Ferguson Marine has launched a ground investigation tender ahead of potential yard transformation works at its Port Glasgow site, as planning for an expansion of the Scottish shipyard moves from ambition to concrete action.

The procurement notice seeks ground investigation work to establish the suitability of the site for a potential yard transformation. A separate document seen by the UK Defence Journal indicates the work is being produced to support the development of a new portal frame fabrication shed of up to 100 metres long by 40 metres wide, with three pits sunk into the floor to a maximum depth of 1,900 millimetres.

The procurement follows evidence given by Ferguson Marine chief executive Graeme Thomson to Holyrood’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee earlier this year, in which he was candid about the yard’s current constraints. “You are correct that the yard will run out of space at some point,” he told MSPs, adding that the company was reviewing how to make better use of the existing site and optimise production flow. “In the journey that we are starting on, we will look at how to optimise space so there is a proper production flow that makes best use of it,” he said.

A conversation with Ferguson Marine’s new chief

Ambitions extend well beyond the current yard boundary, Thomson said, “I have been clear since I have been in the job that I hope that Port Glasgow will not be big enough in five years”, pointing to potential expansion at the Inchgreen facility around a mile away and other areas around the existing site. He added that he had already been in discussion with Inverclyde Council about potential expansion options, saying he hoped the yard could spread out “perhaps at Inchgreen or other annexed areas, so that we can get to the point at which we are creating a good solid commercial shipbuilding industry in Inverclyde again.”

The space constraints are not straightforward to resolve and Thomson noted one unusual obstacle, telling MSPs that “part of the issue is that we have a fire station in the middle of our yard that serves the whole community” and that it could not be moved. Despite that, he said there was land near the existing site that could potentially accommodate additional industrial capacity. “There is space in front of the yard that we could use. It does not look like much, but it could be sufficient for us to put in another panel line or other automated equipment,” he said.

Scottish Government to order four ships at Ferguson Marine

The expansion question came up during discussions about the Scottish Government’s plan to directly award contracts for four more vessels, and whether Ferguson Marine could actually handle that kind of workload. Thomson reckoned the programme would take around five years, though he was quick to point out that a lot depended on when the contracts were actually signed.

As we reported earlier this year, Ferguson Marine has already been involved in Type 26 frigate block fabrication work for BAE Systems, completing three steel hull modules for HMS Belfast in the yard’s first contribution to a Royal Navy warship. That work has been central to Thomson’s argument that the yard is capable of competing for serious defence contracts alongside its civil ferry commitments.

Lisa West
Lisa holds a degree in Media and Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University. With a background in media, she plays a key role in the editorial team, managing industry news and maintaining the standards of the publication's online community.

24 COMMENTS

  1. It’s really vital that Ferguson along with any British yard remains flexible in the work its takes. It’s great that the Clyde has extra capacity so it can ramp up and down with demand for warships but there will never been enough work to keep all the yards going.

    • Things must be looking up for them then if they’re looking at this type of expansion as I thought a while back it was all heading in the opposite direction and that they were chasing for work? So good on ’em and for local employment.

    • I think 19 meters makes more scene , 1.9 meters is less then 6 feet that’s not deep enough for a building of that size

  2. HMG need to reestablish facilities on on the Tyne & support Birkenhead. There seems to be a total lack of investment in years south of the border

    • I agree
      Sorry George but Ferguson has been a SNP funded disaster and even they are putting the CALMAC new ferry orders out to Turkey and China not on the Clyde or south of the border
      The North East (Tyne ans Wear) has been neglected for too long and needs some attention from the UK and UKDJ
      Cammell Laird on the Mersey has built ferries for the Orkneys and the IOW recently but did not get a sniff of the CALMAC tenders
      Why not?

        • Not sure Coll
          Would have hoped so but CALMAC and Fergusons are SNP controlled and there is a feeling south of the border that anything ” English ” is to be avoided
          Hope I am wrong
          I myself am northern and we are envious of the rich south and the subsidised Scots to the North

          • Cammel Laird had a five year contract from CALMAC, staring in 2021, for maintenence. I am not sure if this is the last year. I think it’s down to the shipyard to bid for the contract

            Atleast for Cammel Laird, they build a section of the type 26, involved with Astute and Dreadnought, and have also completed a new ferry for the Mersey. Lairds is also used for maintenence and refits for the Royal Navy and commercial shipping.

      • Would allow ship repairs too and pre delivery cleaning up of a hull after launch which id done at Dales just now.
        Calmac could use it too to relive pressure on their facility
        Mot sure what Peel are going to do with Inchgreen.but could bevused for Faslane work until the new niily

  3. HMG need to reestablish facilities on on the Tyne & support Birkenhead. There seems to be a total lack of investment in years south of the border

    • Atleast for Cammel Laird, they build a section of the type 26, involved with Astute and Dreadnought, and have also completed a new ferry for the Mersey. Lairds is also used for maintenence and refits for the Royal Navy and commercial shipping.

  4. Is the site actually big enough to make this investment worthwhile?

    Why not move the whole operation to Inchgreen as there is loads of space there for a proper yard.

    The fire station could perfectly well be moved as all that costs is ££££ to build a nice new fire station.

    • Local Council must have opportunities to move the Fire Station IF it is getting Scottish Gov investment (lol) to redevelop the housing stock around Port Glasgow.
      Inchgreen has already reportedly been allocated UK Gov funds for development of some basic infrastructure so why not build a state of the art facility there and support a larger vessel fabrication and maintenance facility.

      • Quite.

        Buuuutttt….the issue is that Fergusons are still perceived as a bunch of jokers and if they are handed Inchgreen then nobody else can use it. Fergusons don’t really need an absolutely huge dry dock.

        At some point there does have to be a conversation about BAES yard as well as it isn’t optimal either and I’m not sure I’d have build the frigate she’s where it is now on a blank sheet of paper.

        • Absolutely.
          Inchgreen is needed as an alternative dock for the Carriers and larger support vessels to complement the existing docks. It needs to be under a reliable Sovereign ownership of the basic infrastructure and not an agency disinterested in Defence.
          Oops. That could be any UK Party on past and current form.
          Consolidation of facilities makes sense if the workforce is available. And there we go back to local Gov (Council/Scottish Gov) support and input.

          • The problem with Fergusons is that they are SNP controlled and not really fully commercial. Nobody in their right mids would trust SNP not to play games if it suits them.

            So even if SNP don’t say ‘don”t do defence’ there is always the ‘don’t piss off the goose that lays the golden ferries that keep us going’. So pressure doesn’t have to be overt.

          • Now that Navantia are investing in H&W it reduces the need for Inchgreen as a backup for the QE’s, the Belfast Dock is bigger, deeper and has existing facilities and a workforce. Inchgreen is big enough but will need a lot of work to be able to deal with the depth over the sill and has zero facilities or a workforce, to me it would make enormous sense to move Fergusons there as the existing site is show horned in with no room to expand.
            TBH we need both of them up and running and the crazy thing is both were Government funded in the 60’s, spookily the Belfast Dock is big enough to take a US Nimitz class carrier

        • Would it be possible to excavate the infilled dock next to Fergusons to form a dry dock big enough for the biggest vessel Fergusons can build.

          • You don’t really need a dry dock to build ships. You just need flat land with the bearing capacity to take a substantial concrete raft.

  5. The only place in the yard a shed of that size could fit is on the slipway and where the old shed is on the east side of the yard but then there would be no slipway or ease that’s the plan to replace the slipway with covered shed on a flat slab , the only other two places Inverclyde near enough to the water and big enough to accommodate a shed that size are in Greenock being the Inchgreen site which already has a mid sized shed and the wasteland beside Garvel dry dock, i will be interesting to see where they choose

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here