What’s going on in Wigan?

[Mike Todd]

21 hours ago, David Mack said:

CRT's land and infrastructure is technically private property. So CRT probably do have the legal right to ban a particular individual from being present on the property or operating the infrastructure, subject only to obligations to make that property or infrastructure available to the public under the various BW Acts and the CRT transfer process. So they almost certainly can't block him from walking the towpath. Nor can they stop him promoting himself on social media.

I thought that only a few bits of towpath were rights of way for walking. Mostly I understood it to be permissive use and permission can ge withdrawn. Thus can be seen when stoppages clise towpaths without the procedures for doing so with PROWs

[David Mack]

10 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I thought that only a few bits of towpath were rights of way for walking. Mostly I understood it to be permissive use and permission can ge withdrawn. Thus can be seen when stoppages clise towpaths without the procedures for doing so with PROWs

Yes. Not public rights of way. But under the CRT Transfer documents CRT is obliged to allow the public free access to the towpath (except where it has to be closed for necessary maintenance etc). 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Deleted

Edited September 13 by Allan(nb Albert)
Deleted as info already posted

[nicknorman]

4 hours ago, andyberg said:

Just on facebook…

 

 

There has been some speculation about the Canal and River Trust terminating the volunteering of three experienced volunteer lock keepers on the Wigan Flight which resulted in several other VLKs tendering their resignation in protest. The terminations were cited to be as a result of a ‘deep dive investigation’ chaired by Anne Gardner Aston - Director of Health & Safety,  to which there was unspecified representation from  Local Management, National Volunteering and the Trust’s Legal Advisors. None of the people present at the time of the incident which took place on 25th May, the Saturday of the Bank Holiday, were invited to take part in the Deep Dive Investigation which took place on 11th June.
To date the affected volunteers have not made any public statements. This was partly because we are all passionate about the canal and maintaining the navigation in the safest possible way. We have collectively enhanced the reputation of the Flight and find that, in return, our own reputations have been damaged by the Trust.
We have provided support to operational staff freely providing our labour in ways which supplement rather than replace the existing employees on the ground.  It is with great sadness that we now find ourselves outcast from an organisation to which we have collectively voluntarily donated well over ten thousand hours.
Anne Gardner Aston has put on record that the terminations were not a recommended outcome of the ‘deep dive’ and the responsibility for action was made outside of that forum, managed and co-ordinated at local level. We had been asked, in a very casual manner,  and did provide written accounts of the incident which were, we believed, to be made available for any investigation, however subsequent dialogue and correspondence suggests that these were ignored as they did not fit the narrative that the Trust wished to put out.
At the time of the incident the three volunteers were acting in a personal capacity, one skippering his own boat and the other two assisting the pair of boats down the flight.
Arriving at the next to the last lock on the flight, the lock was empty and the tailgates partially open. An attempt to close the gates was made but there appeared to be a submerged obstruction between the gates, as is normal practice, the tail gates were opened and closed a couple of times to see if the obstruction would clear creating a current through the lock to attempt to flush out the obstruction. After this the tailgates closed but the volume of leakage through the tail was greater than the inflow with all head paddles up. As you would expect the pound above the lock was dropping and the waiting boats began to ground.
At this point the skipper contacted the ‘Emergency Help Line’ and one of the ‘off duty’ volunteers contacted the closest local operative who was on duty but over 20 miles away and occupied on the Ribble Link. No advice was proffered by the Trust
There were seven boats descending the flight, and we contacted the ‘on duty’ lock keeper who was further up the flight to ensure the four boats behind stopped at Rose Bridge which is the only pound with recognised mooring.
Although the gates were installed just over a year ago this lock consistently was draining overnight indicating tail end leakage.
Unbeknown to those present Lock 84 was failing due to rotting timbers in the base of the lock which was allowing water to flow under the concrete arrowhead that the gates rest upon when closed - this was explained by a C&RT engineer on the YouTube video “Disaster on the Wigan Lock Flight”.
The action that we took was because we suspected that there may be have been a silt obstruction at the base of the lock which was preventing the gates sealing beneath the surface.
The tailgates on lock 84 are operated using cranks with a rack and pinion mechanism. We had previously highlighted to the Trust that the towpath side crank presented a danger of back injury due to stiffness. After the new gates were replaced it required a high degree of force to operate (this was actually also highlighted in the Trust’s Lock Inspection report in the previous year.)
