UPDATE: Sandbanks ferry: tests today but service hoping to run again on Friday after chain snapped

Sandbanks Ferry out of action

Sandbanks Ferry out of action until further notice

First published in News
Last updated
by

Sandbanks Ferry is out of action until Friday morning due to a broken chain - believed to have been caused by the incoming Barfleur on Wednesday morning.

The  ferry will be tested this afternoon but staff tweeted they were hoping to recommence service on Friday morning at 7am.

Steve Wilson,engineer for the Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Company, told the Daily Echo the incident happened during a “very, very low tide”.

Large traffic queues, compounded by an earlier accident that forced the closure of the A35 at Morden Park Corner, are building up - particularly on the Swanage side as drivers seek alternative routes into Purbeck.

A Brittany Ferries spokesman said: “The Barfleur seems to have been involved, there is an investigation going on.

“It is not definitive that the Barfleur caused the damage, but certainly the chain broke when the Barfleur was passing.

“It seems she (Barfleur) is operating normally at the moment. It is very unlikely there has been any damage done to her. There was an extremely low tide this morning, which may be related to the incident.”

The chain on the ferry was damaged at 6.26am on Wednesday morning, as the Barfleur was coming into Poole Harbour.

Bournemouth Echo:  The Sandbanks chain ferry being repaired this morning. Picture by Becky Stares. 

Once the ferry reaches Cherbourg divers will inspect its hull and propeller for any evidence of a collision and to check if any damage has been caused.

In a statement the Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Company said: "Due to a chain being broken the Sandbanks to Shell Bay Ferry Service has been suspended from 7.00am on Wednesday 16th July 2014. 

"We apologise to all our customers for the inconvenience this will cause."

Comments (58)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:28am Wed 16 Jul 14

BarneyWainwright says...

A broken chain ferry in the Caribbean, back in the 1970s, was towed by dolphins for a week. No joke.
A broken chain ferry in the Caribbean, back in the 1970s, was towed by dolphins for a week. No joke. BarneyWainwright
  • Score: 19

9:36am Wed 16 Jul 14

rudolph_hucker says...

BarneyWainwright wrote:
A broken chain ferry in the Caribbean, back in the 1970s, was towed by dolphins for a week. No joke.
No joke, but pretty funny
[quote][p][bold]BarneyWainwright[/bold] wrote: A broken chain ferry in the Caribbean, back in the 1970s, was towed by dolphins for a week. No joke.[/p][/quote]No joke, but pretty funny rudolph_hucker
  • Score: 4

9:42am Wed 16 Jul 14

lilliputian says...

Perhaps EddieM could incorporate a new 'twin sails' type bridge, to replace the Sandbanks chain ferry, in his Vision for Poole. Which, I wonder, would be the more reliable?
Perhaps EddieM could incorporate a new 'twin sails' type bridge, to replace the Sandbanks chain ferry, in his Vision for Poole. Which, I wonder, would be the more reliable? lilliputian
  • Score: 10

10:50am Wed 16 Jul 14

speedy231278 says...

Shouldn't take too long to sort out, they have spare chains by the side of the road on the Shell Bay side of the crossing. Clearly not a council run enterprise, they'd not have a spare or spares so they could fritter the money away on something that would never be useful.....
Shouldn't take too long to sort out, they have spare chains by the side of the road on the Shell Bay side of the crossing. Clearly not a council run enterprise, they'd not have a spare or spares so they could fritter the money away on something that would never be useful..... speedy231278
  • Score: 14

11:55am Wed 16 Jul 14

speedy231278 says...

I bet our local visitors have already weighed the chain in at the local scrappy....
I bet our local visitors have already weighed the chain in at the local scrappy.... speedy231278
  • Score: 64

12:00pm Wed 16 Jul 14

FerryFan says...

All the time Barfleur has gone over that chain at low tides, it has never happened before, wonder how come this time, if it was her fault? Very strange.
All the time Barfleur has gone over that chain at low tides, it has never happened before, wonder how come this time, if it was her fault? Very strange. FerryFan
  • Score: 4

12:05pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Local fan says...

A shame, hope its soon back in service.
A shame, hope its soon back in service. Local fan
  • Score: 14

12:28pm Wed 16 Jul 14

rayc says...

"Caused by" and "to blame" are not the same thing. Perhaps the "very low tide this morning" is to blame? I know we live in a blame culture but apportioning the blame to the Barfleur appears extreme.
"Caused by" and "to blame" are not the same thing. Perhaps the "very low tide this morning" is to blame? I know we live in a blame culture but apportioning the blame to the Barfleur appears extreme. rayc
  • Score: 8

12:34pm Wed 16 Jul 14

jaffajoe says...

I am travelling on the barfleur right now, and just about to dock in Cherbourg. We were not notified of any problems with the ship, and the very calm crossing has been uneventful.
I am travelling on the barfleur right now, and just about to dock in Cherbourg. We were not notified of any problems with the ship, and the very calm crossing has been uneventful. jaffajoe
  • Score: 15

1:26pm Wed 16 Jul 14

nobull says...

The report says damage happened whilst the ferry was coming into Poole but the inspection will not happen until she gets to France make your mind up or why wait till France?
The report says damage happened whilst the ferry was coming into Poole but the inspection will not happen until she gets to France make your mind up or why wait till France? nobull
  • Score: 5

1:28pm Wed 16 Jul 14

nobull says...

