Rochdale Canal

[Midnight]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

My guess is a fraction of a percent which isn't even going to make the tiniest dent in the budget shortfall, so if you've got any actual numbers to show it's much bigger please provide them. 

This where we seem to be at odds. Let's look at Todbrook, Middlewich and Figure of three. £millions spent of fixing something that was preventable with a better maintenance regime. No doubt there are other examples. Talk the the chaps on the front line they are demoralised because there's things they can fix but management insist on contractors. Most of the stoppages are caused by minor defects that could be fixed at not much expense by the ground staff. Okay you have a point but fixing a good percentage of issues would help keep the waterways open longer. It's all well and good blaming the goverment but get real there is no money coming. 

[David Mack]

8 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Are not capable of figuring that out for yourself?

Oh I have my own views. But I'm asking you for yours, with evidence. 

You are very quick to claim all sorts of faults with CRT, but whenever anyone asks you to support your position, you just just deflect the issue with smart-arse responses like the one above.

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, Midnight said:

This where we seem to be at odds. Let's look at Todbrook, Middlewich and Figure of three. £millions spent of fixing something that was preventable with a better maintenance regime. No doubt there are other examples. Talk the the chaps on the front line they are demoralised because there's things they can fix but management insist on contractors. Most of the stoppages are caused by minor defects that could be fixed at not much expense by the ground staff. Okay you have a point but fixing a good percentage of issues would help keep the waterways open longer. It's all well and good blaming the goverment but get real there is no money coming. 

Yes more money spent on planned maintenance would reduce emergency work. Where should this extra money to spend come from, given that CART already have too little to keep up with maintenance?

 

Same problem as many other things -- skimping now means more failures and makes things worse in the long-term, but that's unhelpful if you just don't have the money to spend today, is it?

 

I'm well aware there's no more money coming, at least from the current government -- but that doesn't change the fact that this is the real problem. Either the canals are a valuable part of the UK's industrial and recreational heritage and infrastructure which deserve preserving for all -- with government/taxpayer funding -- or they're a playground just for 35000 boaters, who can therefore pay maybe £5000 a year each for the privilege of boating on a well-maintained Navigation.

 

Which are they?

Edited January 20 by IanD

[Tacet]

44 minutes ago, Midnight said:

This where we seem to be at odds. Let's look at Todbrook, Middlewich and Figure of three. £millions spent of fixing something that was preventable with a better maintenance regime. No doubt there are other examples. Talk the the chaps on the front line they are demoralised because there's things they can fix but management insist on contractors. Most of the stoppages are caused by minor defects that could be fixed at not much expense by the ground staff. Okay you have a point but fixing a good percentage of issues would help keep the waterways open longer. It's all well and good blaming the goverment but get real there is no money coming. 

Quite possibly expenditure on the three sites you mention could have the averted greater costs of fixing them when they failed.

 

The difficulty is that one would have to incur increased expenditure on numerous other sites to both investigate deterioration (probably by the management or consultants) and then addressing any issues and undertaking maintenance.  In any ideal, cost-is-no-object, world we would all like to see this.  But where cost is an issue, what makes you so sure that more on maintenance would overall (not just your hand-picked examples) save at least the same on repair?

 

Clearly there is a sweet spot somewhere but it takes managers and consultants to find it - not just boots on the ground.  And that's before one takes account of long & short term popularity and the chances of squeezing some money from the government or public when there is a significant failure; not much chance of that for repointing a load of lock wing walls which are ostensibly fine.

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

👍

I’m drinking beer today so instead of winding myself up I’m out of this argument,

 

Very sensible 

[IanD]

27 minutes ago, Tacet said:

Quite possibly expenditure on the three sites you mention could have the averted greater costs of fixing them when they failed.

 

The difficulty is that one would have to incur increased expenditure on numerous other sites to both investigate deterioration (probably by the management or consultants) and then addressing any issues and undertaking maintenance.  In any ideal, cost-is-no-object, world we would all like to see this.  But where cost is an issue, what makes you so sure that more on maintenance would overall (not just your hand-picked examples) save at least the same on repair?

