The Why Bother Brigade

[IanM]

13 hours ago, Dav and Pen said:

Maybe that’s how any new restored waterways should proceed in the future and the restorers should become navigation authorities

 

As is happening with the Cotswold Canals

 

https://www.stroudvalleyscanal.co.uk/whoweare

 

 

[IanD]

42 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If you'd been consistently boating on the canal for the last thirty years, as a fair few of us have, you'd have seen a considerable improvement in the first ten years and a steady decline after that. I can remember when all the paired locks on the T&M were in use...

It can't be helped, as a navigable system it can't go on for ever and priorities for investment change. But there's a difference between realism and pessimism - you are, I think, coming on to it in the autumn of its years, but its still a cracking place to be and will probably see you out.

No-one is saying why bother. We all do, tightening up bolts on the locks as we go and fixing what we can. But we can't fix the leaking locks and broken paddles, the towpaths about to breach and the collapsing bridges, the sluice gear rusted solid or the unmaintained reservoirs and blocked culverts. And unfortunately, nobody else is going to, either.

 

I have -- forty years on and off, actually --  and I agree with your comment, the "golden time" was probably around the millennium after the reopening of the K&A/Rochdale/HNC.

 

Several vociferous people on CWDF are saying "why bother, it's all going to fall apart, it's all CARTs fault, I'm glad I left/am going to leave", and they're saying it repeatedly and at length every time the subject comes up.

 

I'm absolutely aware of the current problems and *why* they exist and that it's difficult to see where the money is going to come from to fix them, certainly with the current government -- and maybe even if Labour get in since even though they seem more committed to long-term investment in nationally-owned infrastructure, they would still need to agree to cough up. Another Barbara Castle is what is needed, and I don't see any sign of one... 😞

 

But I disagree with your "it can't go on for ever" comment -- it's worked as a navigable system for more than 250 years, even though like Trigger's broom lots of it is not original, and there's no reason it couldn't go on for another 200 years given sufficient funding. And there's the rub...

Edited March 30, 2023 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

If your main interest is living on the boat,  but not cruising, there's no reason to stay on CRT's waters if you can find somewhere as nice, cheaper and less hassle, elsewhere. And nothing wrong with explaining your reasons. We do repeat ourselves a bit, but that's because the same points keep coming up. It doesn't make them any less valid.

 

I've given up any hope of ever doing the LL again as the risk of not getting home is now just too great. Ditto the Huddersfield. I can't afford to have the tub stuck miles from home. So I'm reduced to pottering round the same old rings, which is OK but a bit dull. I will regret it when the Maggot goes in a few years time, but I can't climb lock ladders for ever, and will probably carry on posting grumpy comments on here. Old men always think we've had the best of it, and I hope I'm wrong, but suspect I'm not.

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Maintenance backlog in 70's - £60m.

Maintenance backlog in 2008 - £200m

Maintenance backlog in 2023 - £400m?

According to the Bank of England inflation calculator, £60 in 1970 is equivalent to £761.92 today. As a result, CaRT could potentially claim that they have halved the backlog (in value terms) over that period!

[IanD]

57 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If your main interest is living on the boat,  but not cruising, there's no reason to stay on CRT's waters if you can find somewhere as nice, cheaper and less hassle, elsewhere. And nothing wrong with explaining your reasons. We do repeat ourselves a bit, but that's because the same points keep coming up. It doesn't make them any less valid.

 

I've given up any hope of ever doing the LL again as the risk of not getting home is now just too great. Ditto the Huddersfield. I can't afford to have the tub stuck miles from home. So I'm reduced to pottering round the same old rings, which is OK but a bit dull. I will regret it when the Maggot goes in a few years time, but I can't climb lock ladders for ever, and will probably carry on posting grumpy comments on here. Old men always think we've had the best of it, and I hope I'm wrong, but suspect I'm not.

