Port of Liverpool

[TheMerseyOrange]

Originally Posted by kung_fuzi

This doesn't show any new locks though,does it?

Well the thing is KF, MDHC did do a feasibility study into the enlarging of the river entrances and deepening the northern docks as part of an alternative plan to the in-river terminal. The idea was rejected on the grounds of cost, technical difficulty, unacceptable disruption to existing port operations and the fact that it would add no (critically needed) new land mass for container stacking/cargo handling. That's kind of why I'd like to know why Peel have, according to John at least, changed tack so dramatically. Preferably quite soon because I'm off to West Kirby in a mo.

[kung_fuzi]

Originally Posted by sjwmoore

No locks, as its the first river front dock, will have dredged channel. The Chester watermark- thats where i work, its a legal requirement to watermark maps put on the net, or OS would be after my head on a plate! They are a little over the top on that kind of thing. As it happens i have coverage at that scale for Liverpool and Manchester as well as Chester

Thanks,didn't think there were to be any new locks.

[kung_fuzi]

Originally Posted by TheMerseyOrange

Well the thing is KF, MDHC did do a feasibility study into the enlarging of the river entrances and deepening the northern docks as part of an alternative plan to the in-river terminal. The idea was rejected on the grounds of cost, technical difficulty, unacceptable disruption to existing port operations and the fact that it would add no (critically needed) new land mass for container stacking/cargo handling. That's kind of why I'd like to know why Peel have, according to John at least, changed tack so dramatically. Preferably quite soon because I'm off to West Kirby in a mo.

Thanks M.O.

[TheMerseyOrange]

Oh and seeing as though its been mentioned....Tranmere was also considered as a site for container handling but is being kept as an oil facility thanks to Shell committing to keeping Stanlow in operation until at least 2050.

[scouserdave]

Originally Posted by TheMerseyOrange

Well the thing is KF, MDHC did do a feasibility study into the enlarging of the river entrances and deepening the northern docks as part of an alternative plan to the in-river terminal. The idea was rejected on the grounds of cost, technical difficulty, unacceptable disruption to existing port operations and the fact that it would add no (critically needed) new land mass for container stacking/cargo handling. That's kind of why I'd like to know why Peel have, according to John at least, changed tack so dramatically. Preferably quite soon because I'm off to West Kirby in a mo.

That feasibility study was carried out just a couple of years ago.
What's the score John? Are Peel carrying out their own study or do their conclusions differ from the original?
"Should have gone to Specsavers"

[TheMerseyOrange]

Originally Posted by scouserdave

That feasibility study was carried out just a couple of years ago.

It certainly was, Dave and the conclusions drawn from it remained as part of MDHC's strategy until at least July 2005.

[John-MK]

Originally Posted by sjwmoore

Tranmere is is not a dry cargo dock, which is why I didnt mention it!

Oil is actually cargo, but I get your drift. One point that stands out is that the 32 foot tides (that is max not the norm) is no hindrance to the port. Not all large ships have to negotiate locks. A point you seem to think that merits spending lots of pubic money on making a fishing village in the sticks the country’s largest port at the expense of existing perfectly adequate ports - Liverpool and Manchester. BTW, not all containers are transported in super large ships. There are quite smaller container ships around, that don’t need huge docks.

[sjwmoore]

did you see the map i posted on the other thread? You will see that there are comparable sized ports all round the country, why the insistance that Liverpool alone should take the nations trade? Freight will follow economic considerations, so the Anglian ports are booming only because people want to use them- the building of a dual carriageway to Ipswich is hardly evidence of a conspiracy!!!

[John-MK]

Originally Posted by sjwmoore

did you see the map i posted on the other thread? You will see that there are comparable sized ports all round the country, why the insistance that Liverpool alone should take the nations trade?

You really don't get this do you? Liverpool was one of the largest ports in the world. Yes, and at one time was the largest. Why build others when capacity was already there. Do you understand? It is simple.

That map is now, not 1980. A 1960s map would say another thing again. Liverpool had an established population, while these fishing villages had none. They had to be expanded to towns taking in people from outside. None of this makes any logical sense at all.

Freight will follow economic considerations, so the Anglian ports are booming only because people want to use them- the building of a dual carriageway to Ipswich is hardly evidence of a conspiracy!!!

The building and expansion of rail lines too. The decline of Liverpool was not an accident. It was contrived. The city was raped. From the city with the lovable mop-top to thieving bastards in a few years - if you read the London/Manchester based press of course. To this day none of the Murdoch based press has a decent word to say about Liverpool. Full of strikes they say, yet Liverpool's loss in working hours by strikes was one of the lowest. So, no new industry/commerce came. All by accident of course.

Once Seaforth is expanded, which should have been done with money they spent on an East Anglian fish village 25 years ago, you will find Liverpool’s trade will certainly increase. This does not mean Felixstowes dwindles, as international trade is increasing – and more finish products are coming in via container, rather than importing raw materials to make them ourselves. When trade contracts you may find Felixstowe will drop more than Liverpool, as Liverpool will have the capacity and is nearer to the industrial heartland of the UK.

Amazing, that when sea traffic was expanding in the 1980/90s, one of the largest ports in the world, with adequate facilities declined. All by accident of course. My arse.

