NABO want us to support C&RT

[Midnight]

I read the article on NBW regarding NABO urging boaters to support C&RT in their forthcoming grant application with a template letter to our MP.
https://www.narrowboatworld.com/13816-canal-river-trust-need-our-support

 

First thoughts are yes C&RT without grant will be worse than it is now, but it seems to me C&RT are already a shambles of an organisation. I'm not too sure it could get any worse, especially here in the north. What happens if they don't get the grant? Surely they then couldn't meet their obligations to maintain the system and therefore would DEFRA take control maybe putting the waterways in the hands of the EA or even set up an alternative body? Some of the decisions made recently lead me to wonder if they would be a lot happier without boats. They certainly haven't made it easy over the past few years. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

The transfer documents explain in detail what DEFRA will do if C&RT fail to meet their obligations -

 

It'll be interesting to see what the DEFRA review against targets that was undertaken last Summer will report - particularly when results of the KPIs was amended three times between the annual report being signed off by the Directors, being filed at Companies house, and being issued to DEFRA.

 

CRT 'amended' its Annual Report AFTER -

• approval by its board of trustees, for the chair, Allan Leighton to sign it on their behalf
• board instructions given to the legal and governance director (and company secretary), Tom Deards to file at Companies House and Charity Commission
• chief executive, Richard Parry telling the board that he would arrange to publish on CRT's website
• Richard Parry quoting a KPI at CRT's APM (later falsified)
• a formal vote by CRT's Council of Members to 'receive' the approved report
• publication of the approved report on CRT's website
• filing of the approved report at Companies House

 

Surely no one could write to their MP / DEFRA saying that C&RT have done a wonderful job.

 

C&RT have already admitted that their income is insufficient and have requested an addition £200 million.

 

In early June 2020 CaRT Chairman, Allan Leighton, and Chief Executive, Richard Parry, wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Steve Barclay MP, with a funding proposal (called a ‘pitch letter’ by the Trust). The objective was to gain treasury agreement to significant extra funding (£200m) over a five year period. This would be in addition to its annual Defra grant (currently £52m per year but set to decrease).

 

 

 

 

On the 24th August, Allan Leighton wrote again expanding on the proposals and increasing the amount requested.  The initial pitch of £200m was revised upwards to £255m with CaRT saying that it would contribute £35m to that amount.

The letter told that CaRT were already in discussion with Department of Transport regarding £45m for (yes, you have already guessed!) towpath improvements.

 

However, the main thrust of the second letter was to expand on funding required for a substantial £160m ‘critical waterways infrastructure resilience programme’.  The suggestion was that the Treasury contribute £125m over the five year timescale with CaRT providing a further £35m

 

CaRT has kept everyone in the dark regarding the pitch to the Treasury.  It does not appear to have thought it necessary to tell its council either.  Furthermore, it has not told Defra about the ‘critical waterways infrastructure resilience programme’.

Under its grant agreement with Defra, CaRT has to provide figures showing what percentage of principal assets fall within the two worst condition classes (D—poor and E—bad). In eight years, CaRT has produced figures showing that it has reduced the percentage of principal assets in poor or bad condition by 25% . Over the same time frame it figures show it has halved the number of high-risk culverts and embankments in poor or bad condition.

Perhaps, its Trustees are concerned about the fallout should Defra start wondering why CaRT’s figures show the condition of critical assets are improving but at the same time is asking for additional grant to make them more resilient to failure.

Perhaps it is because CaRT do not want to appear as having failed dismally.  It is an agreed objective under the grant agreement that government funding for CaRT will reduce or cease by 2027.

 

A review to determine post 2027 funding is currently underway with Defra shopping for consultants to investigate the Trust.

 

Much of the information from @Allan(nb Albert)

Edited April 5, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[Athy]

Perhaps the government could follow Wee Sturgeon's example with Scottish railways and nationalise our canal system, They could name it "British Waterways". Would that work?

