Liverpool turn arounds back on the agenda

[LauraS]

Call me pedantic if you wish but if someone is labeled a host and uk ambassador you ought to at least try to be neutral when posting under that user name?

Would it not be better for hosts to post personal opinion under another (non host) user name?

 

 

Hello All!

 

We've outlined this clearly in our guidelines.

 

Our "Hosts" are chosen because of their interests and opinions. It would make no sense to then ask them to not express those opinions because they now have the "host" moniker. We state in our guidelines their opinions are their own; and they are to follow the same community guidelines that everyone else has to follow.

 

Conversely, if a Host wants to, they may post under another non-host name. This is their decision, they don't have to let you know who they are and a host having a secondary name is not a violation of our posting guidelines.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Laura

[John Bull]

Sharon,

 

The smelly building is just to the right of the terminal building when stood looking at the terminal from the adjacent roadway, if the ship has it's starboard side to the dock the building is level with the tip of the bow. The scrap metal pile is just a little further allong. Both are very noticeable from balconies, the smelly building more so if the wind is in the wrong direction.

 

Hi D & H,

I swung by there thisafternoon, snuck in via dock-gate 20 (for commercial stuff)

Lots of truck traffic, straddle-carriers etc, the place is humming with activity

 

But no processing facility, no noxious smells.

Which is what I'd anticipated, since I've never seen or heard anyone else mention it.

So there's only one place the smell could have come from - mebbe it's time you changed cruise-ships :D

 

The buildings you mention are for bulk-handling of building materials - inert sand, aggregate, etc. They're a little further from the ship than you suggest, there's an open storage area for buoys etc between ship & them.

Other than that section of bulk materials, its all containers & import/export cars.

There's a barely-used fruit terminal on the other side of 106, but fruit isn't in there for five minutes before its sent on its way. The only smell from there might be sour grapes :D

No sewerage works, no food or other processing, no power station (that's in the retail park, very unobtrusive, powered without noise or fumes by underground hot springs), no oil refining or storage (that's way down Southampton Water on the other bank).

Just maybe up on your balcony you got a whiff of the marshy wetland across the water, prevailing wind is from that direction. Protected SSSI, the docks want to develop it, against fierce resitance from tree-huggers.

 

But I did find the scrap metal facility. ;)

Nearly half a mile further down the quayside, where cruisers aren't supposed to stray.

You did well to spot it beyond the building materials handling sheds & the stacks of containers. Must've been from your balcony, it's not visible from the quay.

 

Not saying Southampton's perfect, but I doubt we'd get a hand-out from the govt to refurb QE2 terminal as Sid suggests - handouts aren't always the answer, Sid.

 

Had to put the record straight about Southampton but the thread's supposed to be about Liverpool.

Can't argue but that it's a fine city with a fine waterfront. Shame that its Council, Peel Holdings, etc haven't invested in its future.

But I think you're right. Liverpool will probably get its way. With as little repayment of my & everyone else's tax money as it can get away with.:rolleyes:

 

Regards to all,

JB :)

[sidari]

JB ... knew you would not be able to resist! as regards Sour grapes it appears from the posts on here that those are coming from the South... :eek:

 

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but it does not mean we will always agree on any given issue,the issue here appears to be the amount of whingeing and whining coming from Southampton port owners and the fact that they are worried that Liverpool will take trade away from them in the future.

 

Inside cabin .... ships the size of QM2, Grand Princess, Crown Princess have docked at Liverpools pier so ship size is not an issue here but mainly the arguement regarding funding.

[John Bull]

JB ... knew you would not be able to resist! as regards Sour grapes it appears from the posts on here that those are coming from the South... :eek:

 

....... ship size is not an issue here but mainly the arguement regarding funding.

 

This thread is about Liverpool's facility, and the objections mainly tho' not solely from Southampton about its funding by the tax-payer.

D & H resorting to disparaging comments about two of Southampton's four terminals are a textbook example of sour grapes. And particularly rich when Liverpool expects everyone else to pay for theirs.

 

The argument isn't mainly about funding, Sid, the argument is all about funding.

Whatever the result, it will not please everyone. But if, as looks likely, Liverpool get the pier for turnarounds at about 25% of cost :rolleyes: - and that contribution repaid interest-free over 20 years or more :rolleyes: - Liverpool will get the best of the deal by a long chalk.

