Option Generation and Development
Overview
Having identified the indicative variations between the RSM current and model service profiles for the Cowal (CFL Dunoon - Gourock route) and Rosneath (Kilcreggan – Dunoon route), this chapter generates and develops options which could address these gaps in provision, with the appraisal of options following in Chapter 6.
The options are split into two themes:
- CFL Dunoon – Gourock route
- Kilcreggan – Gourock, within which is considered potential triangular Dunoon / Kilcreggan – Gourock services
Option Generation Methodology
In order to provide a degree of structure to the option generation process, we have developed a service typology within which the Cowal and Rosneath routes have been allocated to a ‘level’. A variant of this approach was successfully adopted on our previous Outer Hebrides STAG Appraisal study and forms the basis of the emerging new CNA guidance.
The table below sets out the incremental service ‘levels’ which have been developed for this study.
Note that the operating day of a single crewed vessel is limited to the maximum hours that can be delivered by a single crew within the hours of work regulations and crew contractual arrangements.
Level | Description | Example |
---|---|---|
A | Shared single vessel, single crewed | Several routes in Orkney including: Rousay, Egilsay and Wyre; Stromness - Graemsay / Hoy; and Houton - Lyness / Flotta |
B | Shared single vessel, with more than a single crew | Uig - Tarbert / Lochmaddy (summer, currently) |
C | Dedicated single vessel, single crewed | Various 'small vessel' routes in the CHFS network, e.g., Sound of Barra, Sconser - Raasay, Tayinloan - Gigha etc |
D | Dedicated single vessel with more than a single crew | Colintraive - Rhubodach, which uses a shift system to offer an extended operating day |
E | Two dedicated vessels, each with a single crew | Wemyss Bay - Rothesay |
F | Two dedicated vessels, with one operating with more than a single crew | Several routes on the Shetland inter-island network, e.g., Symbister - Laxo / Vidlin |
G | Two dedicated vessels, with both operating with more than a single crew | CalMac Ferries Ltd (CFL) Gourock - Dunoon route |
The table below allocates the Dunoon and Kilcreggan routes to their respective ‘levels’:
Table 5.2: Allocation of Dunoon-Gourock (CFL) and Kilcreggan-Gourock routes to ‘Levels’
Service | Level A | Level B | Level C | Level D | Level E | Level F | Level G |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dunoon - Gourock (CFL) | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | yes |
Kilcreggan - Gourock | Not applicable | Not applicable | yes | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
As can be seen from the above table, the CFL Dunoon – Gourock route is towards the maximum end of the service level typology, with two dedicated vessels both double crewed across the operating day. It is worth noting for context here that the CFL Dunoon – Gourock route is the only ‘Level G’ route in the CHFS bundle.
The Kilcreggan – Gourock route is towards the other end of the scale, operating as a single crewed, single vessel service. This is similar to several other shorter and low demand CFL routes.
Having allocated the routes to the appropriate level, the options considered in the subsequent section will consider whether there is an evidence-based case to progress through one or more additional ‘levels’ (up or down). It will also consider potential variations within the levels.
It should again be noted here that the focus of the option generation and development process under the RSM methodology is on options which reduce the disparity between the current and model service provision.
Option Generation - Cowal
To recap, the CNA process found that Cowal, with respect to the CFL Dunoon – Gourock route, is ‘over-provided’ in terms of both frequency and length of operating day in the winter. The options set out below are presented by ‘service level’ and define different approaches which could be adopted in reducing or eliminating the disparity between the current and model service specifications.
‘Level G’ Options
‘Level G’ options are those based largely around the current model of service provision, namely a two-vessel service with both vessels double crewed.
Option C1: Continue the service on the current basis
- This option entails the continuation of the service as per the present day. As well as being an option in its own right, it provides a baseline against which all other options can be compared.
Advantages
- This option would not require any change to operational practices, is well-understood and would be easy to implement.
Disadvantages
- This option would represent over-provision in frequency and the length of the winter operating day in accordance with the RSM.
- The evidence presented in Chapter 2 highlights that utilisation of the CFL Dunoon – Gourock service is very low, and with much of the demand clustered on a subset of services. This leads to significant levels of subsidy - to recap, for the period October 2021 – September 2022, the annual deficit on the route was circa [redacted].