[Nightwatch]

3 minutes ago, Athy said:

Perhaps the government could follow Wee Sturgeon's example with Scottish railways and nationalise our canal system, They could name it "British Waterways". Would that work?

Yes, it may well work. If they revert back to lenghtsmen and the like. Try and buy back all of the heavy and light equipment that has been sold off and of course a definite budget for preventative maintenance. Take the majority of works back ‘in-house’ and give some ‘ownership’ to the direct employed.

 

However, my own thoughts are that the system is being allowed to go into disrepair and boating will become a thing of the past. Probably not in my lifetime but it’s seems to beheading that way.

[TheBiscuits]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Under its grant agreement with Defra, CaRT has to provide figures showing what percentage of principal assets fall within the two worst condition classes (D—poor and E—bad). 

 

Correct, and CRT are very aware of it.

 

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

In eight years, CaRT has produced figures showing that it has reduced the percentage of principal assets in poor or bad condition by 25% . Over the same time frame it figures show it has halved the number of high-risk culverts and embankments in poor or bad condition.

 

Again correct.  CRT have deliberately been fixing minor stuff that brings assets to grade C or above (not usually even aiming for grade A) so the percentages look better. 

 

They have been leaving major stuff alone because it only counts as one asset on the KPI and fixing hundreds of very minor things.  It's a case of you get what you measure!

 

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Perhaps, its Trustees are concerned about the fallout should Defra start wondering why CaRT’s figures show the condition of critical assets are improving but at the same time is asking for additional grant to make them more resilient to failure.

 

It's the remaining expensive stuff to fix they need the money for, and they need a lot more of it.  If they had chosen to fix stuff in strict order of need they would have blown the entire budget on only a few big projects and totally missed the asset condition KPI.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Nightwatch said:

Probably not in my lifetime but it’s seems to beheading that way.

 

The reason we left the cut was its just getting to unreliable and harder and harder to operate with the 'bottom to close to the top' and the lock gates needing 2+ people to operate because they are unbalanced.

[Athy]

18 minutes ago, Nightwatch said:

Yes, it may well work. If they revert back to lenghtsmen and the like. Try and buy back all of the heavy and light equipment that has been sold off and of course a definite budget for preventative maintenance. Take the majority of works back ‘in-house’ and give some ‘ownership’ to the direct employed.

 

 

Sounds like a plan, as the saying goes.

[Midnight]

49 minutes ago, Nightwatch said:

Yes, it may well work. If they revert back to lenghtsmen and the like. Try and buy back all of the heavy and light equipment that has been sold off and of course a definite budget for preventative maintenance. Take the majority of works back ‘in-house’ and give some ‘ownership’ to the direct employed.

 

Heaven!
It did work a lot better when it was like that.

 

 

49 minutes ago, Nightwatch said:

However, my own thoughts are that the system is being allowed to go into disrepair and boating will become a thing of the past. Probably not in my lifetime but it’s seems to beheading that way.

 My thoughts too but coming to a northern canal soon!

It's already nigh on impossible to plan a cruise down to the Midlands & South with any certainty. 

Canals will become the domain of the continuous moorer.

[Hudds Lad]

1 hour ago, Athy said:

They could name it "British Waterways". Would that work?

 

I've heard they have an alternative rebrand in reserve...

 

 

[Athy]

1 minute ago, Hudds Lad said:

 

I've heard they have an alternative rebrand in reserve...

 

 

Hmm, not bad, but "MAWT" isn't really a word.

 

I'm not sure that "Mindfulness" is either, come to think of it. Certainly it's not one which I recall ever having seen until now.

[Jon57]

26 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

 

I've heard they have an alternative rebrand in reserve...

 

 

Wrong colour. Should be blue and white then it would get approved. 😭

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

the lock gates needing 2+ people to operate because they are unbalanced.

I keep hearing people say this. What is 'unbalanced' and what should, in your opinion, be done to correct it?

 

[Midnight]

9 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I keep hearing people say this. What is 'unbalanced' and what should, in your opinion, be done to correct it?

