[Let'splay 'Escape from Yorkshire']

13 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It's much the same problem that we have with both national and local government. You have people doing extremely well paid jobs that are supposed to be directed at making life better for the people using their services, but for some almost unimaginable reason, all the available money gets spent on administration, ie running the business, and not on providing the services the business is ostensibly for. I think it's one of either Peter's or Parkinson's laws.

So CRT will happily (and, to their paymansters, justifiably) spend money on a rebranding, on signs, on a Friends scheme that loses money, cycle paths, arrangements with other bodies to cheer up the towpath, and on all sort of other ethical schemes. all of which let them tick the right boxes on the application forms for their next job running another charity that spends most of its income on itself. Councils, for example, pay their chief execs huge salaries while not mending potholes or collecting rubbish, while closing libraries and tips. Ours actually pays even more to a consultant sitting in as a temp exec after the last one buggered off to another similar job elsewhere after making a pigs ear of this one.

It will always be harder to do a rather boring job properly - keeping the canals open in our case - than to focus on public relations rather than real work. But the latter is much less hassle, earns you lots of money and, after all, you don't care much about the canals, anyway. Almost all British management works on that principle, which is one reason why almost every successful apparently British company is now foreign owned.

Except when you look at the accounts there's no actual evidence that CART are doing that -- blue signs always get blamed but the spending is a tiny part of the budget (and is needed to keep the government happy with the "encouraging the public" KPIs they impose), the total CART spend on executive salaries is (IIRC) also a small part of the total budget. Anything the size of CART with its budget and the amount of work it has to do including contractors does need admin staff, who don't generally sit on their arses all day doing nothing.

 

CART have to spend money on PR because their KPIs emphasise the use of the canals as a linear park resource for the general population -- walkers, cyclists, fishermen... -- not a navigation resource for the few thousand boaters who actually use the canals for navigation (nuisances!). Yes this is bad for boaters, but it's what CART's paymasters want -- what would you have them do instead?

[Let'splay 'Escape from Yorkshire']

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

A combination of factors, but generally down to bad luck or bad management, and being gung-hoo 'lets do it',

 

One example that is regularly cited is the fact that they employed a 'new department' along with managers and a director, and paid chuggers to stand shakink 'tins'

 

The cost of all these people exceeded the incpme they generated by some £500,000 (appoximately) every year for at least the 1st 10 years.

In the 1st 6 years, they actually spent £5.5 million more in raising donations than they received.

 

Then there is the 'friends' situation'.

C&RT budgeted on having 100,000 'friends' within 10 years all making regular donations and / or direct debits etc.

If C&RT were 'on target' for the year 2018 they should have had some 60,000 friends signed up. In fact the actual numbers reported were somewhat lower. There were two figures released at different meetings (and in the annual accounts), one considerably lower than the other - the highest quoted figure for 'friends' was 24,100.

 

In the financial accounts for 2022/23 (10 years after they were formed) they show they had 25,948 'friends' registered - this presumably only gives them 25% of their expected income (based on them budgeting for 100,000 friends)

 

C&RT management seem to have a very high opinion of themselves and think that they can do things that others are unable to do, they set unrealistic targets and continually fail to achieve them.

 

When you 'add up' the £5m here, the £3m there etc. etc. it comes to a considerable sum which has meant they don't have the income they expected.

Like I said, over-optimistic Boris-stye boosterism when CART was formed, for which the blame is clearly on both sides -- government and CART management at the time.

 

But having come up against reality, the question is -- what could CART have actually done to raise more money than they did (in the real world, not cloud-cuckoo land!) and how would sacking Parry make things any better?

 

I understand why some people are eager to keep on blaming CART management (because it's easy to blame scapegoats?), but every time these questions are asked the silence from the detractors is deafening...

