Banbury area, multiple closures due to vandalism

[Lily Rose]

Does anyone know what's been going on in the Banbury area lately?

 

My current plans for our next trip are (or were!) to head down from Napton through Banbury and on down to at least The Pig Place (Adderbury/Nell Bridge) and maybe further south. I have also recently been considering relocating to Cropredy Marina but in the light of this spate of vandalism maybe that's not such a good idea.

 

In the last few days I've seen CRT navigation closure stoppage notices, all related to vandalism, affecting 3 different pounds, one just above Banbury, one just below and one about 5 or 6 locks further south. 

 

I haven't seen anything yet to suggest that the 1st 2 of these have been rectified. The 3rd appears to have been fixed today.

 

Is this just coincidence I wonder, or are there a bunch of scrotes in the area intent on creating as much havoc and disruption as possible.

 

Anyone in the area know what's occuring?

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices/22751-navigation-closure-between-lock-27-little-bourton-and-lock-28-hardwick-lock

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices/22790-banbury-lock-29-to-grants-lock-30

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices/22760-navigation-closed-at-dashwood-lock-37

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tracy D'arth]

The C&RT definition of vandalism may well be different from the accepted one.

 

A boater accidentally leaving a paddle open has in the past been classed as vandalism.

 

The Middlewich breach which was caused by a long time notified leak in the embankment was labelled as vandalism because a boater opened the lock paddles to try to restore the water level.

[nicknorman]

Yes, it is not what anyone else would call vandalism.

[Lily Rose]

1 minute ago, Tracy D'arth said:

The C&RT definition of vandalism may well be different from the accepted one.

 

A boater accidentally leaving a paddle open has in the past been classed as vandalism.

 

The Middlewich breach which was caused by a long time notified leak in the embankment was labelled as vandalism because a boater opened the lock paddles to try to restore the water level.

 

Fair point but I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. I hope you're right but maybe someone currently in the area could shed a bit more light on it.

[ssnowman]

Came down from Cropredy yesterday and today. All locks are now open. Bigger problem is low water levels, especially below Banbury. We scraped along the bottom for several miles, but managed to get through and only got stuck twice. 

[dmr]

I believe CRT have set themselves a number of targets (or KPI's in NewSpeak) that they have to meet. Unplanned stoppages count against them, so attributing all sudden failures to boat impacts or vandalism is good because these don't count against them. A cynic might say they have got a few things wrong of late, furloughing maintenance  staff during lockdown, concentrating on cycleways, and diverting staff to erecting blue signs, have all increased the number of sudden failures and CRT need to get themselves off the hook. Its not good because boaters conjure up the image of gangs of marauding teenage yobs in what are actually really safe areas.  Only recently a passing boater adsvised me to move on because I was moored in a "bad" area, and the empty pounds were obvious evidence of these teenage gangs.

[Lily Rose]

OK, so far the opinion seems to be that it's just CRT blaming others to get themselves off the hook and not actual vandalism. Maybe you're all correct. I certainly hope so.

 

But... does anyone actually know what caused each of these 3 navigation closures, all at roughly the same time and in a small geographic area?

 

Vandals?

 

A single incompetent boater wrecking locks as they passed through the area?

 

The recent hot weather?

 

Sheer coincidence?

 

 

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, Lily Rose said:

OK, so far the opinion seems to be that it's just CRT blaming others to get themselves off the hook and not actual vandalism. Maybe you're all correct. I certainly hope so.

 

But... does anyone actually know what caused each of these 3 navigation closures, all at roughly the same time and in a small geographic area?

 

Vandals?

 

A single incompetent boater wrecking locks as they passed through the area?

 

The recent hot weather?

 

Sheer coincidence?

 

Probably coincidence on a well-used section of canal. The more a canal is used, the higher the chance of some complete numpty boater doing something really stupid! But even if we say they were not boater related, such things are done by a few kids having some “fun”. The range of such activities from a single person or group would be very small, walking distance for a lazy teenager. It’s not as if people would be roaming around in a car looking for a paddle to open. This sort of thing can happen absolutely anywhere but there is a big difference between some kids opening a paddle vs some sort of attack on you or your boat.

