Government CRT funding statement

[Paul C]

Freight on our canals isn't going to happen. The metric to consider is, ton mile / £ (or a volumetric, m3.km/£). They've already increased the length for HGVs (semi trailers) by 2.05m recently, so that lighter loads can make use of the extra volume and still be driven by one driver. Canals are terribly slow, lets face it its about 3mph even without locks - add in locks and its much less. And the max tonnage a boat on the UK canals could carry isn't even as much as a lorry. And you'd need to pay the driver min wage. 

 

The Europeans make it work because they kept re-investing in their waterways infrastructure and the boats are substantially larger, making the metric more comparable to road or rail transport.

[magnetman]

GU including towpath and the land awarded from the enabling acts might be wide enough for a two way electric semi truck route. 

 

Ancient forests and villages get destroyed for road and rail projects so why not canals?

Blisworth and Braunston tunnels would need the tops taking off. 

One could have bidirectional narrow beam electric semi working or special booking for double width wagons. 

[Mad Harold]

4 hours ago, Barneyp said:

 

 

I do think that a smaller better maintained network could be the answer, but I doubt CRT will close any canals because it would look like the organisation and the board members had failed.

What they might do is restrict canal use by padlocking top and bottom locks on a flight and only opening for a few hours a day  (or week).Saving wear and tear on locks and managing water resources better.

This is already happening on some Northern canals.

Probably this would cause less fuss than closing a canal.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Interesting that they spell it 'licenses' when the correct English spelling is 'licences' for the noun and license for the verb. 

 

 

Damn, I thought it was the other way around...

 

 

[matty40s]

12 minutes ago, magnetman said:

GU including towpath and the land awarded from the enabling acts might be wide enough for a two way electric semi truck route. 

 

Ancient forests and villages get destroyed for road and rail projects so why not canals?

Blisworth and Braunston tunnels would need the tops taking off. 

One could have bidirectional narrow beam electric semi working or special booking for double width wagons. 

Electric still needs to be generated somehow, perhaps try some horses to pull the load...

What they will almost certainly so is shut the system in the Winter,  as they have been moving towards this since CRT inception. Skeleton staffing so only planned maintenance is carried out, other maintenance on failed paddles, gates etc might be done before the Summer hiring season, if funds and donations allow.

[MtB]

17 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Freight on our canals isn't going to happen. The metric to consider is, ton mile / £ (or a volumetric, m3.km/£). They've already increased the length for HGVs (semi trailers) by 2.05m recently, so that lighter loads can make use of the extra volume and still be driven by one driver. Canals are terribly slow, lets face it its about 3mph even without locks - add in locks and its much less. And the max tonnage a boat on the UK canals could carry isn't even as much as a lorry. And you'd need to pay the driver min wage. 

 

The Europeans make it work because they kept re-investing in their waterways infrastructure and the boats are substantially larger, making the metric more comparable to road or rail transport.

 

 

Well the obvious answer is to drain the water out and lay tarmac. Then freight lorries could run along the route much faster, AND be charged a toll.

 

That could sort out all the funding problems. 

 

[IanD]

28 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Well the obvious answer is to drain the water out and lay tarmac. Then freight lorries could run along the route much faster, AND be charged a toll.

 

That could sort out all the funding problems. 

 

How are you going to get the lorries under all the low bridges?

[magnetman]

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

How are you going to get the lorries under all the low bridges?

 The air draft will be a lot more when there is no water there. 

 

For the electric a truck going on way can generate power for one going the other way a bit later on. 

 

One could even connect all the trucks together and run them on some sort of metal rail type of arrangement with a single motorised unit at each end.

 

They'll never do it !

[Sea Dog]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

The air draft will be a lot more when there is no water there. 

There's hardly any water there now in many places! 

[DandV]

There are undoubtedly other uses for the canals. But the very basic uses, drainage channels, recreational opportunities, commuting corridors for pedestrians and cyclists,  wildlife sanctuaries  eye candy, and historic tourist attractions are extraordinarily good uses right now.

And these are all extraordinarily durable uses unlike any of the buildings that have  been built over the top of unfilled canals.

 

Within the present rules there really are only limited opportunities to raise income, charging more, and creating more honeypot moorings, such as at  Llangollen, in London Birmingham and Liverpool, and raising the full range of licence fees.

But why cannot CART charge local authorities  ground rent for the tow paths as these pass through their territories and provide value to the residents of those communities? To do ghis though would require political intervention. 