We decided to have one more attempt at flushing the lock this time with one gate open using a quarter turn of the crank and flushing with both ground paddles open. To achieve this we were holding the crank in position whilst the paddles were opened. Initially the crank was being held by all three of us then one went to look to see if there was anything obvious being flushed through the gate.
Returning to the crank which is oriented parallel to the canal the pressure on the gate overcame the resistance on the crank which rapidly moved a quarter turn pushing the unfortunate skipper who had left his boat to assist, backwards  towards a stepped recess and over into the gate and subsequently down into the ‘empty’ lock. He sustained two broken ribs and damage to his ear which required over 20 stitches.
The injured party was able to climb out of the lock after being passed a lifebelt. A passing cyclist called the emergency service and the scene was attended by Fire Crews, Ambulance and the Police.
The three volunteers involved were asked to attend sequential individual meetings with the local Operations Manager Steve Maguire and Suzanne Shooman the Volunteer Leader with the premise that this was to inform them of the outcome of the investigation.
In the event only two of the volunteers were available on the day suggested, 3 July. One of the volunteers attended with the volunteer who had been ‘on duty’ on the day, the other was the injured skipper.
The third volunteer has refused to have a meeting with the Local Management without an agenda and the availability of the Trusts internal documentation relating to the condition of the asset and the incident.
It was suggested that the ‘off duty’ volunteers should not have made any attempt to flush out an obstruction even though this is common practice amongst boaters and staff. The correct procedure would be to inform the Duty Manager and wait for staff assistance. I have asked for a copy of the operational procedure relating to the action to be taken by staff under this circumstance - but have received no response I suspect although what we have done is custom and practice it has not been risk assessed, The implication is that if there is an obstruction visible or not visible the correct course of action is to drain the system to investigate.
Despite many requests to the Trust none of the requested information was forthcoming so we turned to making a freedom of information request. As a result of this 21 working days after the request  ( 7/9/24) we were provided with :
1) The last Lock Inspection Report from 30/3/2023 which includes the comment
“The gates and paddles were operated without issue, except the new towpath tail gate which was stiff to move. Direct services are confident that the gate will become easier to move the more it is used.”
2) Reconstruction package for repair to the lock which is not dated but identifies the cause of the failure being
“Tailgate Cill and Apron Failure. Existing tailgate cill and apron has lifted causing failure - the lock is now inoperable.”
3) RIDDOR report to HSE dated 27/7/24, eight weeks after the incident and six weeks after the investigation. The contents of the report are scanty and inaccurate and although this has been highlighted to HSE they do not propose to take any action. The report only mentions an obstruction in the lock rather than failure, suggests that the boat(s) were in the lock, does not mention the fall from height, ignores the length of the wet grass on the lock landing and does not mention the unevenness of the terrain or the orientation or condition of the crank. It suggests that the mechanism was being forced rather than held.
It is suspected that had we not asked for the Trust to confirm the accident had been reported to the HSE then no RIDDOR report would have been submitted
4) The witness statements provided
5) With respect to our asking for sight of the minutes to the much vaunted ‘Deep Dive Investigation’ the response from the FOI request was :-
“I can confirm that there are no minutes at the present time, so the Trust does not hold
this information.”
From this it may be inferred that minutes may exist in some form and we have informally asked for these or any other internal report from the investigation, to date we have had no response.
To reiterate, none of the people involved in the incident were in a volunteering role at the time. With respect to the RIDDOR report submitted by the Trust the injured party appears to have been identified as an ‘unknown member of the public’ and the others described as friends. Whereas we have been open and honest with the Trust this has not been reciprocated with ourselves or indeed the HSE. Had we been described as accredited VLKs, given their allegation that the skipper and crew were wholly responsible for the accident, this would have called the Trusts training systems into question.
The ease with which we collectively have been thrown under the bus should serve as a warning for other Trust volunteers.
Had we been described as accredited VLKs, given their allegation that the skipper and crew were wholly responsible for the accident, this would have called the Trust's training systems into question.
The ease with which we collectively have been thrown under the bus should serve as a warning for other Trust volunteers.

