Dibden campaign blow (From Andover Advertiser)

Natural England should be renamed Pretty Britain. They seem to put attractiveness above protecting this important habitat. Shame on them!

Rob444 wrote:
Natural England should be renamed Pretty Britain. They seem to put attractiveness above protecting this important habitat. Shame on them!

Isn't this area reclaimed land, and therfore not natural habitat?

Certainly the area could do with more jobs that developement would surley bring.

Good news! I look forward to Dibden Bay getting built as soon as possible. Jobs and local economy boost over a handful of birds and newts anyday.

St.DaveH wrote:

Rob444 wrote: Natural England should be renamed Pretty Britain. They seem to put attractiveness above protecting this important habitat. Shame on them!

Isn't this area reclaimed land, and therfore not natural habitat? Certainly the area could do with more jobs that developement would surley bring.

When I lived nearby it was always known as reclaimed land - destined to become dockland. Let's get on with this development.

The Hammer wrote:
Good news! I look forward to Dibden Bay getting built as soon as possible. Jobs and local economy boost over a handful of birds and newts anyday.

I agree. Opposition is from NIMBY's wanting to protect their property values and they have the gall to try and claim this reclaimed land should be part of the National Park!

Built the development! Do it with speed to generate more jobs and greater prosperity for the area.

Sod the NIMBY's and their tame MP chummy mate.

I think that if this plan goes ahead, there will have to be a bridge built between the two parts of the port as the journey around Southampton Water onto the main infrastructure, roads etc, will not be cost effective, plus the Marchwood road will not be able to take the extra transport.
My mother lives over that way and in a straight line from my door to hers, it's 3 and a bit miles. To drive there takes eleven miles because of the water.
-
If ABP want to use this land properly, and I use this term loosely, why not make Dibden Bay the cruise terminal and leave the rest of the industrialised docks area for freight? If I was on a cruise, I'd much rather look out at trees and forest than a flour mill.

bigronthestaff wrote:
I think that if this plan goes ahead, there will have to be a bridge built between the two parts of the port as the journey around Southampton Water onto the main infrastructure, roads etc, will not be cost effective, plus the Marchwood road will not be able to take the extra transport. My mother lives over that way and in a straight line from my door to hers, it's 3 and a bit miles. To drive there takes eleven miles because of the water. - If ABP want to use this land properly, and I use this term loosely, why not make Dibden Bay the cruise terminal and leave the rest of the industrialised docks area for freight? If I was on a cruise, I'd much rather look out at trees and forest than a flour mill.

But surley Ron - all they would see is the incinerator, power station, chemical works and military prot etc - they can already see that from the Southampton side of the water.....lets get it built!!!!

bigronthestaff wrote:
I think that if this plan goes ahead, there will have to be a bridge built between the two parts of the port as the journey around Southampton Water onto the main infrastructure, roads etc, will not be cost effective, plus the Marchwood road will not be able to take the extra transport. My mother lives over that way and in a straight line from my door to hers, it's 3 and a bit miles. To drive there takes eleven miles because of the water. - If ABP want to use this land properly, and I use this term loosely, why not make Dibden Bay the cruise terminal and leave the rest of the industrialised docks area for freight? If I was on a cruise, I'd much rather look out at trees and forest than a flour mill.

But surley Ron - all they would see is the incinerator, power station, chemical works and military prot etc - they can already see that from the Southampton side of the water.....lets get it built!!!!

we will need this to help the area develop and create jobs it will happen and it should happen.

what is wrong with you people we must have dibden bay for the future of southampton jobs do you realy want to see this trade gone to ther parts just to save a bird or 2 & maybe a flower. Its all about the old folk just do not like change but would be a different story in there working day to save there jobs. You should look outsidethe job centre in Hythe see how many people really need a job. Get a grip guys just because your all getting old up Hythe think of the younger folk of the waterside area who need a job in there life time

St.DaveH wrote:

Rob444 wrote:
Natural England should be renamed Pretty Britain. They seem to put attractiveness above protecting this important habitat. Shame on them!

Isn't this area reclaimed land, and therfore not natural habitat?

Certainly the area could do with more jobs that developement would surley bring.

yes its reclaim but its been left to stand for 30 years and nature has taken over, it can now be class has agricultural land, and not brown fill site.
what will happen it will not bring in more jobs but less, after they have built it the southampton side will close down and all operations relating to container will be moved over there, the container port this side will be sold for private developement.
by the year 2027 southampton container port will only be a feeder container port, it will not become a hub container port abpj knows this all ready.

St.DaveH wrote:

bigronthestaff wrote: I think that if this plan goes ahead, there will have to be a bridge built between the two parts of the port as the journey around Southampton Water onto the main infrastructure, roads etc, will not be cost effective, plus the Marchwood road will not be able to take the extra transport. My mother lives over that way and in a straight line from my door to hers, it's 3 and a bit miles. To drive there takes eleven miles because of the water. - If ABP want to use this land properly, and I use this term loosely, why not make Dibden Bay the cruise terminal and leave the rest of the industrialised docks area for freight? If I was on a cruise, I'd much rather look out at trees and forest than a flour mill.

But surley Ron - all they would see is the incinerator, power station, chemical works and military prot etc - they can already see that from the Southampton side of the water.....lets get it built!!!!

Absolutely build it. I couldn't agree more. There would be more jobs and more prosperity brought to the city and, further to your previous comments, aren't the power station, refinery and military port further back down the river? And, further to MY comments, and having thought about it, if I were on a cruise, I wouldn't want the noise and floodlights that would be just across the river ruining my sleep, my cruise and my time in Southampton so, scrap what I said.

southy wrote:

St.DaveH wrote:

Rob444 wrote:
Natural England should be renamed Pretty Britain. They seem to put attractiveness above protecting this important habitat. Shame on them!

Isn't this area reclaimed land, and therfore not natural habitat?

Certainly the area could do with more jobs that developement would surley bring.

yes its reclaim but its been left to stand for 30 years and nature has taken over, it can now be class has agricultural land, and not brown fill site.
what will happen it will not bring in more jobs but less, after they have built it the southampton side will close down and all operations relating to container will be moved over there, the container port this side will be sold for private developement.
by the year 2027 southampton container port will only be a feeder container port, it will not become a hub container port abpj knows this all ready.

