If you were in charge of the Canal & River Trust for a week, what one or two things would you change about the Trust?

[Pluto]

13 minutes ago, dmr said:

I am far convinced about this and now maybe this tail is wagging the dog.

The plan was to become self sufficient but that's gone wrong, it needs a rethink and doing again only better.

If getting the grant ultimately requites filling in the canals to make cycleways then lets learn to live without the grant.

It was said that boating provided 1/3 of the income, and property maybe another 1/3.

Now boating only provides 1/10 or something like that, but boating is increasing so what has changed? some other income,? or just some new dishonest anti-boat accounting??

There are a lot of brand new boats about, big widebeams, and many liveaboards. Boaters can pay more, they will whinge but they will pay.

Get rid of all the engagement officers and the blue sign designers and improve the efficiency of the maintenance, it can be done.

However, I do think the government will have to accept they they must provide some money for major infrastructure like the reservoirs and the pontywotsit bridge.

They did look at doing away with canals and filling them in about 70 years ago and found it was cheaper to keep them. The problem is that they form a vital role in the country's land drainage system, and the upkeep of that needs to be paid for. Money from boaters probably pays for the increased cost of keeping canals navigable, rather than just a drain. To require a charity to pay for something as important as that is only to be expected from a Conservative government, who continually renege on their responsibilities. I complained at the time, suggesting that the system would suffer from lack of finance, and it seems to have happened. CRT were on a hiding to nothing from the start. Perhaps you should blame the BW managers at the time, who did not complain when government suggested that canals could be financed as a charity.

[Orwellian]

Pluto is correct about the cost of infilling canals and their importance as part of essential land drainage. However he is wrong to identify the Conservatives as leading the way to BW becoming a charity. It was the coalition government they led that responded -  positively it has to be said - to the inititiative from Hales & Evans who wrongly identified leaving the public sector as the only way to financial security and campaigned strongly for it. How wrong they were.

[dmr]

2 minutes ago, Pluto said:

They did look at doing away with canals and filling them in about 70 years ago and found it was cheaper to keep them. The problem is that they form a vital role in the country's land drainage system, and the upkeep of that needs to be paid for. Money from boaters probably pays for the increased cost of keeping canals navigable, rather than just a drain. To require a charity to pay for something as important as that is only to be expected from a Conservative government, who continually renege on their responsibilities. I complained at the time, suggesting that the system would suffer from lack of finance, and it seems to have happened. CRT were on a hiding to nothing from the start. Perhaps you should blame the BW managers at the time, who did not complain when government suggested that canals could be financed as a charity.

 

I believe BW did press for the government to underwrite any big structural failures but they refused.

I suspect filling in the canals is a remote but real threat. Your argument that they provide drainage is no real comfort. As you know much of the Rochdale was reduced to a shallow "water feature" in order to maintain its water supply obligation. CRT could easily weir the locks and reduce the canal to a narrow water channel along the cycleway with, some even culverted, and a few wider "fishing ponds".

 

The only good news is that although the Oxford canal itself is looking a bit neglected there are loads of newish smart expensive looking boats going past, plus loads of hire boats.

2 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

Pluto is correct about the cost of infilling canals and their importance as part of essential land drainage. However he is wrong to identify the Conservatives as leading the way to BW becoming a charity. It was the coalition government they led that responded -  positively it has to be said - to the inititiative from Hales & Evans who wrongly identified leaving the public sector as the only way to financial security and campaigned strongly for it. How wrong they were.

 

And us boaters generally supported the canals moving from BW to some sort of "National Tryst for the waterways", and I still do, its just that CRT are not doing it very well. becoming

[tree monkey]

3 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

A week is a short time, so I'd have to prioritise the most important things only.

Day 1.

Get out my crayons and design a new logo for the trust to replace the sinking tyre one.

Day 2.

Educate signal crayfish to share the space with white clawed crayfish.

Day 3.

Improve the customer experience when contacting CaRT by recording new on-hold music on my Hammond organ.

Day 4.

Get the volunteers out with core drills to make water vole palaces in the canal banks.

Day 5.

CaRT love signs, yet so many cannot be seen at night, leading to a loss of well being for our visitors. Initiate a priority 1 program to install lights to illuminate all blue signs after dark.

 

Well that was exhausting. A well deserved weekend coming up.

Jen 😀

That's the sort of innovate thinking we need, I would vote for you

[Orwellian]

4 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

I believe BW did press for the government to underwrite any big structural failures but they refused.

I suspect filling in the canals is a remote but real threat. Your argument that they provide drainage is no real comfort. As you know much of the Rochdale was reduced to a shallow "water feature" in order to maintain its water supply obligation. CRT could easily weir the locks and reduce the canal to a narrow water channel along the cycleway with, some even culverted, and a few wider "fishing ponds".

 

The only good news is that although the Oxford canal itself is looking a bit neglected there are loads of newish smart expensive looking boats going past, plus loads of hire boats.

 

And us boaters generally supported the canals moving from BW to some sort of "National Tryst for the waterways", and I still do, its just that CRT are not doing it very well. becoming

So it wasn't just Hales & Evans who got it wrong then?

[ditchcrawler]

11 hours ago, David Mack said:

Be careful what you wish for!  There are potentially far more walkers, cyclists, anglers and the rest out there than boaters, who might well vote to spend more money on towpaths, interpretation boards and wellbeing stuff, and less on all that expensive dredging, lock gate repairs, paddle maintenance....

The NT has been caught out like this where member have tried to stop shooting on the large estates some which still house the original owners.

[dmr]

5 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

So it wasn't just Hales & Evans who got it wrong then?

 

I think they got it right, its just that CRT, like many many "organisations" have lost the plot. We moan about CRT but the Scottish canals remained with "British Waterways Scotland" and things there are much worse. Do you remember "We have re-imagined the canals and that does not necessarily include navigation".

A CRT that looked after the canals for Navigation, wildlife, history and walkers would be fine.

[midnight cowboy]

How about replacing tunnel information boards with ones you can read from a boat and making sure they are not hidden in the undergrowth?

[MtB]

I've had another idea. 

 

I'd fit electric charging points every 100 yds all over the system. 

 

I can't imagine that costing very much as a bits of wire costs peanuts, and think of all the planets that would get saved if boats could all be electric. 

[Mike Tee]

Or maybe lay a live rail on the bottom of the canal - then electric boats could drag a connector behind them. I think this might deter the fishermen though.  Can't see any practical problems with this solution..................!

[GUMPY]

14 hours ago, MtB said:

To what depth should the canals be dredged (were money to be no object), in order to keep them historically accurate?

To the depth they were when built. Assuming that is the deepest they have been.

[Jerra]

12 hours ago, David Mack said:

Be careful what you wish for!  There are potentially far more walkers, cyclists, anglers and the rest out there than boaters, who might well vote to spend more money on towpaths, interpretation boards and wellbeing stuff, and less on all that expensive dredging, lock gate repairs, paddle maintenance....

At a single AGM you don't get chance to vote for such things but you do get chance to have some input.  Currently any input from boaters can happily be ignored however organise enough boaters to turn up at an AGM and they have to listen.

 

I suppose you happily pay money as a friend and are totally happy with how they spend it.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I kept it short and simple, finally put this as an answer;

 

I question the ability of CRT to look after the canals and would therefore consider proposals from alternative trusts and governing bodies that might do better if they were to take charge. 

I would certainly ensure ALL employees had some basic knowledge of how the canals work for navigation and I would employ more maintenance staff to begin immediate repair to all locks. There are, for instance, far too many broken paddles up and down the system which could easily be prioritised for repair.

Oh, I tagged this on too;

 

The system is rapidly becoming unfit for purpose. 

And that purpose after all is Navigation!

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by Goliath

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, dmr said:

It was said that boating provided 1/3 of the income, and property maybe another 1/3.

Now boating only provides 1/10 or something like that, but boating is increasing so what has changed? some other income,? or just some new dishonest anti-boat accounting??

 

 

When you look at 'depth' into the C&RT accounts ackage it is intersting to note that they receive a similar income from utilities & charging for water discharge and water extraction (from industry, farmers, local authorities etc) at £33m as they receive from boaters(£41m)

 

They don't need the canals to be navigable, but in order to keep that income they do need a continuous water supply / flow.

 

Its great business when you can charge someone for allowing their water to drain into the canal, and then 'further downstream' charge someone for extracting it to irrigate their land.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

The survey was sent via CRT’s  Supporter Care Manager because I am no longer a ‘Friend’ making a monthly donation. 
 

[Thomas C King]

13 hours ago, David Mack said:

Be careful what you wish for!  There are potentially far more walkers, cyclists, anglers and the rest out there than boaters, who might well vote to spend more money on towpaths, interpretation boards and wellbeing stuff, and less on all that expensive dredging, lock gate repairs, paddle maintenance....

 

Couldn't the membership fee instead be the boat license fee?

[tree monkey]

45 minutes ago, Loddon said:

To the depth they were when built. Assuming that is the deepest they have been.

That's a reasonable assumption, I would imagine if they were dredged deeper than they were built they would very rapidly stop being a canal.

 

[GUMPY]

11 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

That's a reasonable assumption, I would imagine if they were dredged deeper than they were built they would very rapidly stop being a canal.

 

There are some places on the system where the canals are deeper than they were built because of subsidence the banks have had to be raised.

[Ronaldo47]

Unfortunately, Parkinson's Law indicates that it is very difficult to get rid of established bureaucracies. I  think the pontywhatsit is safe enough as it supplies a good bit of Birmingham's water.  I seem to remember reading that the canal was only kept open as a navigable waterway because a senior manager pointed out that the canal was also a vital aqueduct and that the remote and inaccessible-by-road locations through which it passes, meant that access for maintainance was only practical by boat.

[system 4-50]

1. Require the major canal users to have a licence, ie dog owners.

2. Charge dog owners by the kilogram of poo they typically generate.   Later extend this to the mass that the dogs generate.

3. Charge realistic market rates for mooring in London and other conurbations, which means MUCH bigger tariffs, especially for moorings near stations, schools, and anything beginning with "s".

4. Change ALL signage to be wifi-powered LCD signs so that the logo can be changed quickly and easily, starting with once per day and getting more frequent.

5. Lease the canal banks to the electricity supply companies with the stipulation that they use ALL the canals for at least one overhead cable.  This eliminates the need to signpost no fishing areas (and fishing itself), a great saving.

6. Install automatic boat washes at strategic points on the canals, and introduce a higher licence fee for dirty boats.

7. Install a Maureen of asian origin at every boat services point, with absolute authority and the power over life and death.  These will include small convenience stores and be open 24 x 7.

8. Add oil disposal to all service points.

9. Add 21 day moorings near car parking where possible on the network reserved for use by boaters who execute a long steady journey in (nominally) one direction throughout the year.

10. Allow singlehanders to leave well-maintained (is there one?) gates open on leaving locks when travelling 8pm to 8 am.

11. Authorise checkers to spray paint boat indexes on the sides of boats with no number shown (licence print not sufficient) in letters 1 ft tall with an aerosol.

12. Commision a project to evaluate GU2.

13. Reinstate the 2nd lock of all double locks & all side pounds.

14. Commision a project to determine the best distance between mooring rings for the majority of boats and do a pilot project at one mooring.

15. Remove all longterm moorings from places where queues build up at the top and bottom of long sets of locks.

16. Require all boats to have location signalling equipment on board and make this information available to all boaters so that alternative route planning and timetabling can help to avoid congestion (just like satnavs do on roads…).

17. Commision a project to develop a machine to dredge a cubic foot at a time, convert it into a pellet, and eject it onto the non-towpath side of the canal.  This is to be capable of totally autonomous operation.  The distance thrown is to be dynamically changed according to boater input via an app.

18. Ban widebeam boats on inappropriate (today) canals.

19. Modify all lift & swing bridges to be easily operable by single-handers.

20. Have C&RT buy a Euromillions lottery ticket every week.

 

 

[Neil2]

2 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

1. Require the major canal users to have a licence, ie dog owners.

2. Charge dog owners by the kilogram of poo they typically generate.   Later extend this to the mass that the dogs generate.

3. Charge realistic market rates for mooring in London and other conurbations, which means MUCH bigger tariffs, especially for moorings near stations, schools, and anything beginning with "s".

4. Change ALL signage to be wifi-powered LCD signs so that the logo can be changed quickly and easily, starting with once per day and getting more frequent.

5. Lease the canal banks to the electricity supply companies with the stipulation that they use ALL the canals for at least one overhead cable.  This eliminates the need to signpost no fishing areas (and fishing itself), a great saving.

6. Install automatic boat washes at strategic points on the canals, and introduce a higher licence fee for dirty boats.

7. Install a Maureen of asian origin at every boat services point, with absolute authority and the power over life and death.  These will include small convenience stores and be open 24 x 7.

8. Add oil disposal to all service points.

9. Add 21 day moorings near car parking where possible on the network reserved for use by boaters who execute a long steady journey in (nominally) one direction throughout the year.

10. Allow singlehanders to leave well-maintained (is there one?) gates open on leaving locks when travelling 8pm to 8 am.

11. Authorise checkers to spray paint boat indexes on the sides of boats with no number shown (licence print not sufficient) in letters 1 ft tall with an aerosol.

12. Commision a project to evaluate GU2.

13. Reinstate the 2nd lock of all double locks & all side pounds.

14. Commision a project to determine the best distance between mooring rings for the majority of boats and do a pilot project at one mooring.

15. Remove all longterm moorings from places where queues build up at the top and bottom of long sets of locks.

16. Require all boats to have location signalling equipment on board and make this information available to all boaters so that alternative route planning and timetabling can help to avoid congestion (just like satnavs do on roads…).

17. Commision a project to develop a machine to dredge a cubic foot at a time, convert it into a pellet, and eject it onto the non-towpath side of the canal.  This is to be capable of totally autonomous operation.  The distance thrown is to be dynamically changed according to boater input via an app.

18. Ban widebeam boats on inappropriate (today) canals.

19. Modify all lift & swing bridges to be easily operable by single-handers.

20. Have C&RT buy a Euromillions lottery ticket every week.

 

 

 

And on the remaining 6 days..?

[ditchcrawler]

33 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

 

7. Install a Maureen of asian origin at every boat services point, with absolute authority and the power over life and death.  These will include small convenience stores and be open  

10. Allow singlehanders to leave well-maintained (is there one?) gates open on leaving locks when travelling 8pm to 8 am.

 

 

 

Are all Maureen's the same, thinking Middle Level and Middlewich.

 

No 10 should apply to all boaters but may bring the close time to 6pm summer and 4 pm winter

 

[Ray T]

6 hours ago, Orwellian said:

So it wasn't just Hales & Evans who got it wrong then?

Hale & Pace would probably have done a better job. 

[Slim]

19 hours ago, MtB said:

I'd change all the new signs to black and white, and replace all the nasty stainless steel water tap bollard things with proper, historically appropriate black-painted cast iron jobbies again. 

 

After dredging all the canals to 5ft again, obviously. 

I'd settle for 4 ft

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

When you look at 'depth' into the C&RT accounts ackage it is intersting to note that they receive a similar income from utilities & charging for water discharge and water extraction (from industry, farmers, local authorities etc) at £33m as they receive from boaters(£41m)

 

They don't need the canals to be navigable, but in order to keep that income they do need a continuous water supply / flow.

 

Its great business when you can charge someone for allowing their water to drain into the canal, and then 'further downstream' charge someone for extracting it to irrigate their land.

Water companies get their water for free

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, Slim said:

I'd settle for 4 ft

Water companies get their water for free

 

Which is why I didnt put them in the 'list' when I said "industry, farmers, local authorities"

 

I think the main canal water extraction is for Cheshire and uses the Llangollen canal as its resevoir feeder, Obviously the Thames is used for extraction for London water.