- The implication of the above point is that there is a higher subsidy cost than would be required to provide a service based on the RSM model service. This may indicate that these additional services may represent poor value for money (VfM) and that the public money used could be spent in a different way.
Option C2: Continue to operate the current length of operating day but reduce service frequency
This option is a variation of Option C1, whereby the current two vessel service and length of operating day are maintained, but the frequency of service across the day is reduced.
On paper, there are several sub-options in this respect which include:
- Reducing the sailing frequency to hourly from circa 19:30 onwards, Monday – Friday. This could be done year-round or winter only.
- Redesigning the evening ferry timetable to only provide services which connect with trains at Gourock within a defined wait time, e.g., 10 minutes.
- Designating low utilisation sailings as ‘request only’.
Whilst there are options for reducing service frequency without reducing the operating day or the number of vessels in operation, the scope for doing so is likely to be very limited in practice. The following points should be noted:
- Whilst there is a clear tidal flow on the CFL Dunoon – Gourock route, there is nonetheless a baseload of two-way traffic for most of the day. For this reason, it may be difficult to design a timetable which will meet the needs of both ends of the route in that a lightly used sailing in one direction may be more heavily used in the return direction.
- As the Gourock – Glasgow Central rail timetable is not clockface, it is operationally challenging to plan a regular ferry service around it in terms of minimising interchange times in both directions.
- Request sailings tend to work well for smaller islands, where there is a potentially small one-way flow in the early morning or late evening, meaning the ferry will only typically be booked one way, Whalsay in Shetland for example. This is less likely to be the case on the Dunoon – Gourock route due to the two-way flow and higher base volumes. Moreover, a booking system would have to be introduced on the route.
Advantages
- The primary benefit of this option is that it would allow tailored reductions in service levels where demand is low, whilst maintaining the flexibility to scale-up the service where there is a case for doing so, during the Cowal Games for example. In particular, this would reduce some of the challenges associated with operating materially different summer and winter timetables.
- It would also increase available maintenance time and thus reduce the risk of mechanical failure.
Disadvantages
- Under this option, the double crewing of both vessels would be continued. The cost savings from not running a service are therefore limited to the marginal fuel and pier and berthing dues.
Level ‘F’ Option
Option C3: Two vessel operation at peak times only
This option would involve reducing the second vessel to a single crew operation, although the primary vessel would continue to deliver the current operating day. There are two ways in which this option could be delivered:
- At its most extreme, the second vessel could operate in defined peak hours only (e.g., 06:30-10:00 and 16:00-18:30). The vessel would be tied-up in between these periods unless required to cover lunch, drills and maintenance on the primary vessel. The crew would operate a split shift (either permanently or as part of the shift rotation pattern).
- The alternative approach would be to operate the second vessel over a standard single crew operating day of circa 12 hours, e.g., 06:30-18:30. This would provide a broadly half-hourly frequency throughout the day, reducing to hourly in the evening.
The latter of these two models is by in large that which is used successfully on three of the short routes in Shetland (Bluemull Sound, Whalsay and Yell Sound), where the Council operates a ‘day boat’ / ‘shift boat’ system. This provides a near turn-up-and-go service during the day, reducing to a single vessel to meet essential travel needs in the evening.
Whilst the option of split shifts may seem attractive from an operational perspective, it would be administratively difficult to operate and could be unattractive to crew, with two short shifts boxing in a long period of inactivity during the day. The cost saving here again is likely to be limited to marginal fuel and harbour dues plus a reduction in headcount to reflect the scaled back second vessel service.
Advantages
- This approach would maximise frequency during the day, providing a near turn-up-and-go service whilst also maintaining peak connectivity. As with other ferry and indeed public transport services across the UK, evening frequency would be reduced.
- This model of service provision has been demonstrated to work effectively on similar short routes in Shetland, providing frequency during the day and essential connectivity in the evening.
- Reducing the second vessel to a single crew means that there would be a cost saving of two crews, together with the fuel and dues associated with current evening sailings.
- This option would also increase available maintenance time and thus reduce the risk of mechanical failure.