?
? nobull
  • Score: -3

1:36pm Wed 16 Jul 14

FerryFan says...

nobull wrote:
The report says damage happened whilst the ferry was coming into Poole but the inspection will not happen until she gets to France make your mind up or why wait till France?
Sort of wrongly worded by the Echo - she would have actually still been in Poole Harbour, she would have been going out into Poole Bay, says she was 'outgoing' so if there were no apparent problems, then she could have gone on her way. If it appeared she had been badly damaged then she would have had to turn back out in the bay to go back to port, she couldn't have carried on. As it happens she was fine and there was no need and divers in Cherbourg will examine her bottom.
[quote][p][bold]nobull[/bold] wrote: The report says damage happened whilst the ferry was coming into Poole but the inspection will not happen until she gets to France make your mind up or why wait till France?[/p][/quote]Sort of wrongly worded by the Echo - she would have actually still been in Poole Harbour, she would have been going out into Poole Bay, says she was 'outgoing' so if there were no apparent problems, then she could have gone on her way. If it appeared she had been badly damaged then she would have had to turn back out in the bay to go back to port, she couldn't have carried on. As it happens she was fine and there was no need and divers in Cherbourg will examine her bottom. FerryFan
  • Score: 10

1:38pm Wed 16 Jul 14

FerryFan says...

To add - if she needs any work done it would be easier in Cherbourg rather than Poole.
To add - if she needs any work done it would be easier in Cherbourg rather than Poole. FerryFan
  • Score: 4

1:45pm Wed 16 Jul 14

nermal says...

To FerryFan who says it's never happened before - something very similar did, quite a few years ago. I was chatting to one of the ferry employees while they were mending the chain, and I asked what caused it. He said, "We aren't sure, but put it this way: at that time there was a large ferry sidling out of the harbour trying to look like it wasn't there!"

Still makes me laugh to imagine Barfleur shiftily trying to look like it wasn't there!
To FerryFan who says it's never happened before - something very similar did, quite a few years ago. I was chatting to one of the ferry employees while they were mending the chain, and I asked what caused it. He said, "We aren't sure, but put it this way: at that time there was a large ferry sidling out of the harbour trying to look like it wasn't there!" Still makes me laugh to imagine Barfleur shiftily trying to look like it wasn't there! nermal
  • Score: 22

1:46pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Numpto says...

Great Photo, Jenkins Marine to the rescue again.
Great Photo, Jenkins Marine to the rescue again. Numpto
  • Score: 3

1:48pm Wed 16 Jul 14

nobull says...

It does not take that long to get to France even in that rust bucket I.e.6.26 -12.45 Gmt
It does not take that long to get to France even in that rust bucket I.e.6.26 -12.45 Gmt nobull
  • Score: -12

1:49pm Wed 16 Jul 14

nobull says...

FerryFan wrote:
To add - if she needs any work done it would be easier in Cherbourg rather than Poole.
Why?
[quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: To add - if she needs any work done it would be easier in Cherbourg rather than Poole.[/p][/quote]Why? nobull
  • Score: -11

2:00pm Wed 16 Jul 14

nobull says...

FerryFan wrote:
nobull wrote:
The report says damage happened whilst the ferry was coming into Poole but the inspection will not happen until she gets to France make your mind up or why wait till France?
Sort of wrongly worded by the Echo - she would have actually still been in Poole Harbour, she would have been going out into Poole Bay, says she was 'outgoing' so if there were no apparent problems, then she could have gone on her way. If it appeared she had been badly damaged then she would have had to turn back out in the bay to go back to port, she couldn't have carried on. As it happens she was fine and there was no need and divers in Cherbourg will examine her bottom.
Sort of wrongly worded? either in or out? Says coming in...........
[quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nobull[/bold] wrote: The report says damage happened whilst the ferry was coming into Poole but the inspection will not happen until she gets to France make your mind up or why wait till France?[/p][/quote]Sort of wrongly worded by the Echo - she would have actually still been in Poole Harbour, she would have been going out into Poole Bay, says she was 'outgoing' so if there were no apparent problems, then she could have gone on her way. If it appeared she had been badly damaged then she would have had to turn back out in the bay to go back to port, she couldn't have carried on. As it happens she was fine and there was no need and divers in Cherbourg will examine her bottom.[/p][/quote]Sort of wrongly worded? either in or out? Says coming in........... nobull
  • Score: -4

2:48pm Wed 16 Jul 14

jayeff says...

The barfleur was cruiseing around for an hour or so before entering the channel to come alongside a regular situation on the early morniing arrival
Never any problems before on low tide so captain must have been confident of a safe passage
The barfleur was cruiseing around for an hour or so before entering the channel to come alongside a regular situation on the early morniing arrival Never any problems before on low tide so captain must have been confident of a safe passage jayeff
  • Score: 4

2:51pm Wed 16 Jul 14

FerryFan says...

nobull wrote:
FerryFan wrote:
To add - if she needs any work done it would be easier in Cherbourg rather than Poole.
Why?
Because Cherbourg is much larger than Poole, and other ships need the berth in Poole too.
[quote][p][bold]nobull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: To add - if she needs any work done it would be easier in Cherbourg rather than Poole.[/p][/quote]Why?[/p][/quote]Because Cherbourg is much larger than Poole, and other ships need the berth in Poole too. FerryFan
  • Score: 13

2:53pm Wed 16 Jul 14

FerryFan says...

nobull wrote:
FerryFan wrote:
nobull wrote:
The report says damage happened whilst the ferry was coming into Poole but the inspection will not happen until she gets to France make your mind up or why wait till France?
Sort of wrongly worded by the Echo - she would have actually still been in Poole Harbour, she would have been going out into Poole Bay, says she was 'outgoing' so if there were no apparent problems, then she could have gone on her way. If it appeared she had been badly damaged then she would have had to turn back out in the bay to go back to port, she couldn't have carried on. As it happens she was fine and there was no need and divers in Cherbourg will examine her bottom.
Sort of wrongly worded? either in or out? Says coming in...........
Stop nitpicking and splitting hairs.
[quote][p][bold]nobull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nobull[/bold] wrote: The report says damage happened whilst the ferry was coming into Poole but the inspection will not happen until she gets to France make your mind up or why wait till France?[/p][/quote]Sort of wrongly worded by the Echo - she would have actually still been in Poole Harbour, she would have been going out into Poole Bay, says she was 'outgoing' so if there were no apparent problems, then she could have gone on her way. If it appeared she had been badly damaged then she would have had to turn back out in the bay to go back to port, she couldn't have carried on. As it happens she was fine and there was no need and divers in Cherbourg will examine her bottom.[/p][/quote]Sort of wrongly worded? either in or out? Says coming in...........[/p][/quote]Stop nitpicking and splitting hairs. FerryFan
  • Score: 13

2:54pm Wed 16 Jul 14

BIGTONE says...

