Letters / What about a plan B for Fair Isle ferry replacement?

I refer to Chris’s Cope’s interesting article of 6 December on the subject of the Fair Isle ferry.

Fair Isle ferry project pushes ahead after full business case approval

Please take my views as sincere, expressed as an observer of a perceived situation from such data as is available. But from that, making hopefully what is meant to be a constructive attempt to propose viable yet economical alternative solutions all aimed at enabling the necessary retirement of the Good Shepherd IV at the earliest opportunity.

I would preface these comments by commending all parties concerned with this issue, from SIC councillors, executives who negotiated with the UK Government to obtain levelling up funding on the scale achieved, Stantec who prepared the weighty 2021 report and their recommendation on the subject, SIC ferries staff who have the difficult task at the moment of not only managing the present ancient incumbent, the good ship Good Shepherd IV while many other vessels in their fleet supporting the other islands need extra care and covering costs until replacements can be made.

And of course the residents of Fair Isle, surely a hardy breed there by their choice presumably in the main, and no doubt averse to charity support.

1.

My project views, the provision of outside funds from the either the UK Government and/or SIC to address the issue are predicated by considering the need that Fair Isle residents and visitors have for an optimal service, related to the population size of some 50 persons plus visitors, and their annual related cargo needs, inwards or out, at best reasonable cost to the outside communities funding same.

I am sure islanders would recognise and respect that the current huge cost estimate to provide this particular recommended replacement ferry, not funded by either them or the island’s owner, needs to be viewed in relation to the projected need for the greater community, be it via UK Government or SIC, on the back of this 2021 Stantec report, to provide now up to the mentioned £45.4 million, with an undetermined annual cost projection thereafter to maintain the service.

Do we know what that figure is against revenue projections from the services provided, sea and/or air, as SIC executives have already commented on several recent occasions that SIC has current and projected cash constraints in view of expanding funding requirements and inflation.

And although not directly comparable, how does the proposed Fair Isleservice and projected cost at these figures compare with other islands serviced, such as Foula.

While initially on Stantec’s original interpretation of the optimal way forward it was estimated to require a relatively small amount of SIC contribution, we now are advised an additional £18.6 million will have to be sourced from somewhere, paid for by SIC. Presumably cost of same will need to be included in the projected accounts for community support to Fair Isle going forward.

Of course, SIC also needs to be conscious in soliciting UK Government or other support project funding applications they may be applying for represent reasoned, optimal, well costed use for such funds to ensure a favourable response. Especially as there are competing needs from other sectors of the greater Shetland islands wide communities SIC strives to support.

2.

It’s been my belief for some time, and expressed to certain councillors, that the 2021 Stantec report while being a voluminous tome and interesting read, was deficient on recommending to SIC only one optimal solution funders apparently have to accede to.

The steel monohull vessel as proposed necessitates a huge cost to implement. This is reflected now in the latest project estimate funders are being asked to accept.

Of course, this proposal will work, but in view of this taxpayer cost, to either the UK Government and/or to Shetland, not the consultants, I believe a workable alternative as a plan B should have been included for consideration by SIC councillors who are presumably in the main not marine business orientated, but certainly cost conscious.

One that still meets islanders’ key needs, be serviced by the islanders, but avoiding this apparent high cost to do so. In a number of respects my suggestion expressed below in (4), a SWATH, actually has several advantages, both to residents and certainly funders.

Two other cost saving alternatives, C and D, possibilities perhaps now SIC is focusing on the burden to them with appreciation as to how the project cost has spiralled, could be C, port renovations minus the slip renewal.

Use of a SWATH (Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull) would also reduce the vessel cost. The only slight negative vessel v vessel is the deadweight cargo capacity of a SWATH, being comparable to the Good Shepherd IV but greater in the proposed monohull. Cubic capacity and cranage would be good. There is of course much more flexibility of use.

But in reality, how much can the cargo requirements for the small island population and visitors actually be now and into the future, when access, due to its location and SSSI will necessarily and rightly restrict future population growth, and which is controlled by the owner. What might their views be?

The current anticipated project cost does appear unnecessarily high versus actual needs to service demand there, and alternative uses for scarce funds.

Plan D of course would be run a fast service from the mainland, Lerwick or Grutness, avoid the Fair Isle premium and low boat utilisation in basing a ferry there.

Well intended job concerns expressed for island labour with the size of the population I believe are misplaced. The future of Fair Isle, deservedly so, is bright once the bird observatory reopens and travel can be further expanded. A functioning port and airport plus vibrant local industryshould provide expanding employment opportunities.

3.

Depending on the amount of port works decided on to improve particularly cargo handling, the cost of this project could be as low as £4.5 million, not £45.4 million.

While appreciating the work that has gone into this project to date, in fact by not yet finalising any recommended option, one might hope a window of opportunity may still be open for an alternative to be positively reviewed and put in place by whoever is responsible for same.

That might disappoint contractors lining up for the bounty in prospect as is. But if changed, one might consider therefore with the possible scale of commitments negated while still significantly improving the Fair Isle service, the issue of the urgent Shetland islands wide need to replace several, expensive to maintain yet retain in operation older ferries should be addressed.

Thereby improve the lot of thousands of Shetland residents, businesses and visitors presently adversely impacted by having to endure the frequently reported uncertain current service through no fault of ferries management striving to maintain reliability of same. Scottish mainland service.

4.

The vessel solution I believe lies in working within certain of the broad parameters of what has performed well for years re the Good Shepherd IV, with particular regard to her displacement and draft.

Fit the solution within that, then ferries can continue to use the existing North Haven slip. Avoid the huge projected replacement cost for both slip and dredging necessary to enable this proposed steel hull vessel to access this port and elsewhere.

Optimise a 25 metre SWATH design as a ferry, in aluminium, or even carbon for improved draft/load/environment capability. SWATH built using modern materials would offer less displacement than Good Shepherd IV, just require a modified cradle and perhaps some noust expansion.

Such a vessel would be easier for a small crew to handle, as now than a steel unit twice the Good Shepherd IV displacement. Speed would be twice that of a steel vessel. This would dramatically shorten voyage times with improved comfort, thereby expand range potential and frequency of port calls such as Lerwick, which many Stantec survey user respondents wanted. Environmentally friendly, depending on selected power type, lower fuel cost.

Expanded operational usage available to ferries per year is 30 per cent better than a steel monohull and catamaran, as proven now in offshore use, windfarms etc. This is significant because of working location and basically due to improved speed, crew and passenger comfort in adverse conditions, installation also of internal and external stabilisation.

I suggest SIC or consultants talk to designers and UK North Sea owners of such boats such as Maritime Craft Services (Clyde) Ltd and Mainprize Offshore Ltd. Wind farm boat design shown below just requires easy modification to suit ferry application and particulars of Fair Isle slip.

There clearly appears, understandably so, a strong desire to apportion this £27 million of UK Government support to this project irrespective of relative value and projected cost now, and future to SIC.Can the plan be amended by a change in vessel type to reduce the SIC cost component currently apparent? Or can funding be reassigned to ferries in general where, including this unit, it’s urgently required.

Andrew Marshall
East Kilbride

1 Maritime Craft Services (Clyde) Ltd three SWATH new boat Finland build: https://www.adhocmarinedesigns.co.uk/project/typhoon-class-swath-ctvs

2. Mainprize Offshore Ltd 6 plus 6 boat SWATH design.Singapore built: https://www.mainprizeoffshore.co.uk/offshoresupport/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/MO11-Specification-Sheet_2022v1.pdf