The City Of Liverpool Cruise Liner Terminal

[MarineMan]

Originally Posted by Rock Savage

Perhaps ask why your idiotic, short sighted Council leaders allowed it to be in the document before labelling it a conspiracy ...

Those "idiots" took the money got the terminal in place and then started to talk. The right way to get around being handcuffed.

Your idiotic council leaders? Whose?

[MarineMan]

Originally Posted by Rock Savage

I agree (as would others) that Liverpol's decline was not totally natural, that much is undeniable. It was part WW2, part Govt. policy, part natural and it must be said, part self inflicted.

Needless exaggeration does not do your cause any help though.

WW2 enhanced the importance of the port. It became a massive naval naval base for all navies. The U-Boat war was conducted from the city. The port was improved immediately after WW2 becoming the first in the world to use radar control of traffic. The docks were enhanced with much work on new and amended river locks to get ships in and and out faster. The Dingle Oil Terminal was expanded. The Tranmere oil Jetty was built. The deep QE2 dock at Eastam was built. Manchester, one of the Mersey ports, was the first to have a container terminal with Garston in Liverpool shortly following. It doesn't sound like a city sitting on its hands and locked into the past.

Self inflicted? You must read the Daily Mail. If Hatton comes to your mind, he was necessary as he kicked back hard. It doesn't matter what his politics is, a man was needed for the the city, it happened to be Hatton, otherwise the city might have been the size of Middlesborough.

Self inflicted?

In 1971 a massive for the time container base opened with extensive grain facilities as well.
The airport was taken from the Air Ministry and a new long runway added with plans for a new terminal.
The extensive electrified urban rail networks were all joined as one in the mid 1970s giving the city a highly comprehensive underground network called Merseyrail. These promote economic growth as all major cities have them.
New car plants were built in the city by two car companies in the 1960s and one across the river at Ellesmere Port.
Great historical rail connections for passengers and right into the port areas.
New motorways in the 1970s surrounded the city.
New housing developments were being built all around the Liverpool region.
The country's largest office blocks.
The city radiated magnificent boulevards to the outer suburbs.

The mix-economy, commercial city was well positioned to expand. Nothing was self inflicted. The city did the right things. It put the building blocks in place to move on....then.........in 1979?

Government Policy? You got right

London's Docks closed in 1971, the same years as the majority of Liverpool's South End docks. Liverpool was left to rot while public money was poured into Docklands in London. They even built a new metro for it, while Liverpool a few years earlier had the eastern section of its metro cancelled along with old tunnel reuse under the city centre.

Liverpool was not the only victim and other cities have selective amnesia of their 1980s Thatcher blight.

In 1945 the south was London which was surrounded by rural market towns. Liverpool and Manchester's wealth was greater than Londons. The south east is now sprawling, the market towns have commerce and industry while the North declined rapidly.

The biggest advance in mankind was the industrial revolution, which the south had little to do with - started and based in the North and Midlands of England. Did these inventive people overnight become so thick while the rural market town dwellers of the south become so intelligent and savvy? How strange.

Look at the social history of the past 100 years. The only city that could ever compete with London's dominance was Liverpool and it did at times. They went for the jugular of the city because they had the power to do so.

[EuxTex]

Hope this works; here's the report.

http://www.jbna.org/2011_cruise_ship...psis_april.pdf

[Rock Savage]

Originally Posted by MarineMan

Those "idiots" took the money got the terminal in place and then started to talk. The right way to get around being handcuffed.

Your idiotic council leaders? Whose?

Do you seriously believe that MarineMan? I think that most people would tend to believe that we are currently in a situation whereby we are handcuffed......

And until we know otherwise, we don't have a key.

The then Liberal Council clearly got this wrong.

[Rock Savage]

Originally Posted by MarineMan

WW2 enhanced the importance of the port.

the Second World War undoubtedly enhanced the profile of the port. As fully expected, a degree of rebuilding occurred. Would this not be expected in any working port?

The truth is that the port was already bleeding jobs by the mid-1960s. A friend of mine was training to be a ships engineer. He was told to retrain as "there will not be any jobs in the port in 20 years time".

He did retrain and became a surveyor instead. The rest is history. Sadly.

[Rock Savage]

Originally Posted by MarineMan

[
Self inflicted? You must read the Daily Mail. If Hatton comes to your mind, he was necessary as he kicked back hard..............

Oh dear God. Where to start? I think the consensus is that Derek Hatton set this city back 20 years. Even Joe Anderson does not dare be associated with him.

[Rock Savage]

Originally Posted by MarineMan

[
Self inflicted?

In 1971 a massive for the time container base opened with extensive grain facilities as well.
The airport ............
The extensive electrified urban rail networks......................
New car plants were built ...................
Great historical rail connections for passengers and right into the port areas...................
New motorways in the 1970s surrounded the city..............
New housing developments were being built all around the Liverpool region.............
The country's largest office blocks.............
The city radiated magnificent boulevards to the outer suburbs.....................

The mix-economy, commercial city was well positioned to expand. Nothing was self inflicted. The city did the right things. It put the building blocks in place to move on....then.........in 1979?

If we got all of these infrastructure decisions right, then it does beg the question "how did it all go so wrong"?

Again, if the infrastructure was so superb, why does it now seem so inadequate?

Rather than checkpoint 1979 as a turning point in Liverpool's fortunes, perhaps the blame lies many years earlier in 1955 when Winston Church proclaimed that we needed to trade with Europe and not a bankrupt Commonwealth in order to achieve wealth and a stable Europe. This was the overriding thinking that meant Liverpool was on the wrong side of the map. The ships, the dock workers, the ship workers, the processing workers and the infrastructure was all on the wrong side of the country. Once the ships stopped calling, everything else naturally came to a stop. By 1979 Liverpool had already lost around one third of its population of just 20 years previous as a result of losing around 40% of its jobs over a similar period.

For all except two years, Margaret Thatcher was blameless. She may have mercilessly kicked us, but in truth, we were already down for the count.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by Cast Iron Shaw

[B]I know a few people on here have accused me of an 'Anti Liverpool' bias.
It may help to know that I have spent a good deal of my latter years as a transport analyst looking at different schemes and commenting on whether they have a suitable business case for investment purposes.
In this respect I have a fair amount of knowledge about the cruise industry and how it works
I have great pride in the city of my birth and the home of many of my family
and the majority of people who live there. I will stick up for the place if I feel it is justified.
However like many places Liverpool is not perfect. The good bits are world class the worst bits are frankly worrying.
However I do not believe in sweeping the bad bits under the carpet.
From a business perspective the misuse of Grant Aid, for certain projects,
is one of them and with this global economic crisis about to get worse, the city has to better able to stand on its own two feet and ensure any (very much reduced) benefits which remain available, are used most suitably.
I remain concerned about the whole cruise terminal project and its effect on Liverpools reputation and possibly its finances
Anyway we have probably done this to death at the moment so we should await the next stage, as you say

Shaw,

I know this has been done to death but now that you have revealed yourself to be an expert on this subject, can you answer one question?

However it is funded, do you consider it worthwhile to develop cruise liner turnaround facilities at Liverpool?

OK, one more question. If the answer to the last question is 'no' then why not?

[Cast Iron Shaw]

Originally Posted by Martin S

Shaw,

I know this has been done to death but now that you have revealed yourself to be an expert on this subject, can you answer one question?

However it is funded, do you consider it worthwhile to develop cruise liner turnaround facilities at Liverpool?

OK, one more question. If the answer to the last question is 'no' then why not?

Martin

I would not class myself as an expert. I believe I am relatively well informed without being totally immersed as a direct decision maker within the cruise industry.

I can only advise on the information I have gleaned over many years in the shipping and logistics industry

Put it this way if I had been asked to recommend a commercial enterprise to spend £17-£20m on the cruise facilities currently available at LCT, I would have said absolutely not.
However we are where we are.
I think it would be difficult to recommend to a commercial enterprise (who will require a return on investment of between 10 -20%) to shell out any reasonable amount of cash on turnround facilities, primarily on the basis that the majority of ships revenue in Liverpool is likely to go to Peel as the Port Authority (btw I have a relatively good idea what cruise ships pay in port dues)
However if LCC want to take the risk then the commercial parameters change as they are able to count back revenue accruing to local businesses.
That said I would want to see a proper business case including any indications of support given by prospective cruise company clients
My advice would be to start small and build up over forthcoming years not to go gung ho from the start.
The no risk situation from the council tax payers perspective is to encourgae Peel Ports to take on the risk and develop a multi user terminal facility which can be used to accomodate cruises (perhaps even ferries) and also non cruise related leisure facilities.
Note here that even at busy cruise ports such as Southampton (350 calls divided by 4 terminals) their average terminal occupancy is only 87.5 days per year leaving a hell of a lot of downtime when no revenue is accruing

[MarineMan]

Originally Posted by Rock Savage

Do you seriously believe that MarineMan? I think that most people would tend to believe that we are currently in a situation whereby we are handcuffed......

And until we know otherwise, we don't have a key.

The then Liberal Council clearly got this wrong.

"your idiotic, short sighted Council leaders" This tells me you are a southerner.

The LibDem council never got taking the terminal money wrong. Get it built and talk afterwards.

[MarineMan]

Originally Posted by Rock Savage

the Second World War undoubtedly enhanced the profile of the port. As fully expected, a degree of rebuilding occurred. Would this not be expected in any working port?

The truth is that the port was already bleeding jobs by the mid-1960s. A friend of mine was training to be a ships engineer. He was told to retrain as "there will not be any jobs in the port in 20 years time".

