FB 6 ........ sidethrusters ?

VicS

VicS

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 Jul 2002
Messages
48,744
Visit site
Genuine pictures from the webcam yesterday afternoon, not photoshopped.

2po1qi0.jpg


2611doy.jpg
 
Quandary said:
Not too busy is it?
One car and more crew than passengers.
Click to expand...

My pictures wre captured at a time when there would not have been may foot passengers and the car drivers would not have expected it to be operating. Either due to being out of action for repairs to the prow or because it was during the previously published period of low tide non operation.

Its been operating during the low tide " non running" periods again today with assistance from the Seaclear but the council do not update the information on the website. Local people have many words to describe the IOW council. none would be allowed on the forums.

Nevertheless it has been fairly well used during peak times. i guess the word gets around that it is operating even when the council say it wont be.

Dunno what the long term solution it.. They cannot have a boat like Seaclear shoving it in position during spring ebbs for evermore surely?
 
VicS said:
Dunno what the long term solution it.. They cannot have a boat like Seaclear shoving it in position during spring ebbs for evermore surely?
Click to expand...

To my mind the only fix is cut and shut, make it smaller, so the tide has less affect driving it northwards on the spring ebb.

PhillM said:
TBH that looks pretty tame compared to the antics of the tug that moves the Dartmouth Lower Car Ferry:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oxYvcTZHHQ
Click to expand...

I love the lower ferry!
 
A spokesperson for the Isle of Wight Council has said:

“A workboat, provided by Cowes harbourmaster and funded by the Isle of Wight Council, is being used to assist the floating bridge during the ebb tide.

“The boat helps to create a greater depth of water above the chains, meaning a back up passenger launch is no longer required at these times."

I suspect that the IOW Councillors who agreed to this ill-starred project will be renaming the vessel "Moses". Does the Council have some form of immunity from disclosing the sums involved in this, or are they recouping them from the designers' insurance ?
 
Still there then . Maybe someone from the designers of FB6 should go and have a look at how it worked for so many years and handled the tides without any assistance . I do wonder why given the massive cost of FB6 the council decided to replace it as it hasn't been a well planned process . Maybe one day the truth around Medgate will emerge from the auditors or whoever is appointed to investigate matters like this . Has anyone heard of any form of enquiry yet?
 
Giblets said:
It's currently moored just to the north of the Gosport Ferry Pontoon on the Gosport side looking very dishevelled.
Click to expand...

Built by Fairey Marine. Sadly could not be put back in service easily as the preparation for the new one included moving the chain pits further apart.

ashtead said:
Still there then . Maybe someone from the designers of FB6 should go and have a look at how it worked for so many years and handled the tides without any assistance . I do wonder why given the massive cost of FB6 the council decided to replace it as it hasn't been a well planned process . Maybe one day the truth around Medgate will emerge from the auditors or whoever is appointed to investigate matters like this . Has anyone heard of any form of enquiry yet?
Click to expand...

It was a great deal smaller, so offered a lot less resistance to the tide, hence could operate with the chain a lot slacker, giving more depth. My understanding is that it could be made to operate just fine, but not with much water over the chain at LW.
 
ashtead said:
Still there then . Maybe someone from the designers of FB6 should go and have a look at how it worked for so many years and handled the tides without any assistance . I do wonder why given the massive cost of FB6 the council decided to replace it as it hasn't been a well planned process . Maybe one day the truth around Medgate will emerge from the auditors or whoever is appointed to investigate matters like this . Has anyone heard of any form of enquiry yet?
Click to expand...

That's the point really isn't it ?

This is a truly chromium plated cockup only a council could devise; has anyone been brought to book ?

As others have said it cannot go on like this, and it is going to take serious money to put right.

My vote would be to tie FB6 alongside the much loved FB5 and get a landing craft from the Marines as a temporary measure; as Tom Hanks would say, ' I'll see you on the beach ! '

I hope my chums and I - hoping to see the new marine museum in West Cowes - remember the party poppers in case we're in FB6 and make it.
 
ashtead said:
Still there then . Maybe someone from the designers of FB6 should go and have a look at how it worked for so many years and handled the tides without any assistance . I do wonder why given the massive cost of FB6 the council decided to replace it as it hasn't been a well planned process . Maybe one day the truth around Medgate will emerge from the auditors or whoever is appointed to investigate matters like this . Has anyone heard of any form of enquiry yet?
Click to expand...

looking at some of the figures banded about (again i know nothing) the Council have stated it lost £550k in revenue when it was out of action for 4 months, so in theory thats £1.65m income per year.

the bridge apparently cost £3.2m so that's a 2 year payback - makes business sense... if it worked that is.

having said that (if the figures are correct they were on the BBC after-all) the Bridge should have acceptance criteria and sent back if failed, although as others have mentioned the chains pits were widened for the new bridge so bringing the old one back is not a simple affair and the council have effectively dug themselves a hole.

cant fit the old one because they modified the chain pits
Cant send the new one back to the manufacture as no service and a PR nightmare
no-one will fund a replacement

Presumably the manufacturers have washed their hands of it because (i read on the BBC again) the council are now talking to wight shipyard find a solution yet it was built by Mainstay marine?

Reading on wiki they were going to re-name the vessel? im sure some witty names could be conjured up and submitted to the council ;) (public vote mentioned)

All this information could be faecal matter from a bull as its all from the "internet"
 
I do wonder if Mainstay Marine built the bridge to the council's design specification (whether produced in-house or by external designers) and, as such, have delivered their side of the deal so would have no further interest in the problem. If the initial design and spec were flawed one can hardly blame the builders.
 
Giblets said:
I do wonder if Mainstay Marine built the bridge to the council's design specification (whether produced in-house or by external designers) and, as such, have delivered their side of the deal so would have no further interest in the problem. If the initial design and spec were flawed one can hardly blame the builders.
Click to expand...

No need to wonder...... Google

Al the details of the specification, tendering processes and design have been published and can be found online .

Ive read much of it but remember very little!
 
PhillM said:
Some interesting answers to FAQ's here:

https://www.iwight.com/documentlibrary/download/floating-bridge-number-6-faqs-14-june-2017

From this document, it sounds like the naval architects, Burness Corlett Three Quays, are whom the council are blaming. It is stated that they did the assessments and produced the designs.
Click to expand...

There is a later document than that one. Version 4 dated December 2017

https://www.iow.gov.uk/azservices/d...e-Frequently-Asked-Questions-V4-201701219.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top