Carryfast:
The point was that ‘past times’ would certainly have mean’t no problems whatsoever in re routing Calais bound ships to Ostende and/or Zeebrugge for example.
Just like current times when they were all routed to Boulgne. You never listen do you?
I don’t think all the aggravation and load on the limited alternatives left caused by the recent ‘issues’ at Calais fit the description of no problems whatsoever.
The obvious question being that all the bs excuses concerning the limitations at Boulogne obviously wouldn’t have applied at Zeebrugge.So why didn’t they re route there instead.
Well they had no problems docking at Boulogne. So no, they had no problems shipping to a different port. Boulogne is a lot closer to Dover than Zeebrugge. Zeebrugge wouldn’t have been able to take passengers back either, no way of ticketing passengers, no way of carrying out checks, no way of checking passports etc etc. You know that if they could get the vehicles off the ferry they could have put them back on again dont you? Or did you think they jumped the ramp? They could get to Boulogne and back in the time a one way trip to Zeebrugge is over. You’re clutching at straws and making things up again old bean
So, how many ferry crossings is ‘reasonable’ for a tourist?
switchlogic:
Very good point, hadn’t thought about the ramps… Very few ships get plonked on new routes with no modifications tho. Also proves my point that ferries have been built as Dover Calais specific for a long time, it’s not a recent phenomenon as Carryfast seems to think. After all all the Transeuropa ships were relics from a past time!
The point was that ‘past times’ would certainly have mean’t no problems whatsoever in re routing Calais bound ships to Ostende and/or Zeebrugge for example.
Dover /Calais ships running from Zeebrugge did have problems - it took an age to discharge and reload as Zeebrugge had a single deck linkspan and the boats were double deck loading.
The major contributing factor to the Herald sinking was because it was ballasted nose down so the linkspan could load the top garage deck.
switchlogic:
Very good point, hadn’t thought about the ramps… Very few ships get plonked on new routes with no modifications tho. Also proves my point that ferries have been built as Dover Calais specific for a long time, it’s not a recent phenomenon as Carryfast seems to think. After all all the Transeuropa ships were relics from a past time!
The point was that ‘past times’ would certainly have mean’t no problems whatsoever in re routing Calais bound ships to Ostende and/or Zeebrugge for example.
Dover /Calais ships running from Zeebrugge did have problems - it took an age to discharge and reload as Zeebrugge had a single deck linkspan and the boats were double deck loading.
The major contributing factor to the Herald sinking was because it was ballasted nose down so the linkspan could load the top garage deck.
Hurrah! Someone who knows what he’s talking about!
robroy:
Off topic for a sec, have you started your new job yet Luke, if so how is it going?
I have. Spent last week in Ireland in the office, tomorrow off round the Midlands in my little van looking somewhere for Virginia Logistics UK to live! Exciting times.
(I’m hoping to bring the font of all knowledge on board as a consultant. What do ya say Carryfast? I’ll pay ya £12.50 a day and you’ll get an Austin Allegro company car. Play your cards right and I may even chuck in a Fray Bentos pie for lunch on Fridays)
raymundo:
I thought it was the AB who’s job it was to close the bow door was ■■■■■■ and asleep ■■
That wouldn’t alone have caused it. The Spirit of Free Enterprise (Pride of Kent) made it all the way to Dover with the bow doors open previous to the Herald disaster. The Herald sank because it was ballasted down and had the doors open.
Yes and because she was bow down it acted like a scoop as she picked up speed and also what they call ‘squat’ ie interaction with shallow water that increases a vessels draft the faster she goes, link that with the free surface effect with hundreds of tons of water sloshing around on the car deck and stability goes out of the window and over she goes.
switchlogic:
Well they had no problems docking at Boulogne. So no, they had no problems shipping to a different port. Boulogne is a lot closer to Dover than Zeebrugge. Zeebrugge wouldn’t have been able to take passengers back either, no way of ticketing passengers, no way of carrying out checks, no way of checking passports etc etc. You know that if they could get the vehicles off the ferry they could have put them back on again dont you? Or did you think they jumped the ramp? They could get to Boulogne and back in the time a one way trip to Zeebrugge is over. You’re clutching at straws and making things up again old bean
Zeebrugge has no problems with processing incoming/outgoing traffic to/from Hull so why should it have any problems doing same for Dover ?.As for ‘ticketing’ why would they need to re ticket re routed Dover-Calais or Calais Dover.IE which part of ‘re routed’ by unforeseen circumstances,to/from a port already used by UK ferry traffic,so no passport checking issues,or no need for any ticketing changes required,don’t you understand.
switchlogic:
Well they had no problems docking at Boulogne. So no, they had no problems shipping to a different port. Boulogne is a lot closer to Dover than Zeebrugge. Zeebrugge wouldn’t have been able to take passengers back either, no way of ticketing passengers, no way of carrying out checks, no way of checking passports etc etc. You know that if they could get the vehicles off the ferry they could have put them back on again dont you? Or did you think they jumped the ramp? They could get to Boulogne and back in the time a one way trip to Zeebrugge is over. You’re clutching at straws and making things up again old bean
Zeebrugge has no problems with processing incoming/outgoing traffic to/from Hull so why should it have any problems doing same for Dover ?.As for ‘ticketing’ why would they need to re ticket re routed Dover-Calais or Calais Dover.IE which part of ‘re routed’ by unforeseen circumstances,to/from a port already used by UK ferry traffic,so no passport checking issues,or no need for any ticketing changes required,don’t you understand.
