Forest braced for new Bay terminal bid (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
New Forest council braced for new Dibden Bay terminal bid from ABP
11:30am Monday 15th June 2009 in News
Dibden Bay
COUNCIL chiefs say they fear another application to build a huge container terminal at Dibden Bay could be just years away.
Civic leaders are on alert after Associated British Ports (ABP) objected to their refusal to allocate Dibden Bay for future port development.
New Forest District Council is determined to block any new attempt to build a massive dock development on the environmentally sensitive site.
One council officer told the Daily Echo that he expected ABP to make a fresh application within the next five years.Chris Treleaven, Cabinet member for planning and transport, is also convinced that another attempt will be made to develop the site.
He said: “I wouldn’t be at all surprised if ABP submitted a further proposal, although it’s impossible to say when that might happen.
“However, they would have to find some way around the reasons why it was refused before – and I don’t see how they can.”
ABP’s application to build a £600m terminal on reclaimed coastline between Hythe and Marchwood was thrown out in 2004 after one of the biggest environmental battles the south has ever seen.
Many of the original objectors suspect that ABP will make a second attempt to gain permission for the scheme.
The company has repeatedly said it still wants to proceed with the project, which it regards as vital to the prosperity of Southampton docks.
The pressure group Residents Against Dibden Bay Port still meets, but former chairman Paul Vickers said any new application was unlikely to be made for at least ten years because there was too much capacity elsewhere.
He was commenting on ABP’s response to the district council’s core strategy, a development blueprint for sites surrounding the New Forest National Park.
ABP challenged the document on the grounds that it fails to safeguard Dibden Bay for future port development.
The document will now be rewritten to reflect the importance of the docks while reiterating that any future proposal to develop Dibden Bay will have to meet strict criteria.
Cllr Vickers said: “Dibden Bay is now surrounded by the New Forest National Park, which isn’t a particularly easy hurdle to cross.”
Marchwood county councillor David Harrison said: “The arguments for not developing Dibden Bay are stronger than they have ever been.”
Comments(53)
Forest Resident
says...
11:57am Mon 15 Jun 09
Nothing to say wrote:As a Marchwood resident opposed to Dibden Bay I guess you will no doubt label me a nimby, but before you do please tell me this. What benefits will Dibden Bay have for the New Forest and its residents? This is not a City based development, but one proposed to be built on the edge of a national park, therefore what possible benefits can such a huge development bring in the face of its undoubtededly huge environmental impact?
Ignore the short sighted undemocratic bullying obnoxious NIMBYs... GET ON AND BUILD IT.
Unlimited* Service
says...
12:03pm Mon 15 Jun 09
Next five years.
It must be a slow news day.
There really is nothing to see here.
Nothing to say
says...
12:33pm Mon 15 Jun 09
As for the "edge of the new forest national park"...
We already have the following on the edge of the national park and the national park is coping quite fine with it...
Europes biggest oil refinery.
Associated petro-chemical industries.
Fawley Power Station.
Marchwood Power Station.
Marchwood Military Port.
Waste Incinerator.
A number of industrial estates.
A major port and city (Southampton).
The question should be is, why do all these major industries who provide jobs and the majority of the income into the area, have to bow down and scrape to the national park and it's unelected officials??
BUILD DIBDEN BAY.
Bartonian
says...
12:50pm Mon 15 Jun 09
Nothing to say wrote:You seen to have an awful lot to say, Nothing to Say. Maybe you should work in the docks to find out just how bad it is there. If we had a manufacturing industry left then maybe I would be exicited, this this will be just a haven for cheap Chinese imports.
Jobs, money into the area, sustainable economy, just three of the advantages for Marchwood. As for the "edge of the new forest national park"... We already have the following on the edge of the national park and the national park is coping quite fine with it... Europes biggest oil refinery. Associated petro-chemical industries. Fawley Power Station. Marchwood Power Station. Marchwood Military Port. Waste Incinerator. A number of industrial estates. A major port and city (Southampton). The question should be is, why do all these major industries who provide jobs and the majority of the income into the area, have to bow down and scrape to the national park and it's unelected officials?? BUILD DIBDEN BAY.
