This picture of Colwich lock on the T&M, sums up our experience this year.

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I can’t say I disagree totally with those sentiments.….but on the other hand,

having restoration projects on the go shows/highlights how important canals are to folk/communities/towns. 
It could be exactly what we need to keep things in the public eye and promote more government awareness to the value of the Waterways. 
The money’s coming from somewhere, a lot of bodies/organisations are investing in restoration projects, shouldn’t this be seen as a positive?

 

Yes it should, but not so positive if after restoration they dump the maintenance costs on CART and make their financial problems even worse.

 

Especially in the longer term when stuff like lock gates starts to reach end of life, like is happening now on the Rochdale and HNC(and K&A?)

 

And if CART don't take this on, who does? Maintenance and repairs aren't as sexy as reopening a canal, but are just as essential if it's to *stay* open...

Edited September 17 by IanD

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Fortunately, in law, C&RT are not required to take on any further liabilities of restored remainder canals, or, if they do, they can insist that guaranteed continual funding for "X" years is in place.

BW declined to take on the restored Basingstoke Canal, so it has remained with the County Councils, who it seems do the minimum to just about keep it navigable.

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

(As in, if they don't uphold their legal obligation to maintain its navigability, what enforcement action and by whom, is taken against CRT?)

Back in the mid 1980s Netherton Tunnel, a Cruising Waterway under the 1968 Transport Act, was closed indefinitely due to the invert having failed. It is said that at the time the local authority looked into taking legal action against BW to force them to fulfill their legal  duty to keep it navigable for pleasure craft, but they were advised that if they pursued the matter the Secretary of State would use the discretionary powers he has under the Act to reclassify it as a remainder waterway (which only has to be maintained in the most economical way consistent with public safety). With the canals no longer under the control of an arm of government it isn't clear if the SoS would so likely to intervene now, but if CRT's position gets bad enough it must be a possibility.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I see the future when all canals are owned by water companies 

[Paul C]

33 minutes ago, David Mack said:

BW declined to take on the restored Basingstoke Canal, so it has remained with the County Councils, who it seems do the minimum to just about keep it navigable.

Back in the mid 1980s Netherton Tunnel, a Cruising Waterway under the 1968 Transport Act, was closed indefinitely due to the invert having failed. It is said that at the time the local authority looked into taking legal action against BW to force them to fulfill their legal  duty to keep it navigable for pleasure craft, but they were advised that if they pursued the matter the Secretary of State would use the discretionary powers he has under the Act to reclassify it as a remainder waterway (which only has to be maintained in the most economical way consistent with public safety). With the canals no longer under the control of an arm of government it isn't clear if the SoS would so likely to intervene now, but if CRT's position gets bad enough it must be a possibility.

You can't sue someone/something who has "no money" (well you can, but you can't make them pay etc).

 

I imagine that scenario might occur (well into the future), and that while DEFRA does have the ultimate option to take back control of the canals, they would not exercise it even if CRT was sued by one/multiple others - after all they'd be reversing the sentiment of hiving it off to a private charity ( U turn) AND they'd expose themselves to the future costs of upkeep. The government are happy just the way things are, letting CRT take the hit.

[IanD]

36 minutes ago, Paul C said:

You can't sue someone/something who has "no money" (well you can, but you can't make them pay etc).

 

I imagine that scenario might occur (well into the future), and that while DEFRA does have the ultimate option to take back control of the canals, they would not exercise it even if CRT was sued by one/multiple others - after all they'd be reversing the sentiment of hiving it off to a private charity ( U turn) AND they'd expose themselves to the future costs of upkeep. The government are happy just the way things are, letting CRT take the hit.

 

The canals/rivers are no different to the railway TOCs or the water companies; if CART can't meet their legal obligations/balance the books or get sued out of business or go bust, ownership and financial responsibility will revert to the government -- which as we've both said, is the last thing they might want.

 

Or at least, this was clearly the case with the Tories -- following the rail/water privatisation fiascos Labour seem to be leaning towards the view that the government should be responsible for national infrastructure rather than the private sector, which some would say should always have been the case... 😉 

Edited September 17 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

57 minutes ago, David Mack said:

With the canals no longer under the control of an arm of government it isn't clear if the SoS would so likely to intervene now, but if CRT's position gets bad enough it must be a possibility.