 

My comments weren't aimed at you, you do at least have a reasonably realistic -- if a bit pessimistic and grumpy! -- view, and I don't blame you... 😉

 

I too think it was "best" about 20 years ago, but the current state of the canals isn't something inevitable and unfixable, it's basically down to government choices -- like many other problems in the UK today... 😞

 

There's no reason things *can't* improve again in the future -- both short and long term -- but this will need a change in attitude (and possibly CART structure) by the government. Which there's zero chance of with the current lot, but hopefully that will change... 😉

58 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

According to the Bank of England inflation calculator, £60 in 1970 is equivalent to £761.92 today. As a result, CaRT could potentially claim that they have halved the backlog (in value terms) over that period!

That doesn't stack up with the current state of the canals though, does it? 😞

[Heartland]

There are some useful comments on the different sides of this discussion and Dave and Pen seem to summarise the issues and questions to be tackled. Mike Todd's observation about inflation is also a point to consider, with prices and costs on the rise the expense is probably relative. 

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Heartland said:

There are some useful comments on the different sides of this discussion and Dave and Pen seem to summarise the issues and questions to be tackled. Mike Todd's observation about inflation is also a point to consider, with prices and costs on the rise the expense is probably relative. 

Indeed, and their last paragraph says it all:

 

"Unfortunately CRt have not generally endeared themselves to many of the users (their customers) but it needs a concerted lobbying effort of all the MPs who have any waterways in their area to put pressure on the government for more funds as they seem to find money when pressure is put on them."

 

Though the chances of this getting anywhere with the incumbent (corrupt, greedy...) lot are pretty much zero, I fear... 😞

Edited March 30, 2023 by IanD

[Jerra]

21 hours ago, Heartland said:

There seems to be a growing number of people who contribute to this site who express the view that certain canals should be closed, and maybe are a waterways equivalent of Doctor Richard Beeching.

 

All those people who campaigned for waterways restoration schemes are having their combined voices drowned out by those who say "why bother?" as well as "close down the expensive waterways and return them to the decaying world of the disused navigation." The latter option may suit ecologists whose primary concern is the preservation of the habitats of endangered creatures.

 

The modern reality of keeping open navigations, where repair of the infrastructure is part of the problem. Costs for staff, materials, and maintenance have been part of these equations since the time of the navigations being built. however. It is now part of the challenge to find sufficient funds to keep. the network in order.

 

The growing interest in getting more miles of waterway back into use has been a goal of many enthusiasts. Those that gave their time to restore waterways such as the Ashton and the Caldon were part of a generation that cared and there is now another generation of those that care giving their time to help restore the Lichfield and the Montgomery. So there a battalion of those that DO bother and hopefully will continue to do so! 

Point of order M'lud!

 

An ecologist's primary concern is not the preservation of habitats for endangered species.

 

Preservation of habitats yes, but for the whole biodiversity, which it is becoming very clear the health of all life on earth (including Homo sapiens) depends.

15 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You're welcome to try and lobby my MP. Lives in the constituency, which is something I suppose, but apart from slavishly doing what the whips tell him, he doesn't appear to have done anything apart from breathe for the past ten years. Safe seat, you see. He's not going to rock the (narrow) boat by pressurising anyone.

Like our current MP as well.  Rory the Tory on the other hand was very good.  So good they threw him out of the party for representing his constituents.

[Mike Todd]

5 hours ago, IanD said:

 

My comments weren't aimed at you, you do at least have a reasonably realistic -- if a bit pessimistic and grumpy! -- view, and I don't blame you... 😉

 

I too think it was "best" about 20 years ago, but the current state of the canals isn't something inevitable and unfixable, it's basically down to government choices -- like many other problems in the UK today... 😞

 

There's no reason things *can't* improve again in the future -- both short and long term -- but this will need a change in attitude (and possibly CART structure) by the government. Which there's zero chance of with the current lot, but hopefully that will change... 😉

That doesn't stack up with the current state of the canals though, does it? 😞

Depends. 