This story highlights why this country has gone to pot.

Nobody from the ferry bothered to tell the bus company. The bus still arrived for the ferry at noon today and was turned away with all the other traffic.
As always,very bad communication.
This story highlights why this country has gone to pot. Nobody from the ferry bothered to tell the bus company. The bus still arrived for the ferry at noon today and was turned away with all the other traffic. As always,very bad communication. BIGTONE
  • Score: 12

3:44pm Wed 16 Jul 14

BarneyWainwright says...

FerryFan wrote:
nobull wrote:
FerryFan wrote:
To add - if she needs any work done it would be easier in Cherbourg rather than Poole.
Why?
Because Cherbourg is much larger than Poole, and other ships need the berth in Poole too.
Sorry to go slightly off topic - but when the Barfleur was cast off, he was launched as a man. Hope he's alright and isn't damaged.
[quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nobull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: To add - if she needs any work done it would be easier in Cherbourg rather than Poole.[/p][/quote]Why?[/p][/quote]Because Cherbourg is much larger than Poole, and other ships need the berth in Poole too.[/p][/quote]Sorry to go slightly off topic - but when the Barfleur was cast off, he was launched as a man. Hope he's alright and isn't damaged. BarneyWainwright
  • Score: 0

3:59pm Wed 16 Jul 14

nobull says...

I am not nitpicking which bloody way was it going?
I am not nitpicking which bloody way was it going? nobull
  • Score: -9

4:05pm Wed 16 Jul 14

arthurandfreda says...

Maybe the ferry shouldn't sail at very low tide, surely they look at tides when working out their schedule
Maybe the ferry shouldn't sail at very low tide, surely they look at tides when working out their schedule arthurandfreda
  • Score: 1

4:41pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Lord Spring says...

nermal wrote:
To FerryFan who says it's never happened before - something very similar did, quite a few years ago. I was chatting to one of the ferry employees while they were mending the chain, and I asked what caused it. He said, "We aren't sure, but put it this way: at that time there was a large ferry sidling out of the harbour trying to look like it wasn't there!"

Still makes me laugh to imagine Barfleur shiftily trying to look like it wasn't there!
You are correct as I was on that sailing that was due out but was delayed for half hour or so whilst inspection of the props were carried out . Must have been 10 years or more ago.
[quote][p][bold]nermal[/bold] wrote: To FerryFan who says it's never happened before - something very similar did, quite a few years ago. I was chatting to one of the ferry employees while they were mending the chain, and I asked what caused it. He said, "We aren't sure, but put it this way: at that time there was a large ferry sidling out of the harbour trying to look like it wasn't there!" Still makes me laugh to imagine Barfleur shiftily trying to look like it wasn't there![/p][/quote]You are correct as I was on that sailing that was due out but was delayed for half hour or so whilst inspection of the props were carried out . Must have been 10 years or more ago. Lord Spring
  • Score: 5

5:59pm Wed 16 Jul 14

FerryFan says...

nermal wrote:
To FerryFan who says it's never happened before - something very similar did, quite a few years ago. I was chatting to one of the ferry employees while they were mending the chain, and I asked what caused it. He said, "We aren't sure, but put it this way: at that time there was a large ferry sidling out of the harbour trying to look like it wasn't there!"

Still makes me laugh to imagine Barfleur shiftily trying to look like it wasn't there!
Thanks for the info!

This is being discussed on a ferry site and it has been said that one the previous occasion, Barfleur suffered damage to her prop and rudder, so she didn't come out of that occasion smelling of roses. Think the chap said it was 1996.
[quote][p][bold]nermal[/bold] wrote: To FerryFan who says it's never happened before - something very similar did, quite a few years ago. I was chatting to one of the ferry employees while they were mending the chain, and I asked what caused it. He said, "We aren't sure, but put it this way: at that time there was a large ferry sidling out of the harbour trying to look like it wasn't there!" Still makes me laugh to imagine Barfleur shiftily trying to look like it wasn't there![/p][/quote]Thanks for the info! This is being discussed on a ferry site and it has been said that one the previous occasion, Barfleur suffered damage to her prop and rudder, so she didn't come out of that occasion smelling of roses. Think the chap said it was 1996. FerryFan
  • Score: 3

6:24pm Wed 16 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

nobull wrote:
I am not nitpicking which bloody way was it going?
Forward.
[quote][p][bold]nobull[/bold] wrote: I am not nitpicking which bloody way was it going?[/p][/quote]Forward. breamoreboy
  • Score: 8

6:30pm Wed 16 Jul 14

biffa78 says...

Who cares about who broke it,just need it sorted so i can get to the pub in swanage for me lamb shank and a beer. its costs a fortune driving round!
Who cares about who broke it,just need it sorted so i can get to the pub in swanage for me lamb shank and a beer. its costs a fortune driving round! biffa78
  • Score: 11

6:50pm Wed 16 Jul 14

nickynoodah says...

nobull wrote:
I am not nitpicking which bloody way was it going?
to its destination you know it is,
[quote][p][bold]nobull[/bold] wrote: I am not nitpicking which bloody way was it going?[/p][/quote]to its destination you know it is, nickynoodah
  • Score: 0

8:49pm Wed 16 Jul 14

nickynoodah says...

hope it gets fixed soon I liked that chain a lot
the limpets that come over on the ferry will miss it you kow it is
hope it gets fixed soon I liked that chain a lot the limpets that come over on the ferry will miss it you kow it is nickynoodah
  • Score: -4

9:11pm Wed 16 Jul 14

retry69 says...