 

Clearly there is a sweet spot somewhere but it takes managers and consultants to find it - not just boots on the ground.  And that's before one takes account of long & short term popularity and the chances of squeezing some money from the government or public when there is a significant failure; not much chance of that for repointing a load of lock wing walls which are ostensibly fine.

All true, but like so many other things like schools and roads and hospitals if you're short of money it's easy to save some in the short term by cutting back on maintenance.

 

The problem is that some years down the line this comes back to bite you as things start falling apart like canals and schools and roads and hospitals, and in the long-term you have to spend more money than if you hadn't skimped on maintenance.

 

Governments -- especially the current bunch of in-a-sack-infighters -- seem to hope that kicking the can down the road means they can put off addressing difficult problems until later -- prevarication -- or that by the time the chickens come home to roost it'll be somebody else's problem -- blame transferral.

 

Their attitude to the canals is no different to many much more crucial things like schools and roads and hospitals, and seeing as how they can't sort these out it doesn't look good for the poor old canals.

 

The fact that the total sum needed for the canals -- where they say they can't afford to spend more -- is smaller than they wasted on just one Covid corruption with Mone tells us which they value more, canals or cronies... 😞

Edited January 20 by IanD

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Tacet said:

The difficulty is that one would have to incur increased expenditure on numerous other sites to both investigate deterioration (probably by the management or consultants) and then addressing any issues and undertaking maintenance. 

But of course in Midnight's world, all the management and consultants doing that sort of work are an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy which should be cut out!

[Arthur Marshall]

While it is true that CRT thinks the canal system should be a park for the benefit of all users, the fact surely is that its navigability is critical for its viability. If boats stop using it, it'll be the same as in the past , full of old mattresses and shopping trolleys, it'll stink to high heaven and nobody will either walk by it or fish in it.

Without maintenence on the banks you get breaches like the current Macc closure, without infrastructure maintenance and bodies on the ground you get the Middlewich breach and Todbrook. CRT can't let the locks collapse for the same reason.

Without navigation, it's just a stagnant rubbish dump with a cycle track alongside.

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

While it is true that CRT thinks the canal system should be a park for the benefit of all users, the fact surely is that its navigability is critical for its viability. If boats stop using it, it'll be the same as in the past , full of old mattresses and shopping trolleys, it'll stink to high heaven and nobody will either walk by it or fish in it.

Without maintenence on the banks you get breaches like the current Macc closure, without infrastructure maintenance and bodies on the ground you get the Middlewich breach and Todbrook. CRT can't let the locks collapse for the same reason.

Without navigation, it's just a stagnant rubbish dump with a cycle track alongside.

 

Yes that's obviously true, but you're being apocalyptic again -- we're talking about more broken locks and stoppages, most of the system will still work for most of the time, you just won't be able to be sure *which* bits will or won't be open at any given time. Like the Northern canals today, but worse and everywhere... 😞

 

AFAIK most of the money used for improving towpaths and the like for non-boaters doesn't come from CART funds anyway, it comes from local councils -- and they're bothered about their many local residents using the canals, not a few hairy boaters.

 

But trying to keep up with the KPIs to improve access and use of the canals by all -- the public health issue -- must consume a significant amount of CARTs energy and focus, even if it doesn't hit the maintenance budget so much.

 

Which again begs the question -- @Midnight , what *are* all these magic savings that could be made to allow lots more to be spent on Maintaining the Navigation?

 

Bear in mind that you'd need to find at least £10M a year down the back of the sofa -- preferably more! -- to make much difference given the size of the CART budget and the scale of the maintenance shortfall/backlog... 😞

Edited January 20 by IanD

[Ian Mac]

6 hours ago, Midnight said:

No assisted passage available. I feel sorry for our new club members who are now stuck on the wrong side of the Pennines. They are new to boating having had their electric boat built at Worcester. With the constant ongoing problems on the L&L, the Huddersfield and Rochdale they must be wondering why they bothered. When these issues permeate to the Midlands and South boaters down that way may agree C&RT under the leadership (🤣) of Richard Parry are a disaster. He needs to go before the whole system falls apart.