 

Firstly, whilst overall inflation happens at a particular rate, some things buck the trend. In the case of construction projects, even in the period from 1970s to now, there have been considerable advances in H&S w.r.t the workforce. Much of this comes at a cost.

 

Secondly, heritage assets are different from maintaining new structures. There are greater constraints on the use of materials and techniques so that gains made generally cannot be directly applied. (I suspect that in today's heritage context the mechanisation of some locks would be an uphill (!) struggle to gain improvement. Even the experiments with steel rather than wood gates might not have happened)

 

Thirdly, it is easy to notice the things that feel worse to ourselves whilst ignoring those that are actually better. I recall back in 1970, and the decade before, many/most towpaths were all but impassable and, in some cases, well into the new millennium. In other words, we are often not comparing like with like when assessing overall progress/regress.

 

However, my point about inflation is that we have to understand in some depth what has changed. Even if we could show that the present state objectively is worse than 50 years ago it is not reasonable to explain all of that by asserting bad management or lack of public financial backing. Also remember that I was focussed on the comment regarding backlog rather than state. The value of the backlog (and cost of it, if unit rates had not changed) looks remarkably lower now compared with then. One explanation (but I seriously doubt whether it is anywhere near the full story) might be that the current backlog has different visibility. That is, although it has lower value, it impacts you more. Hence your observation highlighted above.

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Depends. 

 

Firstly, whilst overall inflation happens at a particular rate, some things buck the trend. In the case of construction projects, even in the period from 1970s to now, there have been considerable advances in H&S w.r.t the workforce. Much of this comes at a cost.

 

Secondly, heritage assets are different from maintaining new structures. There are greater constraints on the use of materials and techniques so that gains made generally cannot be directly applied. (I suspect that in today's heritage context the mechanisation of some locks would be an uphill (!) struggle to gain improvement. Even the experiments with steel rather than wood gates might not have happened)

 

Thirdly, it is easy to notice the things that feel worse to ourselves whilst ignoring those that are actually better. I recall back in 1970, and the decade before, many/most towpaths were all but impassable and, in some cases, well into the new millennium. In other words, we are often not comparing like with like when assessing overall progress/regress.

 

However, my point about inflation is that we have to understand in some depth what has changed. Even if we could show that the present state objectively is worse than 50 years ago it is not reasonable to explain all of that by asserting bad management or lack of public financial backing. Also remember that I was focussed on the comment regarding backlog rather than state. The value of the backlog (and cost of it, if unit rates had not changed) looks remarkably lower now compared with then. One explanation (but I seriously doubt whether it is anywhere near the full story) might be that the current backlog has different visibility. That is, although it has lower value, it impacts you more. Hence your observation highlighted above.

 

There's no doubt that in the last century many towpaths were in a shocking state, and now they're much better -- but the reverse seems to be true for things like lock gates and paddles and water supplies. This could be because a lot of emphasis has shifted from boaters (who use the gates and paddles and water) to the canal-using public (who use the towpaths), partly driven by government pressure to give "value" to taxpayers in general not a few boaters. It could also because maintaining towpaths is much cheaper than locks and paddles and reservoirs...

 

Either way the canals are undoubtedly more attractive to the public (and more well-used) than 20 years ago, but also less attractive to many boaters. Such is life... 😞

Edited March 30, 2023 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

 

Either way the canals are undoubtedly more attractive to the public (and more well-used) than 20 years ago, but also less attractive to many boaters. Such is life... 😞

The main reason I find them less attractive than they were is down to the other boaters. It's simply the noise. Ghetto blasters on the roof or big speakers by the back door blasting out while moving. Engines and gennies running for hours to power big banks of batteries to run everything from washing machines to computers and huge TVs.

Solar doesn't seem to have done much to mitigate this, I've been parked next to boats who have arrived after presumably a day's cruising with a roof-full of panels who then carry on churning out fumes till,  usually, well past 8pm. Weird.