Disadvantages
- This level of service provision would continue to offer significant over-capacity during the day and would not address the identified over-provision in the length of operating day in the winter (unless the service offered by the ‘shift boat’ was scaled back during this period).
‘Level E’ Option
The ‘Level E’ option would retain a two-vessel service, each with a single crew operation.
Option C4: Two vessel operation at peak times only, single crew day
In this option, both vessels would be reduced to a single crew day. Again, there are several options in this regard:
- The two vessels could operate a standard 12-hour day commencing at broadly the same time, e.g., vessel 1 could operate from 06:00-18:00 and vessel 2 from 06:30-18:30. This is by and large the model operated on the neighbouring Wemyss Bay – Rothesay route. CFL passengers travelling after 18:30 would use Western Ferries, which would require complimentary connecting shuttle buses or a through bus service if foot passenger connectivity is not to be diminished. It would also be beneficial to incorporate cross-operator ticket acceptance if this could be negotiated. Any such services would also improve local bus connectivity between Dunoon and Hunters Quay, which could cater for a wider range of local journeys.
- The two vessels could operate offset days to provide a slightly longer operating day, e.g., vessel 1 could operate 06:00-18:00 and vessel 2 from 08:00-20:00.
- The first vessel could operate a standard 12-hour day, e.g., 06:00-18:00. The second vessel could operate on a split shift basis to maximise frequency in the peak, whilst providing a slightly longer operating day, e.g., 06:30-12:30 and 15:30-21:30. The practicalities of implementing split shift arrangements should again be noted here.
Advantages
- This approach would maximise frequency, within given parameters, during the day, providing a near turn-up-and-go service whilst also maintaining peak connectivity. As with other ferry (and indeed public transport services across the UK), evening frequency would be reduced. This would assist in addressing the identified over provision within the RSM.
- There would be a cost saving of four crews (associated with both vessels operating with a single crew on any given day), together with the fuel and berthing charges associated with current evening sailings. However, there would be additional costs associated with operating connecting buses in the evening as it is very unlikely these could be provided on a commercial basis. If the bus service travelled through on Western Ferries, this would require a commercial agreement with Western Ferries.
Disadvantages
- This level of service provision would continue to offer significant over-capacity during the day.
- There would be a reduction in evening connectivity for non-car available Dunoon residents, although this could be mitigated through the provision of complimentary connecting shuttle buses to Hunters Quay or Gourock railway station using Western Ferries.
‘Level D’ Option
C5: Single vessel operation all day
This is the first of the options where the service would be reduced to a single vessel operation. Under ‘Level D’, the current operating day would be maintained, so a broadly hourly frequency service would be offered over that day.
Advantages
- The primary advantage of this option is that it would offer significant revenue and future capital savings, whilst maintaining an hourly service to connect with the train. On the capital side, only one vessel rather than two would be required whilst, on the revenue side, there would be a saving of four crews and the associated operating costs of a second vessel (e.g., fuel, dues, maintenance, insurance etc).
- The single vessel would also continue to deliver a long operating day, thus maintaining connectivity even if reducing frequency.
Disadvantages
- From a passenger perspective, this option would represent a near halving of the service, with the current largely half-hourly service reducing to hourly. Whilst this would align with the RSM and utilisation on the route, it would be perceived negatively by current users and potentially the Cowal community more generally.
- There could be a requirement to secure a secondary vessel in the event of a breakdown and for scheduled refit. Whilst this is common practice on the CFL network, the Dunoon – Gourock vessels are bespoke, at least within the CMAL fleet. This need would therefore either have to be addressed through the deployment of a less suitable vessel (if available, and there are none in the fleet at present) or through sharing with Kilcreggan for the period of refit if the vessels are interchangeable between the routes or through the retention of one of the current passenger vessels as a ‘resilience vessel’ for this purpose.
- It should be noted that one option would be to suspend the route during periods of breakdown and refit. Complimentary shuttle buses could be provided to Hunters Quay and McInroy’s Point. Indeed, CFL currently has a contract with local bus operators to provide a connection to Western Ferries’ services when they have cancellations.
