More Dismal Reading

[Stroudwater1]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Great, easy to say "fix more" -- with what? More money? More resources?

 

"Waste less" -- like what? Blue signs? (we've been here too many times to mention...) Ignoring those nasty modern H&S regulations?

 

How is cycling a non-essential, when for a start the improvements for it are almost entirely not paid for by CART but by local councils or other charities, and encouraging use of the canals by non-boaters (cyclists, walkers...) is one of the governments key targets and therefore a CART KPI?

 

Yes the canals are in a sorry state right now, as I'm well aware of having had to fall back on Plan C to get from Yorkshire to Cheshire. How is sacking Richard Parry going to make the slightest difference to this, when the primary reason is current and historic underfunding, going all the way back to BW days as @Alan de Enfield pointed out above?

Yes but look at the bottom line of Alan’s posting Ian, unfortunately no indication of  what activities or admin were. It’s not just historical underfunding  but how it’s spent and organised. No not  the silly blue signs but many other things. The lack of harnessing volunteer lengthsmen, maintaining an experienced workforce who actually know what they do, sub-contracting much stuff out, gold plating some repairs and not addressing others.
 

Leaving catastrophic failures to happen when we all know minor tweaks or maintenance can address more costly failures. 
 

Then there’s the stuff Allen has unearthed here as well as elsewhere. 
Just now they are  spending huge amounts on hydraulic systems for 4 lift bridges on the Oxford which just don’t need it (£650,000 in the Winter closures)

Re lengthsmen its interesting that the CCT round here managed to get volunteers for the whole length of the canal. You only need a fraction of the network covered to make a difference. 
 

I fear you won’t listen nor will you pay voluntary additional payments even though you think it needs more money from boaters but hey ho, just increase licence fees!

[Midnight]

45 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Great, easy to say "fix more" -- with what? More money? More resources?

 

"Waste less" -- like what? Blue signs? (we've been here too many times to mention...) Ignoring those nasty modern H&S regulations?

 

How is cycling a non-essential, when for a start the improvements for it are almost entirely not paid for by CART but by local councils or other charities, and encouraging use of the canals by non-boaters (cyclists, walkers...) is one of the governments key targets and therefore a CART KPI?

 

Yes the canals are in a sorry state right now, as I'm well aware of having had to fall back on Plan C to get from Yorkshire to Cheshire. How is sacking Richard Parry going to make the slightest difference to this, when the primary reason is current and historic underfunding, going all the way back to BW days as @Alan de Enfield pointed out above?

 

I believe someone at C&RT is already looking at what's essential and what's nice nice to do. Maybe Parry is listening instead of promising and not delivering. The government haven't cut the funding they've promised an additional £590 million.... 

....and no I not a tory!

Edited October 25, 2023 by Midnight

[IanD]

Just now, Stroudwater1 said:

Yes but look at the bottom line of Alan’s posting Ian, unfortunately no indication of  what activities or admin were. It’s not just historical underfunding  but how it’s spent and organised. No not  the silly blue signs but many other things. The lack of harnessing volunteer lengthsmen, maintaining an experienced workforce who actually know what they do, sub-contracting much stuff out, gold plating some repairs and not addressing others.
 

Leaving catastrophic failures to happen when we all know minor tweaks or maintenance can address more costly failures. 
 

Then there’s the stuff Allen has unearthed here as well as elsewhere. 
Just now they are  spending huge amounts on hydraulic systems for 4 lift bridges on the Oxford which just don’t need it (£650,000 in the Winter closures)

Re lengthsmen its interesting that the CCT round here managed to get volunteers for the whole length of the canal. You only need a fraction of the network covered to make a difference. 
 

I fear you won’t listen nor will you pay voluntary additional payments even though you think it needs more money from boaters but hey ho, just increase licence fees!

You're missing my point -- I'm not saying CART are brilliant or beyond reproach, exactly the opposite. But lots of people seem to be harking back to "the good old days" with things like lengthsmen/lockies who were paid a pittance but often had cheap/subsidised accommodation (lock cottages) which is simply impossible nowadays. Same with inhouse jobs-for-life (but badly paid) workforces, nobody wants to do this nowadays when working for contractors pays better. And doing quick repairs in ways which are simply incompatible with modern H&S practices, which many people pooh-ooh but are there for very good reasons (reducing workplace deaths and injuries) and and can't be legally ignored anyway.

