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

[zwk500]

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

This is in Scotland so potentially don't need to deal with the Treasury.

 

[shawmat]

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

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

A one way tunnel using traffic lights is little different than numerous one way bridges or temporary roadworks. Breakdowns can be covered by giving a local farmer a shiny tractor and a contract to drag dead vehicles out of the tunnel. When a ferry breaks down - as they often do these days - it can take days for service to resume.

 

[Meerkat]

This is in Scotland so potentially don't need to deal with the Treasury.

The Scottish Treasury will be worse as they have even less freedom to borrow

A one way tunnel using traffic lights is little different than numerous one way bridges or temporary roadworks. Breakdowns can be covered by giving a local farmer a shiny tractor and a contract to drag dead vehicles out of the tunnel. When a ferry breaks down - as they often do these days - it can take days for service to resume.

I think the safety authorities consider tunnels a somewhat more dangerous case!
smoke clears rather better when you are on a bridge For a start.

 

[najaB]

I think the safety authorities consider tunnels a somewhat more dangerous case!
smoke clears rather better when you are on a bridge For a start.

But one vs two lanes isn't going to make much difference to smoke dissipation.

 

[shawmat]

But one vs two lanes isn't going to make much difference to smoke dissipation.

The Scottish Treasury will be worse as they have even less freedom to borrow

I think the safety authorities consider tunnels a somewhat more dangerous case!
smoke clears rather better when you are on a bridge For a start.

Bridges have risks too, just different ones. Cars have been blown off the Eriskay causeway.

 

[zwk500]

A one way tunnel using traffic lights is little different than numerous one way bridges or temporary roadworks. Breakdowns can be covered by giving a local farmer a shiny tractor and a contract to drag dead vehicles out of the tunnel. When a ferry breaks down - as they often do these days - it can take days for service to resume.

I think the bigger issue on the safety case is just somebody ignoring the red light because they can't see anybody coming and don't want to wait for the lights. Most single lane bridges were built before motor cars, and roadworks are temporary so the risk assessment is different. Certainly not an impossible case to make, although I do wonder if it will be worth it for the shorter tunnels.

 

[Meerkat]

But one vs two lanes isn't going to make much difference to smoke dissipation.

Surely the volume being more than twice as big will make quite a difference to how low the smoke gets?
Makes quite a big difference to whether you can turn around and drive out, or how easy it is to reverse out. And emergency services can get past trapped/abandoned vehicles to deal with the fire (particularly relevant if there are unlikely to be any emergency services at the more remote end.

 

[zwk500]

Surely the volume being more than twice as big will make quite a difference to how low the smoke gets?
Makes quite a big difference to whether you can turn around and drive out, or how easy it is to reverse out. And emergency services can get past trapped/abandoned vehicles to deal with the fire (particularly relevant if there are unlikely to be any emergency services at the more remote end.

While all these are fair points I think that given the risk of a head on collision is still present in a 2 lane tunnel the safety issues are not orders of magnitude lower.
The key question will be whether the reduction of the cross section is cheap enough to offset the running cost of the traffic management system.

 

[najaB]

Makes quite a big difference to whether you can turn around and drive out, or how easy it is to reverse out.

Can't imagine any tunnels being wide enough to turn around given the low volumes of traffic.

 

[Dai Corner]

Can't imagine any tunnels being wide enough to turn around given the low volumes of traffic.

How about providing passing / turning places as on single track surface roads?

 

[najaB]

How about providing passing / turning places as on single track surface roads?

I think single track with wider sections would be cheaper than a two-lane tunnel. The Faeroe Islands have a roundabout in one of their tunnels, so changes in geometry aren't an issue.

 

[zwk500]

I think single track with wider sections would be cheaper than a two-lane tunnel. The Faeroe Islands have a roundabout in one of their tunnels, so changes in geometry aren't an issue.

Norway also has tunnels with laybys in.

 

[Meerkat]

While all these are fair points I think that given the risk of a head on collision is still present in a 2 lane tunnel the safety issues are not orders of magnitude lower.
The key question will be whether the reduction of the cross section is cheap enough to offset the running cost of the traffic management system.

How you deal with an emergency will be a big part of safety approval. If you have a fire at the island end with a queue of traffic behind it how do you get at it with sufficient resources?

Can't imagine any tunnels being wide enough to turn around given the low volumes of traffic.

A two way tunnel will be wide enough for buses/trucks to cross safely - there will be room for cars to turn round. Even reversing up a single track tunnel would be ‘interesting’

How about providing passing / turning places as on single track surface roads?

The Faroes have single track unlined tunnels with passing places, no traffic lights, no lighting!
Not sure I fancy this….

Imagine how much fun that would be in Scotland with loads of tourists!