 

The SoS (B-Member) has overiding control of the (A-members) C&RT Trustees and has a lot of powers of rectification  including :

(From the transfer agreement)

 

30.4 The Special Powers are as follows:

30.4.1 the B Member may remove any or all of the Trustees of the Trust and may make such replacement appointments as the B Member considers fit by serving notice on the Trust in writing (“the Trustee Replacement Power”);

30.4.2 the B Member may remove any or all of the A Members and may make such replacement appointments as the B Member considers fit by serving notice on the Trust in writing (“the A Member Replacement Power”); and

30.4.3 the B Member may direct that the Protected Assets (subject to attendant liabilities) shall be transferred to another institution which is regarded as charitable under the law of England and Wales with objects compatible with those of the Trust or to be held upon trust for the objects of the Trust by a person or institution which has been appointed as trustee of the Waterways Infrastructure Trust on such terms as the B Member thinks fit (subject to the requirements of charity law) (“the Transfer of Assets Power”).
 

30.5 The B Member may exercise the Trustee Replacement Power at any time once the Special Powers have been brought into effect pursuant to Article 30.2. In addition the B Member may exercise either the A Member Replacement Power or the Transfer of Assets Power, but he or she shall not be permitted to exercise both the A Member Replacement Power and the Transfer of Assets Power simultaneously (as the A Member Replacement Power and the Transfer of Assets Power are intended to provide alternative options for the B Member to facilitate the ongoing application of the Protected Assets in furtherance of the objects for the public benefit).

30.6 For the avoidance of doubt, the exercise of the Special Powers by the B Member shall not be subject to any rights or powers or require the consent of any of the A Members, but in determining whether the B member has become entitled to exercise the Special Powers or in exercising them, the B Member must act in the way that he or she reasonably and in good faith considers to best further the objects of the Trust for public benefit

[Paul C]

Is (navigable) canal vital infrastructure?

 

Sure, canals being in-water (for their drainage function) but no need for navigation etc

[Flyboy]

We were held up at Colwich lock 21 last year on Friday 15th. September. The balance beam had broken and the end was laying on the ground. CaRT were there, jacked it up and bolted that framework on to it. The ground paddle also had that yellow cover on it as well. I would have thought that it would have been all sorted out 12 months on, but it is CaRT we are talking about.

[Rob-M]

The ground paddle has been repaired and broken again in that time.  The last breakage happened a couple of months ago and CRT came out on the Sunday lunchtime to get the lock operable.  We were told by a couple of boaters that there were 30 boats waiting to come down but when we got there, having only seen a couple of boats come past us, there was noone waiting.

[Ken X]

Out of idle curiosity is there a definition of a navigable canal and more importantly when it is non-navigable? 

 

A temporary stoppage due to infrastructure failure presumably makes a canal un-navigable for a period of time until rectified. This is obviously going to happen due to wear and tear of an asset whatever it is. At what point does the length of stoppage become so long that a canal is defined as officially non-navigable?

 

Unless something changes in the finances and thereby the rectification of defects, more and more stoppages will inevitably occur and I was wondering a what point a collection of stoppages or one very long stoppage actually results in a canal being defined as non-navigable?

 

Probably a piece of string question but there you go.

[matty40s]

3 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I see the future when all canals are owned by water companies 

I see a future when all the water companies are owned by us again....sooner rather than later the way they are going.

[Alan de Enfield]

31 minutes ago, Ken X said:

Out of idle curiosity is there a definition of a navigable canal and more importantly when it is non-navigable? 

 

Yes "it should be maintained so that boats that regularly used it in 1965 (or it may have been '68) could still use it"

 

Not the exact legal words, but that is the drift.

I haven't got time at the mo to go hunt it up.

[Cheshire cat]

So, all these restoration societies that are working on abandoned canals such as Lichfield and Hatherton or the northern Ashby. What do they do when they have rebuilt a bit? Ring up Richard Parry and ask him to take it on?

[matty40s]

They would be best keeping it out of CRT hands, like the Stroud is planning.