Southy's expert insider opinion on Dubai Ports strategy courtesy the bloke down the pub whose mate works on the gate. Meanwhile somebody who once pushed a broom round the banana warehouse told Southy once he heard this bloke say in the gents that hub to hub container ships are too large to get into Southampton Water because of channel depth and crosswinds on the Thorn Channel and he voted labour as well so it must be true. But Southy never thought to ask himself how these same larger ships will manage to get up to Antwerp which is many miles further inland on a very silted river with even more bends and more exposed to high winds than Southampton Water. But welcome to Southyworld, a fantasy land for the hard of thinking where intelligence is only an inhibitor to understanding.

The Wickham Man wrote:

southy wrote:

St.DaveH wrote:

Rob444 wrote:
Natural England should be renamed Pretty Britain. They seem to put attractiveness above protecting this important habitat. Shame on them!

Isn't this area reclaimed land, and therfore not natural habitat?

Certainly the area could do with more jobs that developement would surley bring.

yes its reclaim but its been left to stand for 30 years and nature has taken over, it can now be class has agricultural land, and not brown fill site.
what will happen it will not bring in more jobs but less, after they have built it the southampton side will close down and all operations relating to container will be moved over there, the container port this side will be sold for private developement.
by the year 2027 southampton container port will only be a feeder container port, it will not become a hub container port abpj knows this all ready.

Southy's expert insider opinion on Dubai Ports strategy courtesy the bloke down the pub whose mate works on the gate. Meanwhile somebody who once pushed a broom round the banana warehouse told Southy once he heard this bloke say in the gents that hub to hub container ships are too large to get into Southampton Water because of channel depth and crosswinds on the Thorn Channel and he voted labour as well so it must be true. But Southy never thought to ask himself how these same larger ships will manage to get up to Antwerp which is many miles further inland on a very silted river with even more bends and more exposed to high winds than Southampton Water. But welcome to Southyworld, a fantasy land for the hard of thinking where intelligence is only an inhibitor to understanding.

;-)

Eagerly awaiting the self-styled Human Almanac's dredged-up nonsensical response of fluff and fib-ery.

Good chance to upgrade the road and rail links too!!!!

Just a thought.
The 'rail link' to Southampton is being upgraded (enlarging the tunnels etc) to cope with the new 'bigger' containers but there does not seem to be any such plan on the single track rail link that feeds the Waterside.
Answers/theories please.

I can see why evryone from the Southampton side are 'in favour' _ because it Not In Their (My) Back Yard. There is the odd Watersider that has fallen for the 'more jobs' spin and thinks its a good idea.
Personally I think all container
traffic should go the Felixstowe, flats, bars, clubs & empty shops can be built on the now inappropriately named Western Docks.

Young Greybeard wrote:
Just a thought.
The 'rail link' to Southampton is being upgraded (enlarging the tunnels etc) to cope with the new 'bigger' containers but there does not seem to be any such plan on the single track rail link that feeds the Waterside.
Answers/theories please.

You are right Greybeard, but it would clearly be very premature to do anything down this line without a strong commercial case, and until/if the port is constructed it would be wasted investment. Interestingly west of Redbridge junction (which is cleared for large containers taking the Laverstoke route) there is little infrastructure requiring upgrade - in fact there are only two overbridges and only one of these - Rushington Lane- requires modification, so it is a very minor consideration.

bigronthestaff wrote:

St.DaveH wrote:

bigronthestaff wrote: I think that if this plan goes ahead, there will have to be a bridge built between the two parts of the port as the journey around Southampton Water onto the main infrastructure, roads etc, will not be cost effective, plus the Marchwood road will not be able to take the extra transport. My mother lives over that way and in a straight line from my door to hers, it's 3 and a bit miles. To drive there takes eleven miles because of the water. - If ABP want to use this land properly, and I use this term loosely, why not make Dibden Bay the cruise terminal and leave the rest of the industrialised docks area for freight? If I was on a cruise, I'd much rather look out at trees and forest than a flour mill.

But surley Ron - all they would see is the incinerator, power station, chemical works and military prot etc - they can already see that from the Southampton side of the water.....lets get it built!!!!

Absolutely build it. I couldn't agree more. There would be more jobs and more prosperity brought to the city and, further to your previous comments, aren't the power station, refinery and military port further back down the river? And, further to MY comments, and having thought about it, if I were on a cruise, I wouldn't want the noise and floodlights that would be just across the river ruining my sleep, my cruise and my time in Southampton so, scrap what I said.

Big Ron, I dont think those punters on a cruise line would be asleep - they'ed be just boarding or disembarking...and talk about barking lol...

The Wickham Man wrote:

southy wrote:

St.DaveH wrote:

Rob444 wrote:
Natural England should be renamed Pretty Britain. They seem to put attractiveness above protecting this important habitat. Shame on them!

Isn't this area reclaimed land, and therfore not natural habitat?

Certainly the area could do with more jobs that developement would surley bring.

yes its reclaim but its been left to stand for 30 years and nature has taken over, it can now be class has agricultural land, and not brown fill site.
what will happen it will not bring in more jobs but less, after they have built it the southampton side will close down and all operations relating to container will be moved over there, the container port this side will be sold for private developement.
by the year 2027 southampton container port will only be a feeder container port, it will not become a hub container port abpj knows this all ready.