I heard today that Eddie Mitchell had another vision last night of a bridge across the water where the ferry is with welcome to Poole in multicoloured lights to greet our visitors,carry on Eddie 🐟
I heard today that Eddie Mitchell had another vision last night of a bridge across the water where the ferry is with welcome to Poole in multicoloured lights to greet our visitors,carry on Eddie 🐟 retry69
  • Score: -2

9:16pm Wed 16 Jul 14

S,Bowes says...

Sure it was not necessary for the foot passengers to stand there "Takle out" , bending over trying to see the chain , all I could was a rusty sheriff badge ,nasty
Sure it was not necessary for the foot passengers to stand there "Takle out" , bending over trying to see the chain , all I could was a rusty sheriff badge ,nasty S,Bowes
  • Score: -2

9:25pm Wed 16 Jul 14

spooki says...

BIGTONE wrote:
This story highlights why this country has gone to pot.

Nobody from the ferry bothered to tell the bus company. The bus still arrived for the ferry at noon today and was turned away with all the other traffic.
As always,very bad communication.
That's crazy! If it was damaged early this morning, why wouldn't the buses know about it? So did it just go back to Bournemouth? Technology today eh?
[quote][p][bold]BIGTONE[/bold] wrote: This story highlights why this country has gone to pot. Nobody from the ferry bothered to tell the bus company. The bus still arrived for the ferry at noon today and was turned away with all the other traffic. As always,very bad communication.[/p][/quote]That's crazy! If it was damaged early this morning, why wouldn't the buses know about it? So did it just go back to Bournemouth? Technology today eh? spooki
  • Score: 0

11:20pm Wed 16 Jul 14

roamer200 says...

Another price increase ahoy
Another price increase ahoy roamer200
  • Score: 3

7:13am Thu 17 Jul 14

Phixer says...

"Large traffic queues ... are building up - particularly on the Swanage side as drivers seek alternative routes into Purbeck."

Ohec! Don't you just love the lack of local knowledge from your local rag!
"Large traffic queues ... are building up - particularly on the Swanage side as drivers seek alternative routes into Purbeck." Ohec! Don't you just love the lack of local knowledge from your local rag! Phixer
  • Score: 9

7:55am Thu 17 Jul 14

nickynoodah says...

Fix a zip wire across to hang the tackle on
don't spoil the fun
for the sake of a link
you know it is
Fix a zip wire across to hang the tackle on don't spoil the fun for the sake of a link you know it is nickynoodah
  • Score: -1

8:25am Thu 17 Jul 14

Carolyn43 says...

Loved the BBC Red Button headline (which was changed quite quickly):

"Ferry suspended by broken chain". I could just picture it.
Loved the BBC Red Button headline (which was changed quite quickly): "Ferry suspended by broken chain". I could just picture it. Carolyn43
  • Score: 3

9:45am Thu 17 Jul 14

TheDistrict says...

The Echo reporting is atrocious. Caused by the incoming Barfleur. Everyone except the Echo knows that the Barfleur departs in the morning, and therefore will be outgoing. Secondly, the initial story, timed at 0700 stated the Sandbanks to Studland Bay ferry service was suspended. As the Barfleur does not sail until 0830, it is unlikely that the damage was caused by the said Barfleur.

The Echo and SSF service are too quick to apportion damage to others, rather than the probable cause is maintenance.
The Echo reporting is atrocious. Caused by the incoming Barfleur. Everyone except the Echo knows that the Barfleur departs in the morning, and therefore will be outgoing. Secondly, the initial story, timed at 0700 stated the Sandbanks to Studland Bay ferry service was suspended. As the Barfleur does not sail until 0830, it is unlikely that the damage was caused by the said Barfleur. The Echo and SSF service are too quick to apportion damage to others, rather than the probable cause is maintenance. TheDistrict
  • Score: 0

9:47am Thu 17 Jul 14

retry69 says...

TheDistrict wrote:
The Echo reporting is atrocious. Caused by the incoming Barfleur. Everyone except the Echo knows that the Barfleur departs in the morning, and therefore will be outgoing. Secondly, the initial story, timed at 0700 stated the Sandbanks to Studland Bay ferry service was suspended. As the Barfleur does not sail until 0830, it is unlikely that the damage was caused by the said Barfleur.

The Echo and SSF service are too quick to apportion damage to others, rather than the probable cause is maintenance.
Well done that man,I for one am glad we have you :)
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: The Echo reporting is atrocious. Caused by the incoming Barfleur. Everyone except the Echo knows that the Barfleur departs in the morning, and therefore will be outgoing. Secondly, the initial story, timed at 0700 stated the Sandbanks to Studland Bay ferry service was suspended. As the Barfleur does not sail until 0830, it is unlikely that the damage was caused by the said Barfleur. The Echo and SSF service are too quick to apportion damage to others, rather than the probable cause is maintenance.[/p][/quote]Well done that man,I for one am glad we have you :) retry69
  • Score: 1

10:05am Thu 17 Jul 14

onken cherry says...

FerryFan wrote:
nobull wrote:
The report says damage happened whilst the ferry was coming into Poole but the inspection will not happen until she gets to France make your mind up or why wait till France?
Sort of wrongly worded by the Echo - she would have actually still been in Poole Harbour, she would have been going out into Poole Bay, says she was 'outgoing' so if there were no apparent problems, then she could have gone on her way. If it appeared she had been badly damaged then she would have had to turn back out in the bay to go back to port, she couldn't have carried on. As it happens she was fine and there was no need and divers in Cherbourg will examine her bottom.
oooooh missus!!
[quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nobull[/bold] wrote: The report says damage happened whilst the ferry was coming into Poole but the inspection will not happen until she gets to France make your mind up or why wait till France?[/p][/quote]Sort of wrongly worded by the Echo - she would have actually still been in Poole Harbour, she would have been going out into Poole Bay, says she was 'outgoing' so if there were no apparent problems, then she could have gone on her way. If it appeared she had been badly damaged then she would have had to turn back out in the bay to go back to port, she couldn't have carried on. As it happens she was fine and there was no need and divers in Cherbourg will examine her bottom.[/p][/quote]oooooh missus!! onken cherry
  • Score: 1

10:39am Thu 17 Jul 14

Purbeck82 says...

retry69 wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
The Echo reporting is atrocious. Caused by the incoming Barfleur. Everyone except the Echo knows that the Barfleur departs in the morning, and therefore will be outgoing. Secondly, the initial story, timed at 0700 stated the Sandbanks to Studland Bay ferry service was suspended. As the Barfleur does not sail until 0830, it is unlikely that the damage was caused by the said Barfleur.