 

[shawmat]

A single-track tunnel could work like this:

1. Vehicle turns up at the toll gate, and pays the fee. They get a green light if no-one is coming and the gate lifts, otherwise a time-estimate for when the opposing vehicles should clear. If red, switch engine off (if fossil fuel!).
2. Meanwhile, the other end of the tunnel is set to "busy". Vehicles on the other side start queueing at the gate. The first driver pays, gets a red light, but the gate won't open yet.

When things get busy in the summer, a schedule can be published - not unlike a ferry timetable. 20 mins one way, 20 mins the other. That's all you need to keep traffic moving through a 1-3km tunnel.

This isn't new! Here's a picture of the Busk-Ivanhoe tunnel in Colorado in the 1930s. At the time, the only road crossing of the Continental Divide in Colorado. A former railway tunnel, it worked on the 30-minute-each-way principle.

 

[zwk500]

A single-track tunnel could work like this:

1. Vehicle turns up at the toll gate, and pays the fee. They get a green light if no-one is coming and the gate lifts, otherwise a time-estimate for when the opposing vehicles should clear. If red, switch engine off (if fossil fuel!).
2. Meanwhile, the other end of the tunnel is set to "busy". Vehicles on the other side start queueing at the gate. The first driver pays, gets a red light, but the gate won't open yet.

When things get busy in the summer, a schedule can be published - not unlike a ferry timetable. 20 mins one way, 20 mins the other. That's all you need to keep traffic moving through a 1-3km tunnel.

This isn't new! Here's a picture of the Busk-Ivanhoe tunnel in Colorado in the 1930s. At the time, the only road crossing of the Continental Divide in Colorado. A former railway tunnel, it worked on the 30-minute-each-way principle.

The operational cost of this is likely to wipe out any capital savings on construction quickly enough. Especially for short links in the Hebrides.

 

[shawmat]

The operational cost of this is likely to wipe out any capital savings on construction quickly enough. Especially for short links in the Hebrides.

The aim is to provide a "fixed" link. Many of the operating costs can be shared with the community: hence, my earlier suggestion that rescue be a tractor + rescue contract given to a local person (a farmer) who can use the kit in between. Running a set of traffic lights is hardly a show-stopper.

Is this new? No, my former home in Yorkshire had farmers on contract to clear snow with their tractors as soon as it fell

 

[zwk500]

The aim is to provide a "fixed" link. Many of the operating costs can be shared with the community: hence, my earlier suggestion that rescue be a tractor + rescue contract given to a local person (a farmer) who can use the kit in between. Running a set of traffic lights is hardly a show-stopper.

Is this new? No, my former home in Yorkshire had farmers on contract to clear snow with their tractors as soon as it fell

You want a toll gate. That requires either it to be staffed 24hours a day, or a remote control room (that could monitor several tunnels at once) to be staffed 24hrs a day. Paying people to run roads is expensive, and can't be palmed off to the community.

None of this is new, and none of this is impossible from an engineering/technology viewpoint. But when comparing it over the operational life of the tunnel is any saving worth it? The majority of the cost of building a tunnel in the UK is going to be getting permission. Reducing the size of the bore isn't going to be a make or break element of the proposal. Otherwise you might as well give everybody a motorbike and build the tunnel for bikes only.

 

[shawmat]

You build a whole series of tunnels across Scotland as one programme, which then requires one control room for the whole lot. Driving cost down involves making tunnel-building and tunnel-operation a routine. Projects as one-offs are expensive, whereas programmes of many projects should be able to reap important cost benefits.

I fully accept what I'm proposing is fantasy. Ferguson Shipyards managed to sell their fantasy, and now outlying Scotland is paying a truly terrible economic and social price.

So, let's start over. Think about what can be done, not what's so difficult? If anything has been demonstrated, it is that Norway and Faroes have gone there first, and lessons can be learned from the ever-expanding experience they now have.

Just for fun, here's the bin lorry on Jura waiting to return to Islay. This travel time is not adding value.

 

[Cloud Strife]

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

The problem with CalMac is that it's a very awkward company and franchise. The company is always trying to juggle a lot of different needs, and generally speaking, they do a good job at it. The major issue is that they simply need new vessels, and there isn't the money to pay for them.

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

The problem with Skye, and this isn't really the case anymore, was that the locals simply didn't pay for the ferry. The route was so ridiculously profitable that the locals manning the service could afford to turn a blind eye, and indeed, it was earning up to a million pounds a year by the time it stopped. But the whole problem was the level of the toll and the lack of discounts for locals. Had it been priced at a high price for tourists and locals from Kyle and Skye were allowed to use it for a token amount (for instance, 50p return), it would've been fine.

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

Not the SNP, but the Lib Dems. They were very strong in Skye and the Hebrides in general, and they were very afraid of what eventually happened: a large switch to the SNP once they were perceived as an English party. But in general, it was increasingly impossible for the Scottish Government and Jack McConnell to ignore the hatred for the tolls on Skye.

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.

It was a terrible mistake to give Ferguson's the order, but it was also politically very difficult not to do it. What probably should have been done was to give Ferguson's a large order for all the new ferry needs, while the large ships should have been built in yards that could handle it. But it's worth remembering the rage over MF Bute being built in Gdańsk, which was politically a terrible decision. To hand contracts abroad for ships that 'could be built on the Clyde' was just a non-starter for the SNP and indeed the Scottish Parliament.

Generally speaking, I think the tunnel approach is the right one. The islanders won't mind paying a small fee for them, and tourists can easily be charged at the same fee as the current ferries. You could easily play with tolls to match actual demand, so for instance, a wet Tuesday in Millport should mean that the new Cumbrae Tunnel is only charged at 50p or similar.

 

[702]

One point I'd add re: Faeroese fixed links vs Scotland is the relative size of populations, i.e. they are bigger in the Faeroes vs Shetland.

The five most populous Faeroe Islands, all connected or to be connected with tunnels are:
Streymoy - 24276
Eysturoy - 11490
Borđoy - 5261
Suđuroy - 4588
Vágar - 3271

The five most populous Shetland Isles not already connected to the mainland via a bridge
Mainland - 18765 (19882 including the islands connected via bridges)
Whalsay - 1061
Yell - 966
Unst - 632
Bressay - 368

They are, position for position, mostly an order of magnitude smaller! So I'd love to see some fixed links there, but the business cases are presumably not nearly as good as those in the Faeroes.

 

[Noddy]

One point I'd add re: Faeroese fixed links vs Scotland is the relative size of populations, i.e. they are bigger in the Faeroes vs Shetland.

The five most populous Faeroe Islands, all connected or to be connected with tunnels are:
Streymoy - 24276
Eysturoy - 11490
Borđoy - 5261
Suđuroy - 4588
Vágar - 3271

The five most populous Shetland Isles not already connected to the mainland via a bridge
Mainland - 18765 (19882 including the islands connected via bridges)
Whalsay - 1061
Yell - 966
Unst - 632
Bressay - 368

They are, position for position, mostly an order of magnitude smaller! So I'd love to see some fixed links there, but the business cases are presumably not nearly as good as those in the Faeroes.

I would point out that there was already a perfectly serviceable road bridge between Streymoy and
Eysturoy. They spent the money on the tunnel, not to remove a slow/intermittent ferry, but to create a short route saving approx 40 minutes journey time. And the tolls have been controversial with some locals still using the longer but cheaper route.

The problem with CalMac is that it's a very awkward company and franchise. The company is always trying to juggle a lot of different needs, and generally speaking, they do a good job at it. The major issue is that they simply need new vessels, and there isn't the money to pay for them.



The problem with Skye, and this isn't really the case anymore, was that the locals simply didn't pay for the ferry. The route was so ridiculously profitable that the locals manning the service could afford to turn a blind eye, and indeed, it was earning up to a million pounds a year by the time it stopped. But the whole problem was the level of the toll and the lack of discounts for locals. Had it been priced at a high price for tourists and locals from Kyle and Skye were allowed to use it for a token amount (for instance, 50p return), it would've been fine.



Not the SNP, but the Lib Dems. They were very strong in Skye and the Hebrides in general, and they were very afraid of what eventually happened: a large switch to the SNP once they were perceived as an English party. But in general, it was increasingly impossible for the Scottish Government and Jack McConnell to ignore the hatred for the tolls on Skye.



It was a terrible mistake to give Ferguson's the order, but it was also politically very difficult not to do it. What probably should have been done was to give Ferguson's a large order for all the new ferry needs, while the large ships should have been built in yards that could handle it. But it's worth remembering the rage over MF Bute being built in Gdańsk, which was politically a terrible decision. To hand contracts abroad for ships that 'could be built on the Clyde' was just a non-starter for the SNP and indeed the Scottish Parliament.

It probably would have been helpful if the Scottish Government had ordered conventional rather than gas turbine ferries and had just let Fergusons get on with designing and building them as a normal client would. The MV Alfred was ordered not long before before Glen Sannox/802 and was in service almost four years ago. The Manxman was ordered over 2 years after they were due to enter service and is now in service. Today there is yet another delay for Glen Sannox. I can’t understand why 802 hasn’t been scrapped as recommended, and a new order placed. Unfortunately the ferry fiasco means these types of ships won’t be built on the Clyde anymore.

As an aside I do suspect the problems with the ferries and road building programme vs the relative successes of the railway comes from the fact the Scottish Government has much less ability to interfere with Network Rail Scotland (as it’s not directly managed by the Scottish Government) compared to to CMAL and Transport Scotland. I get the feeling that the government agencies in Norway and Faroes are left to get on with it, rather than being managed through politics.

