Stornoway – Ullapool Service
Designing the Future – Vessel and
Harbour Considerations
13/04/2015
1
Scottish Government Ferry Policy
13/04/2015
2
13/04/2015
3
Background and Key Issues
•
•
•
•
•
13/04/2015
Route currently served by 2 vessels. ISLE OF
LEWIS (Freight and Passenger but not capable of
24 hour operation) and MUIRNEAG
(Overnight freight only service).
MUIRNEAG will no longer be able to operate after
October 2013.
Significant increase in traffic since introduction of
RET.
Importance of identifying optimum solution to
ensure continuation of service that meets current
and future likely demand.
Extremely challenging financial climate for public
services.
4
Passenger, Car and Commercial
Vehicle traffic 2009 – route comparison
Route
Passengers
Cars
Commercial
Wemys Bay to
Rothesay
756,000
140,000
12,100
Ardrossan to
Brodick
716,000
136,000
11,600
Oban to Craignure
578,000
114,000
10,600
Stornoway to
Ullapool
220,000
67,000
13,600
13/04/2015
5
13/04/2015
6
Timeline
• 2009 MVA commissioned by CMAL to undertake STAG
• 2010 Additional analysis undertaken by BM Consulting on emerging
options in light of RET experience. Commissioned by DML
• 2010 – 2011 In depth technical analysis on vessel options including
specification, model testing and reliability
• 2011 – More in depth analysis for shore infrastructure Ullapool and
Stornoway
• 2010 – 2011 Investigation and identification of funding options
• 2011 – Consultation with stakeholders on preferred option. Subject
to approval tender preferred option.
• 2012 – Commence shipbuilding and shore infrastructure
requirements
• October 2013 – Replacement shipping in service.
13/04/2015
7
13/04/2015
8
Objectives
Agreed objectives at pre appraisal stage:1. To provide transport links that offer more reliable opportunities for
travelling between Lewis/Harris and Scottish mainland;
2. To deliver transport links that allow businesses and residents to
travel close to the time they need to travel;
3. To provide sufficient long-term capacity to meet the demand for
current and future travel; and
4. To ensure value for money solution for delivering future transport
links between Lewis/Harris and Scottish mainland.
13/04/2015
9
Reliability – 1 Jan 2007 to 31 Dec 2010
Timetabled
Sailings
Weather
Cancellations
%
Technical
Cancellations
%
ISLE OF
LEWIS
4995
175
3.5
15
0.3
MUIRNEAG
2386
256
10.73
17
0.71
Ship
13/04/2015
10
13/04/2015
11
Initial Options
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Do Nothing – MUIRNEAG not replaced - REJECT
Do Minimum – Continue to run MUIRNEAG after 2013 REJECT
Option 1 – Replace MUIRNEAG with a like for like freight vessel
Option 2 – Operate ISLE OF LEWIS with enhanced timetable
REJECT
Option 3 – Additional ROPAX to supplement ISLE OF LEWIS
Option 4 – Acquire larger ROPAX configured for 24 hour operation
on route
Option 5 – Acquire two ROPAX vessels (smaller than IoL)
Option 6 –Supplement IoL with a seasonal service in summer
REJECT
Option 7 – Consider alternative routes for freight and discontinuation
of route with focus on Uig-Tarbert REJECT
13/04/2015
12
13/04/2015
13
Assessment of remaining options
Issue
Option 1
Replacement
Freight Vessel
Option 3
IOL plus new
ROPAX
Option4 –
Larger
ROPAX
Option 5
Two new
ROPAX
MUIRNEAG
Retired
Retired
Retired
Retired
ISLE OF
LEWIS
Replaced 2025
Replaced 2025
Possible
Redeployment
Possible
Redeployment
or sale
2/3
Up to 4/6
3/4
Up to 4/6
13/18 Knots
18 Knots
min 19 Knots
18 Knots
ROPAX
Crossings
Assumed
Speed
13/04/2015
14
Assessment of remaining options
Option 1
Replacement
Freight Vessel
Option 3
IOL plus new
ROPAX
Option4 –
Larger
ROPAX
Option 5
Two new
ROPAX
Reliability
Benefits
YES
YES
YES
YES
Timetable
Benefits
NO
YES
YES*
YES
Additional
Capacity
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO*
YES
NO*
NO*
NO*
YES*
NO*
Issue
Faster
Crossing
Times
Meets
Overnight
Freight
Requirements
Major Harbour
Works
13/04/2015
15
Subsequent Work – Vessel Options
In depth evaluation and technical analysis of
• Capacity requirements
• Weather limitations and how this can be mitigated by optimum hull
design
• Vessel design
• Technical reliability
• Frequency of service and turnaround times
• Fuel sources and types
• CO2 emissions
• Operating Costs
• Capital Costs
• Availability of second hand tonnage
13/04/2015
16
Subsequent Work - Harbours
• In depth and ongoing consultation with Stornoway Port Authority and
Ullapool Harbour Trust
• STAG for Ullapool (Atkins) and development analysis Stornoway
(Halcrow)
• Review of existing facilities including condition survey
• Requirements for shore infrastructure moving forward
• Parking and Marshalling
• Need for harbour legislation amendments and planning consents
• Working with both authorities to develop realistic development plans
to phase development and meet need
• Grant Management Group for prioritisation of grant money
13/04/2015
17
Subsequent Work - Finance
Analysis of financial options including
• Scottish Government voted loans
• Finance Leases
• Operating Leases
• Other innovative financial products
Following analysis a potentially affordable option has been identified
that does not necessitate SG capital commitment.