 

It's not the last century any more, and CART need to work in ways that are compatible with modern working practices. If you don't like that, I suggest you hop in a time machine... 😉

 

The inhouse vs. contracted workforce comes up time after time, and there are very good reasons why so many firms use contractors nowadays, largely to save money -- and since CART are short of funding, what else are they supposed to do? A skilled inhouse workforce is an expensive luxury nowadays which can only be justified if there's enough money to pay for it -- I know, I'm part of one... 😉

 

So yes you get what you pay for, but as in so many areas nowadays the only realistic option is to do things as cheaply as possible (subcontractors) and accept that the quality is lower. That's a reality just as much for CART as many other cash-strapped organisations... 😞

[Alan de Enfield]

40 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Yes but look at the bottom line of Alan’s posting Ian, unfortunately no indication of  what activities or admin were. It’s not just historical underfunding  but how it’s spent and organised.

 

 

Another extract a few pages later ................................... opportunties to increase income.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ewan123]

3 hours ago, Midnight said:

Therese Coffey didn't mention 'Well being' or 'Cycling' or any of the other wasteful non-essentials.

Wellbeing and cycling, amongst other things not directly related to maintaining the waterways, are a big part of the reason government agreed to fund them to the tune of previously mentioned millions. If CRT didn't engage with those things, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot and getting even less funding as a result.

 

Note the government's priorities here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/canal-river-trust-grant-review/report-on-review-of-the-grant-agreement-between-defra-and-the-canal-river-trust#funding-benefits

Edited October 25, 2023 by Ewan123

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

a good example of money wasted,

I reckon,

I wonder how much this advert campaign, which died quietly, cost?

there were perhaps 3 versions released and rarely shown,

I believe a small toy was made too but have never seen them available to buy

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

46 minutes ago, Ewan123 said:

Wellbeing and cycling, amongst other things not directly related to maintaining the waterways, are a big part of the reason government agreed to fund them to the tune of previously mentioned millions. If CRT didn't engage with those things, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot and getting even less funding as a result.

 

Note the government's priorities here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/canal-river-trust-grant-review/report-on-review-of-the-grant-agreement-between-defra-and-the-canal-river-trust#funding-benefits

The bulk of canal users are the people who walk their dogs, push their prams, ride their bikes or go out for a day's fishing on the towpath. Most of those aren't well off enough to spend thousands of quid a year running a boat. As a navigation, the canals were obsolete more or less as soon as the railways came along - those of us who have enjoyed pootling along them have always been living on borrowed time. They could be recommercialised, but too many vested inteerests (most of them with boats) are against it.

[magnetman]

Too many trees nobody can see the wood. 

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

12 hours ago, Midnight said:

 

I believe someone at C&RT is already looking at what's essential and what's nice nice to do. Maybe Parry is listening instead of promising and not delivering. The government haven't cut the funding they've promised an additional £590 million.... 

....and no I not a tory!

CRT's trustees received legal advice on fiduciary duties in a low funding scenario more than eighteen months ago. 

 

The £590m was a bit of double counting by government as a  significant chunk was already committed as part of the current grant agreement. The actual figure is £400m.

Edited October 26, 2023 by Allan(nb Albert)

[adam1uk]

13 hours ago, Midnight said:

 

The government haven't cut the funding they've promised an additional £590 million.... 

....and no I not a tory!

 

The government grant has been frozen for the past few years (at the same time inflation was soaring). When the new grant period starts in 2027, it will be lower than the year before, and each subsequent year will be five per cent lower than the previous one.

 

How is that not a cut?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

11 minutes ago, adam1uk said:

 

The government grant has been frozen for the past few years (at the same time inflation was soaring). When the new grant period starts in 2027, it will be lower than the year before, and each subsequent year will be five per cent lower than the previous one.

 

How is that not a cut?

Government grant has been declining in real terms since 2015/16 with absolutely no guarentee that grant would be extended past 2027.

 

I understand that CRT would like to convert the committed grant into a lump sum and this is under discussion.

[Midnight]

13 hours ago, magnetman said:

Too many trees nobody can see the wood. 

 

 Too many blame the government but offer no solutions other than we want more money - there isn't any more coming you already had £400million!
At least looking at smarter ways of working, cutting down on non-essentials like, publicity, empire building, not mentioning... ( oh I promised @IanD ) is a start. It won't fix everything but fixing a few paddles, swing bridges and leaking gates would make life a bit better by water.

