossing on average (more in heavy seas and less in flat seas).
sorry that's the only info i have.
orkneycadian
07-Sep-11, 18:55
They must have kept that one quiet! Would have expected to hear about it on the news. I guess it would need to be a good improvement to get to the same CO2/car and litres/car figure that the catamaran achieves.
Orkneycadian are you a share holder in Pentland Ferries? You are pretty robust in your condemnation of Northlink. In fact it seems to be very near hatred of them. Have they done you a wrong at sometime? Maybe you forgot your ID and were not allowed to sail!
As lizz has stated it has had an upgrade for fuel efficiency, i do not know the current figures, but BEFORE the changes were made it was 2t of fuel per crossing on average (more in heavy seas and less in flat seas).
sorry that's the only info i have.
An upgrade for fuel efficiency means nothing I am afraid.
Did they reduce the consumption to 1t per trip or 1.999t per trip, either way it is an improvement but quite a span in the range.
At 2t a trip that is quite some fuel being consumed in a year isnt it?
orkneycadian
08-Sep-11, 10:14
Orkneycadian are you a share holder in Pentland Ferries?
Nope, but if they ever did float shares, I do think they would be a good buy! To have had shares in them in 2001 and seeing what they could be worth now would probably just make me cry!
This thread is pretty much the way discussion is going over here, and aims to explore all the possible aspects of what could happen with the tender next year. Obviously, there are a lot of eyes on Pentland Ferries, Gills Bay and St Maragarets Hope. In fact, Stromness seems to be petrified that the route will move away from them - We have had councillors on Radio Orkney imploring how bad it would be for Stromness if the route was moved elsewhere.
Comparisons are being done of everything from fares to fuel consumption, and these I am bringing up in here. That Northlink always come out looking worse in comparisons of costs, running costs or subsidies required shows that there is a lot to consider in the tender renewal next year, and there will be lots of eyes on it to see what the outcome could be!
I am interested to hear of the reduction in fuel consumption by the present operator and would very much like to hear what the magnitude of the improvement is so that we travellers can make an informed judgement on which vessel to use so as to have the least impact on our carbon feetprint (I have to be careful about my carbon footprints these days after that unfortunate incident when I said I would sweep the lum myself and save a few pound!)
In relation to fuel economy, we may learn that the route is to be tendered with all new fuel efficient ships - Northlink may win that tender, and be back with all new fuel efficient catamarans now that it has been shown that they are worthy of the Pentland Firth!
The retendering is coming at a time when everyone is trying to save money, Scottish Government included, and it is of great interest to all what the outcome may be. Stromness folk are obviously concerned, and I was wondering if the same level of concern was being expressed across the water in Thurso and Scrabster. It appears not, except for 1 poster worrying about the jobs of 30 employed by the present operator, and another poster worried the Causewaymire might lose trunk road status!
Common sense says that it will be of more concern to Orcadians than to the people of Caithness as ths side of the water does not have to rely on sea routes for essential supplies.
I would think that fuel efficiency would come into the equation when the tenders are submitted but it should also be the reliability of the service that is of prime concern.
It would be great to challenge the Pentland Hero and give him the subsidy. Then see if he can deliver free fairs.
Gills Bay New Town anybody?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Hamnavoe
This link might be of interest, have not yet found out when there was the upgrade with reference to fuel consumption.
orkneycadian
09-Sep-11, 18:16
A rather cryptic news report on the Orcadian website this afternoon under the heading
NorthLink forced to cancel tour bookings (http://www.orcadian.co.uk/2011/09/northlink-forced-to-cancel-tour-bookings/)NorthLink Ferries have cancelled taking bookings from tour groups hoping to visit Orkney and Shetland in 2013 in a decision described as “a real blow to many tourism businesses in Orkney and Shetland”, by Orkney MSP Liam McArthur.
The decision by the Scottish Government to offer the next contract for lifeline ferry services to the Northern Isles in two lots has led to NorthLink having to review its current tour group offering to coach operators.
The company has already declared that, subject to the detailed provisions of the contracts which have yet to be published, it intends to bid for both the Pentland Firth and Aberdeen routes.
However, due to the uncertainty which results from the decision to tender the Pentland Firth route separately, the company has decided that it would be commercially difficult for it to continue to offer, and to take, advance group tour bookings on the current basis for the Scrabster – Stromness service and for those to Shetland via the Pentland Firth crossing.
