Jump to content

C&RT's most useless signs and money wasted


Midnight

Featured Posts

There is an  Interpretation Act (or whatever its  replacement is called now) that I think contains definitions of what various periods of time mean, such as when they expire, although specific definitions in individual statutes will take precedence over these defaults. 

Edited by Ronaldo47
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is beginning to look to me as though CRT have employed someone who knows little about canals to design and erect signage willy-nilly to "promote the CRT brand", so many of these pointless signs we have now.  

 

My own example was a little blue sign saying "Life's better by water" screwed to the brickwork of an accomodation bridge in a place where only pedestrians crossing the bridge were likely to spot it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Dave Payne said:

Nice new blue sign next to lock 6 on the Atherstone flight, points towards lock 5, says 'Atherstone Locks - 5 Mins' 

 

Handy that as I was wondering where the flight was.

 

Its very interesting that the Atherstone signs fixed to the lock beams and saying "wind paddles down do not drop" are in white on black but with the new CRT logo.

  • This suggests that CRT themselves know that the blue signs are not appropriate on a historic structure. I wonder how they decide which locks deserve a black sign and which ones can be abused with a blue sign????. Longlees lock on the Rochdale summit is  a listed structure and the highest wide lock in the country (sort off) but that gets defaced with an absolutely huge blue sign.

 

I dont know who put the bullet point in the above paragraph, it wasn't me 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, dmr said:

Longlees lock on the Rochdale summit is  a listed structure and the highest wide lock in the country (sort off) but that gets defaced with an absolutely huge blue sign.

Have you complained about it to Calderdale Planning? They can take action if there is a material impact on the listed structure (assuming the sign hasn't been given listed building consent).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Have you complained about it to Calderdale Planning? They can take action if there is a material impact on the listed structure (assuming the sign hasn't been given listed building consent).

 

I think its English Heritage rather than the council that controls these things? A while ago CRT negotiated a special exemption from needing listed consent for signage and surfaces. I think they claimed that having to get permission for operational signs and temporary surfaces was a waste of everybodies time. I suspect they are now seriously abusing this concession. This is why they are able to erect the horrible blue lock name signs and I fear it might allow them to replace some old cobbled surfaces with tarmac should they so desire.  Doing a bit more research into this is on my todo list.

You boat is a very nice shape below the waterline. 😀

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MtB said:

It is beginning to look to me as though CRT have employed someone who knows little about canals to design and erect signage willy-nilly to "promote the CRT brand", so many of these pointless signs we have now.  

 

My own example was a little blue sign saying "Life's better by water" screwed to the brickwork of an accomodation bridge in a place where only pedestrians crossing the bridge were likely to spot it.

 

 

 

They put a lovely one up on the outskirts of Nuneaton, the worst place to spend money on anything, it got burnt and spray painted over in days, another waste of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dave Payne said:

 

They put a lovely one up on the outskirts of Nuneaton, the worst place to spend money on anything, it got burnt and spray painted over in days, another waste of money.

But they’re ticking their boxes for engaging with the public. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

 

very bad design, deliberately introducing tripping hazards where you are s'posed to put your size nines.   obvs no elfinsafety review was undertaken.  :rolleyes:

This reminds me that the last time I visited Stratford basin ( a couple of decades ago, and not by boat), I found that only the tops of the usual arc of raised bricks for foot grip at the lock gates leading to the river, were visible, having been embedded in cement to produce a perfectly smooth surface  The weather was damp, and  lack of grip was presenting a problem for the crew of a boat locking through.  

Edited by Ronaldo47
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dmr said:

 

I think its English Heritage rather than the council that controls these things? A while ago CRT negotiated a special exemption from needing listed consent for signage and surfaces. I think they claimed that having to get permission for operational signs and temporary surfaces was a waste of everybodies time. I suspect they are now seriously abusing this concession. This is why they are able to erect the horrible blue lock name signs and I fear it might allow them to replace some old cobbled surfaces with tarmac should they so desire.

 

English Heritage are responsible for the list of listed buildings (and for adding buildings to the list). But the issue of Listed Building Consent and enforcement of non-permitted changes is down to the local planning authority. Utility organisations, railway, highway and waterway authorities and similar bodies also have Permitted Development Rights, which allow them to do certain things on their operational land which would otherwise require planning permission. This would include things like the erection of signs. However permitted development powers are much more restricted in Conservation Areas and in relation to Listed Buildings, compared to other areas. So I think CRT are free to put up blue signs in most areas without seeking consent,  but not necessarily in Conservation Areas or where they would affect listed buildings (or their setting).

That said some local authorities may have given a blanket approval in their area. And local authorities are so cash-strapoed these days they may not have the resources to follow such things up, unless they receive a significant number of complaints.

5 hours ago, dmr said:

You boat is a very nice shape below the waterline. 😀

Yes the stern, currently presented to passing boaters and towpath walkers, is a lovely shape. But the bows, less visible to passers by, show the effects of years of impacts between a moving boat and fixed objects, so no longer have the same sweet curves!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

English Heritage are responsible for the list of listed buildings (and for adding buildings to the list). But the issue of Listed Building Consent and enforcement of non-permitted changes is down to the local planning authority. Utility organisations, railway, highway and waterway authorities and similar bodies also have Permitted Development Rights, which allow them to do certain things on their operational land which would otherwise require planning permission. This would include things like the erection of signs. However permitted development powers are much more restricted in Conservation Areas and in relation to Listed Buildings, compared to other areas. So I think CRT are free to put up blue signs in most areas without seeking consent,  but not necessarily in Conservation Areas or where they would affect listed buildings (or their setting).