Southy's expert insider opinion on Dubai Ports strategy courtesy the bloke down the pub whose mate works on the gate. Meanwhile somebody who once pushed a broom round the banana warehouse told Southy once he heard this bloke say in the gents that hub to hub container ships are too large to get into Southampton Water because of channel depth and crosswinds on the Thorn Channel and he voted labour as well so it must be true. But Southy never thought to ask himself how these same larger ships will manage to get up to Antwerp which is many miles further inland on a very silted river with even more bends and more exposed to high winds than Southampton Water. But welcome to Southyworld, a fantasy land for the hard of thinking where intelligence is only an inhibitor to understanding.

thats why dp are going ahead with shell heaven, there is also going to be a new container port on the west coast, this might be located at milford heaven or the river severn.
and if you done your research right about antwerp container port right its about 15 miles in land, about the same has southampton, give or take a few miles, and also its not on the river whitch by the way is wider and deeper than southampton waters, the container port is on a purpose built shipping canal that is has wide has southampton waters, and canal dont have to contend with pressure from valley walls sides that will try and fill in a man made channel like in southampton has. antwerp has all ready seen the world largest container ship southampton has not and why its because antwerp is more protected from the provailing winds that come up in the south westernly direction, to get into southampton waters you have to be broadside to those winds

Actually Antwerp is 88 kilometres, approx 50 miles from the sea and there are a number of Locks along the River Scheldt which impede free movement of ships.
However Antwerp is one of the worlds top 10 ports in terms of tonnage and employs 80,000 or so in the port alone so it is of paramount importance to the Belgian economy .
It would be interesting to see how Antwerp would have developed if Dr Lewis, Cllr Harrison doyens of the Hythe Marina and Mr Southy had been Belgian citizens. The newest Antwerp Container facility (the Deurganack Dock) was built in 2005 to handle a projected 8 mill containers and involved the destruction of the village of Doel.
Not saying this was right but just goes to show that provision of jobs and industry have a higher profile elsewhere in the world

It's a shame that Southy doesn't check his facts because he looks so foolish when he even gets the most basic material wrong. Antwerp sits on the Scheldt estuary and this is what ships use to get to and from the sea. It is canalised near and around the dock entrances but it is not a canal. It is dredged, just as Southampton Water is dredged, it is also tidal and is currently dredged to Panamax depth (13.5m) as is Southampton. But the Scheldt does not open to the south west as Southy infers but twists and turns though half the compass hardly ever facing south west, so it is almost impossible for a ship not to be side on to the wind at some point in its traverse, which by the way is closer to 50km from Vlissingen at the mouth, whereas Dibden Bay ia barely 10km from Calshot. So all in all we can conclude that Southy just made it all up and assumed nobody would check.
More to the point though - if Antwerp can be a progressive dynamic and successful port overcoming all challenges, why should Britain fail and fall at every tiny hurdle?

Sorry Phil, didn't see your post before I posted mine but I can see you checked your facts and came to a similar conclusion. well said.

Southampton would lose jobs as the old docks would be closed for housing to be built. The new jobs would surely be for New Forest District Council. When I did Container trucks a few years back I remember a docks somewhere near London where everything was computer controlled. The container would appear from above and one man with a remote would load it on the trailer. This man would then be responsible for loading all of the other trucks. No body else was working there apart from Security Guards. and Paperwork people. I don't think that the new docks would have the same employment numbers as the exsisting docks.

your both wrong well phil is about bit of it, the container port is on a canal it is opposite the coal quay yes antwerp is on the river Scheldt estuary and is a few miles up river to the container port the canal runs parallel with the river till it gets to the first bend in the river down stream form the docks where the oil tanks are, there is a connecting lock from canal to the river about this point, but from this bend the canal turns north wards and runs in the bay next to the bay that the river scheldt runs into its a lot closer and is only about 15 miles they are reclaiming the land in this bay and there is another set of locks that will take you though to the north sea the or you can enter another canal and head for the river rhine. container port sits very close to the dutch boarder you go though holland to reach the container port or you can take the much slower route and use the river and enter the canal from the river.
check with the lastest edition of the admiralty charts

Yes Southy and anyone else who wants to see what a misguided self deluded idiot your are can go check with Google Earth, and you'll find that Phil and I were both right and you were wrong. Or is checking a satelite image too capitalist for you?
What is so laughable is that you are arguing against yourself anyway in your attempt to get off the hook. If these huge container ships really were constrained by a canal for many kilometers at very low speed they would be far more prone to being blown off course and damaged by high wind than ships moving faster and with much more comparative freedom up the Solent. You are just a tired illiterate old deck hand who thinks he is a master mariner.

The Wickham Man wrote:

Young Greybeard wrote: Just a thought. The 'rail link' to Southampton is being upgraded (enlarging the tunnels etc) to cope with the new 'bigger' containers but there does not seem to be any such plan on the single track rail link that feeds the Waterside. Answers/theories please.

You are right Greybeard, but it would clearly be very premature to do anything down this line without a strong commercial case, and until/if the port is constructed it would be wasted investment. Interestingly west of Redbridge junction (which is cleared for large containers taking the Laverstoke route) there is little infrastructure requiring upgrade - in fact there are only two overbridges and only one of these - Rushington Lane- requires modification, so it is a very minor consideration.

Good reply but I think two of the key words were 'single track' and how long would the crossing in Junction Road be shut for per day???

Like the bridge idea by the way, keep it all 'in house' as it were.

The Wickham Man wrote:
Yes Southy and anyone else who wants to see what a misguided self deluded idiot your are can go check with Google Earth, and you'll find that Phil and I were both right and you were wrong. Or is checking a satelite image too capitalist for you?
What is so laughable is that you are arguing against yourself anyway in your attempt to get off the hook. If these huge container ships really were constrained by a canal for many kilometers at very low speed they would be far more prone to being blown off course and damaged by high wind than ships moving faster and with much more comparative freedom up the Solent. You are just a tired illiterate old deck hand who thinks he is a master mariner.

google earth is not an up to date, it can be a number of years old. for an example for you, google earth is still showing a satellite picture of a building that was pulled down in 2004, whitch use to be just across the road from me. and it dont show the new road that runs though the location where this building use to be on there maps. but i would of though it will show the canal that runs from the container port that go's across the boarder into holland.because that canal has been there for some time.
let me check

yes it do show the gates that enter the next bay, its even showing a container ship waiting for the tide just out side the gates waiting to enter the canal.
the satelite picture must be a bit old it showing that the canal that runs to the rhine is still having work done to it, where has the admiralty charts is showing it has been finished, i think i stick with my admiralty cd thats is updated more often on line.
if you got a boat that big enough to have an auto plotter it well worth your while to buy the admiralty charts cd. if you dont then it would not be worth your while they are very pricey. and google earth would suit your needs.

