<https://twitter.com/seatsixtyone/status/1545365630609661954>

"New startup plans to reinstate a UK-Norway ferry,
Newcastle-Stavanger-Bergen"

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2022/07/07/bergen-cruise-line-plans-to-reinstate-norway-england-ferries/>

<https://bergencruiseline.no/>

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> <https://twitter.com/seatsixtyone/status/1545365630609661954>
>
> "New startup plans to reinstate a UK-Norway ferry,
> Newcastle-Stavanger-Bergen"
>
> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2022/07/07/bergen-cruise-line-plans-to-reinstate-norway-england-ferries/>
>
> <https://bergencruiseline.no/>
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>

Interesting, and I hope it goes ahead. But I’m a bit skeptical that there’s
sufficient to traffic to keep it going. But presumably the backers have
done their research. I’m guessing that the really expensive ship they
intend to build could be easily redeployed elsewhere.

On 09/07/2022 08:07, Tweed wrote:
> Interesting, and I hope it goes ahead. But I’m a bit skeptical that there’s
> sufficient to traffic to keep it going. But presumably the backers have
> done their research. I’m guessing that the really expensive ship they
> intend to build could be easily redeployed elsewhere.

I had a search around and could not find anything about it.

Forbes is an American magazine so probably had to Google where Norway is!

I wondered if they just used a stock photograph of a ferry?

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 09/07/2022 08:07, Tweed wrote:
>> Interesting, and I hope it goes ahead. But I’m a bit skeptical that there’s
>> sufficient to traffic to keep it going. But presumably the backers have
>> done their research. I’m guessing that the really expensive ship they
>> intend to build could be easily redeployed elsewhere.
>
> I had a search around and could not find anything about it.
>
> Forbes is an American magazine so probably had to Google where Norway is!
>
> I wondered if they just used a stock photograph of a ferry?
>

https://bergencruiseline.no/

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 09/07/2022 08:07, Tweed wrote:
>> Interesting, and I hope it goes ahead. But I’m a bit skeptical that there’s
>> sufficient to traffic to keep it going. But presumably the backers have
>> done their research. I’m guessing that the really expensive ship they
>> intend to build could be easily redeployed elsewhere.
>
> I had a search around and could not find anything about it.
>
> Forbes is an American magazine so probably had to Google where Norway is!
>
> I wondered if they just used a stock photograph of a ferry?

It looks like a generic animated ferry video (the ship is called 'Ship
Name').

It's a startup trying to raise investment funds. That's why the piece is in
Forbes, rather than a shipping site. I can't see it succeeding, though
perhaps the Scottish government would take over the project if the UK port
is Leith rather than Newcastle? I'm sure it could source the ferry very
cost effectively!

On 09/07/2022 11:10, Recliner wrote:
> It's a startup trying to raise investment funds. That's why the piece is in
> Forbes, rather than a shipping site. I can't see it succeeding, though
> perhaps the Scottish government would take over the project if the UK port
> is Leith rather than Newcastle? I'm sure it could source the ferry very
> cost effectively!

They want to avoid any involvement from the Edinburgh government or it
will be ten or twenty years before they see any ferries operating.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> <https://twitter.com/seatsixtyone/status/1545365630609661954>
>>
>> "New startup plans to reinstate a UK-Norway ferry,
>> Newcastle-Stavanger-Bergen"
>>
>> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2022/07/07/bergen-cruise-line-plans-to-reinstate-norway-england-ferries/>
>>
>> <https://bergencruiseline.no/>
>>
>>
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>
>
> Interesting, and I hope it goes ahead. But I’m a bit skeptical that there’s
> sufficient to traffic to keep it going. But presumably the backers have
> done their research. I’m guessing that the really expensive ship they
> intend to build could be easily redeployed elsewhere.
>
>

I wonder if they have been able to observe what traffic using the
Netherlands -Norway route which started this Spring has originated or been
destined for the UK.
It that has been reasonable it could act as a weather vane for a direct
service.
What often keeps a ferry route viable is freight which tends to be steadier
than seasonal passenger
flows, perhaps the operators are banking on congestion at the traditional
channel ports not improving
and some Scandinavian traffic opting for the direct service.

What freight would be regular from Norway? Cod I suppose. Our Brexit loving
fishermen having now found they have reduced access to Norwegian waters
than they had previously as part of the EU and cannot supply from UK waters
which are too warm for Cod which have swum North.
Its causing a lot of problems for chip shops as what was a cheap meal for
many is becoming a luxury for many.