Thanks Andy. So I think I can see where CRT are coming from. Even though the volockies weren’t on duty, they were carrying out similar activities, behaved recklessly, didn’t think through the risks of their venture, with the result that a member of the public was seriously injured. Under slightly different circumstances, it could have been fatal

 

From CRT’s perspective, they probably thought that if the three could be that irresponsible, it was quite likely that they would display the same level of responsibility when they were on duty, and the last thing CRT want is to be sued by a member of the public for injury caused by a volockie.

 

Plus, they had probably grown too big for their boots!

 

The rest of the rather lengthy description is just smokescreen.

Edited September 13 by nicknorman

[PaulJ]

9 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Thanks Andy. So I think I can see where CRT are coming from. Even though the volockies weren’t on duty, they were carrying out similar activities, behaved recklessly, didn’t think through the risks of their venture, with the result that a member of the public was seriously injured. 

Surely if I have read it correctly 'the seriously injured member of public' was actually a VLK albeit off duty.

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

5 minutes ago, PaulJ said:

Surely if I have read it correctly 'the seriously injured member of public' was actually a VLK albeit off duty.

 

You read it correctly.

Edited September 13 by Allan(nb Albert)

[nicknorman]

9 minutes ago, PaulJ said:

Surely if I have read it correctly 'the seriously injured member of public' was actually a VLK albeit off duty.

 

No I don’t think so, although it is a bit confusing. But even if I’m wrong, he was a member of the public since he was not there in any official CRT capacity.

 

I am reminded of my own falling out with the WFC when one of them was shouting stop at me and the parallel boat when we were just a very few yards from entering the lock going up, side by side. I looked up to see him standing between the balance beam and the edge, incredibly stupid when 2 boats were just a few yards away from pushing the gate the last bit open, which would have sent him over the edge. Fortunately the other guy stopped (the chap was on his side) but the other crew member, and owner of the boat, who was bankside, was profoundly deaf. So if it had been her steering, she wouldn’t have stopped and the guy would have been pushed in.

Edited September 13 by nicknorman

[LadyG]

On 03/07/2024 at 23:29, ditchcrawler said:

What happened to the one on the Northampton flight that expected payment 

I was once asked for a few quid from a guy who was very obviously in dire need, but he was very polite and respectful at all times when assisting  me through the lock. People do fall on hard times, and this is one way of getting back on their feet.

On the other hand I was once assisted by a chap wearing what I took to be CRT kit, it was meant to deceive, and he was a bit, well, not the brightest . He must have been doing this regularly. I did not realise the situation until I had gone through, as he looked as though he was an employee or volunteer.

It's easy for Nicknorman to say he does not want assistance, I don't know why he is always moaning about this, they are doing what they want to do in their leisure time, just as he is in his.

I don't often see any volunteers, and I'm not sure if they operate Tuel lock or Bingley, both locks really needing experienced lockside operation. To keep fully paid up staff members there would be eye-wateringly expensive.

I asked a member of the public to press a button for me yesterday, on a guillotine gate, there was no safety factor involved, but he had expressed an interest in lock operation, so that might get him in to volunteering, or boating. 

 

Edited September 14 by LadyG

[Victor Vectis]

Leaving aside the actual incident.....

 

Whoever came up with the phrase 'deep dive investigation' should be prosecuted for crimes against the English language.

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

45 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

Leaving aside the actual incident.....

 

Whoever came up with the phrase 'deep dive investigation' should be prosecuted for crimes against the English language.

 

David Orr, CRT's chair, came up with the phrase "deep dive" about a year back when he was suggesting a new approach to the way the board operated. Now it is in common use in the Trust.