Lets hope that if that happens the good folk & businesses of Liverpool dig into their own pockets to provide a terminal worthy of the location. If they don't, they'll have no incentive to make sure it works.

 

JB (in grumpy mood ;))

[sidari]

Oh dear JB you really do have a problem with the North... :cool: as for Sour Grapes regarding smells or scrap yards that D&H mentioned i believe that was more a way of pointing something out that they had seen while onboard a ship in Southampton and nothing to do with Sour Grapes!

 

While you are on your Crusade to Stop Liverpool getting turnaround facilities maybe you could also attack the Schoolboys in government and ask them to make All the countries they have given money to since they have been in power including those in Default on the Euro to Pay it back also? maybe then Southampton might just get a Hand out and stop you along with the port owners from Whining about Liverpool.

[David&Heather]

Whatever the result, it will not please everyone. But if, as looks likely, Liverpool get the pier for turnarounds at about 25% of cost :rolleyes: - and that contribution repaid interest-free over 20 years or more :rolleyes: - Liverpool will get the best of the deal by a long chalk.

 

JB - Before posting 'facts' please check http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-22 and download the consultation document which states a part repayment over a period with interest.

 

Personally I feel the original condition was unfair and was imposed mainly due to lobbying of the then transport minister from the south, it was not a condition imposed by the NWRDA or ERDF who provided the vast majority of the grant. Although I do not know the full details it is quite possible that the full ammount of the conditional part of the grant is scheduled to be repaid, also as stated in the Dft document the beneifits of the original grant (bringing in visiting ships) is not affected by the new development.

[John Bull]

JB - Before posting 'facts' please check http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-22 and download the consultation document which states a part repayment over a period with interest.

 

Personally I feel the original condition was unfair and was imposed mainly due to lobbying of the then transport minister from the south, it was not a condition imposed by the NWRDA or ERDF who provided the vast majority of the grant. Although I do not know the full details it is quite possible that the full ammount of the conditional part of the grant is scheduled to be repaid, also as stated in the Dft document the beneifits of the original grant (bringing in visiting ships) is not affected by the new development.

 

Thanks for the link.

 

I have found by other means that the EU part of the Grant (about £9m) isn't subject to the turnaround restriction. Which makes it an unfair subsidy in my book, but its a fait-accomplis and I don't blame Liverpool for taking advantage.

 

But saying that the Minister whose lobbying imposed the restriction on the UK part of the Grant is "from the south" is even more irrelevant than saying that the North West RDA didn't want the restriction. Surprise, surprise - its raison-d'etre is supporting the North-West and the hell with anyone else. :rolleyes:

The question of paying interest (and the rate if applicable), is buried in gov-speak : "(the minister) ...has taken account of the interest element implicit in the repayment".

Which may mean that Liverpool didn't offer to pay interest but the govt has made the point that paying interest is presumed. :confused:

Or may mean that interest has already been taken into account in the discounted sum which they require to be repaid. :confused:

 

One further point that's come to light in that consultation document:

" LCC, in proposing staged repayment, requested that the liability for repayments should cease in the event that turnaround use is terminated at some date within the 15 year period."

In other words, Liverpool wanted the right to stop repaying if the turnaround business doesn't work out. Just like you or I would want to stop repaying a bank loan if our business didn't work out.

On the bright side, I see that as typical scally cheek :D

On the darker side it doesn't demonstrate that Liverpool has any confidence in it's plans, and being able to give up a business without cost if it fails is one way to ensure that it will fail.

Liverpool, you need a lot more backbone.

 

And no mention in the document, or anywhere else that I've looked, of where the money is to come from in order to build a terminal. Other than

"it is possible that Peel Ports will contribute private sector investment to help upgrade the Terminal and berth pocket"

Southampton's privately-funded "tin hut" cost a reported £40m.

JB (not quite so grumpy today):)

ps Sid - yep, I get as p***ed-off as you about wasted grants & unpaid loans. But simply joining the list - "Southampton might just get a handout" - is hardly the way to resolve it

[DEEDIA]

So the North South divide continues, its sad when when one person wants it all, like the football in the Playground, its mine and your not playing. I also agree if its a loan it should abide by the rules. You get nowt for nothing these days.