GH

On 09/07/2022 11:10, Recliner wrote:
> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 09/07/2022 08:07, Tweed wrote:
>>> Interesting, and I hope it goes ahead. But I’m a bit skeptical that there’s
>>> sufficient to traffic to keep it going. But presumably the backers have
>>> done their research. I’m guessing that the really expensive ship they
>>> intend to build could be easily redeployed elsewhere.
>>
>> I had a search around and could not find anything about it.
>>
>> Forbes is an American magazine so probably had to Google where Norway is!
>>
>> I wondered if they just used a stock photograph of a ferry?
>
> It looks like a generic animated ferry video (the ship is called 'Ship
> Name').
>
> It's a startup trying to raise investment funds. That's why the piece is in
> Forbes, rather than a shipping site. I can't see it succeeding, though
> perhaps the Scottish government would take over the project if the UK port
> is Leith rather than Newcastle? I'm sure it could source the ferry very
> cost effectively!
>

If a Scottish port was used it would likely be Rosyth as this is usable
all the time, Leith requires to be locked in and out of the port which
increases journey time and is tide dependant. Rosyth would only need a
new linkspan (assuming Rosyth / Zeebrugge reopens). Also Rosyth is close
to the motorway system for freight, road traffic to Leith would be a
nightmare.

--
Colin

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> On 09/07/2022 11:10, Recliner wrote:
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 09/07/2022 08:07, Tweed wrote:
>>>> Interesting, and I hope it goes ahead. But I’m a bit skeptical that there’s
>>>> sufficient to traffic to keep it going. But presumably the backers have
>>>> done their research. I’m guessing that the really expensive ship they
>>>> intend to build could be easily redeployed elsewhere.
>>>
>>> I had a search around and could not find anything about it.
>>>
>>> Forbes is an American magazine so probably had to Google where Norway is!
>>>
>>> I wondered if they just used a stock photograph of a ferry?
>>
>> It looks like a generic animated ferry video (the ship is called 'Ship
>> Name').
>>
>> It's a startup trying to raise investment funds. That's why the piece is in
>> Forbes, rather than a shipping site. I can't see it succeeding, though
>> perhaps the Scottish government would take over the project if the UK port
>> is Leith rather than Newcastle? I'm sure it could source the ferry very
>> cost effectively!
>>
>
> If a Scottish port was used it would likely be Rosyth as this is usable
> all the time, Leith requires to be locked in and out of the port which
> increases journey time and is tide dependant. Rosyth would only need a
> new linkspan (assuming Rosyth / Zeebrugge reopens). Also Rosyth is close
> to the motorway system for freight, road traffic to Leith would be a
> nightmare.
>

I suppose it depends where the freight for the route originates/is destined
for. My guess is more England weighted than Scotland. It’s a bit of a trek
from Rosyth to the more populated parts of England.

On Sat, 9 Jul 2022 12:34:40 +0100, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:

>On 09/07/2022 11:10, Recliner wrote:
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 09/07/2022 08:07, Tweed wrote:
>>>> Interesting, and I hope it goes ahead. But I’m a bit skeptical that there’s
>>>> sufficient to traffic to keep it going. But presumably the backers have
>>>> done their research. I’m guessing that the really expensive ship they
>>>> intend to build could be easily redeployed elsewhere.
>>>
>>> I had a search around and could not find anything about it.
>>>
>>> Forbes is an American magazine so probably had to Google where Norway is!
>>>
>>> I wondered if they just used a stock photograph of a ferry?
>>
>> It looks like a generic animated ferry video (the ship is called 'Ship
>> Name').
>>
>> It's a startup trying to raise investment funds. That's why the piece is in
>> Forbes, rather than a shipping site. I can't see it succeeding, though
>> perhaps the Scottish government would take over the project if the UK port
>> is Leith rather than Newcastle? I'm sure it could source the ferry very
>> cost effectively!
>>
>
>If a Scottish port was used it would likely be Rosyth as this is usable
>all the time, Leith requires to be locked in and out of the port which
>increases journey time and is tide dependant. Rosyth would only need a
>new linkspan (assuming Rosyth / Zeebrugge reopens). Also Rosyth is close
>to the motorway system for freight, road traffic to Leith would be a
>nightmare.

I was joking!

The perhaps too subtle point I was hinting at was that the SNP government would be a soft touch for funding a high risk
project like this, providing the company was headed by an SNP supporter and the ship was built by a shipyard owned by an
SNP supporter or nationalised by the SNP government.