- In order to maintain e.g., evening connectivity, there may be an additional cost associated with providing complimentary shuttle buses to connect with Gourock railway station via Western Ferries’ services.
‘Level C’ Option
Option C6: Single vessel operation, single crew day
This final option would represent the most significant reduction in the current service, reducing both frequency and the length of the operating day year-round. Under this option, the CFL Gourock – Dunoon service would be limited to a maximum annualised average of 84 hours per week, providing a circa 12-hour operating day (including start-up and shutdown), say 06:30-18:30. This approach would make this route equivalent to most other short CHFS routes, including neighbouring Kilcreggan.
Advantages
- The primary advantage of this option is that it would offer significant revenue and future capital savings. On the capital side, only one vessel rather than two would be required whilst, on the revenue side, there would be a saving of six crews; the associated operating costs of a second vessel (e.g., fuel, dues, maintenance, insurance etc); and the cost of operating the primary vessel in the evening.
Disadvantages
- From a passenger perspective, this option would represent a very significant diminution of the service, with the current largely half-hourly service reducing to hourly and the truncation of the operating day. This would align with the low utilisation on the route, but it would be perceived negatively by current users and potentially the Cowal community more generally.
- The issues with a vessel to cover breakdowns and refit would also apply here.
Summary
The table below summarises the ‘long-list’ of CFL Gourock – Dunoon options, including the ‘service level’ and the impact on frequency and the length of the operating day:
Option | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | Frequency | Operating day |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1: Continue service on current basis | no | no | no | no | no | no | Yes | Unchanged | Unchanged |
C2: Continue to operate current length of day but reduce service frequency | no | no | no | no | no | no | Yes | Reduced | Unchanged |
C3: Two vessel operation at peak times only | no | no | no | no | no | Yes | no | Reduced | Potentially reduced |
C4: Two vessel operation at peak times only, single crew day | no | no | no | no | Yes | no | no | Reduced | Reduced |
C5: Single vessel operation all day | no | no | no | Yes | no | no | no | Reduced | Unchanged |
C6: Single vessel operation, single crew day | no | no | Yes | no | no | no | no | Reduced | Reduced |
Rosneath
To recap, the RSM-based analysis for Rosneath identified marginal under-provision in relation to the number of sailing days (i.e., no Sunday sailings) but marginal over-provision in relation to the length of the operating day. However, the analysis concluded that the primary question for the options appraisal is whether there is a case for operating a Sunday service. As previously noted in relation to the length of the operating day, there is little logic in truncating the current single-vessel, single crew operating day, and thus this is not considered further here.
Cowal and Rosneath two-vessel service
The CNA also identified the potential for operating the combined CFL Dunoon – Gourock and Kilcreggan – Gourock routes with two vessels rather than three. In effect, this would involve the Kilcreggan vessel operating as the second Dunoon vessel at some or all parts of the day, and thus aligns with the Cowal single-vessel options C5 and C6. We have therefore covered these shared vessel options in this section as it is the Kilcreggan vessel which would be ‘shared’ to strengthen the Dunoon service.
‘Level C’ Options
‘Level C’ options are those based largely around the current model of service provision, namely a single service operated by a single crew.
Option R1: Continue the service on the current basis
- As per the Cowal options, this option is the current day service, which can be used as the basis for comparison.
Advantages
- This option would not require any change to operational practices, is well-understood and would be easy to implement.
Disadvantages
- None – whilst subsidy is relatively high, the current level of service is arguably the minimum which should be provided for a route of this nature if there is a commitment to operate it. To recap, the subsidy on this route for the period October 2021 - September 2022 was circa [redacted], with route revenues accounting 16% of route operating costs.
Option R2: Operate a Sunday Kilcreggan – Gourock service
Rosneath is one of the very few communities served by the ferry network left in Scotland that does not have a Sunday ferry service. This option would seek to deliver that service should the community desire seven-day provision.
