We have engaged with CalMac in some detail over the course of this year regarding the intermediate re-deployment replacement for the Isle of Mull. The IOM is slated to retire next year, and until we get newbuild vessels in around five years time we will be served by a ship re-deployed from elsewhere in the network.
This week we received the CalMac document below (bottom of the page) that lays out the re-deployment plan; but the most critical aspects of it are ‘TBC’. CalMac intend to hold a public meeting in January to discuss the plans – more on that as soon as we know the details.
Meantime, below is extracted text from our most recent email to CalMac management on this topic, which lays out the issues, key questions and the shortlist of options.
So far as Craignure-Oban is concerned, the overriding principle that should be applied to the cascade decision is that IT MUST NOT RESULT IN SERVICE DEGRADATION. Any cascade that results in reduced daily vehicle capacity, worsened reliability, worse passenger management (ie does not fit PAS systems), broken public transport connections, insufficient foot passenger capacity or reduced number of sailings will be totally unacceptable.
Our service has already been degraded by the introduction of the Loch Frisa. Worse public transport connections, much lower capacity, slower service and non-existent onboard services. The 2-vessel service we were promised for the winter has never materialised, and there are no guarantees we will finally get it next year. So if after the spending of £500 million of public money on new ferries, the net result for one of the major islands in the network is a WORSE service, it will not only be totally unacceptable to the people of Mull and Iona, it would be another chapter for the long book of ferry fiascos.
Consider too that the plan CalMac are putting together right now will dictate Mull’s ferry service for at least five years. 2030 may be the target for delivery of the new Mull vessels, but we’ve barely begun the process and a lot can happen between now and their arrival. So lets say we are talking about 6 – 7 years for us to live with whatever you decide in the next few months. Meantime, Arran has two new ships; Islay has two new ships; services across the Minch will benefit from two new ships (rather than one previously); a new ferry for Lochboisdale will be built and delivered, and we will still be making do with hand-me-downs until 2031 or 2032.
I cannot stress enough that service degradation will be utterly, completely, unacceptable.
Which brings us on to the choices.
The Caledonian Isles is not acceptable. Use of the mezz decks will lengthen turnaround unacceptably, leading to missed public transport connections and possibly a loss of an entire sailing. Its difficult enough trying to make the connections work now, particularly trying to maintain basic public transport connections to/from the Iona ferry. Add longer turnaround times and it will become difficult to the point of impossible.
Not only that, but since mezz decks could only be used on rare occasions (maybe the first sailing of the day, or any with a particularly long turnaround due to other issues), the vehicle capacity of the Cale Isles at 55 is LESS than the IOM’s 63. Inadequate capacity is our biggest issue, and this will only make it worse.
Next – at one end or another, all foot passengers will have to transit via the car deck. We already tolerate this with the Frisa, but she does not operate peak sailings and can only carry 200 anyway – so we’re talking about 120 on foot, max. Peak sailings for the IOM can carry over 500 people, so maybe 400 people will have to walk via the car deck. That is not just shoddy, a poor experience for visitors, difficult for the mobility-impaired, and less safe – it will further lengthen turnaround times.
Also …. our understanding is that in the case of the Cale Isles, linkspan fit is not good. She has to push the end of the boat furthest from the linkspan away from the pier, in order for the ramp to line up.
And finally – the Cale Isles fails the ‘can it berth gently at Craignure pier’ test. As you know, all vessels heavier than the IOM (that’s all of them we are talking about here) have to berth at no more than 0.2 m/s. Maintaining that very cautious approach in anything but the best weather requires a ship with good manoeuvrability, low windage and plenty of power. The Cale Isles has none of those things. So we would likely find that in winter our cancellations would climb even further.
Given this long list, it baffles me that apparently the working assumption in some parts of CalMac is that the Cale Isles will be re-deployed to Mull. No.
The Finlaggan
Offers no meaningful increase in capacity (unless using the mezz decks, and as stated above, that will not be possible for all the same reasons). Turnaround time is longer; she fails the ‘can it berth gently at Craignure pier’ test. The PAS does not fit at Craignure. So the Finlaggan is also a no.
The Clansman and the Hebrides.
Both offer modest vehicle capacity increase, and both can achieve workable 20 minute turnarounds. (though Clansman is said to need a five minute longer turnaround in Oban than the Hebrides, which perhaps needs questioning, since the two boats are so similar). Both could pass the Craignure pier test. BUT,– the PAS does not fit at Oban berth #1. We have previously advised that Hebrides was our preferred vessel, and I think that remains the case. But on paper (that odd +5mins Oban turnaround for the Clansman aside), they would appear to be equal candidates.
