The troubled Cowes Floating Bridge takes an extra 1 minute 30 seconds to cross the River Medina than its predecessor – but bringing back Floating Bridge 5 is not an option due to new rules imposed by Cowes Harbour Commission, it has been revealed. The Isle of Wight Council has reviewed the Cowes to East Cowes crossing which has been plagued with issues since the new Floating Bridge 6 (FB6) was brought into service in 2017. Computer modelling has been used by consultants 3S to create the environment of the River Medina and predict the outcome of design modifications, without the time and expenses of putting the fixes into place. The review has ultimately found the FB6 cannot operate without the use of a push boat in strong tides — but neither could the former Floating Bridge 5 (FB5). Speaking at a meeting of the council’s corporate scrutiny committee on Tuesday, 3S said FB6 was working but it was failing to meet the targets set out in the business case like the average number of crossings required. The average time it takes FB6 to cross the river is 3 minutes and 30 seconds, a snail’s pace compared to FB5’s 2-minute journeys. However, the answer is not to bring back FB5 as is commonly said, 3S revealed, as it would not comply with the chain depth required by the Cowes Harbour Master. The chain depth requirement was introduced after FB5 was taken out of service. They said any replacement vessel would have to be radically redesigned, with a new hull and superstructure, or a push boat may be necessary even into the future. 
Councillr Clare Mosdell questioned whether other options, like a permanent road bridge, would be a better river crossing. 3S said work had been done in the past to see if there was a viable alternative including a tunnel, but it would have to start in Wootton and finish the other side of West Cowes. They also said a bridge had been considered but it would be a serious impediment to tall river traffic. The consultants said a floating bridge crossing was the most logical solution, however, there was no fix for FB6 that would be worth spending money on. 3S also highlighted issues in the original contract specifications for FB6 which stipulated it should be made of steel and how long it should be, with the contractors facing financial penalties if it was not the specified length. The scrutiny committee agreed the only feasible option was to now get a new floating bridge and to ‘get on with’ the process of procuring one. Alternatives and next steps are being considered next month by the scrutiny committee and cabinet.
FLOATY NO. 5 WAS 90 SECONDS QUICKER THAN TROUBLED REPLACEMENT
- Trending
- Comments
- Latest
TOP STORIES THIS WEEK
-
DRIVER FLEES CRASH AFTER CAREERING 100FT INTO UNDERGROWTH
-
DOUBLE ARREST AFTER PICK UP TRUCK SMASHES INTO EXOTIC PLANT
-
MAN SUFFERS HEAD INJURY AFTER ‘BOTTLING’ IN FRONT OF FAMILIES IN SANDOWN
-
PICK-UP TRUCK ROLLS IN SATURDAY NIGHT SMASH ON RYDE ESPLANADE
-
MAN IN HIS 30S HOSPITALISED AFTER MOTORBIKE CRASH IN RYDE
Useful Links
External Links
Unbelievable, I can’t believe there is no accountability for this waste of our public money
belive it when it comes to our money flushed down the toilet..
The reason there will never be justice for these immbociles.
The Government employ them and the Law who should prosecute them for
their crimes of wasting tax payers money are also employed by the same
Government.
Just one big fiddle, then they have the cheek to increase our Council tax
Charge us to park 24/7 364 days a year to park our vehicles along seafronts
and charge us 50p to have a p*ss
I know who the real criminals are!
I am spreading the word how bad the island is.
Hopefully tourists stop coming to the
Isle of Shite
I love the Island, it is absolutely beautiful, nowhere is without its problems.
Don’t slag of our home, if you don’t like. go elsewhere.
Looks like that tactic is working Nige. You’ve got one like already.
Great idea, screw up the economy of The Island, clever boy!
Not to be boring and repeat past arguments is this not an opportunity to get a swing bridge?
Yes and tough sh ** on the boats that want to come and go… It works in Totland doesn’t it? Tall ships? make them berth the other side!
