Future uncertain for Weymouth as Condor to buy new super-ferry after licence agreement

Future uncertain for Weymouth as Condor to buy new super-ferry after licence agreement

Future uncertain for Weymouth as Condor to buy new super-ferry after licence agreement

First published in News
Last updated

CONDOR Ferries will buy a new super-ferry after it was given the green light to apply for a 10-year licence to operate services between the UK and the Channel Islands.

But the future of Condor in Weymouth is still in doubt as the council doesn't have the money to upgrade a berth.

Condor says it will make 'significant performance commitments to the Islands' after States of Jersey and States of Guernsey reached an agreement on the licence.

Talks have been going on to secure it for more than a year.

This certainty will unlock funding from Condor's investors so it can purchase a new high speed ship, the Austal 102, which will replace its existing ferries.

Weymouth and Portland Borough Council needs to secure around £10m to upgrade a suitable berth so the ferry can dock in Weymouth.

“The 102 will offer increased reliability, capacity and comfort,” said CEO of Condor Ferries, James Fulford.

He added: “We have not asked our Islands, or anyone else, for a subsidy for this purchase. "However, in order to make this significant investment, we have always said we need the certainty of a new operating licence.

"I am delighted that today, we are a step closer to achieving that certainty and investing in a new ship which will secure the future of high speed ferry services for our Islands.”

Comments (44)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:52am Tue 15 Jul 14

The Fish says...

WPBC have already admitted having ten million plus sat in reserve - where is this reserve - how much interest are we getting - when are they intending to use this reserve? Why not invest this reserve into a new berth required for the new vessel, then charge Condor mooring fees (how much do they pay presently) of a fixed amount per year for the next 10 years (recooperating+inter
est the ten million invested)?
WPBC have already admitted having ten million plus sat in reserve - where is this reserve - how much interest are we getting - when are they intending to use this reserve? Why not invest this reserve into a new berth required for the new vessel, then charge Condor mooring fees (how much do they pay presently) of a fixed amount per year for the next 10 years (recooperating+inter est the ten million invested)? The Fish
  • Score: -6

9:03am Tue 15 Jul 14

dave.flowers says...

WPBC has already approached government about a £10 million load/grant and has been turned down.
All we can say is "Bye Bye Sealink"
WPBC has already approached government about a £10 million load/grant and has been turned down. All we can say is "Bye Bye Sealink" dave.flowers
  • Score: 22

9:19am Tue 15 Jul 14

common cence says...

The Fish wrote:
WPBC have already admitted having ten million plus sat in reserve - where is this reserve - how much interest are we getting - when are they intending to use this reserve? Why not invest this reserve into a new berth required for the new vessel, then charge Condor mooring fees (how much do they pay presently) of a fixed amount per year for the next 10 years (recooperating+inter

est the ten million invested)?
The reserves are for the FAT CATS pensions you should know you are not to touch that ,,,,,,,,
[quote][p][bold]The Fish[/bold] wrote: WPBC have already admitted having ten million plus sat in reserve - where is this reserve - how much interest are we getting - when are they intending to use this reserve? Why not invest this reserve into a new berth required for the new vessel, then charge Condor mooring fees (how much do they pay presently) of a fixed amount per year for the next 10 years (recooperating+inter est the ten million invested)?[/p][/quote]The reserves are for the FAT CATS pensions you should know you are not to touch that ,,,,,,,, common cence
  • Score: 12

10:05am Tue 15 Jul 14

cosmick says...

I think that Crowdfunding is a possible way forward either by Condor or WPBC.
I think that Crowdfunding is a possible way forward either by Condor or WPBC. cosmick
  • Score: -3

10:06am Tue 15 Jul 14

arlbergbahn says...

Well, we already knew all that, the echo has been making headline stories of it for months. Anyway, it seems that there are practical reasons why the current berth wouldn't be suitable, so they may as well accept (unless they do decide to keep one of the existing craft running as a back-up service from Weymouth) that it will probably have to go from Poole, since clearly building a whole new berth is completely out of the question. C'est la vie. Now perhaps they can concentrate their minds on deciding how best to redevelop the ferry terminal site for some other purpose (no, not car parking).
Well, we already knew all that, the echo has been making headline stories of it for months. Anyway, it seems that there are practical reasons why the current berth wouldn't be suitable, so they may as well accept (unless they do decide to keep one of the existing craft running as a back-up service from Weymouth) that it will probably have to go from Poole, since clearly building a whole new berth is completely out of the question. C'est la vie. Now perhaps they can concentrate their minds on deciding how best to redevelop the ferry terminal site for some other purpose (no, not car parking). arlbergbahn
  • Score: 18

10:17am Tue 15 Jul 14

heartfelt says...

As the island states have left the door open for any other shipping company that can offer a similar level of service to Condor,within this 10 year licence to submit an application, perhaps this is the way forward for Weymouth who should now begin looking for another operator without further delay.
As the island states have left the door open for any other shipping company that can offer a similar level of service to Condor,within this 10 year licence to submit an application, perhaps this is the way forward for Weymouth who should now begin looking for another operator without further delay. heartfelt
  • Score: -2

10:17am Tue 15 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

That is the thing, that space is much more valuable without the Ferry Terminal. Its prime site, it should NEVER be a Car Park. If we do find the money and pamper to their every need, then because it's a bigger ferry, then of course there are going to be more cars clogging up the town. At some point we have to say, sorry but you have outgrown us, nice knowing you.
That is the thing, that space is much more valuable without the Ferry Terminal. Its prime site, it should NEVER be a Car Park. If we do find the money and pamper to their every need, then because it's a bigger ferry, then of course there are going to be more cars clogging up the town. At some point we have to say, sorry but you have outgrown us, nice knowing you. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 27

10:20am Tue 15 Jul 14

shy talk says...

A Business Plan for Weymouth Harbour 2014 – 2019 and beyond.

https://www.dorsetfo
ryou.com/media.jsp?m
ediaid=190190&filety
pe=pdf

Makes interesting reading. Over the past years revenues from the harbour have been going into the councils general fund. Then when it all went wrong they decided to ring fence the revenues. Talk about shutting the door after the horse has bolted.
A Business Plan for Weymouth Harbour 2014 – 2019 and beyond. https://www.dorsetfo ryou.com/media.jsp?m ediaid=190190&filety pe=pdf Makes interesting reading. Over the past years revenues from the harbour have been going into the councils general fund. Then when it all went wrong they decided to ring fence the revenues. Talk about shutting the door after the horse has bolted. shy talk
  • Score: 31

10:24am Tue 15 Jul 14

burgerboy says...

arlbergbahn wrote:
Well, we already knew all that, the echo has been making headline stories of it for months. Anyway, it seems that there are practical reasons why the current berth wouldn't be suitable, so they may as well accept (unless they do decide to keep one of the existing craft running as a back-up service from Weymouth) that it will probably have to go from Poole, since clearly building a whole new berth is completely out of the question. C'est la vie. Now perhaps they can concentrate their minds on deciding how best to redevelop the ferry terminal site for some other purpose (no, not car parking).
As they say POOLE is a beautiful place.........
Welcome Condor's new super ferry with open arms,plenty of room to operate in Poole Harbour and they are about to dredge the channels for larger traffic anyway,
[quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote: Well, we already knew all that, the echo has been making headline stories of it for months. Anyway, it seems that there are practical reasons why the current berth wouldn't be suitable, so they may as well accept (unless they do decide to keep one of the existing craft running as a back-up service from Weymouth) that it will probably have to go from Poole, since clearly building a whole new berth is completely out of the question. C'est la vie. Now perhaps they can concentrate their minds on deciding how best to redevelop the ferry terminal site for some other purpose (no, not car parking).[/p][/quote]As they say POOLE is a beautiful place......... Welcome Condor's new super ferry with open arms,plenty of room to operate in Poole Harbour and they are about to dredge the channels for larger traffic anyway, burgerboy
  • Score: 37

10:35am Tue 15 Jul 14

Caption Sensible says...

I see the white flag has gone up from some already...

Be radical, go to the City and invite private investment to completely rebuild the whole site, and yes which would include a modern, larger ferry terminal.

As it stands at the moment the whole site is an abysmal failure and represents Weymouth at its worst.
I see the white flag has gone up from some already... Be radical, go to the City and invite private investment to completely rebuild the whole site, and yes which would include a modern, larger ferry terminal. As it stands at the moment the whole site is an abysmal failure and represents Weymouth at its worst. Caption Sensible
  • Score: -3

10:41am Tue 15 Jul 14

Preston North End says...

Who likes the noise from the Condor's generators?

