The Why Bother Brigade

[MtB]

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I agree that £2M on an accommodation bridge is ludicrous -- but if it was listed and had to replaced exactly like-for-like (which I believe was the case) what choice did CART have, break the law? Do we know if this came out of CART funds or was it an insurance job?

 

Whether "gold-plating" happens in other projects I don't know, I'd have thought it was in CART's interest to keep the costs down given their lack of funding, this isn't "cost-plus" with an unlimited budget -- do you actually have any evidence of this "gold-plating" happening (which would be inexcusable!), or are we just back to CART-bashing? 😉

 

Well for evidence, I offer you that simple accommodation bridge that CRT were forced to spend £2m rebuilding.

 

Who footed the bill is not the point. My point is that "we" collectively in the UK insist certain work is done to an unreasonably high standard with no regard to the cost. Much of it stems from the listing of structures and difficulties in getting PP. All very nice to have but the UK can no longer afford such frippery. We (collectively) waste massive amounts of money doing stuff to a ridiculously high standard leading to other important stuff not getting done.

 

I'm not bashing CRT, I'm describing what I see happening. 

 

I actually blame the politicians who freely pass laws spending other people's money at no cost to themselves.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by MtB
Add the last bit.

[IanD]

41 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Well for evidence, I offer you that simple accommodation bridge that CRT were forced to spend £2m rebuilding.

 

Who footed the bill is not the point. My point is that "we" collectively in the UK insist certain work is done to an unreasonably high standard with no regard to the cost. Much of it stems from the listing of structures and difficulties in getting PP. All very nice to have but the UK can no longer afford such frippery. We (collectively) waste massive amounts of money doing stuff to a ridiculously high standard leading to other important stuff not getting done.

 

I'm not bashing CRT, I'm describing what I see happening. 

 

I actually blame the politicians who freely pass laws spending other people's money at no cost to themselves.

 

 

I completely agree, the requirements that listing place on buildings (and rebuilding) are utterly ridiculous. That's not CART's fault though (which is what your post read as), as you say they were forced to do it.

 

As so often, in the end the blame should fall on politicians -- who invariably try and wriggle out of it and say it's not their fault, it was somebody else's... 😞

Edited April 19, 2023 by IanD

[David Mack]

4 hours ago, MtB said:

A good example is that accommodation bridge in another thread that CRT spent £2m re-building. I'm quite certain another bridge that looked the same could have been built in a couple of months by a competent team of builders and bricklayers for perhaps 10% of that sum, given a free rein to just get on and build it.

 

4 hours ago, IanD said:

I agree that £2M on an accommodation bridge is ludicrous -- but if it was listed and had to replaced exactly like-for-like (which I believe was the case) what choice did CART have, break the law?

But what is being provided to replace that bridge is far from an exact replica. The original masonry arch bridge which had stood for some 200 years is being replaced by a concrete structure which is being clad with stone, some of which has been reclaimed from the remains of the original. 

I'm with Mike in thinking that a new masonry arch could have been provided for much less cost than what is actually being done. But it would require complete closure of the canal for a few months while the arch barrel is built, but that could have been done over the winter.

 

As to the law, the design of the replacement bridge, whatever its form, would have to be agreed with the local planning authority and the requirements of their Conservation Officer.

[ditchcrawler]

5 hours ago, IanD said:

 

I agree that £2M on an accommodation bridge is ludicrous -- but if it was listed and had to replaced exactly like-for-like (which I believe was the case) what choice did CART have, break the law? Do we know if this came out of CART funds or was it an insurance job?

 

Whether "gold-plating" happens in other projects I don't know, I'd have thought it was in CART's interest to keep the costs down given their lack of funding, this isn't "cost-plus" with an unlimited budget -- do you actually have any evidence of this "gold-plating" happening (which would be inexcusable!), or are we just back to CART-bashing? 😉

 

5 hours ago, IanD said:

 

I agree that £2M on an accommodation bridge is ludicrous -- but if it was listed and had to replaced exactly like-for-like (which I believe was the case) what choice did CART have, break the law? Do we know if this came out of CART funds or was it an insurance job?