Good thought but with such heavy marine traffic I don’t think that would work. It was also be too much of a safety concern with larger vessels such as MTB Blade Runner Two. Especially at the current spot, just too narrow. Perhaps further down the Medina near Kingston maybe.
TBH I don’t know why they didnt just copy the old design dimensions and repliacte it with modern tech. That would have been easier. Suppose that’s why we don’t work for the council.
Now you just trying to be clever and come up with a sensible suggestion – So yep your right, that is why you don’t work for the council. Copy an old but proven design, what ever next!
Indeed. Check out the Millennium bridge in Newcastle Sometimes called the ‘winking eye bridge’. Google it. It’s beautiful, practical and probably doesn’t break down too often.
How much did we pay the “experts” to state the obvious?
The extra 1m30s has to be seen relatively – it almost halves the crossing rate, which when coupled with the Dali-esque boarding/disembarking regime means FB6 hasn’t a hope in hell of meeting the crossings-per-hour target.
And why are we allowing CHC to dictate an arbitrary demand for chain depth? There was never a problem before, and it isn’t as though there’s any deep-draught stuff going up-river, although that could massively relieve the Red Funnel impact in East Cowes.
Too many “authorities”, heads need knocking together.
Doesn’t the chain sit on the river bed as it drags behind FB6 ?
Perhaps some of it, but most hangs in a shallow loop fore and aft of FB.
They used to, but they had to tighten the chains for this new one so they are slightly raised from the bed now. Bit of an issue.
The consultation fee was £50,000. That would have paid for two full-time nursing staff.
Fb5 NEVER had a tug to push it..and was quicker and never broke down as mach as this piece of shit
I travelled on the old one in the ’80s, and I don’t ever remember an issue, such as being out of order.
I wouldn’t trust this Council with my last Rolo,
yet alone my money
Thicko’s
3s consultants are just that,there was alot of consultants on design of this in first place and looked what a balls up they made. Build a raising bridge once and for all,many on mainland are 100yrs old,then we won’t need another floaty every 10yrs or less. Why not just get some army landing craft?.
“3S said work had been done in the past… a tunnel, but it would have to start in Wootton and finish the other side of West Cowes.” This work – presumably – was done by the Ferry companies who hate the words ‘tunnel’ and ‘bridge’ !
Both the Erskine Bridge and Skye Bridge were built to replace the ferry crossings. Each is tall enough to get an oilrig underneath it, whereas the MTB Blade Runner Two looks to be only about 60 feet tall.
I hear the original spec for Floater Six was to get big ‘artics across to West Cowes. You can barely get a minibus around West Cowes!
Shove a tall suspension bridge across from Saunders Way, or the appropriately-named ‘Folly’ Lane.
Maybe the top person or persons who are responsible for A ordering something that’s no good for the job and B spending stupid amounts of money on it stands up and takes the blame, emptying their desk and forfeit their pension (what is tax payers will pay towards)? Then listen to people who know about tides, and sailing on normal money to maybe just deliver a floating bridge that works for us islanders?
So basically the council have replaced it with a slower more expensive more unreliable chain ferry great job IOW council
There should be a public vote on whether we have a crossing or not.
If it was a private company that had invested in a dud like this, they would have gone bust several times over.
This council cannot be trusted with this investment. Having a vessel that needs a tug in hide tide is shameful, surely they should have carried out sufficient sea trials beforehand.
Floating bridge 5 was designed by marine engineers to perform a specific task – floating bridge 6 was designed under the watchful gaze of public sector bureaucrats obsessed with meeting net zero ‘targets and signalling virtue about saving the planet, no doubt with a whole heap of diversity and inclusion thrown in too – it’s actual construction in view of doing the job would have come way down the list of their climate and DEI demands
Captain Pugwash and his motley crew have a lot to answer for it should be left as a “Foley” to their mistakes let’s hope lessons are learnt for any replacement but history has shown us lessons are seldom learnt
Just get the cowes harbour commission to change the rule, this is ridiculous