Jump to content

CRT Employees attitude


canalboat

Featured Posts

4 hours ago, Heartland said:

Bur here is a thought, the Nationalisation of the waterways network was by act of Parliament,  but I have noticed the order that led to their establishment and granted them specific powers in June 2012 was simply that. There has been no act as far as I can see. 

What exactly are you suggesting – that the creation of the private company as trustee of the waterways was legally ineffective?

 

You are correct that the 2012 Order is only secondary legislation, but it was authorised by Parliament under the terms of an Act – the Public Bodies Act 2011.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Heartland said:

Helpful, yes. more of them apparently so, if you count all the fund raisers and volunteers. There is the Wellbeing aspect of the Trust, to remember.

 

Bur here is a thought, the Nationalisation of the waterways network was by act of Parliament,  but I have noticed the order that led to their establishment and granted them specific powers in June 2012 was simply that. There has been no act as far as I can see. This state of affair has given everybody access to the towpath and also forged a measure of protection for disused waterways, bur as to their desire for developing freight on their network, this appears to have less urgency.

You've obviously missed the work of the Trust's Freight Group which has led to an offer of £3 million plus funding from WYCA to help develop 'Port Leeds' at Stourton along with a major port operator and the Trust.  Planning permission is expected shortly with work starting early next year and opening hopefully late 2020 or early 2021.  Euro money is funding an engineering  study commissioned to review options including one for widening the lower part of Bulholme Lock which will enable vessels of 6.5-6.7 metres beam (Euro II dimension) to reach Leeds (current beam from Bulholme  is 6.1 metres).  The intention is to use these projects as an example to encourage similar opportunities elsewhere on the Commercial Waterways e.g. the SYN,  River Severn or the Weaver.   The Freight group report  also supported use of the leisure waterways for freight where practicable but obviously opportunities are limited to 'niche' movements such as coal and fuel supplies, short haul etc.  CBOA has opened up a dialogue with the West Midlands CRT and local authorities promoting the BCN in particular, but with the move away of industry from waterside locations there are no immediately obvious movements that could change mode.

 

David L

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a recentHaving just got back lot of CRT from a run off the Chesterfield on to the Trent, then T and M, Staffs and Worcester Shroppie the Langollen then back thru Manchester. Huddersfield Narrow anfd down to Keadby and home.A long run where we came accross a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, John Hartley said:

After a recentHaving just got back lot of CRT from a run off the Chesterfield on to the Trent, then T and M, Staffs and Worcester Shroppie the Langollen then back thru Manchester. Huddersfield Narrow anfd down to Keadby and home.A long run where we came accross a...…….

A burning straw man with dozens of naked villagers dancing around celebrating independence day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly are you suggesting – that the creation of the private company as trustee of the waterways was legally ineffective?

 

You are correct that the 2012 Order is only secondary legislation, but it was authorised by Parliament under the terms of an Act – the Public Bodies Act 2011.

 

-I was more concerned about how the CRT saw their responsibility and duty. There has been a change in what is done now compared to the former BW regime.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Heartland said:

-I was more concerned about how the CRT saw their responsibility and duty. There has been a change in what is done now compared to the former BW regime.  

I understand British Waterways original brief was to close down the inland waterways?

C&RT is, hopefully, more interested in conserving and restoration. For example I believe C&RT contribute to the ongoing restoration of the Grantham Canal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found that CRT employees are generally helpful knowledgeable and very good. Not all wearing CRT shirts/jackets are CRT, some/many are volunteers who rage from very good and helpful,  to like to sit and watch the boats and don't help, to little tyrants who know best and you will do it their way or else.