Here's what the Harbour Management Board had to say about it late last year:

"Regarding the Condor noise issue, the agreement to provide a shore-side generator to plug the ship in when it is alongside had to be broken because the Weymouth and Poole ships had to be swapped over for engineering reasons. This occurred at the end of September just when the generator was going to be provided. The 2 ships, although looking similar, are very different internally and so the work completed to
certify changes to fit the shore power supply cannot be swapped easily between the vessels. Additionally there are costs associated with preparing the ships. Currently there are ongoing discussions between Condor Ferries and the Council regarding future operational agreements which cover ships, berths and facilities. Part of the
discussion includes the provision of shore power. Because of these discussions, coupled with the costs to provide the temporary shore-side generator solution, Condor are not currently prepared to go ahead with the provision of the shore-side generator and the associated connections to the ship. W&PBC are now collecting data from some residents to measure the true extent of the noise issue, which will
then give more facts-based evidence."

So it's something to do with cost of providing two different kinds of plug.
Who likes the noise from the Condor's generators? Here's what the Harbour Management Board had to say about it late last year: "Regarding the Condor noise issue, the agreement to provide a shore-side generator to plug the ship in when it is alongside had to be broken because the Weymouth and Poole ships had to be swapped over for engineering reasons. This occurred at the end of September just when the generator was going to be provided. The 2 ships, although looking similar, are very different internally and so the work completed to certify changes to fit the shore power supply cannot be swapped easily between the vessels. Additionally there are costs associated with preparing the ships. Currently there are ongoing discussions between Condor Ferries and the Council regarding future operational agreements which cover ships, berths and facilities. Part of the discussion includes the provision of shore power. Because of these discussions, coupled with the costs to provide the temporary shore-side generator solution, Condor are not currently prepared to go ahead with the provision of the shore-side generator and the associated connections to the ship. W&PBC are now collecting data from some residents to measure the true extent of the noise issue, which will then give more facts-based evidence." So it's something to do with cost of providing two different kinds of plug. Preston North End
  • Score: 6

10:50am Tue 15 Jul 14

FerryFan says...

I was just cockahoop at the news of the new ferry - and am really happy Mr Fulford has got some good news on it after all his efforts, news which has been dampened by the incident with the Commodore Clipper which could have been a lot worse than it was! Whether Poole or Weymouth, it is a great result that the company has got the licence, and they can now buy this new ferry and can continue to operate to the Islands. Whether from Poole or Weymouth. Good luck to them whichever port they operate from. I have to sit on the fence in preferred port really, as I am in the Poole area but come from the Weymouth area, so I have to try to be non biased. Congratulations to Mr Fulford for getting the licence anyway, if it is him I need to congratulate, lol!!
I was just cockahoop at the news of the new ferry - and am really happy Mr Fulford has got some good news on it after all his efforts, news which has been dampened by the incident with the Commodore Clipper which could have been a lot worse than it was! Whether Poole or Weymouth, it is a great result that the company has got the licence, and they can now buy this new ferry and can continue to operate to the Islands. Whether from Poole or Weymouth. Good luck to them whichever port they operate from. I have to sit on the fence in preferred port really, as I am in the Poole area but come from the Weymouth area, so I have to try to be non biased. Congratulations to Mr Fulford for getting the licence anyway, if it is him I need to congratulate, lol!! FerryFan
  • Score: -2

11:09am Tue 15 Jul 14

Simon 1965 says...

News that Condor have been given the ten year contract was only really a formaliity.

What we do need now however is an urgent response from the local authority at Weymouth with an update on whether they are able to secure the funding for the berth rebuild or not.

Simon N.
News that Condor have been given the ten year contract was only really a formaliity. What we do need now however is an urgent response from the local authority at Weymouth with an update on whether they are able to secure the funding for the berth rebuild or not. Simon N. Simon 1965
  • Score: -4

11:21am Tue 15 Jul 14

Bob Goulding says...

As I have pointed out many time before, Condor have a very significant financial incentive to operate out of Weymouth rather than Poole. The Austal 102 uses just short of 5 tonnes of fuel per hour at cruising speed (90% MCR). The return journey between Poole and Guernsey would take approx. one hour longer than the return journey between Weymouth and Guernsey. Assuming Condor pay approx. £1.00 per litre for diesel fuel, this represents an additional cost of about £5,000 per return journey. If the new vessel makes only 200 return journeys per year that's £1,000,000 per year in extra fuel costs alone.

In my view, Condor should be required make a significant contribution towards the cost of the Berth 1 upgrade either in capital terms or in substantially increased port fees. If Condor refuse then let them go to Poole.
As I have pointed out many time before, Condor have a very significant financial incentive to operate out of Weymouth rather than Poole. The Austal 102 uses just short of 5 tonnes of fuel per hour at cruising speed (90% MCR). The return journey between Poole and Guernsey would take approx. one hour longer than the return journey between Weymouth and Guernsey. Assuming Condor pay approx. £1.00 per litre for diesel fuel, this represents an additional cost of about £5,000 per return journey. If the new vessel makes only 200 return journeys per year that's £1,000,000 per year in extra fuel costs alone. In my view, Condor should be required make a significant contribution towards the cost of the Berth 1 upgrade either in capital terms or in substantially increased port fees. If Condor refuse then let them go to Poole. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 13

11:42am Tue 15 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

Simon 1965 wrote:
News that Condor have been given the ten year contract was only really a formaliity.

What we do need now however is an urgent response from the local authority at Weymouth with an update on whether they are able to secure the funding for the berth rebuild or not.

Simon N.
Well that's strange because on the 1st July after my post, you said this. I thought what a know it all, but clearly you aren't.

"They made it clear some time ago that there is no money available for additional work,, that is why they are trying to seek external funding / grant aid"
[quote][p][bold]Simon 1965[/bold] wrote: News that Condor have been given the ten year contract was only really a formaliity. What we do need now however is an urgent response from the local authority at Weymouth with an update on whether they are able to secure the funding for the berth rebuild or not. Simon N.[/p][/quote]Well that's strange because on the 1st July after my post, you said this. I thought what a know it all, but clearly you aren't. "They made it clear some time ago that there is no money available for additional work,, that is why they are trying to seek external funding / grant aid" MrTomSmith
  • Score: 0

11:48am Tue 15 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Has anyone actually been to the channel islands and seen how much money is sloshing around?
Has anyone asked if the channel islands have felt the recession?
Does everyone know that Jersey certainly has a financial district?
Is it only me thats finds this outrageous?
The very rich folk of the channel islands want to get to the mainland - they can subsidise it, why should we? unless we have copper bottomed assurances of returns - jobs etc.
Has anyone actually been to the channel islands and seen how much money is sloshing around? Has anyone asked if the channel islands have felt the recession? Does everyone know that Jersey certainly has a financial district? Is it only me thats finds this outrageous? The very rich folk of the channel islands want to get to the mainland - they can subsidise it, why should we? unless we have copper bottomed assurances of returns - jobs etc. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: 11

12:23pm Tue 15 Jul 14

The Fish says...

shy talk wrote:
A Business Plan for Weymouth Harbour 2014 – 2019 and beyond. https://www.dorsetfo ryou.com/media.jsp?m ediaid=190190&fi
lety pe=pdf Makes interesting reading. Over the past years revenues from the harbour have been going into the councils general fund. Then when it all went wrong they decided to ring fence the revenues. Talk about shutting the door after the horse has bolted.
An interesting read with some errors.
Firstly the cost of inner harbour moorings is considerably less than the Dean Reddyhoff moorings (approximately half the price).
Secondly, though B. Curtis' "Jetty and Marine Diesel Distribution point" is mentioned (outer harbour) there is no mention at all to the half-dozen or so Automarine moorings situated in the inner harbour between the Council pontoons and the Dean Redyhoff pontoons - how much revenue does this generate (or is it as I suspect free)?
Thirdly, the cost of commercial moorings is considerably less than the private pontoon moorings, this imo is wrong as business costs can be offset against tax etc, so commercial vessels should be paying the same/or more per metre than private vessels.
[quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: A Business Plan for Weymouth Harbour 2014 – 2019 and beyond. https://www.dorsetfo ryou.com/media.jsp?m ediaid=190190&fi lety pe=pdf Makes interesting reading. Over the past years revenues from the harbour have been going into the councils general fund. Then when it all went wrong they decided to ring fence the revenues. Talk about shutting the door after the horse has bolted.[/p][/quote]An interesting read with some errors. Firstly the cost of inner harbour moorings is considerably less than the Dean Reddyhoff moorings (approximately half the price). Secondly, though B. Curtis' "Jetty and Marine Diesel Distribution point" is mentioned (outer harbour) there is no mention at all to the half-dozen or so Automarine moorings situated in the inner harbour between the Council pontoons and the Dean Redyhoff pontoons - how much revenue does this generate (or is it as I suspect free)? Thirdly, the cost of commercial moorings is considerably less than the private pontoon moorings, this imo is wrong as business costs can be offset against tax etc, so commercial vessels should be paying the same/or more per metre than private vessels. The Fish
  • Score: 6

12:30pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Simon 1965 says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Simon 1965 wrote: News that Condor have been given the ten year contract was only really a formaliity. What we do need now however is an urgent response from the local authority at Weymouth with an update on whether they are able to secure the funding for the berth rebuild or not. Simon N.
Well that's strange because on the 1st July after my post, you said this. I thought what a know it all, but clearly you aren't. "They made it clear some time ago that there is no money available for additional work,, that is why they are trying to seek external funding / grant aid"
Yes, as I said at the time , they have made it clear that there is no money available from council coffers, but that they were still trying to seek external funding / grant aid from elsewhere - as they have not "thrown in the towel" publically, I have to assume that these attempts are still ongoing.