[dmr]

I heard of rumour of some "vandalism" up where I am. A local let some water down to keep his pound full to the brim to prevent wayward sheep from using the canal to get round the edge of a boundary fence. He did it badly and dropped the next pound very low.  This is selfish thoughtless behaviour, but its not really vandalism in the sense of mindless destruction, and not something that should turn a good area into a "nogo for boaters" place.

[cuthound]

Vandalism is a euphemism for lack of maintenance in CRT's world.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

14 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Vandalism is a euphemism for lack of maintenance in CRT's world.

Vandalism by neglect.

[Chris John]

I see the usual CRT bashers are about this afternoon 

[cuthound]

18 minutes ago, Chris John said:

I see the usual CRT bashers are about this afternoon 

 

On the contrary. I usually support CRT as there is no credible alternative at present, but even a blind man must see that they are failing to maintain the system and then blaming vandalism, for example when they do not repair a paddle when it fails, then have to have a closure when the second one fails. 

 

I have been boating for 49 years and until recently had never heard of balance beams failing, yet it has become a fairly common occurrence in the last couple of years.

[mrsmelly]

7 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

On the contrary. I usually support CRT as there is no credible alternative at present, but even a blind man must see that they are failing to maintain the system and then blaming vandalism, for example when they do not repair a paddle when it fails, then have to have a closure when the second one fails. 

 

I have been boating for 49 years and until recently had never heard of balance beams failing, yet it has become a fairly common occurrence in the last couple of years.

Sounds like I timed moving off rather well.

[Chris John]

13 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

On the contrary. I usually support CRT as there is no credible alternative at present, but even a blind man must see that they are failing to maintain the system and then blaming vandalism, for example when they do not repair a paddle when it fails, then have to have a closure when the second one fails. 

 

I have been boating for 49 years and until recently had never heard of balance beams failing, yet it has become a fairly common occurrence in the last couple of years.

I guess you’ve never heard of risk based maintenance and cost V benefit ? 

[cuthound]

8 minutes ago, Chris John said:

I guess you’ve never heard of risk based maintenance and cost V benefit ? 

 

Of course I have, I used to be a senior manager for BT advising on operational maintenance policies amongst other things.

 

CRT have taken it too far, and reached a state where the cost of failure exceeds the cost savings of deferred maintenance.

 

As I see it their options are now limited to:

 

 Continue with the present policy, which will result in a rapidly worsening canal network with many more unplanned closures.

 

Persuading the government to provide more funding to address the maintenance backlog and enable sufficent ongoing maintenance to keep the system operating in a steady state condition (unlikley in my opinion).

 

Significantly increasing the revenue from boaters (risky in my opinion, because many boaters will leave the system, possibly resulting in less revenue).

 

Reducing the size of the network by closing lesser used canals, thus increasing spend on the remaining canals (may be politically unacceptable with government and definately will be unpopular with boaters).

 

What would you suggest they do to improve the system?

 

[Paul C]

d, Reduce the size of the network

[nicknorman]

3 hours ago, Paul C said:

d, Reduce the size of the network

e. Stop wasting money on vanity projects and using for-profit contractors. Preventative maintenance is always cheaper than reactive maintenance.

[cuthound]

3 hours ago, Paul C said:

d, Reduce the size of the network

 

Unless CRT can cajole the government into giving them a lot more money, I think it is the only viable option, but it will be very unpopular.

[cuthound]

Just now, nicknorman said:

e. Stop wasting money on vanity projects and using for-profit contractors. Preventative maintenance is always cheaper than reactive maintenance.

 

Contracted labour is almost always cheaper than direct labour because you can turn it on and off to suit the workload. However with CRT they could retrain their staff to be multi-skilled, fixing broken paddles and grass cutting in summer and doing major infrastructure work and replacing lock gates.during winter.

 

I don't think the money saved from their vanity projects would be enough to do sufficient preventative maintenance though.

 

The problem for CRT is they have an ageing asset, so little opportunity to reduce the frequency of the necessary preventative maintenance.

[nicknorman]

16 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Contracted labour is almost always cheaper than direct labour because you can turn it on and off to suit the workload. However with CRT they could retrain their staff to be multi-skilled, fixing broken paddles and grass cutting in summer and doing major infrastructure work and replacing lock gates.during winter.