The Echo and SSF service are too quick to apportion damage to others, rather than the probable cause is maintenance.
Well done that man,I for one am glad we have you :)
The only thing atrocious is your erroneous post about how the Echo reported this.

The Barfleur was INCOMING, perhaps you should check your facts rather than make presumptions statements. The Barfleur operates a varied timetable meaning that sometimes it lays overnight and sometimes it arrives in the morning before departing again. The latter is what happened yesterday.

As yesterday the Barfleur passed the ferry at 06.26 - this FACT came from a statement released by Brittany Ferries - then it would seem logical that it was her who caused the damage.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: The Echo reporting is atrocious. Caused by the incoming Barfleur. Everyone except the Echo knows that the Barfleur departs in the morning, and therefore will be outgoing. Secondly, the initial story, timed at 0700 stated the Sandbanks to Studland Bay ferry service was suspended. As the Barfleur does not sail until 0830, it is unlikely that the damage was caused by the said Barfleur. The Echo and SSF service are too quick to apportion damage to others, rather than the probable cause is maintenance.[/p][/quote]Well done that man,I for one am glad we have you :)[/p][/quote]The only thing atrocious is your erroneous post about how the Echo reported this. The Barfleur was INCOMING, perhaps you should check your facts rather than make presumptions statements. The Barfleur operates a varied timetable meaning that sometimes it lays overnight and sometimes it arrives in the morning before departing again. The latter is what happened yesterday. As yesterday the Barfleur passed the ferry at 06.26 - this FACT came from a statement released by Brittany Ferries - then it would seem logical that it was her who caused the damage. Purbeck82
  • Score: 7

10:39am Thu 17 Jul 14

Purbeck82 says...

retry69 wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
The Echo reporting is atrocious. Caused by the incoming Barfleur. Everyone except the Echo knows that the Barfleur departs in the morning, and therefore will be outgoing. Secondly, the initial story, timed at 0700 stated the Sandbanks to Studland Bay ferry service was suspended. As the Barfleur does not sail until 0830, it is unlikely that the damage was caused by the said Barfleur.

The Echo and SSF service are too quick to apportion damage to others, rather than the probable cause is maintenance.
Well done that man,I for one am glad we have you :)
The only thing atrocious is your erroneous post about how the Echo reported this.

The Barfleur was INCOMING, perhaps you should check your facts rather than make presumptions statements. The Barfleur operates a varied timetable meaning that sometimes it lays overnight and sometimes it arrives in the morning before departing again. The latter is what happened yesterday.

As yesterday the Barfleur passed the ferry at 06.26 - this FACT came from a statement released by Brittany Ferries - then it would seem logical that it was her who caused the damage.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: The Echo reporting is atrocious. Caused by the incoming Barfleur. Everyone except the Echo knows that the Barfleur departs in the morning, and therefore will be outgoing. Secondly, the initial story, timed at 0700 stated the Sandbanks to Studland Bay ferry service was suspended. As the Barfleur does not sail until 0830, it is unlikely that the damage was caused by the said Barfleur. The Echo and SSF service are too quick to apportion damage to others, rather than the probable cause is maintenance.[/p][/quote]Well done that man,I for one am glad we have you :)[/p][/quote]The only thing atrocious is your erroneous post about how the Echo reported this. The Barfleur was INCOMING, perhaps you should check your facts rather than make presumptions statements. The Barfleur operates a varied timetable meaning that sometimes it lays overnight and sometimes it arrives in the morning before departing again. The latter is what happened yesterday. As yesterday the Barfleur passed the ferry at 06.26 - this FACT came from a statement released by Brittany Ferries - then it would seem logical that it was her who caused the damage. Purbeck82
  • Score: 1

11:16am Thu 17 Jul 14

retry69 says...

Purbeck82 wrote:
retry69 wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
The Echo reporting is atrocious. Caused by the incoming Barfleur. Everyone except the Echo knows that the Barfleur departs in the morning, and therefore will be outgoing. Secondly, the initial story, timed at 0700 stated the Sandbanks to Studland Bay ferry service was suspended. As the Barfleur does not sail until 0830, it is unlikely that the damage was caused by the said Barfleur.

The Echo and SSF service are too quick to apportion damage to others, rather than the probable cause is maintenance.
Well done that man,I for one am glad we have you :)
The only thing atrocious is your erroneous post about how the Echo reported this.

The Barfleur was INCOMING, perhaps you should check your facts rather than make presumptions statements. The Barfleur operates a varied timetable meaning that sometimes it lays overnight and sometimes it arrives in the morning before departing again. The latter is what happened yesterday.

As yesterday the Barfleur passed the ferry at 06.26 - this FACT came from a statement released by Brittany Ferries - then it would seem logical that it was her who caused the damage.
Steady on ! It's only a fecking tin pot ferry,the man was making a comment as he understood it be a bit civil
[quote][p][bold]Purbeck82[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: The Echo reporting is atrocious. Caused by the incoming Barfleur. Everyone except the Echo knows that the Barfleur departs in the morning, and therefore will be outgoing. Secondly, the initial story, timed at 0700 stated the Sandbanks to Studland Bay ferry service was suspended. As the Barfleur does not sail until 0830, it is unlikely that the damage was caused by the said Barfleur. The Echo and SSF service are too quick to apportion damage to others, rather than the probable cause is maintenance.[/p][/quote]Well done that man,I for one am glad we have you :)[/p][/quote]The only thing atrocious is your erroneous post about how the Echo reported this. The Barfleur was INCOMING, perhaps you should check your facts rather than make presumptions statements. The Barfleur operates a varied timetable meaning that sometimes it lays overnight and sometimes it arrives in the morning before departing again. The latter is what happened yesterday. As yesterday the Barfleur passed the ferry at 06.26 - this FACT came from a statement released by Brittany Ferries - then it would seem logical that it was her who caused the damage.[/p][/quote]Steady on ! It's only a fecking tin pot ferry,the man was making a comment as he understood it be a bit civil retry69
  • Score: 2