Its hardly rocket science Mr Smith, and resorting to personal abuse for no reason, Ddoes not cast you in a good light.

Simon N.
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Simon 1965[/bold] wrote: News that Condor have been given the ten year contract was only really a formaliity. What we do need now however is an urgent response from the local authority at Weymouth with an update on whether they are able to secure the funding for the berth rebuild or not. Simon N.[/p][/quote]Well that's strange because on the 1st July after my post, you said this. I thought what a know it all, but clearly you aren't. "They made it clear some time ago that there is no money available for additional work,, that is why they are trying to seek external funding / grant aid"[/p][/quote]Yes, as I said at the time , they have made it clear that there is no money available from council coffers, but that they were still trying to seek external funding / grant aid from elsewhere - as they have not "thrown in the towel" publically, I have to assume that these attempts are still ongoing. Its hardly rocket science Mr Smith, and resorting to personal abuse for no reason, Ddoes not cast you in a good light. Simon N. Simon 1965
  • Score: 4

12:43pm Tue 15 Jul 14

PHonnor says...

If/when condor do pull out then priority must be given to development of the whole pennisula to try and compensate for the loss. I certainly dont believe in throwing good money after bad, 4 milion has already been spent recently with no assurances over further use, maybe the council could sell a few hotels to raise the funds?
If/when condor do pull out then priority must be given to development of the whole pennisula to try and compensate for the loss. I certainly dont believe in throwing good money after bad, 4 milion has already been spent recently with no assurances over further use, maybe the council could sell a few hotels to raise the funds? PHonnor
  • Score: 9

1:04pm Tue 15 Jul 14

1Kimberlin says...

Looks like it's Poole for the Continent


Weymouth for the inContinent then
Looks like it's Poole for the Continent Weymouth for the inContinent then 1Kimberlin
  • Score: 10

1:27pm Tue 15 Jul 14

MadMicke12 says...

As has been said, the signing of this agreement with the islands was pretty certain to happen, I suppose the certainty could be put at about 98.1 in favour of the agreement.

This being the case, then I still find it incomprehensible that the use of berth one was not the preferred option in the first place. If that had been done instead of berth three, there would have been no need for this problem now.

All parties, the council, the ferry company and the islands authorities should have worked together in a plan that was both cost efficient and good for all parties.

If berth one had been done anyway, regardless of the decisions awaited on from the islands authorities, then the berth could have been used for all types of vessels with rear cargo/car loading, not just Condor.

To be honest, this has been a monumental C%$k up since the beginning by all those involved. They should all hang their heads in shame.

Whilst I don't absolve the council from this mess, I do say that the electorate have a lot to answer to. Year on year, we seem to vote in the same "OLD" councillors, most of whom are so out of touch with this town and it's needs for the future. I know we would all love to keep our town in the 19th century, but that does nothing for the town. Yes, we need tourism, but we, as a town, cannot survive purely on tourism. We need more arrows in our quiver than we have now, and it is unfortunate that due to lack of proper financial leadership, and, of course, the government cutbacks over the last 4 years or so, we have neither the money nor the wherewithal to carry this town properly into the 21st century. It matters not what our councillors are like now, it is the lack of foresight over the last 22 years since I moved here that has ruined our town and our economy.

Is there an answer, I don't know, but in the current fiscal environment, we are going to be hard pressed to get this town going in the near future, and I hate to be the harbinger of bad news, but I think this town is heading to 'ghost town' status.

For those that don't recognise the user name attached to this comment, I used to have the user name, 'Micke12', but for some reason, it got corrupted, and no, I WAS NOT BANNED.
As has been said, the signing of this agreement with the islands was pretty certain to happen, I suppose the certainty could be put at about 98.1 in favour of the agreement. This being the case, then I still find it incomprehensible that the use of berth one was not the preferred option in the first place. If that had been done instead of berth three, there would have been no need for this problem now. All parties, the council, the ferry company and the islands authorities should have worked together in a plan that was both cost efficient and good for all parties. If berth one had been done anyway, regardless of the decisions awaited on from the islands authorities, then the berth could have been used for all types of vessels with rear cargo/car loading, not just Condor. To be honest, this has been a monumental C%$k up since the beginning by all those involved. They should all hang their heads in shame. Whilst I don't absolve the council from this mess, I do say that the electorate have a lot to answer to. Year on year, we seem to vote in the same "OLD" councillors, most of whom are so out of touch with this town and it's needs for the future. I know we would all love to keep our town in the 19th century, but that does nothing for the town. Yes, we need tourism, but we, as a town, cannot survive purely on tourism. We need more arrows in our quiver than we have now, and it is unfortunate that due to lack of proper financial leadership, and, of course, the government cutbacks over the last 4 years or so, we have neither the money nor the wherewithal to carry this town properly into the 21st century. It matters not what our councillors are like now, it is the lack of foresight over the last 22 years since I moved here that has ruined our town and our economy. Is there an answer, I don't know, but in the current fiscal environment, we are going to be hard pressed to get this town going in the near future, and I hate to be the harbinger of bad news, but I think this town is heading to 'ghost town' status. For those that don't recognise the user name attached to this comment, I used to have the user name, 'Micke12', but for some reason, it got corrupted, and no, I WAS NOT BANNED. MadMicke12
  • Score: 8

1:33pm Tue 15 Jul 14

PHonnor says...

MadMicke12 wrote:
As has been said, the signing of this agreement with the islands was pretty certain to happen, I suppose the certainty could be put at about 98.1 in favour of the agreement. This being the case, then I still find it incomprehensible that the use of berth one was not the preferred option in the first place. If that had been done instead of berth three, there would have been no need for this problem now. All parties, the council, the ferry company and the islands authorities should have worked together in a plan that was both cost efficient and good for all parties. If berth one had been done anyway, regardless of the decisions awaited on from the islands authorities, then the berth could have been used for all types of vessels with rear cargo/car loading, not just Condor. To be honest, this has been a monumental C%$k up since the beginning by all those involved. They should all hang their heads in shame. Whilst I don't absolve the council from this mess, I do say that the electorate have a lot to answer to. Year on year, we seem to vote in the same "OLD" councillors, most of whom are so out of touch with this town and it's needs for the future. I know we would all love to keep our town in the 19th century, but that does nothing for the town. Yes, we need tourism, but we, as a town, cannot survive purely on tourism. We need more arrows in our quiver than we have now, and it is unfortunate that due to lack of proper financial leadership, and, of course, the government cutbacks over the last 4 years or so, we have neither the money nor the wherewithal to carry this town properly into the 21st century. It matters not what our councillors are like now, it is the lack of foresight over the last 22 years since I moved here that has ruined our town and our economy. Is there an answer, I don't know, but in the current fiscal environment, we are going to be hard pressed to get this town going in the near future, and I hate to be the harbinger of bad news, but I think this town is heading to 'ghost town' status. For those that don't recognise the user name attached to this comment, I used to have the user name, 'Micke12', but for some reason, it got corrupted, and no, I WAS NOT BANNED.
One of the best posts made here in a while, spot on!
[quote][p][bold]MadMicke12[/bold] wrote: As has been said, the signing of this agreement with the islands was pretty certain to happen, I suppose the certainty could be put at about 98.1 in favour of the agreement. This being the case, then I still find it incomprehensible that the use of berth one was not the preferred option in the first place. If that had been done instead of berth three, there would have been no need for this problem now. All parties, the council, the ferry company and the islands authorities should have worked together in a plan that was both cost efficient and good for all parties. If berth one had been done anyway, regardless of the decisions awaited on from the islands authorities, then the berth could have been used for all types of vessels with rear cargo/car loading, not just Condor. To be honest, this has been a monumental C%$k up since the beginning by all those involved. They should all hang their heads in shame. Whilst I don't absolve the council from this mess, I do say that the electorate have a lot to answer to. Year on year, we seem to vote in the same "OLD" councillors, most of whom are so out of touch with this town and it's needs for the future. I know we would all love to keep our town in the 19th century, but that does nothing for the town. Yes, we need tourism, but we, as a town, cannot survive purely on tourism. We need more arrows in our quiver than we have now, and it is unfortunate that due to lack of proper financial leadership, and, of course, the government cutbacks over the last 4 years or so, we have neither the money nor the wherewithal to carry this town properly into the 21st century. It matters not what our councillors are like now, it is the lack of foresight over the last 22 years since I moved here that has ruined our town and our economy. Is there an answer, I don't know, but in the current fiscal environment, we are going to be hard pressed to get this town going in the near future, and I hate to be the harbinger of bad news, but I think this town is heading to 'ghost town' status. For those that don't recognise the user name attached to this comment, I used to have the user name, 'Micke12', but for some reason, it got corrupted, and no, I WAS NOT BANNED.[/p][/quote]One of the best posts made here in a while, spot on! PHonnor
  • Score: 10

1:47pm Tue 15 Jul 14

MadMicke12 says...