The key question with respect to this option is whether a Sunday service can be operated within the available hours of a single crew. As the Kilcreggan service operates exclusively within categorised waters, it is subject to Merchant Shipping Notice (MSN) 1876 Working Time: Inland Waterways Regulations 2003 as Amended – the key provisions of this legislation are as follows:
- ‘Working time’ relates to:
- Any period, including overtime, during which an employee is working
- Any period during which an employee is receiving training
- Any additional period which is to be treated as working time for the purpose of these Regulations under a relevant agreement
- Maximum working time is defined as follows – working hours should not exceed:
- 14 hours in any 24-hour period
- 84 hours in any seven-day period
- Working time over a full year (i.e., any 52-week period) should not exceed 2,304 hours
- The employer must ensure that any employee does not work more than 48 hours for any seven-day period, averaged over 52 weeks (i.e., annualised hours)
- In terms of rest periods, workers must have at least:
- 10 hours in each 24-hour period, of which at least six hours are uninterrupted
- 84 hours in any seven-day period
- Workers are entitled to 4 weeks of paid leave in each leave year, and also up to 1.6 weeks of additional leave in respect of public holidays (subject to an overall maximum of 28 days).
- Section 17 of MSN 1876 does however make provision for seasonal work, thus facilitating differential summer and winter timetables, as is common with ferry operations across Scotland:
- A season is defined as no more than 9 consecutive months in any 12-month period in which activities are tied to certain times of the year as a result of external circumstances such as weather conditions or tourist demand
The Kilcreggan – Gourock service has a ‘sailing week’ of 71 hours and 44 minutes, excluding start-up and shut-down. Assuming a daily start-up period of 30-minutes and close down period of 15-minutes, the total operating week is 76 hours and 24 minutes. This would facilitate a circa seven-hour day on a Sunday, although a longer summer Sunday could be operated as long as this was offset with reduced operating hours in winter. It is important to note that these are regulatory maximum hours rather than targets, and crew contracts are likely to be different – the practicalities any such option would therefore have be worked through in detail with CFL.
The assumed timetable with this option is 10:00-17:00 every Sunday throughout the year.
Advantages
- This option would provide Kilcreggan residents with more frequent public transport access to Glasgow and Inverclyde on a Sunday. This is important for those without access to a car as Sunday bus provision to and from the Rosneath Peninsula is very limited.
- In the summer months, this service would also improve access to the Rosneath Peninsula for day-trippers, cyclists etc.
Disadvantages
- The operation of a Sunday service would evidently increase the cost of operating the route.
- Crew contracts would have to be renegotiated to account for the additional day of operation.
- Argyll & Bute Council would have to provide additional pier staff at Kilcreggan on a Sunday, which would require additional staff or overtime costs.
‘Levels A and B’ Options
Options R3-R5 are defined as ‘Level A’ or ‘Level B’ options as they would involve sharing the single Kilcreggan vessel with another route (Dunoon). The ‘Level A’ or ‘Level B’ definition would depend on whether each option is aligned with Cowal option:
- Option C5: Single vessel operation, double crew day (Level B)
- Option C6: Single vessel operation, single crew day (Level A)
This study is not concerned with vessel or infrastructure design, but it is assumed for the purpose of the appraisal of these options that any future vessels as a minimum could work interchangeably between Gourock, Dunoon and Kilcreggan.
For context, CFL indicate that the Dunoon – Kilcreggan run would take circa 25-minutes to operate, which suggests a significant proportion of sailing time will be ‘dead-legging’ given the likely limited regular demand for travel between the two settlements.
Option R3: Operate Kilcreggan service via Dunoon in ‘peak’ hours
This option would involve operating the current Kilcreggan – Gourock service as a triangular service via Dunoon in ‘peak’ hours, strengthening frequency on the busier Cowal route. Peak hours would need to be defined but are likely to be circa 06:30-09:30 and 16:00-18:30, although any COVID-19 related changes to market demand would need to accounted for here.
There are four main ways that this service could operate (although other variations are possible), as follows:
- Gourock -> Kilcreggan -> Gourock -> Dunoon -> Gourock (effectively a ‘V’ shaped route rather than a triangular route)
- Gourock -> Kilcreggan -> Dunoon -> Gourock
- Gourock -> Kilcreggan -> Dunoon -> Kilcreggan -> Gourock
- Gourock -> Dunoon -> Kilcreggan -> Gourock
Example morning timetables are provided for each option in the tables which follow based on crossing and turnaround times in the current route timetables and the CFL stated 25-minute journey time between Kilcreggan and Dunoon and a five-minute turnaround at each port.