[Let'splay 'Escape from Yorkshire']

13 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

well there’s an exact example how things could be done better,

after having fundraised myself for 2 and half years, I know it could be done better. 
The friends scheme has a lot of potential. 
And it’s how we could get cyclists and walkers paying their £. 

It’s possibly a good example how CRT spent money simply to gain some approval from government without really making the effort. 
“If we do this, .. it don’t actually have to work, but because we’re making an effort the government will keep funding us”. 

so yes, the friends scheme is poorly managed, good idea, but poorly managed. 

 

 

How?

 

(serious question -- it's easy to say "could be done better", it's much harder to do it)

 

The "Friends" idea seemed to be modelled on the way the National Trust works and brings in money, while ignoring the massive differences between NT properties and the (closed) access to them and the benefits of membership (e.g. free entry vs. paying a significant charge) which simply don't apply to CART and the canals which are all open access, so very difficult to monetise. Why should walkers and cyclists pay their £ when they can just walk (or cycle) in and out?

 

And no, it's not realistically possible to control access to the canal towpaths or monitor/charge for use, they're simply too spread out with too many open entrances/exits -- they're not like a stately home with a fence/wall, manned gatehouse and tickets... 😞 

[Let'splay 'Escape from Yorkshire']

34 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Ok fair enough, 

thinkimg I’m getting there with this strawman thing

and that I don’t think anyone can disagree with. 

and that’s the obvious problem, of course it is,

 

but CRT said/claimed/promised they’d become more self sufficient over time. 
And they haven’t. They were supposed to fill that funding gap themselves. 
 

I’d like to know why they haven’t. Why have they failed to do that?

Of course the cost of Blue signs alone can’t be to blame but the energy/potential/possibilities of CRT I think has been misdirected and could be why they’ve stuffed up. 
 

 

Because it was all over-enthusiastic pie-in-the-sky bullox driven by a government who wanted to get CART off their books and naive (but well-intentioned) management who thought they could find magic money trees where none had existed before -- like the "Friends" scheme, and others where the future income looked bigger when viewed through rose-tinted glasses.

 

The fact that none of this turned out to be true shouldn't come as any surprise, it's easy to come up with schemes which are supposed to raise lots of money which come crashing down when faced with reality, startups and companies make the same mistake all the time.

 

So from that point of view the over-optimistic CART management (and government) at formation were to blame. But it's difficult to see how any different management could have done much better in reality afterwards, or why replacing Parry and co. will make the situation any better today, because you can't get blood out of a stone.

 

It's easy to be boosterish and handwave about "possibilities" and "potential", it's far more difficult to actually deliver on this -- as CART (and Boris...) have found... 😞

[Let'splay 'Escape from Yorkshire']

7 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

This then is where I’m failing to understand the strawman concept/notion

 

 Midnight never mentioned the NHS or immigrants but you replied with some sort of comparative remark to support your view and denograte his, 
that’s strawman ain’t it?

 

your first statement dealt direct with what he said 👍

but was the last bit a bit strawdoggish?

 

 

 

No, I *wasn't* claiming that Midnight was saying that about immigrants/NHS, I said he was making a similar argument (wrongly redirecting blame away from the real culprits) to those who do -- I could have picked many other examples, but those are two that I assume everyone understands.

 

A strawman argument would be -- for example -- if I'd said he was idiotic to claim that Parry was responsible for [something he never blamed him for e.g. climate change] and then ridiculed him for this.

[Electric propulsion with generator ?]

10 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

All of the high voltage  DC equipment I have seen won't work without the batteries connected.

 

I cant see any boat producer using anything other then ELV systems for the reasons you give because the production volumes are too low. With cars it makes sense for the manufacturer to use higher voltages because the weight penalty of using lower voltage systems will be even greater and of course it locks the maintenance into the dealerships.