PHonnor wrote:
MadMicke12 wrote:
As has been said, the signing of this agreement with the islands was pretty certain to happen, I suppose the certainty could be put at about 98.1 in favour of the agreement. This being the case, then I still find it incomprehensible that the use of berth one was not the preferred option in the first place. If that had been done instead of berth three, there would have been no need for this problem now. All parties, the council, the ferry company and the islands authorities should have worked together in a plan that was both cost efficient and good for all parties. If berth one had been done anyway, regardless of the decisions awaited on from the islands authorities, then the berth could have been used for all types of vessels with rear cargo/car loading, not just Condor. To be honest, this has been a monumental C%$k up since the beginning by all those involved. They should all hang their heads in shame. Whilst I don't absolve the council from this mess, I do say that the electorate have a lot to answer to. Year on year, we seem to vote in the same "OLD" councillors, most of whom are so out of touch with this town and it's needs for the future. I know we would all love to keep our town in the 19th century, but that does nothing for the town. Yes, we need tourism, but we, as a town, cannot survive purely on tourism. We need more arrows in our quiver than we have now, and it is unfortunate that due to lack of proper financial leadership, and, of course, the government cutbacks over the last 4 years or so, we have neither the money nor the wherewithal to carry this town properly into the 21st century. It matters not what our councillors are like now, it is the lack of foresight over the last 22 years since I moved here that has ruined our town and our economy. Is there an answer, I don't know, but in the current fiscal environment, we are going to be hard pressed to get this town going in the near future, and I hate to be the harbinger of bad news, but I think this town is heading to 'ghost town' status. For those that don't recognise the user name attached to this comment, I used to have the user name, 'Micke12', but for some reason, it got corrupted, and no, I WAS NOT BANNED.
One of the best posts made here in a while, spot on!
Thank you for your kind comment. I must say that the idea of the council selling their hotels would have merit in the short term, but what good is short-term financial gain from the sale. once the money has been used, you cannot use it again.
[quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MadMicke12[/bold] wrote: As has been said, the signing of this agreement with the islands was pretty certain to happen, I suppose the certainty could be put at about 98.1 in favour of the agreement. This being the case, then I still find it incomprehensible that the use of berth one was not the preferred option in the first place. If that had been done instead of berth three, there would have been no need for this problem now. All parties, the council, the ferry company and the islands authorities should have worked together in a plan that was both cost efficient and good for all parties. If berth one had been done anyway, regardless of the decisions awaited on from the islands authorities, then the berth could have been used for all types of vessels with rear cargo/car loading, not just Condor. To be honest, this has been a monumental C%$k up since the beginning by all those involved. They should all hang their heads in shame. Whilst I don't absolve the council from this mess, I do say that the electorate have a lot to answer to. Year on year, we seem to vote in the same "OLD" councillors, most of whom are so out of touch with this town and it's needs for the future. I know we would all love to keep our town in the 19th century, but that does nothing for the town. Yes, we need tourism, but we, as a town, cannot survive purely on tourism. We need more arrows in our quiver than we have now, and it is unfortunate that due to lack of proper financial leadership, and, of course, the government cutbacks over the last 4 years or so, we have neither the money nor the wherewithal to carry this town properly into the 21st century. It matters not what our councillors are like now, it is the lack of foresight over the last 22 years since I moved here that has ruined our town and our economy. Is there an answer, I don't know, but in the current fiscal environment, we are going to be hard pressed to get this town going in the near future, and I hate to be the harbinger of bad news, but I think this town is heading to 'ghost town' status. For those that don't recognise the user name attached to this comment, I used to have the user name, 'Micke12', but for some reason, it got corrupted, and no, I WAS NOT BANNED.[/p][/quote]One of the best posts made here in a while, spot on![/p][/quote]Thank you for your kind comment. I must say that the idea of the council selling their hotels would have merit in the short term, but what good is short-term financial gain from the sale. once the money has been used, you cannot use it again. MadMicke12
  • Score: 7

1:49pm Tue 15 Jul 14

JoeyJo says...

Micke, you are right that we are all to blame for voting in the same old councillors. But where are the new, forward thinking applicants?
Micke, you are right that we are all to blame for voting in the same old councillors. But where are the new, forward thinking applicants? JoeyJo
  • Score: 9

1:54pm Tue 15 Jul 14

martaaay2 says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
As I have pointed out many time before, Condor have a very significant financial incentive to operate out of Weymouth rather than Poole. The Austal 102 uses just short of 5 tonnes of fuel per hour at cruising speed (90% MCR). The return journey between Poole and Guernsey would take approx. one hour longer than the return journey between Weymouth and Guernsey. Assuming Condor pay approx. £1.00 per litre for diesel fuel, this represents an additional cost of about £5,000 per return journey. If the new vessel makes only 200 return journeys per year that's £1,000,000 per year in extra fuel costs alone.

In my view, Condor should be required make a significant contribution towards the cost of the Berth 1 upgrade either in capital terms or in substantially increased port fees. If Condor refuse then let them go to Poole.
A great incentive for another operator to come and start operating from Weymouth right there. Condor must know that by leaving Weymouth they are creating an opportunity for a rival company to be able to provide a cheaper & shorter crossing service but are probably hedging their bets that it won't happen.
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: As I have pointed out many time before, Condor have a very significant financial incentive to operate out of Weymouth rather than Poole. The Austal 102 uses just short of 5 tonnes of fuel per hour at cruising speed (90% MCR). The return journey between Poole and Guernsey would take approx. one hour longer than the return journey between Weymouth and Guernsey. Assuming Condor pay approx. £1.00 per litre for diesel fuel, this represents an additional cost of about £5,000 per return journey. If the new vessel makes only 200 return journeys per year that's £1,000,000 per year in extra fuel costs alone. In my view, Condor should be required make a significant contribution towards the cost of the Berth 1 upgrade either in capital terms or in substantially increased port fees. If Condor refuse then let them go to Poole.[/p][/quote]A great incentive for another operator to come and start operating from Weymouth right there. Condor must know that by leaving Weymouth they are creating an opportunity for a rival company to be able to provide a cheaper & shorter crossing service but are probably hedging their bets that it won't happen. martaaay2
  • Score: 2

1:59pm Tue 15 Jul 14

ViewPoyntz says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
As I have pointed out many time before, Condor have a very significant financial incentive to operate out of Weymouth rather than Poole. The Austal 102 uses just short of 5 tonnes of fuel per hour at cruising speed (90% MCR). The return journey between Poole and Guernsey would take approx. one hour longer than the return journey between Weymouth and Guernsey. Assuming Condor pay approx. £1.00 per litre for diesel fuel, this represents an additional cost of about £5,000 per return journey. If the new vessel makes only 200 return journeys per year that's £1,000,000 per year in extra fuel costs alone.

In my view, Condor should be required make a significant contribution towards the cost of the Berth 1 upgrade either in capital terms or in substantially increased port fees. If Condor refuse then let them go to Poole.
Fuel cost is only part of the picture. The Poole/Bournemouth area has a much higher population density than Weymouth. Also the road and rail links are better e.g. to London etc.
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: As I have pointed out many time before, Condor have a very significant financial incentive to operate out of Weymouth rather than Poole. The Austal 102 uses just short of 5 tonnes of fuel per hour at cruising speed (90% MCR). The return journey between Poole and Guernsey would take approx. one hour longer than the return journey between Weymouth and Guernsey. Assuming Condor pay approx. £1.00 per litre for diesel fuel, this represents an additional cost of about £5,000 per return journey. If the new vessel makes only 200 return journeys per year that's £1,000,000 per year in extra fuel costs alone. In my view, Condor should be required make a significant contribution towards the cost of the Berth 1 upgrade either in capital terms or in substantially increased port fees. If Condor refuse then let them go to Poole.[/p][/quote]Fuel cost is only part of the picture. The Poole/Bournemouth area has a much higher population density than Weymouth. Also the road and rail links are better e.g. to London etc. ViewPoyntz
  • Score: 9

2:11pm Tue 15 Jul 14

MadMicke12 says...