But the only way either would be acceptable is if they could use berth #2 in Oban as a matter of routine. In circumstances where the Isle of Lewis has been replaced by another vessel, services to Barra could move to berth #1. I would argue that PAS compatibility for Barra services is much less important than for Mull, given the very low carrying numbers and infrequency of service. There is perhaps a similar argument to be made for Coll and Tiree services. If a choice has to be made of which service uses berth #2 and benefits from the PAS, it is difficult to argue against the much higher-traffic Mull service.
But as an absolute minimum-service statement, Mull’s foot passengers should never, ever have to transit via the car deck if that has an impact on our timetable or lengthens turnaround.
The suggestion that Mull services use berth #2 routinely as a fix to the PAS issue could also be made in respect of the Finlaggan and Cale Isles. BUT – they fail so many other requirements that it makes no difference.
A final observation on the PAS at Craignure – Although decrepit and hopefully good for another 5 or 6 years, it could perhaps be moved up or down the pier slightly to suit whatever was our new vessel? We would certainly do our bit in arguing for that to be done if it proved necessary.
The Isle of Mull.
As we all know, the IOM can do the job just fine.
Which brings me on to the question that needs to be answered –
What are the engineering / technical reasons for the IOM being retired? At the moment, it feels somewhat arbitrarily based on age, and is perhaps influenced by the huge costs sunken into the Cale Isles to keep her in service. The IOM may be older, but she has a good reliability record. The key unknown is the state of her hull, and I imagine that is the critical issue. In Finlay’s replies on this topic earlier in the year, he said:
… we are in the process of completing Lloyds Register Hull Renovation Surveys on several vessels in the Fleet including Caledonian Isles and Isle of Mull and the data derived from these surveys will allow us to proactively address any structural steel issues during the scheduled overhaul periods. HRS is a dedicated and detailed review of the vessels structure which far exceeds the legislative requirement.
Has this work been completed, and what is the outcome? If the IOM can be kept in service without overwhelming work needed on her hull, perhaps she is a better candidate for retention than the Cale Isles? She is more adaptable in terms of port-fit, and could be a good candidate as the ‘hot spare’, to last until the Clansman / Hebrides are replaced with new-builds (which should be happening in the early 2030s) and one of them could take up the ‘spare’ role.
Personally, if the IOM can be kept in service I think the best outcome would be as below (welcome thoughts from others in the committee on this!):
Isle of Arran – retire
Isle of Lewis – retire
Cale Isles – retire
Finlaggan – re-deploy to Barra.
Clansman – either retain on Coll/Tiree or re-deploy to Mull.
Hebrides – either redeploy to Coll/Tiree or Mull.
Isle of Mull – Spare.
You have suggested a meeting in January to discuss all of this, perhaps with a public meeting too. Happy to do that, and would welcome the opportunity. However, if all of the information we are basing our thoughts on is still correct, the key questions that need to be answered are these, and they need to be fleshed out before any meeting –
- How much life is reasonably / economically still in the IOM’s hull?
- In a choice between the IOM and the Cale Isles, which would be the more adaptable spare?
- What is the best choice for each of the Clansman and Hebrides between Coll/Tiree and Mull?
Best Regards,
Joe
It’s funny how Caledonian Isles has managed on the busier Arran route for over 30 years to carry out 5 (more on a Friday) returns per day. The crossing time to Arran is 55 mins compared to the 50 mins to Mull. Caley Isles has managed this with 25 or 30 min turnarounds with the use of a full car deck including mezzanine decks. I was on Caley Isles a few months ago just after her return to service on a busy Saturday where she came into Ardrossan at 12:00 with a full car deck including the mezz’s. She was emptied and reloaded with another full load within 17 mins with 13 to sore until the departure time of 12:30. I think your information about Caley Isles power and ability to berth in a controlled way in poor weather is wrong – Caley Isles outstrips Isle of Mull in terms of power available to the main engines and bow thrusters. Caley Isles has 2 independent diesel bow thrusters that operate without taking power away from the main engines. Isle of Mull’s bow thrusters are powered by shafting power from the main engines. Check out the video of Caley Isles berthing in Ardrossan yesterday in weather that IOM would not be sailing in.
Caledonian Isles is the best vessel to service Mull until new vessels are procured.