 

Whether "gold-plating" happens in other projects I don't know, I'd have thought it was in CART's interest to keep the costs down given their lack of funding, this isn't "cost-plus" with an unlimited budget -- do you actually have any evidence of this "gold-plating" happening (which would be inexcusable!), or are we just back to CART-bashing? 😉

I have not seen many gold plated lock repairs or dredging programs, more like plastic, out of sight out of mind. Just thinking back to Minworth and the depth following repairs

 

[IanD]

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

 

I have not seen many gold plated lock repairs or dredging programs, more like plastic, out of sight out of mind. Just thinking back to Minworth and the depth following repairs

 

That was my point, penny-pinching by CART is far more likely than gold-plating given the budget problems they have...

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Just now, IanD said:

That was my point, penny-pinching by CART is far more likely than gold-plating given the budget problems they have...

I understand the work at Minworth locks was contracted out. 
The bad work was the ignorance of the contractors. 

Wasn’t it something to do with NOT removing the stone theyd used to bed the canal while they drove plant up and down?

[Heartland]

Does it have to be rebuilt to its original specifications? Putting aside any question of negligence, once demolished it cannot be grade II listed anymore, because it is a modern rebuild. In Whalley Bridge recently Network Rail have replaced a Grade II iron bridge stating that the problem with bridge bashing etc was high risk and replacement had become necessary.

 

Whilst it is important to preserve the work of the engineer responsible, once that structure is removed, the past cannot be turned back

[David Mack]

8 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I understand the work at Minworth locks was contracted out. 
The bad work was the ignorance of the contractors. 

Wasn’t it something to do with NOT removing the stone theyd used to bed the canal while they drove plant up and down?

One can perhaps excuse ignorance on the part of the contractor, but that doesn't avoid the fact that CRT should have specified in advance what condition the channel was to be left in on completion of the work, and they should then have supervised the contractor adequately to ensure compliance with the contract requirements.

1 minute ago, Heartland said:

In Whalley Bridge recently Network Rail have replaced a Grade II iron bridge stating that the problem with bridge bashing etc was high risk and replacement had become necessary.

And that solution would only have come about after protracted discussions with the local authority's planning and conservation staff.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

22 minutes ago, David Mack said:

One can perhaps excuse ignorance on the part of the contractor, but that doesn't avoid the fact that CRT should have specified in advance what condition the channel was to be left in on completion of the work, and they should then have supervised the contractor adequately to ensure compliance with the contract requirements.

I agree entirely,

and it is CRT’s responsibility at the end of the day to over see the work. 
 

And it’s not been a one off either 

I’ve witnessed similar on the HNC where contractors and CRT working together had to make another two return visits to fix something. 

so is it penny pinching? ignorance?

or mismanagement?

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

22 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I agree entirely,

and it is CRT’s responsibility at the end of the day to over see the work. 
 

And it’s not been a one off either 

I’ve witnessed similar on the HNC where contractors and CRT working together had to make another two return visits to fix something. 

so is it penny pinching? ignorance?

or mismanagement?

 

 

Possibly all three... 😞

 

But what it isn't is gold-plating, unless gold is brown...

[Captain Pegg]

@MtB isn't totally wrong. Talking of gold-plating can be misleading anyway because it's a euphemism.

 

Trends in recent times are such that modern structures will be designed along principles such as 'safe by design' and 'lowest whole life cycle cost' both of which in theory give a better product but likely at an increased initial cost. They will also be designed to take into account climate change resilience and to achieve a set of performance outputs. All stuff that wasn't explicitly considered when the country's waterways and railways were built.