JoeyJo wrote:
Micke, you are right that we are all to blame for voting in the same old councillors. But where are the new, forward thinking applicants?
Unless we can get all councillors up for election at the same time, there is no chance of us getting a new broom in those corridors of power at either the White House or the Palace of Dorchester at Charles Street. We were asked, apparently through a 'consultation' by our lords and masters, if we wanted the council elections to stay as they are now, with one third up for election every three years and one year of no council elections, or whether we wanted all councillors to be put up for election as a whole, every five years. According to the so-called view of the general populace, it was decided to keep with the current one third year on year with no elections in the fourth year.

With that in mind, and so much voter apathy, brought on by the fact that "the people" are so disillusioned by the state of politics today, that it would be a waste of time any new comers standing. Look what happened to the last newcomer to council, Ryan Hope - falsely accused of rape. Politics in this town is dirty and very much in disrepute. There are one or two good councillors in the borough, but they are by far in the minority. This being the case, nothing will ever change. Any newcomer is either corrupted by the old hands, or perhaps have their name slurred by false allegations brought about by foul means. It has to be suspect that Ryan was arrested and charged with the rape charge after he was elected. Too much a convenience I fear.
[quote][p][bold]JoeyJo[/bold] wrote: Micke, you are right that we are all to blame for voting in the same old councillors. But where are the new, forward thinking applicants?[/p][/quote]Unless we can get all councillors up for election at the same time, there is no chance of us getting a new broom in those corridors of power at either the White House or the Palace of Dorchester at Charles Street. We were asked, apparently through a 'consultation' by our lords and masters, if we wanted the council elections to stay as they are now, with one third up for election every three years and one year of no council elections, or whether we wanted all councillors to be put up for election as a whole, every five years. According to the so-called view of the general populace, it was decided to keep with the current one third year on year with no elections in the fourth year. With that in mind, and so much voter apathy, brought on by the fact that "the people" are so disillusioned by the state of politics today, that it would be a waste of time any new comers standing. Look what happened to the last newcomer to council, Ryan Hope - falsely accused of rape. Politics in this town is dirty and very much in disrepute. There are one or two good councillors in the borough, but they are by far in the minority. This being the case, nothing will ever change. Any newcomer is either corrupted by the old hands, or perhaps have their name slurred by false allegations brought about by foul means. It has to be suspect that Ryan was arrested and charged with the rape charge after he was elected. Too much a convenience I fear. MadMicke12
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Tue 15 Jul 14

PHonnor says...

MadMicke12 wrote:
PHonnor wrote:
MadMicke12 wrote: As has been said, the signing of this agreement with the islands was pretty certain to happen, I suppose the certainty could be put at about 98.1 in favour of the agreement. This being the case, then I still find it incomprehensible that the use of berth one was not the preferred option in the first place. If that had been done instead of berth three, there would have been no need for this problem now. All parties, the council, the ferry company and the islands authorities should have worked together in a plan that was both cost efficient and good for all parties. If berth one had been done anyway, regardless of the decisions awaited on from the islands authorities, then the berth could have been used for all types of vessels with rear cargo/car loading, not just Condor. To be honest, this has been a monumental C%$k up since the beginning by all those involved. They should all hang their heads in shame. Whilst I don't absolve the council from this mess, I do say that the electorate have a lot to answer to. Year on year, we seem to vote in the same "OLD" councillors, most of whom are so out of touch with this town and it's needs for the future. I know we would all love to keep our town in the 19th century, but that does nothing for the town. Yes, we need tourism, but we, as a town, cannot survive purely on tourism. We need more arrows in our quiver than we have now, and it is unfortunate that due to lack of proper financial leadership, and, of course, the government cutbacks over the last 4 years or so, we have neither the money nor the wherewithal to carry this town properly into the 21st century. It matters not what our councillors are like now, it is the lack of foresight over the last 22 years since I moved here that has ruined our town and our economy. Is there an answer, I don't know, but in the current fiscal environment, we are going to be hard pressed to get this town going in the near future, and I hate to be the harbinger of bad news, but I think this town is heading to 'ghost town' status. For those that don't recognise the user name attached to this comment, I used to have the user name, 'Micke12', but for some reason, it got corrupted, and no, I WAS NOT BANNED.
One of the best posts made here in a while, spot on!
Thank you for your kind comment. I must say that the idea of the council selling their hotels would have merit in the short term, but what good is short-term financial gain from the sale. once the money has been used, you cannot use it again.
True, but I'm not sure having the council as hotel landlords is a good thing anyway. The problem being is even if the money was raised their is still no guarantees Condor would stay.
[quote][p][bold]MadMicke12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MadMicke12[/bold] wrote: As has been said, the signing of this agreement with the islands was pretty certain to happen, I suppose the certainty could be put at about 98.1 in favour of the agreement. This being the case, then I still find it incomprehensible that the use of berth one was not the preferred option in the first place. If that had been done instead of berth three, there would have been no need for this problem now. All parties, the council, the ferry company and the islands authorities should have worked together in a plan that was both cost efficient and good for all parties. If berth one had been done anyway, regardless of the decisions awaited on from the islands authorities, then the berth could have been used for all types of vessels with rear cargo/car loading, not just Condor. To be honest, this has been a monumental C%$k up since the beginning by all those involved. They should all hang their heads in shame. Whilst I don't absolve the council from this mess, I do say that the electorate have a lot to answer to. Year on year, we seem to vote in the same "OLD" councillors, most of whom are so out of touch with this town and it's needs for the future. I know we would all love to keep our town in the 19th century, but that does nothing for the town. Yes, we need tourism, but we, as a town, cannot survive purely on tourism. We need more arrows in our quiver than we have now, and it is unfortunate that due to lack of proper financial leadership, and, of course, the government cutbacks over the last 4 years or so, we have neither the money nor the wherewithal to carry this town properly into the 21st century. It matters not what our councillors are like now, it is the lack of foresight over the last 22 years since I moved here that has ruined our town and our economy. Is there an answer, I don't know, but in the current fiscal environment, we are going to be hard pressed to get this town going in the near future, and I hate to be the harbinger of bad news, but I think this town is heading to 'ghost town' status. For those that don't recognise the user name attached to this comment, I used to have the user name, 'Micke12', but for some reason, it got corrupted, and no, I WAS NOT BANNED.[/p][/quote]One of the best posts made here in a while, spot on![/p][/quote]Thank you for your kind comment. I must say that the idea of the council selling their hotels would have merit in the short term, but what good is short-term financial gain from the sale. once the money has been used, you cannot use it again.[/p][/quote]True, but I'm not sure having the council as hotel landlords is a good thing anyway. The problem being is even if the money was raised their is still no guarantees Condor would stay. PHonnor
  • Score: 9

2:47pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Just-an-Opinion says...

Whilst Condor have had a long association with Weymouth I do wondor how they could still contemplate Weymouth as a viable port for the future. They will soon have a vessel that will not fit onto any berth, Weymouth has recent history of little/no investment in maintainence hence the berth collapse . It is not a shock that Condor now have a larger vessel and It was "known" that this was a possibility at the time of the collapse. Your council have basically thrown £4 million into the sea to provide a berth for 1 summer season. I would offer the opinion that now is the time to sort out how you are going to see some return from the 4 million already spent and not chasing ferry business that no longer fits.
Whilst Condor have had a long association with Weymouth I do wondor how they could still contemplate Weymouth as a viable port for the future. They will soon have a vessel that will not fit onto any berth, Weymouth has recent history of little/no investment in maintainence hence the berth collapse . It is not a shock that Condor now have a larger vessel and It was "known" that this was a possibility at the time of the collapse. Your council have basically thrown £4 million into the sea to provide a berth for 1 summer season. I would offer the opinion that now is the time to sort out how you are going to see some return from the 4 million already spent and not chasing ferry business that no longer fits. Just-an-Opinion
  • Score: 22

3:26pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Bob Goulding says...

ViewPoyntz wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
As I have pointed out many time before, Condor have a very significant financial incentive to operate out of Weymouth rather than Poole. The Austal 102 uses just short of 5 tonnes of fuel per hour at cruising speed (90% MCR). The return journey between Poole and Guernsey would take approx. one hour longer than the return journey between Weymouth and Guernsey. Assuming Condor pay approx. £1.00 per litre for diesel fuel, this represents an additional cost of about £5,000 per return journey. If the new vessel makes only 200 return journeys per year that's £1,000,000 per year in extra fuel costs alone.

In my view, Condor should be required make a significant contribution towards the cost of the Berth 1 upgrade either in capital terms or in substantially increased port fees. If Condor refuse then let them go to Poole.
Fuel cost is only part of the picture. The Poole/Bournemouth area has a much higher population density than Weymouth. Also the road and rail links are better e.g. to London etc.
Yes, it is not only additional fuel costs it's also additional operating costs including additional maintenance costs and engine wear and tear.

One of the primary selling points of Condor's fast ferry services is (somewhat obviously) speed. Operating from Weymouth offers a 25% improvement in crossing times at a lower cost. Weymouth is clearly a better option which is why I think W&PBC should get tough with Condor.