[southsea bubble]

As someone from the south, I have no problems in Liverpool FAIRLY competing for cruise business.

I have sailed out of Liverpool in the past and enjoyed the experience until reaching the Irish sea and then experiencing very unpleasant weather conditions

However why should £17m of EU/UK Grant money be given to one port when every other Uk port has had to provide their own cash?

The original grant money was given on the strict understanding that it was for 'calling cruises' only and that is why no other port complained at that stage, If they had it is highly likely that the money would not have been forthcoming.

Apparently the Liverpool Grant Aid application provided for 50 calling cruises per annum by 2010. This year there are ....16!! Why is this?

Then there was the issue of trying to elicit the support of Portsmouth (not Southampton or Dover) as 'a major south coast cruise port' in supporting Liverpool's application for turnround status.

All very underhand

However Liverpool will undoubtedly get permission for turnround calls on very favourable terms.

Wonder what their next step will be to provide suitable turnround facilities for cruise ships?

It is not cheap to provide the Terminal buildings and fitments especially for the big ships that predominate in todays cruise market

It may be that Southampton will not be the main loser.

It could be Dover, Harwich, Falmouth, Tilbury and Portsmouth, all ports which have invested their own money and taken onboard an element of risk.

Separately some comments have been made in other posts about scrap piles near to the Mayflower Cruise terminal in Southampton.

Interestingly the scrap is owned by S. Norton and Co, a company based in.......Liverpool

[iadom]

It seems as though Liverpool has other EU grant problems, perhaps some of THIS money could be diverted to the pier development.:D

 

Jim.

[insidecabin]

If I recall the investemnt at Southampton are on the back of long term commitments by cruise lines to use the facilities.

 

I Think that the cruise lines won't make those sort of commitment for Liverpool because they fear they can't fill the ships with northeners and people don't travel from the south when they aready have plenty of options.

[southsea bubble]

I think you are right as regards to Cunard, Pand O and possibly RCCL

 

However there are other 'smaller' lines eg Fred olsen, Saga, Thomson and others who use the likes of Tilbury, Harwich, Dover, Newcastle etc who could well be attracted to a decent facility in Liverpool

 

There are suggestions that Peel ports, who own the Port of Liverpool, and collect river dues have their own agenda re cruise terminals so it will be interesting to see what support they give to Liverpool City council

[sidari]

If I recall the investemnt at Southampton are on the back of long term commitments by cruise lines to use the facilities.

 

So if certain or more cruise lines pulled out of southamton the money spent by the port owners would then be wasted! because they spent it on a promise ... :eek:

 

As for Peel holdings they have submitted a planning application to liverpool council that does not involve cruise ship facilities, there are other parties who are worried about the plans like Unesco with regard to a number of the buildings listed within the plans for the Derelict area of the old docks.

 

Maybe Peel may add a cruise terminal to the plans who knows but then Liverpool gains twice by having Turnaround facilites and the pier already built! so a possible Double win situation.... :)

[blackpool belle]

If I recall the investemnt at Southampton are on the back of long term commitments by cruise lines to use the facilities.

 

I Think that the cruise lines won't make those sort of commitment for Liverpool because they fear they can't fill the ships with northeners

 

What makes you think the cruise lines cannot fill the ship with Northerners not forgetting the good folk North of the Border who have an even longer trek than I do to Southampton.

[sidari]

BB ... Who says they have to fill the ships with Northerners? ... :) (as previously posted by Inside cabin) who is to say that people from other parts of the world would not be interested or the UK ? the cruise world does not revolve around Southampton!

[John Bull]

BB ... Who says they have to fill the ships with Northerners? ... :) (as previously posted by Inside cabin) who is to say that people from other parts of the world would not be interested or the UK ? the cruise world does not revolve around Southampton!

 

 

Hi Sid.

 

As far as overseas visitors are concerned the cruise world revolves around London. Because anyone who visits the UK puts London at the top of the list. Because the choice of flights to London is enormous. And because for europeans it's pointless to fly further north to pick up a cruise ship, unless perhaps its trans-Atlantic or to places like Iceland.