Edited October 26, 2023 by Midnight

[magnetman]

It is By Water as you say. 

 

Note that it is not On Water.

I suspect the reality may be that being able to go boating on canals could be a secondary consideration. 

 

A stoppage to fix something is useful for publicity. 

 

Yes it is dumbing down but thats what we get. 

Edited October 26, 2023 by magnetman
granmar

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Midnight said:

 Too many blame the government but offer no solutions other than we want more money - there isn't any more coming you already had £400million!
At least looking at smarter ways of working, cutting down on non-essentials like, publicity, empire building, not mentioning... ( oh I promised @IanD ) is a start. It won't fix everything but fixing a few paddles, swing bridges and leaking gates would make life a bit better by water.

 

Since one of CARTs KPIs -- set by the government and agreed by CART -- is to increase use of the canals by the general public (i.e. non-boaters), how do you suggest they do this without publicity?

 

What kind of "empire-building" are you referring to?

 

What you're saying is sunlit-uplands thinking -- "CART ought to do more maintenance somehow" without spending any more money -- or less in future as the grant falls in real terms. I'm sure all boaters would welcome this, if only it were possible... 😞

Edited October 26, 2023 by IanD

[Midnight]

35 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Since one of CARTs KPIs -- set by the government and agreed by CART -- is to increase use of the canals by the general public (i.e. non-boaters), how do you suggest they do this without publicity?

 

What kind of "empire-building" are you referring to?

 

What you're saying is sunlit-uplands thinking -- "CART ought to do more maintenance somehow" without spending any more money -- or less in future as the grant falls in real terms. I'm sure all boaters would welcome this, if only it were possible... 😞

.... and your solution is?

[Paul C]

13 minutes ago, Midnight said:

.... and your solution is?

Are you asking in general, making it personal to Ian?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

39 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Since one of CARTs KPIs -- set by the government and agreed by CART -- is to increase use of the canals by the general public (i.e. non-boaters), how do you suggest they do this without publicity?

 

What kind of "empire-building" are you referring to?

 

What you're saying is sunlit-uplands thinking -- "CART ought to do more maintenance somehow" without spending any more money -- or less in future as the grant falls in real terms. I'm sure all boaters would welcome this, if only it were possible... 😞

There is no requirement set by governent for CRT to increase visitor numbers. As with number of homes built and several other KPI's the only requirement is to publish figures once a year.

 

The only KPI "targets" set by government relate to asset condition. 

 

[Midnight]

7 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Are you asking in general, making it personal to Ian?

I would love to hear from anyone about an alternative solution that doesn't involve the government handing over even more money for Parry to squander. 
 

6 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The only KPI "targets" set by government relate to asset condition. 

 

Note: @IanD

@Allan(nb Albert) While you're on the case are C&RT commited to using contractors?

 

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by Midnight

[David Mack]

15 minutes ago, Midnight said:

.... and your solution is?

Well no amount of tinkering with the people involved, 'efficiency improvements' or changing contracting arrangements etc. is going to change the fundamental position that CRT's existing and known future income is insufficient to meet the cost of maintaining their full waterway network in good navigable condition. So whatever else happens more money is needed. And most of that can only come from three sources - government (and other public money), user charges and fund raising. Nobody believes that fund raising can make that much of a dent, so that only leaves the other two. If between them government support and increased user charges can't close the gap, then a decline in the system is inevitable.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 minutes ago, Midnight said:

I would love to hear from anyone about an alternative solution that doesn't involve the government handing over even more money for Parry to squander. 
 

 

Note: @IanD

@Allan(nb Albert) While you're on the case are C&RT being commited to using contractors?

Assume you mean does government make them to use contractors - the answer is no. The use of contractors in a big way started under BW but again this was by choice rather than government directive.

[David Mack]

8 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Assume you mean does government make them to use contractors - the answer is no. The use of contractors in a big way started under BW but again this was by choice rather than government directive.

But just about every government department users contractors as well.

Edited October 26, 2023 by David Mack

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

But the just about every government department users contractors as well.

I was not trying to say if the use of contractors is good or bad, just that government have not influenced the use of contractors.

 

Certainly, BW claimed that the use of contractors made large savings in maintaining the network.