 

It's not just the weight penalty, it's the sheer impracticability (and cost!) of having 100kW+ systems running on 50V due to the massive currents involved (thousands of amps) and the much higher losses in all components, especially controllers and cables. It's why more and more cars are moving from 400V to 800V, cable sizes drop by a factor of 4 and ultrafast low-loss charging becomes much easier, partly driven by the advent of modern high-voltage electronics like SiC which can switch these voltages with very low losses.

 

It doesn't lock maintenance into the dealerships, but it does lock it into workshops (which can still be independent) with HV-qualified mechanics and equipment.

 

None of which applies to canal boats at power levels of tens of kW, which as you say is why they all use ELV systems -- at least, those professionally supplied and/or installed as opposed to DIY... 😉 

[Let'splay 'Escape from Yorkshire']

2 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

 You’re about as likely to whinge about Parry as ……IanD is to whinge about London mooring. 
 

You need to work on your strawman arguments a little more. 😂

Except one is blame misdirection and the other is not... 🙂 

 

You need to look up the meaning of strawman argument a little more... 😉 

[Electric propulsion with generator ?]

Just now, cuthound said:

 

With higher voltage battery systems (>50v DC), it is usual to prevent casual access to them, so that no one can get to them without tools or appropriate keys and common to interlock the access with a system to open circuit breakers to restrict each section of the battery to sections of 50 volts or less so that you don't need people trained on HV systems to maintain them.

 

True -- but this doesn't just apply to the batteries, it applies to everything connected to them, the entire electrical system. And splitting the batteries doesn't help for any of the equipment (and connections to them) that runs off the higher voltage series connection... 😞 

 

Given that most boat maintenance s done by the (non-HV-trained) owners, locking them away isn't going to be very helpful either in practice -- and it also opens up the boatbuilder to liability if the access precautions are not secure enough or bypassed. HV training is already a big issue for garage mechanics working on EVs using 400V/800V systems, as well as the vehicle manufacturer who has to make sure everything is safe even against idiots...

[Let'splay 'Escape from Yorkshire']

2 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

Me "whinge about Parry & Co" ....

                 ...as if I would 😆😆😜

 

[Going back to the same places from a marina?]

Just now, Iain_S said:

The converse was a friend with a boat fitted with a Beta Propgen, where the engine stays at 1500 rpm, with the propeller speed controlled by a trolling valve. Occasionally shouted at, even though hardly moving.

I haven't had the same issue passing other boats with the (1500rpm) generator running, but I suspect it's quieter than a Beta Propgen from outside the boat (smaller engine, better noise/vibration isolation).

[Let'splay 'Escape from Yorkshire']

1 hour ago, Midnight said:

Again!!!!

 

One might think Parry & Co are useless, but I couldn't possibly comment.

 

 

Or one might think you're pointlessly CART-bashing as usual... 😉 

 

No they're not doing a good job of keeping canals open, and the problem is getting worse every year -- but all the evidence (as opposed to invective...) suggests that this is simply because they don't have enough money to do the job properly.

 

And never have had ever since CART was formed, but the funding gap has been getting bigger since then and the maintenance backlog has got bigger every year, and more stoppages are the direct (and predictable) result.

 

No amount of whinging about Parry (or blue signs...) or demanding his sacking will make the slightest difference to this, it's just diverting attention from the real problem -- like blaming illegal immigrants and refugees for the housing/facilities/jobs problems of the UK, or blaming NHS doctors and nurses for escalating waiting lists and falling treatment rates... 😞 

 

And yes, I'm going to repeat all this every time you whinge about Parry... 🙂 

[Electric propulsion with generator ?]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The ISO specification for boat wiring : ISO 13297:2020 quotes

 

This document specifies the requirements for the design, construction and installation of the following types of DC and AC electrical systems, installed on small craft either individually or in combination:

a) extra-low-voltage direct current (DC) electrical systems that operate at nominal potentials of 50 V DC or less;

b) single-phase alternating current (AC) systems that operate at a nominal voltage not exceeding AC 250 V.

This document does not cover the following:

— electrical propulsion systems of direct current less than 1 500 V DC, single-phase alternating current up to 1 000 V AC, and three-phase alternating current up to 1 000 V AC, which are addressed by ISO 16315;

 

Which is why (almost?) all the builders who professionally install hybrid systems use 48V (nominal) batteries, so everything in the electrical area (propulsion, inverter, batteries, busbars, shunts, isolators, PWM controller, MPPT outputs...) is then classed as ELV and has very simple shielding/insulation/safety requirements.

 

Yes there's a separate category for propulsion systems at much higher voltage/power (e.g. bigger boats/ships), but this has far more stringent requirements -- as would be expected.

 

I'm sure @Peterboat will pop in to say that his higher-voltage (72V?) DIY system passed BSS inspection so it must be OK. My guess is that the inspector wasn't aware of the detailed ELV requirements, and after a quick look said "yeah, that's OK" -- which isn't the same as it being 100% legal if an inspector is being picky, which is what professional installers will be concerned about... 😉 

[Going back to the same places from a marina?]

8 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Is that because it travels so quickly and silently that you have passed before they realise and have begun to rock on the following waves?  

 

 

I suspect I'd get away with that if I was feeling sufficiently selfish... 😉

 

But I've been going past at similar (i.e. relatively slow) speeds to what I did on diesel boats, where I regularly got "Slow down!" shouts from the usual angry culprits, so I suspect they're fooled by the lack of noise triggering their response. I always suspected that it was engine noise not wake that made them pop out, and this seems to have confirmed this...

[Going back to the same places from a marina?]

2 hours ago, Grassman said:

 

And the other day they had the cheek to tell me to slow down even though I was on tickover!

 

Nobody's ever asked us to slow down since we got the new boat, even at Great Haywood... 😉 

[A Yankee Neo's Flog]

1 hour ago, CruisingRobin said:

Well, I was glad for the raincoat.  Pretty chilly on there.  Hope my use of the parka doesn't spoil the effect.

 

The tunnel was a gas!  Better than anything in Disneyland.  And I grew up in Disneyland.  (That's a lie.  I grew up in a shopping mall.  We vacationed in Disneyland.)

 

 

If you liked Harecastle, you should try Standedge on your next trip... 😉 

 

 

 

[Electric propulsion with generator ?]

37 minutes ago, BEngo said:

For a pure diesel electric set up I would investigate a 3 phase generator, variable frequency drive and 3 phase motor.  Its probably going to have to be 415 V so well out of the LV region and will want some proper design work, but should be much more efficient than typical battery hybrid systems.

 

N

 

There's little point for a canal boat having diesel-electric drive -- it's used on railway locos (with a lot of added weight and complexity) to enable high starting torque and maximum power at a wide range of wheel speeds, but a boat doesn't need this because a prop absorbs very little power at low rpm.

 

Once you add a big LFP battery bank and solar (series hybrid boat) the picture changes because as well as lower fuel consumption (can even be zero in summer if you don't move all day every day) you get silent cruising a lot of the time, which is *brilliant*... 🙂 

 

But it makes no economic sense due to the high cost of a cocooned generator and electrics, it's currently (see what I did there?) a luxury solution for those with deep pockets who value silence... 😉 

[Internet/data access on boats -- some tips]

11 hours ago, Midnight said:

 

Does EE allow WIFI calling?

I think 500GB would be fine but i can't find an EE 500GB so maybe have to get this one or switch to Three
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Unlimited-Data-Sim-Card-Business-Grade/dp/B0D14SYZRJ/ref=sr_1_4?crid=3PABWCSURSTVO&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.gei-xWA19bh--XmnFPXB7zK4oRwqZ80DmjXrhhbZ4nheJzKN1NLmTNi8lzvisAUxdCSq2SNyTZ6cHrRKZNB7hrn_HpIR3dL_Poiu8G5BShAk-orSsP01JUmrduYytwdqIqAhMJYrd0K6umtmXnz_GBIDGbLFucfVyzfAW4gNQtG1jfeYQZ1IPKoql6DN1s8ZfNOxBdQYLMqox2Mdf88U-6jehlAMnWF-UTl6ERWRCBY_VAWuZkA_gokzpw93JyMbPY340ibC6oGHmcxXYWRsuEnttROoTEltgTqjmYNHexg.hZ2FbMq4j8oxqPpkgnm467cog0aFdO-DOJBfP4z_Mb4&dib_tag=se&keywords=Scancom+EE+Unlimited+5G+Data+SIM&qid=1715117455&s=electronics&sprefix=scancom+ee+unlimited+5g+data+sim+%2Celectronics%2C94&sr=1-4

EE does allow WiFi calling, I expect the Scancom SIMs do since they're just EE Business SIMs -- see attached picture.

 

You're right, on EE they only seem to have unlimited SIMs. On Three you can get 500GB/month until 8/8/25 for £99 which is £6.60pcm.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Three-500GB-Data-SIM-Preloaded/dp/B0BDSH3V49

[Internet/data access on boats -- some tips]

10 hours ago, Midnight said:

My router's data sim agreement with O2 ends soon (£30 per month unlimited). I have been happy with the coverage. Last year we did a big trip from Yorkshire down to London and back and only a couple of days with a poor signal. We changed our phones to O2 last October which would  mean a small discount.

So should I renew or are there better options available?

Do you know how much data you actually use?

 

If you're on the boat all the time and use a *lot* of data (e.g. regular TV streaming) then an unlimited SIM from Scancom is the cheapest long-term solution (but a 500GB one is a lot cheaper and almost nobody uses more than this). EE have the best coverage across the country especially in rural areas, then Three, then Vodafone, O2 are last -- see "Consistency" results here:

 

https://www.opensignal.com/reports/2023/09/uk/mobile-network-experience

 

If you don't want to pay up in advance and get locked in then a pay-monthly SIM from someone like Smarty (Three) or 1pMobile (EE) might be better. This also applies if you're not on the boat all the time -- for example I use 1pMobile, when I'm not on the boat I pay £3pcm for 1GB (plenty for remote access and monitoring), when I'm on the boat I top-up with 1-month data boosts (10GB/£8, 50GB £13, 200GB £18).

[A broad view of canal boat licence fees (The other side)]

22 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

There is no real difficulty - in law - to enforcement of the existing rules. The procedure is well known and used. Alas, it is (deliberately) expensive and lengthy and CaRT have finite resources, which would remain the case whatever the rules, so long as they impose a restriction (opening up fully unrestricted mooring with no time limits is too problematic to contemplate)

 

To propose and alternative set of rules to the present lso brings the responsibility to define how and at what cost, the 'better' enforcement would occur.

 

Permission to moor indefinitely is not the same as winter moorings which have a defined subset of the months in a year. In any case, beware rocking that boat as its legal basis is a tad debateable and the previous attempt at winter moorings was scuppered by folk who wanted to challenge its legitimacy (wanting better terms I think, so they got nothing!)

 

You have to remember that whatever change is proposed there will 'winners' and 'losers' with the losers always willing to put up a legal challenge. In your case, there is a real risk, I suspect, that some Nimbys, or a group of them, will go down the route of planning law to prevent and might even, in the process, obtain more unjustified No Mooring signs.

 

I think you need to justify the Straw Man challenge if you wish to repeat it. 

 

It doesn't need stating that with any rule changes there will be winners and losers, and resistance from the losers. The key is whether the rule change improves things overall; given the uselessness of the current CART mooring rules/enforcement in so many ways (e.g. forcing those to move who shouldn't really have to, and not making those who should move do so, while not extracting enough money from either group, *and* pi**ing off the rule-followers by allowing the rule-breakers to ignore the rules) it's difficult to see how a change could makes things worse.

 

On straw man, the discussion was about allowing extended stay moorings instead of forcing needless moves every 14 days, specifically on the CART-owned canal towpaths "out in the sticks".

 

You argued against this by suggesting that this was unworkable because it would be unacceptable for people to be allowed to build lots of houses (or park caravans?) anywhere they wanted, for example on farmers fields (or village greens?).

 

Since boats are not houses and the CART-owned towpaths are not farmers fields, and nobody (including me) was suggesting what you said, this is a straw man argument.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.^[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition."

 

.

[Huddersfield Narrow and Rochdale Canals.]

3 hours ago, Quaffer said:

Ian,

I missed this debate and some interesting points were made on the thread. However as the Grant Funding Documents are not in the public arena and with these two waterwayus classified as remainder waterways, I don't feel as confident as you.

 

CRT may never officially close either waterway if there is such a liability but with continued localised closures at various location this will lead to a situation that through navigation is impratical ,a de facto closure in all but name . A general lack of planned preventative maintenance will then lead to yet more unplanned closures at other sites which in a roundabout way justifies much less spending on PPM if  very few boats are using the canal in question.

The information about HNC/Rochdale funding and what would have to be repaid by CART on closure came directly from @magpie patrick who was actually involved in the funding processes, I don't see how anything can be more authoritative than that.

[Huddersfield Narrow and Rochdale Canals.]

5 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

Unsure, currently trying to find the post on Facey for more detail

Given that the summit locks are currently locked and only opened for a brief period each day by volockies/staff who supervise their working, I can't see how else they could have got through and left gates/paddles open -- unless it was going down the locks after that, which wouldn't have lowered the summit level...

 

I love both the Rochdale and HNC, behaviour like this is just unforgivable... 😞 

[Huddersfield Narrow and Rochdale Canals.]

3 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

I believe this to be the case. Originally i'd heard the canal water, once used, was discharged into the nearby River Colne and not the canal. On querying this the most i could get from the University's Carbon and Energy Reduction Officer was; "The water is returned to the canal with no losses". That's all he would say and would not specify which canal it was returned to, or respond to further queries.

 

There was a recent report of a cruiser with two blokes on heading over the summit leaving locks open and paddles up behind them, this happened a few years back as well. Same blokes? Who knows.

Did they cut the padlocks off too?

[A broad view of canal boat licence fees (The other side)]

4 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

what I’m seeing at the moment is congestion around Railway Station towns, so I can’t see your proposal working for those boaters, last place they want is out in the sticks. 
they’d prefer to move to the next town every 14 days for no extra charge. 
 

 

One of the usual objection to the 14 day rule -- from several people on CWDF! -- is "I moor out in the middle of nowhere, why should I have to keep moving? And lots of other people could do this with no problem...". Let's solve one problem at a time...

 

If the problem is congestion around station towns then that's the "honeypot" problem, just like in London or Bath. That needs solving too. Any suggestions?

 

(or if they do move every 14 days, the existing rule is working and doesn't need fixing...)

[A broad view of canal boat licence fees (The other side)]

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I think anything where the thrust of the argument is "its similar to the winter moorings, and that seems to work" is on shaky grounds.

 

What exactly is/was the problem with winter moorings -- councils, bolshy boaters, NBTA, CART lawyers...?

 

If the problem was that they were "designated moorings" (like car parks) then the "moor anywhere outside honeypots for longer" idea shouldn't fall foul of this, should it?

[Huddersfield Narrow and Rochdale Canals.]

10 minutes ago, dmr said:

The Rochdale summit is currently struggling for water despite efforts from CRT and so I fear it might get closed before too long, especially of we have a lot of dry weather..

 

Its very easy to blame CRT for this but boaters going over the summit without booking and cutting the padlocks off as they go really doesn't help.

Has this actually happened, or -- worse! -- more than once?

 

If it has, some boaters really are their own worst enemies... 😞