Avoiding Lymington

[henryf]

We're sitting on our boat in Yarmouth at the moment - yes I know rain, rain and a little more rain. We were going to go to Lymington tomorrow but I've decided not to after watching the news.

Local campaigners took Wight Link to court over the size of their new Lymington - Yarmouth ferries and the potential damage they could cause to the river. This in spite of the fact no extra environmental damage has been shown to be caused by (I think) DEFRA.

I would hate to feel I've caused any damage and can only imagine the look of disdain from campaigners tutting as I potter up river.

Anyway we're off elsewhere now but I do hope local business owners realise the impact of the campaigning. I reckon we'd have spent £2-300 by the time we'd paid harbour dues, eaten a few times and perused the local shops, (we once bought an antique clock in Lymington having arrived by boat and shipped it back home aboard!!).

The campigner's Lymington River Association website http://www.lymingtonriver.co.uk/ did make me chuckle when they show "A swimmer's eye view" of the new ferry's propulsion system. Call me an old synic but I reckon by the time you get up close and personal with ANY ship's propulsion system you're probably going to come off worse.

I've been looking at the new ferries today and yes, they're taller but I'm not sure they are quite the giants campaigners are making out. Certainly there isn't a huge wake following the boat. The clip on the news showed barely a ripple.

I thought there was a potential problem with Lymington silting up ?

Anyway, I have no desire to be painted as someone destroying England's beautiful coastline especially when on holiday with the family.

Be aware if you do choose to go to Lymington - prying eyes could well be watching !

Henry

 

[benjenbav]

Interesting comments. We were in Lymington on Sunday and probably put about £200-300 less into the local economy than I expected because I wanted a new jacket and the Musto shop was shut when I walked past. Ho, hum.

Anyway, I found myself stood on the top of the wall at Berthon idly watching the world go by and whilst engaged in this important task I noticed one of the new ferries coming in. I think it was Wight Sky - although I am still smarting that Wightlink ignored my suggestions to call them "Wight Light", "Wight Heat" and "All Wight on the Night" - 1 out of 3 is not good enough!

There was certainly a fair old amount of turbulent water as the skipper engaged astern to bring the vessel to a halt.

 

[Nick_H]

We were going to go to Lymington tomorrow but I've decided not to after watching the news

uh? There's 15,000 people in Lymington, and only a handful of them in the Lymington River Association, which is a privately organised pressure group. Do you intend to boycott every town where a tiny fraction of the population hold different opinions to you?

 

[LittleSister]

Having been at close quarters to the new ferries during trials (including once at VERY (squeak) close quarters when they seemed to be losing it while manoeuvring), and formerly having a mooring almost directly opposite but just downstream of the ferry berth, I can assure you they can kick out a lot of turbulence. Spun our boat half around on more than one occasion (not on mooring). It's definitely significantly more than the ferries they replace (hardly surprising they've got much greater weight and windage to deal with).

Of course that's just one issue in the debate, and I'm not pronouncing one way or the other whether they should be opposed, but Wight Link have certainly done themselves no favours by a campaign of half-baked disinformation and bellicose threats, and they even got a slap on the wrist from the Advertising Standards Authority for misleading statements.

 

[l'escargot]

We're sitting on our boat in Yarmouth at the moment - yes I know rain, rain and a little more rain. We were going to go to Lymington tomorrow but I've decided not to after watching the news....Henry

I think you will find very few people on the Wightlink Lymington Ferry are actually going to Lymington as a destination, most drive past on their way to somewhere else. The new ferries are more likely to deter leisure boaters who probably put more money into local businesses than the ferry passengers.

I use Lymington quite a lot (by ferry and in my own boat) and the new ferries certainly move a lot more water than the old ones, so I find it hard to believe that they have had no impact on the river. They also make the river harder to navigate for smaller boats and the fact that they now need to leave power on when berthed presents a significant hazard to boats approaching Berthon, the fuel berth and making their way up to the Town Quay.

There was no increased demand at Lymington that required larger ferries, it is just Wightlink maximising profits and the way they introduced them is typical of the bullying approach they have demonstrated elsewhere. They have little regard for anyone else - including their customers. This is the ferry company that had to have their ferries shadowed by a launch last year because their crews were not considered competent to recover a MOB.

 

[henryf]

Obviously I'm not privy to the debate that's gone on up to now, just the news report and what I've read on the river association's website.

I just felt a bit uncomfortable with the thought of Wight Link, who have clearly invested a considerable chunk of cash in what could be considered difficult times being dragged through the courts and having to spend yet more money. I got a sense of "not in my back yard" in spite of the fact that the ferry has been there for decades. Times move on, vehicles grow in size, people ask for more in the way of comfort and Wight Link have tried to respond.

