Canal and River Trust no longer trustworthy?

[matty40s]

4 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

More an attempt to mislead Defra and George Eustace MP.

 

Wouldnt take much for the 2nd one.

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Wouldnt take much for the 2nd one.

 

That's probably what they were relying on - hoping that everyone is as lacksadasical as they are.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

4 hours ago, matty40s said:

Wouldnt take much for the 2nd one.

 

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That's probably what they were relying on - hoping that everyone is as lacksadasical as they are.

It's slightly more complicated that that, chaps ...

Parry/Leighton made two changes to the approved Annual Report -

- In the approved report, the 'heritage condition'  measure showed a substantial drop from the previous year. The altered report shows that  CRT were unable to collect the data due to COVID.

- The approved report showed a significant drop in the 'visitor satisfaction' figure. The altered report halved the drop.

Under it's grant agreement with DEFRA, CRT is required to publish certain info called 'publication data' by July 1 each year. If it fails to provide that info by September 1 then the Chair is required to write to the SoS and Council of Members.

Leighton wrote twice to the SoS. His first letter was to confirm that CRT had failed to publish within then September 1 timescale.

His second letter was to explain that CRT had failed to publish 'heritage condition' 'publication data' that had already been published! In other words he wanted to retract the published data and gain agreement for a position that the data was not available. In his second letter he did not inform the SoS that CRT had also changed the visitor satisfaction figure. He also failed to copy Council with his second letter as required under the terms of the grant agreement.

My view is that Parry/Leighton were concerned that Defra would pick up 'heritage condition' as it formed part of publication data. They took the chance on 'visitor satisfaction' because it did not form art of the publication data.

Happy to publish Leighton letters if anyone is that interested.

 

[Orwellian]

Just received the latest edition of Private Eye and was hoping to see an item on this but sadly there wasn't. I would be interested in those letters though Allan

[Allan(nb Albert)]

7 hours ago, Orwellian said:

Just received the latest edition of Private Eye and was hoping to see an item on this but sadly there wasn't. I would be interested in those letters though Allan

Maybe next edition ...
 

Here are the two letters. In the second, Leighton was concealing from Defra that that the Annual Report had been falsified (because the Board of Trustees had not resolved to accept the changes). Even now, six months later, the Board refuses to accept the changes and, instead, is asking the Charity Commission to replace the falsified report with the approved Annual Report.

 

Leighton-SoS-Letter1.pdf Leighton-SoS-Letter2.pdf

 

 

****** Edited to add that that it has been pointed out to me that CRT's response attempts to minimise Leighton's involvement by suggesting that he was just 'aware' rather than an active participant in the deception. 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Allan(nb Albert)]

A new development today as Tom Deards, acting on behalf of CRT's Board of Trustees, has written to the Charity Commission admitting to a second falsification of CRT's approved Annual Report. This relates to the changing of figures relating "visitor satisfaction" where CRT have altered the approved annual report to halve a significant drop from the previous year.

In mitigation, the Trustees say that this and the change to heritage data were "to put right errors that had been made".

Edited June 10, 2021 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

A new development today as Tom Deards, acting on behalf of CRT's Board of Trustees, has written to the Charity Commission admitting to a second falsification of CRT's approved Annual Report. This relates to the changing of figures relating "visitor satisfaction" where CRT have altered the approved annual report to halve a significant drop from the previous year.

In mitigation, the Trustees say that this and the change to heritage data were "to put right errors that had been made".

 

 

Its a good job they noticed all these errors, otherwise the incorrect figures would have been reported and no one have known about the errors.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Its a good job they noticed all these errors, otherwise the incorrect figures would have been reported and no one have known about the errors.

A great analysis.
They published incorrect figures and then corrected them. When this was pointed out they asked the Charity Commission if they could publish the incorrect figures again.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

With CRT admitting to the falsification of its approved Annual Report, I have been comparing key performance indicators (KPI's) to see if documented performance was better or worse than the previous year.

 

There are 24 KPI's. All but 5 show an improvement on the previous year. The two in yellow have no previous year data. That leaves just three where performance is worse.