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Well no amount of tinkering with the people involved, 'efficiency improvements' or changing contracting arrangements etc. is going to change the fundamental position that CRT's existing and known future income is insufficient to meet the cost of maintaining their full waterway network in good navigable condition. So whatever else happens more money is needed. And most of that can only come from three sources - government (and other public money), user charges and fund raising. Nobody believes that fund raising can make that much of a dent, so that only leaves the other two. If between them government support and increased user charges can't close the gap, then a decline in the system is inevitable.

 

Which was exactly my point -- blaming Richard Parry (or blue signs, or executive bonuses, or subcontracting, or gold-plating, or empire-building, or...) is simply trying to shift the blame away from the real cause of the problem which is a mismatch between required and available funding, as Dickens famously pointed out.

 

The only "solutions" -- not suggested by me, simply the unvarnished truth -- are either to significantly reduce the required funding (e.g. by closing canals -- though this is difficult for reasons explained many times) or increase the available funding. Many people on here are strongly resistant to boaters paying more -- even though it's often been said that the license fee is "a bargain" -- and the only realistic alternative is increased funding from the government, which could be justified by making the waterways attractive to people (not just boaters) and seeing them as a historic item of UK infrastructure which is worth preserving. If only the government chose to do this, which they clearly haven't... 😞

 

Anyone saying that boaters shouldn't pay more and the government is already generously paying more than they have to is effectively saying that they accept the inevitable decline of the canals in future -- and this is clearly the attitude of some on CWDF, either saying "I'm glad I'm out of it, the best days are past", or "it's all going to hell in a handbasket, but I don't care because I'll be dead by then anyway"... 😞

[ditchcrawler]

24 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I was not trying to say if the use of contractors is good or bad, just that government have not influenced the use of contractors.

 

Certainly, BW claimed that the use of contractors made large savings in maintaining the network.

I think most large companies do. It actually costs quite a bit to employ someone if you are a decent employer, Pay rate, holiday pay, sick pay, training, protective clothing etc. Same with plant that may lay idle for months

[Midnight]

11 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Well no amount of tinkering with the people involved, 'efficiency improvements' or changing contracting arrangements etc. is going to change the fundamental position that CRT's existing and known future income is insufficient to meet the cost of maintaining their full waterway network in good navigable condition. So whatever else happens more money is needed. And most of that can only come from three sources - government (and other public money), user charges and fund raising....

.. and efficiency savings!
(Sorry for the jargon but what else would that be?)

 

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

The only "solutions" -- not suggested by me, simply the unvarnished truth -- are either to significantly reduce the required funding (e.g. by closing canals -- though this is difficult for reasons explained many times) or increase the available funding. Many people on here are strongly resistant to boaters paying more -- even though it's often been said that the license fee is "a bargain" -- and the only realistic alternative is increased funding from the government, which could be justified by making the waterways attractive to people (not just boaters) and seeing them as a historic item of UK infrastructure which is worth preserving.........

At least closing canals is part of a possible solution. They already seem to have closed some of the Pennine Routes.

Further increased funding from the government is not a realistic alternative no party will support that ATM. The cavalry are not coming over the hill so how do we run the show with what we have?

Therese Coffey: "Today, I am notifying Parliament of our intention to provide additional grant funding from 2027 to the Canal & River Trust. The Trust is a charity responsible for 2,000 miles of waterways and associated historic industrial infrastructure in England and Wales. The Trust is responsible for maintaining navigability and safety of its waterways including reservoirs, embankments and other infrastructure."

No mention there of non-essentials.

I didn't say smarter working is the whole answer, but...

How many paddles can be fixed for the same cost of a media person to manage sponsored (££££s) Facebook adverts?
How many swing bridges can be fixed for the same cost of running events like let's fish, let's walk etc? Other agencies can do that.
How many small jobs can be carried out by ground staff so contactors aren't needed?
How much extra funding would a membership scheme bring in? (Yes I know other users would have a say)
Yes increase income from users (all users), but be carefull you get the balance right or a decrease will be the result.

Remember the video with Parry stood near the L&L breach saying he was going to spend more on maintenance and cut down on non-essentials.
How many have been cut down?
How many could be cut down?
Look across the whole business model and see how every £pound is spent. Then spend only on what is vital to acheive the core business. If there's any money left over, Facebook adverts and the like are fine. They could even employ a Poet Laureate to vandalise lock beams.

... or do we just roll over and say there's nothing else except more government funding and admit defeat?