Jump to content

Inaccurate reservoir watch figures


MHS

Featured Posts

CRT has now listed the latest reservoir watch details. There appears to be lots of mistakes in the July figures. Percentage drops are not accurate to the actual change and in almost every case, the level matches exactly the previous historical low. 
Who should I report this to?

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/46474-july-2022-reservoir-watch.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the minimum historic matches the current figure, this indicates, to me, that the level is the lowest it has ever been, which is possible.

I've no idea who is responsible, is there no indication?

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LadyG said:

If the minimum historic matches the current figure, this indicates, to me, that the level is the lowest it has ever been, which is possible.

I've no idea who is responsible, is there no indication?

But unlikely to be to the exactly same to one decimal point for each historical previous low. They quote the year this happened. 
They state that Birmingham navigations have dropped by 5.9% from 92.7% in June to 27% in July!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MHS said:

But unlikely to be to the exactly same to one decimal point for each historical previous low. They quote the year this happened. 
They state that Birmingham navigations have dropped by 5.9% from 92.7% in June to 27% in July!!

I have little faith in CRT missives, no one seems to proof read, obfuscation is rife. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MHS said:

CRT has now listed the latest reservoir watch details. There appears to be lots of mistakes in the July figures. Percentage drops are not accurate to the actual change and in almost every case, the level matches exactly the previous historical low. 
Who should I report this to?

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/46474-july-2022-reservoir-watch.pdf

It says  Water Management Team issued it. Looks as if there has been a touch of fat finger  on it. Suggest you gently draw their attention to it. Their commentary looks as if it has been impacted by some of the improbable entries. Eg Lancaster. Mistakes happen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MHS said:

CRT has now listed the latest reservoir watch details. There appears to be lots of mistakes in the July figures. Percentage drops are not accurate to the actual change and in almost every case, the level matches exactly the previous historical low. 
Who should I report this to?

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/46474-july-2022-reservoir-watch.pdf


So other than one entry, where the minimum historical level has been entered in lieu of the actual reading - what other mistakes are there?

 

It’s clear there isn’t anything malicious in that error because the -5.9% change allows you to calculate the entry should say 87.2%; and perhaps more importantly the BCN is open for business and full of water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

I think you'll find his given name is Adam.

Many thanks, I have emailed him. 
 

2 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:


So other than one entry, where the minimum historical level has been entered in lieu of the actual reading - what other mistakes are there?

 

It’s clear there isn’t anything malicious in that error because the -5.9% change allows you to calculate the entry should say 87.2%; and perhaps more importantly the BCN is open for business and full of water.

I’ve never said that there was anything malicious, just inaccurate. 
The figures are also wrong for the Staffs & Worcs, Huddersfield narrow, GU north & Lancaster. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MHS said:

Many thanks, I have emailed him. 
 

I’ve never said that there was anything malicious, just inaccurate. 
The figures are also wrong for the Staffs & Worcs, Huddersfield narrow, GU north & Lancaster. 

 


Ah, yes, unless by a very unlikely coincidence the lowest ever level occurred in a previous year and has been matched to the nearest 0.1% this month.

 

A bit of a copy and paste issue.

 

Fair play to you if you do succeed in getting it updated. The bad news is that it won’t change the levels in the reservoirs.

 

Edited by Captain Pegg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Quattrodave said:

Do we think it's a genuine mistake, or deliberate mis representation? If deliberate, for what reason?

It’s obviously a mistake. Why do people constantly look for conspiracies? 

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

Does it make any real difference, when its empty its empty 

 

Yes, if you’re planning a cruise. There’s a big difference between 87% and 27% in a reservoir. 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Quattrodave said:

Do we think it's a genuine mistake, or deliberate mis representation? If deliberate, for what reason?


Its clearly an issue about update to a template.

 

There is one wrong figure - where the lowest historical values for BCN reservoir levels has been input as the July 22 level- and the others are where the lowest level is the current level and although this has been updated in the relevant column the year of that reading has failed to be updated.

Edited by Captain Pegg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:


Its clearly an issue about update to a template.

 

There is one wrong figure - where the lowest historical values for BCN reservoir levels has been input as the July 22 level- and the others are where the lowest level is the current level and although this has been updated in the relevant column the year of that reading has failed to be updated.

 

Well I hope there's more than one wrong figure, otherwise GU North has gone from 85.6% in June to 34.2% in July. That is similar to levels in the North and therefore implies imminent closure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lily Rose said:

 

Well I hope there's more than one wrong figure, otherwise GU North has gone from 85.6% in June to 34.2% in July. That is similar to levels in the North and therefore implies imminent closure!


Yes, same mistake as for the BCN.

 

I kind of feel like it may just be better if we weren’t told these things, even when the numbers are correct.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve now had a response from CRT, who are going to correct the errors:

 

Good Afternoon

 

Thank you for contacting The Canal & River Trust - In regards to your enquiry below, I have had a response from the relevant team and this is being fixed - it will be updated asap but cant give any timescales when this will be completed.

 

Once again thank you for contacting The Canal & River Trust.

 

Kind Regards

 

 

Ghandi Foster 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MHS said:

I’ve now had a response from CRT, who are going to correct the errors:

 

Good Afternoon

 

Thank you for contacting The Canal & River Trust - In regards to your enquiry below, I have had a response from the relevant team and this is being fixed - it will be updated asap but cant give any timescales when this will be completed.

 

Once again thank you for contacting The Canal & River Trust.

 

Kind Regards

 

 

Ghandi Foster 

 

By Jove, you deal with people high up in C&RT!!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been travelling the M62 many times in the last 6 weeks, the levels in reservoirs close to where the M62 passes either side of the farmhouse have fallen dramatically in recent weeks. I can understand how the canal reservoirs have done the same,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that the Macclesfield resevoirs are showing at 26%. I've just been for a stroll. Sutton reservoir is all but empty. There's a flow going in today because of this mornings rain but nothing coming out. 

 

Bosley resevoir has blue signs up saying it is 10% of capacity and C&RT are taking the opportunity to do maintenance work. 

 

I noticed from the depth gauges Bosley is 7 metres down on normal levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/07/2022 at 17:19, MHS said:

But unlikely to be to the exactly same to one decimal point for each historical previous low. They quote the year this happened. 
They state that Birmingham navigations have dropped by 5.9% from 92.7% in June to 27% in July!!

Perhaps the percentage is correct but the figure entered for July is incorrect.

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.