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Ken X said:

I was wondering a what point a collection of stoppages or one very long stoppage actually results in a canal being defined as non-navigable?

It doesn't. It just gets listed as "on-going". Like this one. Closed for over 8 years, and not updated since 2020.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices/7021-springs-branch-of-the-leeds-and-liverpool-canal-from-springs-branch-moorings-l1-to-bridge-2-mill-bridge

 

Edited September 17 by David Mack

[Ken X]

Just now, David Mack said:

It doesn't. It just gets listed as "on-going". Like this one. Closed for over 8 years, and not updated since 2020.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices/7021-springs-branch-of-the-leeds-and-liverpool-canal-from-springs-branch-moorings-l1-to-bridge-2-mill-bridge

 

I'd forgotten that one. We walked up there recently as well. 🙄

 

So to be a bit of a devils advocate, if a canal  on a more popular, or through route, suffered a similar fate due to infrastructure failure, how long could it remain closed before it all kicked off legally and who would prosecute the case I wonder. 

 

I am only speculating but, given the present trend in C&RT finances continuing on their current trajectory,  it would seem to be possible, if very unlikely that a more heavily used waterway could eventually be similarly affected.

 

I really hope not, but sooner or later reality is going to have to bite.

[Alan de Enfield]

Some may find this a little bit relevant :

 

The duties of the British Waterways Board were set
out in Section 10 of the Transport Act, 1962, and their
financial! obligations in Section 18. There was, nevertheless,
provision in Section 23 for grants to be made from
Treasury Funds to meet any deficit on revenue account
for the first 5 years and during that period certain reliefs were
given. However, no provision was made for capital reconstruction,
the net commencing capital debt being £16.3 million
which involved an annual payment by the Board of £726,000
by way of interest.
3.2.11 During the 5 years from the 1st January, 1963, the
Board’s obligation to maintain a waterway was suspended if it
had not been navigable at any time in the period of six months
prior to the 2nd November, 1961. This period was extended
for a further year by the Transport Finance Act 1966.

 

 

 

 

 

The salient changes brought about by the Transport
Act 1968,were:—
(a) the division of all the waterways into three
categories, Commercial, Cruising and the remainder.
(b) an obligation to preserve and maintain for navigational
use the waterways in the Commercial and Cruising
categories substantially in accordance with conditions
obtaining during 1967.
(c) the abolition of other public and private rights of
navigation over the Board's waterways deriving from
any local enactments, of the maintenance obligations
under Section 17 of the Regulation of Railways Act,
1873, and of similar maintenance obligations in
local enactments.
(d) a new obligation imposed on the Board to deal with
all waterways not in the category either of Commercial
or Cruising waterways, i.e. the remainder (termed for
the sake of convenience the ‘Remainder waterways”)
in the most economical manner e.g. either retention,
elimination or disposal, as most appropriate.
(e) local and certain other statutory and charitable
authorities were given powers to enter into agreements
with the Board for maintaining or taking over any
Remainder waterways or parts thereof and to assume
full responsibility or (in the case of local authorities)
for making financial contributions towards the cost
of maintenance in inland waterways.

 

 

How navigable must the waterways be kept (definition of Navigable)

 

 

There is then 6 pages listing every canal and the dimensions to which it must be maintained.

 

[Bobbybass]

On 15/09/2024 at 19:16, hider said:

Steel gates that last a lot longer and could be made Meccano style to be able to fit different locks rather than always being bespoke for one lock would break this 20 to 25 year replacement cycle and give CRT a chance to catch up.

I do not believe that using steel would be more expensive considering the time saving and extended life. Gates from the '70s are still serviceable in many flights. 

I've had experience of these steel gates on the Avon.

Unlike wooden gates...they do not float slightly as the lock fills. As such....once the hinge wears   you are dragging against accumulated mud and debris on the bottom.