Depart Gourock | Arrive Kilcreggan | Depart Kilcreggan | Arrive Gourock | Depart Gourock | Arrive Dunoon | Depart Dunoon | Arrive Gourock |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
06:30 | 06:43 | 06:48 | 07:01 | 07:06 | 07:31 | 07:36 | 08:01 |
08:06 | 08:19 | 08:24 | 08:37 | 08:42 | 09:07 | 09:12 | 09:37 |
Depart Gourock | Arrive Kilcreggan | Depart Kilcreggan | Arrive Dunoon | Depart Dunoon | Arrive Gourock |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
06:30 | 06:43 | 06:48 | 07:13 | 07:18 | 07:43 |
07:48 | 08:01 | 08:06 | 08:31 | 08:36 | 09:01 |
Depart Gourock | Arrive Kilcreggan | Depart Kilcreggan | Arrive Dunoon | Depart Dunoon | Arrive Kilcreggan | Depart Kilcreggan | Arrive Gourock |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
06:30 | 06:43 | 06:48 | 07:13 | 07:18 | 07:43 | 07:48 | 08:01 |
08:06 | 08:19 | 08:24 | 08:49 | 08:54 | 09:19 | 09:24 | 09:49 |
Depart Gourock | Arrive Dunoon | Depart Dunoon | Arrive Kilcreggan | Depart Kilcreggan | Arrive Gourock |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
06:30 | 06:55 | 07:00 | 07:25 | 07:30 | 07:43 |
07:48 | 08:13 | 08:18 | 08:43 | 08:48 | 09:01 |
This option would provide two additional sailings for Dunoon in the AM peak (relative to a single vessel service). However:
- Options 1 and 3 would reduce the number of Kilcreggan – Gourock crossings by two as the 06:41, 07:27, 08:20 and 09:16 services would not operate.
- Options 2 and 4 would reduce the number of Kilcreggan – Gourock crossings by one, as the 06:41, 07:27 and 08:20 services could not operate.
- With the exception of Option 1, all of the permutations presented would lead to an increase in the journey time either to or from Kilcreggan, as well as a virtual ‘dead-leg’ between Dunoon and Kilcreggan.
The pattern in the evening would be broadly similar. The reduction in frequency on an already hourly service from Kilcreggan is likely to be publicly unacceptable, although extending the operating day through ‘Level B’ provision may be considered an acceptable quid pro quo, providing a longer operating day in return for reduced frequency. The timetable for the Kilcreggan services would need to facilitate travel to and from HMNB Faslane and RNAD Coulport.
Advantages
- The creation of a triangular route at peak times would supplement a single vessel Dunoon service, providing for example two additional sailings in the AM peak period. However, these sailings would not be at regular intervals and thus may depart close to a preceding or following sailing at Dunoon, thus diminishing the benefit. However, this would only be for 1-2 sailings in each peak.
- If operated in the evening, Kilcreggan would benefit from sailings which it does not currently have, whilst there would be marginal strengthening of the single vessel Dunoon service.
- There would be a new sea-based connection between Kilcreggan and Dunoon, although its value would be very limited as the preferred destinations for both communities are Glasgow (overwhelmingly) and Inverclyde.
Disadvantages
- Kilcreggan would experience a reduction in frequency at peak times. Journey times would also be extended in all but one option, whilst integration with rail services would potentially worsen.
- There would be a lengthy virtual ‘dead-leg’ between Dunoon and Kilcreggan (or vice versa) with most options. In effect, the operator would be accruing cost but generating little or no revenue.
- Residents of both Cowal and Rosneath are likely to find indirect sailings unattractive. Therefore, whilst these connections could be provided, it is debatable whether they would be used, particularly given already very low utilisation on direct sailings.
Option R4: Operate Kilcreggan service via Dunoon in all hours
This option would be an extension of Option R3, in that one of the four timetable permutations (or indeed a mixture of these timetables) set out would operate across the full day.