Nothing to say
says...
12:53pm Mon 15 Jun 09
Finlay
says...
12:56pm Mon 15 Jun 09
Nothing to say, Soton says... exactly the blatent facts. The area would be one of the most thriving in the country.
The new application will address the access issues and then they should build.
chunkybutt
says...
1:10pm Mon 15 Jun 09
we have brought all this on ourselves as we are the ones who buy the cheap imports and as the white british race will be in the minority in less than twenty years why worry!
Lone Ranger
says...
1:11pm Mon 15 Jun 09
Bartonian wrote:Bartonian.. we all know its bad in the docks at the moment as it is everywhere else.
Nothing to say wrote: Jobs, money into the area, sustainable economy, just three of the advantages for Marchwood. As for the "edge of the new forest national park"... We already have the following on the edge of the national park and the national park is coping quite fine with it... Europes biggest oil refinery. Associated petro-chemical industries. Fawley Power Station. Marchwood Power Station. Marchwood Military Port. Waste Incinerator. A number of industrial estates. A major port and city (Southampton). The question should be is, why do all these major industries who provide jobs and the majority of the income into the area, have to bow down and scrape to the national park and it's unelected officials?? BUILD DIBDEN BAY.You seen to have an awful lot to say, Nothing to Say. Maybe you should work in the docks to find out just how bad it is there. If we had a manufacturing industry left then maybe I would be exicited, this this will be just a haven for cheap Chinese imports.
But the application alone may be some 5 years away yet let alone when it may be built. By that time the worlwide economy will have returned to normal if not improved significantly.
I am sure that ABP dont want it to be there just for the hell of it or to pee you off. It will be in line with world growth and the greater demand of imported products.
As pointed out when you look at the other industries already there like the refinery etc this can only be an improvement and a massive boost for local jobs in the area
Forest Resident
says...
1:12pm Mon 15 Jun 09
Nothing to say wrote:With all due respect I think it's highly debatable that the oil refinery and fawley powers station sit comfortably within the new forest, they are an undoubted eyesore and general stain on the local environment to say the least. I would also politely highlight to you that all the industry you mention is either decades old or is sited on land historically used for that purpose. With this in mind I think you would at least agree that the waterside in fact already has it's fair share of industry so why is there need for any more when ABP freely admit that Southampton Container Port is running with a current over capacity? Logistically the waterside is already gridlocked during peak times, and the reality is that the infrastructure is not in place and would be vastly expensive to upgrade in order for it to able to support a development such as Dibden Bay. I really cannot see that anywhere near enough 'local' jobs and direct finance into the local economy would outweigh the unarguably huge detrimental impact the Dibden Bay development would have. From my point of view the only benefit I could ever hope for is a decreased council tax bill due to further local industrialisation. On the flip side my house value would decline, local roads would be gridlocked, light and noise pollution would prevent a decent nights sleep, and my children would have streams of HGV's running less than 10m past their school classroom! Dibden Bay is a non starter i'm afraid, and simply does not deserve to see the light of day.
Jobs, money into the area, sustainable economy, just three of the advantages for Marchwood.
As for the "edge of the new forest national park"...
We already have the following on the edge of the national park and the national park is coping quite fine with it...
Europes biggest oil refinery.
Associated petro-chemical industries.
Fawley Power Station.
Marchwood Power Station.
Marchwood Military Port.
Waste Incinerator.
A number of industrial estates.
A major port and city (Southampton).
The question should be is, why do all these major industries who provide jobs and the majority of the income into the area, have to bow down and scrape to the national park and it's unelected officials??
BUILD DIBDEN BAY.
thesaint
says...
1:16pm Mon 15 Jun 09
also it is important to the whole area to get it built job wise.
southy
says...
1:58pm Mon 15 Jun 09
Lone Ranger wrote:and what about the the greater masses jobs lose, there be more off them that it will gain.
