It is certainly unfortunate that a new ferry that cost nearly £42m and is capable of carrying 143 cars between Stornoway and Ullapool 24 hours a day, looks like spending a month and a half early next year carrying only passengers.
The problem is not with the new Loch Seaforth (which has had its own troubles in Germany where it was built) but with the linkspan at Ullapool which is owned by Ullapool Harbour Trust.
The work is going to take six weeks early next year.
It means that CalMac will have to take cars and lorries off Lewis by a ferry to Uig on Skye during this period. But the linkspan there is not suitable for the new vessel, so another ferry will have to be used. The £41.8m Loch Seaforth meanwhile will be left to provide the passenger service to/from Ullapool where passengers will be able to disembark on to the pier.
Understandably there is concern in Lewis that to drive to Inverness, islanders will have to take a longer sea journey and then twice the length of road journey when they reach Skye. Mind you it will be exactly the same road journey the people of Harris have to take when they use their Tarbert to Uig service.
Nobody is challenging the need for the work at Ullapool. Lack of consultation seems to be the bugbear as Councillor John Mackay, Chair of Transportation and Infrastructure on Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Western Isles Council) has made clear: "Whilst we accept the need for works it is unacceptable that there has been no consultation with the people and businesses of the Western Isles who will be directly affected by this disruption nor the representatives of the affected communities.
"It is unfortunate that, after the level of consultation and information provided during the consideration of options associated with the extension works at Ullapool and its successful delivery, we are now in this situation where there has been no consultation and a lack of information for these subsequent works. I would hope that, following consultation, alternatives can be found which will have the least impact on ferry users."
Obviously it would have been better if everyone knew earlier and it is not clear why they didn't.
Over a week ago (Oct 30) the Ullapool Habour Trust had this on its website: "To complete the ferry infrastructure upgrade the harbour has received sufficient funding to replace the 42-year old car ramp with work scheduled to start in early November. The new two-lane linkspan will be quieter and more efficient in discharging vehicles and reducing turnaround times. There will be further disruption to village life whilst the linkpsan is being installed. Additionally for a six-week period the ferry will be unable to discharge vehicles - a passenger only run is being planned by the operator."
Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd (CMAL), the Scottish Government's body which leases ferries to CalMac and owns may of the terminals used, certainly knew.
According to a spokeswoman CMAL was appointed by Ullapool Harbour Trustees (UHT) to 'project manage' the harbour infrastructure upgrades required for the arrival of the new Loch Seaforth.
"CMAL provide this technical project management role as UHT do not have any civil engineering resources."
She continued: "Earlier this year Transport Scotland, CFL (CalMac) and UHT decided that the linkspan replacement at Ullapool was in fact critical to ensure operational flexibility and surety of service. As a result, the linkspan project has been progressed to ensure the installation is at the earliest opportunity. All parties have been aware that the linkspan replacement will result in a period where a full vehicle service cannot be maintained."
She did not explain how much earlier in the year "all parties were aware".
As it is islanders are getting at least two months' notice, so it is hardly an overnight 'bombshell' announcement. But it does seem unsatisfactory that the islands council was only officially informed a day ago (November 6), which a day after it was reported in the media.
Neither does there seem any good reason why CMAL, CalMac, Transport Scotland or even UHT didn't drop a line to the local authority some time ago, saying we don't have all the details yet, but we will be taking vehicles to Skye early in the New Year. In the meantime have a nice day.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article