On 9 Jul 2022 10:43:54 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:

>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> <https://twitter.com/seatsixtyone/status/1545365630609661954>
>>>
>>> "New startup plans to reinstate a UK-Norway ferry,
>>> Newcastle-Stavanger-Bergen"
>>>
>>> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2022/07/07/bergen-cruise-line-plans-to-reinstate-norway-england-ferries/>
>>>
>>> <https://bergencruiseline.no/>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>
>>
>> Interesting, and I hope it goes ahead. But I’m a bit skeptical that there’s
>> sufficient to traffic to keep it going. But presumably the backers have
>> done their research. I’m guessing that the really expensive ship they
>> intend to build could be easily redeployed elsewhere.
>>
>>
>
>I wonder if they have been able to observe what traffic using the
>Netherlands -Norway route which started this Spring has originated or been
>destined for the UK.
>It that has been reasonable it could act as a weather vane for a direct
>service.
>What often keeps a ferry route viable is freight which tends to be steadier
>than seasonal passenger
>flows, perhaps the operators are banking on congestion at the traditional
>channel ports not improving
>and some Scandinavian traffic opting for the direct service.
>
>What freight would be regular from Norway? Cod I suppose. Our Brexit loving
>fishermen having now found they have reduced access to Norwegian waters
>than they had previously as part of the EU and cannot supply from UK waters
> which are too warm for Cod which have swum North.
>Its causing a lot of problems for chip shops as what was a cheap meal for
>many is becoming a luxury for many.

If they were a serious business, they'd start with a second-hand ocean-going car ferry and run it for a year or two on
the route to check out the market. Is there *really* much demand for north sea cruises from Newcastle, through rough
weather, on not very luxurious (no balcony cabins, 2380 passengers but only 200 crew) ferries?

You don't start with an expensive, state-of-the-art, custom-built, high tech vessel before you know there's even a
market. You buy a ship like that to replace your first, second-hand ship when you know there's a market, and what needs
improving in the vessel.

It looks to me like they've dreamed up a 'green' ferry concept and are trying to find a route that could use it.

On 09/07/2022 12:42, Tweed wrote:
> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 09/07/2022 11:10, Recliner wrote:
>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 09/07/2022 08:07, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> Interesting, and I hope it goes ahead. But I’m a bit skeptical that there’s
>>>>> sufficient to traffic to keep it going. But presumably the backers have
>>>>> done their research. I’m guessing that the really expensive ship they
>>>>> intend to build could be easily redeployed elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> I had a search around and could not find anything about it.
>>>>
>>>> Forbes is an American magazine so probably had to Google where Norway is!
>>>>
>>>> I wondered if they just used a stock photograph of a ferry?
>>>
>>> It looks like a generic animated ferry video (the ship is called 'Ship
>>> Name').
>>>
>>> It's a startup trying to raise investment funds. That's why the piece is in
>>> Forbes, rather than a shipping site. I can't see it succeeding, though
>>> perhaps the Scottish government would take over the project if the UK port
>>> is Leith rather than Newcastle? I'm sure it could source the ferry very
>>> cost effectively!
>>>
>>
>> If a Scottish port was used it would likely be Rosyth as this is usable
>> all the time, Leith requires to be locked in and out of the port which
>> increases journey time and is tide dependant. Rosyth would only need a
>> new linkspan (assuming Rosyth / Zeebrugge reopens). Also Rosyth is close
>> to the motorway system for freight, road traffic to Leith would be a
>> nightmare.
>>
>
> I suppose it depends where the freight for the route originates/is destined
> for. My guess is more England weighted than Scotland. It’s a bit of a trek
> from Rosyth to the more populated parts of England.
> finacial assistance.

Totally agree! I was commenting on Recliner's "tongue-in-cheek" post!
The Scotland / Europe link was never a commercial success even with
Scottish government assistance.

--
Colin

On 09/07/2022 12:42, Tweed wrote:
> I suppose it depends where the freight for the route originates/is destined
> for. My guess is more England weighted than Scotland. It’s a bit of a trek
> from Rosyth to the more populated parts of England.

If the SNP gets partition then they might heavily subsidise it but can't
see it being popular for trade into England.

On 09/07/2022 12:57, Recliner wrote:
> The perhaps too subtle point I was hinting at was that the SNP government would be a soft touch for funding a high risk
> project like this, providing the company was headed by an SNP supporter and the ship was built by a shipyard owned by an
> SNP supporter or nationalised by the SNP government.

I can't imagine any foreign company risking getting a ferry built in
Scotland after the shambles of the Calmac ferries, whatever the subsidies.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 08:47:57 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 09/07/2022 12:57, Recliner wrote:
>> The perhaps too subtle point I was hinting at was that the SNP government would be a soft touch for funding a high risk
>> project like this, providing the company was headed by an SNP supporter and the ship was built by a shipyard owned by an
>> SNP supporter or nationalised by the SNP government.
>
>I can't imagine any foreign company risking getting a ferry built in
>Scotland after the shambles of the Calmac ferries, whatever the subsidies.
>
Locally-built vessels are possibly the "wrong type of boat" for
overseas buyers. The only one I can think of which eventually went
abroad was MV Suilven (RIP Fiji 2015) and that was Norwegian-built.

On 10/07/2022 08:46, MB wrote:
> On 09/07/2022 12:42, Tweed wrote:
>> I suppose it depends where the freight for the route originates/is
>> destined
>> for. My guess is more England weighted than Scotland. It’s a bit of a
>> trek
>> from Rosyth to the more populated parts of England.
>
> If the SNP gets partition then they might heavily subsidise it but can't
> see it being popular for trade into England.

Especially if Scotland joins the EU.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 09:26:45 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 08:47:57 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>On 09/07/2022 12:57, Recliner wrote:
>>> The perhaps too subtle point I was hinting at was that the SNP government would be a soft touch for funding a high risk
>>> project like this, providing the company was headed by an SNP supporter and the ship was built by a shipyard owned by an
>>> SNP supporter or nationalised by the SNP government.
>>
>>I can't imagine any foreign company risking getting a ferry built in
>>Scotland after the shambles of the Calmac ferries, whatever the subsidies.
>>
>Locally-built vessels are possibly the "wrong type of boat" for
>overseas buyers. The only one I can think of which eventually went
>abroad was MV Suilven (RIP Fiji 2015) and that was Norwegian-built.

This will be a custom-designed, new 'green' technology, ocean-going ferry, not one designed for inshore Scottish waters.
Exactly the sort of boat that hits construction delays and cost overruns.

On 10/07/2022 09:30, Graeme Wall wrote:
> Especially if Scotland joins the EU.

But that would take years.

On 10/07/2022 09:30, Graeme Wall wrote:
> Especially if Scotland joins the EU.

They would have already ####ed off their largest trading partner with
partition, adding tariffs and border controls to trade with that country
does not seem a good policy?

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 13:01:12 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 10/07/2022 09:30, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> Especially if Scotland joins the EU.
>
>But that would take years.
>
Why ?
The quickest have taken just under two years while ex-eastern bloc
countries with no previous connection to the EU have taken 5-8 years.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/how-new-member-states-join-the-eu-all-you-need-to-know/

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 13:03:59 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 10/07/2022 09:30, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> Especially if Scotland joins the EU.
>
>They would have already ####ed off their largest trading partner with
>partition, adding tariffs and border controls to trade with that country
>does not seem a good policy?
>
The same "partner" that has already ####ed itself off by leaving the
EU and causing additional tariffs and border controls.

On 10/07/2022 13:03, MB wrote:
> On 10/07/2022 09:30, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> Especially if Scotland joins the EU.
>
> They would have already ####ed off their largest trading partner with
> partition, adding tariffs and border controls to trade with that country
> does not seem a good policy?
>
>

After all nobody would be that stupid would they? Err, angonamo…

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 10/07/2022 14:16, Charles Ellson wrote:
> The quickest have taken just under two years while ex-eastern bloc
> countries with no previous connection to the EU have taken 5-8 years.

So 5 to 8 years along with any delay by Spain blocking them.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 14:48:55 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 10/07/2022 14:16, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> The quickest have taken just under two years while ex-eastern bloc
>> countries with no previous connection to the EU have taken 5-8 years.
>
>So 5 to 8 years along with any delay by Spain blocking them.

The EU has pretty much stopped accepting new members as it's found that they're more trouble than they're worth. The
last one to join was Croatia, nine years ago, and no others are even close to joining now. Corrupt, one-party states
outside mainland Europe, and expecting huge subsidies, are even less welcome.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 14:48:55 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/2022 14:16, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> The quickest have taken just under two years while ex-eastern bloc
>>> countries with no previous connection to the EU have taken 5-8 years.
>>
>> So 5 to 8 years along with any delay by Spain blocking them.
>
> The EU has pretty much stopped accepting new members as it's found that
> they're more trouble than they're worth. The
> last one to join was Croatia, nine years ago, and no others are even
> close to joining now. Corrupt, one-party states
> outside mainland Europe, and expecting huge subsidies, are even less welcome.
>

Isn’t that more a factor that all of the former communist countries that
are vaguely stable have now joined? Basically everyone who might want to
join has now joined.

Robin