Contractors staff on the other hand will probably be on minimum wage, zero hour contracts, so they want to make the job last and have little incentive to use their initiative, if indeed they are allowed to. They also have no idea if they will ever be back to the location so have no ownership.The other year I was going through a lock in winter and there was a man pointing the bridge parapet, it was below freezing and only going to get colder. We chatted and he said he knew it was a waste of effort, he then pulled out his phone, took a picture of the work to send to his boss, to show he had done the work scheduled by the 'system'. later four months later we saw that the pointing had been redone that day so the first effort was indeed wasted, but contractors do as they are told, no more and if they can even less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MartynG said:

I understand British Waterways original brief was to close down the inland waterways?

C&RT is, hopefully, more interested in conserving and restoration. For example I believe C&RT contribute to the ongoing restoration of the Grantham Canal. 

It was hardly BW’s brief to close down the inland waterways, although such an impression is understandable, because they spent the first 6 years of their existence passing one Act after another dedicated to doing just that, piecemeal, until the Transport Act 1968 drew a line under how far they could go with the process.

 

The purpose of the then BW’s management was, of course, dictated by commercial considerations more than distaste, despite the government intent to preserve the waterways from market forces, through nationalisation. The tragedy of the 1968 Act was that while imposing an enforceable obligation on BW to maintain the waterways to minimum standards, there was a ‘get-out’ clause that effectively allowed them to plead impoverishment as an excuse for any failures to meet those obligations.

 

For so long as the waterways were in government hands, that get-out clause was not especially significant, because government were obliged to supply the necessary funds (although their absurd system of apportioning funds led to considerable budgeting difficulties for BW). Now that control has been privatised, following the promise of the old guard to become self-sustaining, the plea of impecuniosity has become an all too real bar to practical enforcement.

 

Unless something can be done about transforming the current CaRT ethos in top management, conservation and preservation (let alone improvement) must remain largely in the realms of hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive been 40 years on the cut so I know one or two of the old staff from  BW Days and sadly the Heads do appear to have gone down slightly and some of them will happily tell you why . 

For example how dedicated and focussed can you be on a Job whilst Management seek to replace you with a Volunteer . Personally I have nothing but admiration and respect for the decent CRT staff I often meet Canalside though I have to say that the Office Based Staff can be a different matter entirely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several years ago, heading for Keadby lock on the S&K, we were delayed by a broken swing bridge. The engineer arrived after a little while, fixed it and told us to set off and go for it, he went ahead round the lanes in his van and had every other bridge on the way open for us. We made it with 10 mins to spare! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless something can be done about transforming the current CaRT ethos in top management, conservation and preservation (let alone improvement) must remain largely in the realms of hope.

 

Such a comment highlights a concern not just about ethos but perhaps in a wider spectrum. This is now the seventh year of CRT. Three years ago there seemed to be a determined effort to absorb the Environment Agency Waterways into the CRT network. This has yet to happen, and in the present circumstances raises the question if this is for the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Heartland said:

Unless something can be done about transforming the current CaRT ethos in top management, conservation and preservation (let alone improvement) must remain largely in the realms of hope.

 

Such a comment highlights a concern not just about ethos but perhaps in a wider spectrum. This is now the seventh year of CRT. Three years ago there seemed to be a determined effort to absorb the Environment Agency Waterways into the CRT network. This has yet to happen, and in the present circumstances raises the question if this is for the best.

Government  rejected a revised CRT plan to incorporate EA waterways to last month.

 

Quote

 

“This message is coming to you jointly on behalf of the Environment Agency and Defra.Over the last few years we have been considering the future management of the 1010km of navigable waterways in England covering the Anglian waterways, Upper Medway, non-tidal Thames, Wye and Rye Harbour. This has included considering a potential transfer from the Environment Agency to the Canal and River Trust for the management of these waterways.

The decision has been made not to transfer these inland waterways at this point in time. The Environment Agency will therefore continue to retain responsibility for these inland waterways and their assets. To support a sustainable future for these waterways, the Environment Agency will be developing a long term funding and business plan, and will be supporting the delivery of the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan.

We are very grateful for the time invested by local and national teams across the organisations who helped us explore this issue, and for the patience of staff, users, and yourselves in partner organisations. “

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.