Bartonian wrote:Bartonian.. we all know its bad in the docks at the moment as it is everywhere else.
Nothing to say wrote: Jobs, money into the area, sustainable economy, just three of the advantages for Marchwood. As for the "edge of the new forest national park"... We already have the following on the edge of the national park and the national park is coping quite fine with it... Europes biggest oil refinery. Associated petro-chemical industries. Fawley Power Station. Marchwood Power Station. Marchwood Military Port. Waste Incinerator. A number of industrial estates. A major port and city (Southampton). The question should be is, why do all these major industries who provide jobs and the majority of the income into the area, have to bow down and scrape to the national park and it's unelected officials?? BUILD DIBDEN BAY.You seen to have an awful lot to say, Nothing to Say. Maybe you should work in the docks to find out just how bad it is there. If we had a manufacturing industry left then maybe I would be exicited, this this will be just a haven for cheap Chinese imports.
But the application alone may be some 5 years away yet let alone when it may be built. By that time the worlwide economy will have returned to normal if not improved significantly.
I am sure that ABP dont want it to be there just for the hell of it or to pee you off. It will be in line with world growth and the greater demand of imported products.
As pointed out when you look at the other industries already there like the refinery etc this can only be an improvement and a massive boost for local jobs in the area
a new container port needs to be at the bottom off the river, calshot or gosport, southampton container port dont need more quay side, what it needs is some where to put the empty containers, and its about time they enforce shipping lines to take them away.
Akeap
says...
2:08pm Mon 15 Jun 09
People before tavelled along at 45mph as they didn't reliase it was "national speed limit" and now they know its 40mph they travel at 30... imagine all those lorries aswell..
Bedlam.
They would have to widen the bypass thus hitting the environment (like the should have God know's how many years ago when Fawley was built and proposed to pay for it!!)
I don't think it will ever be passed.
LOl security word - Soft-toll
is this another idea...a toll road on the bypass we don't know about?
Bartonian
says...
2:13pm Mon 15 Jun 09
Nothing to say wrote:Oh whatever.
At least when I have something to say, it's something worth saying.
Nothing to say
says...
2:42pm Mon 15 Jun 09
-----------------
I'd rather have a stain on the local environment than a bit of empty privately owned land that does nothing for no-one in the area.
bumblysaint
says...
2:56pm Mon 15 Jun 09
the N.F.D.C. stays
strong and keeps it's
promises to the
people. Block it forever.Ban it for
eternity.
Nothing to say
says...
2:59pm Mon 15 Jun 09
At least the NFDC is elected. The National Park people are all unelected (and highly paid) civil servants.
The secretary for state would make any final decision on Dibden Bay anyway.
Unlimited* Service
says...
3:24pm Mon 15 Jun 09
Nothing to say wrote:All of the industry you mentioned sits well alongside the National Park.
they are an undoubted eyesore and general stain on the local environment ----------------- I'd rather have a stain on the local environment than a bit of empty privately owned land that does nothing for no-one in the area.
Some NIMBY's need to be careful what they wish for - before long that unelected authority will be telling people in Purlieu and Marchwood what colour to paint their houses.
southy
says...
3:26pm Mon 15 Jun 09
Nothing to say wrote:that land is fastly becoming a woodland, the land may not do much for the local people in the area, but below the high water spring tide it do. it supports a local ecomony, and employs more people than a new container port will do,
they are an undoubted eyesore and general stain on the local environment
-----------------
I'd rather have a stain on the local environment than a bit of empty privately owned land that does nothing for no-one in the area.
any wsy its not up to us to have the final say, its down to the NFDC, they say no, and it should be left has that till or if they have a change off heart. another thing it dont matter what ABP do, southampton container port is going to be a feeder port and not a main hub port.
Saintbob
says...
4:25pm Mon 15 Jun 09
Oh and it’s on the Edge of the National Park not in the National park. See the difference there?
Linesman
says...