............And so he goes on revealing himself ever more of a prat by missing the point a 5 year old would have grasped. Is Google Earth so out of date that Antwerp has moved 40km further inland? Is it so out of date that the Scheldt estuary has changed direction? You said these things explicitly in your posts and I cited google earth as way of proving to everyone that you were wrong. All the points you make about locks, canals an dock gates re all local to the port, not the 50kms of transit necessary to get there, and anyway, they all act as impediments to ship movements of which Southampton has none, so the more you talk about them the more you show Southampton's advantages - which is the opposite of what you tried to do.
Once again Southy's mixture of innacuracy, fantasy and low IQ conspire to make him the laughing stock of Southampton.

The Wickham Man wrote:
............And so he goes on revealing himself ever more of a prat by missing the point a 5 year old would have grasped. Is Google Earth so out of date that Antwerp has moved 40km further inland? Is it so out of date that the Scheldt estuary has changed direction? You said these things explicitly in your posts and I cited google earth as way of proving to everyone that you were wrong. All the points you make about locks, canals an dock gates re all local to the port, not the 50kms of transit necessary to get there, and anyway, they all act as impediments to ship movements of which Southampton has none, so the more you talk about them the more you show Southampton's advantages - which is the opposite of what you tried to do.
Once again Southy's mixture of innacuracy, fantasy and low IQ conspire to make him the laughing stock of Southampton.

Also I bet if was Belgian he would be bleating on about the need to protect the Scheldt from development and protect the 'massive' local fishing industry of the area and the lack of places to launch his boat!!

The Wickham Man wrote:
............And so he goes on revealing himself ever more of a prat by missing the point a 5 year old would have grasped. Is Google Earth so out of date that Antwerp has moved 40km further inland? Is it so out of date that the Scheldt estuary has changed direction? You said these things explicitly in your posts and I cited google earth as way of proving to everyone that you were wrong. All the points you make about locks, canals an dock gates re all local to the port, not the 50kms of transit necessary to get there, and anyway, they all act as impediments to ship movements of which Southampton has none, so the more you talk about them the more you show Southampton's advantages - which is the opposite of what you tried to do.
Once again Southy's mixture of innacuracy, fantasy and low IQ conspire to make him the laughing stock of Southampton.

you all most right antwerp in moving inland, not because of the town is moving but the amount of reclaiming of shallows waters's from the sea, antwert is on the bottom inner edge of the hook of holland. and antwerp container port is number of miles down river from antwerp.
i have not said that scheldt estuary has change direction thats you saying that not me, and yes google earth is so out of date. even google earth shows the canal that runs into the next bay to bay that scheldt river runs into. dont you know how to read maps and charts.
now listen carefully seeing you lack the know how, on how to read maps and charts i will do it layman terms that will be simple for you seeing you are not very bright.
started at antwerp follow the river down it will take you though a left hand bend, keep going then you come to a right hand bend in the river, then another left bend ( theres a lock here that gets you into the canal) but carry on down the river you come to a shallow right bend then theres another shallow left bend there a lock here to that gets you into the canal its about 2 miles from the dutch boarder. if you look nesr the canal theres a town call berendrecht just south of there is the antwerp container port, just east of a town call stabroek.
now if you start from the container port and then follow the canal in a north ward direction you come to a place called zandvliet carry on following the canal. you come to a set of locks at markiezaatsmeer, carry on though and follow the shipping channel till you come to theodorushaven island here you have a choice of dirrection, you can rejoin the canal and head to rotterdam or head out to the north sea. if you head out to the north sea you steer left and you will come to a set of locks that will take you out into a bay on the other side of the islands middelburg and borsele, islands that are now joint up with reimerswaal island though reclaiming, there is a canal on each side of reimerswaal island, the one to the east is the main shipping canal where ships like the emma will use, they dont use the river. and a ship the size of the emma will come down though the rotterdam shipping canal to get to antwerp.
now who looks very silly. mind you done that your self by trying to put in my mouth and twist my words not very bright are you for some one who claims to have gone to uni.
heres the biggest problems for southampton docks for containers, container ships are going to get bigger, the emma has it is, is to large for southampton and will never come here. to get into southampton ships have to go broadside to the prevailing winds. before they can get into sheltered waters. the uk is going to have 2 main hub container ports one on the east coast and one on the west coast all other container ports will be feeder ports. even lo southampton has this double high tide it dont mean a thing, large ships tend to come in at high tide, and the tidal range between low water and high water is only a max of 5 meters, where has other ports it is far greater. in the uk the river severn has the largest tidal range 7 meters or more thats just over another 6 feet off extra water under the keel of of a ship than southampton, then look at the location at the severn bridge the channel here has a natural 10 meter depth unlike southampton channel it has a man made channel of 11 meters a channel that nature will keep trying to fill in.
it keeps surprising me the number that have claim to have gone to uni and still no nothing.

phil maccavity wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:
............And so he goes on revealing himself ever more of a prat by missing the point a 5 year old would have grasped. Is Google Earth so out of date that Antwerp has moved 40km further inland? Is it so out of date that the Scheldt estuary has changed direction? You said these things explicitly in your posts and I cited google earth as way of proving to everyone that you were wrong. All the points you make about locks, canals an dock gates re all local to the port, not the 50kms of transit necessary to get there, and anyway, they all act as impediments to ship movements of which Southampton has none, so the more you talk about them the more you show Southampton's advantages - which is the opposite of what you tried to do.
Once again Southy's mixture of innacuracy, fantasy and low IQ conspire to make him the laughing stock of Southampton.

Also I bet if was Belgian he would be bleating on about the need to protect the Scheldt from development and protect the 'massive' local fishing industry of the area and the lack of places to launch his boat!!

