Thursday, 7 November 2013

TDC Credit where credit is due.

Port Ramsgate.

The local blogsters are swift to pounce, like a pack of hyenas, on guff which regularly emanates from a certain office building in Cecil St, Margate, but when a forward thinking proposal is presented to them they are as sharp as a blind man in a brothel..

The above diagram / aerial view of Port Ramsgate shows four proposed new berths to take small container ships with land based sites to facilitate the business. The new link road and port access tunnel are already in place so this could actually be a starter


It is certainly better to concentrate on a brighter future than continually dredge up the mire from the past.

26 comments:

  1. I wonder how quickly the usual suspects will find something in this proposal to whine about...

    ReplyDelete
  2. John, I can see there may be some obstacles to overcome, we should not view it as the holy grail but it is a step in the right direction.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well said, Ken, and, as I have said before, the constant them and us scenario between council and interest groups really serves no purpose, other than possibly promoting the political aspirations of a certain so called Green councillor.

    At least this is an attempt at a positive future for the port of Ramsgate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh please don't get me wrong Readit, I'm not suggesting it's the perfect plan, Indeed Oh can see a couple of issues with it, but it's certainly a great and positive idea, that will no doubt be attacked by the usual suspects for whatever reason they can dream up this time.

    Well said Mr Epps, I see that the political chancer is already whining about the port! 2015 can't come quickly enough, then some progress can be made when the "green" (for now) cllr is just a poor but fading memory.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The idea is sound only as far as it attracts investment. Is there a plan B if nothing is forthcoming and how does the proposed £400K investment in Dover impact?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would suggest Ramsgate needs to offer something different to Dover or a cheaper option for the smaller container ship operator. Also fail to see why we have to give up on a ferry yet. There has been a ferry from Ramsgate, particularly but not exclusively, to the Belgium ports for many years and because the latest operator has gone to the wall, does not necessarily mean that another might not succeed.

      At least there is a plan and it seems a step in the right direction. Let us hope people view it sensibly and give it support rather than, as Ken says in his post, attack it around the blogs like a bunch of hyenas.

      Delete
    2. Didn't disagree with you William Didn't decry the plan proposed just asked where is plan B if the investment doesn't come forward.
      It is called being pragmatic. I have devised plans for either/or proposals I believe it is called hedging your bets and not skewing the answer you want to have.

      Delete
    3. So not content with attacking every positive plan or move in Thanet James, when you can't find something to directly attack a really promising plan with, you then decide there should be 2 plans!

      Why don;t you come up with a viable alternative to any of the plans you have attacked thus far, that would indeed be a new departure for Thanet's resident whiner.

      Delete
  6. The plan seems to be to increase the capabilities of the port to deal with a number of different operators. It already has a marina for leisure craft, moving the slipways would increase repair options, there are the wind farm servicing craft, the new berths offer facilities for small container ships and there is no need to rule out ferries. What other options did you have for Plan B, Barry, short of concreting it over and building houses on it? No, that would not work because some tsunami would send a crane crashing through the development!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not up to me to devise a plan B that is for the astute planners at TDC all I said was what is plan B if there is no investment forthcoming.
      There was no need to be sarcastic what have I ever done to you. BTW the crane comment was made by Michael not me

      Delete
    2. There is another school of thought, that if Dover is expanding and London Gateway is viable, then there could well be a small niche market for Port od Ramsgate to exploit.

      Delete
    3. WOW the old socialist fall back of ":not up to me to have solutions"! Have you watched "Carry on at your Convenience recently James, you really are that outdated.

      Of course the facility would have to be considerably strengthened, alond with monumental defences build right along the coast to protect against waterbourne cranes causing catastrophic damage to the port facilities, and huge loss of life amongst the workforce. Would a container ship survive being struck by a waterbourne crane, there must be an independent investigation immediately!