 

[Noddy]

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)

Well well well:

Shetland Council leaders are to meet Scottish Secretary Alister Jack to discuss building a series of tunnels linking the islands.
Under the proposals, three separate tunnels would connect Shetland mainland with Yell, Whalsay and Bressay, while a fourth would link Yell to Unst.

Scottish secretary to discuss Shetland tunnels plan

The Scottish Secretary is to meet council leaders over proposals for four tunnels linking the islands.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[shawmat]

Well well well:

Scottish secretary to discuss Shetland tunnels plan

The Scottish Secretary is to meet council leaders over proposals for four tunnels linking the islands.

www.bbc.co.uk

Shetland has the money to get the ball rolling, and can probably attract the big infra investors. Build a team to construct four tunnels in quick succession, and they can roll out the system across Scotland in the 2030s.

 

[Dai Corner]

Shetland has the money to get the ball rolling, and can probably attract the big infra investors. Build a team to construct four tunnels in quick succession, and they can roll out the system across Scotland in the 2030s.

Is Shetland still getting £lots from the oil and gas industry?

 

[zwk500]

Well well well:

Before you get too excited, remember that a meeting costs very little.

 

[Noddy]

Before you get too excited, remember that a meeting costs very little.

Oh absolutely. I mainly added the link given the recent discussion initiated by @shawmat on Tunnels in the Faroes and Norway, and potentially in Scotland. It’s interesting that the proposals are coming from within Shetland, as opposed to say various mad schemes proposed by one former prime minister.

I do suspect that the Scottish Government, which the articles notes haven’t met Shetland Council yet, will be much more reluctant to spend cash in Shetland as the Northern Isles don’t vote SNP (are they the only areas in Scotland to have never had an SNP MSP and/or MP?).

 

[najaB]

I do suspect that the Scottish Government, which the articles notes haven’t met Shetland Council yet, will be much more reluctant to spend cash in Shetland as the Northern Isles don’t vote SNP (are they the only areas in Scotland to have never had an SNP MSP and/or MP?).

That said, the SNP have been trying to get the Shetlands on side - the prohibition on putting them "in the box" being a good example.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I suspect that Shetland is playing a quite a clever game here, especially in terms of who they ask for what. I know because of a couple of acquaintances who live up there that they are very keen to have a dialogue with the Scottish government about increasing the peak season NorthLink service to twice daily as the post pandemic recovery on the services has been spectacular and at certain times of year is simply not coping with both tourist demand and locals wishing to travel

I suspect that it will be a very long time until the SNP have any significant stronghold in the northern isles, the Edinburgh and Glasgow centric attitude taken by them plus the fact that Scottish independence would benefit them little compared to other places and they'd probably feel more comfortable making an allegiance with somebody else and declaring independence from Scotland are all factors

 

[Cloud Strife]

I suspect that it will be a very long time until the SNP have any significant stronghold in the northern isles, the Edinburgh and Glasgow centric attitude taken by them plus the fact that Scottish independence would benefit them little compared to other places and they'd probably feel more comfortable making an allegiance with somebody else and declaring independence from Scotland are all factors

There is a strong argument that there should really be a new constitutional arrangement covering the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland. Each of them have roughly the same population as the Aland Islands or Gibraltar, and they are all perfectly capable of self governing.

I know because of a couple of acquaintances who live up there that they are very keen to have a dialogue with the Scottish government about increasing the peak season NorthLink service to twice daily as the post pandemic recovery on the services has been spectacular and at certain times of year is simply not coping with both tourist demand and locals wishing to travel

This is really a major issue in Shetland, and I think any government is in a no-win situation. There are some proposals that the new freight boats could be built with cabins, which would meet the demand for cabin space for locals while leaving the main Northlink boats for tourists. But Aberdeen as a port is really the limiting factor, and there needs to be a serious discussion about whether the islanders would accept a new berth outside the constraints of the existing harbour location in exchange for significantly larger vessels.

The issue with two services a day is that Lerwick is just slightly too far to manage it. One possible solution could be to abandon the southbound calls on a Thursday night and instead run two boats south on Friday night, with two returning on Saturday north. Then on Sunday, one boat would stay in Shetland while the other would head back to Aberdeen, maybe? But the lack of a Sunday evening service back to Shetland would present its own problems, so I'm not sure that it's the answer.

 

[najaB]

The issue with two services a day is that Lerwick is just slightly too far to manage it. One possible solution could be to abandon the southbound calls on a Thursday night and instead run two boats south on Friday night, with two returning on Saturday north. Then on Sunday, one boat would stay in Shetland while the other would head back to Aberdeen, maybe?

Is Scrabster Harbour big enough to support the Shetland ferries in a short/long sailing schedule? It's about 1/3 shorter to sail Lerwick to Scrabster than Lerwick to Aberdeen which might be enough to make two sailings a day possible.