13/04/2015
18
13/04/2015
19
Summary of Options following
Analysis
13/04/2015
20
Purchase or charter of existing
ferry
•
Work closely with a number of brokers including Clarksons and SC
Chambers
•
Trend towards much larger ROPAX (super ferries) within the industry
•
Over 44% of tonnage that is of required size over 25 years old now
•
To date no suitable second hand tonnage has become available for any of
the options being considered
•
High risk strategy to rely on this method to secure replacement vessel(s)
13/04/2015
21
Replace MUIRNEAG with a like for like
freight vessel either new or second hand
PROS
• Cheapest option (£17.5m for new vessel and potentially substantially less
for second hand)
• Improved reliability
• Ability to take dangerous goods and livestock
• Meets business needs for overnight freight service (at least 20 drop trailers)
• No major changes required to shore infrastructure although substantial
investment required regardless at Ullapool and to a lesser extent Stornoway
CONS.
• No improvement on timetable
• No increase in capacity and will provide insufficient future car capacity
based on future traffic growth
13/04/2015
22
Acquire a smaller ROPAX vessel to
supplement MV ISLE OF LEWIS
PROS
• 2nd Cheapest option in terms of immediate capital requirements (£34m for
replacement vessel)
• Improved reliability
• New vessel can take dangerous goods and livestock
• Flexibility of service and redundancy if one ship is out of service
• Potential for increased number of daily scheduled sailings
• No major changes required to shore infrastructure although substantial
investment required regardless at Ullapool and to a lesser extent Stornoway
CONS
• Not optimum solution for weather reliability
• Will not be able to take all freight traffic in one overnight sailing
• Operating costs will be significantly higher than present including fuel and crew
• Likely lower RV in the event of leasing arrangement leading to higher charges.
13/04/2015
23
Acquire a larger ROPAX vessel
PROS
• Increased reliability particularly in heavy weather
• Addresses capacity issues and provides additional ROPAX sailings
• Can take present and projected night time freight traffic in one sailing
• Larger vessel allows fuel efficient hull forms to be used whilst still meeting
capacity requirements
• Can take dangerous goods and livestock
• Faster crossing
• Lower operating costs than 2 ROPAX including fuel and crew
• Good RV in the event of any leasing option
• Allows IoL to potentially be deployed on other routes or sold
CONS
• 3rd cheapest in terms of capital requirements (£49m) but offset against likely
lower leasing charges and savings from redeploying IoL or selling
• Provision of additional infrastructure at Ullapool including improved marshalling
facilities
• Reduced flexibility compared to 2 ship option
13/04/2015
24
Acquire two smaller ROPAX to replace
ISLE OF LEWIS and MUIRNEAG
PROS
• Reliability
• Addresses overall capacity issues
• Can take Dangerous Goods and Livestock on both ships
• Flexibility of service and redundancy if one ship is out of service
• Potential for increased number of daily scheduled sailings
• No major changes required to shore infrastructure although substantial
investment required regardless at Ullapool and to a lesser extent Stornoway
• Allows IoL to potentially be deployed on other routes or sold
CONS
• Most expensive in immediate capital requirements (£68m)
• Will have higher weather limitations than larger ship
• Lower RV than larger ship option in the event of leasing.