 

And political intervention will never occur without pressure from the community to make such intervention politically expedient. 

 

A CART that becomes much more forward in making its case for more income.

But backed up by a reinvigorated IWA, and supported by Blue Greens, Red Greens, and Green Greens and any other local, boat, barrow, and bike groups, this forum,  that can be roped in. Get the youngsters stirred up. They have the most to lose,.

CART at this stage has made the first steps.

I suggest that these are somewhat tentative, as they assess how much backing they will get, and how much of a backlash from the Government. You can all do something about the former, and with an election coming up, can make your views known to candidates.

 

As I have said, it has been done before in Britain and recently, there should be no reason the current generation should be less capable then those only a generation or two before, who arguably achieved an even bigger victory. 

 

Indeed there are a few contributors to this forum who in their younger days contributed massively to "saving the canals" mid to late last century, including acts of defying the authorities..

 

The waterways system as you know it, is only yours to lose, please do something.

 

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by DandV

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

Freight on our canals isn't going to happen. The metric to consider is, ton mile / £ (or a volumetric, m3.km/£). They've already increased the length for HGVs (semi trailers) by 2.05m recently, so that lighter loads can make use of the extra volume and still be driven by one driver. Canals are terribly slow, lets face it its about 3mph even without locks - add in locks and its much less. And the max tonnage a boat on the UK canals could carry isn't even as much as a lorry. And you'd need to pay the driver min wage. 

 

The Europeans make it work because they kept re-investing in their waterways infrastructure and the boats are substantially larger, making the metric more comparable to road or rail transport.

We have bigger waterways up North which do move freight, so let's get rid of all those narrow canals, make em big so the can carry 500 tons plus like up here, bingo job done  gets loads of lorries of the road! And they could with overhead lines be all electric 

[Tacet]

5 hours ago, IanD said:

 

When the discussion was about the license fee consultation (another thread) I suggested what the outcome might be, based on the CART publicity -- this was to increase their income by something like 30% IIRC on average, just to plug the existing (and increasing) gap, by things like area-based fees and a CC surcharge.

 

😞

 

As was pointed out earlier, the £1.9B the government has just failed to spend on something (housing?) would accomplish all this for CART for at least the next 10 years, maybe 15 -- which really puts it into perspective...

Fair enough.

 

£1.9bn is what the Treasury unwisely lent to Woking Council - which won't be repaid.  So, in that sense, it has probably been spent already.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

My take on the last 20 years is that BW/CRT/Defra have deliberately underestimated the cost of maintaining waterways whilst overestimating the contribution that the property portfolio  makes.

 

A very simple request on the funding gap -

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/growing_funding_gap#incoming-2304713

 

 

[Orwellian]

3 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

My take on the last 20 years is that BW/CRT/Defra have deliberately underestimated the cost of maintaining waterways whilst overestimating the contribution that the property portfolio  makes.

 

A very simple request on the funding gap -

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/growing_funding_gap#incoming-2304713

 

 

I hope you have referred the matter to the Information Commissioner.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Tacet said:

Fair enough.

 

£1.9bn is what the Treasury unwisely lent to Woking Council - which won't be repaid.  So, in that sense, it has probably been spent already.

 

They seem to have spent most of it digging up the roads in the town centre. Woking town centre has been road-work chaos continuously for as long as I can remember, since I grew up there back in the 60s! 

 

I fixed a boiler there a few weeks ago and the town centre road works are as bad as ever. 

 

 

[lampini]

On 12/07/2023 at 00:01, David Mack said:

That may be true for the stately homes, castles and other buildings that NT owns. But they also own huge swathes of land that are free for anyone to access. They do make some money from parking/cafe/gift shop etc. but you can enjoy them without paying a penny if you wish. 

I have a NT estate a few hundred yards from home which I walk in for free most weeks (unless I stop off at the cafe), much like the walkers and cyclists on CRT's towpaths.

And what exactly would the benefit to the canals of the LA doing this rather than CRT doing exactly the same and keeping the money raised?

And the Huddersfield.

And where are you going to find a whole team experienced in canal engineering management who haven't worked for CRT? It isn't as if there are any other sizeable canal management organisations you could poach staff from.

You make a decent enough point; but I’d still rather have some folks with more of an engineering background than the current crop of desk-sh*ggers - sorry - OVER PAID desk sh*ggers! This lot got straight on the corporate revolving-door grift when they came out of Management Skool  and have been doing it ever since.
Also, from what I’ve been reading recently - the EA lost a lot of very competent people  in the last few years.. 