Advantages
- The creation of a triangular route would supplement a single vessel Dunoon service, providing a number of additional sailings across the day. However, based on the current turnaround times, these sailings would not be at regular intervals and thus may depart close to a preceding or following sailing at Dunoon, thus diminishing the benefit. Indeed, potential berth conflicts and their impact on reliability would need to be assessed and addressed.
- If operated in the evening, Kilcreggan would benefit from sailings which it does not currently have, whilst there would be marginal strengthening of the single vessel Dunoon service.
- There would be a new sea-based connection between Kilcreggan and Dunoon.
Disadvantages
- Kilcreggan would experience a reduction in frequency across the day. The timetables set out in Option R3 highlight that a complete rotation would take between 73 and 91 The Kilcreggan – Gourock route operates on a broadly hourly timetable (although it is not clockface), which would clearly be impossible to maintain based on the above rotation times.
- Journey times would also be extended in all but one option, whilst integration with rail services would potentially worsen.
- There would be a lengthy ‘dead-leg’ between Dunoon and Kilcreggan (or vice versa) with most options. In effect, the operator would be accruing cost but generating little or no revenue.
- Residents of both Cowal and Rosneath are likely to find indirect sailings unattractive. Therefore, whilst these connections could be provided, it is debatable whether they would be used.
Option R5: Triangular service between Gourock, Dunoon and Kilcreggan (clockwise and anti-clockwise)
This is a somewhat more radical option which would convert the individual Dunoon and Kilcreggan routes into a single triangular route, with one vessel operating clockwise and the other vessel anti-clockwise. Whilst there are other triangular routes in Scotland (e.g., Bluemull Sound, Orkney Outer North Isles), they are operated very differently to what is proposed here. For context, a sample timetable showing five rotations of each vessel is shown below:
Depart Gourock | Arrive Dunoon | Depart Dunoon | Arrive Kilcreggan | Depart Kilcreggan | Arrive Gourock |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
06:30 | 06:55 | 07:00 | 07:25 | 07:30 | 07:43 |
07:48 | 08:13 | 08:18 | 08:43 | 08:48 | 09:01 |
09:06 | 09:31 | 09:36 | 10:01 | 10:06 | 10:19 |
10:24 | 10:49 | 10:54 | 11:19 | 11:24 | 11:37 |
11:42 | 12:07 | 12:12 | 12:37 | 12:42 | 12:55 |
Depart Gourock | Arrive Kilcreggan | Depart Kilcreggan | Arrive Dunoon | Depart Dunoon | Arrive Gourock |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
07:00 | 07:13 | 07:18 | 07:43 | 07:48 | 08:13 |
08:18 | 08:31 | 08:36 | 09:01 | 09:06 | 09:31 |
09:36 | 09:49 | 09:54 | 10:19 | 10:24 | 10:49 |
10:54 | 11:07 | 11:12 | 11:37 | 11:42 | 12:07 |
12:12 | 12:25 | 12:30 | 12:55 | 13:00 | 13:22 |
By way of comparison, the departure times from Dunoon and Kilcreggan to Gourock for the current and above sample timetable are shown in the table below (covering the period 06:30-13:30).
Dunoon (Current) | Dunoon (Triangular) | Kilcreggan (Current) | Kilcreggan (Triangular) |
---|---|---|---|
06:50 | 07:00 | 07:04 | 07:18 |
07:15 | Not applicable | 07:50 | 07:30 |
07:50 | 07:48 | 08:43 | 08:36 |
08:20 | 08:18 | Not applicable | 08:48 |
08:50 | Not applicable | 09:53 | 09:54 |
09:20 | 09:06 | 10:53 | 10:06 |
09:50 | 09:36 | 11:39 | 11:12 |
10:20 | 10:24 | Not applicable | 11:24 |
10:50 | 10:54 | 13:19 | 12:30 |
11:20 | Not applicable | Not applicable | 12:42 |
11:50 | 11:42 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
12:20 | 12:12 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
12:50 | 13:00 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
13:50 | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
The main points of note from the above timetable and comparison are:
- For the sample period shown (06:30-13:30), Dunoon would see a reduction in its number of connections, circa 14 reducing to 10, of which five would be indirect.
