Botany Bay Cruise Terminal canned.

[reeves35]

11 minutes ago, MMDown Under said:

I hope they limit the size of the ships.

That won't happen.  The economics of the cruise lines means we are probably stuck with larger ships whether we like it or not.  Within 5 years, the seasonal visitors we see from Princess, RCI etc will mostly be well over 140K tonnes and we'll see ships such as the Grand Class as being comparatively small and novel. 

[reeves35]

10 minutes ago, arxcards said:

There are quite a few constraints, some of which are more readily resolved. 

- Yes, bunkering does take-up plenty of time, but it can be completed at a harbour anchorage if needed.

- It was mentioned earlier about OPT being extended, but that was just to allow some of the bigger ships to berth. Prior to the mods, QM2 was unable to berth at OPT. They did also upgrade the terminal, which is supposed to be able to handle embarking and disembarking passengers simultaneously. The terminal is staffed to handle xx passengers in yy hours, which could be expedited with extra staff if needed.

 

The big constraint with the current layout is provisioning fresh food. It seems only 1 semi can unload at a time, and there is general pandemonium in the finite space.

The problem is The Rocks is just not a great area for turning around a large ship but it is all they've got at the moment.  The roads are quite narrow, there is virtually no parking and the available space between the road and the water is really too small for the task.  Already the area struggles when a large ship is being turned around.  Having pax disembark and new pax embark in a more compressed time in the available space just seems like a recipe for disaster and that's before you consider the provisioning issues you raised.

 

Were it not such an iconic location, most cruise lines would have "cracked" it with OPT by now and demanded an alternative.

 

[arxcards]

2 hours ago, reeves35 said:

The problem is The Rocks is just not a great area for turning around a large ship but it is all they've got at the moment.  The roads are quite narrow, there is virtually no parking and the available space between the road and the water is really too small for the task.  Already the area struggles when a large ship is being turned around.  Having pax disembark and new pax embark in a more compressed time in the available space just seems like a recipe for disaster and that's before you consider the provisioning issues you raised.

 

Were it not such an iconic location, most cruise lines would have "cracked" it with OPT by now and demanded an alternative.

 

If only Bradfield had more vision, we could have 5 cruise terminals on the western side of the bridge. 😉

 

[gbenjo]

2 hours ago, arxcards said:

There are quite a few constraints, some of which are more readily resolved. 

- Yes, bunkering does take-up plenty of time, but it can be completed at a harbour anchorage if needed.

- It was mentioned earlier about OPT being extended, but that was just to allow some of the bigger ships to berth. Prior to the mods, QM2 was unable to berth at OPT. They did also upgrade the terminal, which is supposed to be able to handle embarking and disembarking passengers simultaneously. The terminal is staffed to handle xx passengers in yy hours, which could be expedited with extra staff if needed.

 

The big constraint with the current layout is provisioning fresh food. It seems only 1 semi can unload at a time, and there is general pandemonium in the finite space.

The “suggestion” of turning two ( big) ships in a day at the OPT was floated a couple of years ago and was “ laughed out of town” by those who actually  know.  The OPT is not, from my experience, capable of handling embark and debark simultaneously.  Passenger numbers at critical points eg Border Force and Security scanning are limited now under the present system not to mention that the debark hall is also the same area that embarking luggage is scanned  and sorted for loading and the second hall used by the bigger ships  is needed for loading/unloading provisions. The margin for “error” in turning two ships in a day  is very small and a number of unforeseen circumstances would be a real threat ie. late arrival , weather, technical issues in the terminal etc etc. Even the fact that different shoreside services companies  could/would need to set up before and after each ship takes time and the individual ships would need to set up their computer systems in the terminal, something they cannot do until the first ship leaves. Passengers on the second ship of the  day could also have problems with flights and need an extra nights accomodation, more cost, to link with their flights. Etc etc etc.

