If you were the Scottish government/transport Scotland, what would your strategy for the internal ferry network be?

[Blindtraveler]

As the title says really, interested in how people on here would deal with all the current issues in the great big melting pot of Scottish shipping. We all know the fleet is aging with particular challenges being the Caledonian mcbrain large vessel fleet and the Orkney isles internal ferry fleet and a perfect storm also brewing in as much as the three large vessels on the northern isles NorthLink service also now over 20 years old and certainly in the high tourist season the two largest ones being practically at capacity


It's also fairly widely knowledge that the current government are not handling most of this particularly well but I'd be interested to hear from anyone who thinks that a good job is being done and equally interested to have a discussion on what different people might do instead

 

[Red Onion]

Bin the two that are being built at Ferguson’s and order replacements from a proven source. That’s the absolute first thing I’d do, it’s unlikely that the Ferguson vessels will be ready in the near future and the islands are needing these ferries now, rather than spaffing more millions at them.

As a concession to Ferguson, I’d suggest letting them build an inter island fleet of smaller vessels, which they have built well in the past.

Unfortunately I can’t see a quick fix for this, the situation has been allowed to rot so badly and quickly that the level of investment in one go is so high rather than being spread out that I’m not sure where the money will come from.

 

[najaB]

Bin the two that are being built at Ferguson’s and order replacements from a proven source. That’s the absolute first thing I’d do, it’s unlikely that the Ferguson vessels will be ready in the near future and the islands are needing these ferries now, rather than spaffing more millions at them.

Now, naturally I don't know exactly what is wrong with the vessels, but I would be surprised if it would be either cheaper or faster to completely abandon them as compared to getting different management and/or engineers in to manage their completion.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I think it was stated somewhere in an update to parliament that scrapping them would now be cheaper than completing them, or perhaps this is only the case with the second one, currently known as Hull 802
I quite like the suggestion above that if these were binned off you could then give Ferguson's the job of building the ortney internal fleet which pretty much all needs doing in one go and which we know they're capable of. But yes I agree the money is a challenge, this is a bit of blue sky thinking here but working on the assumption that they weren't trying to push her independence, could they ask Westminster to effectively use its much greater borrowing power to lend them the money for a massive investment over a sustained 10 year project possibly with some senior figure in shipping and maritime brought in to be in charge of it all and manage this enormous workload and budget? I'm aware this could mortgage Scotland up to the hilt for many years to come but seems like the only answer

 

[adamedwards]

I get the impression the lessons have been learned. There are now 4 smaller ferries on order from Turkey, 2 x Islay route and 2 x Skye to North Uist/Harris (which will then run as separate more frequent routes).

Skye route info and ship designs: https://www.cmassets.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/New-Vessels-for-Little-Minch-November-2022.pdf
Islay route: https://www.cmassets.co.uk/project/islay/

 

[Bletchleyite]

One thing I would do is to fully integrate the ferry fares and reservation system with that of the railway rather than them using their own, though they may need some sort of interfaced subsystem to handle vehicle reservations and decrement the number of available "seat" reservations by the number of reserved passengers in the vehicles as there is a maximum passenger number on a ship based on the lifejacket and lifeboat provision. All foot passenger fares would be sold via ScotRail's website, and MacBrayne's site would just link to this if you selected to travel on foot, and possibly also if with a bicycle.

(I'd also look to do a deal with Citylink to do the same, but that's a bit separate from this thread).

 

[shawmat]

Building fixed links over the next 30 years for the shorter crossings would be more economic if planned as one overall programme. By building so many tunnels, Norway has driven the cost down to the point where tolls can pay off the capital quite quickly. E.g. The 4.2 mile North Cape (Nordkapp) Tunnel was paid off in the period 1999-2012. These are high-quality jobs for remote areas. Work crews that are kept together get more done because they are not distracted by tendering for the next job.

The candidate list (all much shorter than Nordkapp) includes:

Corran Ferry (Ft William)
Colintraive (to Bute)
Gourock-Dunoon
Yell and Unst (Shetland)
Islay via 3 short crossings from Oban
Lochaline (Mull)

 

[Noddy]

Islay via 3 short crossings from Oban

Eh??!!! Assuming you are routing via Luing it would be four tunnels (or bridges)! They might not be that long in terms length themselves but it would require a massive amount of new and upgraded roads (Jura alone would be 35 miles).

Edited cos I misread tunnels as bridges!

 

[Blindtraveler]

Yes I have to agree that fixed links are certainly the answer for some of these
It would have to be tunnels though I would say rather than bridges as the Scottish weather as we well know can make bridges rather in practical

 

[shawmat]

Re fixed links: Noddy is right that Islay would require 4 crossings - of 180m, 1680m, 1150m and 850m. I missed the 180m one in my earlier reply!

Is it possible? The Faroe Islands are not dissimilar, with only 30,000 people living outside the capital. They have some very impressive fixed links, including one newly-opened tunnel that is 12km long. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eysturoyartunnilin. This tunnel cost £100m. Scotland should be thinking like this for the long-term.

 

[Meerkat]

I am bewildered by how the Faroes affords these tunnels (though some are scary looking quite long single track ones with passing places!) unless Denmark is throwing in money and/or the tolls are really high.
Would tolling be acceptable in Scotland after they caved in on the Skye bridge?

I’m thinking the route to Islay would get huge environmental opposition for the damage caused by a new road along Jura etc

 

[shawmat]

It’s a fair question. How are they paid for? The Faroes are not part of the EU so there’s no free dosh from there. The Norway solution is to raise capital on the public markets, and pay it off with tolls. Just 13 years pays off a 7km tunnel if you get the costs in the right place

 

[Noddy]

I am bewildered by how the Faroes affords these tunnels (though some are scary looking quite long single track ones with passing places!) unless Denmark is throwing in money and/or the tolls are really high.

I think it is a combination of both these, and also looking at them as long term investments to avoid depopulation.

Would tolling be acceptable in Scotland after they caved in on the Skye bridge?

Unfortunately there is a real culture in the UK of not charging road users for what they use, and I suspect it will be a real hard ask trying to persuade people.

 

[Meerkat]

It’s a fair question. How are they paid for? The Faroes are not part of the EU so there’s no free dosh from there. The Norway solution is to raise capital on the public markets, and pay it off with tolls. Just 13 years pays off a 7km tunnel if you get the costs in the right place

Surely that’s only true if you are allowed to charge enough and there is enough traffic.
Though I’m thinking there would be environmental/congestion reasons/excuses for having tolls (with big local discounts) to control tourist traffic - certainly sounds like Skye could have done with that!
The Norwegians don’t have tolls on their bridges and tunnels do they? Can’t remember seeing tollgates in any photos/Streetview

 

[najaB]

The Norwegians don’t have tolls on their bridges and tunnels do they?

Don't think so, no. They do have £1,000,000,000,000+ of oil money invested in a wealth fund though.

 

[shawmat]

Don't think so, no. They do have £1,000,000,000,000+ of oil money invested in a wealth fund though.

The Nordkapp tunnel definitely did until 2012. I’m not suggesting remote areas in Scotland can bear the full cost, but the ferry subsidies are also rather large. My most important point is that you have to drive the construction costs down, by avoiding bells and whistles, and doing one job after another as an overall programme.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I don't see an issue with paying a couple of grid to drive or travel by bus or coach through a tunnel when the ferry fair would have been much larger despite subsidy

 

[zwk500]

One thing I would do is to fully integrate the ferry fares and reservation system with that of the railway rather than them using their own, though they may need some sort of interfaced subsystem to handle vehicle reservations and decrement the number of available "seat" reservations by the number of reserved passengers in the vehicles as there is a maximum passenger number on a ship based on the lifejacket and lifeboat provision. All foot passenger fares would be sold via ScotRail's website, and MacBrayne's site would just link to this if you selected to travel on foot, and possibly also if with a bicycle.

Certainly having integrated fares is a good start, and can be implemented more quickly than fixed links. However there's no reason to use specific websites, as long as a central booking system is used. It might be a good opportunity to upgrade the overall rail booking system anyway.

 

[Meerkat]

I don't see an issue with paying a couple of grid to drive or travel by bus or coach through a tunnel when the ferry fair would have been much larger despite subsidy

You may not but there was a very militant, ultimately successful, campaign for that not to happen when the Skye Bridge replaced the ferry.

 

[najaB]

You may not but there was a very militant, ultimately successful, campaign for that not to happen when the Skye Bridge replaced the ferry.

I think that, had the bridge not been built under a PFI arrangement the toll would likely have been lower, and there would have been much less of an outcry.

 

[Noddy]

I think that, had the bridge not been built under a PFI arrangement the toll would likely have been lower, and there would have been much less of an outcry.

That is true but tolls were also abolished around the same time on the other major bridges in Scotland and they were much less (60p on the Erskine Bridge?). According to the Wikipedia article (so may not be correct) tolls on the aforementioned Eysturoyartunnilin which @shawmat linked to range from about £20 for cars to £140 for large buses. So not cheap especially as you can drive round via a longer overland route. But I agree that in the UK most major road infrastructure projects that have involved tolls tend to be financed by a private company who then run the infrastructure as a concession and perhaps we should look at other models.

 

[najaB]

That is true but tolls were also abolished around the same time on the other major bridges in Scotland and they were much less (60p on the Erskine Bridge?).

It was a while ago so I'm hazy on the details, but ISTR that the SNP used the furore over what were seen as excessive Skye Bridge tolls for political advantage. That and the fact that the most other bridges had already paid for their construction several times over.

