Talk:HSC Wight Ryder I

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Isle of Wight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of the Isle of Wight in South East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Isle of WightWikipedia:WikiProject Isle of WightTemplate:WikiProject Isle of WightIsle of Wight-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Article creation

Although this article was previously deleted, there is now a lot more information on the vessels. They are also due to leave their contruction sites in June to arrive shortly on the Isle of Wight, with more likely needed to be added for that. I think we're at the stage where an article on the subject would be appropriate. Editor5807^speak 18:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

I don't know if anyone else will share my views but Wight Ryder I's sister ship, Wight Ryder II is very similar to Wight Ryder I, both being purpose built for the same crossing. I think having two separate articles would result in a lot of repetition so I would propose renaming this artice HSC Wight Ryder I and II. Would be good to get other editors views as to whether this would be a good or bad idea, and whether there would be a better solution. I think with the current situation, the article can only cover the one ship. If there is ever a need in the future for a separate article this can always be created then. Editor5807^speak 11:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given WR II is mentioned significantly in this article, I have created it as a redirect. I suspect there is a good basis for a split into 2 articles, given there are reliability issues with one ship. Also, there is generally one article per IW ferry - if we went for a HSC Wight Ryder I and II solution then we'd probably need Saint Class ferry, Raptor Class ferry, Red Jet and Wight Class ferry articles to replace the existing ones for each of the others as well, which seems a bit unnecessary.--Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?} 00:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think I'd agree now, when I wrote the original comment there wasn't anything published about the reliability of Wight Ryder II, and as time goes on, no doubt more information will become available to justify two separate articles. Thanks Editor5807^speak 16:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engine Fault, Summer 2010

Local radio station in Portsmouth has been reporting "temporary service alterations" on the Wightlink passenger service for several weeks now. Speaking to non wightlink staff at Ryde today, the following gossip was conveyed to me.

Wight Ryder 1 has developed an engine room fault with an intercooler, apparently due to failure of a seawater cooling system. The engine is currently u/s. The builder of the vessel is no longer trading, but the engine manufacturer is caterpillar, however there is some dispute as to whether the defect was caused by a manufacturing fault with the Caterpillar equipment, or poor design / installation at the boatbuilder; in the latter case caterpillar aren't going to pay for fixing it.

Coming on top of the unexpected refurbishment costs for Ryde Pier, this is causing Wightlink some financing issues at present, as they may need to finance a partial engine room refit on Wight Ryder 1.

--DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 20:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for the details, it's more than I was aware of. It looks like the vessel will be out of service until at least 14th November now leaving an hourlyb service for most of the day to the great annoyance of Wightlink customers, so it probably is worthy of a mention somewhere in the article, especially as the IWCP and VentnorBlog have kept readers up to date with details which can be used as a reference. Editor5807^speak 19:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]