 

I heard it said the C&RT top management and chair are unbalanced. Fix by removing them from their posts and installing people who are not fixated on blue signs, cycle paths and falsifying the accounts to look good.

 

In the meanwhile I'm not sure C&RT deserve our support.

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Midnight

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I keep hearing people say this. What is 'unbalanced' and what should, in your opinion, be done to correct it?

 

 

A balanced gate doesn't swing closed when opened, and doesn't swing open when closed.

How many times have I opened the gate(s) gone back to the boat and they are closed, or close the gates and they open.

A gate that is unbalanced (and swings closed) needs a far greater force to open it.

 

SWMBO is not a 'small lass' and there are some that two of us have struggled to get moving.

 

Are you suggesting that you have never found a hard to operate gate(s) ?

 

I'd say that 20-30 years ago the installers of the gates were experienced and could balance / adjust the gates properly, the current installers do not seem to have the knowledge (or maybe the time) to do the job properly.

 

What can be done about it ?

Do the job properly and to a level / standard which was achieved in the past.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

A balanced gate doesn't swing closed when opened, and doesn't swing open when closed.

How many times have I opened the gate(s) gone back to the boat and they are closed, or close the gates and they open.

A gate that is unbalanced (and swings closed) needs a far greater force to open it.

 

SWMBO is not a 'small lass' and there are some that two of us have struggled to get moving.

 

Are you suggesting that you have never found a hard to operate gate(s) ?

 

I'd say that 20-30 years ago the installers of the gates were experienced and could balance / adjust the gates properly, the current installers do not seem to have the knowledge (or maybe the time) to do the job properly.

 

What can be done about it ?

Do the job properly and to a level / standard which was achieved in the past.

 

I'm not sure what can be done to "balance" a gate once it's been built, it's not like a car wheel with balance weights -- since the gate beam is rigidly attached to the rest of the gate it can't be moved, maybe the most that could be done is to bolt steel plate weights to one face of the beam or the other. Assuming the gate was properly built in the workshop, the most likely cause of them swinging open (or closed) is that lock ground movement means that the gate heel post is no longer vertical, and there's not much that can be done to fix this short of rebuilding the entire lock.

 

Or am I missing something?

[Slim]

2 hours ago, Nightwatch said:

Yes, it may well work. If they revert back to lenghtsmen and the like. Try and buy back all of the heavy and light equipment that has been sold off and of course a definite budget for preventative maintenance. Take the majority of works back ‘in-house’ and give some ‘ownership’ to the direct employed.

 

However, my own thoughts are that the system is being allowed to go into disrepair and boating will become a thing of the past. Probably not in my lifetime but it’s seems to beheading that way.

I have long held a similar view. Canals near conobations will become slum housing estates and those in the country linier water parks with adjacent speed cycling paths. Selfishly I content myself with the knowledge It will be after my time.

[David Mack]

Whether a gate swings open or closed is dependent on the position of the upper and lower points about which it pivots. They are both fixed by the masonry of the lock construction, and there is little gate fitters can do to change the way a particular gate is balanced, without involving major works to the chamber masonry.

Most locks were built so that the upper pivot is further in the downstream direction, and further away from the middle of the lock (i.e. the lock walls slope slightly outwards). This means that gravity will hold a gate in the fully closed or fully open position, which is generally desirable, but the consequence is that in order to open or close a gate you first have to move it against gravity until you get to a 'high point' roughly midway between the open and closed positions. And this is in addition to the need to impart energy to get the gate from being stationary to being in motion.

Of course over time some lock walls have moved, meaning that the original balance may have changed.

But short of major rebuilding there is nothing that CRT can do to materially change the balance of a gate, nor do I think there has been any intention by BW or CRT to change gate balancing.

Any decrease in your ability to open gates single handed compared with 20-30 years ago probably has more do do with the fact that you are now 20-30 years older!