I can understand reticence to take on any tour bookings the other side of the contract re-issue, but this uncertainty only seems to relate to bookings over the Scrabster / Stromness route or to Shetland via the Pentland Firth (?)
Bluff? Rhetoric? Strategy? Conceding defeat early? Baffles me! One imagines that whatever happens, there will be a provision to ensure continuity of bookings, just the same as there will be for continuity of employment (as in the TUPE arrangement when Northlink took over from P&O)
northener
09-Sep-11, 19:23
A rather cryptic news report on the Orcadian website this afternoon under the heading
NorthLink forced to cancel tour bookings (http://www.orcadian.co.uk/2011/09/northlink-forced-to-cancel-tour-bookings/)NorthLink Ferries have cancelled taking bookings from tour groups hoping to visit Orkney and Shetland in 2013 in a decision described as “a real blow to many tourism businesses in Orkney and Shetland”, by Orkney MSP Liam McArthur.
The decision by the Scottish Government to offer the next contract for lifeline ferry services to the Northern Isles in two lots has led to NorthLink having to review its current tour group offering to coach operators.
The company has already declared that, subject to the detailed provisions of the contracts which have yet to be published, it intends to bid for both the Pentland Firth and Aberdeen routes.
However, due to the uncertainty which results from the decision to tender the Pentland Firth route separately, the company has decided that it would be commercially difficult for it to continue to offer, and to take, advance group tour bookings on the current basis for the Scrabster – Stromness service and for those to Shetland via the Pentland Firth crossing.
I can understand reticence to take on any tour bookings the other side of the contract re-issue, but this uncertainty only seems to relate to bookings over the Scrabster / Stromness route or to Shetland via the Pentland Firth (?)
Bluff? Rhetoric? Strategy? Conceding defeat early? Baffles me! One imagines that whatever happens, there will be a provision to ensure continuity of bookings, just the same as there will be for continuity of employment (as in the TUPE arrangement when Northlink took over from P&O)
The Orkney report isn't worded as well as the version I read on a Shetland site (which I can't find now:roll:).
Tour operators are not happy that they cannot get any prices out of Northlink (who are reluctant to arrive at fare prices for two years in advance for a contract they haven't got yet), the tour operators need to be planning for 2013 now to present their customers in advance with package prices. I would say that it applies equally to the Aberdeen - Lerwick run...although they could be hedging their bets in case they don't get the Scrabby - Stromness run.....
We live in interesting times....
Scrabby...
It's pronounced "Screpster."
Surely Northlink would be in breach of contract if they set fairs and arranged to service the tour operators and then failed to provide if their current position alters.
Another example of how little thought goes into these matters when The Scottish Parliament gets involved.
orkneycadian
23-Sep-11, 23:08
So the tender document says the Pentland Firth route must run from Scrabster to Stromness! :roll:
No surprise there then! First move to avoid Scottish Government egg on face by the contract being bid from ports that have a shorter route across the Firth!
Now, wonder what odds the bookies will give me in the morning of status quo being maintained.....
witchschild
24-Sep-11, 15:14
have used both routes over the years and much prefer the gills bay-south ronaldsay option for speed, price and helpfulness of staff. Stromness is scared of losing the terminal cause the OIC are talking of getting all ferries into Kirkwall since they built the posh new pier. Think it would be good for the island and caithness if there were still the 2 ferries but with a level playing field so each or neither got money from the government to run the service. Also remember that the gills bay boat also goes down to invergordon to pick up freight when the scrabster boat doesn't sail thus keeping the islanders supplied with basic commodities. I'd call that committment a life line service.
I once spoke to a close associate of Mr Banks many years ago and he intimated that; "if the Scrabster boat sails without any passengers, it still makes a profit" - whether that's true or not I don't know.
I personally support the Gills ferry, run totally without government support i.e. 'our' money - I seem to remember that Northlink had a total amount paid by the Scottish Executive Transport Group (SETG) of £63 million in 2005?.
As #61 above, I like it for speed, price and helpfulness...
orkneycadian
03-Oct-11, 22:44
How come, the forecasting for tomorrow can suggest it will be too windy to sail at 06:30 or 08:45, but OK at 0900 and 1200, but too windy again at 1100 and 13:15?
