Reinstate Sunderland Shipbuilding



the dark one said:
You need launching mate.

Main problem I see is the skill set available.
I was in the last year of apprentices ever taken on by NESL, back in 1987. The yards shut in 1989. I'm nearly 50, so you'd have to be quick to capture an ageing workforce from the north east with any experience at all of shipbuilding.a mass recruitment of apprentices would be needed sharply to gain experience before the last of the old hands disappear.
Click to expand...

Don’t worry I’ll turn up and save the day..double bottoms..wing tanks..piece of piss.
 
the dark one said:
You need launching mate.

Main problem I see is the skill set available.
I was in the last year of apprentices ever taken on by NESL, back in 1987. The yards shut in 1989. I'm nearly 50, so you'd have to be quick to capture an ageing workforce from the north east with any experience at all of shipbuilding.a mass recruitment of apprentices would be needed sharply to gain experience before the last of the old hands disappear.
Click to expand...
The old hands won't be needed,it's not happening,move on and launch something different,BJ will point you in the right direction.
 
Surely a better use going forward would be to maybe try to repurpose the yard into something like wind turbine fabrication
 
scraff said:
Surely a better use going forward would be to maybe try to repurpose the yard into something like wind turbine fabrication
Click to expand...

I think they are suggesting that as an option but still requires the river to be dredged unless turbines can be transported to port by road? Also Blyth has a bit of a steel on this due to NaRec facility up there.
 
scraff said:
Surely a better use going forward would be to maybe try to repurpose the yard into something like wind turbine fabrication
Click to expand...

But that's the beauty of the Pallion facility with its line of serviced, fabrication bays - as both vessel and fabrication work can be done. Given that the majority of all work envisaged will be offshore related, this can cover vessel / fleet servicing, repairs, refits, updates, conversions etc in the main dock with module and unit fabrication being undertaken in the adjacent bays.

Particular companies have already stated that they service their fleets in Winter and that a local, covered dock is ideal for this as there is unlikely due to be any downtime due to poor weather. Unlike at A&P for example, where their docks are open to the elements and whole days are lost but are still chargeable to the client.

Since the yard officially closed in January 1989, the offshore industry has grown beyond any forecasts of the day and this industry is on Pallion's doorstep right now, all requiring regular servicing and repairs and fabrications etc.
 
Roo said:
But that's the beauty of the Pallion facility with its line of serviced, fabrication bays - as both vessel and fabrication work can be done. Given that the majority of all work envisaged will be offshore related, this can cover vessel / fleet servicing, repairs, refits, updates, conversions etc in the main dock with module and unit fabrication being undertaken in the adjacent bays.

Particular companies have already stated that they service their fleets in Winter and that a local, covered dock is ideal for this as there is unlikely due to be any downtime due to poor weather. Unlike at A&P for example, where their docks are open to the elements and whole days are lost but are still chargeable to the client.

Since the yard officially closed in January 1989, the offshore industry has grown beyond any forecasts of the day and this industry is on Pallion's doorstep right now, all requiring regular servicing and repairs and fabrications etc.
Click to expand...
The offshore industry has vessels laid up as it has no use for them. I hope you aren't pinning your hopes there
 
Frijj said:
I wondered how long it would be until it was all the council’s fault
Click to expand...

With job losses in the high thousands up and down the country due to the coronavirus issue, then when you have a facility that could be reinstated to create long term, high skilled jobs in an industry that is only ever going to grow - the offshore industry in particular - and the people stopping this is the council, then who else is at fault?

We offered to work with them, the owners wanted to work with them - but the council refused. So it's hard to see the fault lying anywhere else.
 
Last edited:
Martin F said:
The simplified biased version of the story.

Why did they "refuse"?
Click to expand...

For reasons not known, they have refused to dredge the river for the best part of 30 years. We know of at least three specific instances when this was the case. Around a decade or so ago, Pallion Engineering had contracts for ongoing work ready to go on the condition the river was dredged, the council refused. We also know of two further times when the interest in the yard by outside companies resulted in requests to dredge the river and for one a hydrographic survey was undertaken. For both of these requests, dredging was refused and even the results of the survey were questioned.

By refusing to dredge the river, the council has deliberately ensured that the shipyard be cut off so it cannot be used for its designed purpose. This has now forced the owners to turn this once world renowned facility into nothing more than a storage depot.

The question on the lips of so many people now is why would a Labour council feel such disdain towards this shipyard and actively refuse the creation of high skilled jobs? The logical conclusion has to be that the council wants to see the end of this shipyard as they must have designs on the land / site.
 
Roo said:
For reasons not known, they have refused to dredge the river for the best part of 30 years. We know of at least three specific instances when this was the case. Around a decade or so ago, Pallion Engineering had contracts for ongoing work ready to go on the condition the river was dredged, the council refused. We also know of two further times when the interest in the yard by outside companies resulted in requests to dredge the river and for one a hydrographic survey was undertaken. For both of these requests, dredging was refused and even the results of the survey were questioned.

By refusing to dredge the river, the council has deliberately ensured that the shipyard be cut off so it cannot be used for its designed purpose. This has now forced the owners to turn this once world renowned facility into nothing more than a storage depot.

The question on the lips of so many people now is why would a Labour council feel such disdain towards this shipyard and actively refuse the creation of high skilled jobs? The logical conclusion has to be that the council wants to see the end of this shipyard as they must have designs on the land / site.
Click to expand...
If the people proposing this are so confident of its success, can't they pay for or contribute towards the dredging? It doesn't seem like a massive hurdle to get around
 
Horatio Pugwash said:
If the people proposing this are so confident of its success, can't they pay for or contribute towards the dredging? It doesn't seem like a massive hurdle to get around
Click to expand...

This is all being investigated. But we feel that for returning high skilled jobs to the city, reactivating an asset that will create new as well as sustaining existing supply chain jobs in addition to tax revenues paid to the council, then it is only fair the council contribute and play their part.

But as stated before, we feel the council does not want to see the shipyard reactivated under any circumstances.
 
Roo said:
This is all being investigated. But we feel that for returning high skilled jobs to the city, reactivating an asset that will create new as well as sustaining existing supply chain jobs in addition to tax revenues paid to the council, then it is only fair the council contribute and play their part.

But as stated before, we feel the council does not want to see the shipyard reactivated under any circumstances.
Click to expand...

But will this generate additional tax for the council? Surely the existing facility already provides council tax?

therefore the only way I see additional tax/income to the council being generated would be either through additional use of the port or through additional premises that would be constructed to support the development/business? Where would the additional facilities be located? The port?

I assume the council would only fund any dredging or ongoing dredging with cast iron guarantee of a viable business? I appreciate a lot of what is being said about bringing jobs back to the facility, the current market but there doesn’t seem to be an operating business with a guaranteed order book at this moment in time and the market place are all clamouring for offshore work, therefore it does feel like a leap of faith to invest significant funds. Appreciating that a business case may not be visible, but hopefully it has been shared with the council.
 
Roo said:
With job losses in the high thousands up and down the country due to the coronavirus issue, then when you have a facility that could be reinstated to create long term, high skilled jobs in an industry that is only ever going to grow - the offshore industry in particular - and the people stopping this is the council, then who else is at fault?

We offered to work with them, the owners wanted to work with them - but the council refused. So it's hard to see the fault lying anywhere else.
Click to expand...

What if the council doesn’t think your model is sound? What if the level of commitment you ask from them is too much risk?
 

Back
Top