If the population density close to the port was a significant factor then Condor would not have returned to Weymouth after the Berth 3 repairs. The same applies to the road/rail infrastructure which, as we know, has been much improved in favour of Weymouth.

It really is a no-brainer. Weymouth is Condor's best option by far. They simply need to be forced to pay for the privilege.
[quote][p][bold]ViewPoyntz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: As I have pointed out many time before, Condor have a very significant financial incentive to operate out of Weymouth rather than Poole. The Austal 102 uses just short of 5 tonnes of fuel per hour at cruising speed (90% MCR). The return journey between Poole and Guernsey would take approx. one hour longer than the return journey between Weymouth and Guernsey. Assuming Condor pay approx. £1.00 per litre for diesel fuel, this represents an additional cost of about £5,000 per return journey. If the new vessel makes only 200 return journeys per year that's £1,000,000 per year in extra fuel costs alone. In my view, Condor should be required make a significant contribution towards the cost of the Berth 1 upgrade either in capital terms or in substantially increased port fees. If Condor refuse then let them go to Poole.[/p][/quote]Fuel cost is only part of the picture. The Poole/Bournemouth area has a much higher population density than Weymouth. Also the road and rail links are better e.g. to London etc.[/p][/quote]Yes, it is not only additional fuel costs it's also additional operating costs including additional maintenance costs and engine wear and tear. One of the primary selling points of Condor's fast ferry services is (somewhat obviously) speed. Operating from Weymouth offers a 25% improvement in crossing times at a lower cost. Weymouth is clearly a better option which is why I think W&PBC should get tough with Condor. If the population density close to the port was a significant factor then Condor would not have returned to Weymouth after the Berth 3 repairs. The same applies to the road/rail infrastructure which, as we know, has been much improved in favour of Weymouth. It really is a no-brainer. Weymouth is Condor's best option by far. They simply need to be forced to pay for the privilege. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 1

3:49pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Bob Goulding says...

martaaay2 wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
As I have pointed out many time before, Condor have a very significant financial incentive to operate out of Weymouth rather than Poole. The Austal 102 uses just short of 5 tonnes of fuel per hour at cruising speed (90% MCR). The return journey between Poole and Guernsey would take approx. one hour longer than the return journey between Weymouth and Guernsey. Assuming Condor pay approx. £1.00 per litre for diesel fuel, this represents an additional cost of about £5,000 per return journey. If the new vessel makes only 200 return journeys per year that's £1,000,000 per year in extra fuel costs alone.

In my view, Condor should be required make a significant contribution towards the cost of the Berth 1 upgrade either in capital terms or in substantially increased port fees. If Condor refuse then let them go to Poole.
A great incentive for another operator to come and start operating from Weymouth right there. Condor must know that by leaving Weymouth they are creating an opportunity for a rival company to be able to provide a cheaper & shorter crossing service but are probably hedging their bets that it won't happen.
Unless I am mistaken, the new licences to be granted by The States relate to a package of services that includes the conventional RO-RO services from Portsmouth which handle the majority of freight traffic. On its own, the fast ferry service from Weymouth (or Poole) would be difficult to make profitable. I believe the new ship represents a cost saving exercise rather than an attempt to increase passenger volumes.
[quote][p][bold]martaaay2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: As I have pointed out many time before, Condor have a very significant financial incentive to operate out of Weymouth rather than Poole. The Austal 102 uses just short of 5 tonnes of fuel per hour at cruising speed (90% MCR). The return journey between Poole and Guernsey would take approx. one hour longer than the return journey between Weymouth and Guernsey. Assuming Condor pay approx. £1.00 per litre for diesel fuel, this represents an additional cost of about £5,000 per return journey. If the new vessel makes only 200 return journeys per year that's £1,000,000 per year in extra fuel costs alone. In my view, Condor should be required make a significant contribution towards the cost of the Berth 1 upgrade either in capital terms or in substantially increased port fees. If Condor refuse then let them go to Poole.[/p][/quote]A great incentive for another operator to come and start operating from Weymouth right there. Condor must know that by leaving Weymouth they are creating an opportunity for a rival company to be able to provide a cheaper & shorter crossing service but are probably hedging their bets that it won't happen.[/p][/quote]Unless I am mistaken, the new licences to be granted by The States relate to a package of services that includes the conventional RO-RO services from Portsmouth which handle the majority of freight traffic. On its own, the fast ferry service from Weymouth (or Poole) would be difficult to make profitable. I believe the new ship represents a cost saving exercise rather than an attempt to increase passenger volumes. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 1

4:41pm Tue 15 Jul 14

FerryFan says...

Whatever port, Poole or Weymouth, the ferry is in DORSET, she will be a Dorset boat, not a Hampshire boat, nor a Devon one, a Dorset boat continuing to serve the Islands. We should be happy as a county we have this service.

Maybe a kind of silly thing to say, but hey, I'm a silly old moo, don't give a monkeys. We should be happy a service is going to be there at all!! Be happy chappies.
Whatever port, Poole or Weymouth, the ferry is in DORSET, she will be a Dorset boat, not a Hampshire boat, nor a Devon one, a Dorset boat continuing to serve the Islands. We should be happy as a county we have this service. Maybe a kind of silly thing to say, but hey, I'm a silly old moo, don't give a monkeys. We should be happy a service is going to be there at all!! Be happy chappies. FerryFan
  • Score: -1

6:29pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Isosceles says...

Interesting comment on the BBC site about some of the low, low wages that Condor pay. It has been called the practice of "modern day slavery on ships of shame".
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-283
06798
Interesting comment on the BBC site about some of the low, low wages that Condor pay. It has been called the practice of "modern day slavery on ships of shame". http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-283 06798 Isosceles
  • Score: 4

6:40pm Tue 15 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

ViewPoyntz wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
As I have pointed out many time before, Condor have a very significant financial incentive to operate out of Weymouth rather than Poole. The Austal 102 uses just short of 5 tonnes of fuel per hour at cruising speed (90% MCR). The return journey between Poole and Guernsey would take approx. one hour longer than the return journey between Weymouth and Guernsey. Assuming Condor pay approx. £1.00 per litre for diesel fuel, this represents an additional cost of about £5,000 per return journey. If the new vessel makes only 200 return journeys per year that's £1,000,000 per year in extra fuel costs alone.

In my view, Condor should be required make a significant contribution towards the cost of the Berth 1 upgrade either in capital terms or in substantially increased port fees. If Condor refuse then let them go to Poole.
Fuel cost is only part of the picture. The Poole/Bournemouth area has a much higher population density than Weymouth. Also the road and rail links are better e.g. to London etc.
Not to mention the fact that over 10 years the cost of extra fuel would be £10m....so no obvious benefit to condor of funding the cost of the berth.
Lots of benefit to their customers from better road links though :-).
[quote][p][bold]ViewPoyntz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: As I have pointed out many time before, Condor have a very significant financial incentive to operate out of Weymouth rather than Poole. The Austal 102 uses just short of 5 tonnes of fuel per hour at cruising speed (90% MCR). The return journey between Poole and Guernsey would take approx. one hour longer than the return journey between Weymouth and Guernsey. Assuming Condor pay approx. £1.00 per litre for diesel fuel, this represents an additional cost of about £5,000 per return journey. If the new vessel makes only 200 return journeys per year that's £1,000,000 per year in extra fuel costs alone. In my view, Condor should be required make a significant contribution towards the cost of the Berth 1 upgrade either in capital terms or in substantially increased port fees. If Condor refuse then let them go to Poole.[/p][/quote]Fuel cost is only part of the picture. The Poole/Bournemouth area has a much higher population density than Weymouth. Also the road and rail links are better e.g. to London etc.[/p][/quote]Not to mention the fact that over 10 years the cost of extra fuel would be £10m....so no obvious benefit to condor of funding the cost of the berth. Lots of benefit to their customers from better road links though :-). JamesYoung
  • Score: -1

7:36pm Tue 15 Jul 14

FerryFan says...

JamesYoung wrote:
ViewPoyntz wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
As I have pointed out many time before, Condor have a very significant financial incentive to operate out of Weymouth rather than Poole. The Austal 102 uses just short of 5 tonnes of fuel per hour at cruising speed (90% MCR). The return journey between Poole and Guernsey would take approx. one hour longer than the return journey between Weymouth and Guernsey. Assuming Condor pay approx. £1.00 per litre for diesel fuel, this represents an additional cost of about £5,000 per return journey. If the new vessel makes only 200 return journeys per year that's £1,000,000 per year in extra fuel costs alone.

