Alan de Enfield

Some examples (Page 207) BWB have disposed of more than 160 km of waterway. Transfers to other authorities covering some 45 km include: (1) Monmouthshire & Brecon Canal; the Monmouthshire length and Crumlin Arm (17.5 km) to various District Councils for redevelopment. The Board retain rights to transport of water and sales but the Councils are responsible for water-channelling or piping as necessary. (2) Grand Western Canal: transferred intact (17.5 km) to Devon County Council for amenity, including light boating. (3) Cromford Canal; the upper section (8 km from Ambergate to Cromford) to Derbyshire County Council for amenity, including light boating. 15.5.8 Substantial sales totalling some 110 km have been made piecemeal on the following Remainder waterways:- Ashton Canel, Birmingham Canal Navigations, Chesterfield, Cromford, Lancaster, Manchester Bolton & Bury, Nottingham and St Helens Canals, Shropshire Union Canal (Newpart, Trench and Shrewsbury Branches}, Swansea Canal. No navigable lengths have been sold. There is quite a bit more.

Indeed but on another 'fire risk' problem they decided that it was cheaper to pay compensation for the deaths of the relatively small number of drivers likely to be affected than it was to fund a total recall - It's all about money !

We used to manufacture conductive nylon clips for Ford. The problem was that when used with conventional plastic clips the brake or fuel pipes were isolated from the body / floor pan of the vehicle. The flow of fuel generated static electricity which could not earth until it reached a high enough charge to 'jump' to the floor pan. This arcing caused pin holes in the fuel pipes leading to complete failure and potential fire as the fuel leaked away. The use of electrically conductive Nylon meant that the static electricity could 'earth' thru the clips before it became a 'high enough' charge to cause arcing.

The RCD / RCR is still part of our laws, to enable UK manufactueres to sell in Europe - it is a multi $ billion business and 'steel skips' used on the canals get caught up in the legislation. The overriding 'authority' in the UK - British Marine - who represent Boat Builders, Boat brokers, parts manufacturers, marina operators etc etc have (apparently) instructed their members that they should not accept for sale any boat that hasn't got the correct RCD paperwork (if it should have an RCD ) Despite many forumites poo-pooing it and saying its rubbish, just find another broker, it seems to be affecting more and more people trying to sell their boats via brokers. The law would appear to be clear : 3.4 Distributor’s obligations The distributor is any natural or legal person in the supply chain, other than the manufacturer or the importer, who makes the product available on the market. Distributors have a key role to play in the context of market surveillance. A distributor must act with due care and their obligations are detailed in Article 10 of the Directive. Before making a product available on the market, the distributor must verify that: • The product bears the CE marking as required in Article 17 • It is accompanied by the following documents: Declaration of Conformity, instructions and safety information, the owner’s manual in the appropriate language for the craft and the engines if installed • It meets the product identification and traceability requirements, the manufacturer’s identification or the importer’s identification if applicable Where the distributor has reason to believe that a product is not in conformity, he must not make the product available on the market until it has been brought into conformity. Where the product presents a risk, the distributor must inform the manufacturer or the importer as well as the relevant market surveillance authorities. While the “old” Directive considered the action of “placing on the market and/or putting into service”, the new Directive broadens the scope to the action of “making available”. All three concepts are now defined by the Directive. A product is made available on the market when supplied for distribution, consumption or use on the market in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge.

My 'take' on this is that as a sailaway it is now classified as a 'completed boat' (to the stage it is sold at, and has to be fully compliant to whatever the build level is). Now that the RCD / RCR is 'for the life of the vessel' when the DIY owner fits out the boat (electrics, gas, etc etc) this is a major modification and the vessel (being built to the RCD / RCR and given a certificate) means that it now requires the fit out to be in accor dance with the RCD / RCR and hence needs a PCA. (Or maybe just an overwatch on the build by an approved surveyor, who can sign it off as compliant at the end of the build) In previous times when the boat was sold with an Annexe IIIA, it was 'not an RCD/RCR completed boat'. The rules came in in mid 1998, so if it was built in the 1st half of 1998 (which of course it would be) it does not need RCD / RCR certification.

The answer is still NO. You can request, you can beg, cajole or even threaten, say its all bullshine, make inuendo - I don't care. I know my idea(s) would bring a considerable income in & I don't need your approval or agreement.

Indeed, it was simply to show the level of investigation they went into when deciding which remainder canals to retain, to dispose of or upgrade to Cruising canal. Two committees (North & South) were set up to review, and they considered everything from the legal costs if a canal was closed but a bridge or lock was left in existence and someone fell, to what responsibility they would retain for (say) a bridge that was an access bridge and couldn't be removed, responsibility for flooding if the canal was unable to take surface water, etc etc.

"(d) a new obligation imposed on the Board to deal with all waterways not in the category either of Commercial or Cruising waterways, i.e. the remainder (termed for the sake of convenience the ‘Remainder waterways”) in the most economical manner e.g. either retention, elimination or disposal, as most appropriate. (e) local and certain other statutory and charitable authorities were given powers to enter into agreements with the Board for maintaining or taking over any Remainder waterways or parts thereof and to assume full responsibility or (in the case of local authorities) for making financial contributions towards the cost of maintenance in inland waterways". "3.6.3. On the other hand the Board has certainly acquired or assumed obligations in the course of years from which it would now be extremely difficult, if not impracticable, to get free. Before deciding — in the case of a Remainder waterway, for example — that it could be closed or eliminated, consideration needs to be given in each case to the nature and extent of the obligations involved. These questions are reviewed in Chapter 15." Section 15 of the Fraenkel Report (20 pages) Reviews the staus of the remainder waterways, costs of maintaing them vs costs of closing them etc etc etc and is a 'good read'. The first of the 1974 reports was limited to 234 navigable kilometres and strongly recommenced that they be upgraded to the Cruising category, For the first group maintenance agreements bad already bean concluced:- Ashton and lower Peak Forest Canal (22.5 km, agreement pending), eyewash Canal (17 km), Grand Union Canal, Slough Arm (9 km), Monmouthshire & Brecon Canal (52 Km), Caldon Canal (28 km). The second group lacked agreamendt: - Birmingham Canal Navigations (82 km), being priorities 1, 2, 3.1 and 3.2 of the 1970 Working Party report, see paragraph 15.5.3), Grand Union Canal, Welford Arm (3km), Kennet & Avon Canal (9 km), Hamstead Locj to Hungerferd), The Board was unable to support the Council's recommendations for the second group “owing to thelr limited liabitity”. The summary shows a table of the costs. No miracles involved , just an outsider looking in with an open mind and identifying alternative sources of income from existing resources.

Have you realised that the 'management' under discussion is the Government ? (Following MtBs post 14 hours ago, and subsequent posts)

But, would it matter who the 'management' is, they only have so much income and too much needed to do with it. Result = rationing ! Maybe they should increase their income to match the required expenditure ? (I wonder how that'd go down with the public)

If they are paying their £25 per night, giving the owner a 100% occupancy rate, I bet he's not worried if they never move out.

I agree, I also am seeing information about the grant system, but I am not seeing any facts. How long was the term for the Rochdale ? What was the agreed payback for early termination ? Who was the grant paid to ? Did C&RT amend the staus of the canal ? etc etc

That is interesting background to the grant system but doesn't really move us forward as you have not actually indicated the conditions of grant for the 4 canals you name. If you were responsible for ensuring that the grant terms were met, you would presumably be aware of the grant terms. Did this include the purchase of land, or simply restoration of the old canal route ? What was the 'term' of each grant, how many years remaining ? Who was the grant with ? (the restoration group or C&RT) Did C&RT accept the grant terms when it was handed over to them ? Did C&RT officially change the status from Remainder to Cruising. Appreciate your input. I'm not seeing any 'facts' I'm seeing a general outline of how grants work.

Yes (ish) C&RT are obliged to keep Cruising waterways open and navigable. But all those remainder waterways that have been re-opened because of volunteers 'taking on the canal' etc can still be closed UNLESS they have officially been given cruising status. and are logged by C&RT as such. Or, if it has a condition in the grant, from (say) the Lottery, and then who has agreed to the condition C&RT or the Restorers ? Obviously all of the current 'rest' of the remainder canals can just be left to be abandoned, if C&RT so wish. Any canal which is not on the list of 'Commercial canals' or 'Cruising canals' is classified as a remainder canal - there is no specific list of remainder canals.

Yes. C&RT are obliged to keep open for navigation all canals listed as Cruising Canals. I have never seen any document stating how they can be 'delisted', and nothing that actually states an AoP is needed. The 1968 Act graded the Board's waterways into three categories:— ‘Commercial waterways’ to be maintained in navigable condition for use by commercial freight carrying vessels, ‘Cruising waterways’ to be maintained in navigable condition for use by powered pleasure craft, and ‘Remainder waterways’ to be dealt with in the most economical manner possible whether by retaining, developing, eliminating or disposing of them.

It is written in an act of parliament that if C&RT cannot justify keeping a canal open (there are some restrictions and qualifications) then they can close it, sell it or give it a way. The folks saying they cannot do it are guessing that when a canal has been funded by (say) the lottery that there will be conditions as to what can be done with it. No one has yet produced evidence to substantiate that perception. C&RT are under no obligation to 'take on' any canal that has been 'bought back to life' by volunteers etc, but they have done in the past.

You are so predictable. But, in the greater scheme of things it matters not what you think.

No - the real culprit is not the lack of Government funding (why should the Government pay to keep our playground open) it is simply a lack of funding. C&RT need to both manage their resources better and find alternative sources of income. If a company wants my advice, they can pay for it, they always have and I'm not changing that now. I retired in 2005 and happy to just be an onlooker. My Son is in the same business - he advises big international companies on M&A and market opportunities - he invoices his time out at US$1000 per hour. If they want to grow income, they are going to have to invest in some proper business advice.

Well. I wouldn't invest in a volatile property market - the runaway increase in values were shown to be be built on very rocky foundations in 2007-8. C&RT have 71 reservoirs, they are supposed to know a bit about water management, and I can think of several relatively low-cost improvements/opportunities that would give them a good steady income - certainly a good additional income source, maybe not £50 million per annum, but potentially certainly in the £10s of millions after an initial period. Yes - another good example of self-destructive management decisions. Selling off the family silver to get a chunk of capital to invest in building developments. Then, having a huge loan, where the interest repayments are greater than the income the loan money is producing.

If C&RT is going to survive (and it would be nice if the could actually thrive) then they are going to need more 'business development' and Marketing minded people (not printing nice posters and blue signs - proper 'Marketing & placement' of the company) at the top, and a whole different ethos throughout the company. People with a background in the marine industry, rather than a Director of a Railway, or, 'working with' a US based 'anti-slavery' charity to raise money bring little to the table. At the end of the day, they are not a 'charity' under the normal 'man on the omnibus' interpretation, they are a commercial enterprise that has responsibility for keeping a 200 year old 'themepark' running after 40 (ish) years of underspend. When C&RT were handed the 'poison chalice' in 2012 it came with a backlog over over £100 million of repairs, They never stood a chance.

If they own a historic boat then they are probably 'ex' well off owners.

Maybe that is the answer. Very different to a 'few' amps at 12v

Take a longer term view (for example the pub chain and the Shopping centres they bought) they have a history of poor management, or was it decison making ! C&RT & BW previously have obviously never received much (any ?) training about business expansion. Even the simple Ansoff Matrix explains why you should keep one foot in what you know Develop new products for your existing market, or Develop new markets for your existing product. NEVER try and move into a new market and new products, (Known as unrelated diversification) it will (almost always) lead to failure. But, done well and with a lot of luck and good management it can reap big rewards. Just because the boss of an Inland Waterways Navigation Authority likes the odd pint, does not mean they are competent to run a chain of pubs. Just to save you looking - they had to sell up their investments in both the Pub chain and the Shopping centres for a humungous loss.

Global warming - its expanding with the heat !