That said some local authorities may have given a blanket approval in their area. And local authorities are so cash-strapoed these days they may not have the resources to follow such things up, unless they receive a significant number of complaints.

 

But if the signage is not part of the English Heritage listing then I suspect the council can't really do anything???

We have been from the Rochdale down to Lechlade and its very sad to see blue lock name signs everywhere. I feel that the unique signs on the various canals were a unique part of canal heritage which CRT are destroying. It was particularly sad to see many of the unique Oxford Canal signs gone.

As for Longlees lock I have a horrible feeling that its in Rochdale, (I need to check) and Rochdale council have zero interest in canals and heritage.

Locks 34 and 35 are in Calderdale and worth trying to save, I think lock 35 is designated as some sort of beauty spot.

I am hoping to put some effort into all this when we get back to the Rochdale but do have some other big projects lined up for this winter.

 

I really hope that CRT never get their hands on the Thames, the upper Thames is just wonderful, CRT would be selling off all those lock houses in a flash, sacking the lock-keepers and putting volunteers in little plastic shacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, dmr said:

But if the signage is not part of the English Heritage listing then I suspect the council can't really do anything???

 

Audrey Smith ripped CRT a new one when they blue signed the lock beams on Johnson's Hillock locks.  They got removed very shortly afterwards, so it's worth a try - certainly on listed structures.  There are other blue signs not on the lock beams, but not many of them.

 

 

28 minutes ago, dmr said:

but do have some other big projects lined up for this winter.

 

Boat or mooring?

 

 

Edited by TheBiscuits
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, dmr said:

But if the signage is not part of the English Heritage listing then I suspect the council can't really do anything???

A listed building includes its 'curtilage' which is the land around it and specifically associated with it e.g. the garden of a house. So in the case of a listed lock that would include the land either side of the lock up to the canal boundary. Works which affect the setting of a listed building also require listed building consent. Either way, lockside signs should be covered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Audrey Smith ripped CRT a new one when they blue signed the lock beams on Johnson's Hillock locks.  They got removed very shortly afterwards, so it's worth a try - certainly on listed structures.  There are other blue signs not on the lock beams, but not many of them.

 

 

 

Boat or mooring?

 

 

 

Probably both, could be doing an engine rebuild or replacement, I think we have worn out a Beta JD3, 13,000 hours (all done by us) and signs of bore wear which I suspect will now increase exponentially :clapping:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

could be doing an engine rebuild or replacement, I think we have worn out a Beta JD3, 13,000 hours (all done by us) and signs of bore wear which I suspect will now increase exponentially :clapping:

 

Rebuild if it's got an RCD as you can't put another JD3 in it ... How old is Vox?

 

I can't see you liking the idea of bunging a Beta 43 in it's place (well, not until you've used it for a while ;) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

A listed building includes its 'curtilage' which is the land around it and specifically associated with it e.g. the garden of a house. So in the case of a listed lock that would include the land either side of the lock up to the canal boundary. Works which affect the setting of a listed building also require listed building consent. Either way, lockside signs should be covered.

 

If you are correct then that's excellent news. I have looked at some listings and signs are not explicitly mentioned.

here is one:

 

Details

SD 92SW TODMORDEN (former M.B.) ROCHDALE CANAL

5/243 Lock 30, (Winterbutlee Lock)

G.V. II

Lock. 1798. Massive rusticated stone retaining walls and cappings. Rebates for gates. Northern end curves down to lower level which opens out into a basin to facilitate the turn round of barges before Nip Square Lock.

Listing NGR: SD9351121579

 

======================================

 

I don't want to fall out with CRT as they can make life difficult, so ideally would like a local non boater to "front" any action, also I expect it would have more influence.

 

Another interesting issue is the lock bridge at Shop lock in Todmorden, another listed lock. The locals have repainted the bridge in brightish but tasteful colours rather than black and white. I quite like it but it could be the thin end of a wedge, but its very hard to complain when CRT have put up a horrible blue lock name sign.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Rebuild if it's got an RCD as you can't put another JD3 in it ... How old is Vox?

 

I can't see you liking the idea of bunging a Beta 43 in it's place (well, not until you've used it for a while ;) )

 

Will likely rebuild but If I replace the block like for like then that's just a very big rebuild? and nobody will know, have not yet met anybody checking engine numbers 😀.

 

I personally would have no problems putting a different engine in, even if that was a little bit illegal. However we have got very fond of  the huge power that the JD3 makes so the only thing that comes close would be a Gardner 2LW and they cost arms and legs. We have rescued two aground boats this year, including a hire boat seriously aground above Lechlade and that needed every bit of power that we have.

Vox is 2001, the shell sort of has an RCD but the owner fit out does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

Will likely rebuild but If I replace the block like for like then that's just a very big rebuild? and nobody will know, have not yet met anybody checking engine numbers 😀.

 

I personally would have no problems putting a different engine in, even if that was a little bit illegal. However we have got very fond of  the huge power that the JD3 makes so the only thing that comes close would be a Gardner 2LW and they cost arms and legs. We have rescued two aground boats this year, including a hire boat seriously aground above Lechlade and that needed every bit of power that we have.

Vox is 2001, the shell sort of has an RCD but the owner fit out does not.

 

If the owner fitout doesn't have a full RCD I think you'll be OK.  The annex III on the hull doesn't qualify as a full RCD from back then, and if Vox wasn't "placed on the market" for 5 years it's all kosher.

 

Buy another boat with a 2LW in it - preferably a less than 60 footer so you can play on the shorter canals - and swap the engines over as part of your rebuild project ...

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.