      That is the point Readit. There is a market for smaller container ships, that that don't travel the huge distances that leviathons that dock at Rotterdam, Felixstowe and London do, not to mention taking advantage of the already busy "feeder" traffic to the larger ports that service the rest of the world.

      I think it is by far the best proposal so far, and the desperate and tenuous reasons that the usual suspects are dredging up (pun intended ;) ) to attack it only goto show that the plan has a great deal of merit.

      Delete
    4. If you want to complain at least get you facts right. I have never mentioned cranes you are on the wrong blogsite so irrelevant here and as you do not know my politics why mention it. or are you fishing. To have a true vision for the future of Ramsgate port you have to at least have a plan B should investment not be forthcoming. Secondly TDC have to have a clear idea on how long they might wait before going to plan B neither are addressed in the report.

      Delete
  7. Did I say you had James, seems once again you whine using incorrect "facts".

    The clear socialist mantra "not my job to find solutions" gives you away boy.

    I await your alternative suggestions James, as usual you bring f*** all to the table apart from bullshit, and whining about TDC.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yet another blog you hijack to extol your trolling ways. Was it necessary to resort to swearing. I suggest you take yourself back to your online blog and leave Ken's blog alone

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it not possible to ever have a debate in Thanet looking at meaningful issues. Here TDC have come up with a plan that offers hope for the port and, as such, has considerable merit. Was it really necessary to introduce a downer with this Plan B stuff so quickly.

      Look at the proposed plan and it is actually quite flexible and embraces a number of differing uses for the port. They might not all come off, but if some do, they in themselves could make for a viable business.

      What alternatives are suggested elsewhere. Cllr Driver, never known for ever supporting anything eminating out of TDC, suggests a leisure port and forget about ferries. Really helpful that. Then we have Plan B, but there are no ideas for what it should be as that is a matter for the council. Rest assured though that, when it emerges, the same voices will be raised in protest at it and, I forgot, where is Plan C?

      Finally, Barry, surely it is up to Ken who he allows on his blog.

      Delete
    2. True William about who on the blog however the language was unnecessary. It wasn't meant as a downer just applying some reality to the situation. I am extremely upset about developers being "the only game in town" and when it goes wrong as it has on several occasions being told the blame is due to the NIMBYS. when clearly if more forethought was applied maybe we wouldn't be where we are.

      Delete
    3. ps I didn't say the plan was bad or ill thought out or even I disapproved maybe just applying "devil's advocate" tactics perhaps

      Delete
  9. William, Barry ,John, I do not make a habit of banning people from my blog but I will take down any comment I feel inappropriate without apology to anyone.

    I believe the tone of a comment usually reveals more about the writer, than about the subject. Remember what you post on this and other blogs is read by far more people than the person to whom it is directed. the wider public will soon judge you by what you write..

    ReplyDelete
  10. You "experts" may wish to take note of the LO-PINOD logo on the drawing. This stands for "Logistics Optimisation for Ports", so it would seem that TDC have taken some expert advice on the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ken, I agreed with you at the outset that TDC deserve some credit this time and the fact they have taken expert advice only serves to make the plan more credible. Obviously that sage of infinite wisdom and wide ranging business expertise from the Green party was bound to find fault, but lets hope the majority give the plan a chance.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I note James that my comments have been entirely positive, yours (as usual) negative, and attacking progress, whose the troll James.

    I look forward to his plan being fleshed out, and hopefully coming to fruition, or your alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I hope the so called experts are not the same ones that thought up the the flawed design many years back before they do anything the breakwaters need a drastic
    redesign or the Royal harbour will shut up completely without continual dredging of the sand flowing in from the East also the silting in the west terminal will always be a problem.
    Stargazer

    ReplyDelete
  14. I would think the addition of a dredger or a dredging contract would appear to be a solution..

    ReplyDelete
  15. Silting up in the port and harbour will not be a problem if it is disused, increased traffic will provide the funds to afford suitable dredging work.

    ReplyDelete