 

Bottom line is that if you make someone stop to thing about the impact of an additional critierion they will counter the newly introduced risk with some measures that cost money. All of which will be compunded by the cost of the layers upon layers of business administration that infest the modern work environment - and probably NGOs to a worse degree than purely private enterprises - and yet are still unable to ensure that any project runs to time and cost.

 

There are a couple of views expressed above that are over simplifications of complex areas. I don't necessarily share the view that working on listed structures is made unnecessarily difficult and is always aided by early engagement with conservation officers and other interested parties.

 

And the idea that the likes of IKB had things easier in terms of executing their plans and ideas isn't necessarily true. The engineering pioneers had to persuade financiers and lawmakers to allow them to build things from scratch. That'a s lot more difficult than going cap in hand to the Treasury and DfT to pay to repair or rebuild an existing piece of critical infrastruture that's just broken.

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by Captain Pegg

[Paul C]

Its a case of "you can't have your cake and eat it". In that, the Government (in general, ie the way the law is written) means that bodies like CRT are legally obligated to rebuild/maintain listed structures, while they don't actually fund (properly) the ability to do that. The two outcomes are either 1) we lose some heritage, 2) government radically alter the way things like this are funded.

[IanD]

15 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

@MtB isn't totally wrong. Talking of gold-plating can be misleading anyway because it's a euphemism.

 

Trends in recent times are such that modern structures will be designed along principles such as 'safe by design' and 'lowest whole life cycle cost' both of which in theory give a better product but likely at an increased initial cost. They will also be designed to take into account climate change resilience and to achieve a set of performance outputs. All stuff that wasn't explicitly considered when the country's waterways and railways were built.

 

Bottom line is that if you make someone stop to thing about the impact of an additional critierion they will counter the newly introduced risk with some measures that cost money. All of which will be compunded by the cost of the layers upon layers of business administration that infest the modern work environment - and probably NGOs to a worse degree than purely private enterprises - and yet are still unable to ensure that any project runs to time and cost.

 

There are a couple of views expressed above that are over simplifications of complex areas. I don't necessarily share the view that working on listed structures is made unnecessarily difficult and is always aided by early engagement with conservation officers and other interested parties.

 

And the idea that the likes of IKB had things easier in terms of executing their plans and ideas isn't necessarily true. The engineering pioneers had to persuade financiers and lawmakers to allow them to build things from scratch. That'a s lot more difficult than going cap in hand to the Treasury and DfT to pay to repair or rebuild an existing piece of critical infrastruture that's just broken.

 

 

Cheops' Law : Nothing ever gets built on schedule or within budget (Robert A. Heinlein)

 

14 hours ago, Paul C said:

Its a case of "you can't have your cake and eat it". In that, the Government (in general, ie the way the law is written) means that bodies like CRT are legally obligated to rebuild/maintain listed structures, while they don't actually fund (properly) the ability to do that. The two outcomes are either 1) we lose some heritage, 2) government radically alter the way things like this are funded.

 

Given that the government don't properly fund anything that CART does, this should come as no surprise to anybody... 😞

Edited April 20, 2023 by IanD

[cuthound]

On 19/04/2023 at 17:14, David Mack said:

One can perhaps excuse ignorance on the part of the contractor, but that doesn't avoid the fact that CRT should have specified in advance what condition the channel was to be left in on completion of the work, and they should then have supervised the contractor adequately to ensure compliance with the contract requirements.

And that solution would only have come about after protracted discussions with the local authority's planning and conservation staff.

 

I agree it is likely that the specifier didn't specify removal of the stone "road" after completion or the project wasn't adequately supervised.

 

When I first became a project manager, I had the luxury of a Clerk of Works who was on site throughout the works to check the compliance and quality of the work on my behalf. They were soon lost to "efficiency savings" so in addition to periodic site visits (I had several concurrent projects going at any time) I started to get the contractor to send me photos of the work at the end of each day.

 

Something similar would have revealed the stone "road" hadn't been removed before the canal was refilled. CRT could probably save money by either directly employing or using a contracted competent project manager.

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by cuthound
Clarification