The relationship between the Isle of Wight, the mainland and Wight Link is no doubt a complex one. I just felt the campaigners were / are living in something of an idealised world and rightly or wrongly it annoyed me to the point where I wanted to vote with my feet. Probably because I have just had to steer my business ship through potentially troubled waters.

You are quite right in saying that of 15,000 or so residents not everyone is going to be a member of the campaign. Unfortunately on this occasion it was the voice of the minority that was the loudest.

As for misleading statements whilst I don't know the whole story behind this situation I do know when someone is clutching at straws and the information on the River association's website is thin. Possibly even a lie. Suggesting the propulsion system on the ferry is any more dangerous than other boats, suggesting that the higher helm position on the new ferry is less safe than the lower one on the old ferry, that a scrape on the side of a ferry that holds it's self against the side of the dock implies it is unsafe and that a picture showing the new ferry closer to the camera than the old one is a true representation. Oh, and showing that a small vessel a few metres from the bow can't be seen from the helm position. I suspect regulation requires someone to be stood on the bow during times of danger. Beyond that the captain will see potentially dangerous objects as he approaches them.

I don't use the ferry, don't live in Lymington or on the Isle of Wight and so have no truck with either side. The incident put me off visiting Lymngton on this occasion and the river will be a return journey better off as a result.

Had I not posted that missed trip would have gone un-noticed.

Henry

 

[[2068]]

This looks like Natural England flexing it's muscles, and some local residents jumping on the bandwagon.

Despite being stuffed to the gunwhales with people who you didn't vote for, Natural England "advise" the government on the natural environment, which sounds quite relaxed and friendly, until you realise that any third party who doesn't consult with them and get on-message will get a summons to the High Court and find themselves facing a team of very well funded government lawyers.

 

[henryf]

I heard back from the association this morning, (I emailed them directly) and they furnished me with details of a fatality which occurred in Yarmouth involving the ferry. I panicked initially thinking the new W class ferry had been involved but on closer reading the date of the incident was 1979.

The association made a number points regarding potential danger issues and I was left with this thought:

Now the association has highlighted potential issues how does that leave the dinghy training schools. In common with many places we visit there are often large numbers of "ducklings" learning to sail as you approach the town. There will be 1 possibly 2 motorised support ribs darting around trying to fish their students out of various predicaments.

Quite often we will come to a complete halt to avoid collision with dinghys as they cross the channel either in or out of control, their chaperon otherwise engaged in a rescue elsewhere in the fleet.

Now the association has highlighted the an increased risk where does that leave these schools and sailing clubs in the even of an incident with the ferry occurring ? Could they be seen as negligent for not increasing the number of support ribs, possible 1 rib to 2 or 3 dinghys? The reality of course is that would be impracticable, especially given the actual risk is quite small, probably no different to the old C class ferries.

I am not in the ban dinghies brigade, I first got onto the water in an Optimist, Topper, Laser, Wayfarer and even competed in the National Firefly championships finishing 18th in the whole of the UK (there were 19 starters and 1 sunk). But how do they stand if something happens ?

If I'm being honest I think the association is being a little alarmist and implying a risk scenario which, providing Wight Link operates in a proper manner, shouldn't be any higher than when they used the C class ferries. I would imagine the new ferry features improved safety features over the 35 year old vessel it replaced so possibly real world risk could even be seen to be reduced. But the fact remains any incident involving the sailing schools will surely be met with, "the risk was clearly identified by the association so what extra did you do to avoid it."

I wish all users of the River a safe and enjoyable season and that the safe use continues for many decades to come. The last thing anyone wants to see is a repeat of that tragic incident from 1979.

Henry

 

[mjf]

Frankly I think the 'new' ferry protest is a load of hot air.

Last Aug I was there for a few days and watched the ferry movements as my berth was just to seaward of the terminal. In my view the updated craft are less of a concern to other users as I have now seen both operate in the channel and on/off the berth in Lymington. At the time I mentioned to SWMBO that it appeared that the replacements caused less wash and seemed more manouverable in confined water. Speak as you find!

 

[henryf]

In the end we listened to Nick's wise words and are moored up on the Town Quay in lovely sunshine. I think the campaign has been hijacked to the point where it's ended up in the high court. I just hope all involved appreciate the ramifications, particularly in relation to the sailing schools should an accident happen.

Had lunch in the Ship - wow, quite a transformation. Great food and friendly service.

Roll on the summer

Henry

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

There was no increased demand at Lymington that required larger ferries, it is just Wightlink maximising profits .

Sorry but are Wightlink not allowed to make profits? Is there some local by law that prohibits this? It's profits that pay people and generate tax revenue. We seem to have lost sight of this basic economic truth in the UK.

 

[fireball]

You're not allowed to make profits out of illegal activities though are you ...

The High Court judgement has basically rapped WL on the knuckles for not adhearing to the law - whilst not preventing them from running the route and thus making money from it.

I'm at the other end of the solent - so don't have much to do with the ferries - although I would say that the captains have been exceedingly gracious with me - letting me exit the river before coming in one particularly foul morning at low tide.