Ummmm… Because the Hull boats only have one door right at the back, this is rather compatible with a single level linkspan. Dover Calais boats have 4 doors on 2 levels!
switchlogic:
Well they had no problems docking at Boulogne. So no, they had no problems shipping to a different port. Boulogne is a lot closer to Dover than Zeebrugge. Zeebrugge wouldn’t have been able to take passengers back either, no way of ticketing passengers, no way of carrying out checks, no way of checking passports etc etc. You know that if they could get the vehicles off the ferry they could have put them back on again dont you? Or did you think they jumped the ramp? They could get to Boulogne and back in the time a one way trip to Zeebrugge is over. You’re clutching at straws and making things up again old bean
Zeebrugge has no problems with processing incoming/outgoing traffic to/from Hull so why should it have any problems doing same for Dover ?.As for ‘ticketing’ why would they need to re ticket re routed Dover-Calais or Calais Dover.IE which part of ‘re routed’ by unforeseen circumstances,to/from a port already used by UK ferry traffic,so no passport checking issues,or no need for any ticketing changes required,don’t you understand.
Showing your huge inexperience here. You clearly don’t know much about ferries or how the Dover Calais route works so I think we best leave this discussion be. I could tell you but you won’t listen. After all you were the man who thought he could drive round Paris at 65 mph and make the 1700 ferry you’d been ‘booked on’ out of Calais a while back. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about
So, how many ferry crossings constitutes your ‘reasonable experience’ of ferries? For the third time of asking
Last time I went around the Periphique or however it’s spelt I was lucky to average 6.5 mph but for ole CF al the Frogs would have moved out of his way …
switchlogic:
Well they had no problems docking at Boulogne. So no, they had no problems shipping to a different port. Boulogne is a lot closer to Dover than Zeebrugge. Zeebrugge wouldn’t have been able to take passengers back either, no way of ticketing passengers, no way of carrying out checks, no way of checking passports etc etc. You know that if they could get the vehicles off the ferry they could have put them back on again dont you? Or did you think they jumped the ramp? They could get to Boulogne and back in the time a one way trip to Zeebrugge is over. You’re clutching at straws and making things up again old bean
Zeebrugge has no problems with processing incoming/outgoing traffic to/from Hull so why should it have any problems doing same for Dover ?.As for ‘ticketing’ why would they need to re ticket re routed Dover-Calais or Calais Dover.IE which part of ‘re routed’ by unforeseen circumstances,to/from a port already used by UK ferry traffic,so no passport checking issues,or no need for any ticketing changes required,don’t you understand.
Showing your huge inexperience here. You clearly don’t know much about ferries or how the Dover Calais route works so I think we best leave this discussion be. I could tell you but you won’t listen. After all you were the man who thought he could drive round Paris at 65 mph and make the 1700 ferry you’d been ‘booked on’ out of Calais a while back. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about
So, how many ferry crossings constitutes your ‘reasonable experience’ of ferries? For the third time of asking
My ‘reasonable experience’ of using ferries goes far enough to know that re routing a double deck loading design to a single deck dock means that they’ll need to compromise on the load plan.But that’s still better than what Boulogne seemed to offer.
As for a multi deck loading design that doesn’t allow for single deck ramp use that’s obviously another design flaw in the idea of a ‘Calais specific’ design.That needs two links on the dock.Instead of,or in that case also,providing ramps for the different garage decks in the ship itself then it can go anywhere.
Carryfast, you really have no idea have you, that daft idea of yours of designing a vessel that on the very rare occasion might have to go somewhere else that have a different way of loading so must accommodate that possibility is laughable. I have been involved with shipowners most of my working life and I’ve yet to meet one who says ‘OK lads, once in a blue moon we may need that so here’s a million quid so go stick it in the plans’. Costings are worked out to the last penny and if they can save another, believe me, they will.
A few years ago I was acting marine superintendent to two new buildings in the Damen yard in Rotterdam and there were no provision in the budget for deck working lights, slight oversight maybe but to get the yard to fit them was a major task, maybe because the ships were to be employed in the dangerous cargo work with the Uranium work from S. Africa to Sete in France and they had to be explosion proof or whatever I cant recall but the hurdles that had to be jumped seemed enormous, and that was just for lights so can you imagine the scenario ‘’’ Lets put an extra internal ramp on the off chance we might need it’‘’ Der don’t think so !!
raymundo:
Carryfast, you really have no idea have you, that daft idea of yours of designing a vessel that on the very rare occasion might have to go somewhere else that have a different way of loading so must accommodate that possibility is laughable. I Lets put an extra internal ramp on the off chance we might need it’‘’ Der don’t think so !!
That would obviously depend on some calculations as to the potential costs of having a multi deck load design that’s dependent on a multi link dock design.As opposed to the flexibilty provided by a design that isn’t.Factoring in future re sale and the type of disruption which we’ve seen over the thing’s working life.