 

I don't think the money saved from their vanity projects would be enough to do sufficient preventative maintenance though.

 

The problem for CRT is they have an ageing asset, so little opportunity to reduce the frequency of the necessary preventative maintenance.

A reasonable model might be a core of employed labour, supplemented occasionally during times of peak demand by contractors. I think this is what CRT have, but the bias towards contractors has swung much too far so contractors are utilised all the time. Not only are contractors more expensive, they are also quite probably inexperienced in the particular task and probably not well motivated to do a good job, merely to fulfil the letter of the contract.

 

The asset is ageing, 20 years ago it was let’s say 250 years old, now it is 270 years old. Is that really a significant difference?

Edited July 16, 2022 by nicknorman

[Paul C]

16 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Unless CRT can cajole the government into giving them a lot more money, I think it is the only viable option, but it will be very unpopular.

 

Oh, 100% agree, undoubtedly. But they already have a very crude mechanism - there is a list of "cruiseways" and "remainder" waterways. I suspect it will be a not-too-difficult exercise to grade the entire canal network based on number of boat passages, cost to maintain per lock-mile, importance on network transit (cruise vs dead end), historical/other factor to influence. I dare say they already do it.

 

Then they could decide which waterways to discontinue navigation on, install the canal equivalent of these (maybe underwater?):

 

 

then shut off the water taps in the afflicted area and wait. Of course, boats could remain if they wished. Then after a certain time, install underwater shallows (such as at the head of the Llangollen Canal, horse-drawn section) to allow fish and ducks to travel freely, but not boats.

 

Deeply unpopular but possible. Anyone thinking the government will come up with more money, is dreaming.

[cuthound]

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

A reasonable model might be a core of employed labour, supplemented occasionally during times of peak demand by contractors. I think this is what CRT have, but the bias towards contractors has swung much too far so contractors are utilised all the time. Not only are contractors more expensive, they are also quite probably inexperienced in the particular task and probably not well motivated to do a good job, merely to fulfil the letter of the contract.

 

The asset is ageing, 20 years ago it was let’s say 250 years old, now it is 270 years old. Is that really a significant difference?

 

Yes the main problem for CRT in using contract labour is the specialist skills needed for some of the maintenance tasks.

 

In all contracts the specification is the playing field on which the game is played.

 

The specifier needs to eliminate as many grey areas as possible and the contractor looks for them as a source of extra income.

 

The only motivation for contractors that I found effective when writing specifications for contractors where performance bonuses for early completion and insurance backed guarantees to prevent shoddy work, something CRT and many local authorities could learn from.

 

The problem with maintaining an ageing asset is that it's true condition often isn't apparent until after the work has commenced. I used to pre-agree labour rates for different trades and a "price is a set percentage" for materials cause to prevent unscrupulous contractors from ripping my company off for additional work revealed during the agreed work.

[Arthur Marshall]

5 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

A reasonable model might be a core of employed labour, supplemented occasionally during times of peak demand by contractors. I think this is what CRT have, but the bias towards contractors has swung much too far so contractors are utilised all the time. Not only are contractors more expensive, they are also quite probably inexperienced in the particular task and probably not well motivated to do a good job, merely to fulfil the letter of the contract.

 

The asset is ageing, 20 years ago it was let’s say 250 years old, now it is 270 years old. Is that really a significant difference?

I think detioration works on a geometric rather than an arithmetical progression. So 20 years falling to bits from now is going to be a lot worse than in the past 20. And fifty years ago you had the huge upsurge in interest left over from all the enthusiasts who had brought the system back to life in the first place. That's all gone now, people just think it was always like it is now, but better.

 

[cuthound]

4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think detioration works on a geometric rather than an arithmetical progression. So 20 years falling to bits from now is going to be a lot worse than in the past 20. And fifty years ago you had the huge upsurge in interest left over from all the enthusiasts who had brought the system back to life in the first place. That's all gone now, people just think it was always like it is now, but better.

 

 

Very true. Whilst the canals are definitely in better condition now then they were when I first started canalling in 1973, they are in much worse condition than when I got my first shareboat in 1992.