• Significantly higher operating costs than one ship option
13/04/2015
25
13/04/2015
26
CMAL and DML Emerging Preferred
Option
• After thorough analysis and appraisal the Boards of CMAL and DML
have reached the initial conclusion that the best option to take
forward is the procurement of a new 116m Roll on Roll Off
Passenger Ferry for service on the Stornoway – Ullapool Route
• That whilst this new ship will be more weather and technically
reliable, efficient and able to meet current and predicted capacity
levels until at least 2025 than the current vessels serving on this
route this does not in any way preclude additional tonnage being
sourced in future if demand dictates.
13/04/2015
27
13/04/2015
28
Proposed Euro Class B
New
Ro-Pax Design
Passenger/Vehicle
Ferry
Proposed Euro Class B
Passenger/Vehicle Ferry
2 x 3500kW
Azimuth Thrusters
Model Tests
V = 19.2 kts
PD = 5650 kW
Draught = 4.8 m
New Design A – Model Testing
13/04/2015
32
Main Dimensions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Length over all (max.)
Length pp
Breadth moulded
Depth, upper deck
Depth, main deck
Design draught
GRT
Max Cars
Max Trailers
Max Passengers
Crew Cabins
Deadweight
13/04/2015
116.0 m
108.0 m
18.0 m
12.8m
7.0 m
4.8 m
7780t
143
20
600
43
1530 tonnes
33
Technical Features
• Design Speed 19.2knots at design draft.
• The ship shall be designed as a twin-screw diesel-electric driven
vessel with bulbous bow, raked stem and special form transom.
• The main machinery shall consist of four medium-speed diesel
engines, each coupled to an AC generator and feeding the ship’s
main power plant.
• The propulsion machinery consists of converters and electric
propulsion motors, each motor driving an azimuthing pulling
propeller unit with fixed-pitch propellers.
• One pair of fin stabilizers
• Two (2) bow thrusters
13/04/2015
34
Demand versus Capacity 2024
Larger ROPAX – Assuming 3.4% annual
growth from current levels
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
Cap Supply
2500
10yr uncon
10yr con
2000
1500
1000
500
13/04/2015
Dec
Dec
Nov
Nov
Oct
Oct
Oct
Sep
Sep
Aug
Aug
Jul
Jul
Jun
Jun
May
May
May
Apr
Apr
Mar
Mar
Feb
Feb
Jan
Jan
0
35
Demand versus Capacity 2024
Larger ROPAX – Assuming 3.4% annual
growth from current levels
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Cap Supply
10yr con
2000
1500
1000
500
Dec
Dec
Nov
Oct
Nov
Oct
Oct
Sep
Sep
Aug
Jul
Aug
Jul
Jun
Jun
May
May
Apr
May
Apr
Mar
Mar
Feb
Jan
Feb
Jan
0
With 2 additional return sailings per week
13/04/2015
36
Demand versus Capacity 2024
Larger ROPAX – Assuming 1.7% annual
growth from current levels
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Cap Supply
10yr con
2000
1500
1000
500
13/04/2015
Dec
Dec
Nov
Nov
Oct
Oct
Oct
Sep
Sep
Aug
Aug
Jul
Jul
Jun
Jun
May
May
May
Apr
Apr
Mar
Mar
Feb
Feb
Jan
Jan
0
37
Proposed Replacement S-U Vessel
Key Characteristics
• Proposed replacement is more efficient, more manoeuvrable, better
reliability and a better weather operating envelope than either the IoL or
Muirneag (can remain stationary off a berth in up to 39knots – Force 8)
• Diesel Electric propulsion to minimise downtime and ensure better
reliability
• More efficient hull design
• Burns less fuel than IoL and Muirneag based on same schedule yet is
larger and faster. At today's fuel prices this equates to annual savings
of £750k however she represents a significant increase in capacity to
take into account RET and forecast traffic growth.
13/04/2015
38
Proposed Replacement S-U Vessel
Key Characteristics
.
• Operates 24 hours a day.
• Offers up to 4 sailings a day
• Service speed is 19.2 knots allowing for a slightly faster crossing
• Although the night sailing is predominantly for the freight traffic she
will be capable of taking cars and passengers which enhances the
service levels to people travelling to and from the island.
• More affordable than a two ship solution for this route.
• Does not preclude additional vessel going on the route if there is
sufficient demand.
• The replacement vessel will be able to cope with forecast traffic for
many years to come without the need for this.
13/04/2015
39
Next Steps
•Consultation and any further analysis
•Formal recommendation to Scottish Ministers
•Interaction with Scottish Ferries Review
•Ministerial Decision
•Formation of Integrated Project Team for vessel and harbour works
•Procurement and Harbour Consents
•Construction
•Entry into Service
13/04/2015
40
THANK YOU
13/04/2015
41