Only a complete AnTWERP or member of the Flat Earth Society or Armchair Dusty Musty Socialist would carry on digging the hole deeper and deeper when faced with the Truth. What an idiot. Has to be right when the rest of the World knows he's wrong. Why? So much speculation it's foolhardy even to go there!

clausentum wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:
............And so he goes on revealing himself ever more of a prat by missing the point a 5 year old would have grasped. Is Google Earth so out of date that Antwerp has moved 40km further inland? Is it so out of date that the Scheldt estuary has changed direction? You said these things explicitly in your posts and I cited google earth as way of proving to everyone that you were wrong. All the points you make about locks, canals an dock gates re all local to the port, not the 50kms of transit necessary to get there, and anyway, they all act as impediments to ship movements of which Southampton has none, so the more you talk about them the more you show Southampton's advantages - which is the opposite of what you tried to do.
Once again Southy's mixture of innacuracy, fantasy and low IQ conspire to make him the laughing stock of Southampton.

Also I bet if was Belgian he would be bleating on about the need to protect the Scheldt from development and protect the 'massive' local fishing industry of the area and the lack of places to launch his boat!!

Only a complete AnTWERP or member of the Flat Earth Society or Armchair Dusty Musty Socialist would carry on digging the hole deeper and deeper when faced with the Truth. What an idiot. Has to be right when the rest of the World knows he's wrong. Why? So much speculation it's foolhardy even to go there!

they dont need your help to dig there hole for them they doing fine job by there selfs.

If Southy continues to dig a big enough hole perhaps he could do this in Soton water and increase the channel depthe
He also seems to think a max tidal range of 5m in Soton water is a drawback. It isn't.
Soton has rising water around 17 hrs out of 24 hrs so the tidal range is generally quite small which is a great advantage.
Also the natural scouring of the 4 tides per day means that dredging costs are a lot smaller than most ports

phil maccavity wrote:
If Southy continues to dig a big enough hole perhaps he could do this in Soton water and increase the channel depthe
He also seems to think a max tidal range of 5m in Soton water is a drawback. It isn't.
Soton has rising water around 17 hrs out of 24 hrs so the tidal range is generally quite small which is a great advantage.
Also the natural scouring of the 4 tides per day means that dredging costs are a lot smaller than most ports

you should learn to read a tide book. here is a typical normal spring tide, i even give your the date for this tide so you can check it,
sunday 6th july 2008
first high water 01-35 (4.5 meter tide) second high water 03-35 (4.4 meter tide) low water 07-41 ( 0.5 meter tide)
first high water 14-07 (4.5 meter tide) second high water 16-02 (4.7 meter tide) low water 20-04 (0.8 meter tide)
this is just one day cycle in the tides, now where is your 17 hours of rising tide.
every where gets 4 tides a day 2 high waters and 2 low waters. its just that the high tide stops rising a lot sooner than any where else, then after you get a 1 hour very slow running out tide about 1knot then it comes in for 1 hour at the same speed. giving you the secondary tide.
and because there is less than a tide rise any where else in the uk it all so means that water moves slower. the max speed the river test can get is 8 knots under normal condition the river severn is a lot faster, and more likey to scourer the river bed, slower the water means more likely silt will settle.
suggestion for you if your not sure how tides works ask and i will explain it to you, or go and buy the abp tide book. to me its easy to under stand but it can be way above peoples heads more so when you have to take other factors into account.
how do you like your hole you just dug for your self.

Southy said that the prevailing south west winds were less of a problem for Antwerp that Southampton, and thinks that throwing a lot of random data can obscure the fact that he got it wrong. The Scheldt forces ships to twist and turn side on to the wind at almost all points of the compass, so his random fact bombardment from the internet is irrelevant. Secondly you said Antwerp was "about 15 miles inland" - and you are telling me how to read a map??? You must be some kind of cretinous lunatic. I have never made such a ridiculous error. You must be as good at reading maps as you are at writing - in other words you are pathetic. You hype yourself up when in truth you failed your exams just as you've failed at everything ever since. When you can look in the mirror and see yourself for what we can already see then you can begin the road to self improvement; in the meantime you are just too spineless to take that step so you will continue to hear the mocking laughter.

The Wickham Man wrote:
Southy said that the prevailing south west winds were less of a problem for Antwerp that Southampton, and thinks that throwing a lot of random data can obscure the fact that he got it wrong. The Scheldt forces ships to twist and turn side on to the wind at almost all points of the compass, so his random fact bombardment from the internet is irrelevant. Secondly you said Antwerp was "about 15 miles inland" - and you are telling me how to read a map??? You must be some kind of cretinous lunatic. I have never made such a ridiculous error. You must be as good at reading maps as you are at writing - in other words you are pathetic. You hype yourself up when in truth you failed your exams just as you've failed at everything ever since. When you can look in the mirror and see yourself for what we can already see then you can begin the road to self improvement; in the meantime you are just too spineless to take that step so you will continue to hear the mocking laughter.

I agree with what you say, but is there a chance that you can put your point across without a personal insult included every time, it detracts from the information and puts my back up. The Waterside Railway line is screaming out for a passenger service and if Dibden Bay is developed the whole line could be upgraded, and certainly the level crossing at Totton needs to be bridged as a priority. Also more of the M27 needs to be completed.

The Wickham Man wrote:
Southy said that the prevailing south west winds were less of a problem for Antwerp that Southampton, and thinks that throwing a lot of random data can obscure the fact that he got it wrong. The Scheldt forces ships to twist and turn side on to the wind at almost all points of the compass, so his random fact bombardment from the internet is irrelevant. Secondly you said Antwerp was "about 15 miles inland" - and you are telling me how to read a map??? You must be some kind of cretinous lunatic. I have never made such a ridiculous error. You must be as good at reading maps as you are at writing - in other words you are pathetic. You hype yourself up when in truth you failed your exams just as you've failed at everything ever since. When you can look in the mirror and see yourself for what we can already see then you can begin the road to self improvement; in the meantime you are just too spineless to take that step so you will continue to hear the mocking laughter.