 

The one in blue is explained by "better reporting" (i.e. CRT claims it is now better at recording info which, in turn, has led to an apparent downturn in safety).

 

That leaves us with the two in red where CRT's performance was worse than than the previous year.

 

They just happen to be the two where CRT "corrected errors" leading to falsification of the Annual Report ...

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

... and some more -

 

Quote

 

Yesterday, CRT reverted the falsified Annual Report on its website to that approved by its Board and received by Council.

 

Having just checked, the Annual Report filed with the Charity Commission remains the falsified version showing a filing date of 22/12/2021.

 

The Annual Report filed at Companies House remains the approved version showing a filing date of 12/10/2021.

 

[Heartland]

These are difficult times now to make and comparison with 2020/21 and 2019/20.

 

Yet those figures quoted above must be a serious matter to consider, regardless which version is considered. 

 

Those extracted figures indicate a fall in safety standards, if this is true, could this be through the use of volunteers.

[Tracy D'arth]

On Tuesday 22nd June 2021 a boat making passage south to north in Harecastle tunnel suffered engine failure inside the tunnel. There was the standard alarm given, long horn blasts.

 

No answering signals were received from the volunteers.

 

No assistance was offered by the volunteers on "duty". 

 

The boat had to be poled by the crew and pushed by the boat behind till it exited the tunnel; where the "Fire Safety Boat"was still unmanned and tied up despite the failed engine having emitted large quantities of smoke, fortunately without serious fire.

 

Be advised, the safety in the tunnel is seriously compromised.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Tracy D'arth
Facts checked.

[Arthur Marshall]

46 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

On Tuesday 22nd June 2021 a boat making passage south to north in Harecastle tunnel suffered engine failure inside the tunnel. There was the standard alarm given, long horn blasts.

 

No answering signals were received from the volunteers.

 

No assistance was offered by the volunteers on "duty". 

 

The boat had to be poled by the crew and pushed by the boat behind till it exited the tunnel; where the "Fire Safety Boat"was still unmanned and tied up despite the failed engine having emitted large quantities of smoke, fortunately without serious fire.

 

Be advised, the safety in the tunnel is seriously compromised.

That's seriously worrying. I broke down last year but got restarted and out with smoke pouring out of the engine.

I got told that none of the tunnel keepers are qualified to run the safety boat  and someone has to be found and called in from elsewhere, which could take some time. I wouldn't be surprised if it has been outsourced so would depend on a contractor being available.

I think it was last year one of the coal boats went through and the volunteer manning the south end forgot to turn on the fan, nearly axphyxiated the guy steering and almost killed the engine.

[haggis]

46 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That's seriously worrying. I broke down last year but got restarted and out with smoke pouring out of the engine.

I got told that none of the tunnel keepers are qualified to run the safety boat  and someone has to be found and called in from elsewhere, which could take some time. I wouldn't be surprised if it has been outsourced so would depend on a contractor being available.

I think it was last year one of the coal boats went through and the volunteer manning the south end forgot to turn on the fan, nearly axphyxiated the guy steering and almost killed the engine.

When we had a fire in the engine area in the middle of the tunnel we made the long blasts and got a reply. Eventually we were pushed out by a boat which had entered a long time after us. On chatting to the tunnel keepers later (we were stuck outside the tunnel till we bow hauled the boat to the services at Bulls Bridge) they said that they have to summon folk to drive the boat and these people could be working 5 minutes or half an hour away. Then they have to get the boat ready before entering the tunnel. In our case, the guys had just arrived when we emerged and they were getting the boat ready. It was just as well it wasn't a serious fire and that our fire extinguishers put it out. t was a couple of years before I entered the tunnel again and I must admit, I didn't feel too happy doing it

 

haggis

[Allan(nb Albert)]

19 hours ago, Heartland said:

These are difficult times now to make and comparison with 2020/21 and 2019/20.

 

Yet those figures quoted above must be a serious matter to consider, regardless which version is considered. 

 

Those extracted figures indicate a fall in safety standards, if this is true, could this be through the use of volunteers.

