Banbury area, multiple closures due to vandalism

[davem399]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

This is the main problem with anything funded by the lottery. The millenium grants went to loads of stuff - but only for capital costs, not for longterm funding. Most of the local museums, arts venues etc have already closed because they weren't viable. "Use it or lose it" is a very valid little cliche, and I suspect it will apply, sadly, to quite a lot of the canal system. If even the much used bits are in the state they're in, there really is little hope for the other bits unless someone can revitalise the original regeneration spirit. And that'll only happen if the internet falls apart... 

This is a similar situation to when I worked for the NHS Estates Dept of our local Trust.  The League of Friemds of the various hospitals would fund lots of new equipment which our capital budget could not afford.  However, most of this kit needed ongoing maintenance, which had to be funded from the existing maintenance budget.

[dmr]

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

This is the main problem with anything funded by the lottery. The millenium grants went to loads of stuff - but only for capital costs, not for longterm funding. Most of the local museums, arts venues etc have already closed because they weren't viable. "Use it or lose it" is a very valid little cliche, and I suspect it will apply, sadly, to quite a lot of the canal system. If even the much used bits are in the state they're in, there really is little hope for the other bits unless someone can revitalise the original regeneration spirit. And that'll only happen if the internet falls apart... 

Its not just lottery funding and canals, it runs much deeper than that. There are loads of sources of funding, including private investment, for building new stuff, especially if it has a vanity aspect to it, or a bit of good adverising/publicity. But nobody wants to do the boring running costs so all the new stuff just goes rapidly downhill.

[Tracy D'arth]

2 minutes ago, dmr said:

Its not just lottery funding and canals, it runs much deeper than that. There are loads of sources of funding, including private investment, for building new stuff, especially if it has a vanity aspect to it, or a bit of good adverising/publicity. But nobody wants to do the boring running costs so all the new stuff just goes rapidly downhill.

HS2?

[dmr]

2 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

HS2?

No, that is a different but also familiar problem. After the big anouncements to boost the egos of its origintors, and to satisfy their human instint to leave their mark (a bit like a male dog) its already been watered down to HS1.5 with trains running on existing track sections and not going as far as they should. I also suspect its going to be built with convential sleepers and ballast rathar on concrete like a proper high speed train.

[Midnight]

On 16/07/2022 at 15:51, Paul C said:

d, Reduce the size of the network

They already have here in Yorkshire ☹️

[Chris John]

On 16/07/2022 at 15:43, cuthound said:

 

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?

 

If they apply risk based maintenance correct they can’t have taken it too far. They either don’t use it or don’t apply it correctly. My guess is they don’t use it. 

[cuthound]

2 hours ago, Chris John said:

If they apply risk based maintenance correct they can’t have taken it too far. They either don’t use it or don’t apply it correctly. My guess is they don’t use it. 

 

And your solution to address the maintenance issues with the canal network would be?

[Tracy D'arth]

Put all the Russians in GB on forced labour gangs to dig and fix canals. Gulag BCN.

 

This post is not rude or humorous, it is a serious suggestion. I am anticipating massive support.

OK Moderators?

[LJM]

An interesting point of view, as a serious suggestion....

If your responses equal in gallons of water to refill the canal network, then we'll be floating our boats nicely!

[Pluto]

4 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Put all the Russians in GB on forced labour gangs to dig and fix canals. Gulag BCN.

 

This post is not rude or humorous, it is a serious suggestion. I am anticipating massive support.

OK Moderators?

Some years ago I reported upon the canal system, built by monks from the local monastery, on the main Solovki Island in the White Sea. During the rise of Communism it became the first Gulag, sending people out to work on the Baltic-White Sea Canal, and some were sunbsequently sent to work on the new Moscow Canal. In Romania, forced labour was used to build the Constanta Canal, while in 1930s Germany, Hitler had several new canals built, schemes which developed into some of the Nazi forced labour 'solution'. To anyone with a knowledge of forced labour and canals, your suggestion is a bit of an insult to the many who died, even if you were ignorant of the history behind what you were saying.

[Tracy D'arth]

9 minutes ago, Pluto said:

Some years ago I reported upon the canal system, built by monks from the local monastery, on the main Solovki Island in the White Sea. During the rise of Communism it became the first Gulag, sending people out to work on the Baltic-White Sea Canal, and some were sunbsequently sent to work on the new Moscow Canal. In Romania, forced labour was used to build the Constanta Canal, while in 1930s Germany, Hitler had several new canals built, schemes which developed into some of the Nazi forced labour 'solution'. To anyone with a knowledge of forced labour and canals, your suggestion is a bit of an insult to the many who died, even if you were ignorant of the history behind what you were saying.

Well aware,  but you cannot insult the dead no matter how they died, they do not care.

[Chris John]

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

 

And your solution to address the maintenance issues with the canal network would be?