the large containers dont use the river scheldt, container barges use the river main container shipping uses the shipping canals they are straighter, and deeper. the river way to shallow to take the larger container ships.
i think you find i said antwerp container port is about 15 miles in land give or take a few miles, the city of antwerp is up river from the container port. your not to bright are you, there a high number of shipping canals in belgium and holland and germany it escape you that the fact is shipping canals are used more than rivers
and the only cretinous lunatic is you for trying to put words in to my mouth and twist words that i say.
i not going to lower my standards down to yours about exams i can see the subjects that you failed at.
my is my only english is my failure. but i can see you have many but whats your biggest failure.
keep digging your hole your making it deeper

southy wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:
Southy said that the prevailing south west winds were less of a problem for Antwerp that Southampton, and thinks that throwing a lot of random data can obscure the fact that he got it wrong. The Scheldt forces ships to twist and turn side on to the wind at almost all points of the compass, so his random fact bombardment from the internet is irrelevant. Secondly you said Antwerp was "about 15 miles inland" - and you are telling me how to read a map??? You must be some kind of cretinous lunatic. I have never made such a ridiculous error. You must be as good at reading maps as you are at writing - in other words you are pathetic. You hype yourself up when in truth you failed your exams just as you've failed at everything ever since. When you can look in the mirror and see yourself for what we can already see then you can begin the road to self improvement; in the meantime you are just too spineless to take that step so you will continue to hear the mocking laughter.

the large containers dont use the river scheldt, container barges use the river main container shipping uses the shipping canals they are straighter, and deeper. the river way to shallow to take the larger container ships.
i think you find i said antwerp container port is about 15 miles in land give or take a few miles, the city of antwerp is up river from the container port. your not to bright are you, there a high number of shipping canals in belgium and holland and germany it escape you that the fact is shipping canals are used more than rivers
and the only cretinous lunatic is you for trying to put words in to my mouth and twist words that i say.
i not going to lower my standards down to yours about exams i can see the subjects that you failed at.
my is my only english is my failure. but i can see you have many but whats your biggest failure.
keep digging your hole your making it deeper

sw = yeah-real

How apt.

"keep digging your hole your making it deeper"

No originality.

No capacity for original thought.

Only stolen quotes and plagarised stuff from websites quoted inaccurately which in turn get bastardised and spewed out as regurgitated pap.

Pathetic.

Oooo . . . . stand back everyone, look out for another shovelful from the sham flim-flam fib digger.

ok Southy, without insults I'll prove to everyone including yourself that you are wrong. here is a satelite image of the Port of Antwerp and the Scheldt estuary. http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/File:Scheld
e_4.25121E_51.26519N
.jpg. You are insisting that for most of the journey to/from the port there is a canal and that ships use it and not the Scheldt. Well where is it? What is is called and where is its mouth? It can be clearly seen that the port is in proximity of the City and well over 50kms inland of the mouth. So do ships use the Scheldt or do they use some mythical ship canal of yours all the way to the sea? And if you are now forced to admit that they do use the Scheldt all the way to the port gates then you can also see that the Scheldt presents more navigation challenges than Southampton Water by conmparison whether by wind or by tide, but that Antwerp has successfully overcome them, which was the original point I made which you challenged. You don't have anywhere left to go except downwards, but the choice of whether to climb out or whether to keep making a fool of yourself is up to you. At the moment everyone is at the top of the hole looking down at you.

there is a satelite pic on wiki that is 4 years old File:RMSDeltaSouth.j
pg compare the satelite pictures it make life easy i hope

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/File:RMSDel
taSouth.jpg

search wiki for File:RMSDeltaSouth.j
pg

it has letters and numbers i will walk you though it.

8 and 9 are part of this delta system of land mass that has been reclaim naturally and man reclaimed at the base of foot hills the hills at 9 shelters winds coming in from the south to south-west. while the hills at 8 shelter winds from the winds coming in from the easterly direction.
( 9 is the starting point for the hook of holland delta system)

b/ is the Scheld delta (whitch is class has open sea)
a/ is the tidal estuary (class has the river)
whitch is used for coastal shipping and barges only

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7/ are delta islands 1, 2, have reclaim land joining them into one island and connecting them to the main land has is 4 and 5.

i/ is a bay with no rivers running into it and is class has the open sea.

h, j/ is the shipping canal that ships like the container ship emma will use.

if you go back to where the letter * a * is located and look about 45% round to 90% right you can see the dock lands that is Not on the river, you can also see where the shipping canal joins up with the docklands basin, on the same side of where the canal joins the docks basin just below it you can see a slot well just below this slot and 3/4 of this slot is the antwerp deep sea container port. here they take containers of the large container ships and load up coastal shipping and barges to be transported else there is also rail and road link for transportation to places ie like into the city of antwerp it self, (city of antwerp is off this satilite picture, it up river a few more bends), to give you an idea how big this slot is for the container port, it has has much quay wall space has the whole of southampton container port and western dock quay space. its container storeage space probley is about the same has western and container port put together.
going back to the shipping canal the bay * i * in between the shipping canal letters h and j, you can see the sea wall dyke if you look at the top part you can see the wall turns to the left then turns again to the right at this point is the open sea locks to the bay, so you see now i hope. that large container ships do not use the river scheld they use the shipping canal entering in though the bay or coming in from rotterdam.

in the satelite picture link that you put up the city of antwerp is located just below that sharp hairpin bend in the river near the bottom of the picture. but even in this picture it shows the shipping canal it even shows the sea locks in the bay. in away you have proved your self wrong, still every one has there failings mine english and i am willing to emit it.

p.s i forgot to mention that the river scheldt is not mark has a main shipping lane/channel, only has a minor, like they do for shallow drafted boats/ships

If you count the Scheldt estuary as open sea then so is Southampton Water and definitely the Solent, so we can discount them all to make the comparison fair. All in all navigation is obviously a lot trickier for Antwerp shipping than Southampton Water would be, which is straight and requires no canals or locks. All you have done above is shown how complex the route into the Antwrp port is by comparison with Dibden Bay. And yet Antwerp has built a massively successful entrepot hub port. Just like Southampton could do if the things that Antwerp has overcome are not raised as showstoppers against Southampton and Dibden Bay in particular. Avonmouth has not even started and has inferior rail links. Thames Haven and Thamesport both have to cross congested commuter lines and use the M25, so why do you always encourage the export of people's jobs away from Southampton to inferior locations belonging to rival company ports that may not even exist yet?