 

 

<RANT>
Assisted passages are done mainly these days, by me, and I'm very busy at the moment, attempting to manage the death of my father.
I am a volunteer, and I have chosen to help people on the Rochdale, particularly the Manchester 18, because I know how many people find it difficult, and I wish to see the canal used more. It is not a narrow canal and single handing a narrow boat through these broad locks is hard work. It is also not the Grand Union with its little fall locks, nearly all the lock fall more than Denham Deep! Ideally as on any canal you need a  team of three to efficiently move a boat with the minimum waste of water.
I am constantly amazed by the number of people who are surprised by the Rochdale canal, and the amount of effort it requires. If you know what you are doing and how it works and its little foibles, one can really crack on. I have taken my boat from Ashton to Middleton Junction one day and then the next day on to Todmorden, there were three of us, and we draw well over 3ft, they were not easy days but we did it. Also I have taken other boats the other way in a day.
As to the current stoppage on the 18, As the trust has no money due to the erosion of the government Grant by inflation, (was planned I suspect) which in real terms has reduced the available pot by about 20%. This means the trust is in Fix on failure mode, it does not have the resources to do preventative maintenance. This situation has been made far worse, because the rules for reservoirs have change, as a result of Todbrook. This does not just apply to C&RT but also the Water utilities, it is costing a mega fortune to fix them all. The trust can not say they will do them tomorrow the law does not allow that as an option. So ever since Todbrook the trust has been spending tens of millions on reservoirs, each year. Another problem is that the trust is the only charity, which I am aware of, which has statuary duties IE things it must do by law. Providing free towpath access is one of those duties, so towpaths have to come first. The right of navigation was removed over 60 years ago.
Changing the CEO will not alter any of this, in fact it will prove to be a very expensive process, as I'm sure you will find out in the not to distant future when Mr Parry decides to step down. Getting a new CEO will be an expensive process, unless you want a muppet to do the job, and you may get one anyway, if care is not taken. The Trust is one of the top 30 charities in the country and CEOs even for charities do not come cheap. The CEO of the Welcome Trust is on well over half a million a year for example. Oh! plus benefits of course.
The other thing is the the CEO does not determine what happens it is the board which does that they are called Trustees these days for a charity. One thing of significance which has occurred is that the Chair of the Trustees has recently changed, and this is making a difference David Orr gets that it is all about boats moving. His first formal canal visit was actually to the Rochdale canal in Newton Heath, I know that because I organised that visit. He gets canals. He is also between a rock and a hard place because all the different canal users are fighting each other rather than the true enemy. They all seem to think it is the other users who are the problem, not HMG. If HMG increase its funding to say over 60M a year linked to inflation, it would be a very different picture and the small hole on the offside of lock 67 would probably be already fixed.

</RANT>

--

cheers IAn MAc

[Midnight]

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

But of course in Midnight's world, all the management and consultants doing that sort of work are an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy which should be cut out!

If you recall it was C&RT's own inspector who warned of the potential disaster at Middlewich 5 years before it gave way And didn't the people in the reservior house warn numerous times of Todbrook? Perhaps if the keeper had been retained it would have saved the £millions of repair and the cost of the police security and RAF Chinooks. As for Figure of Three, the towpath had been washed away several times before the big flood. Last time I went that way there is still no flood bank protecting the expensive locks. Next big flood deja vue?

2 hours ago, IanD said:

..............

Which again begs the question -- @Midnight , what *are* all these magic savings that could be made to allow lots more to be spent on Maintaining the Navigation?

 

 Which begs the so far unanswered question -- @IanD I asked you "Tell me what wonderous things Parry has achieved including all the targets and promises made when he took over."

Edited January 20 by Midnight

[dmr]

We usually do the Manchester 18 twice each year and try very hard to get Ian to help. This is maybe a little selfish as we can (and have) done the 18 alone. I feel a little bad as Ians time is precious, but he is such a huge help, especially when things go wrong, and a great source of navigational and historic knowledge. We have helped a few other boats up and down the 18 to repay our debt 😀

The Rochdale is a special canal as its various parts are probably both the best canal in the land and also the worse and hardest.

It has a lot of locks and is still not really fully restored so rather than moaning about it it needs a few more people to get involved and help. A few more experienced boaters helping on the 18 would be great. There are an increasing number of volunteers doing towpath and vegetation work with CRT providing a lot of input, but it really needs more good experienced boaters, the 18 can be bad but good preparation and help from somebody who can work locks really helps.