 

I am "reaching out" to find if he pinched it from elsewhere.😄

[Peanut]

If one of the helpers was found to be an accredited VLK then CRT could, on appeal at least, be held liable for the injured party, even though the VLK was off duty. That may have been in CRT's mind when terminating the VLK's involvement.

Normally, an employer is liable for the actions of their employees, but in this case the volunteer was acting on his own account while off duty, and any claim would have to be decided by a judge. There is case law for this, it would be expensive, and cause reputational damage, either way.

[dogless]

3 hours ago, LadyG said:

I was once asked for a few quid from a guy who was very obviously in dire need, but he was very polite and respectful at all times when assisting  me through the lock. People do fall on hard times, and this is one way of getting back on their feet.

On the other hand I was once assisted by a chap wearing what I took to be CRT kit, it was meant to deceive, and he was a bit, well, not the brightest . He must have been doing this regularly. I did not realise the situation until I had gone through, as he looked as though he was an employee or volunteer.

It's easy for Nicknorman to say he does not want assistance, I don't know why he is always moaning about this, they are doing what they want to do in their leisure time, just as he is in his.

I don't often see any volunteers, and I'm not sure if they operate Tuel lock or Bingley, both locks really needing experienced lockside operation. To keep fully paid up staff members there would be eye-wateringly expensive.

I asked a member of the public to press a button for me yesterday, on a guillotine gate, there was no safety factor involved, but he had expressed an interest in lock operation, so that might get him in to volunteering, or boating. 

 

I wouldn't dream of speaking for Nick, but the 'objectionable' part is buying a boat to spend your leisure time on only to be 'bossed around' and shouted at by someone who has decided to do that with their leisure time ... I have a wife for that job 😁

 

It's been repeated so many times ... if folks want help that's great but ask first and leave alone those that don't.

 

Rog

Edited September 14 by dogless

[David Mack]

4 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

David Orr, CRT's chair, came up with the phrase "deep dive" about a year back

But he didn't originate it. I have heard it used as "business speak" for years.

[nicknorman]

3 hours ago, LadyG said:

 I don't know why he is always moaning about this, they are doing what they want to do in their leisure time, just as he is in his.

 

Well let me explain then. Again. And I am not always moaning, i do occasionally do other things.

My boat, which I paid quite a lot of money for. My licence to use the canal system including locks. So their “leisure time” is paid for by me, and yet they give me nothing I want in return. They don’t pay for my leisure time. So unfair!
 

But as I have often said, I don’t particularly mind if they want to help, but I do object when they try to take control and tell me how I should be doing it. To be fair, this has happened less recently.

 

You like to eat your lunch in your leisure time. If some people came along and sat down at your table uninvited and started to eat your lunch, you wouldn’t be too pleased. If they then went on to tell you that you had made the sandwiches incorrectly and This is how you should do it, you would be even less impressed.

[LadyG]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

David Orr, CRT's chair, came up with the phrase "deep dive" about a year back when he was suggesting a new approach to the way the board operated. Now it is in common use in the Trust.

 

I am "reaching out" to find if he pinched it from elsewhere.😄

Its a pathetic phrase, indicates to me that rigour is not a priority when something goes wrong: people  more concerned with appearances than truth. Looks to me that its all about finding excuses, shifting blame, avoiding  responsibility, inventing phrases to look important.

Edited September 14 by LadyG

[SLC]

The gentleman on the Northampton Arm has returned and was helping someone down the flight this past week. We no longer walk that section so cannot say that he is a regular visitor now, but we had assumed he had been warned off because we hadn't seen him for a year. As an aside, the Arm feels very quiet this year.

[cuthound]

3 hours ago, Victor Vectis said:

Leaving aside the actual incident.....

 

Whoever came up with the phrase 'deep dive investigation' should be prosecuted for crimes against the English language.

 

 

Sadly it was in common use by senior mangers at least 20 years ago. I often used to come across it when playing "bullsh*t bingo"     

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Peanut said:

If one of the helpers was found to be an accredited VLK then CRT could, on appeal at least, be held liable for the injured party, even though the VLK was off duty. That may have been in CRT's mind when terminating the VLK's involvement.