One thing for sure, is that if the Tory party get in, you can write off any thoughts of developing Dibden, they have far too many yuppy/nimby voters in that area to placate to allow it to happen

theres a difference to estuary and delta, the river estuary ends at the point where delta estuary starts. its the same where ever theres a delta and river meet. the solent is open sea water, where has southampton waters is just a part of the river test. the difference here is that isles of wight is a land mass broken away from the main land. and the islands that make up the hook of holland are islands made up from silt and man made islands though reclaiming.
the difference between southampton and antwerp shipping canal is that here in southampton large ship aft to wait till high water before they can move, where has in belgium and holland and part of germany they dont need to wait for the high tide, they can be on the move at any state of tide and the sea locks takes them into deep water.and right into the deep water shipping channels. most of the canals are straight apart from a few bends and the shipping canal is wider and deeper than southampton shipping channel,
just think about things a little bit, your in the english channel you heading roughly east you then got to swing north then west then north west then north then north west then east then finally north before to can tie up on southampton container port, and the shipping channel in narrower than the canals in holland and belgium. just before you hit thorn channel you will need tugs to help keep you in the channel, a bad cross wind could easy drag ship and tugs across the channel and ground the ship.
where has in the shipping canals in holland and belgium tugs are not needed till you make that final swing into the berthing area, a bad cross wind any where along those shipping canals will only push the ship along the canal wall, the ship will not get grounded so it will be able to carry on its way.
if the river severn gets pick for the new hub container port. its not going to be at avonmouth, it will be on the other side of the river avon, it be at between portbury and portishead docks. and there was 2 new railheads added to this area a few years back and there are plans for 2 more on top plus the rail head the raillink up will be directly connected to new shellheaven container port when finish that all was all ready there, there will be a direct link to the M5 and M4, the other place thats been look at for a possable main hub container port on the severn is above the severn bridges just north of bristol with small feeder container ports much higher up the severn up by the bend in the river before the river swings west and into wales.
another spot thats been look at is milford-on-heaven in wales near where the 2 oil refinerys are.
the m25 is west of shellheaven and is the main archery route to get any where in the country, where has in southampton you got to head to london or bristol before you can get to any of the main archery routes to the north.
think like any capitalist would do, they want there goods transported to every where at the shortest distance and at the cheapest costs.
the most perfect place for a container port but will not or could not be done is dead centre of the country and not at the bottom edge or top edge of a country shape like the uk, so do the next best thing have 2 one on each side close to the main archery routes that can take you any where in the country. you can not get to the north or south west directly using with out having to go to the main junction routes and they are located at bristol and london. and these are the plans that has been put forward to the uk government and the eu and been accepted by both uk and the eu and this was back in the mid 90's and thats why i was on a job doing the test piling in the river severn back in 2001 2002.
the only rival port that will be will be the one in the river severn where has look who owns the ones in the thames. and do you think they care weather if you got a job in southampton or on the river thames. no they dont, they only in it for them selfs, and the only people that could make them change there minds are the unions but the anti-union laws out law there actions that would not just help the ordinary people to keep there jobs but help to keep a lot officers worker and small business there jobs to in a indirect way.
so advocating a capitalist world and help it to linger on longer than it should is helping to cut there own throats for supporting this capitalist world

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
One thing for sure, is that if the Tory party get in, you can write off any thoughts of developing Dibden, they have far too many yuppy/nimby voters in that area to placate to allow it to happen

very true they are not going to upset its own supporters and hand the new forest east area over to the liberals.
plus the libs and torys has with labour have all agreed on the future transport plans for shipping

So sad to see so many anoraks debating irrelevant details re: Antwerp, channel depths, cross-winds etc. Get over yourselves and think outside of the box for minute.

Fact is that the construction work would give a significant short-term boost to the local economy/job market (no doubt about that) but it would be followed by what exactly? A few dozen jobs in a fully automated set-up, and local people completely shafted again while fully-trained labour is drawn from the wider area. Your views are so short term it is embarrassing.

You might know a little about what ports look like from Google Maps but you clearly know nothing long-term regeneration and how to secure a future for a local economy in the post-industrial 21st Century.

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns; while people debate the intricate details of Belgian shipping channels (oh, how very sad that is!) they are missing the point. Instead of wedding the local community to a boom and bust economy of local construction followed by more unemployment, how about looking over your shoulder and embracing the booming economy of the leisure industry. That's were long-term jobs lie. You might not like the idea, but its an economic fact.

Love it or loathe it, this area is ripe for a thriving expansion of businesses serving the millions of people that visit the National Park every year (and the figure is constantly rising - in times of recession it actually grows, in fact).

While you all rant about how the jobless are more important than a few birds and wild flowers, it's the wildlife and rare habitats that are making sure people in adjacent parishes are quids-in.

You could have a slice of that if you were canny, but you're not smart enough to see it, and you'd willingly drag us all down with you if you had the chance. Regenerate the area? YES. Wed it to a boom-and-bust economy when there's obvious long-term alternatives? NO.

Conservationists and campaigners are the bane of your lives right? No. Wrong. They could about just save your dying communities if you let them, but you're too stupid to let them.

some very good points there j.p. muffin.
good point of the leisure industry it do increase when theres a recession but when it starts to become to long or falls into a depression it will drop away faster than it did when it was increasing because people are starting to run out of money.
long term before the end of the 21st century the world will be a socialist one where all work and world wealth will be share out, (and we will would of run out of crude oil by then to). if it dont then there will be a nuclear war way before the the end of the 21st century but before that war comes there will be massive civil unrest riots and civil war revolution that sort of thing.
thats long term thinking.