Money is tight and moaning about Richard, who is very pro-boating, will not fix that. I suspect there are other people within CRT who might want his job who are rather less pro-boater and more pro cycling/towpath use.

[Midnight]

12 minutes ago, dmr said:

We usually do the Manchester 18 twice each year and try very hard to get Ian to help. This is maybe a little selfish as we can (and have) done the 18 alone. I feel a little bad as Ians time is precious, but he is such a huge help, especially when things go wrong, and a great source of navigational and historic knowledge. We have helped a few other boats up and down the 18 to repay our debt 😀

The Rochdale is a special canal as its various parts are probably both the best canal in the land and also the worse and hardest.

It has a lot of locks and is still not really fully restored so rather than moaning about it it needs a few more people to get involved and help. A few more experienced boaters helping on the 18 would be great. There are an increasing number of volunteers doing towpath and vegetation work with CRT providing a lot of input, but it really needs more good experienced boaters, the 18 can be bad but good preparation and help from somebody who can work locks really helps.

Money is tight and moaning about Richard, who is very pro-boating, will not fix that. I suspect there are other people within CRT who might want his job who are rather less pro-boater and more pro cycling/towpath use.

 

Ian does a great job. I've never needed his help myself but he once helped the boats in front which made our descent easier.

 

Nobody is moaning about the locks being difficult. And I agree moaning about Parry won't help. Replacing him might. 

[Tacet]

2 hours ago, Midnight said:

If you recall it was C&RT's own inspector who warned of the potential disaster at Middlewich 5 years before it gave way And didn't the people in the reservior house warn numerous times of Todbrook? Perhaps if the keeper had been retained it would have saved the £millions of repair and the cost of the police security and RAF Chinooks. As for Figure of Three, the towpath had been washed away several times before the big flood.

Fair point.  But I also recall a poster on here warning of the imminent collapse of the Nantwich Aqueduct which has not transpired in maybe 5 years.  Should that have been investigated (at a cost) or a bloke in a van asked to go do some maintenance without proper instructions?

 

Clearly there is a sweet spot to be sought between the costs of frequent, professional surveys, routine maintenance and fixing catastrophes.

Edited January 20 by Tacet

[IanD]

3 hours ago, Midnight said:

 

Ian does a great job. I've never needed his help myself but he once helped the boats in front which made our descent easier.

 

Nobody is moaning about the locks being difficult. And I agree moaning about Parry won't help. Replacing him might. 

How and why?

 

Regarding your question about the wonders Parry has done (which I never claimed) -- he hasn't, because he couldn't, because the money was never there, amd now there's even less of it... 😞

 

Still waiting for your answer about where the large amount of money to prioritise Navigation would come from, like magical efficiency improvements and executive pay cuts and blue sign removals. Go on, try and come up with some realistic numbers instead of just ranting about it... 😉

Edited January 20 by IanD

[Midnight]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

How and why?

 

Regarding your question about the wonders Parry has done -- he hasn't, because he couldn't, because the money wasn't there... 😞

Let me guess - the government's fault 🙄 

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Let me guess - the government's fault 🙄 

You got it -- after all they run the country and DEFRA and make the decisions about the canals (and rail, and roads, and the NHS...), so who else's fault would it be?

 

Oh yes, I forgot, it's all Richard Parry's fault. So presumably if Boris or someone similar had been in charge we'd all be cruising happily through sunlit uplands...

[Stroudwater1]

I don’t think many can support £650,000 as good use of CRT funds putting 4 hydraulic mechanisms into 4 Oxford canal lift bridges this Winter. 3 are barely used and the 4th could quite possibly have  been part funded by the local large estate developer which is why the bridge has started being used more/at all.
 

Part of the bridge’s history is pulling down on the chain/ rope when absent in order to open the bridges. It’s a shame that’s been consigned to history with such a cost involved. 
 

There is an amount of inefficiency in various ways but even 100% efficiency wouldn’t make up for the cost deficit. 
 