9 hours ago, Sea Dog said:

There's hardly any water there now in many places! 

I was going to say - on the Ashby if de-watered they’d barely increase the headroom by 6 inches 😂

[Barneyp]

1 hour ago, lampini said:

You make a decent enough point; but I’d still rather have some folks with more of an engineering background than the current crop of desk-sh*ggers - sorry - OVER PAID desk sh*ggers! This lot got straight on the corporate revolving-door grift when they came out of Management Skool  and have been doing it ever since.
Also, from what I’ve been reading recently - the EA lost a lot of very competent people  in the last few years.. 

 

The engineer types all went to work for the contractors, while there is nothing inherently wrong with using contractors you have to have the skills in-house to understand the problems so you can effectively manage the contractors.

[Pluto]

1 hour ago, Barneyp said:

The engineer types all went to work for the contractors, while there is nothing inherently wrong with using contractors you have to have the skills in-house to understand the problems so you can effectively manage the contractors.

Having known many of the senior BW engineers prior to CRT, most of those with any detailed knowledge of heritage construction retired. Most learnt this knowledge 'on the job' as there are no engineering publications about canal building written in English prior to 1800. That was one reason I translated the Austrian Maillard's book on canal building as much was based on his visit to English canals in 1795. It also shows that technologically, engineers were far more advanced in Europe than the UK. However, our engineers were much better practically, most have trained under millwrights without the need for published works. Unfortunately, this type of training is very rare today.

[Paul C]

On 11/07/2023 at 21:21, lampini said:

I recon 3) may have some merit after a small adjustment.. 

 

3. Sack CRT management and bring in "some other experienced in canal engineering” management  WHO ARE NOT BEING PAID THE EARTH WITH MASSIVE BONUSES come in which must be by default, automatically CHEAPER!

Peel Holdings?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

12 hours ago, Orwellian said:

I hope you have referred the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Yes I have. I have also made a complaint about CRT using a junior member of staff with a criminal record to make allegations of harassment. 

However, the Commissioner has large backlog of cases and I would not expect this to be picked up for many months.

[Arthur Marshall]

19 hours ago, dmr said:

 

The finance sector maybe got a boost but she put most industry into terminal decline, and created a sort of short term greedy capitalism that is now crippling our water industry.

Not just the water industry, all the others - gas , electric, rail - that are now owned mostly by foreign governments, enabling them to use profits from ours to keep their own prices down. Who on earth could have expected that?

l thought originally Alan's post was ironic, but then I thought again.

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Arthur Marshall

[Creaking Gate]

7 hours ago, lampini said:

You make a decent enough point; but I’d still rather have some folks with more of an engineering background than the current crop of desk-sh*ggers - sorry - OVER PAID desk sh*ggers! This lot got straight on the corporate revolving-door grift when they came out of Management Skool  and have been doing it ever since.

How do you know if any senior staff in CRT don't have an engineering backgrounds or indeed used the canals longer than you ever have - simple answer you don't and you're making it up....

 

Probably through a unsupported belief you're not the problem they are [CRT]  

 

I saw the title of this thread and my heart sank, the amount of childish comments and frankly uneducated comments is staggering... and not helpful.  Trust it did not disappoint.

 

Someone else said it - If you think £1500 to cruise 2000 miles of canal is so expensive it cannot ever be increased, and that the tiny proportion of funding boaters generate will save C&RT - Dreaming.  It needs lots of value, with lots of use, from lots of differing groups - the days of us boaters being the sole providers, sole users and nothing moves unless boaters say so is long, long ...long over. And rightly so.   I'm virtually too old to care now, but i know the solution comes from the collective of users and not just us boaters.

[Ray T]

Not sure if this has been posted?

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

55 minutes ago, Creaking Gate said:

How do you know if any senior staff in CRT don't have an engineering backgrounds or indeed used the canals longer than you ever have - simple answer you don't and you're making it up....

 

Perhaps he looks them up on on CRT's website and/or linkedin ...

1 minute ago, Ray T said:

Not sure if this has been posted?

 

 

I thought it had with some commenting that it had been recorded some time ago.

[lampini]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Perhaps he looks them up on on CRT's website and/or linkedin ...

Indeed, this sort of info is all available on t’internet for those with eyes to see  - also needs the will to read it!

Wasn't there a thread on here a few years ago listing the so called qualifications of those in mid/upper management?