9:02pm Mon 15 Jun 09
Lets face it, that is what ABP have done with the Old docks.
With regard increased employment - the same thing was said when the Esso refinery was built, but the workforce has more than halved since the early 60's.
Why? Automation!
If anyone thinks that a new container port would employ a lot of people, then they are living a dream. It will be automated, and run by half a dozen people, sat at desks, pusing buttons.
There will be a brief period of high employment - during construction - but once finished, down to basics.
If the need was there, ABP should have built a Woolston on the VT site!
Rob444
says...
9:17pm Mon 15 Jun 09
Many people objected to the building of St. Mary's stadium but the government, in the guise of the the secretary or minister of something or other, overrode the decision and allowed the scheme to go ahead.
So much for democracy, let's hope that people power decides this issue (and, of course, the fluoridation of our tap water one).
Ben Doone
says...
9:26pm Mon 15 Jun 09
All ABP have done is win a legal battle to keep Dibden Bay available for development at a later date. After all it was their predecessor, BTDB, who paid for the reclaimation work to fill in the Bay, long before the majority of Waterside residents went to live there.
The same misplaced interest is also being shown in the story about possible rail development. Sounds great but the author has no influence and is basically kite flying.
Fair play to the Echo for, presuambly, selling more papers on the back of the headlines!!
Treas
says...
9:35pm Mon 15 Jun 09
upthe
says...
10:35pm Mon 15 Jun 09
Nothing to say wrote:OI dopey
Ignore the short sighted undemocratic bullying obnoxious NIMBYs... GET ON AND BUILD IT.
ABP already have enough wharf frontage. Have you been in docks recently - lots of empty space compared with 12 months ago.
By the way they sold leaseholds on Town Quay, Ocean Village and Shamrock Quay because they didn't need the land. If they do, then they can go and buy it back. I'd rather be a NIMBY than brain dead like you
Nothing to say
says...
7:44am Tue 16 Jun 09
The reason why ABP sold off Town Quay, Ocean Village & Shamrock Quay over 25 years ago, was those quays were all too small for Container Ships.
Now, I realise you are very thick, so I'll explain it as slowly as possible.
Container Ships are very big boats. They are huge! They are the massive big floaty things you see on the water.
Huge boats don't fit in small Quays.
Understand so far thicko?
The other consideration is that Town Quay, Ocean Village and Shamrock Quay are also in and around the City Centre. Not really the best place for getting container traffic in and out of eh?
Hence why the container port is where it is. Hence why ABP require to enlarge it and the most suitable site is Dibden Bay, the land THEY OWN and created for this very purpose. With upgraded road and rail links as part of the plan, Dibden Bay is the way forward.
Got that thick nimby?
Ben Doone
says...
8:31am Tue 16 Jun 09
However, as far as I am aware, Shamrock Quay was never controlled by the port. All the Itchen berths were and are privately owned.
veracity
says...
10:26am Tue 16 Jun 09
Linesman wrote:sorry mate but the water draft at the old Vospers site is too shallow and the land is banked so making container storage difficult.
IF an application is made and IF it is approved, my betting is that, with the increased tonnage of container ships and their increased draught, it will be discovered that the channel is not deep enough and so, the container port will be converted into another yachting marina - where the money is.
Lets face it, that is what ABP have done with the Old docks.
With regard increased employment - the same thing was said when the Esso refinery was built, but the workforce has more than halved since the early 60's.
Why? Automation!
If anyone thinks that a new container port would employ a lot of people, then they are living a dream. It will be automated, and run by half a dozen people, sat at desks, pusing buttons.
There will be a brief period of high employment - during construction - but once finished, down to basics.
If the need was there, ABP should have built a Woolston on the VT site!
Also there is no rail link.
not many people know but the land where the old rolling mills used to be, further along Victoria road was considerd for an extension of the docks pre WW1 aqnd land acqui9red from sqwuire tankerville.
It was decided the land was not suitable, and no rail connection, so they decided to extend the port further west (ie the new docks0
southy
says...