[Midnight]

37 minutes ago, IanD said:

You got it -- after all they run the country and DEFRA and make the decisions about the canals (and rail, and roads, and the NHS...), so who else's fault would it be?

 

Oh yes, I forgot, it's all Richard Parry's fault. So presumably if Boris or someone similar had been in charge we'd all be cruising happily through sunlit uplands...

 

On the other hand I doubt any colour government would/will chuck in another £10m a year. We don't seem to have had a decent government since Tony Blair but at least Boris did deliver when he said "Get Brexit Done". Brexit arguments in the political section please!

[IanD]

13 hours ago, Midnight said:

 

On the other hand I doubt any colour government would/will chuck in another £10m a year. We don't seem to have had a decent government since Tony Blair but at least Boris did deliver when he said "Get Brexit Done". Brexit arguments in the political section please!

I agree that the current government certainly won't, chance might be slightly higher with labour.

 

Still doesn't change the fact that "efficiency savings" and sacking Parry won't do anything to fix this -- unless you have some numbers which show otherwise... 😉

 

13 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

I don’t think many can support £650,000 as good use of CRT funds putting 4 hydraulic mechanisms into 4 Oxford canal lift bridges this Winter. 3 are barely used and the 4th could quite possibly have  been part funded by the local large estate developer which is why the bridge has started being used more/at all.
 

Part of the bridge’s history is pulling down on the chain/ rope when absent in order to open the bridges. It’s a shame that’s been consigned to history with such a cost involved. 
 

There is an amount of inefficiency in various ways but even 100% efficiency wouldn’t make up for the cost deficit. 
 

Did CART pay the full cost of those bridges, or did some of it come from other sources?

Edited January 21 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

13 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

I don’t think many can support £650,000 as good use of CRT funds putting 4 hydraulic mechanisms into 4 Oxford canal lift bridges this Winter. 3 are barely used and the 4th could quite possibly have  been part funded by the local large estate developer which is why the bridge has started being used more/at all.
 

Part of the bridge’s history is pulling down on the chain/ rope when absent in order to open the bridges. It’s a shame that’s been consigned to history with such a cost involved. 
 

There is an amount of inefficiency in various ways but even 100% efficiency wouldn’t make up for the cost deficit. 
 

Straight from the CRT website,

bold’s mine;

 

It is anticipated that the total project spend across the four bridge upgrades will be in the region of £650,000.

Work on Chisnell lift bridge (no.193) has been made possible thanks to support from players of People's Postcode Lottery, while the installations at Shipton (no.219), Wolvercote (no.233) and Perry’s (no.234) are being undertaken as part of the Trust’s winter programme of works.

[agg221]

20 hours ago, Ian Mac said:

<RANT>
As the trust has no money due to the erosion of the government Grant by inflation, (was planned I suspect) which in real terms has reduced the available pot by about 20%. This means the trust is in Fix on failure mode, it does not have the resources to do preventative maintenance. This situation has been made far worse, because the rules for reservoirs have change, as a result of Todbrook. This does not just apply to C&RT but also the Water utilities, it is costing a mega fortune to fix them all. The trust can not say they will do them tomorrow the law does not allow that as an option. So ever since Todbrook the trust has been spending tens of millions on reservoirs, each year. Another problem is that the trust is the only charity, which I am aware of, which has statuary duties IE things it must do by law. Providing free towpath access is one of those duties, so towpaths have to come first. The right of navigation was removed over 60 years ago.
Changing the CEO will not alter any of this, in fact it will prove to be a very expensive process, as I'm sure you will find out in the not to distant future when Mr Parry decides to step down. Getting a new CEO will be an expensive process, unless you want a muppet to do the job, and you may get one anyway, if care is not taken. The Trust is one of the top 30 charities in the country and CEOs even for charities do not come cheap. The CEO of the Welcome Trust is on well over half a million a year for example. Oh! plus benefits of course.

</RANT>

--

cheers IAn MAc

Ian,

 

You probably have the best insight of anyone on here into the framework within which CRT is constrained to work and also (unfortunately) following the recent elections, less ability to influence that which can be changed within the bounds of the possible.

 

I did have a few thoughts which I would welcome your views on around volunteers. I am aware of the concurrent thread on the subject, but your post on this thread seems more aligned as a jumping off point.