They are not good points, and they are borne of the kind of ignorance that results from someone who gets spoonfed data and doesn't know how to assimilate it, so it's no wonder Southy is applauding like a seal. For a start anyone with a child at school would sooner they went into a career with a future rather than selling ice creams in a new forest car park. JP has made the mistake of swallowing the tripe put out by RADBP about only a few jobs. AS discussed previously by me an others, a primary industrial complex supports many many times more jobs in secondary and tertiary industries compared to those directly employed by the operator. Esso/Exxon only employ a small fraction of those whose livelihoods are sustained by the complex, and I don;t just mean direct subcontractors. There is a whole local economic infrastructure of jobs in Holbury and Blackfield that only thrives because employment and prosperity are maintained by the plant - yes even hairdressers shop assistants and aerobics instructors fall into this. You, JP are not only uniformed, but your selfishness in removing the potential for careers such as engineering, IT, management and so on, and repalcing them with car park attendant, lavatory cleaner and ice cream van driver shows just what a deluded selfish nasty little person you are. And by the way, if Southy agrees with you you know you've made a mistake.
It's a good job there are "anoraks" like me around to explain to you how the world works

Southy it is a laugh watching you thinking you are being so clever when it is obvious you have never studied geography or any other subject formally, so why try and show off? Local geology is irrelevant and everyone with any nous knows it anyway. Cross winds in the Scheldt are just as much a problem as in the Solent - why do you ignore the effect of high winds everywhere except Southampton. You are obsessed with the Thorn Channel. Even your thinking is flawed. As yourself which is quicker - a far east container carried 200 miles past Southampton up the channel to Antwerp, getting transhipped and then sailing 200 miles west again to Southampton on a spoke feeder ship, OR a large container ship sailing directly into Southampton? Channels can be dredged another metre Southy - that's all it requires. Antwerp is only dredged to Panamax depth so it will need a deeper dredge soon anyway. No difference. You and JP clearly don't have children at school otherwise the two of you would't have such a self centred casual pathetic uniformed attitude to driving their future economic prosperity into the hands of someone else. Luckily JP now realises he has just sat next to the lunatic on the bus. Too late mate - you deserve him.

Just as an aside on the Leisure Industry post
Didn't I read somewhere that the New Forest National Park are closing camp sites to reduce the amount of tourists in the area?
Also if you look at the propaganda for new facilities at Shellhaven, Harwich and Bristol, they all major on job creation, not necessarily during the construction phase but ongoing.
And as pointed out above, its not just jobs in the port but those associated with port activity ie the multiplier effect

I once found myself, bedraggled, wet and cold, standing in a bus queue at the Elephant & Castle in London.

Nearly an hour went by before a number 181 bus showed up, with two more pulling in behind it.

I bypassed people getting on the first bus, got on the second and went upstairs thinking it would be quiet and uncrowded.

It was uncrowded (and here I unashamedly indulge in poetic licence ala another poster) but it was not quiet.

Two kittens were scrapping over a limp lettuce leaf.

Avoiding their noise and self-obssessed squabbling, I sat down at the back of the bus and found myself next to an ancient mariner smelling of wet wool, pipe tobacco and Fisherman's Friends lozenges.

You can never foretell who you might end up sitting alongside on a London bus.

I much prefer traveling by car and listening on the car's stereo to Otis Redding singing:

"Sitting On The Dock Of The Bay"

there is some good points about the leisure industry and when i say that i not thinking the new forest but thinking about things like health clubs, fishing, swimming that sort of stuff, those do well in a recession but poorly out of a recession, the sort of things that keeps a person mind occupied but after a long period of recession even they will succombe to a decline when people start to run out of money.

well being 5th exam results in hampshire in geography is not bad, its better than most.
now did i say they was't, they do get bad cross winds but not from the prevailing wings. they all have there weakness from one direction at lest. theres no getting away with that fact. and i dont ignore the fact high winds are a problem, the problem is whitch direction they come in from.
southmpton reach it max size for a container ship. and i have known times when containers ships have diverted away from southampton because of storm winds, it happens in most ports theres nothing new there.
and they cant dredge another meter not with out breaking sewage pipes, cables or the tunnel that runs across the river between fawley and hamble.
even if they could dredge that 1 more meter the container ships will still only come up southampton water on high tide, it just means they might be able to come up here on the neap high tide whitch can be some time has a high tide of 3.4 at the moment container ships can only come here when the high tide level is 4.2 any lower than that and they cant make it up river, where has the shipping canals it dont matter. and has for the canals only being able to take panamax depth that might be true or not and if it is there is nothing that would stop them dredging down even a lot deeper, they dont have the valley sides to worry about. plus antwerp has all ready seen the worlds largest container ship afloat a few times and thats the emma the future container ships are going to be larger. the emma has never been to southampton and never will has with any future container that will be the same size or larger. theres not a lot special panamax container ship they are short and stumpy meaning that they are wider for there length than a normal thats all and they are about has wide has they are going to get, and southampton dont get to many of them.
my advice to you if your job has connection to container shipment that is to look on the thames for a job, when shell heaven is compleated thats where most of the work going to be relating to container shipment, southampton has all ready been ear mark to be just a feeder port.
i glad my nipper has left school now, because the kids of today when they leave school will be poorer parents than the ones off today, even if they are lucky to get a job.

Southy
Has your nipper followed your profession?

There are some thoughtful & well presented factual posts on this thread.

There are also some posts by the biggest bunch of self righteous, self important, pompous rrsoles it has been my misfortune to read (& I don't mean Southy)

You know who you are and the vicious bile that will probably spew forth following this post will prove my point!

OK after all that, are we for Dibden Bay or against it, and which Political party will be the best to support it?

The Mad Dog wrote:
There are some thoughtful & well presented factual posts on this thread.

There are also some posts by the biggest bunch of self righteous, self important, pompous rrsoles it has been my misfortune to read (& I don't mean Southy)

You know who you are and the vicious bile that will probably spew forth following this post will prove my point!

If you prefer to decide issues using factual inaccuracy, irrelevance and stupidity then I am sure you having a pop at me. But complex questions are not not just about an arbitrary set of "facts" - and this is why Southy deserves to be ridiculed - Complex quesitons require the application of fact to inform a debate and ultimately an opinion - to understand the relative importance of a piece of datum by comparing it to other related facts in order to assess its worth or meaning. When fools come on using some spurious random fact to try an win a debate without doing the hard work then I would prefer to be pompous if it raises the qualitative standard of the debate.