12:24pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

speedy231278 wrote:
I bet our local visitors have already weighed the chain in at the local scrappy....
And probably the ferry too.......
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: I bet our local visitors have already weighed the chain in at the local scrappy....[/p][/quote]And probably the ferry too....... Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 4

1:59pm Thu 17 Jul 14

BIGTONE says...

spooki wrote:
BIGTONE wrote:
This story highlights why this country has gone to pot.

Nobody from the ferry bothered to tell the bus company. The bus still arrived for the ferry at noon today and was turned away with all the other traffic.
As always,very bad communication.
That's crazy! If it was damaged early this morning, why wouldn't the buses know about it? So did it just go back to Bournemouth? Technology today eh?
Well it either got cancelled or went round the loooong way.
I know that In other towns and cities,when a route is cancelled for the day,the bus company sends out a small van to all the stops on the route to poster the stops and advise anybody waiting that the service is cancelled for the day.
But I guess that's to sensible for down here.
[quote][p][bold]spooki[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BIGTONE[/bold] wrote: This story highlights why this country has gone to pot. Nobody from the ferry bothered to tell the bus company. The bus still arrived for the ferry at noon today and was turned away with all the other traffic. As always,very bad communication.[/p][/quote]That's crazy! If it was damaged early this morning, why wouldn't the buses know about it? So did it just go back to Bournemouth? Technology today eh?[/p][/quote]Well it either got cancelled or went round the loooong way. I know that In other towns and cities,when a route is cancelled for the day,the bus company sends out a small van to all the stops on the route to poster the stops and advise anybody waiting that the service is cancelled for the day. But I guess that's to sensible for down here. BIGTONE
  • Score: 2

2:03pm Thu 17 Jul 14

TheDistrict says...

retry69 wrote:
Purbeck82 wrote:
retry69 wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
The Echo reporting is atrocious. Caused by the incoming Barfleur. Everyone except the Echo knows that the Barfleur departs in the morning, and therefore will be outgoing. Secondly, the initial story, timed at 0700 stated the Sandbanks to Studland Bay ferry service was suspended. As the Barfleur does not sail until 0830, it is unlikely that the damage was caused by the said Barfleur.

The Echo and SSF service are too quick to apportion damage to others, rather than the probable cause is maintenance.
Well done that man,I for one am glad we have you :)
The only thing atrocious is your erroneous post about how the Echo reported this.

The Barfleur was INCOMING, perhaps you should check your facts rather than make presumptions statements. The Barfleur operates a varied timetable meaning that sometimes it lays overnight and sometimes it arrives in the morning before departing again. The latter is what happened yesterday.

As yesterday the Barfleur passed the ferry at 06.26 - this FACT came from a statement released by Brittany Ferries - then it would seem logical that it was her who caused the damage.
Steady on ! It's only a fecking tin pot ferry,the man was making a comment as he understood it be a bit civil
I suggest you check your facts retry69. The Barfleur was alongside on Tuesday night, and then sailed Wednesday morning, as per the timetable.

All you seem to do on this forum is correct people yet never make proper inputs yourself. Live up to you title 69
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Purbeck82[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: The Echo reporting is atrocious. Caused by the incoming Barfleur. Everyone except the Echo knows that the Barfleur departs in the morning, and therefore will be outgoing. Secondly, the initial story, timed at 0700 stated the Sandbanks to Studland Bay ferry service was suspended. As the Barfleur does not sail until 0830, it is unlikely that the damage was caused by the said Barfleur. The Echo and SSF service are too quick to apportion damage to others, rather than the probable cause is maintenance.[/p][/quote]Well done that man,I for one am glad we have you :)[/p][/quote]The only thing atrocious is your erroneous post about how the Echo reported this. The Barfleur was INCOMING, perhaps you should check your facts rather than make presumptions statements. The Barfleur operates a varied timetable meaning that sometimes it lays overnight and sometimes it arrives in the morning before departing again. The latter is what happened yesterday. As yesterday the Barfleur passed the ferry at 06.26 - this FACT came from a statement released by Brittany Ferries - then it would seem logical that it was her who caused the damage.[/p][/quote]Steady on ! It's only a fecking tin pot ferry,the man was making a comment as he understood it be a bit civil[/p][/quote]I suggest you check your facts retry69. The Barfleur was alongside on Tuesday night, and then sailed Wednesday morning, as per the timetable. All you seem to do on this forum is correct people yet never make proper inputs yourself. Live up to you title 69 TheDistrict
  • Score: -3

2:15pm Thu 17 Jul 14

FerryFan says...

Barfleur does overnighter from Cherbourg on both Tuesday and Wednesday nights, she gets into port at around 7, leaving again at 8.30. so she would have been coming into the port at 06.30. I made a mistake myself on it as forgot this being a Wednesday morning when she would be coming in from a night crossing before setting out again at 08.30 back to Cherbourg. She would have come into the harbour and then set off out again shortly after.
Barfleur does overnighter from Cherbourg on both Tuesday and Wednesday nights, she gets into port at around 7, leaving again at 8.30. so she would have been coming into the port at 06.30. I made a mistake myself on it as forgot this being a Wednesday morning when she would be coming in from a night crossing before setting out again at 08.30 back to Cherbourg. She would have come into the harbour and then set off out again shortly after. FerryFan
  • Score: 0

2:30pm Thu 17 Jul 14

retry69 says...