Most people don't seem to care, it may be musicians are more likely to be annoyed by it. Grump over. First trip of the year next week, up the Caldon to the bookshop,  just to make sure everything still works, including my knees. Can't wait.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

9 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

up the Caldon to the bookshop, 

where’s that to then?

I assume you’re on about a notable/decent second hand bookshop.

 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

where’s that to then?

I assume you’re on about a notable/decent second hand bookshop.

 

It's at Milton, on the left as you walk into town. Front of the shop is a stationers, and all the rest is old style 2nd hand bookshop, rooms all over the place. I think it's closed Sundays and Mondays. One of the few left now. Used to be a cracker at Market Drayton that's now a shoe shop and a magnificent crumbling edifice at Polesworth that's now flats. Nantwich has still got a good Oxfam bookshop, but it's not the same.

I used to navigate by them...

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

10 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It's at Milton, on the left as you walk into town. Front of the shop is a stationers, and all the rest is old style 2nd hand bookshop, rooms all over the place. I think it's closed Sundays and Mondays. One of the few left now. Used to be a cracker at Market Drayton that's now a shoe shop and a magnificent crumbling edifice at Polesworth that's now flats. Nantwich has still got a good Oxfam bookshop, but it's not the same.

I used to navigate by them...

Thanks, I’ll keep it in mind. 👍

Id like to go along the caldron again, I think it were 6(?) years ago since I visited.

I remember there was a good butchers at Milton that’d ask how thick you wanted your bacon sliced. I’d guess it’s gone now.

 

The last good bookshop I visited was the one at the Dr Johnson museum in Lichfield.

 

[Bee]

The years of underfunding and austerity cause much damage. Generally speaking, if you compare some of the small canals in Europe they tend to have been better funded over the years - and no way are they all safe and I'm not wearing rose coloured glasses - but when an economic slump hits and funding suffers they tend to be recoverable if the funding recovers a bit. Our system has been in crisis for years and a bit of a funding increase, should there ever be one - will hardly scratch the surface. If only it was just the canal system........

[Allan(nb Albert)]

21 hours ago, IanD said:

 

My comments weren't aimed at you, you do at least have a reasonably realistic -- if a bit pessimistic and grumpy! -- view, and I don't blame you... 😉

 

I too think it was "best" about 20 years ago, but the current state of the canals isn't something inevitable and unfixable, it's basically down to government choices -- like many other problems in the UK today... 😞

 

There's no reason things *can't* improve again in the future -- both short and long term -- but this will need a change in attitude (and possibly CART structure) by the government. Which there's zero chance of with the current lot, but hopefully that will change... 😉

That doesn't stack up with the current state of the canals though, does it? 😞

In the early 90's BW had a safety critical backlog of about 300m. Extra government funding reduced this. In 2007, BW stated that this backlog was creeping up again and was now at 100m plus about another 100m of non critical work.

 

Based on the above, it is probable that the waterways were in best condition 20 years ago.

[Phoenix_V]

On 30/03/2023 at 00:43, Mike Todd said:

It may be independent as a navigation authority but it does have significant public funding to keep the river navigable!

Point of order that is simply not  true 

"It receives no funding from central or local government." https://www.avonnavigationtrust.org/about-us/

 

What is true is that along with Wey Navigation and Chelmer and Blackwater it is run far more efficiently than CRT.

 

Notwithstanding that canals generally cost more to run than river navigations and it is doubtful if any canal navigation could be self funded, that is why the National Trust handed over the Southern Stratford to BW.

 

[Heartland]

The Lichfield Bookshop by the Doctor Johnson museum is still good and there is a Derby Brewery pub not far away which has excellent beer

 

But this is an aside.

 

As to the point of order regarding the ecologist, yes I suppose they have a more general portfolio, but their activities regarding canal and railway preservation schemes have created issues. I recall a Llangollen Railway volunteer talking about the delay they had on the Corwen Extension regarding the cost of "experts" when their route passed breeding sites for birds. Such factors did not help their finances at the time and probably contributed to their subsequent insolvency. 