 

Southampton gets most of the "London" cruise business because it has exceptional natural advantages (unique double tide, sheltered approaches & port), its port & support industries for large passenger ships have been continuously developed, and it's situated between London & most cruise destinations. So Southampton does better than Harwich, Tilbury, Dover & Portsmouth.

But I've seen all those ports quoted on cruiseline itineraries as "London" :rolleyes:

 

It's those folk from the north (incl Scotland - and indeed parts of Ireland) who want to sail from the north who will make or break Liverpool, because I'm pretty certain that it will be an unpopular turnaround port for everyone else.

And the more I think about it, the more I think that Liverpool will be competing with ports like Newcastle & Rosyth.

 

Time will tell

 

JB :)

[scrozuk]

Of the cruises that I have been on from Southampton, have always found that one of the main questions asked has been "have you had to come far to join the ship?", which we then tell them the journey was all of ten minutes..

 

You then hear from people who have driven from Scotland, Yorkshire, Lancashire, etc. It's understandable that a port closer to them would make geographic sense for them (if not environmentally). If you live in or around the Liverpool area, and were able to catch a cruise from your local port that's more convenient.

 

A bit like the airports. If you live near Birmingham, the logical choice for airport would be Birmingham, Bristol Airport for Bristolians, etc..

 

It would make no sense for me, living in Southampton to catch a cruise from Liverpool or Newcastle if I have a cruise terminal on my doorstep, unless there was a specific cruise I wouldn't be able to get elsewhere, so it does make sense to build more regional cruise terminals

 

For years, because of the situation that other ports have allowed themselves to get into by underinvestment, Southampton has been able to snare much of the cruise industry, but the city has only been able to do this by ABP putting in the investment without the need or assistance from tax payers money.

 

Don't forget that the cruise industry has only really gone mainstream again like it has in the last 5-6 years, and ABP Southampton saw this business opportunity and worked at it. I think that with the current situation they probably feel a bit peeved that after taking the risks of investment and building several new terminals, that other ports are jumping on the gravy train, but doing without private investment, but relying on taxpayers money.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, it'd be great for more ports to handle cruises, but only through private investment. Similarly, it's pretty stupid to expect Liverpool to pay back the monies given to it to develop the cruise terminal area in one go, but better to pay back over a given period. As the port gets more successful, more money is generated. There would be no sense in expecting Liverpool to pay back £15m or whatever amount immediately, on the back of needing about £30-50m to develop a fully functional terminal, which will take time to be fully ready to handle cruises as a starting point.

 

I just hope sense will prevail in all of this.

 

ScrozUK

[blackpool belle]

BB ... Who says they have to fill the ships with Northerners? ... :) (as previously posted by Inside cabin) who is to say that people from other parts of the world would not be interested or the UK ? the cruise world does not revolve around Southampton!

 

 

I was referring to Insiders comments who stated that the cruiselines may fear not being able to fill up the ship with Northerners. Obviously people from abroad and the South are not going to travel North when they have several ports on their doorstep. That goes without saying. It would just be nice for those of us who have a 4 hour + journey and prefer the "big" ships to have an alternative. IMHO I think those fears are unfounded and how would they know they cannot fill the ships with Northerners until they've tried it

[sidari]

JB ... Well i am amazed i actually found myself agreeing with nearly all your post at the top of the page ... :eek: i am not so sure that people from other parts of the UK would shun Liverpool because it will depend on the destinations offered by the cruise lines that choose to sail from Liverpool! assuming of course that some choose to if the facilties are built.

 

BB .. I know what you were saying in your post.

[John Bull]

JB ... Well i am amazed i actually found myself agreeing with nearly all your post at the top of the page

.

 

:);):);):)

 

And, yes, even I would be happy to drive to Liverpool for a cruise to destinations further north. Much better than a long day at sea chugging round Lands End.

Except that those northern destinations are way too cold for me.

 

JB :)

[southsea bubble]

Of the cruises that I have been on from Southampton, have always found that one of the main questions asked has been "have you had to come far to join the ship?", which we then tell them the journey was all of ten minutes..

 

You then hear from people who have driven from Scotland, Yorkshire, Lancashire, etc. It's understandable that a port closer to them would make geographic sense for them (if not environmentally). If you live in or around the Liverpool area, and were able to catch a cruise from your local port that's more convenient.