 

If you take as a starting premise that there is not enough money to do all that needs to be done, and that there is no realistic route by which the funding will be significantly be increased, the conclusion becomes that it will either not be done, or it will have to be done without money (or at least with a lot less money) since, as @Grassman discussed, there are costs and allowances for volunteers). However, in parallel, there are things which if done now are a lot cheaper and a lot less disruptive than if done later, but the challenge is to identify them without that carrying a significant cost. So here are a couple of thoughts.

 

1. Volunteer lengthspeople. There is no realistic prospect of paid lengthsmen returning, but much of the network is used by people on foot - in fact this is actually one of the key indentified values of the system as an open space/linear park/pedestrian and cycle route away from traffic. What if people who walk a length on a daily basis were able to volunteer as a 'lengthsperson' whose job was simply to spot potential issues. The difference between this and a layperson would be a) some basic training on what type of thing to look out for and report and b) sharing the map/plan with them for the length they have volunteered for so that they know specifically what to keep an eye on - culverts etc. I'm not talking about proper inspections but if you walk the dog daily and one day you see water running and you know there is a culvert there, that could be a whole lot less costly to sort out than a full breach and at least it could pinpoint where to send inspection teams. It has the added advantage of not actually taking any time that is not already spent, so increasing the number of volunteer hours against KPIs.

 

2. Anecdotally, I hear of a mismatch arising at times - there is a list of minor issues that need resolving but with a triage approach they never make it to the top of the list. Simultaneously, there are times when the on the ground CRT maintenance teams are sent to a job but the materials don't turn up, or it takes less time than expected. It does appear that there is potential resource available to address some of these minor issues if the operational side was coordinated - some with volunteer labour (filling in holes behind piling so people don't break their ankle does not require specialist training for example), some with formalised volunteer labour through canal society work parties where slightly more specialist skills may be required (there would appear to be things which the teams @Grassman mentioned would be well placed to tackle) and partly by an approach of 'the CRT team will be on the ground at this location today - priority 1 is the job they are going there to do, but if they get done early or a problem arises, these are the things to put on the van so that the team can go on and deal with these minor issues'. The number mentioned last summer was 8000 outstanding minor jobs so the backlog will not get dealt with quickly, but there could be a way to at least stop it growing?

 

I would welcome your thoughts on the above. Am I heading down a sensible thought line here or are there good reasons I am not aware of why it is not practical? Any other areas which from your experience there may be ways to tackle within the current, and ongoing, constraints?

 

Alec

Edited January 21 by agg221

[dmr]

14 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Straight from the CRT website,

bold’s mine;

 

It is anticipated that the total project spend across the four bridge upgrades will be in the region of £650,000.

Work on Chisnell lift bridge (no.193) has been made possible thanks to support from players of People's Postcode Lottery, while the installations at Shipton (no.219), Wolvercote (no.233) and Perry’s (no.234) are being undertaken as part of the Trust’s winter programme of works.

This project does look like bad decision making/financial insanity on a grand scale, when there are many locks rhat really need fixing.

The bridges work ok as they are, are probably not heavily used, and there is the issue of messing with historic structures.

A lot of boaters do complain about operating bridges single handed so maybe CRT have miss interpreted this.

More likely, and I hope its the case, some new regulation or H&S requirement might be behind this decision.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

7 minutes ago, agg221 said:

1. Volunteer lengthspeople

weren’t they advertising this last year?

volunteers to assess assets?

 

 

[Stroudwater1]

14 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Straight from the CRT website,

bold’s mine;

 

It is anticipated that the total project spend across the four bridge upgrades will be in the region of £650,000.

Work on Chisnell lift bridge (no.193) has been made possible thanks to support from players of People's Postcode Lottery, while the installations at Shipton (no.219), Wolvercote (no.233) and Perry’s (no.234) are being undertaken as part of the Trust’s winter programme of works.

Ah that’s OK then, £487,500 from CART funds. It could be less as maybe there’s some inter transferable cost. 
 

@agg221its a very good point, the restored parts -phase1a of the Stroudwater has the whole length covered by volunteer lengths people/folk/men. Interest may wane here and there over time of course!