The Isle of Wight Council has splashed out almost £90,000 on ‘strategic’ spare parts for the troubled Floating Bridge.
It follows the recommendation of a Government review — which branded Floating Bridge 6 as ‘potentially poorly designed’ — to always ensure the Isle of Wight Council had a stock of essential spares.
The importance of having spares and their availability was highlighted by the review team, for ‘effective future service provision’. They said being able to identify the critical spares for the £3.2million vessel and having them readily available at very short notice was key to minimising downtime.
Following the recommendation and having sought advice, the Isle of Wight Council has spent £87,000 in the last year purchasing the spare parts.
Since Floating Bridge 6 was brought into service in 2017 the vessel has been plagued with issues and faults which have led to the crossing being suspended on multiple occasions.
Repairs and replacement work have also been hindered when parts take a long time to arrive or are delayed, meaning the service is out for longer.
Now, a council spokesperson has said, increasing the stock of spare parts the authority holds is anticipated to minimise downtime in the event of any future related parts failures.
A key list of spares has been developed by a ‘competent, independent third-party engineer’ they said, and while the parts have been purchased they have not had to be used yet.
It seems incredible that it should take a Government review to cause the Council to hold a reasonable stock of spares. Any thinking operator would realise that you should hold spares.
Does that 90k include a trained engineer who lives on the island on 24hr on call ?
If not the money was wasted
Another £90,000 on this heap of junk, when will it ever end. So they are predicting mass breakdowns in the future, just get rid of it and build something that is well designed and not done on the cheap, because if you build cheap you end up paying more afterwards. Typical council pour money into this, but won’t reduce parking charges to keep the towns going.
Why wasn’t an initial spares list drawn up for delivery with the bridge??
Then a top up list based on the most failing parts? It’s called forward planning!
Think I may have answered my own question as iwcc and forward planning don’t go in the same sentence! More skimp and hope for the best!
Honestly you could not make it up .
£90,000 that is an obscene sum of money for a load of junk that has broken down more times over the past year then I’ve had hot dinners. What that money could have been spent on the iowc beggars belief
god you must be hungry or living on salad!
Do the public not get a say in any of this? This is our money being used on this pile of junk 90k in spare parts 1million on a tug boat to help it in strong currents 3.2million building the thing when will it end?
Also just look at all that rust !!!
Let’s hope there the right spares
Even Benny Hill would have struggled to write the biography for FB6, you just can’t make it up.
New things today are built and designed with reliability in mind,why should it need spares ? it cost enough. Oh it was cheap scate design approved by IWC.
In engineering terms ,lets put this into perspective. the government states this piece of machinery is not fit for purpose, there’s a surprise. They recommend buying a shedload of spares to keep the dam thing running, STICKING PLASTERS at best. The parts that have failed are badly designed or the wrong material, so will fail again and again. What if you purchased a new car which kept breaking down and the garage suggested you purchase spares at great expence to keep it running. I think i can guess what you would say.
What’s happened to the legal action?
More money in the money pit!
Build a bridge!!
Build a bridge. Smaller towns in UK and Europe manage to build pedestrian bridges without any problems. What the heck?
If this non floating piece of s### saga was a story, no one would believe it.