Apply risk based maintenance and risk based preventative based on an equipment strategy. Cost V benefit 

Edited July 19, 2022 by Chris John

[Midnight]

28 minutes ago, Chris John said:

Apply risk based maintenance and risk based preventative based on an equipment strategy. Cost V benefit 

You sound like a CRT manager.

How about just fix the foooking paddles?

[Chris John]

1 hour ago, Midnight said:

You sound like a CRT manager.

How about just fix the foooking paddles?

And you sound like you don’t have a clue

[Captain Pegg]

Repairing a paddle within a mandated timescale after it becomes ineffective sounds like exactly the sort of thing that is required. It's within the skillset of CRT to do so and it's money that's going to be spent eventually anyway. In general it's the point at which the system concerned (a lock) is 50% of the way to loss of function and additionally when it is coupled with a defective gate or another paddle will lead to user difficulty and/or loss of efficiency i.e. water. So I don't think it's OK to leave a yellow sack over it for a seemingly indefinite period of time while users strain their bodies to open gates while water p*sses out the leaks at the other end. Ideally there would be a notice saying "This equipment was taken out of use on xx/xx/xx and will be repaired by xx/xx/xx".  

 

Implementing true risk based maintenance on assets like CRTs has a number of potential difficulties:

 

- where and what is the failure data?

- how do you quantify the losses (what exactly does a closure at Banbury cost to CRT or the public or indeed the boater)?

- how do you accurately account for the vagaries of nature on water supply?

- how is the variation within user behaviour and error catered for?

- is it practical to implement the necessary inspection periodicity for underwater assets?

- where is the resource to undertake the failure analysis required?

 

I'm sure they are all solvable but only to a certain level of accuracy based upon a series of assumptions and models rather than true accurate measured data. In any case if the idea that the output requirements are a fully functioning system 100% of the time the resulting workload will almost certainly be unaffordable/unresourcable and there will be lots more stoppages required for inspection. It's a big undertaking for a business with high risks which in truth CRT doesn't have.

 

Personally I'd much sooner CRT spent their time and money on improving their basic practice.

 

 

Edited July 19, 2022 by Captain Pegg

[Midnight]

3 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Repairing a paddle within a mandated timescale after it becomes ineffective sounds like exactly the sort of thing that is required. It's within the skillset of CRT to do so and it's money that's going to be spent eventually anyway. In general it's the point at which the system concerned (a lock) is 50% of the way to loss of function and additionally when it is coupled within a defective gate or another paddle will lead to user difficulty and/or loss of efficiency i.e. water. So I don't think it's OK to leave a yellow sack over it for a seemingly indefinite period of time while users strain their bodies to open gates while water p*sses out the leaks at the other end. Ideally there would be a notice saying "This equipment was taken out of use on xx/xx/xx and will be repaired by xx/xx/xx".  

 

Implementing true risk based maintenance on assets like CRTs has a number of potential difficulties:

 

- where and what is the failure data?

- how do you quantify the losses (what exactly does a closure at Banbury cost to CRT or the public or indeed the boater)?

- how do you accurately account for the vagaries of nature on water supply?

- how is the variation within user behaviour and error catered for?

- is it practical to implement the necessary inspection periodicity for underwater assets?

- where is the resource to undertake the failure analysis required?

 

I'm sure they are all solvable but only to a certain level of accuracy based upon a series of assumptions and models rather than true accurate measured data. In any case if the idea that the output requirements are a fully functioning system 100% of the time the resulting workload will almost certainly be unaffordable/unresourcable and there will be lots more stoppages required for inspection. It's a big undertaking for a business with high risks which in truth CRT doesn't have.

 

Personally I'd much sooner CRT spent their time and money on improving their basic practice.

 

 

I was just going to say the exact same thing - 'onest!

 

When I was at work we called it 'management by doing things'.

[Rambling Boater]

Sadly I doubt things will improve until it starts to hit someones pocket. I would imagine many hire boat companies are getting concerned about the lack of maintenence for example. It does seem strange that whilst we have many low budget canal restoration projects going on around the country that C&RT struggle to maintain the basics despite the millions they receive each year. Perhaps the problem is too many chiefs and not enough indians? 
 

On the 'vandalism', I think C&RT could do themselves a favour and say in the notices exactly what the vandalism is. That might help build up trust in their communications.

Edited July 20, 2022 by Rambling Boater

[Chris John]

8 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

Repairing a paddle within a mandated timescale after it becomes ineffective sounds like exactly the sort of thing that is required. It's within the skillset of CRT to do so and it's money that's going to be spent eventually anyway. In general it's the point at which the system concerned (a lock) is 50% of the way to loss of function and additionally when it is coupled with a defective gate or another paddle will lead to user difficulty and/or loss of efficiency i.e. water. So I don't think it's OK to leave a yellow sack over it for a seemingly indefinite period of time while users strain their bodies to open gates while water p*sses out the leaks at the other end. Ideally there would be a notice saying "This equipment was taken out of use on xx/xx/xx and will be repaired by xx/xx/xx".  