 

[zwk500]

It was a while ago so I'm hazy on the details, but ISTR that the SNP used the furore over what were seen as excessive Skye Bridge tolls for political advantage. That and the fact that the most other bridges had already paid for their construction several times over.

According to Wikipedia, the SNP made removal of the tolls a condition to agreeing to the coalition with Scottish Labour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skye_Bridge

 

[shawmat]

Scotland has good geology for tunnelling. Lots of granite. You have to blast it, which is slow, but the expense of lining it can be avoided. Norwegian tunnels are rough too, and can be steep. The spoil makes for good road-making material for the approaches. Water ingress can be a problem, and the Nordkapp tunnel in Norway has doors at each end to keep the heat in to stop ice developing.

You can make tunnels cheaper by being alternate one way. Again in Norway, the driver presses a button to get a green light or, if someone is coming the other way, a red light. Easy for low traffic tunnels e.g. to Yell and Unst on Shetland.

 

[zwk500]

Scotland has good geology for tunnelling. Lots of granite. You have to blast it, which is slow, but the expense of lining it can be avoided. Norwegian tunnels are rough too, and can be steep. The spoil makes for good road-making material for the approaches. Water ingress can be a problem, and the Nordkapp tunnel in Norway has doors at each end to keep the heat in to stop ice developing.

Out of interest, how deep are the channels that have tunnels under in Norway? Do they require substantial approach works or are they careful about which straits to approach. One of the outlying Scandinavian islands has an undersea roundabout, IIRC.

You can make tunnels cheaper by being alternate one way. Again in Norway, the driver presses a button to get a green light or, if someone is coming the other way, a red light. Easy for low traffic tunnels e.g. to Yell and Unst on Shetland.

A possibility, although the relative benefit would presumably depend on the length of the tunnel.

 

[shawmat]

Out of interest, how deep are the channels that have tunnels under in Norway? Do they require substantial approach works or are they careful about which straits to approach. One of the outlying Scandinavian islands has an undersea roundabout, IIRC.

A possibility, although the relative benefit would presumably depend on the length of the tunnel.

I’m glad you asked! The deepest is 390m, still under construction. It will be an incredible 27km long too. There’s a long list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_subsea_tunnels_in_Norway

 

[zwk500]

I’m glad you asked! The deepest is 390m, still under construction. It will be an incredible 27km long too. There’s a long list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_subsea_tunnels_in_Norway

Blimey, that's some engineering and a half. I notice the budget is equivalent to €2.55bn, and that's its part of a European highway to Bergen (big economic centre for shipping, the Oil/Gas fields and Fjords tourism). Would be interesting to see what the Norwegians consider for the economic case and whether there are lessons for Scotland in that.

 

[shawmat]

Blimey, that's some engineering and a half. I notice the budget is equivalent to €2.55bn, and that's its part of a European highway to Bergen (big economic centre for shipping, the Oil/Gas fields and Fjords tourism). Would be interesting to see what the Norwegians consider for the economic case and whether there are lessons for Scotland in that.

Scotland should adopt the long term thinking of Norway and Faroes. Yes, Norway has money for really ambitious projects, but Scotland could do a lot with shorter tunnels of 1-3km. One infrastructure investor should be given a 30 year franchise, a fixed amount of public subsidy, and left to get on with it.

 

[Noddy]

That and the fact that the most other bridges had already paid for their construction several times over.

Indeed. Though perhaps we (as a country) need to think less about tolls being to ‘quickly’ pay off construction costs and more paying the total costs of building, running and maintaining roads over their lifespan (eg the Erskine Bridge design life was 120 years: https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/3000/https://www.gov.scot/Publications/2006/11/24134032/1 -section 1.4 of the Notes to the Accounts). Ie the user pays (but fairly).

Scotland should adopt the long term thinking of Norway and Faroes. Yes, Norway has money for really ambitious projects, but Scotland could do a lot with shorter tunnels of 1-3km. One infrastructure investor should be given a 30 year franchise, a fixed amount of public subsidy, and left to get on with it.

I *think* if we look at Norway or the Faroes and see how they manage their major infrastructure projects such as these tunnels (more cheaply) they are not developed by private infrastructure investors but by Government.

 

[Meerkat]

I think that, had the bridge not been built under a PFI arrangement the toll would likely have been lower, and there would have been much less of an outcry.

Not convinced by that. But if you don’t do PFI the Treasury has to borrow the money so it probably wouldn’t happen.

You can make tunnels cheaper by being alternate one way. Again in Norway, the driver presses a button to get a green light or, if someone is coming the other way, a red light. Easy for low traffic tunnels e.g. to Yell and Unst on Shetland.

That would be a fun safety case to write, particularly how you deal with breakdowns!