Normally, an employer is liable for the actions of their employees, but in this case the volunteer was acting on his own account while off duty, and any claim would have to be decided by a judge. There is case law for this, it would be expensive, and cause reputational damage, either way.

 

Indeed, the legal phrase for an employee undertaking unauthorised activities is being "on a frolic of his own".

Edited September 14 by cuthound
To add spaces between merged posts

[Peanut]

2 hours ago, cuthound said:

Indeed, the legal phrase for an employee undertaking unauthorised activities is being "on a frolic of his own".

Or on a, "detour," from their prescribed work for their own purpose.

[MtB]

4 hours ago, nicknorman said:

My boat, which I paid quite a lot of money for. My licence to use the canal system including locks. So their “leisure time” is paid for by me, and yet they give me nothing I want in return. They don’t pay for my leisure time. So unfair!
 

But as I have often said, I don’t particularly mind if they want to help, but I do object when they try to take control and tell me how I should be doing it. To be fair, this has happened less recently.

 

It's worse than that. I LIKE working the locks and pay a handsome fee to have a reason to. When vollies are around I find I'm actually competing with them to work the lock. It usually goes something like this:

 

Vollie: "Here, let me help you through the lock. Stay on the boat"

 

Me: "No, I always get off the boat in locks", then try to explain why as a single hander I do this. 

 

Vollie gets the hump, stomps off and leaves me to it, completely failing to grasp the risk I'm explaining...

 

I also have a problem with that word "help"! They aren't there to 'help me', they are there to compete with me. 

 

 

[cuthound]

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

It's worse than that. I LIKE working the locks and pay a handsome fee to have a reason to.

 

 

Have you thought about volunteering? You could do it for free then...    

 

[MtB]

Just now, cuthound said:

 

Have you thought about volunteering? You could do it for free then...    

 

 

No-one would let me 'help'! 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, MtB said:

 

It's worse than that. I LIKE working the locks and pay a handsome fee to have a reason to. When vollies are around I find I'm actually competing with them to work the lock. It usually goes something like this:

 

Vollie: "Here, let me help you through the lock. Stay on the boat"

 

Me: "No, I always get off the boat in locks", then try to explain why as a single hander I do this. 

 

Vollie gets the hump, stomps off and leaves me to it, completely failing to grasp the risk I'm explaining...

 

I also have a problem with that word "help"! They aren't there to 'help me', they are there to compete with me. 

 

 

The few I ran into this year have without exception asked if I wanted their help. Occasionally they have set the lock and opened the gate for me without walking half a mile down the cut to ask, but that's no different from when another boat exits so I reckoned it's acceptable. They've always asked when I reached the lock, and none have turned a windlass without checking I was ready. I think the training has improved  and this has been stressed though there are probably still rogue lockies out there who think they know better.

[dogless]

Don't disagree, they are improving.

 

A volunteer said as I approached the top lock at Marsworth this summer   "Have I got to do some work now ?"

 

I pointed out that I was working down the locks anyway, so he didn't have to do anything on my account.

 

He then asked if he could assist me.

 

He, and others there, closed up for me and set ahead ... a great help and I just worked the lock I was in.

 

Things have definitely improved ... whether training or just volunteer awareness due to responses they've received from boaters.

 

Rog

[TheBiscuits]

4 hours ago, dogless said:

Things have definitely improved ... whether training or just volunteer awareness due to responses they've received from boaters.

 

It was training - at least in part because it got pushed back up the chain from one of the "Wigan Three" ...

[David Mack]

15 hours ago, dogless said:

Don't disagree, they are improving.

 

A volunteer said as I approached the top lock at Marsworth this summer   "Have I got to do some work now ?"

 

I pointed out that I was working down the locks anyway, so he didn't have to do anything on my account.

 

He then asked if he could assist me.

 

He, and others there, closed up for me and set ahead ... a great help and I just worked the lock I was in.

 

Things have definitely improved ... whether training or just volunteer awareness due to responses they've received from boaters.

 

Rog

Yes. Also earlier this year I found the Marsworth crew helpful in setting ahead and closing behind, but leaving us to work the boat through.