Very very hard work 

 

[Ken X]

9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Some may find this a little bit relevant :

 

The duties of the British Waterways Board were set
out in Section 10 of the Transport Act, 1962, and their
financial! obligations in Section 18. There was, nevertheless,
provision in Section 23 for grants to be made from
Treasury Funds to meet any deficit on revenue account
for the first 5 years and during that period certain reliefs were
given. However, no provision was made for capital reconstruction,
the net commencing capital debt being £16.3 million
which involved an annual payment by the Board of £726,000
by way of interest.
3.2.11 During the 5 years from the 1st January, 1963, the
Board’s obligation to maintain a waterway was suspended if it
had not been navigable at any time in the period of six months
prior to the 2nd November, 1961. This period was extended
for a further year by the Transport Finance Act 1966.

 

 

 

 

 

The salient changes brought about by the Transport
Act 1968,were:—
(a) the division of all the waterways into three
categories, Commercial, Cruising and the remainder.
(b) an obligation to preserve and maintain for navigational
use the waterways in the Commercial and Cruising
categories substantially in accordance with conditions
obtaining during 1967.
(c) the abolition of other public and private rights of
navigation over the Board's waterways deriving from
any local enactments, of the maintenance obligations
under Section 17 of the Regulation of Railways Act,
1873, and of similar maintenance obligations in
local enactments.
(d) a new obligation imposed on the Board to deal with
all waterways not in the category either of Commercial
or Cruising waterways, i.e. the remainder (termed for
the sake of convenience the ‘Remainder waterways”)
in the most economical manner e.g. either retention,
elimination or disposal, as most appropriate.
(e) local and certain other statutory and charitable
authorities were given powers to enter into agreements
with the Board for maintaining or taking over any
Remainder waterways or parts thereof and to assume
full responsibility or (in the case of local authorities)
for making financial contributions towards the cost
of maintenance in inland waterways.

 

 

How navigable must the waterways be kept (definition of Navigable)

 

 

There is then 6 pages listing every canal and the dimensions to which it must be maintained.

 

Many thanks for taking the time to reply and for supplying the information. 

 

It will be interesting to see how things develop as, unfortunately, the current trajectory would seem to make a long stoppage somewhere inevitable due to lack of funds to repair.  The time is rapidly approaching where the status quo is no longer tenable and it will get much more interesting.

[SLC]

It's not all doom and gloom. I have just gone through Hillmorton locks and at the middle lock I casually leant against the beam to open the gate and fell over. Such was the ease of movement! Effortless.

[Ken X]

2 hours ago, SLC said:

It's not all doom and gloom. I have just gone through Hillmorton locks and at the middle lock I casually leant against the beam to open the gate and fell over. Such was the ease of movement! Effortless.

Yes, but did the gate move with the beam?

😂

[Alan de Enfield]

22 minutes ago, Ken X said:

Yes, but did the gate move with the beam?

😂

 

 

Maybe he mis-wrote and meant :

 

2 hours ago, SLC said:

It's not all doom and gloom. I have just gone through Hillmorton locks and at the middle lock I casually leant against the beam to open the gate and it fell over. Such was the ease of movement! Effortless.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

Once one gets down the rabbit hole its amazing the twists and turns and what you find.......................

 

In 1967/8 BW did a full analaysis of the possibilities for each of the remainder canals (Keep, sell, close) and the financial implications as well as the drainage that each canal offered.

 

Here is the summary just  for the "Birmingham Canal"

 

When you look at the 'elimination'  - they refer to the individual parts of the canal listed in each paragraph, so if it says 1), 4) & 6) not feasible that means 

1) Old Main Line

4) Engine Branch

6) Icknield Port Loop

 

etc

 

The right hand column relates to the Dudley Canal 1 & 2

The "Special Item" (Right Hand column) is interesting - despite closure iin 1917 BW retained responsibilty and it would cost £300,000 to fill it in.

 

 

 

Edited September 18 by Alan de Enfield

[johnmck]

[Rob-M]

Looks like it has failed...

 

We’ve had to close navigation at Lock 21, Colwich Lock as the lock gate has failed. The beam is severely rotted and on the verge of snapping, while the back plate has dropped by two inches. Boaters have been forced to jack the gate up to open it which poses a safety risk, so we have made the decision to close navigation.

 

Our Reactive Response team will be on-site today to assess the necessary repairs, and we'll provide an update once we have more information.