Stop the relocation of the Emerson Cavitation Tunnel

Dear Signers, I am writing on behalf of the Postgraduate Research Student body, School of Marine Science and Technology, with regard to the proposed relocation of the Emerson Cavitation Tunnel, as part of the renewal plan of the Boiler House. We have several concerns regarding the proposed course of action and timescale. Relocation of the tunnel in 2016 would cause the interruption of the tunnel activity for one year or more and consequently the interruption of ongoing research projects. We will be pleased to meet you to discuss in detail how severely this would impact on our work. As research students we really appreciate your commitment in making our University a more efficient and modern environment. More than anything, we appreciate the excellence of the teaching staff, the latest technologies, equipment and facilities that our School offers, which attracted us to study here. The Emerson Cavitation Tunnel (the only operational tunnel in the UK) is a unique experimental facility with a respected worldwide reputation and great historical value. It has contributed to some of the most important advances in the marine field and it still contributes to the state-of-the-art in propulsion, renewable energy, coating technology, ice research and numerous other areas. Most importantly, it is an integral part of the teaching and research of our School. The proposed timescale for its relocation would have inevitable consequences for us and for future recruitment. It would hugely impact on our research and obviously prevent other students from embarking on PhD studies in the future. Access to the Cavitation Tunnel is vital to the research of four of us and has been agreed with the project approval panel. Precluding the access to this facility for one year would also be in contradiction with the University’s Code of Practice for Research Degree Programmes. Moreover, with the downtime involved in the relocation of the tunnel, it would be impossible for some of us to co

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Dear Signers, I understand that there are a number of emails in circulation regarding the proposed relocation of the Emerson Cavitation Tunnel which is currently based in Newcastle City Centre, UK. I would like to take this opportunity to give you some further information about the relocation of the ECT, and the exciting potential that this development brings. When I was appointed as Head of the School of Marine Science and Technology (MaST) in June 2014, one of the projects I was asked to lead by the Faculty PVC was a review of the ECT. The main drivers for the review of this facility were the Engineering Excellence project which is developing a plan for how engineering will develop over the next 25 years, and also the University’s long term redevelopment plans. This review was completed in December 2014, and it was concluded that the ECT will play an important role in the future research in marine hydrodynamics (e.g. propeller design) and bio-fouling coatings. The University has had a long term vision to re-develop the area around the boiler house and refurbish the Armstrong Building, and part of that plan always involved either the closing or relocation of the Emerson Cavitation Tunnel. Following the review of the ECT, it was agreed in January 2015 that instead of losing such an important national facility, the University would instead invest in relocating the ECT to a larger dedicated building at the Port of Blyth. Several locations were considered for the relocation: the Stephenson Building as part of the University plans for Engineering Excellence, Science Central, the new Neptune site on the banks of the River Tyne and our newly-launched Blyth Marine Station. Following extensive research, it was agreed that the Blyth location offered by far the best opportunities; in addition, the new location is close to both the School’s Marine Station and the berth of the Research Vessel, Princess Royal. This purpose buil

Because the study of students stops during aperiod totransfer Emerson Cavitation Tunnel, I am against a transference

the re-location lf the cavitation tunnel will affect many researchers and future students! Now anyone can visit the cavitation tunnel in contradiction with re-locating it where someone has to travel to the new place! The researchers will lose time to go back and fourth

Any research tools/facility should be moved far away from a Uni campus. In the meanwhile no changes should affect the students possibility to carry out applied research activities.

Loosing not only a vital piece of equipment, but also the history of the school. Students and staff will undoubtably have less access to the tunnel once it has been relocated to Blyth.

This must remain on campus. Also, if moved irpairable damage my be caused.

When finances are so stretched why spend much needed money on a new site when the existing one within the University is world renowned and fully functional. The plan seems ridiculous.

There are a few people know that the tunnel has been contributing education of students. The head of school shoul know this.

At the very least such facilities should remain on Campus. As a graduate of the Dept and fellow academic from Glasgow, I agree with the comment from Atilla Incecik.

Improvement is a necessity, however shall be achieved without jeopardizing reputation and research excellence. Pls reconsider relocation and make history in a proper way...

Come on Newcastle University. You have a rich history of science and engineering; you are not an expanding branch of Starbucks.

Singing on behalf of a friend.

11 years ago Featured

The University's investment of £1.5M to further develop the facility in very welcome but this development should take place in the main campus at an optimum time agreed with Director of ECT, staff involved in the ECT and other stakeholders. Atilla Incecik, Founding Head of Scholl of Marine Science and Technology

Students in final year should not have any disruptions

what people have failed to realise is how truly global the reputation of Newcastle's Marine Engineering and Naval Arxhitecture is. The department's graduates are so international and carry the reputation across the globe, so that is where the damage from this sidelining of a vital piece of kit will be felt most. for it's part the department should make every effort to triumph their work, especially that involving the cavtun, so that its work is known beyond its 50 or so undergraduates and post graduates every year. Or emphasise the figures of how this cavtun almost keeps the department self sustaining financially.

Blyth itself is not a problem, I think. But moving a facility out of the campus will largely reduce the effect of interaction for teaching and research. Now students and professors would like to stay in the tunnel to do research and teaching. But imagine if the tunnel moved out of the campus, who would like to travel between campus and tunnel everyday spending at least two hours daily. Another reason is this sudden movement will disappoint most of the PhD students' study and all the projects.

What is wrong with blyth like?

I do not think that any research tools should be moved that far away from campus. And also no changes should affect the students possibility to research. We are paying in order to have access to this facilities!

B.Eng Marine Technology (Naval Architecture) 1992-1997 A large part of the tunnel's enduring commercial success is due to its location in the heart of the department. As students we saw it every day and its proud superintendents would gladly show it off to us and teach us about its capabilities. Now, as graduates spread throughout the world's marine industries, we recall the facility and recommend its use to our colleagues/clients/suppliers. Moving the facility out of the department will move it out of sight and out of mind and the university will lose the massive amount of free marketing it enjoys currently by its informed former students.