The comparison is between 2019/20 and 2018/19. The 2020/21 Annual Report is not yet available.

 

Regarding safety, the figure given is for employee recorded injuries so does not include volunteers -

 

2019/2020 - 1641 (8)
2018/2019 - 53 (4)

 

Figures in brackets are for injuries that cause absence of more than two weeks.

 

CRT say the increase is due to better reporting. 

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

9 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The comparison is between 2019/20 and 2018/19. The 2020/21 Annual Report is not yet available.

 

Regarding safety, the figure given is for employee recorded injuries so does not include volunteers -

 

2019/2020 - 1641 (8)
2018/2019 - 53 (4)

 

Figures in brackets are for injuries that cause absence of more than two weeks.

 

CRT say the increase is due to better reporting. 

 

 

When I worked Offshore we had to report on lost time incidents, that  could be a single day

On 26/06/2021 at 11:11, Tracy D'arth said:

On Tuesday 22nd June 2021 a boat making passage south to north in Harecastle tunnel suffered engine failure inside the tunnel. There was the standard alarm given, long horn blasts.

 

No answering signals were received from the volunteers.

 

No assistance was offered by the volunteers on "duty". 

 

The boat had to be poled by the crew and pushed by the boat behind till it exited the tunnel; where the "Fire Safety Boat"was still unmanned and tied up despite the failed engine having emitted large quantities of smoke, fortunately without serious fire.

 

Be advised, the safety in the tunnel is seriously compromised.

These really should be reported via https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/contact-us/reporting-an-incident-accident-or-near-miss

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

When I worked Offshore we had to report on lost time incidents, that  could be a single day

 

It looks like C&RT may be similar, with the increase from 53 to 1641 injuries resulting in less than 14 days absence from work, and an increase from 4 to 8 that were severe enough to require more than 14 days absence from work

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It looks like C&RT may be similar, with the increase from 53 to 1641 injuries resulting in less than 14 days absence from work, and an increase from 4 to 8 that were severe enough to require more than 14 days absence from work

Sorry should have said seven days. An absence of seven or more days has to be reported to HSE under Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (better known as RIDDOR).

[JamesWoolcock]

On 26/06/2021 at 11:11, Tracy D'arth said:

On Tuesday 22nd June 2021 a boat making passage south to north in Harecastle tunnel suffered engine failure inside the tunnel. There was the standard alarm given, long horn blasts.

 

No answering signals were received from the volunteers.

 

No assistance was offered by the volunteers on "duty". 

 

The boat had to be poled by the crew and pushed by the boat behind till it exited the tunnel; where the "Fire Safety Boat"was still unmanned and tied up despite the failed engine having emitted large quantities of smoke, fortunately without serious fire.

 

Be advised, the safety in the tunnel is seriously compromised.

 

On 26/06/2021 at 12:03, Arthur Marshall said:

That's seriously worrying. I broke down last year but got restarted and out with smoke pouring out of the engine.

I got told that none of the tunnel keepers are qualified to run the safety boat  and someone has to be found and called in from elsewhere, which could take some time. I wouldn't be surprised if it has been outsourced so would depend on a contractor being available.

I think it was last year one of the coal boats went through and the volunteer manning the south end forgot to turn on the fan, nearly axphyxiated the guy steering and almost killed the engine.

 

On 26/06/2021 at 12:56, haggis said:

When we had a fire in the engine area in the middle of the tunnel we made the long blasts and got a reply. Eventually we were pushed out by a boat which had entered a long time after us. On chatting to the tunnel keepers later (we were stuck outside the tunnel till we bow hauled the boat to the services at Bulls Bridge) they said that they have to summon folk to drive the boat and these people could be working 5 minutes or half an hour away. Then they have to get the boat ready before entering the tunnel. In our case, the guys had just arrived when we emerged and they were getting the boat ready. It was just as well it wasn't a serious fire and that our fire extinguishers put it out. t was a couple of years before I entered the tunnel again and I must admit, I didn't feel too happy doing it

 

haggis

On reading the above posts, no doubt like others, I was somewhat concerned at what I read, and Harecastle being 'my local tunnel', so to speak, which I travel through several times a year I've taken it upon myself to investigate this matter further.