[IanD]

5 hours ago, Phoenix_V said:

Point of order that is simply not  true 

"It receives no funding from central or local government." https://www.avonnavigationtrust.org/about-us/

 

What is true is that along with Wey Navigation and Chelmer and Blackwater it is run far more efficiently than CRT.

 

Notwithstanding that canals generally cost more to run than river navigations and it is doubtful if any canal navigation could be self funded, that is why the National Trust handed over the Southern Stratford to BW.

 

 

How do you come to that conclusion, given that their costs are lower (they're mostly-natural rivers!) and they have far less to maintain?

 

I'm sure if CART had hardly any locks/paddles/reservoirs/banks/culverts they'd also be able to do a much better job than they do now... 😉

[David Mack]

6 hours ago, Phoenix_V said:

Point of order that is simply not  true 

"It receives no funding from central or local government." https://www.avonnavigationtrust.org/about-us/

ANT doesn't receive any direct funding, but EA is responsible for maintaining the navigation weirs and sluices and most of the channel. And unlike canal authorities ANT doesn't have to maintain embankments, cuttings, bridges, a towpath, reservoirs and feeder channels or operate back pumps etc. 

[Phoenix_V]

43 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

How do you come to that conclusion, given that their costs are lower (they're mostly-natural rivers!) and they have far less to maintain?

 

I'm sure if CART had hardly any locks/paddles/reservoirs/banks/culverts they'd also be able to do a much better job than they do now... 😉

I'm not quite sure what your point is - someone said that ANT is subsidised by the government and I pointed out that was not true.

I went on to say that however rivers do cost less to maintain than canals.

But if you delve into ANT's running costs they do appear to be more efficient on a like for like basis than crt.

Which bit did I get wrong prey?

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Phoenix_V said:

Which bit did I get wrong prey?

 

Spelling of "pray"?

 

 

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

I'm not quite sure what your point is - someone said that ANT is subsidised by the government and I pointed out that was not true.

I went on to say that however rivers do cost less to maintain than canals.

But if you delve into ANT's running costs they do appear to be more efficient on a like for like basis than crt.

Which bit did I get wrong prey?

 

You said "it is run far more efficiently than CRT" and then followed that up with "Notwithstanding that canals generally cost more to run than river navigations".

 

If CRT have (for example) 5x as much maintenance to do and need (for example) 5x as much money to do it, they're not less efficient, they just have 5x more work to do. If they have 10x as much work to do and manage with 5x the money they're *more* efficient, not less.

 

So please give some facts to back up your "far more efficient" claim, otherwise you're just indulging in the usual CRT-bashing... 🙂

Edited March 31, 2023 by IanD

[Captain Pegg]

57 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

You said "it is run far more efficiently than CRT" and then followed that up with "Notwithstanding that canals generally cost more to run than river navigations".

 

If CRT have (for example) 5x as much maintenance to do and need (for example) 5x as much money to do it, they're not less efficient, they just have 5x more work to do. If they have 10x as much work to do and manage with 5x the money they're *more* efficient, not less.

 

So please give some facts to back up your "far more efficient" claim, otherwise you're just indulging in the usual CRT-bashing... 🙂

 

Bloody hell Ian, go easy.

 

This is a forum about a leisure activity FFS.

[Mike Todd]

7 hours ago, Phoenix_V said:

Point of order that is simply not  true 

"It receives no funding from central or local government." https://www.avonnavigationtrust.org/about-us/

 

What is true is that along with Wey Navigation and Chelmer and Blackwater it is run far more efficiently than CRT.

 

Notwithstanding that canals generally cost more to run than river navigations and it is doubtful if any canal navigation could be self funded, that is why the National Trust handed over the Southern Stratford to BW.

 

I thought that EA had a role.