 

Implementing true risk based maintenance on assets like CRTs has a number of potential difficulties:

 

- where and what is the failure data?

- how do you quantify the losses (what exactly does a closure at Banbury cost to CRT or the public or indeed the boater)?

- how do you accurately account for the vagaries of nature on water supply?

- how is the variation within user behaviour and error catered for?

- is it practical to implement the necessary inspection periodicity for underwater assets?

- where is the resource to undertake the failure analysis required?

 

I'm sure they are all solvable but only to a certain level of accuracy based upon a series of assumptions and models rather than true accurate measured data. In any case if the idea that the output requirements are a fully functioning system 100% of the time the resulting workload will almost certainly be unaffordable/unresourcable and there will be lots more stoppages required for inspection. It's a big undertaking for a business with high risks which in truth CRT doesn't have.

 

Personally I'd much sooner CRT spent their time and money on improving their basic practice.

 

 

These issues can be solved and over time it should result in money being spent on the right repairs at the right time in the most cost effective way. The days of fire fighting need to end to get more efficient and effective in the way CRT maintain the infrastructure 

[MtB]

8 hours ago, Midnight said:

I was just going to say the exact same thing - 'onest!

 

When I was at work we called it 'management by doing things'.

 

 

Yes. The amount of employee time it would take to design, collect the statistics and implement such a system would be better used actually fixing all the busted paddles. 

[cuthound]

12 hours ago, Chris John said:

Apply risk based maintenance and risk based preventative based on an equipment strategy. Cost V benefit 

 

And how do you account for finding hidden unforeseen issues when undertaking routine maintenance on a 250yeat old infrastructure? 

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, Chris John said:

These issues can be solved and over time it should result in money being spent on the right repairs at the right time in the most cost effective way. The days of fire fighting need to end to get more efficient and effective in the way CRT maintain the infrastructure 

They could, although I don’t think the assets concerned easily lend themselves to it.

 

In theory it’s a way of quantifying exactly what maintenance inputs are required but for the level of availability we’d desire as boaters the outcome would almost certainly be that the volumes of work required are beyond CRT’s current capability.

 

That means either CRT expand their workforce or make investments to bring the system up to a level where the current workforce can implement an RBM regime. There’s neither the funding or the business case for that. It’s a reality of trying to implement RBM in a subsidised business.

 

Given all that I think some easily understandable service level outputs aimed at boaters, rather than a bunch of metrics aimed at convincing civil servants the ideology behind the creation of CRT was sound, would help focus attention on what really matters.

[Chris John]

3 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

And how do you account for finding hidden unforeseen issues when undertaking routine maintenance on a 250yeat old infrastructure? 

I guess you have no idea how risk based maintenance works. Try researching it before dismissing it 

[cuthound]

2 hours ago, Chris John said:

I guess you have no idea how risk based maintenance works. Try researching it before dismissing it 

 

Of course I know how risk based maintenance works.

 

However when dealing with very old systems, like canals, it is often not apparent how much work is needed until the work commences. This is partly due to poor record keeping or other unknowns, such as construction method or materials. This is where risk based maintenance often fails, it depends on complete knowledge and canals often throw up unknown issues. An example being when workers accidentally pulled the drain plug out of the Chesterfield Canal, no one knew it was there because it was not recorded. There are many culverts crossing the canals which are unrecorded and hence cannot be assed for their risk of failure.

 

When you have this type of thing it is prudent to have a system in place which can quickly repair it, even when the cost is very high. The alternative is long closures.

Edited July 20, 2022 by cuthound
To unmangle the effects of autocorrect.

[Ronaldo47]

I recall reading that at least one of those drain plug incidents happened during dredging because the old canal company's records had been lost when their offices had been bombed during WWII. 

Edited July 20, 2022 by Ronaldo47
typos

[Pluto]

Most of the L&LC engineering records were lost when the head office was destroyed by a fire bomb around 1941, but there are still useful documents surviving if you know where to look. On culverts, there is an 1843 survey, which was updated in the 1920s, still surviving, though you do need to know where to look  to find it - I have just passed a copy on to CRT's engineers. Perhaps the main problem is that our society undervalues practical skills. With the modern management methods requiring short term contracts or people to change post regularly, we no longer have people in post for decades; yet that was how canals operated. Although there are no detailed drawings of lock gates for the L&LC, there is a notebook with the outline dimensions. That was enough, as any carpenter at the workshops knew how a lock gate was made. Much was passed down by word of mouth, something which simply does not happen today as people do not stay in post long enough. The problem which goes along with this, is that few people in management have any practical experience, and they are loathed to listen to those who do. You only have to look at Parliament to see the problem that creates. Schools and universities produce well educated people, but I am unsure as to how intelligent many are as they haven't a clue when it comes to practical experience.