Edited April 5, 2022 by David Mack

[GUMPY]

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I'm not sure what can be done to "balance" a gate once it's been built, it's not like a car wheel with balance weights -- since the gate beam is rigidly attached to the rest of the gate it can't be moved, maybe the most that could be done is to bolt steel plate weights to one face of the beam or the other. Assuming the gate was properly built in the workshop, the most likely cause of them swinging open (or closed) is that lock ground movement means that the gate heel post is no longer vertical, and there's not much that can be done to fix this short of rebuilding the entire lock.

 

Or am I missing something?

On the GU south lots of the gates have hollow steel balance beams or two C section beams facing each other, these can be  filled with concrete I suspect to balance the weight of the beam against the weight of the gate.

[David Mack]

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I'm not sure what can be done to "balance" a gate once it's been built, it's not like a car wheel with balance weights -- since the gate beam is rigidly attached to the rest of the gate it can't be moved, maybe the most that could be done is to bolt steel plate weights to one face of the beam or the other. Assuming the gate was properly built in the workshop, the most likely cause of them swinging open (or closed) is that lock ground movement means that the gate heel post is no longer vertical, and there's not much that can be done to fix this short of rebuilding the entire lock.

 

Or am I missing something?

I agree generally, but as in my previous post, heel posts aren't generally vertical anyway - they are designed so the gate will fall open or shut (subject to wind and current effects).

And when you think of a bottom gate, where at the time you are opening or closing it, most of the weight is above water level and all on one side of the pivot, then adding weight to the balance beam isn't going to change the balance very much unless you add several tons.

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

Or am I missing something?

 

The collar has a huge threaded 'bolt' coming of the back of it the 'verticalness' of the gate is controlled by this, if the gate is 'leaning forward' then it will be very heavy to open, it will also mean that the mitre-posts do not coincide/join properly allowing leaks and then additional timber is either required or needs to be removed to get them to close (properly without a gap)

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

Just now, Loddon said:

On the GU south lots of the gates have hollow steel balance beams or two C section beams facing each other, these can be  filled with concrete I suspect to balance the weight of the beam against the weight of the gate.

Yes, but as David says it's the alignment of the pivot axis that really matters as far as swinging open or closed is concerned. If this is misaligned, all changing the weight of the balance beam will do is affect how fast it swings open or closed.

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The collar has a huge threaded 'bolt' coming of the back of it the 'verticalness' of the gate is controlled by this, if the gate is 'leaning forward' then it will be very heavy to open, it will also mean that the mitre-posts do not coincide/join properly allowing leaks and then additional timber is either required or needs to be removed to get them to close (properly without a gap)

 

 

The collar just holds the gate in place; the pivoting of the gate is controlled by the curved recess that the heel post pivots in, not the collar.

[David Mack]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The collar has a huge threaded 'bolt' coming of the back of it the 'verticalness' of the gate is controlled by this, if the gate is 'leaning forward' then it will be very heavy to open, it will also mean that the mitre-posts do not coincide/join properly allowing leaks and then additional timber is either required or needs to be removed to get them to close (properly without a gap)

 

 

 

 

 

The collar is usually slightly loose, so that when the gate is being opened or closed, the back curved surface of the heel post is not in contact with the quoin masonry. That reduces the frictional resistance to moving the gate and minimises wear of the heel post. For mitre gates once the gates are closed and there is a water level difference across them, then the water pressure is resisted by horizontal arching, which forces the heel posts back into the quoins. You will often notice the gates drop just before the level equalises, as the weight of the gate overcomes the arching effect.

When gates are installed the fitters wedge under the free end of the gates to hold them in the 'arched' position, so that the mitre seals can then be trimmed to minimise leakage in the same position the gates will be in when they are actually holding back water.

[Pluto]

Many years ago, one of the carpenters on the L&LC suggested to me that the balance depended upon the hollow quoin being correct, and that any movement of the stonework over time resulted in it being difficult to make gates easy to open and close. On the L&LC, many locks, particularly where there had been subsidence, had iron bars hung under the balance beam which allowed a gate to be held open or closed.