Tripe! I worked on the south end docks in the late 1960s. It was full of ships and activity. a few years later it was closed down except for the Brunswick Dock, at a time when the country's population was increasing by the day. In the meantime out of the way ports like Felixstowe were being promoted.

[MarineMan]

Originally Posted by Rock Savage

If we got all of these infrastructure decisions right, then it does beg the question "how did it all go so wrong"?

Does a Mrs Thatcher come to mind?

Rather than checkpoint 1979 as a turning point in Liverpool's fortunes, perhaps the blame lies many years earlier in 1955 when Winston Church proclaimed that we needed to trade with Europe and not a bankrupt Commonwealth in order to achieve wealth and a stable Europe.

The old excuse to dismiss Liverpool. Even today most trade is with the rest of the world, not the EU. Even The American trade was diverted to Felixstowe and Soton.

For all except two years, Margaret Thatcher was blameless.

You are a naive fool.

[MarineMan]

Originally Posted by Martin S

Shaw,

I know this has been done to death but now that you have revealed yourself to be an expert on this subject,

He is? New to me.

[MarineMan]

Originally Posted by Cast Iron Shaw

Put it this way if I had been asked to recommend a commercial enterprise to spend £17-£20m on the cruise facilities currently available at LCT, I would have said absolutely not.

You haven't a clue about demographics and the cruise line business then. Let me think.. you would have put all in Soton.

Fred Olsen has 100% full ships from Liverpool.

Note here that even at busy cruise ports such as Southampton (350 calls divided by 4 terminals) their average terminal occupancy is only 87.5 days per year leaving a hell of a lot of downtime when no revenue is accruing

The terminal can be use for ferries as well. Your knowledge of business is short sighted. The economic growth to a city (the knock-on) you have little idea about. You use old fashioned accounting methods, as Thatcher did.

[Rock Savage]

Originally Posted by MarineMan

"your idiotic, short sighted Council leaders" This tells me you are a southerner.

The LibDem council never got taking the terminal money wrong. Get it built and talk afterwards.

You honestly believe they were being that clever? There is no eveidence to even hint at that.

[Rock Savage]

Originally Posted by MarineMan

Does a Mrs Thatcher come to mind?



The old excuse to dismiss Liverpool. Even today most trade is with the rest of the world, not the EU. Even The American trade was diverted to Felixstowe and Soton.



You are a naive fool.

[Rock Savage]

Originally Posted by MarineMan

Tripe! I worked on the south end docks in the late 1960s. It was full of ships and activity. a few years later it was closed down except for the Brunswick Dock, at a time when the country's population was increasing by the day. In the meantime out of the way ports like Felixstowe were being promoted.

Does 'being full of ships and activity' = efficiency and profitability?

[Rock Savage]

Originally Posted by MarineMan

You haven't a clue about demographics and the cruise line business then. Let me think.. you would have put all in Soton.

Fred Olsen has 100% full ships from Liverpool.



The terminal can be use for ferries as well. Your knowledge of business is short sighted. The economic growth to a city (the knock-on) you have little idea about. You use old fashioned accounting methods, as Thatcher did.

Can you tell of your 'new fangled' accounting methods to explain the economic impact?

[Cast Iron Shaw]

Originally Posted by MarineMan

You haven't a clue about demographics and the cruise line business then. Let me think.. you would have put all in Soton.

Fred Olsen has 100% full ships from Liverpool.

I guarantee I know far more about Fred Olsen than you do. I spent a year or so in their Ipswich office back in the late 80's helping develop their cruise operation into the UK with the old Black Prince and Black Watch and their cargo operartion which, at the time, involved then Canary isles fruit business (which ironically once used Liverpool. think a company called Yeowards looked after it).

Fred Olsen, like most cruise companies, generally have a 95-100% load factor, dependent on type of cruise and time of year
As I continually have to keep correcting/educating you, passenger capacities are shown as Lower berth capacity.
Some of ther bigger ships have pull down beds which, on busy times, can be used and this is 'upper bed' figure can be added into the LBC and some ships can actually sail at 105% or more of LBC

I know all their The terminal can be use for ferries as well.
How do you know this????
For any Ferry to work over any distance then you need to be able to carry cars and freight as well as passengers.
For this you need a proper RO/RO ramp, preferably elevated to serve upper decks.
Name me one passenger terminal in Soton that has this facility.

Your knowledge of business is short sighted.
Perhaps so, but there have been many businesses happy to pay me the odd crust to assist them
I am not naive enough to realise there may be more suitable people out there. However with the best will in the world I dont think I could recommend you based on your rather strange and inaccurate ramblings

The economic growth to a city (the knock-on) you have little idea about.
I know all about the multiplier effect thank you

You use old fashioned accounting methods, as Thatcher did.

What 'old fashioned' accounting methods are those then? Presume you have some sort of accountancy background on which to base this comment?

[MarineMan]

Originally Posted by Rock Savage

Does 'being full of ships and activity' = efficiency and profitability?

You were saying the port had fallen away by then. It had not. It was very busy.