12:07pm Tue 16 Jun 09
7:44am Tue 16 Jun 09
Not only a nimby, but unbelievably thick with it.
The reason why ABP sold off Town Quay, Ocean Village & Shamrock Quay over 25 years ago, was those quays were all too small for Container Ships.
nothing to say your not off well lets say thinking straight. buy back all the docks that was sold, make western (new) docks into container port, and move operations on western dock up to the eastern (old) docks, all it takes is a little bit off thinking where to move what operations to where.
Nothing to say
says...
1:11pm Tue 16 Jun 09
How exactly will you get the containers in and out of the Western Docks via the roads and rail network?
You could do it by spending tens of billions on that alone and knocking down people's houses. You suggesting that ABP do that?
Dooody
says...
1:25pm Tue 16 Jun 09
southy
says...
1:53pm Tue 16 Jun 09
Nothing to say wrote:umm you really dont have a clue do you. apart from the rail and road net work is all ready there in western docks, there are no barriers between container port and western docks ( unlike eastern docks you have to leave the old docks to get to western or container port). might be a good idea if you took a walk a round the western and container port before you make your next post.
"A little bit of thinking" Shame you never think yourself Southy.
How exactly will you get the containers in and out of the Western Docks via the roads and rail network?
You could do it by spending tens of billions on that alone and knocking down people's houses. You suggesting that ABP do that?
WoolstonSean
says...
11:02pm Tue 16 Jun 09
Nothing to say wrote:Excellent, well put! Although as stated Shamrock Quay was never controlled by ABP or it's predecessor BTDB it was formerly owned by Camper & Nicholsons but otherwise a good quote m8!
Not only a nimby, but unbelievably thick with it. The reason why ABP sold off Town Quay, Ocean Village & Shamrock Quay over 25 years ago, was those quays were all too small for Container Ships. Now, I realise you are very thick, so I'll explain it as slowly as possible. Container Ships are very big boats. They are huge! They are the massive big floaty things you see on the water. Huge boats don't fit in small Quays. Understand so far thicko? The other consideration is that Town Quay, Ocean Village and Shamrock Quay are also in and around the City Centre. Not really the best place for getting container traffic in and out of eh? Hence why the container port is where it is. Hence why ABP require to enlarge it and the most suitable site is Dibden Bay, the land THEY OWN and created for this very purpose. With upgraded road and rail links as part of the plan, Dibden Bay is the way forward. Got that thick nimby?
BTW Good to see Southy around still 'not'!
ST Mary's on sea
says...
1:59pm Wed 17 Jun 09
Ben Doone
says...
6:11pm Wed 17 Jun 09
leases etc.
If it was indeed possible to offer an incentive for operators to relocate, it is highhly unlikely that any/all could be accomodated elsewhere unless....
Didben Bay was developed!!
southy
says...
11:27am Thu 18 Jun 09
Ben Doone
says...
10:15am Sat 20 Jun 09
So ABP try to but back land at O Village and Town Quay.
Question 1: Where are you going to build two cruise terminals?
Question 2 : where are you going to put all the residents and their yachts who currently reside in O Village?
southy
says...
7:54pm Sat 20 Jun 09
Ben Doone
says...
9:06pm Sun 21 Jun 09
southy
says...
1:22pm Mon 22 Jun 09
southy
says...
1:28pm Mon 22 Jun 09
veracity
says...
3:46pm Mon 22 Jun 09
southy wrote:mate as usual you get details wrong
the one in western docks at 104-105 berth,this the main one to worry about. the one at 101 berth is small and people got to walk 70mt or more to get to the nearest taxi rank or pick up point (city cruise terminal). the other one the new one is at 39-40 berth, and theres no real reason why they cant make berths 38 to 50 into the cruise terminals. its not like it was in the 60's when you would have at lest 10 passenger liners moored up each day. now days you be lucky 3 passenger liners in on the same day, so if you build another terminal but just make it longer. so when there are 3 liners in on that rare occasion they be able to cope, if all the passenger shipping liners bosses got together they could work out between them what ships comes in when and when they leave, then you would only need one passenger terminal, and even then you going to find days each mth with no liners in
Mayflower crusaie twrminal is at berth 106 (not 104-105).
city cruise tewrminal (at 101 berth - correct there!!) is not small.