 

A bit like the airports. If you live near Birmingham, the logical choice for airport would be Birmingham, Bristol Airport for Bristolians, etc..

 

It would make no sense for me, living in Southampton to catch a cruise from Liverpool or Newcastle if I have a cruise terminal on my doorstep, unless there was a specific cruise I wouldn't be able to get elsewhere, so it does make sense to build more regional cruise terminals

 

For years, because of the situation that other ports have allowed themselves to get into by underinvestment, Southampton has been able to snare much of the cruise industry, but the city has only been able to do this by ABP putting in the investment without the need or assistance from tax payers money.

 

Don't forget that the cruise industry has only really gone mainstream again like it has in the last 5-6 years, and ABP Southampton saw this business opportunity and worked at it. I think that with the current situation they probably feel a bit peeved that after taking the risks of investment and building several new terminals, that other ports are jumping on the gravy train, but doing without private investment, but relying on taxpayers money.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, it'd be great for more ports to handle cruises, but only through private investment. Similarly, it's pretty stupid to expect Liverpool to pay back the monies given to it to develop the cruise terminal area in one go, but better to pay back over a given period. As the port gets more successful, more money is generated. There would be no sense in expecting Liverpool to pay back £15m or whatever amount immediately, on the back of needing about £30-50m to develop a fully functional terminal, which will take time to be fully ready to handle cruises as a starting point.

 

I just hope sense will prevail in all of this.

 

ScrozUK

 

I think this is a very reasonable post.

Some will say too reasonable as no other port will receive apporox £8m of 'free' EU money to develop a cruise terminal and then what is likely to be a soft loan on the remainder with little obligation to repay if the figures dont add up.

However I dont agree with a previous post that any Liverpool turnround calls will struggle to fill up

The North west provides the highest ratio of cruise passengers to population in the UK according to figures released by the PSA.

It begs the question then why grant aid has to be given to a port, within the N West area,which is supposed to qualify for grants as it sits in such a poor area.

[insidecabin]

Since you guys up north are so keen to cruise from the north why not use Newcastle

 

Both Fred Olsen and Thomson have offerings(have had for a few years but missed this year).

 

Could Thomson ships fit the turnaround berths that Blackprince was using?

 

I also see that Thomson first round Britain ever, from Harwich, was so impressed with Liverpool they left it off the itineray and are going to the isle of man.

 

 

 

I just don't think there is enough demand for a big ship with the kind of itineraries it can offer.

[sidari]

Inside cabin ... Sadly the size of cruise ships we prefer do not sail from anywhere other than Southampton as things stand! and at a guess i would say that the number of people from the UK who would be on the cruise location you have posted or Princess or Cunard is probably quite small compared to other Nationalities who after all would more than likely want to see those places.

 

As for Newcastle there are no Large cruise ships going from there as you will know but if they did to the Fjords or Baltic then we would consider going from there as we have done when flying.

 

Liverpool would offer a different location from which to travel to Norway (North Cape) and the Baltic as well as to the USA via Canada and Iceland and possibly the med via Falmouth.

[Ray66]

Since you guys up north are so keen to cruise from the north why not use Newcastle

 

Because the river is nowhere near wide enough to take today's big cruise ship. The QE2 had difficulty entering a few years ago. It was windy and the ship had to wait one and a half hours at the mouth of the river for the wind to drop.

[southsea bubble]

Newcastle can handle the smaller cruise turnrounds, like Olsen and Thomson via the Ferry Terminal but presumably only when no North sea ferry is in port

It would not be able to embark the 2,000+ passenger ships which are now the market norm without considerable investment in upgraded facilities

Liverpool will have the same challenge when it eventually gets turnround status.

It will cost anything beyond £3m (for very basic facilities) up to £20-£30m for the Soton/Dover type terminal with overhead gangways and the like

Interesting to note that when Direct Holidays (the forerunner of Sun Cruises) ran a series of cruises with a 750 capacity vessel (cant remember the name) to the Med from Gladstone Dock about 10 yrs ago, it was full but a combination of the Irish Sea and the Bay of Biscay was a bit rich for quite a few passengers

I cant see that Liverpool is really in the right position for starting Baltic cruises compared to Newcastle, Harwich or Dover