Great analysis of the situation. I am not sure of the merits of Finlaggan moving to Barra route as I’d expect that given her previous bad weather performance challenges on the Minch there would be an increased level of weather cancellations on the Barra route than there is today. This clearly isn’t desirable for a route that has a maximum of 1 crossing per day. Given the Clansman’s and Hebs record in managing bad weather and the expose nature of Coll/Tiree and Barra I would be extremely surprised once the IoL retires if they are not deployed to those routes.
We’re basing our judgement on information first-hand from CalMac regarding the time the Caley Isles would need to turnaround in Oban and Craignure. They say 40 minutes when using the mezz decks, 30 without. Both are significantly more than the IOM, and will make it very difficult to maintain established train connections, as well as meet other critical timings such as connections to the Iona ferry and delivering / returning children to school. It may lead the loss of a return journey, in which case the benefit of the mezz decks will be undone. PAS-fit is also a major issue. Unless the PAS in Craignure can be moved, it is likely that foot passengers would need to transit via the car deck. With loads of up to 500 in summer, that would further extend turnaround as well as being a less safe, inconvenient and shoddy way of handling people. The manouvrability / control issue relates to the berthing speed limits now applied to Craignure pier of 0.2 m/s – ie very very gently. So control when berthing, particularly in winter weather, will be critical. From our understanding of Masters’ judgement, that will be more difficult to adhere to for the Caley Isles than the other alternatives. If these key issues can be resolved, then our view might change. But the criteria we are applying are fair and objective – no re-deployment should result in a worse service.
I have commented this morning and it has yet to appear?
Because we have to manually approve comments from new contributors…
Some very interesting points here.
CalMac would be wise to engage with Joe and friends in depth and in private before decisions become fixed.
I would hazard a guess that calmac never listens to anyone. They ignored Arran over new terminal and new boats.
Caley Isles capacity of 102 cars with mezzanine (which hold 14 each). This makes a capacity of 74 without mezzanine – not the 55 quotes in the linked report.
Clansman also has a mezzanine, which affects turnround times.
CalMac state a real-life capacity of 55 excluding the mezz decks, and 93 with. So 19 on each mezz. These are the CalMac figures. Yes Clansman has mezz decks, but capacity without them is stated by CalMac as 70. So an increase of 7 cars over the IOM’s 63.
Joe, I know a few Calmac masters who have actually had command of Caley Isles and they said she is much more manoeuvrable than Isle of Mull. What makes you think that IOM is more manoeuvrable than Caley Isles?
The gangway issue is a Craignure issue that has seen massive under investment. The makeshift structure at Craignure only fits Isle of Mull and anything with a gangway door in the lucky position! It’s the same at Ardrossan (and was at Brodick old pier) – the large gangway only fits Caley Isles.
It feels like from what the ferry committee is being told by Calmac that they are determined to lessen the appeal of Caledonian Isles!
The Mull & Iona ferry commitee should take a trip to Arran on Caley Isles and see her in action first hand, see the accuracy of the tight precision handbrake turn into Ardrossan, see how quick they load and unload with mezz decks in use! This will allow you to see her in a different light. Clansman and Hebrides cannot carry full loads with a lot of foot passengers and keep to the timetable like Caledonian Isles can!
I’m not saying the IOM is more manouvrable, full stop. I’m saying that any vessel with a greater displacement than the IOM has to berth in Craignure at no more than 0.2m/s. This is a stipulation from Argyll and Bute Council who own the pier. The question is therefore whether the Caley Isles is sufficiently controllable in winter weather to adhere to that requirement.
Re the gangway in Craignure you are absolutely right. But it is what it is, and whether it fits or not is a major issue. Perhaps it can be moved. In which case that problem can be overcome.
We don’t need to see how the Caley Isles performs to Arran – we need to know how it will perform here. The key answers have been provided by CalMac – ie capacities, PAS fit, sailing time and turnaround time, and on the basis of the numbers provided, there are big disadvantages.
Hi ,
Just a observation about the Hebredies being your preferred choice.
You say that one of the reasons the Finlaggen and Caledonian Isles are not the best option is due to the mezz deck increasing turnaround times.
Would this not be the same for the Hebredies which also has a mezz deck ?
Also even if the Mezz deck was used would the increased turnaround time not be gained back with either Hebredies or Finlaggen used as they both would be able to do Oban Craignure faster as they have similar speed of the Clansman which has been known to do the Mull run in about 35/40 minutes compared with the 50minites timetabled for the Isle of Mull and Isle of Arran.
It would seem to me the continued use of Loch Frisa is also a major stumbling block ! I have regularly seen her arriving late when fully loaded and at other times virtually empty when carrying lorries.