 

In doing so I am grateful for the help and input from:

Alison Smedley, Campaigns & Public Affairs Manager for the IWA (whose 'local tunnel' it is too!

Sue Cawson, Navigations Officer NHBC and member of CRT Navigations Advisory Group

Matthew Symonds, CRT Head of Boating (leisure)

 

Here the reply I have received today, which has originated from all concerned.

 

Simon Martin (Area Operations Manager) has provided  the following response, outlining the log of the incident. The main points are there was communication between staff on duty (not volunteers) and the stricken craft. The staff required to operate the rescue craft are available but not necessarily on site, so may need to travel. If the rescue is an emergency, then these would be undertaken by the emergency services not the Trust. In this case, it appears that in the communication between the stricken craft and the Trust staff, it was confirmed that it was craft was being pushed out – there does not appear to be a record of a request for the rescue boats assistance.

 

The incident

• Harecastle Tunnel North was manned by A long standing employee (One of the former seasonal Tunnel Keepers)
• Harecastle Tunnel South was manned by another Full time member of staff and two volunteer assistance
• Acknowledgement was made between The tunnel keeper (North) and the stricken craft and verbal communications were exchanged to confirm everyone on board was ok and the craft was being pushed out. 
• Phone calls were also logged between both portals and a call logged with myself.

 

The Rescue boat

We always have Nominated staff on duty who are qualified to perform a rescue. These staff may not be the staff on site, Equally we do not have the fire service on site, they have to travel to site.

The procedure for making a rescue is that irrespective of the staff on site being rescue trained or not, we need 4 staff to perform a rescue as we still need to man each portal while our staff are within the tunnel. Therefor we need 2 staff members to travel to site. It should also be noted we (the Trust) do not perform Emergency rescues, these are performed by the emergency services, Our rescue boat is on site to assist any boats when and where it is safe for our staff to do so.

 

For information, we (CRT) are running a planned Desktop emergency exercise on Harecastle tunnel over the next fortnight too – to test the procedures we have in place.

 

 

 

 

[Tracy D'arth]

As regards to " Acknowledgement was made between The tunnel keeper (North) and the stricken craft and verbal communications were exchanged to confirm everyone on board was ok and the craft was being pushed out. "

This is factually false. I fail to see how the North tunnel keeper could communicate with the person/s aboard a boat 500m inside the tunnel with 5 engines running on the stationary boats stacked up behind the stricken boat. I will repeat that no acknowledgement of the emergency horn signal from the boat was made from either tunnel entrance.

[JamesWoolcock]

I'm not going to argue with you as I see this view all too clearly

I am just passing on the mitigation of the defence.

But the good outcome of this is that once again they are reminded that they are being watched.

[Arthur Marshall]

I've never checked my phone signal in the tunnel, but it would surprise me a bit if there was one. How else could you have verbal communication in there? You can't hear yourself think over engine and fan noise if there's more than one boat in there.

I'll check the phone in a couple of weeks...

[wandering snail]

Just now, Arthur Marshall said:

I've never checked my phone signal in the tunnel, but it would surprise me a bit if there was one. How else could you have verbal communication in there? You can't hear yourself think over engine and fan noise if there's more than one boat in there.

I'll check the phone in a couple of weeks...

That's very brave of you and maybe beyond the call...

[Rob-M]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I've never checked my phone signal in the tunnel, but it would surprise me a bit if there was one. How else could you have verbal communication in there? You can't hear yourself think over engine and fan noise if there's more than one boat in there.

I'll check the phone in a couple of weeks...

I don't know if it ever got installed but there was talk of an emergency mobile phone system being put in so you would be able to make an emergency call inside the tunnel.  I would have thought that would go through to the emergency services though and not the CRT tunnel staff.

[Heartland]

This  Harecastle Tunnel once had a towpath, thanks to the skill of Thomas Telford and the foresight of the Trent & Mersey Canal Committee. BW removed that towpath as it had become unsafe in parts. With the volume of craft using the tunnel, is there a case for a towpath replacement scheme?