I cannot see it happening

[arxcards]

3 hours ago, gbenjo said:

The “suggestion” of turning two ( big) ships in a day at the OPT was floated a couple of years ago and was “ laughed out of town” by those who actually  know.  The OPT is not, from my experience, capable of handling embark and debark simultaneously.  Passenger numbers at critical points eg Border Force and Security scanning are limited now under the present system not to mention that the debark hall is also the same area that embarking luggage is scanned  and sorted for loading and the second hall used by the bigger ships  is needed for loading/unloading provisions. The margin for “error” in turning two ships in a day  is very small and a number of unforeseen circumstances would be a real threat ie. late arrival , weather, technical issues in the terminal etc etc. Even the fact that different shoreside services companies  could/would need to set up before and after each ship takes time and the individual ships would need to set up their computer systems in the terminal, something they cannot do until the first ship leaves. Passengers on the second ship of the  day could also have problems with flights and need an extra nights accomodation, more cost, to link with their flights. Etc etc etc.

I cannot see it happening

Not to mention terminal staff working 16 hour days when it is the same shipping agency for both ships. 😉

 

I agree it can't happen in the current format, and really long odds of happening outside of an emergency plan B. Just food for thought, and interesting to compare how a ship is turned around vs a plane.

 

The most recent OPT upgrade was supposed to allow for parts of the terminal to be split to allow independent forward & aft passenger movements. It would speed things up but less margin of error, and it requires more borderforce and terminal staff which is more expensive for the ship/line. The aim of splitting though was to allow for more passengers per hour to embark/disembark so that in theory an Oasis like ship could still be comfortably turned around in a day. 

[gbenjo]

4 minutes ago, arxcards said:

 

 

 

 

The most recent OPT upgrade was supposed to allow for parts of the terminal to be split to allow independent forward & aft passenger movements. It would speed things up but less margin of error, and it requires more borderforce and terminal staff which is more expensive for the ship/line. The aim of splitting though was to allow for more passengers per hour to embark/disembark so that in theory an Oasis like ship could still be comfortably turned around in a day. 

Who told you that???????? 🤔 

[arxcards]

3 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Who told you that???????? 🤔 

It was contained in information docs as the reno was progressing. I can't recall if it was Sydney Ports info or NSW government files.

[gbenjo]

14 minutes ago, arxcards said:

It was contained in information docs as the reno was progressing. I can't recall if it was Sydney Ports info or NSW government files.

Well, it didn’t work. 😁
You could not  start an embark until there was a zero count for debarking pax  so a bit pointless anyway.

Edited May 31, 2023 by gbenjo

[OzKiwiJJ]

10 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Well, it didn’t work. 😁
You could not  start an embark until there was a zero count for debarking pax  so a bit pointless anyway.

I don't think arxcards meant start embarking before disembarkation was complete. I read it as processing forward half and aft half passengers concurrently, in two separate areas, instead of them all passing through the same pinch points.

[gbenjo]

6 minutes ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

I don't think arxcards meant start embarking before disembarkation was complete. I read it as processing forward half and aft half passengers concurrently, in two separate areas, instead of them all passing through the same pinch points.

There is not enough available space to do that . They put in two gangways ( which are not even used by Ovation size ships)  but other than that there is just not enough room as it is.

[OzKiwiJJ]

44 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

There is not enough available space to do that . They put in two gangways ( which are not even used by Ovation size ships)  but other than that there is just not enough room as it is.

Yes, I couldn't think how it would have worked in practice. It's a pity as that would certainly speed things up.

 

I did see the two gangways used when we embarked Ruby Princess in Dec 2019. They were checking cabin numbers and sending people to the appropriate gangway but that was a complete waste of time as the passenger cabin corridors were closed off at the lift foyers. It was a very full cruise - over 3500 passengers on a ship rated as 3080 lower berths - and it took a long time to get through passport control and security even with priority boarding so I couldn't see the point of using the two gangways.. But that's the only time I've seen it used but then we've only cruised on smaller ships since then.

[arxcards]

2 hours ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

Yes, I couldn't think how it would have worked in practice. It's a pity as that would certainly speed things up.

