Mike Todd

I think you are over-extrapolating. Of course it is difficult to predict inflation, of any kind. If it were easy we'd all be doing it. However, whilst there are unanticipated changes in the rate of change, it is rarely a step function (unless we are daft enough to have a Brexit referendum!) and a budget based on extrapolation from the past few years is much better than a zero based estimate. But efficiency savings are zero-based - that is in most cases we have no prior history to build on, at least not directly and, to make it worse, there are two components which are differenced (ie the saving is the difference between a changing cost and benefit) which is inherently less stable. You also have to add in estimates of timing which may change for reasons entirely out of your control. For example, you may plan a new project only to discover that there is no-one prepared to tender for it on the planned timescale, just because they are already fully booked. (You may plan to save money on your heating costs by having a proper service but find everyone booked out for the next six months so no savings until much later) Too many organisation fixate on one year at a time budgets rather than longer term planning (planning in this way does not fit with the obsessed market driven politics that asserts that free market provision is always more efficient - that just ain't so!) But I agree that this does nothing to reduce the maintenance problem. However, careful what you wish for. Either we return to a publicly funded model with a block grant that is sized according to need but, as we see with much more important matters such as the NHS, we are long past the time when 'the public' (ie voters) are prepared to pay up taxation on the basis of meeting a general need and blindly believe those who promise to reduce taxes without impacting service levels. Alternatively, we go further into the free market model and that will involve all sorts of changes that many users, especially traditionalist, will inevitably rail against. One of the consequences of this approach is that the user voice is much more frequently ignored in the pursuit of the 'does it make a profit?' mantra. We could, then, stick with the mixed mode approach of part block grants and part market economics. It may be a bit messy but it is probably better than either extreme. But, without something like a charge for usage toll system, it will mean that a maintenance shortfall is all but a fact of life. Much better to concentrate on positive pressure to do things better, or even more efficiently, than just bemoaning that it is not perfect. CaRT Board know that and it does not take Cassandra to tell them.

I have seen evidence that the specs gradually improve over time as more experience is gained. (Contracts, in general, are all about plugging previous holes!) A small example is that of grass cutting where initially CaRT thought that it was enough to specify "please cut the grass on xxx canal" - and then had to insert clauses about how often, when and - more importantly - how to treat boaters and other users considerately and not spray a newly polished boat (or even one that has never seen polish) with finely minced grass cuttings. One of the problems with unsupervised direct labour is that those who do the work (but have no wider oversight) will insist on 'doing it their way' regardless of the implications elsewhere. Do you also remember 'task and finish' for refuse collection? Nightmare. Just remember - there is no silver bullet.

I must admit that I had thought that, as with most things on the canal system, there were almost as many solutions as instances. That is, some pump one lock others a flight and as many options in between as past engineers could dream up. It's what makes it all so fascinating but (see other thread) a nightmare to improve efficiency. Only rarely can a spare from one location (be it gate, pump, balance beam or whatever) be used somewhere else! When an emergency failure indicates trying to do so, they seem to end up having to 'adapt' the item.

Are you sure that that is the correct interpretation? It would be much more common to state what you expect the cost inflation will be without making efficiency savings. The cost inflation is relatively easy to do as there are plenty of indices to reference. However, estimating efficiency savings is much harder, especially with regard to timing. I recall seeing some organisations who built their budget on the basis that they would make x% of efficiency savings and came unstuck when they did not happen in the required time frame. They tend to be targets with which to beat people down below. The worst offenders are government ministers . . . I haven't seen the original material you reference but I would have thought it more likely that they mean that if they spent £100K this year then it will cost £103 next year to achieve the same result but that they hope to reduce the total costs by efficiency savings, some of which may include a reduced service level (many so-called efficiency gains are just about deciding what you can stop doing that no-one will complain about - immediately, anyway). Quite a lot will depend how far CaRT have moved from an expenditure organisation (ie they have a given income and have to decide how best to spend it) to an income organisation (ie a more market orientation in which their income is a result of how ell they sell their product and how efficiently they make it) I have been in both at different times past and they require very different management and budget techniques.

Taking the OP at his request: One of the difficulties in analysing long term trends on costs (spend) is where the underlying unit costs change. Most users (of almost anything) are not concerned with the actual costs but the effectiveness of that spend. However, this is not so easily measured or digested down to a few numbers. What is clear (at least to me) is that CaRT have been quite seriously trying to develop more cost effective ways of working - not always to the approval of traditionalists who perhaps seem to assume that below-minimum-wage operatives and ignoring H&S expectations are a good basis for business today. Being more costs effective may well require the breaking of the mould! If an organisation does succeed in find a way of doing a key task at less cost then, if the overall service level is maintained, the actual total spend will decrease without impacting the users. This, surely, is a 'good thing'. Whilst 'just in time' maintenance is oft derided (wait until it breaks before fixing it) it is not always obvious that the 'stitch in time' principle applies, especially where rapid deployment techniques are used. After all, this is what has driven down retail prices in places such as supermarkets. In this example, stock is not held on shelves in great quantities just because there is a monthly delivery schedule but re-filled on a few hours notice. It could well be the case that with canals, having rapid deployment and good on-site assessment can result in a lower costs with no, or limited, impact on service levels. after all, canals have always broken down from time to time! Assets with a long life can either be replaced on a schedule (like light bulbs used to be) or left until failure. In the former case it is quite possible that there is considerable 'wastage' whilst just-in-time might mean a rise in service interruptions (although that is not guaranteed). In today's society, perceived wastage is a growing target for adverse comment. (The reason that supermarkets have got into the habit of disposing of short dated food is almost certainly that they calculated it to be the cheapest way of meeting demanded service level but they are now discovering new markets for stuff once unused - I do tend to look for good deals on wonk foods!) I have certainly noticed this year a significant increase in the number of times that stoppage notices refer to reviews that mean that things are done differently, or deferred, or brought forward, in the light of on-site assessment rather than blindly going ahead with a stoppage that was planned two years ago. To me this is, at least prima facie, a good sign as it shows that CaRT are trying hard to use modern techniques in maintaining a ancient asset! Just one example can be found on a recent thread regarding soil injection technology. The use of radar to plan dredging schemes is another that was not available in the past. Whilst it is important that folk such as the OP continue to hold CaRT to task over their spending plans, I do hope that it can be done intelligently so that they are not deterred from trying new ways (some of which will inevitably fail if they are being adventurous enough) just because the 'public' don't like it.

I notice from an article in Towpath Talk that it says that the new RCD rules require the design to be such that a boater get successfully get themselves back on board in the event that they fall into the water. Does anyone know just what this might mean for a narrowboat, how fit and able does it assume that the boater is, and what solutions are considered to meet the requirement? (assuming, of course, that I have understood the original article correctly?)

It would not be a free phone line as it would have to be charged up.

The fridge power draw will be intermittent - it does not need to be continuous once the required temperature is achieved. This means that readings will vary considerably and you will need patience to get a figure that you can rely on!

As it happens I think all of our transits, certainly in more recent recorded times, have been downhill.

I was specific in asking about down times as up and down can be quite different depending on how the locks are designed and operated. NOt all fill and empty in the same time and some boaters are uncomfortable with just whacking up both ground paddles as quickly as possible. (Certainly not brilliant if a single boat in the Droitwich Barge locks - as also K&A, whilst other wide locks can be like pussy cats in comparison)

I have only now watched the video at home (as I try not to use up mobile bandwidth when away) and it seems to me that at the very beginning of the video the 'plank' that can be seen went in an unexpected direction judging by the reaction of the operative nearby. I would have thought that an objective risk assessment might have something to say about the consequences of such an item flying into a body with the energy that seemed to be the case from the video. The video also stops short of showing how they managed to lever the boat into the water at the far end - I'd be surprised if that did not involve some on-the-fly activity which often, because it is not thought through, is the cause of accidents. But then, I'm not sure what would happen if we applied the same rigour to boating through locks!

There is a danger (!) on this thread of confusing risk assessment and risk avoidance (or abatement). Just because a risk assessment is made does not on its own reduce the potential for risk. What it does do is highlight areas for taking avoidance action.

deleted - twas a bit unkind

Thanks for the informative replies - in my OP I was far from wanting to imply that it was a race or anything similar. However, we do get satisfaction from trying to work efficiently and smoothly - actually it often feels that in so doing one is also being the safest. As two old codgers plus one son we managed the flight in a couple of minutes under three hours. Son said that he thought that it ought to be possible with a larger and well trained crew to do it in under 2 hours 30 min but I said that I flt that it would be hard to take a full minute out of each lock as in most of them we were moving at full speed as soon as the gates were open (at 60ft we had space to revers back to the cill to get a well-timed run at the exit) The rest of the operations were pretty smooth as well. The only 'avoidable' delays came from three boats we met coming up, one of which was not at all experienced. The flight is 1.75 miles and each one took four minutes to empty. Assuming that the travel between locks averages 2mph (actually quite good going in terms of efficient timing) that equals 52 minutes which gives a total of 2 hours 52 mins so unless something unapproved is done to open gates quicker, I'd say that we were approaching an optimum. With only one person to open the gates we did take an extra 10 - 12 seconds by opening gates in turn rather than together. As I say, not about racing but practical industrial archaeology in trying to understand how working crews achieved optimum performance when time rally mattered. It is sometimes not obvious (even to those who simulate working boat operating) how it was done - every canal is a bit different and it is apparent that designs evolved in response to user feedback. Just one example - look at where tail gate landings are located and on which side.

I can't say for Tardebigge, but the chap on the top Droitwich locks said that this is the last weekend of the season for them.

Yes and no. It is a requirement that member states use VAT but the details and raters do vary. The main aim of much EU rules and regulations is fair and equal rules for everyone regardless of where they are. Hence the 'common market' which has been at least as good for us as for others. At least in principle the aim is that the openness encourages greater economic activity which should offset any possible disadvantages to particular niche situations. As I understand it, and someone may well correct me if I mis-state, the origins of this dispute lie in complaints from continental road hauliers who saw reduced fuel duties for the large barges that compete with them as being unfair competition. The UK canal situation is very different but any regulatory regime has hard cases unless their is some cleverness in devising rules that achieve both sets of intended consequences fairly.

Did hear a comment earlier this year from 'someone' CaRT that quite a few water points have gone because they are on private land and new owners have not agreed to continue to allow their use. I presumed that in most cases this was the consequence of selling off lock cottages without putting foolproof provision as a replacement. I also understood that there are actions being taken to find new options and I would hazard a guess that what is happening here is one case where they have found something.

Anyone know what the claimed record is for coming down the Tardebigge flight?

The passage under the motorway at the moment is quite extraordinary. Quite some scaffolding contract!

Should the builder not seek permission from CaRT for each launch sop that they can issue a stoppage notice? Seems to happen routinely with more responsible organisations.

As it says in Post 1, Fazeley Mill which is around the corner on the Birmingham and Fazeley. Close but a but tedious if you had planned to go straight ahead at the junction. Or have I misread the announcement?

I did see that - my post was sent before I received yours but did not think it worth commenting . . . However, given the potentially lethal consequence it does not hurt to remind people again.

Just don't do what someone did on the Regents Canal a year or two back and drive it straight into a power cable! Makes the notion of a 'bright spark' rather interesting!

Our new build has the immersion heater such that it can only run when the land line is connected and providing power. (or so I believe!)

Perhaps they are first cousins to a line of these alongside the bridge nearest to Chester Zoo.