The chairman of the Steam Packet has questioned the entire Liverpool ferry terminal project.

Lars Ugland says that costs have soared there because of poor and unsuitable design.

He made his comments in a letter to Infrastructure Minister Tim Baker, which he shared with the Examiner.

’To be brutally honest, the reason for the additional cost started when AECOM [an American engineering company] was chosen as the designer of the project,’ he says. ’It turned out that various parts of the design were poor and not suitable.

’The Steam Packet didn’t trust the quality of the work carried out by AECOM and I understand John Sisk, the civil engineering contractor didn’t either so Royal HaskoningDHV [an engineering design consultancy] was brought in.

’Why AECOM is still involved in this project is questionable and adding unnecessary cost.’

Mr Ugland also lambasted Mr Baker for making ’unacceptable’ comments.

The row revolves around the issue of ’scour protection’ at the terminal currently being built for Manx ferries in Liverpool.

The project, which is being funded by the Manx taxpayer and was originally costed at £25m, is now estimated to cost £38m and counting.

Mr Ugland wrote his letter after Mr Baker told Tynwald that there were additional costs incurred for the project because of the design of the Steam Packet’s new ferry, Manxman.

He told Mr Baker: ’I find this statement incorrect and unacceptable.

’The Steam Packet has not caused any additional cost to the project, something we intend to make clear publically.’

He said that there was no unexpected increase in bow thruster power of the Manxman, the vessel that’s being built for the company in Korea.

He supplied plans that he said make it ’pretty clear that vessel thrusters are not the issue’.

Indeed, the fastcraft Manannan’s water jets were worse for ’scour’.

Port facilities experience seabed scour as a result of high-velocity propeller wash directed towards the berth structures, in particular during arrival and departure manoeuvers.

This scouring action can not only undermine the structural integrity of the marine structures, but also contribute to variations in the bottom profile due to deposition of the scoured material in other areas.

’The reason for the increase in scour protection is because the project team only recently asked us what level of thrust would be used by vessels during manoeuvres,’ Mr Ugland says.

He adds that the team had watched vessels dock in Douglas on CCTV.

But that is a ’protected port without much tidal flow effect’.

The team assumed that similar amount of thrust would be needed.

’What seems not to have been considered was a potential seven knots of tide in the River Mersey and westerly winds, which would require Manannan to use 100% thrust at around 30 degrees to the quay wall to push the vessel off,’ Mr Ugland says.

’At our meetings with the project team the Steam Packet has always stressed that this would not be an easy berth given the tidal range and flows.’

Mr Ugland says that protection at the berth would be strengthened by using rock armour bags on the river bed to piled protection with shuttering and backfill.

That would need a change to planning.

In turn, that will lead to more delays in the construction of the terminal because it would have to be installed before quay walls and the linkspan can be built.

’No doubt this will significantly impact the completion date, which is why when asked by the press recently we made reference to the Steam Packet likely not using the berth until spring 2023.’

Mr Ugland adds: ’If our preferred approach of a fully floating linkspan had not been dismissed on cost grounds, the issue of scour protection and the additional cost associated with it would have been avoided and the berth would be more suitable for the Mersey river environment.’

Mr Baker responds in tomorrow's Isle of Man Examiner.