[sjwmoore]

Well, you got your opinion, dosent mean you have a monopoly on historical recollection or the ins and out of international trade....would you like a map showing 1980 figures? (next week)

[John-MK]

Originally Posted by sjwmoore

Well, you got your opinion, dosent mean you have a monopoly on historical recollection or the ins and out of international trade....would you like a map showing 1980 figures? (next week)

50, 60, 70, 80 eh.

What you are attempting to say is that Liverpool and the Mersey, was not suitable for container traffic because of tides, etc......opps with a large container terminal there since 1971 (and one in Manchester in 1968 - the first).....justifying spending public money on a new port in the sticks. Doesn't hold water at all.

[sjwmoore]

I dont think I said Liverpool was in any way unsuitable, just that its turnaround times are bound to be longer due to enclosed docks, I think its your insistence that Felixstowe or anywhere else doing better is part of a conspiracy- I lived in Singapore in the early 70s- look at the port there compared to those days!!! CHANGE. MORE TRADE. Incidentaly, Felixstowe was not so much a new port as an extension of Harwich across the river, which already had the continental links. I understand your bitterness against the media perceptions, and no doubt my comments on pilfering annoyed you, but it was the reality of the time. To love your own city dosent mean you have to rail against all others, and in particular "upstart newcomers" !

[TheMerseyOrange]

Originally Posted by sjwmoore

Well, you got your opinion, dosent mean you have a monopoly on historical recollection or the ins and out of international trade....

Having now had a proper look through John's posts on this thread and elsewhere it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he doesn't have much of a grasp of facts full stop.

For starters (and I'll pick up on the other stuff after I've had my dinner, promise) just how close to being the world's largest port was Liverpool in 1970, John? Oh and while we're here, some evidence to back up your Peel Holdings claim would still be welcomed.....even after 6 and a half hours of waiting.

[John-MK]

Originally Posted by TheMerseyOrange

Having now had a proper look through John's posts on this thread and elsewhere it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he doesn't have much of a grasp of facts full stop.

For starters (and I'll pick up on the other stuff after I've had my dinner, promise) just how close to being the world's largest port was Liverpool in 1970, John?

I never said that. Please read them all again.

Oh and while we're here, some evidence to back up your Peel Holdings claim would still be welcomed.....even after 6 and a half hours of waiting.

I read it somewhere. In the paper, a journal, web, or whatever. The fact is the largest container ships in the world, not yet sailing, will be in the tidal river.

[John-MK]

Originally Posted by sjwmoore

I dont think I said Liverpool was in any way unsuitable, just that its turnaround times are bound to be longer due to enclosed docks, I think its your insistence that Felixstowe or anywhere else doing better is part of a conspiracy

Doing better? No - time will tell if it does better as Liverpool uprates its facilities. The creation of the port in the first place is the problem. Enclosed docks? You make it sound like it takes 6 hours to get through the locks – wrong port that was Manchester.

- I lived in Singapore in the early 70s- look at the port there compared to those days!!! CHANGE. MORE TRADE. Incidentaly, Felixstowe was not so much a new port as an extension of Harwich across the river, which already had the continental links. I understand your bitterness against the media perceptions, and no doubt my comments on pilfering annoyed you, but it was the reality of the time. To love your own city dosent mean you have to rail against all others, and in particular "upstart newcomers" !

My family have worked on that port for 150 years, in many ways. The security is "very" tight, and always has been. So stop talking bollocks because your Dad mislaid his kitbag.

Not against upstart newcomers, it was the deliberate plant of that unnecessary port. The powers that be made sure it would supplant Liverpool - using our money too. Yet again middle class Little Middle England beat the dirty northerners and all the power and wealth tilted to an overcentralised country set in the south.

The Expansion of Felixstowe was during the early 1970s – after the Toxteth riots even Heseltine, when made minister for Merseyside, couldn’t believe they had done such a good job at destroying a whole city with a mixed economy. Seeing the damage done he suggested taking Sandhurst and other government and military installation out of the south. They laughed at him of course.

[liverpolitan]

http://www.merchantnavyofficers.com/topp.html

Splendid collection of postcards of the Docks, page after page of them. Never seen a collection as interesting as this before.

[Doug Roberts]

Poli brilliant pics on this site, thanks for the link.

[Pietari]

Originally Posted by liverpolitan

http://www.merchantnavyofficers.com/topp.html

Splendid collection of postcards of the Docks, page after page of them. Never seen a collection as interesting as this before.

It sure makes you remember why we had docks.....and why we are still an `International City / Port` of considerable note.

[kung_fuzi]

Originally Posted by liverpolitan

http://www.merchantnavyofficers.com/topp.html

Splendid collection of postcards of the Docks, page after page of them. Never seen a collection as interesting as this before.

Poli,absolutely fascinating set of picture cards.
Makes you realise what a tragedy it was to lose the Custom House.
I'm sure in one of the pictures you can see the old New Brighton Tower.

[Blabbernsmoke]

Poli,

Superb website!!!

It's amazing how many grand and interesting buildings have disappeared from Liverpool's landscape.

The Customs House looks like something from Rome- what a tragic loss! At the expense of sounding like a heritage freak, I'd like to see it re-built, using identical materials to the original. This has been done in Warsaw's old town, which was also destroyed during the war- it has been replaced and is identical to the original town- literally. -And is now a WHS in recognition of this.

What does everybody think? Liverpool is entitled to this. Mind you, I'm not sure what is in the present location.