Perhaps WL should have sorted out the legal problems before placing the order for the new ferries ...

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

You're not allowed to make profits out of illegal activities though are you ...

The High Court judgement has basically rapped WL on the knuckles for not adhearing to the law - whilst not preventing them from running the route and thus making money from it.

I'm at the other end of the solent - so don't have much to do with the ferries - although I would say that the captains have been exceedingly gracious with me - letting me exit the river before coming in one particularly foul morning at low tide.

Perhaps WL should have sorted out the legal problems before placing the order for the new ferries ...

.......and perhaps some govt some day will unravel some of the red tape which makes the profitable operation of private companies so difficult in the UK these days and perhaps some day they'll make it less easy for single issue minority nimbies to disrupt those operations with spurious legal challenges. We seem to live in some kind of la la land where bringing jobs and prosperity to human beings is deemed less important than displacing a few seagulls

 

[MapisM]

It's profits that pay people and generate tax revenue. We seem to have lost sight of this basic economic truth in the UK.

Well, it's maybe a bit of a semantic debate, but the poster you're replying to was talking of "maximising" profit.
Imho, if there's something we (not just the UK, but most Countries, with the US of A leading the lot as usually) have lost sight of is aiming at sustainable, "real" profits.
Quite a lot of peeps never lost sight at profit maximisation per se, and regardless of how. But as it turned out, it neither paid people nor generated tax revenue in the end. It rather made a big mess.
Possibly, leading to criticism also towards "sound" profits, which is a shame, because they're as you said what really keep things going.
That said, I must admit that I didn't follow the WL issues. If it was just a seagulls matter, shoot them all, I swear!

 

[l'escargot]

...which, providing Wight Link operates in a proper manner...

And that is the crux of the matter. Do a news search on Wightlink over the last couple of years and see how many run ins they have had with the MCA over safety breaches. They have a history of only operating correctly when watched. They are currently running with "temporary" speed and other restrictions in the river - that is why there is little apparent wash and conflict. Things would be very different if they thought they weren't under scrutiny

 

[l'escargot]

.......and perhaps some govt some day will unravel some of the red tape which makes the profitable operation of private companies so difficult in the UK these days and perhaps some day they'll make it less easy for single issue minority nimbies to disrupt those operations with spurious legal challenges. We seem to live in some kind of la la land where bringing jobs and prosperity to human beings is deemed less important than displacing a few seagulls

The judge in this case didn't consider it to be a spurious legal challenge - probably because he based his opinion on more of the facts than you have.

The company behind Wightlink have a history of buying companies, boosting their profits by whatever means and selling at an inflated price before the bubble bursts.

They are also reducing staffing which is hardly bringing jobs and prosperity to human beings.

There is nothing wrong with profit but I am sure you would complain loudly if they bought the marina where you kept your boat and using the same business model increased your charges significantly for a reduced facility - I doubt whether you would be so accepting of it as a basic economic truth...

 

[henryf]

Your marina comparison is an interesting one. From where I'm looking the marina operators (wight link), have just replaced the whole marina lock stock and barrel. They have also improved the facilities from 35 year old tat to brand new state of the art. I haven't been on a W class ferry but looking through the windows it looks like you've got a comfortable seating area, toilet facilities, food and beverage, even plasma tv.

If spending £57 million is your idea of making a fast buck you went to a different business school to me.

Come on, what ever you might think of wight link you can't deny they have just invested in replacing their kit lock stock and barrel and that looks to me like they are preserving the future of the Yarmouth Lymington ferry service for the next 35 years.

Henry

 

[fireball]

Either that - or it would've cost more than the 57mil to get the old ferries up to scratch ...

I don't have a problem with Wightlink buying new ferries (shame they're not British built though!) ... but would everyone be quite so happy if they introduced a fastcat service like Portsmouth end - with the additional wash that erodes the wetlands ?

It's ok encouraging companies to make profits and support the local economy ... but shouldn't we also be considering our environment - which Wightlink didn't really take much notice of ... hence the legal challenge...

 

[Nick_H]

It's ok encouraging companies to make profits and support the local economy ... but shouldn't we also be considering our environment - which Wightlink didn't really take much notice of ... hence the legal challenge...

In his closing remarks, the judge noted that English Nature had found no evidence of damage to the mud flats in the year or more the new ferries have been running. He found that the implementation of the new ferries was illegal because they didn't have all the necessary approvals. If you've ever tried to get planning permission for something, you may have some sympathy with them.

 

[fireball]

ok 2 points - as the snail said above - they're running at a lower temp speed limit ... this (as you are well aware) has a massive impact on wash ....
second - planning permisson - yes, it's a bugger - but if I have to abide by it, why should a big multimillionpound company not ... ?

Question - should a company be able to buy it's way around issues that stand in it's way?