- Kilcreggan would see an increase its connections from 7 to 10. However, the five indirect connections would take around 55 minutes to get from Kilcreggan to Gourock, so it could be argued that connectivity has reduced rather than increased.
- The timetable as presented would allow for a relatively regular interval service from Dunoon, but at Kilcreggan there would be clusters of two services close together with long gaps in between, in some cases more than an hour.
Overall, despite some of the attractions of a triangular timetable, there are also significant disbenefits and logistical challenges in delivering a service that would be attractive to passengers.
Advantages
- Kilcreggan would benefit from additional connections, albeit the journey time on indirect services would be unattractive.
- If operated in the evening, Kilcreggan would benefit from sailings which it does not currently have.
- There would be a new sea-based connection between Kilcreggan and Dunoon.
Disadvantages
- Dunoon would see a reduction in service frequency across the day, whilst Kilcreggan would have fewer direct services to Gourock.
- Journey times would be long on indirect services, whilst integration with rail services would potentially worsen. The ferry timetable at both Dunoon and Kilcreggan would also be irregular.
- There would be a lengthy ‘dead-leg’ between Dunoon and Kilcreggan (or vice versa). In effect, the operator would be accruing cost but generating little or no revenue.
Summary
The table below summarises the ‘long-list’ of Kilcreggan – Gourock and triangular options, including the ‘service level’ and the impact on frequency:
Option | A | B | C | D | E | F | Frequency | Operating day |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R1: Continue service on current basis | no | no | Yes | no | no | no | Unchanged | Unchanged |
R2: Operate a Sunday Kilcreggan - Gourock service | no | no | Yes | no | no | no | Unchanged | Unchanged |
R3: Operate Kilcreggan service via Dunoon in 'peak' hours | Yes | Yes | no | no | no | no | Reduced | Unchanged or increased |
R4: Operate Kilcreggan service via Dunoon in all hours | Yes | Yes | no | no | no | no | Reduced | Unchanged or increased |
R5: Triangular service between Gourock, Dunoon and Kilcreggan (clockwise and anti-clockwise) | Yes | Yes | no | no | no | no | Rosneath increased, Cowl reduced | Rosneath increased, Cowal unchanged |
Initial Options Sift
In STAG appraisal, it is common practice to undertake an early sift of options where it is evident that the option is unlikely to support the Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs). Within the RSM framework, there is not a requirement to set TPOs. However, there is still benefit in undertaking an initial option sift where it is evident that one or more options provide a sub-optimal outcome for the deployment of the same resources.
On this basis, Options R3-R5 – the triangular Gourock – Dunoon – Kilcreggan – options are discounted from further consideration. Whilst the advantages and disadvantages differ slightly between different triangular route permutations, the broad rationale for sifting this concept is as follows:
- The triangular options are based on the principle of sharing the Kilcreggan vessel across the two routes. However, Options R3 and R4 would lead to a reduction in the hourly frequency of the Kilcreggan service. Whilst Option R5 would lead to an increase in the frequency of the Kilcreggan service, the timings would be irregular and journey times on indirect sailings very long.
- For Dunoon, the triangular service is predicated on a single dedicated vessel on the CFL Dunoon – Gourock service, and thus all options represent a reduction in frequency from the present-day operation, albeit the RSM suggests that there is over-provision on the route.
- There would be a lengthy ‘dead-leg’ between Dunoon and Kilcreggan (or vice versa), with little demand to travel between the two settlements, unless a ‘V’ shaped route was established (see below). The operator would be accruing cost but generating little or no revenue.
- The indirect services would result in significantly increased journey times and users would therefore experience journey time disbenefits.
- The timetable would be irregular (non-clockface) and may also impact on integration with connecting public transport services at both sides of the crossing.
However, the sub-option of R3, running a ‘V’ service (Gourock – Kilcreggan – Gourock – Dunoon – Gourock) in peak hours, is retained for further consideration. Whilst this option would diminish the Kilcreggan service, it would strengthen a single vessel Dunoon service in peak hours. Given that carryings on the Dunoon route are greater by a factor of four, this option should therefore be subject to appraisal so as to more fully understand its benefits and disbenefits.
The next chapter appraises the remaining options against the STAG criteria.