Talk:Mersey Ferry

Moved from article: Interesting Points
Funnel Colours;

Wallasey Ferries - Black cap and white stem.

Birkenhead Ferries - Black cap and orange stem with black base and band (except on Overchurch which only had a black cap and orange stem.

Funnel colours post merging of both fleets;


 * 1) Light blue cap and primrose yellow stem.
 * 2) Black cap and green stem.
 * 3) Black cap and red and white stem.
 * 4) Current colours of black cap, red stem and printed logo either side.

The port side docking telegraphs and binnacle aboard Woodchurch. Also the a whistle control can be seen fastened to the window along with various switches. The bottom of the siemens rudder guage can be seen.

The bridge on Woodchurch (shortly before refit) looking towards the port wing. Originally, there were three cabs - two of them docking stations and a central control centre/wheelhouse, which housed the vhf radio, helm, binnacle, switches for the navigation and deck lights, telegraphs, speedometers, whistle controls and a clear view disk. The side cabs contained an identical telegraph pair to the wheelhouse (the telegrpahs were linked so they moved in tandem )a binnacle and whistle control, along with a rudder guage fastened to the forward bulkhead. The cabs also contained various items which there was no room for in the main wheelhouse, such as flares and spare navigation lights which could be fastened into a steel container and hoisted up to the cross member on the mast if the main light was to fail. There was also a small wooden pull stick which enabled a life ring to be ejected immediately behind each cab. Laterly searchlights were fitted above the wing cabs along with halogen lighting. There bridge on Overchurch was very similar to the two sisters, however she only had one Binnacle and compass and some slightly different instrumentation. The picture illustarets the 1990's plated bridge, and if you look a slight variation in the windows can be seen where new sections have been added. The old windows could be pulled open in hot months for cheao air conditioning. After the 1990's refit, radar, sonar, a new radio, and many other up to date navigation devices were added. This was not due to new advances in technology, indeed radar and sonar had been around for many years, however lack of investment saw ferries running with out of date radio. The bridge on Woodchurch was identical to Mountwood.

Above can be seen the new navigation bridge on Royal Iris of the Mersey during routine servicing, hence the mess. Compared to the old bridge,  the bridge is much larger and all the modern navigation equipment can be see, such as the Fruno radar screen on which the captain can view weather reports, ship tracking and many other features. Unlike with the old Crossley diesel engines, the new engines can be managed directly from the bridge from the control unit in the centre. This means that only one engineer is needed and ferries can be in operation very quickly. The small telegraph systems can be seen, which are interestingly made by the same company who manufactured the original telegraphs. The bridge is also fully air conditioned and provides panoramic views of the surroundings through much larger windows. The original idea by Mersey Ferries was to use the Mountwood's original bridge in the re build with some extensions added, as in Royal Daffodil. However, when bieng removed rust revealed the bridge to be very unsafe so it was taken down, stripped of its fittings and then scrapped. The three binnacles (one on each wing and one central) are all from the ships original bridge, as is the helm.

Reads like a guidebook
Huge masses of text, unsuitable for online reading. Very few Wikilinks. A heap of unsorted facts at the end. And worst of all, no mention at all in the History section of the ferry service's close escape from complete withdrawal in the 1970s! 86.143.55.162 15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up article. Broken up text with headings & paragraphs, added wikilinks, removed Trivia section (as per WP:TRIVIA), expanded History section to include mention of 1970s considered closure. Hopefully the article now has a better structure to it. Snowy 1973 20:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Further revised and expanded, April 2008. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Egremont"
Moving the comment below from article page to here: "...There was, however, a major design fault with Leasowe and Egremont. In order to reach the bows of the ship when casting off etc, crew members were required to either push through the hoards of commuters and climb down a ladder from the forward promenade deck or walk along the rubbing strake and climb over. In flat calm conditions this was not a problem, but in a force 8 gale with the vessel bobbing around wildly, it could be considerably dangerous. The simple reason for such problems was because there was no door leading from the main saloon to the bow area of the ships!" Whoever posted this last comment does not seem to know his door positions! Yes there was a ladder leading from the top deck to the bow but there was a door in the front windows of the lower saloon for the use of the staff. Take a trip to the Egremont at Salcombe (the Island Cruising Club are most welcoming and love people going to see the boat, especially people from Wallasey) and take a look at the door. It is still there and useable. Above comment by 82.24.36.157, moved to this page by Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mersey Ferry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013205832/http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.php?show=ConNarrative.31&chapterId=152 to http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.php?show=ConNarrative.31&chapterId=152
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018170205/http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.php?show=ConNarrative.31&chapterId=154 to http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.php?show=ConNarrative.31&chapterId=154
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420072047/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Liverpool to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Liverpool
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100904150644/http://www.merseyferries.co.uk/Content/AboutUs/2ndLevelNavigation.aspx to http://www.merseyferries.co.uk/Content/AboutUs/2ndLevelNavigation.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070603210538/http://www.new-brighton.co.uk/ to http://www.new-brighton.co.uk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080121165824/http://homepages.enterprise.net/hyland/maps/travel/ferry_commuter.html to http://homepages.enterprise.net/hyland/maps/travel/ferry_commuter.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
The article covers the entire history of the ferry service, but the infobox only relates to the current operators. Should this be changed? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The article was moved in this edit, which I've now reverted. I've also moved the infobox ("Infobox company") to a more appropriate and less prominent place in the article - it relates to the current operators, who have only been in existence (as Merseytravel) for the last 34 years out of the ferries' 800+ years' existence. Would there be any support for splitting the article - one covering the current operators ("Mersey Ferries"), and one covering the history of the service? Alternatively, should this article be renamed "History of the Mersey ferries", with a prominent WP:HATNOTE to the Merseytravel article which covers the current operators? Any views? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Splitting the article would make sense, IMO. The current article discusses two related but distinct topics and there's easily enough content to make two articles. LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is not much in the article about the current operators. Thinking about it some more, I would favour a renaming of this article (to "History of....") and, essentially, a redirect to Merseytravel to cover the Mersey Ferries operation - with any additional material about the current services there.   Would you agree with that approach?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Mersey Ferries Logo.jpg