The seal came initially from the gate pin being slightly off centre, such that as the gate closed it butted up to the outer edge of the hollow quoin. The off-centre pin meant that as the gate was opened it moved out of the hollow, reducing any wear. When fitted, the gates should meet at the bottom of the mitre and have a slight gap at the top. As the lock was filled, water pressure would then ensure that you had a good seal.

The diagram below comes from an 1817 Austrian book on canal building which I have recently translated, and the centre of the quoin post is at 'o', but the gate is pivotted on 'c', such that it does not rub against the stonework as it opens - in theory anyway.

[David Mack]

7 hours ago, David Mack said:

Any decrease in your ability to open gates single handed compared with 20-30 years ago probably has more do do with the fact that you are now 20-30 years older!

My mother was still opening and closing gates (admittedly light ones, on the Lapworth flight) at age 89.

[Scholar Gypsy]

15 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The transfer documents explain in detail what DEFRA will do if C&RT fail to meet their obligations -

 

It'll be interesting to see what the DEFRA review against targets that was undertaken last Summer will report - particularly when results of the KPIs was amended three times between the annual report being signed off by the Directors, being filed at Companies house, and being issued to DEFRA.

 

CRT 'amended' its Annual Report AFTER -

• approval by its board of trustees, for the chair, Allan Leighton to sign it on their behalf
• board instructions given to the legal and governance director (and company secretary), Tom Deards to file at Companies House and Charity Commission
• chief executive, Richard Parry telling the board that he would arrange to publish on CRT's website
• Richard Parry quoting a KPI at CRT's APM (later falsified)
• a formal vote by CRT's Council of Members to 'receive' the approved report
• publication of the approved report on CRT's website
• filing of the approved report at Companies House

 

Surely no one could write to their MP / DEFRA saying that C&RT have done a wonderful job.

 

C&RT have already admitted that their income is insufficient and have requested an addition £200 million.

 

In early June 2020 CaRT Chairman, Allan Leighton, and Chief Executive, Richard Parry, wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Steve Barclay MP, with a funding proposal (called a ‘pitch letter’ by the Trust). The objective was to gain treasury agreement to significant extra funding (£200m) over a five year period. This would be in addition to its annual Defra grant (currently £52m per year but set to decrease).

 

 

 

 

On the 24th August, Allan Leighton wrote again expanding on the proposals and increasing the amount requested.  The initial pitch of £200m was revised upwards to £255m with CaRT saying that it would contribute £35m to that amount.

The letter told that CaRT were already in discussion with Department of Transport regarding £45m for (yes, you have already guessed!) towpath improvements.

 

However, the main thrust of the second letter was to expand on funding required for a substantial £160m ‘critical waterways infrastructure resilience programme’.  The suggestion was that the Treasury contribute £125m over the five year timescale with CaRT providing a further £35m

 

CaRT has kept everyone in the dark regarding the pitch to the Treasury.  It does not appear to have thought it necessary to tell its council either.  Furthermore, it has not told Defra about the ‘critical waterways infrastructure resilience programme’.

Under its grant agreement with Defra, CaRT has to provide figures showing what percentage of principal assets fall within the two worst condition classes (D—poor and E—bad). In eight years, CaRT has produced figures showing that it has reduced the percentage of principal assets in poor or bad condition by 25% . Over the same time frame it figures show it has halved the number of high-risk culverts and embankments in poor or bad condition.

Perhaps, its Trustees are concerned about the fallout should Defra start wondering why CaRT’s figures show the condition of critical assets are improving but at the same time is asking for additional grant to make them more resilient to failure.

Perhaps it is because CaRT do not want to appear as having failed dismally.  It is an agreed objective under the grant agreement that government funding for CaRT will reduce or cease by 2027.

 

A review to determine post 2027 funding is currently underway with Defra shopping for consultants to investigate the Trust.

 

Much of the information from @Allan(nb Albert)

Unless things have changed a lot since I used to work there, I would expect HMT to just pass this letter back to CRT's sponsor department, ie Defra.