 

I did see the two gangways used when we embarked Ruby Princess in Dec 2019. They were checking cabin numbers and sending people to the appropriate gangway but that was a complete waste of time as the passenger cabin corridors were closed off at the lift foyers. It was a very full cruise - over 3500 passengers on a ship rated as 3080 lower berths - and it took a long time to get through passport control and security even with priority boarding so I couldn't see the point of using the two gangways.. But that's the only time I've seen it used but then we've only cruised on smaller ships since then.

The only time we have boarded on a two gangway day, everything was in single file until you made it through X-ray. In Brisbane, each of the 3 ships we have been on has had a double gangway, and it is just about providing two entry points onto the ship.

[arxcards]

3 hours ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

I don't think arxcards meant start embarking before disembarkation was complete. I read it as processing forward half and aft half passengers concurrently, in two separate areas, instead of them all passing through the same pinch points.

If flexible, it could be either. Borderforce doesn't always need zero count. But yes, mostly as above.

 

It is all moot anyway, as it takes longer to load supplies than it does to load a shipload of passengers.

[gbenjo]

11 hours ago, arxcards said:

The only time we have boarded on a two gangway day, everything was in single file until you made it through X-ray. In Brisbane, each of the 3 ships we have been on has had a double gangway, and it is just about providing two entry points onto the ship.

Yes, two entry points to the ship AFTER the two delay points of ABF and Security scanning in the terminal.
The gangway(s)  also have to line up with the access points on the ship and also not block access for loading provisions. Its funny  that the positioning of the single gangway  we use (for Royal and Celebrity) means that passengers have to walk about three lengths of the terminal to get to the ship because ABF is at the opposite end of the terminal to Security and the gangway is at the ABF end. The first gangway cannot be used as it disrupts access for provisioning.

[SinbadThePorter]

If Botany Bay is out and Garden Island is out, how about HMAS Penguin?

 

It seems to me that Penguins' duties could be carried out anywhere and doesn't involve shifting a lot of heavy machinery.

 

I suppose there is an argument that road access is a problem. If that's the case then I expect that nowhere on Sydney Harbour will serve.

[Dobby_The_Ship_Elf]

you folks gotta think outside the box ......

 

Simply lower the water level of the harbour and you can get plenty of ships under the coat hanger.

 

See - simples!

 

[reeves35]

57 minutes ago, SinbadThePorter said:

If Botany Bay is out and Garden Island is out, how about HMAS Penguin?

 

It seems to me that Penguins' duties could be carried out anywhere and doesn't involve shifting a lot of heavy machinery.

 

I suppose there is an argument that road access is a problem. If that's the case then I expect that nowhere on Sydney Harbour will serve.

It's a hard problem to solve.  The waterfront east of the Harbour Bridge is, by far, the most expensive real estate in Australia and would be close to the most expensive real estate in the world. Getting access to this land is therefore incredibly difficult.  Botany Bay made sense from an access point of view but you could also understand the disappointment of losing the ability to cruise into one of the great harbours of the world. 

 

I can see why politicians of all persuasions have decided to file any solution in the "too hard" basket.

 

[Chiliburn]

5 hours ago, SinbadThePorter said:

If Botany Bay is out and Garden Island is out, how about HMAS Penguin?

 

It seems to me that Penguins' duties could be carried out anywhere and doesn't involve shifting a lot of heavy machinery.

 

I suppose there is an argument that road access is a problem. If that's the case then I expect that nowhere on Sydney Harbour will serve.

A interesting thought there mr Porter .

It would be a bit exposed to ocean swells but a sea wall would solve that problem.

 

[geoff2802]

On 6/1/2023 at 10:40 AM, gbenjo said:

Yes, two entry points to the ship AFTER the two delay points of ABF and Security scanning in the terminal.
The gangway(s)  also have to line up with the access points on the ship and also not block access for loading provisions. Its funny  that the positioning of the single gangway  we use (for Royal and Celebrity) means that passengers have to walk about three lengths of the terminal to get to the ship because ABF is at the opposite end of the terminal to Security and the gangway is at the ABF end. The first gangway cannot be used as it disrupts access for provisioning.

