IN his letter regarding the PS Waverley (September5) Robin M Brown advocates Perspex or metal mesh protection above the current barrier between the engine and the passage to avoid someone falling into the engine.
As a Waverley supporter, passenger and volunteer, I can say that the current steel barrier is high enough to prevent passengers falling over it. One would have to climb over the barrier, which would be extremely hard to to do as there are no footholds on the solid steel barrier. In the extremely unlikely event of someone falling over, there is a walkway on the other side of the barrier which would break a fall. Since the Waverley started back on the Clyde and round the UK coast in 1975, millions of passengers have walked passed the engines, with no incidents of passengers falling into the engines.
Mr Brown makes no mention of the risk of revellers or boisterous children falling over the deck guard rails into the sea, which would be so much easier.
I sincerely hope the Waverley's owners will continue to allow the engine viewing area to remain as is, so that many thousands more will enjoy the spectacle of our industrial heritage in the form of the large triple expansion steam engine, and all its movements and sounds.
David Riddet, Uplawmoor.
ROBIN M Brown's claim that the PS Waverley's poor manoeuvrability is down to a flat bottom and no keel is entirely erroneous. Independent paddle wheels are also rarer than hen's teeth. Without going too deep into the physics, the efficiency of the rudder depends on the speed of the water over it and paddlers are especially affected in this respect, compared to screw-propelled vessels. Unless they are making at least moderate speed, the steering effect of a paddler's rudder is always poor. Thus, Waverley usually makes its approach to a berth at a speed that allows its rudder to maintain some "bite" before coming to a halt, when all steering is lost. She then warps alongside. This usually works well until somebody miscalculates the approach and leaves "Stop" and "Full Astern" too late.
Barry McKay, Livingston.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel