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

[system 4-50]

1 hour ago, Neil2 said:

And on the remaining 6 days..?

that'll be taken up by all my other directorships...

[Mike Todd]

5 hours ago, Thomas C King said:

 

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

I think that they were hoping for support from a wider constituency than boaters. But the licence could be said to include a membership - an excuse for an additional licence hike!

[tree monkey]

6 hours ago, Loddon said:

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.

I did wonder if that was what you were alluding to, but it still made me laugh...

 

 

[MtB]

So what depth were the various canals maintained at during the heydey of carrying?  

 

No-one seems to have offered any historically sound info. Maybe there are no records. 

 

 

[Midnight]

sack the waste of oxygen Parry

[Alan de Enfield]

9 hours ago, MtB said:

So what depth were the various canals maintained at during the heydey of carrying?  

 

No-one seems to have offered any historically sound info. Maybe there are no records. 

 

 

 

 

The Fraenkel Report (about 50 years ago) specified the dimensions for each river and canal such that they could continue to be used by craft that historically used that waterway.

 

BW adopted those recommendations as their "Channel maintenance standards" and subsequently adopted by C&RT, unfortunately they have failed to adhere to them

 

 

 

[Pluto]

9 hours ago, MtB said:

So what depth were the various canals maintained at during the heydey of carrying?  

 

No-one seems to have offered any historically sound info. Maybe there are no records. 

 

 

Possibly the best source is the 1888 canal statistics compiled by the government. This is one page. The depth of the canal was usually slightly more than the depth over the sill, as can be seen in the Lancaster Canal specification.

1790s Lancaster Canal Specification.pdf

Edited September 2, 2021 by Pluto

[Ian Mac]

5 hours ago, Pluto said:

Possibly the best source is the 1888 canal statistics compiled by the government. This is one page. The depth of the canal was usually slightly more than the depth over the sill, as can be seen in the Lancaster Canal specification

What an interesting Document. Does it have the data for the Rochdale HVNC and Ashton canals, oh and the M&BB if so could I have sight of them please.

--

Cheers Ian Mac

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, Ian Mac said:

What an interesting Document.

 

As is the document in the link, which straight off the bat states:

 

Rennie Report Book 1790's
Specification of the cutting, banking etc. on the Lancaster Canal.
i) The canal to be made of the following dimensions, that is to say, the depth of water to be 6 feet, width of canal at bottom 24 feet

[Ray T]

21 hours ago, MtB said:

So what depth were the various canals maintained at during the heydey of carrying?  

 

No-one seems to have offered any historically sound info. Maybe there are no records. 

 

 

I don't have any pictures but many sections of the GU have the depth embossed in the concrete side walls when the works were carried out in the early / mid 1930's.

 

Also this: UK Inland Waterway Size Restrictions in English Units (canals.com)

 

There is also this, not sure if the table gives the depths as it isn't in English.

Edited September 2, 2021 by Ray T

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Ray T said:

I don't have any pictures but many sections of the GU have the depth embossed in the concrete side walls when the works were carried out in the early / mid 1930's.

 

Well yes, if you read back you'll see it is exactly this fact that prompted my question!

 

1 hour ago, Ray T said:

Also this: UK Inland Waterway Size Restrictions in English Units (canals.com)

 

And thanks for the link, but I was interested in finding out the original depths to which the various canals were routinely dredged during the decades of carrying rather than what they are now. 

[Pluto]

21 hours ago, Ian Mac said:

What an interesting Document. Does it have the data for the Rochdale HVNC and Ashton canals, oh and the M&BB if so could I have sight of them please.

--

Cheers Ian Mac

Ian, I am surprised that you haven't seen the 1888 government Returns for Railway & Canal Traffic  before. It is possibly the best place to start regarding canal standards. On the Lancaster depth, I suspect they were reduced during construction because of financing problems.

[Stroudwater1]

Really interesting, the Huddersfield narrow round Lock 3 E must now be one of the deepest sections on the narrow canals by a long way, probably 10  foot perhaps? The rest makes up for it sadly. 

 

Thanks 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

19 hours ago, Ray T said:

There is also this, not sure if the table gives the depths as it isn't in English.

The first 3 columns of the chart give the distance in miles, ?, and chains. between places from Coventry to Oxford. The last two columns give the rise and fall of the canal. 
So nowt to do with the depth of water in the canal, unfortunately. 
 

At the top is a drawing of the aquaduct at Brinklow. 

Edited September 3, 2021 by Goliath

[Pluto]

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

The first 3 columns of the chart give the distance in miles, ?, and chains. between places from Coventry to Oxford. The last two columns give the rise and fall of the canal. 
So nowt to do with the depth of water in the canal, unfortunately. 
 

At the top is a drawing of the aquaduct at Brinklow. 

The image is from Hogrewe's 1780 book describing English canals since 1759, and was the German forerunner of the later books describing English canals by Phillips and Priestley Below is page 148 where he is describing the Bridgewater, and suggesting it was 4 feet deep over Barton Aqueduct. (line 10)

[Detling]

On 01/09/2021 at 10:28, 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??

 

I understand that the 1/3 rd income was a result of licence fees + mooring fees + Marina connection fees i.e. all the dosh we boaters provide. But it became politically desirable to downplay boaters, so they only attribute the license fee income as coming from boaters, the other bits are regarded as just that, other bits and services, not as cash income coming from boaters pockets. Quite who pays mooring fees without a boat puzzels me, but bean couters have a way with numbers.

[Orwellian]

1 hour ago, Detling said:

I understand that the 1/3 rd income was a result of licence fees + mooring fees + Marina connection fees i.e. all the dosh we boaters provide. But it became politically desirable to downplay boaters, so they only attribute the license fee income as coming from boaters, the other bits are regarded as just that, other bits and services, not as cash income coming from boaters pockets. Quite who pays mooring fees without a boat puzzels me, but bean couters have a way with numbers.

That is not correct as can be seen from the attached copy extract from CRT's Annual Report & Accounts 2019/20 showing total boating income which as well as boat licences includes mooring fees and property rents (which includes NAA etc fees).

[Orwellian]

And this chart from same source shows this to be just over 19% of total income.

[Orwellian]

It also shows that funding from Defra under the grant agreement is, by a small margin, the largest source so as I said in my first post securing its renewal is paramount. For those who think this is unecessary or undesirable I suppose they could try and recover another £52 million from boaters and boating businesses. Good luck with that.

[MtB]

47 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

It also shows that funding from Defra under the grant agreement is, by a small margin, the largest source so as I said in my first post securing its renewal is paramount. For those who think this is unecessary or undesirable I suppose they could try and recover another £52 million from boaters and boating businesses. Good luck with that.

 

To do that would involve, loosely, raising all the charges boaters pay to CRT by about 125%. 

 

Given that most boats are a near captive market with little choice but to pay, I think they might just about get away with that, given the burgeoning demand for boats and boating. The hidden cost would be the less well-off boaters forced off the cut in favour of the better-heeled.

 

CCers paying in the order of just £1,000 a year for their license are, for example, getting one helluva bargain IMO. Especially when you compare the cost of other accommodation i.e. caravans on sites, and houses. 

[Orwellian]

But that means the vast majority of those who use the waterways free at the point of use (and don't forget the land drainage function) make no contribution to their upkeep while boaters end up paying nearly half total cost. Seems grossly unfair to me. A proportionate contribution from taxpayers is a sensible and fair approach. £52 million a year is a miniscule amount of total government spending.

[cuthound]

On 04/09/2021 at 19:55, Orwellian said:

It also shows that funding from Defra under the grant agreement is, by a small margin, the largest source so as I said in my first post securing its renewal is paramount. For those who think this is unecessary or undesirable I suppose they could try and recover another £52 million from boaters and boating businesses. Good luck with that.

 

Those figures maintain the network in a state of gradual decline, which is not sustainable in the long term as expensive major failures will become more common. 

 

What is needed is another report, like the WS Atkins one of the 90`s, which showed the one off cost to get the network into excellent condition and then the annual amount needed to keep it in that condition.

 

Once that is known then the increase that boaters need to pay can be established. 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, cuthound said:

 

Those figures maintain the network in a state of gradual decline, which is not sustainable in the long term as expensive major failures will become more common. 

 

What is needed is another report, like the WS Atkins one of the 90`s, which showed the one off cost to get the network into excellent condition and then the annual amount needed to keep it in that condition.

 

Once that is known then the increase that boaters need to pay can be established. 

 

The problem then will be (like with taxes) finding the 'sweet spot'. Put the price of boating up and fewer people will do it. 

 

My gut feeling is boating is a helluvalot cheaper nowadays (or perhaps people are just richer) than back in the 70s and 80s so there is considerable scope to double or triple license fees IMO. On line mooring CRT charges seem fully priced nowadays though, with moorings that used to be £1400 a year a decade back, now being marketed for £4k-ish and often staying empty and un-let for long periods. 

 

CRT charges seem to me to have got out of balance. On line moorings are too expensive relative to licences, as illustrated by the ready market builders find for ridiculously huge widebeams, filling the canals these days and used mainly as houses. The license fee for a widebeam seems particularly cheap when compared to the cost of renting or buying equivalent accommodation on the land.  

 

Tin hat on. 

[Orwellian]

31 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Those figures maintain the network in a state of gradual decline, which is not sustainable in the long term as expensive major failures will become more common. 

 

What is needed is another report, like the WS Atkins one of the 90`s, which showed the one off cost to get the network into excellent condition and then the annual amount needed to keep it in that condition.

 

Once that is known then the increase that boaters need to pay can be established. 

I agree the current sums are inadequate and maybe boaters would be prepared to pay more but do you agree that current levels of government funding should be maintained to reflect the wider public use?

[cuthound]

53 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

I agree the current sums are inadequate and maybe boaters would be prepared to pay more but do you agree that current levels of government funding should be maintained to reflect the wider public use?

 

Yes government funding should be maintained at current levels or increased 

 

The justification for this is that many people enjoy the canals who do not contribute except through taxation. Ideally the DEFRA grant should be linked to (accurate) visitor numbers and the need to maintain the network to an acceptable level as well as significant income from boaters, fishits, property and drainage & water extraction.