Thanks for the insights.  
Why did they build the second gangway?  Perhaps it would be useable if two small ships were berthed at the same time?  

[geoff2802]

On 6/1/2023 at 11:16 AM, SinbadThePorter said:

If Botany Bay is out and Garden Island is out, how about HMAS Penguin?

 

It seems to me that Penguins' duties could be carried out anywhere and doesn't involve shifting a lot of heavy machinery.

 

I suppose there is an argument that road access is a problem. If that's the case then I expect that nowhere on Sydney Harbour will serve.

Appealing idea.  The residents of that very wealthy area might not agree.  
Sorry, not very helpful of me.  It seems this will continue for another 10 years with no solution.  Neither side of politics wants to solve it unfortunately. 

[SinbadThePorter]

38 minutes ago, geoff2802 said:

It seems this will continue for another 10 years with no solution.  Neither side of politics wants to solve it unfortunately.

 

I think the window to solving this closed 20 years ago. I don't think that politicians don't want to solve it, I think that they don't want to admit there is no solution.

 

Which is why I get a little upset with those who complain about the new Brisbane Terminal. It was a response to a closing window. It was as good as we could expect to get and if it hadn't gone where it did go, it would not have gone anywhere at all. In which case Pacific Explorer would be the only cruise ship sailing in Australia (apart from luxury lines) capable of docking at Portside and all other cruise ships would have been banished to the Grain Terminal.

Edited June 2, 2023 by SinbadThePorter

[gbenjo]

52 minutes ago, geoff2802 said:

Thanks for the insights.  
Why did they build the second gangway?  Perhaps it would be useable if two small ships were berthed at the same time?  

They would need to be very small ships.   White Bay also has two gangways so I guess the theory behind it is not only for the big ships. Not sure if the other companies use both but I know we do not for " Viking"  sized vessels. As I have said before. ABF and Security screening are the "chicanes" of the pax flow and until a solution to this problem is found, there is no need for two gangways. The new check in systems, that we  and most other cruise lines now use, has more than halved  or more ,the time required to check a passenger in so the only real bottlenecks are the two mentioned previously.

[geoff2802]

20 minutes ago, SinbadThePorter said:

 

I think the window to solving this closed 20 years ago. I don't think that politicians don't want to solve it, I think that they don't want to admit there is no solution.

 

Which is why I get a little upset with those who complain about the new Brisbane Terminal. It was a response to a closing window. It was as good as we could expect to get and if it hadn't gone where it did go, it would not have gone anywhere at all. In which case Pacific Explorer would be the only cruise ship sailing in Australia (apart from luxury lines) capable of docking at Portside and all other cruise ships would have been banished to the Grain Terminal.

Yep. 
The NSW government never acts unless it’s 20 years (or more) overdue.  I lived there for 57 years and now loving life in Qld.  
The new Brisbane terminal works well and we love the convenience of onsite parking.  No complaints at all.  

[geoff2802]

5 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

They would need to be very small ships.   White Bay also has two gangways so I guess the theory behind it is not only for the big ships. Not sure if the other companies use both but I know we do not for " Viking"  sized vessels. As I have said before. ABF and Security screening are the "chicanes" of the pax flow and until a solution to this problem is found, there is no need for two gangways. The new check in systems, that we  and most other cruise lines now use, has more than halved  or more ,the time required to check a passenger in so the only real bottlenecks are the two mentioned previously.

And why berth small ships at OPT anyway, when they can use White Bay.  Seems like a waste of money by NSW ports. 

[arxcards]

6 hours ago, geoff2802 said:

Thanks for the insights.  
Why did they build the second gangway?  Perhaps it would be useable if two small ships were berthed at the same time?  

Two gangways, one for redundancy if the other is out of service.

Also about getting more passengers through the terminal at a given time, a bit like Jetstar using front and rear doors to speed-up boarding. 

Also to allow disembark and embark to happen simultaneously, if/when the terminal is ever set-up that way.