It has been expanded to take the big RCL ships. If you go to mayflower park most Sats you will see the big 4,500 capacity RCL ship, the biggest cruise ship using the port so how can the city terminalk be decribed as small???
The new terminal is at berth 46 (not 39-40) which is the ro/ro berth for Hual/Hoegh.
the berths from 40 thro to 46 are also used for ro/ro ships so were are these all going to go, especially as you have to look after the trades dispalced form the W Dks in your grand scheme.
also there are often 4 crusie ships in at a time nowadays. 5 are in last saturday in August.
also you are deluded if you think all crusie bosses are going to 'get there heads together' and arrange schedules. You probably dont know much about the cruise ship business but these ships have to work on complicated itineraries around Europe and have to tie in with berth scheduling elsewhere. also most brits want to start their holiday at the weekend so thats why the port has had to provide another terminal to deal with this
listen mate with your track record in dodgy facts no one would want you any where bnear their business
come over for a bus ride to sholing some time. you might get a better idea of whats going on in the docks, especially from the itchen Bridge!!
southy
says...
12:57pm Tue 23 Jun 09
39 berth use to be the old ocean terminal berth ( queen elizabeth ii passenger teminal). while 40 round to 44 was used for ro-ro.
how do you think they use to operate before, the shipping company use to get together and work out there arrange schedules, the 5 ships in on the last sat in august is a promotional stunt and even then 2 will be leaving on that day while 2 will be coming in, there will not be 5 ships tied up at the same time, having 4 ships in one day is not the same has having 4 ships berth up at the same time.
has for ""dodgy facts no one would want you any where bnear their business"" thats why i am semi retired i made my money and why the company is successful and still going under new rains. really you need to talk a walk in the docks and see how much space is wasted, and is the reason why abp got turned down by the government on didben bay extension. and very unlikely to get permission from any government till abp makes full use off all its land that they run or own.
phil maccavity
says...
4:16pm Tue 23 Jun 09
On Saturday 29th August there are 5 ships in port for passenger turnround ie Queen Mary2, Grand Princess, Independence of the Seas, Oceana and Black Watch. They all arrive from between 0500hrs and sail around 1700/1800 hrs. Have a look on the VTS site. So all will be at separate berths at the same time for approx 10-12 hours. I know quite a few Ships enthusiasts who are coming down to do a trip round the port on the day as this is a fairly unique occasion for the UK these days.
phil maccavity
says...
4:17pm Tue 23 Jun 09
On Saturday 29th August there are 5 ships in port for passenger turnround ie Queen Mary2, Grand Princess, Independence of the Seas, Oceana and Black Watch. They all arrive from between 0500hrs and sail around 1700/1800 hrs. Have a look on the VTS site. So all will be at separate berths at the same time for approx 10-12 hours. I know quite a few Ships enthusiasts who are coming down to do a trip round the port on the day as this is a fairly unique occasion for the UK these days.
phil maccavity
says...
4:18pm Tue 23 Jun 09
On Saturday 29th August there are 5 ships in port for passenger turnround ie Queen Mary2, Grand Princess, Independence of the Seas, Oceana and Black Watch. They all arrive from between 0500hrs and sail around 1700/1800 hrs. Have a look on the VTS site. So all will be at separate berths at the same time for approx 10-12 hours. I know quite a few Ships enthusiasts who are coming down to do a trip round the port on the day as this is a fairly unique occasion for the UK these days.
veracity
says...
9:21pm Tue 23 Jun 09
southy wrote:more errors mr southey
sorry my error, but your right on 106, and 105 becomes the over flow if and when needed. and 101 is to small and that 70 plus meter walk to the pick up point or the taxi rank is a bit much its ok if the weather fine, not so nice when its raining and thats another point, the pick up point for 101 is out in the open there is no shelter while your stowing your luggage away.
