Kyle of Lochalsh - no pontoons

[Minchsailor]

What it says. However the 5 visitor's moorings in the bay to the west just before the low section of the bridge are in place.

For what's worth, the new fish meal plant on the Skye shore just W of the bridge is a 'bit whiffy' now it is operational.

 

[AngusMcDoon]

What it says. However the 5 visitor's moorings in the bay to the west just before the low section of the bridge are in place.

Wasn't it last year that they didn't appear until August & then only partly?

 

[scruff]

Wasn't it last year that they didn't appear until August & then only partly?

I think that's correct. We were chatting to the new harbourmaster last year. He was saying the previous incumbent did a runner with the previous seasons' takings leaving them in a somewhat financially difficult situation

 

[mainsail1]

What it says. However the 5 visitor's moorings in the bay to the west just before the low section of the bridge are in place.

For what's worth, the new fish meal plant on the Skye shore just W of the bridge is a 'bit whiffy' now it is operational.

I always wondered how they got planning permission for that fish meal plant. To me it is a large blot on a beautiful landscape and its the landscape that people go to Skye for.

 

[ctva]

I always wondered how they got planning permission for that fish meal plant. To me it is a large blot on a beautiful landscape and its the landscape that people go to Skye for.

Tourism, as this year has shown, is no substitute for 365days of employment. Anyway once you cross the bridge, you don’t see it.

 

[Kelpie]

I always wondered how they got planning permission for that fish meal plant. To me it is a large blot on a beautiful landscape and its the landscape that people go to Skye for.

55 full time jobs.

 

[Quandary]

The pontoons were originally put in place and run by the Highland Council harbourmaster for years, the community (or a small part of it ) pestered them until they relinquished the responsibility, now they seem to have lost interest and the Council, having surrendered the responsibility do not want it back. This is the second year that they have not managed to get them in place, I suspect the instigators have lost interest.
Shame, the late much repected harbourmaster who introduced them put so much effort in to getting them there.

 

[mainsail1]

I seem to remember the pontoons were often a bit exposed to swell. Before putting them back it may be advisable to spend £4.5m on a breakwater.

 

[Minchsailor]

I seem to remember the pontoons were often a bit exposed to swell. Before putting them back it may be advisable to spend £4.5m on a breakwater.

And who would pay for it? At present they are a very convenient facility for a pit stop, and the occasional overnight.

That's what they are meant for. Upgrading would result in silly prices - see the comments on Lymington elsewhere on the Forum.

 

[crewman]

Last time I used them a cruise boat was anchored off and passengers being ferried ashore, landing on the pontoons. Is there an alternative facility?

 

[Minchsailor]

Last time I used them a cruise boat was anchored off and passengers being ferried ashore, landing on the pontoons. Is there an alternative facility?

No.

But a small ship (and I cannot imagine large ship making it into Loch Alsh) can tie up to the railway pier.

 

[awol]

No.

But a small ship (and I cannot imagine large ship making it into Loch Alsh) can tie up to the railway pier.

I believe that one of the design specs for the bridge was that there should be sufficient clearance for HMRY Brittania. Pity Lizzie flogged it to Ed'burg Cooncil for £1

 

[davidej]

Just been on a pontoon at Kyleakin. No probs.

 

[cpedw]

The horse's mouth and an invitation to donate!

 

[HissyFit]

I believe that one of the design specs for the bridge was that there should be sufficient clearance for HMRY Brittania. Pity Lizzie flogged it to Ed'burg Cooncil for £1

Not her boat to sell. It was Tony Blair who flogged Brittania to avoid the running costs.

 

[afterpegassus]

I believe that one of the design specs for the bridge was that there should be sufficient clearance for HMRY Brittania. Pity Lizzie flogged it to Ed'burg Cooncil for £1

Not sure if that is true.
She (the boatie) used to pass through every few years prior to the Bridge, but I don't think I ever saw it pass after the construction.

 

[awol]

Not her boat to sell. It was Tony Blair who flogged Brittania to avoid the running costs.

It was actually the Tories who decided to scrap her. Tony B refused to build a replacement.

 

[awol]

Not sure if that is true.
She (the boatie) used to pass through every few years prior to the Bridge, but I don't think I ever saw it pass after the construction.

There was a very short window between bridge completion and yacht decommissioning.

 

[afterpegassus]

There was a very short window between bridge completion and yacht decommissioning.

....and with that in mind, it seems unlikely that that vessel was a serious consideration for the bridge height.
In any case, at least a couple of metres would have had to be removed from the top of the mainmast to get under the bridge - not a bad idea in principle as removing tops from royalty is no bad thing....