In my view, Condor should be required make a significant contribution towards the cost of the Berth 1 upgrade either in capital terms or in substantially increased port fees. If Condor refuse then let them go to Poole.
Fuel cost is only part of the picture. The Poole/Bournemouth area has a much higher population density than Weymouth. Also the road and rail links are better e.g. to London etc.
Not to mention the fact that over 10 years the cost of extra fuel would be £10m....so no obvious benefit to condor of funding the cost of the berth.
Lots of benefit to their customers from better road links though :-).
Customers are called guests under Condor now, not passengers. I think it is quite pleasant, but some elsewhere disagree! Am I wrong in thinking it is better to be called a guest rather than a passenger, don't think so!!
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ViewPoyntz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: As I have pointed out many time before, Condor have a very significant financial incentive to operate out of Weymouth rather than Poole. The Austal 102 uses just short of 5 tonnes of fuel per hour at cruising speed (90% MCR). The return journey between Poole and Guernsey would take approx. one hour longer than the return journey between Weymouth and Guernsey. Assuming Condor pay approx. £1.00 per litre for diesel fuel, this represents an additional cost of about £5,000 per return journey. If the new vessel makes only 200 return journeys per year that's £1,000,000 per year in extra fuel costs alone. In my view, Condor should be required make a significant contribution towards the cost of the Berth 1 upgrade either in capital terms or in substantially increased port fees. If Condor refuse then let them go to Poole.[/p][/quote]Fuel cost is only part of the picture. The Poole/Bournemouth area has a much higher population density than Weymouth. Also the road and rail links are better e.g. to London etc.[/p][/quote]Not to mention the fact that over 10 years the cost of extra fuel would be £10m....so no obvious benefit to condor of funding the cost of the berth. Lots of benefit to their customers from better road links though :-).[/p][/quote]Customers are called guests under Condor now, not passengers. I think it is quite pleasant, but some elsewhere disagree! Am I wrong in thinking it is better to be called a guest rather than a passenger, don't think so!! FerryFan
  • Score: 1

7:43pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Lebsley says...

Only just seen this thread so if it's been mentioned already I'm sorry. I don't understand why we are only talking Weymouth Harbour here, what about Portland Harbour taking over the berthing of the ferry, we know it can take large ships ie : Naval and Cruise Liners?
Only just seen this thread so if it's been mentioned already I'm sorry. I don't understand why we are only talking Weymouth Harbour here, what about Portland Harbour taking over the berthing of the ferry, we know it can take large ships ie : Naval and Cruise Liners? Lebsley
  • Score: 1

8:23pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Simon Nicholas says...

Lebsley wrote:
Only just seen this thread so if it's been mentioned already I'm sorry. I don't understand why we are only talking Weymouth Harbour here, what about Portland Harbour taking over the berthing of the ferry, we know it can take large ships ie : Naval and Cruise Liners?
This has been discussed at length previously Lebsley.

Use of Portland Port has been discounted due to them not having a link span, the cost of having to build one, the rates they would charge Condor for using the facility, having insufficient holding space for up to 250 cars, and the road links.

Despite the merits of Poole, Weymouth still remains Condor`s first choice, but only if the council can secure the external fundng / grant aid to rebuild berth 1 - the fact that Condor have yet to announce a move to Poole suggests that these efforts are still ongoing.

Time would appear to be running out though.

Simon N.

Simon N.
[quote][p][bold]Lebsley[/bold] wrote: Only just seen this thread so if it's been mentioned already I'm sorry. I don't understand why we are only talking Weymouth Harbour here, what about Portland Harbour taking over the berthing of the ferry, we know it can take large ships ie : Naval and Cruise Liners?[/p][/quote]This has been discussed at length previously Lebsley. Use of Portland Port has been discounted due to them not having a link span, the cost of having to build one, the rates they would charge Condor for using the facility, having insufficient holding space for up to 250 cars, and the road links. Despite the merits of Poole, Weymouth still remains Condor`s first choice, but only if the council can secure the external fundng / grant aid to rebuild berth 1 - the fact that Condor have yet to announce a move to Poole suggests that these efforts are still ongoing. Time would appear to be running out though. Simon N. Simon N. Simon Nicholas
  • Score: 2

8:53pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Bob Goulding says...

JamesYoung wrote:
ViewPoyntz wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
As I have pointed out many time before, Condor have a very significant financial incentive to operate out of Weymouth rather than Poole. The Austal 102 uses just short of 5 tonnes of fuel per hour at cruising speed (90% MCR). The return journey between Poole and Guernsey would take approx. one hour longer than the return journey between Weymouth and Guernsey. Assuming Condor pay approx. £1.00 per litre for diesel fuel, this represents an additional cost of about £5,000 per return journey. If the new vessel makes only 200 return journeys per year that's £1,000,000 per year in extra fuel costs alone.

In my view, Condor should be required make a significant contribution towards the cost of the Berth 1 upgrade either in capital terms or in substantially increased port fees. If Condor refuse then let them go to Poole.
Fuel cost is only part of the picture. The Poole/Bournemouth area has a much higher population density than Weymouth. Also the road and rail links are better e.g. to London etc.
Not to mention the fact that over 10 years the cost of extra fuel would be £10m....so no obvious benefit to condor of funding the cost of the berth.
Lots of benefit to their customers from better road links though :-).
No James, it's a lot more than £10,000,000 over 10 years. My fuel cost estimate is very much on the conservative side and assumes only 200 crossings per year. If Condor believed that Poole was economically a better route then they would not be operating from Weymouth now. We know that Condor took a big hit in cost terms while Berth 3 was out of action which is the only reason they returned. Nothing has or will change in this regard.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ViewPoyntz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: As I have pointed out many time before, Condor have a very significant financial incentive to operate out of Weymouth rather than Poole. The Austal 102 uses just short of 5 tonnes of fuel per hour at cruising speed (90% MCR). The return journey between Poole and Guernsey would take approx. one hour longer than the return journey between Weymouth and Guernsey. Assuming Condor pay approx. £1.00 per litre for diesel fuel, this represents an additional cost of about £5,000 per return journey. If the new vessel makes only 200 return journeys per year that's £1,000,000 per year in extra fuel costs alone. In my view, Condor should be required make a significant contribution towards the cost of the Berth 1 upgrade either in capital terms or in substantially increased port fees. If Condor refuse then let them go to Poole.[/p][/quote]Fuel cost is only part of the picture. The Poole/Bournemouth area has a much higher population density than Weymouth. Also the road and rail links are better e.g. to London etc.[/p][/quote]Not to mention the fact that over 10 years the cost of extra fuel would be £10m....so no obvious benefit to condor of funding the cost of the berth. Lots of benefit to their customers from better road links though :-).[/p][/quote]No James, it's a lot more than £10,000,000 over 10 years. My fuel cost estimate is very much on the conservative side and assumes only 200 crossings per year. If Condor believed that Poole was economically a better route then they would not be operating from Weymouth now. We know that Condor took a big hit in cost terms while Berth 3 was out of action which is the only reason they returned. Nothing has or will change in this regard. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 4

10:15pm Tue 15 Jul 14

cosmick says...

JoeyJo wrote:
Micke, you are right that we are all to blame for voting in the same old councillors. But where are the new, forward thinking applicants?
We are here.
[quote][p][bold]JoeyJo[/bold] wrote: Micke, you are right that we are all to blame for voting in the same old councillors. But where are the new, forward thinking applicants?[/p][/quote]We are here. cosmick
  • Score: 2

10:26pm Tue 15 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

PHonnor wrote:
MadMicke12 wrote:
As has been said, the signing of this agreement with the islands was pretty certain to happen, I suppose the certainty could be put at about 98.1 in favour of the agreement. This being the case, then I still find it incomprehensible that the use of berth one was not the preferred option in the first place. If that had been done instead of berth three, there would have been no need for this problem now. All parties, the council, the ferry company and the islands authorities should have worked together in a plan that was both cost efficient and good for all parties. If berth one had been done anyway, regardless of the decisions awaited on from the islands authorities, then the berth could have been used for all types of vessels with rear cargo/car loading, not just Condor. To be honest, this has been a monumental C%$k up since the beginning by all those involved. They should all hang their heads in shame. Whilst I don't absolve the council from this mess, I do say that the electorate have a lot to answer to. Year on year, we seem to vote in the same "OLD" councillors, most of whom are so out of touch with this town and it's needs for the future. I know we would all love to keep our town in the 19th century, but that does nothing for the town. Yes, we need tourism, but we, as a town, cannot survive purely on tourism. We need more arrows in our quiver than we have now, and it is unfortunate that due to lack of proper financial leadership, and, of course, the government cutbacks over the last 4 years or so, we have neither the money nor the wherewithal to carry this town properly into the 21st century. It matters not what our councillors are like now, it is the lack of foresight over the last 22 years since I moved here that has ruined our town and our economy. Is there an answer, I don't know, but in the current fiscal environment, we are going to be hard pressed to get this town going in the near future, and I hate to be the harbinger of bad news, but I think this town is heading to 'ghost town' status. For those that don't recognise the user name attached to this comment, I used to have the user name, 'Micke12', but for some reason, it got corrupted, and no, I WAS NOT BANNED.
One of the best posts made here in a while, spot on!
Not for me it's not, if you get to vote between one old fuddy duddy and another old fuddy duddy, you end up with a fuddy duddy, so it's no good blaming the voters.