Tuesday 4th October - 06:30 and 11:00 sailings from Stromness, and 08:45 and 13:15 sailings from Scrabster, have been cancelled and replaced by combined sailings departing Stromness at 09:00 and Scrabster at 12:00
Or am I just being cynical in thinking its a good way to cancel some underbooked sailings, save fuel, and blame it on the weather?
Tugmistress
03-Oct-11, 22:48
Considering she was about half an hour late tonight after leaving on time due to the weather, and there will be a bigger swell for her to contend with in the morning, combining 2 sailings gets some over early and some over late.
you also have to consider all the nanny state rulings to stop people hurting themselves and suing.
you also have to consider us silly so and so's on the pier that are not overweight and get blown along with no control when the wind tunnel effect takes place ;)
orkneycadian
03-Oct-11, 22:53
you also have to consider all the nanny state rulings to stop people hurting themselves and suing.
you also have to consider us silly so and so's on the pier that are not overweight and get blown along with no control when the wind tunnel effect takes place ;)
In which case its either dangerous, or its not. If its dangerous, then there should be no sailings. Its a good job its not a lifeline service that we are depending on for our rations! ;)
Tugmistress
03-Oct-11, 23:03
and the skipper has to make a decision in time to let passengers know (if they have left a contact number when booking) which he does going by the forecast they receive and he has to think of swell direction and how that will affect passenger safety, wind during berthing both for the ship and shore staff safety, and probably a whole host of other concerns - so what would you rather he do? sail combining two sailings to get people/goods into and out of orkney during full daylight hours to maximise safety of passengers and staff or not sail at all?
orkneycadian
03-Oct-11, 23:10
I ken it gets a bit darker after the 21st of September in these northern parts, but theres still plenty daylight at 1445 - And at least 4 hours thereafter!
If safety is compromised, then cancellation should be the order of the day. We wont starve for a day or 2! I just cant see how its not safe to sail at 0630 or 0845, safe at 0900, not safe at 1100, safe at 1200 and not safe at 1315 again! Must be pretty accurate forecasting you are giving them!
Tugmistress
03-Oct-11, 23:18
ok, for the ship to leave in the morning from stromness on time it would mean the loading being done during the hours of darkness, if it sails at 9 then it is loading in full daylight. sailing at 9am it will arrive approximately 11.45 given current weather conditions for safety sailing slightly slower than normal. turn around time is roughtly 45 minutes..... this will be dependent on number of passengers coming on and off by foot if it is deemed too dangerous for the gangway to be put on this side as they will have to diembark and embark via the car deck, in which case vehicles are not allowed on the car deck or ramp when there are foot passengers. this can delay by up to 15 minutes. Reverse loading (which it may well be) also takes longer than just driving on with the trailers. ship sails at noon from scrabster and arrives in stromness just about 13.45 - unloading takes place - can you tell me how it would schedule another sailing to make the three sailings in one day for it to run to timetable by leaving stromness at 16.45?
and no they are not getting a forecast from me lol
orkneycadian
03-Oct-11, 23:24
It takes 2 hours to load? Light at the back of 7 these days, so loading from then to 9 is a lot of loading! And 2 hours 45 for a crossing?
Good job we're not depending on it!
Tugmistress
03-Oct-11, 23:26
sorry for confusion, my mistake above, no, in these weather conditions 1 hour and 45 minutes ish for a crossing, you do the math, for loading to start (usually 45 minutes to one hour) in full day light, the crew to get their legal breaks, how would you get three sailings in one day for tomorrow?
ps the answer is not possible!
You tell him tugs........looking at how the swell was rising today and the high tides it would be folly to risk crossings that were not essential.
Tugmistress
04-Oct-11, 00:00
it's more a case of doing sailings safely for all concerned, and to combine two in to one and then have one sailing on time will still get everything across that needs to go in whichever direction, and during these conditions daylight is safer than darkness.
Mystical Potato Head
04-Oct-11, 00:04
You tell him tugs........looking at how the swell was rising today and the high tides it would be folly to risk crossings that were not essential.
They've no need to depend on it.They have Tescos,i think its been mentioned before in the passing and when they run out they've got all that wintering geese,again i think that has maybe been mentioned once or dozen times,again just in the passing of course.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.