TheDistrict wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Purbeck82 wrote:
retry69 wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
The Echo reporting is atrocious. Caused by the incoming Barfleur. Everyone except the Echo knows that the Barfleur departs in the morning, and therefore will be outgoing. Secondly, the initial story, timed at 0700 stated the Sandbanks to Studland Bay ferry service was suspended. As the Barfleur does not sail until 0830, it is unlikely that the damage was caused by the said Barfleur.

The Echo and SSF service are too quick to apportion damage to others, rather than the probable cause is maintenance.
Well done that man,I for one am glad we have you :)
The only thing atrocious is your erroneous post about how the Echo reported this.

The Barfleur was INCOMING, perhaps you should check your facts rather than make presumptions statements. The Barfleur operates a varied timetable meaning that sometimes it lays overnight and sometimes it arrives in the morning before departing again. The latter is what happened yesterday.

As yesterday the Barfleur passed the ferry at 06.26 - this FACT came from a statement released by Brittany Ferries - then it would seem logical that it was her who caused the damage.
Steady on ! It's only a fecking tin pot ferry,the man was making a comment as he understood it be a bit civil
I suggest you check your facts retry69. The Barfleur was alongside on Tuesday night, and then sailed Wednesday morning, as per the timetable.

All you seem to do on this forum is correct people yet never make proper inputs yourself. Live up to you title 69
Whooooooooooooooaa steady old sport re-read who is posting what and I will get back to you after I have rung no win no fee about defamation of character lmfao :)
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Purbeck82[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: The Echo reporting is atrocious. Caused by the incoming Barfleur. Everyone except the Echo knows that the Barfleur departs in the morning, and therefore will be outgoing. Secondly, the initial story, timed at 0700 stated the Sandbanks to Studland Bay ferry service was suspended. As the Barfleur does not sail until 0830, it is unlikely that the damage was caused by the said Barfleur. The Echo and SSF service are too quick to apportion damage to others, rather than the probable cause is maintenance.[/p][/quote]Well done that man,I for one am glad we have you :)[/p][/quote]The only thing atrocious is your erroneous post about how the Echo reported this. The Barfleur was INCOMING, perhaps you should check your facts rather than make presumptions statements. The Barfleur operates a varied timetable meaning that sometimes it lays overnight and sometimes it arrives in the morning before departing again. The latter is what happened yesterday. As yesterday the Barfleur passed the ferry at 06.26 - this FACT came from a statement released by Brittany Ferries - then it would seem logical that it was her who caused the damage.[/p][/quote]Steady on ! It's only a fecking tin pot ferry,the man was making a comment as he understood it be a bit civil[/p][/quote]I suggest you check your facts retry69. The Barfleur was alongside on Tuesday night, and then sailed Wednesday morning, as per the timetable. All you seem to do on this forum is correct people yet never make proper inputs yourself. Live up to you title 69[/p][/quote]Whooooooooooooooaa steady old sport re-read who is posting what and I will get back to you after I have rung no win no fee about defamation of character lmfao :) retry69
  • Score: 3

3:26pm Thu 17 Jul 14

FerryFan says...

Barfleur is lucky she didn't suffer problems like the Commodore Clipper, then she would have been Donald Ducked. Luckily she hasn't suffered any damage unlike the chain ferry, if she had a lot of people would have a drive to Pompey or have sailings cancelled!!

Chain ferry sorted yet is she?
Barfleur is lucky she didn't suffer problems like the Commodore Clipper, then she would have been Donald Ducked. Luckily she hasn't suffered any damage unlike the chain ferry, if she had a lot of people would have a drive to Pompey or have sailings cancelled!! Chain ferry sorted yet is she? FerryFan
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

Why can't Mitchell build a proper bridge over that span. Something like a mini Golden Gate bridge would be ideal as it would be functional but look awful. Just like his usual projects.
Why can't Mitchell build a proper bridge over that span. Something like a mini Golden Gate bridge would be ideal as it would be functional but look awful. Just like his usual projects. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: 1

4:07pm Thu 17 Jul 14

retry69 says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
Why can't Mitchell build a proper bridge over that span. Something like a mini Golden Gate bridge would be ideal as it would be functional but look awful. Just like his usual projects.
Look don't you start it's bad enough with the delusional "district" but you copying my comments, it's just not on !
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: Why can't Mitchell build a proper bridge over that span. Something like a mini Golden Gate bridge would be ideal as it would be functional but look awful. Just like his usual projects.[/p][/quote]Look don't you start it's bad enough with the delusional "district" but you copying my comments, it's just not on ! retry69
  • Score: 2

4:22pm Thu 17 Jul 14

TheDistrict says...

retry69 wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Purbeck82 wrote:
retry69 wrote:
TheDistrict wrote:
The Echo reporting is atrocious. Caused by the incoming Barfleur. Everyone except the Echo knows that the Barfleur departs in the morning, and therefore will be outgoing. Secondly, the initial story, timed at 0700 stated the Sandbanks to Studland Bay ferry service was suspended. As the Barfleur does not sail until 0830, it is unlikely that the damage was caused by the said Barfleur.

The Echo and SSF service are too quick to apportion damage to others, rather than the probable cause is maintenance.
Well done that man,I for one am glad we have you :)
The only thing atrocious is your erroneous post about how the Echo reported this.

The Barfleur was INCOMING, perhaps you should check your facts rather than make presumptions statements. The Barfleur operates a varied timetable meaning that sometimes it lays overnight and sometimes it arrives in the morning before departing again. The latter is what happened yesterday.

As yesterday the Barfleur passed the ferry at 06.26 - this FACT came from a statement released by Brittany Ferries - then it would seem logical that it was her who caused the damage.
Steady on ! It's only a fecking tin pot ferry,the man was making a comment as he understood it be a bit civil
I suggest you check your facts retry69. The Barfleur was alongside on Tuesday night, and then sailed Wednesday morning, as per the timetable.

All you seem to do on this forum is correct people yet never make proper inputs yourself. Live up to you title 69
Whooooooooooooooaa steady old sport re-read who is posting what and I will get back to you after I have rung no win no fee about defamation of character lmfao :)
My apologies retry69, sometimes it is hard to see who wrote what in this way of quoting. Again sincere apologies.