Its the system, they only get paid 10K so it only attracts fuddy duddys! But we pay for far too many of the Fuddy Duddy's, we should be paying half of them twice as much and get a decent job done. So blaming the voters is quite honestly a load of rubbish.

We can only vote in, what we have in front of us.;

Don't even get me started on 98.1 per cent. Are you sure about that?
[quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MadMicke12[/bold] wrote: As has been said, the signing of this agreement with the islands was pretty certain to happen, I suppose the certainty could be put at about 98.1 in favour of the agreement. This being the case, then I still find it incomprehensible that the use of berth one was not the preferred option in the first place. If that had been done instead of berth three, there would have been no need for this problem now. All parties, the council, the ferry company and the islands authorities should have worked together in a plan that was both cost efficient and good for all parties. If berth one had been done anyway, regardless of the decisions awaited on from the islands authorities, then the berth could have been used for all types of vessels with rear cargo/car loading, not just Condor. To be honest, this has been a monumental C%$k up since the beginning by all those involved. They should all hang their heads in shame. Whilst I don't absolve the council from this mess, I do say that the electorate have a lot to answer to. Year on year, we seem to vote in the same "OLD" councillors, most of whom are so out of touch with this town and it's needs for the future. I know we would all love to keep our town in the 19th century, but that does nothing for the town. Yes, we need tourism, but we, as a town, cannot survive purely on tourism. We need more arrows in our quiver than we have now, and it is unfortunate that due to lack of proper financial leadership, and, of course, the government cutbacks over the last 4 years or so, we have neither the money nor the wherewithal to carry this town properly into the 21st century. It matters not what our councillors are like now, it is the lack of foresight over the last 22 years since I moved here that has ruined our town and our economy. Is there an answer, I don't know, but in the current fiscal environment, we are going to be hard pressed to get this town going in the near future, and I hate to be the harbinger of bad news, but I think this town is heading to 'ghost town' status. For those that don't recognise the user name attached to this comment, I used to have the user name, 'Micke12', but for some reason, it got corrupted, and no, I WAS NOT BANNED.[/p][/quote]One of the best posts made here in a while, spot on![/p][/quote]Not for me it's not, if you get to vote between one old fuddy duddy and another old fuddy duddy, you end up with a fuddy duddy, so it's no good blaming the voters. Its the system, they only get paid 10K so it only attracts fuddy duddys! But we pay for far too many of the Fuddy Duddy's, we should be paying half of them twice as much and get a decent job done. So blaming the voters is quite honestly a load of rubbish. We can only vote in, what we have in front of us.; Don't even get me started on 98.1 per cent. Are you sure about that? MrTomSmith
  • Score: -3

10:36pm Tue 15 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

Simon 1965 wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Simon 1965 wrote: News that Condor have been given the ten year contract was only really a formaliity. What we do need now however is an urgent response from the local authority at Weymouth with an update on whether they are able to secure the funding for the berth rebuild or not. Simon N.
Well that's strange because on the 1st July after my post, you said this. I thought what a know it all, but clearly you aren't. "They made it clear some time ago that there is no money available for additional work,, that is why they are trying to seek external funding / grant aid"
Yes, as I said at the time , they have made it clear that there is no money available from council coffers, but that they were still trying to seek external funding / grant aid from elsewhere - as they have not "thrown in the towel" publically, I have to assume that these attempts are still ongoing.

Its hardly rocket science Mr Smith, and resorting to personal abuse for no reason, Ddoes not cast you in a good light.

Simon N.
Thinking you are know it all, is personal abuse? You see I was wrong, you don't know it all.
[quote][p][bold]Simon 1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Simon 1965[/bold] wrote: News that Condor have been given the ten year contract was only really a formaliity. What we do need now however is an urgent response from the local authority at Weymouth with an update on whether they are able to secure the funding for the berth rebuild or not. Simon N.[/p][/quote]Well that's strange because on the 1st July after my post, you said this. I thought what a know it all, but clearly you aren't. "They made it clear some time ago that there is no money available for additional work,, that is why they are trying to seek external funding / grant aid"[/p][/quote]Yes, as I said at the time , they have made it clear that there is no money available from council coffers, but that they were still trying to seek external funding / grant aid from elsewhere - as they have not "thrown in the towel" publically, I have to assume that these attempts are still ongoing. Its hardly rocket science Mr Smith, and resorting to personal abuse for no reason, Ddoes not cast you in a good light. Simon N.[/p][/quote]Thinking you are know it all, is personal abuse? You see I was wrong, you don't know it all. MrTomSmith
  • Score: -3

7:31am Wed 16 Jul 14

Simon 1965 says...

I posted an innocent comment on this site yesterday, clarifyng the situation as I saw it, which was 100% in line with my previous postings.

I am not willing to rise to your bait anymore however - i am just glad I don`t have to live next to you.

No doubt you are rejoicing in the news this morning that attempts to secure extenal funding and grant aid have failed, and that Condor will (unless they can be convinced of the merits of retaining one of their existing craft in Weymouth, which seems somewhat unlikely) leave Weymouth for Poole forever next Spring.

Gawd knows where we go from here, the harbour area is too small for a theme park, and all previous attempts to build hotels and apartments in the area have been thwarted at eveRy stage by the local population.

Simon N.
I posted an innocent comment on this site yesterday, clarifyng the situation as I saw it, which was 100% in line with my previous postings. I am not willing to rise to your bait anymore however - i am just glad I don`t have to live next to you. No doubt you are rejoicing in the news this morning that attempts to secure extenal funding and grant aid have failed, and that Condor will (unless they can be convinced of the merits of retaining one of their existing craft in Weymouth, which seems somewhat unlikely) leave Weymouth for Poole forever next Spring. Gawd knows where we go from here, the harbour area is too small for a theme park, and all previous attempts to build hotels and apartments in the area have been thwarted at eveRy stage by the local population. Simon N. Simon 1965
  • Score: -1

8:04am Wed 16 Jul 14

arlbergbahn says...

Simon 1965 wrote:
I posted an innocent comment on this site yesterday, clarifyng the situation as I saw it, which was 100% in line with my previous postings.

I am not willing to rise to your bait anymore however - i am just glad I don`t have to live next to you.

No doubt you are rejoicing in the news this morning that attempts to secure extenal funding and grant aid have failed, and that Condor will (unless they can be convinced of the merits of retaining one of their existing craft in Weymouth, which seems somewhat unlikely) leave Weymouth for Poole forever next Spring.

Gawd knows where we go from here, the harbour area is too small for a theme park, and all previous attempts to build hotels and apartments in the area have been thwarted at eveRy stage by the local population.

Simon N.
Theme park? oh dear. Why not use it for, you know, boats & things? They can be quite a good earner, as I'm sure the people who run the marina on the other side of the Town Bridge could tell them.
[quote][p][bold]Simon 1965[/bold] wrote: I posted an innocent comment on this site yesterday, clarifyng the situation as I saw it, which was 100% in line with my previous postings. I am not willing to rise to your bait anymore however - i am just glad I don`t have to live next to you. No doubt you are rejoicing in the news this morning that attempts to secure extenal funding and grant aid have failed, and that Condor will (unless they can be convinced of the merits of retaining one of their existing craft in Weymouth, which seems somewhat unlikely) leave Weymouth for Poole forever next Spring. Gawd knows where we go from here, the harbour area is too small for a theme park, and all previous attempts to build hotels and apartments in the area have been thwarted at eveRy stage by the local population. Simon N.[/p][/quote]Theme park? oh dear. Why not use it for, you know, boats & things? They can be quite a good earner, as I'm sure the people who run the marina on the other side of the Town Bridge could tell them. arlbergbahn
  • Score: 1

8:39am Wed 16 Jul 14

Rocksalt says...

As ever , a few facts would help here. How many local people actually work on the ferry. Are these well paid jobs on the bridge, or more modestt seasonal jobs ? How many passengers really stay overnight in Weymouth hotels ? What is the value of goods ( if any) purchased from local suppliers by Condor ?

Without this information I don't see how anyone can gauge whether or not it's worth spending £10m on trying to retain the ferry. I would hope that the council has some hard figures. If so, perhaps the Echo could publish them.
As ever , a few facts would help here. How many local people actually work on the ferry. Are these well paid jobs on the bridge, or more modestt seasonal jobs ? How many passengers really stay overnight in Weymouth hotels ? What is the value of goods ( if any) purchased from local suppliers by Condor ? Without this information I don't see how anyone can gauge whether or not it's worth spending £10m on trying to retain the ferry. I would hope that the council has some hard figures. If so, perhaps the Echo could publish them. Rocksalt
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree