IanD
Patron
-
Posts
11,295 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
86
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by IanD
-
-
8 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:
The grant received from the Millenium Commission was £12,840,000, they originally offered £15,000,000 but English Partnerships whittled this down.
Total estimated cost of the restoration since the formation of the Huddersfield Canal Society in 1974 was £45,000,000 (incidentally the Society is 50yrs old today!!).
I'm sure the the HCS will be happy (birthday!) that closure is unlikely to happen then... 🙂
-
1 hour ago, magpie patrick said:
Total funding for the Rochdale was £24 million or thereabouts, around half from the Millenium Commission, the rest from EP and local authorities. (Remember when local authorities had money?)
I think the HNC was of the order of £30 million
From which you have to remove those that aren't navigable, or are now cruiseway, or in some cases no longer belong to BW/CRT! (St Helens for example)
Edited to add - I will do that at some ppoint but don't have time at the moment
Using your calculations, that suggests that closing the Rochdale and HNC would cost CART something like £65M -- plus the other direct costs such as draining/making safe, so let's say £70M -- this could easily be more (£75M? £80M?) depending on closure costs.
CART annual spending on the canals and rivers is about £200M per year, which covers everything including rivers and reservoirs. For the sake of argument, let's assume they send £140M on canals (could be less?), so the closure costs would be at least half of the entire canal maintenance budget for a year.
How much money per year would closure save? The Rochdale and HNC total 53 miles long, which is about 3% of the canal network. If costs were equal per mile over the network closure might save £4M per year. Now these canals do have a lot more locks than most (about 120, about 6% of the network total IIRC) but then they're also used far less often than many others, which should reduce wear and tear.
Some of the numbers are (educated) guesswork, but it looks like it would take between 10 and 20 years for CART to make up the closure costs from annual savings -- and in the meantime they'd take a massive financial hit, which they'd presumably have to borrow money to finance. At 5% interest rates this would cost them about £3M a year at the start, so maybe £15M over the 10-year payback period -- which adds about 20% to closure costs, which means we're now up to 12-25 years break-even period, maybe even longer.
I can't believe that anyone with any understanding of business would think that this is a good idea... 😞
-
"Stoke-on-Trent" is a relatively modern name for the conglomeration of the six towns of Burslem, Tunstall, Fenton, Hanley, Longton and Stoke -- "The Potteries" -- after they were unwillingly unified into a city in 1910. Etruria was in Hanley.
-
1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:
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.
I smell bullsh*t...
If you're so brilliant at moneymaking ideas, why aren't you a retired CEO sleeping on a mattress stuffed with £50 notes on a superyacht?
Hey guys, I've got a *much* better (but top secret!) idea than Alan's on how to *double* CARTs income, all I need is a million quid or so to get it off the ground... 😉
-
3
-
-
25 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
[snip]
No miracles involved , just an outsider looking in with an open mind and identifying alternative sources of income from existing resources.
Such as? Realistic and costed ones please, not concepts viewed through rose-tinted spectacles... 😉
I suppose it's theoretically possible that you've got a load of brilliant ideas that neither anyone in CART or the consultants they paid to advise them on fundraising could come up with, but it seems unlikely -- apart from anything else, with that level of financial acumen I'd expect you to be a billionaire by now... 🙂
-
10 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:
No, I was merely pointing out basic truth.
Not only good prices, but good beer too.
Delicious beer, we tried quite a few of them (with pork pies for lunch, obviously) -- and a lovely pub for getting wedged in too... 🙂
-
11 hours ago, dmr said:
Nah, Ive just paid £4.80 for another one of the Cloudwater beers and it was very good, but still lots of stuff at £3.80.
Price list from the Holy Inadequate last week... 😉
-
2
-
-
33 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:
Further to this,
Remainder waterways that are navigable
BCN other than the New Main Line, the "branch to Black Delph" (connecting with the Stourbridge) and the B&F (all of which are Cruiseway)
Chesterfield Canal west of Morse Lock (which is a restored scheme but I've no idea how it was funded)
Ripon Canal between Bell Furrows Lock and Ripon (again, a restoration since the act)
Wendover Branch
Erewash north of Tamworth Road Bridge
Leeds and Liverpool west of Aintree*
Bridgwater and Taunton
*This is an interesting one, as whilst it wasn't restored as part of the Liverpool Link, the value of the link depends on this length of canal - where that leaves the funding contract issue would keep the lawyers busy I suspect
The Peak Forest and Ashton were upgraded to Cruiseway but a drafting error listed this as from lock 1 at Marple, and thus on a technicality the Marple flight were not upgraded! This error may have been corrected
This list isn't definitive - one problem of course is that the act doesn't list remainder waterways - they are "the remainder" of waterways that aren't on the other two lists
Not much of the network then, and as you say even less of the expensive-to-maintain-lock-heavy bits -- (most of) the BCN is the only exception.
Do you know roughly how big the EP and Millennium grants were for the Rochdale and HNC, which it seems would have to be paid back (about 70% but more probably 120% with interest) if they were closed?
39 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:Have you realised that the 'management' under discussion is the Government ?
(Following MtBs post 14 hours ago, and subsequent posts)
Probably -- but it doesn't make your earlier claim about how you could miraculously improve CART's finances any more credible, which is what was being commented on... 😉
-
1 hour ago, Sea Dog said:
I'd agree, but it seems a bit unlikey at 9 grand a year! Perhaps they're no longer visitor moorings, but they're still advertised as such and the "we're full" reply didn't suggest that. Shame, as it would suit my plan nicely, even at £25.
We stayed there for one night last year (and got a pump-out) but we had the only empty space -- I rang ahead to check they had one.
-
42 minutes ago, MtB said:
Do you hold that changing the management would help then?
Yes, because the government is not just running a canal network, they are in charge of our entire society and economy, and their policies can have a huge effect on people's lives -- and unlike CART they have their hands on the levers of power and money, they can for example raise large amounts cheaply and easily to invest in infrastructure (or the NHS...) by either issuing long-term bonds/gilts or "quantitative easing" (printing money).
Government finances are not like household ones, no matter how much certain politicians try to say that they are when crying crocodile tears abut how they can't afford something they don't want to do. Funnily enough, they seem to be able to afford to spend vast sums of money on the things they do want to do, whether these are of benefit to the public or just them and their mates... 😞
-
13 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:
That’s a bit of a confessional, Ian.I’m not sure why you dedicate three long paragraphs to the surcharge for boaters with no home mooring; other than perhaps to force your own agenda. In principle I have no objection to it.
What I do observe though is that CRT - along with some folk on this forum - fall into a trap of stereotyping those boaters.
The point I do have issue with is the conflict between what CRT have previously described as a home mooring in their licensing guidance and what they define as a home mooring for the purposes of the surcharge.
Ultimately I’m not sure why people in the fortunate position of being able to go boating in the manner of their own choosing would be so publically antagonistic toward what is largely a less fortunate group and who I observe have very little, if any, direct impact on the chief protagonists on this thread.
For sure there are piss-takers on the canals but where in life aren’t there? Mostly though it’s people trying to make the best of their situation within their own broadly reasonable interpretation of the rules. They really don’t deserve the language that is directed at them by some other boaters.
NB - I had considered myself to be a wealthy leisure boater but given I own what is possibly the oldest purpose built welded steel leisure boat on CRT waters I may have to rethink that.
I have loads of tolerance for people with different lifestyles to me, regardless of their appearance or wealth or canal usage or anything else, so long as they follow the rules/laws and have consideration for others -- this applies on the canals as much as anywhere else.
I don't have much tolerance for piss-takers who ignore rules/laws when it's convenient for them, and act selfishly to the detriment of other people or users of a shared resource like the canals. "CMers" is the label that has been generally used for one group of boaters who do this, with the vociferous support of the NBTA -- and like many others I don't see why I should be nice to them, any more than I should be nice to any other group who flout/break the laws, which after all are one thing that keeps society functioning.
There are poor people in all walks of life both on land and the canals who deserve sympathy and support, but the way to do this should be to provide them with a liveable income and perhaps try and make life cheaper for them, for example with a reduced license fee for older boats -- which for some reason many people seem to be dead against, possibly because they might end up paying more as a result -- or in some cases, just because I suggested it... 😉
Though going by the ages of many of the people and boats on CWDF, I suspect they would end mostly up paying less, not more...
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, MtB said:
Good point.
But remind me, where does the government get its funds from?
Us taxpayers. Unfortunately we don't get to decide where they spend our taxes... :--(
-
19 minutes ago, peterboat said:
Yes Ovo offered them the 2. Odd million for the straddle to expand into, they wanted the water below it as well. So it went to auction along with the arches and made just over 1 million. I know the owner of OVO and the sale is public record
Did OVO buy it then?
-
1 hour ago, GUMPY said:
HDPE is great stuff, hard enough to have strength but soft enough not to damage the paint provided all edges and corners are rounded off with a deburring tool.
Where did you get the HDPE strip from?
-
47 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:
Off the top of my head the Northern BCN is remainder and navigable, there are probably others. There aren't that many of them though.
Most of the expensive canals with big structures are cruiseways.
At least next time someone suggests that CART could save loads of money by closing down lots of expensive-to-run canals, we can refer back to this thread to show that this isn't the case... 🙂
-
17 minutes ago, PaulJ said:
Thats my point. Im always a visitor. Its often hard but not impossible to find a mooring.
If you spot a hole then grab it or be prepared to travel a while longer..
Ive never rafted up in London even on 70fters- but to be fair I rarely try to moor between Viccy Park and Whatdyacallit Cemetry/Paddington.
On the move early one morning I was just passing one chap who shouted at me that he was just leaving soon if I wanted a nice spot. So not so visitor unfriendly as Id never met him before- its not so bad
Which is of course where many boaty visitors to London would like to moor, for obvious reasons. And they used to be able to without the problems they have trying to do this today since the number of moored boats has gone up so much. I've seen how the numbers have increased over the last 30 years I've lived here near the canal and especially the last ten years and the difference is huge, even in the suburbs where I am.
As I said, if you're willing to moor further out (sometimes a *lot* further...) and away from shops/buses/railways there's plenty of space. But understandably many would prefer to moor either near these facilities or further in, and that's where the problem lies. And it didn't use to be like this... 😞
-
8 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:
Yes, although its some years ago
Grants are normally part of a package, as they match fund each other, so if the project involves land purchase then the grant will be based on land purchase, typically grants where land purchase is required a binding for far longer than if only works are required.
For Droitwich and Cotswold the term was 80 years - this was HLF funding (Cotswold isn't CRT of course)
I seem to recall (but it is now 25 years since I did the work) that Rochdale and Huddersfield were 125 years this was EP funding. Rochdale also got MIllenium Funding which may only have been 80 years (I don't know - not my department on that canal) but because of the package approach to funding CRT can't argue that the bit they're closing wasn't EP funded.
Usually the local authority (restoration groups don't have the capacity to handle multi-million pound projects) except Droitwich where it was BW, although curiously they didn't "own" the canal until it was finished.
The scheme could not be transferred without such an agreement, but for everything except the Cotswolds BW were signatories to the grant, even the Rochdale as they were signing the contract to manage it (the canal was leased to the Waterways Trust who were absorbed into CRT anyway).
Grant contracts are complex documents - I've been on both sides arguing about them. They are full of clauses and have very little wriggle room.
None of the waterways is now cruiseway.
All of which means that if CART closed the Rochdale or HNC they'd have to pay back a sum similar to the original EP/Millennium grants that funded their restoration, or maybe even more allowing for inflation. Either way, the sums involved would be huge, and *far* outweigh any maintenance saving by closing them, even over many years. I wonder if anyone has ever pointed this out? 😉
So yes, in theory they could be closed because they're remainder waterways -- but in practice they can't be, it would be way too expensive to make any financial or business sense.
Good news -- we get to keep the HNC and Rochdale, hurrah! 🙂
Bad news -- CART can't save money by closing them, so they're still in a financial hole, boo... 😞
-
Just now, Alan de Enfield said:
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
Some of which might also be commercially confidential, otherwise it would presumably be in the public domain.
We already know that both the Rochdale and HNC are still classed as "remainder waterways", IIRC you provided the evidence for this last time the subject came up... 😉
-
5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
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.
I'm seeing information from someone who knows a damn sight more about this than anyone else -- including you or me -- who has been arguing about this... 😉
If you don't want to believe this because it contradicts what you've kept on saying, that's your problem. I'm happy to believe it, for the opposite reason... 🙂
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:
Let me help you here - I'm one of the folks who works on the grant funding - in the case of two canals (Cotswold & Droitwich) I was the guy handling the money for HLF, and two more (Rochdale and Huddersfield) I had a responsibility for seeing that the restoration was in accordance with the grant terms, which in turn depended on who had given the grant - I was part of a team monitoring for English Partnerships and had to scratch my head very hard when upon abolition of EP the scheme was handed to NWRDA but without enough budget to finish the job. That's one of the reasons the shallows through Miles Platting (?) was only partially excavated - me (and others) deciding that so long as a navigable corridor was created that "would do" for fulfilling the grant purposes.
Grants ALWAYS have a term limitation, as in, the grant contract has a stipulation that the grant purpose must be maintained for a given period once the works are complete. If land purchase is involved in the project, it's usually 80 years. The only way to wriggle out of this would be to argue that, say, navigation wasn't the purpose of the grant but arose as a result of the grant works that are otherwise being maintained - such an approach is unlikely to succeed. The alternative is to pay the grant back - this is on a sliding scale but may also be index linked, so closing a canal 25 years into a grant funded term of 80 years might mean paying 55/80ths back but that would be adjusted for inflation... inflation since 2000 is approx 80%, so closing a canal restored with a grant, before the grant term expires, can be pretty expensive.
BW tried to stop running trips into Standedge Tunnel as they were losing money, but the boats etc were grant funded (this time 30 years) and repaying the grant would cost more than they were losing.Hurrah, some actual evidence at last from someone who knows the facts, instead of speculation!!! 🙂
So which "remainder waterways" canals does that leave that could be closed to actually save money then?
-
17 minutes ago, PaulJ said:
It was (presumably) an opportunist towpath scrote who just walked on the boat while I was moored at Tottenham for the night.
70 x12 widebeam so I never felt/heard anything despite the scrote walking in right behind me as I was dozing on the sofa. Lost me phone and wallet but had a lovely undisturbed snooze😀
@IanD I purposely dont comment on other boaters. They often turn out to be my customers. Besides in my case its the buggars that move that cause me to que at locks 😀
I do however like to put my side forward when it comes to London Boating- challenging it can be sometimes but its not really as bad as some would have you believe- 😱
I don't think the problem with boating in London is seen by those who CC/CM there, as you say there's a friendly community of all kinds of boats ranging from massive shiny widebeams to small scruffy yoghurt pots, some even afloat. The problem seems to be for visitors who can't find anywhere to moor -- especially in more popular areas -- because the towpath moorings are full of end-to-end boats (often doubled up), the free VMs are often occupied by chronic overstayers, and the few paid-for VMs are expensive or already booked (and sometimes already occupied by non-payers).
Yes there are plenty of towpath spaces further out from the centre well away from facilities and transport links but that's not where people want to moor (or stop) -- as soon as you get to a spot which is decent to moor and near facilities/shops/transport it's full of boats who rarely move to free up space -- or swap with a buddy elsewhere, either way this gives visitors the cold shoulder. Anywhere near the centre is chock-full, no free spaces even with double-mooring in the most popular areas.
It's resident-friendly but in many cases visitor-unfriendly... 😞
-
1
-
-
Just now, GUMPY said:
If I had to it would be a bowline.
However mine were attached in the same way a tent guy rope is easily adjustable.
That's a good idea, I might do that too 🙂
-
5 minutes ago, Mark R said:
I can't say I'll be abnywhere other than on the canal system where the bank height might vary slightly but the gunnel will still be protected.
I've now got fenders like that, and even in a trip of a few days I had to adjust the length -- you can have a high concrete bank almost up to gunwale level, or low armco/piling much closer to water level.
-
1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:
Yes.
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.
We're agreeing here then 🙂
Remainder waterways are vulnerable, some (e.g. HNC, Rochdale) may or may not be protected by grant repayments being required on closure -- which would have to be paid by CART since they'd be the organisation doing the closing. The K&A was converted to a cruising waterway some time ago.
But IIRC the other unprotected remainder waterways form a relatively small part of the system; many of the heavily-locked expensive-to-maintain canals are cruising waterways and very difficult to close even if this would save a lot of money, because the chance of getting government time for an AoP is pretty much zero.
Cavalcade and the NBTA
in General Boating
Posted · Edited by IanD
So how do you distinguish (and what do you call) boaters-without-a-home-mooring-who-follow-the-rules-and-keep-moving and boaters-without-a-home-mooring-who-flout-the-rules-and-move-as-little-as-possible?
Because the first ones are the boaters for who the no-home-mooring (now often called Continuous Cruising -- don't blame me...) exception was devised in the first place, and the second are clearly not. I agree that many of the second class are not on CWDF, but that rather misses the point -- there certainly seem to be plenty of them on the canals.
Whether you find overstayers/CMers/whatever a problem is very dependent on where you want to moor; I haven't had problems in London because my boat isn't here, but I see lots of boats doing this on a daily basis. But I have had difficulties finding visitor moorings in recent years in plenty of "honeypot" places like Braunston, Whaley Bridge, Skipton, Sowerby Bridge, Castlefield, Worcester, Stourport (how long a list would you like?) in a way that I never used to have (say) ten years ago -- and many of the boats on such short-term (e.g. 48h) moorings certainly don't look like short-term visitors, they're often still there if I pass by again a week or so later -- and according to @MtB some are still there months later.
Of course there are no problems if you want to moor out in the middle of nowhere where other boats are few and far between, but funnily enough some people -- including me -- want to moor in popular towns and villages because of the facilities.
If you can devise less divisive/pejorative (and short!) names than "CCers" and "CMers" and get these widely adopted so everyone knows what is being talked about then please feel free.