39 berth use to be the old ocean terminal berth ( queen elizabeth ii passenger teminal). while 40 round to 44 was used for ro-ro.
how do you think they use to operate before, the shipping company use to get together and work out there arrange schedules, the 5 ships in on the last sat in august is a promotional stunt and even then 2 will be leaving on that day while 2 will be coming in, there will not be 5 ships tied up at the same time, having 4 ships in one day is not the same has having 4 ships berth up at the same time.
has for ""dodgy facts no one would want you any where bnear their business"" thats why i am semi retired i made my money and why the company is successful and still going under new rains. really you need to talk a walk in the docks and see how much space is wasted, and is the reason why abp got turned down by the government on didben bay extension. and very unlikely to get permission from any government till abp makes full use off all its land that they run or own.
105 shed has not been used for passengers for years. its full of grain!!
The old ocean terminal was on berths 43/4 before being knocked down.
The Qe11 terminal is a different location ie berths 38/9
City terminal is not small. Have you ever been inside. I have. Bet you havent
Tell me the name of the company 'whwre you made your money'. bet it is a one man band that noone has heard of!!
southy
says...
3:38pm Wed 24 Jun 09
and yes i have been in side city terminal and its the smallest off the 3,(it stands on the old deport building that use to be there)
the qe2 teminal was build on the end part off off ocean terminal whitch use to run the end part off 40 berth though to 39 berth, they had to pull down ocean terminal so they could build qe2 terminal, qe2 terminal is not has long has the old ocean terminal but is just has wide. berths 42 to 44 (plus 36 and 35 berths) is where the ro-ro ships have been loading and have been for at lest the last 20 plus years, way before they even pulled down ocean terminal.
well if your company that you work for, ever needs a rigging company for a specialize rigging job you see us has one off the 6 companys that carry B.A.R.R marker in a corner
southy
says...
3:59pm Wed 24 Jun 09
Ben Doone
says...
5:26pm Wed 24 Jun 09
So to say 'they had to pull down the Ocean Terminal to build the QE11 Terminal' is absolute nonsense. Any one with any basic knowledge of the workings/history of the Port of Southampton would know this.
Also it is incorrect to say the QM2 is due in on Friday PM. I have American friends who are due for express debark as soon as the ship arrives on berth at 0700hrs on Saturday 29th August. Cruise ships have to keep to a very tight schedule and, if you check, Cunard will confirm this scheduling.
This reminds me of your assetion that work on the new container port on the Thames was progessing 'around the clock' when I know from the owners in Dubai that absolutely nothing has been done on the infrastructure and no progress is expected in the forseeable future.
You must really stop making things up
veracity
says...
7:49pm Wed 24 Jun 09
also southy says that 105 shed is used for passenger overflow. if he toddled along to 105 shed he would see abig sign on the entrance which says 'openfield'. if he looks inside itis full of grain and has been so for some time.
oh and 107 shed is fill of animal feed not grain, you can smell it!!
final correction B watch is in at 0630 on the sat and due out at 1630 on Sat (not Sunday!!)
southy
says...
3:55pm Thu 25 Jun 09
the QE2 terminal was name after our queen and not after a ship ben.
Ben Doone
says...
4:23pm Thu 25 Jun 09
Actually, at the time, I was involved with the cocoa trade which was stored in 105 shed.
It wasn't coffee but near enough.
The shed was used for this for about a year in 1985/6, so 20 odd years ago, not recently as you allude to
By the way do you now accept that the QE11 terminal was not built on the site of the old Ocean terminal?
And yes I do know the QE11 Terminal was named after the Queen, thats why it has the Roman numeral at the end unlike the QE2 ship
In your post you make the common mistake of calling the terminal after the ship not the Queen!!
Nothing to say says...
11:38am Mon 15 Jun 09
GET ON AND BUILD IT.