Purbeck82. The Barfleur sticks to a rigid timetable of sailing at 0830, and arriving back at 2145. As I said wrongly to another poster, the Barfleur was alongside Tuesday evening, and sailed on Wednesday morning, therefore outbound. I travel on the Barfleur regularly, before, and since she was reinstated on the Poole to Cherbourg sailing, and never have I had to wait outside Poole harbour overnight and enter in the morning. This, I think you will find is by the Portsmouth sailings, to LeHavre and Caen, where they sail late from Portsmouth, and wait over night outside the French ports.

No need to apologise, as I would not expect one who flies in with inmaterial quotes.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Purbeck82[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: The Echo reporting is atrocious. Caused by the incoming Barfleur. Everyone except the Echo knows that the Barfleur departs in the morning, and therefore will be outgoing. Secondly, the initial story, timed at 0700 stated the Sandbanks to Studland Bay ferry service was suspended. As the Barfleur does not sail until 0830, it is unlikely that the damage was caused by the said Barfleur. The Echo and SSF service are too quick to apportion damage to others, rather than the probable cause is maintenance.[/p][/quote]Well done that man,I for one am glad we have you :)[/p][/quote]The only thing atrocious is your erroneous post about how the Echo reported this. The Barfleur was INCOMING, perhaps you should check your facts rather than make presumptions statements. The Barfleur operates a varied timetable meaning that sometimes it lays overnight and sometimes it arrives in the morning before departing again. The latter is what happened yesterday. As yesterday the Barfleur passed the ferry at 06.26 - this FACT came from a statement released by Brittany Ferries - then it would seem logical that it was her who caused the damage.[/p][/quote]Steady on ! It's only a fecking tin pot ferry,the man was making a comment as he understood it be a bit civil[/p][/quote]I suggest you check your facts retry69. The Barfleur was alongside on Tuesday night, and then sailed Wednesday morning, as per the timetable. All you seem to do on this forum is correct people yet never make proper inputs yourself. Live up to you title 69[/p][/quote]Whooooooooooooooaa steady old sport re-read who is posting what and I will get back to you after I have rung no win no fee about defamation of character lmfao :)[/p][/quote]My apologies retry69, sometimes it is hard to see who wrote what in this way of quoting. Again sincere apologies. Purbeck82. The Barfleur sticks to a rigid timetable of sailing at 0830, and arriving back at 2145. As I said wrongly to another poster, the Barfleur was alongside Tuesday evening, and sailed on Wednesday morning, therefore outbound. I travel on the Barfleur regularly, before, and since she was reinstated on the Poole to Cherbourg sailing, and never have I had to wait outside Poole harbour overnight and enter in the morning. This, I think you will find is by the Portsmouth sailings, to LeHavre and Caen, where they sail late from Portsmouth, and wait over night outside the French ports. No need to apologise, as I would not expect one who flies in with inmaterial quotes. TheDistrict
  • Score: 1

4:28pm Thu 17 Jul 14

TheDistrict says...

Completely checked all BF media, press office, twitter, etc, and nothing regarding this matter.
Completely checked all BF media, press office, twitter, etc, and nothing regarding this matter. TheDistrict
  • Score: 0

6:39pm Thu 17 Jul 14

FerryFan says...

Barfleur doesn't wait outside Poole Harbour, she goes straight in - I do the overnight crossings myself, she leaves Cherbourg at 10.15 pm, goes straight into Poole to turn round and go straight back out at 08.30.
Barfleur doesn't wait outside Poole Harbour, she goes straight in - I do the overnight crossings myself, she leaves Cherbourg at 10.15 pm, goes straight into Poole to turn round and go straight back out at 08.30. FerryFan
  • Score: 1

11:22pm Thu 17 Jul 14

action not talk says...

This has created a lot of traffic going to purbeck via ware ham and if you add on the road works at poole road/ashley road /wallisdown/castle lane -then you have a melt down on traffic management at the peak period

Does no one do TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT or are the staff on summer holidays ??
This has created a lot of traffic going to purbeck via ware ham and if you add on the road works at poole road/ashley road /wallisdown/castle lane -then you have a melt down on traffic management at the peak period Does no one do TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT or are the staff on summer holidays ?? action not talk
  • Score: 0

12:25am Fri 18 Jul 14

nermal says...

FerryFan wrote:
nermal wrote:
To FerryFan who says it's never happened before - something very similar did, quite a few years ago. I was chatting to one of the ferry employees while they were mending the chain, and I asked what caused it. He said, "We aren't sure, but put it this way: at that time there was a large ferry sidling out of the harbour trying to look like it wasn't there!"

Still makes me laugh to imagine Barfleur shiftily trying to look like it wasn't there!
Thanks for the info!

This is being discussed on a ferry site and it has been said that one the previous occasion, Barfleur suffered damage to her prop and rudder, so she didn't come out of that occasion smelling of roses. Think the chap said it was 1996.
1996 sounds about right, I can't remember exactly but that would fit with what I can put a date to.
[quote][p][bold]FerryFan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nermal[/bold] wrote: To FerryFan who says it's never happened before - something very similar did, quite a few years ago. I was chatting to one of the ferry employees while they were mending the chain, and I asked what caused it. He said, "We aren't sure, but put it this way: at that time there was a large ferry sidling out of the harbour trying to look like it wasn't there!" Still makes me laugh to imagine Barfleur shiftily trying to look like it wasn't there![/p][/quote]Thanks for the info! This is being discussed on a ferry site and it has been said that one the previous occasion, Barfleur suffered damage to her prop and rudder, so she didn't come out of that occasion smelling of roses. Think the chap said it was 1996.[/p][/quote]1996 sounds about right, I can't remember exactly but that would fit with what I can put a date to. nermal
  • Score: 1

9:42am Fri 18 Jul 14

skenyon says...

is up an running now ?
is up an running now ? skenyon
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree