Bridgewater Canal Breach

[magnetman]

It probably does exist but may be deliberately laid out to decieve and make people feel Good.

 

 

[IanD]

Just now, Jerra said:

Which begs the question why would somebody post that they had a letter if such doesn't exist.

The issue is not so much whether the letter exists, but exactly what it says...

[Jerra]

Just now, IanD said:

The issue is not so much whether the letter exists, but exactly what it says...

MtB is puzzled that nobody seems to know what it says, which as far as I am concerned is a suggestion that because it isn't to be found anywhere it doesn't exist.

[magnetman]

I think it was @Liam who suggested there was a letter.

 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I think it was @Liam who suggested there was a letter.

 

It was, he hasn't posted it yet but I believe him when he says that he has received a letter.

 

But I would bet quite a few pints of beer that when the letter is read carefully it doesn't actually commit Peel to re-opening the canal for navigation... 😉 

 

Maybe the IWA has more information -- or maybe just another letter which appears promising but doesn't actually guarantee anything... 😞 

Edited April 8, 2025 by IanD

[haggis]

As Liam has a coal and gas delivery business to run  on a chopped in half canal he may not have had time to be on here recently. 

 

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, haggis said:

As Liam has a coal and gas delivery business to run  on a chopped in half canal he may not have had time to be on here recently. 

 

 

Indeed. And I'd be delighted if Liam's assertion the letter states the canal will be re-opened to navigation is correct.

 

But given the absence of any other people popping up (neither here, nor anywhere else on the whole internet), saying they have this letter too, I'm genuinely puzzled as I don't think Liam has any reason to make it up. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

57 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Indeed. And I'd be delighted if Liam's assertion the letter states the canal will be re-opened to navigation is correct.

 

But given the absence of any other people popping up (neither here, nor anywhere else on the whole internet), saying they have this letter too, I'm genuinely puzzled as I don't think Liam has any reason to make it up. 

 

 

It may be that as a business owner on the Bridgewater who needs it to be open for his business, he was sent a letter which those boaters just living onboard on the canal or in marinas didn't get -- I don't suppose there are many businesses like his whose owners also read and post on CWDF, so he might not be the only one to have had one, just the only one we've heard from...

Edited April 8, 2025 by IanD

[IanD]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

It was, he hasn't posted it yet but I believe him when he says that he has received a letter.

 

But I would bet quite a few pints of beer that when the letter is read carefully it doesn't actually commit Peel to re-opening the canal for navigation... 😉 

 

Maybe the IWA has more information -- or maybe just another letter which appears promising but doesn't actually guarantee anything... 😞 

 

Both IWA and RYA have now been asked if they have any more information, let's see what the outcome is...

[IanD]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

 

Both IWA and RYA have now been asked if they have any more information, let's see what the outcome is...

Got a result from the IWA, see attached letters from IWA and Bridgewater Canal Company.

 

The key point is here -- "I can confirm it is the intention of...". Which does sound like good news, but I have to point out that a possibly uncosted intention is not the same as a costed/funded commitment, fine words butter no parsnips etc. etc. ... 😉 

 

 

IWA.pdf

Edited April 8, 2025 by IanD

[Cheshire cat]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

 

The key point is here -- "I can confirm it is the intention of...". Which does sound like good news, but I have to point out that a possibly uncosted intention is not the same as a costed/funded commitment, fine words butter no parsnips etc. etc. ... 😉 

 

At least at this point in time the door is still open. I'm more hopeful than I was in January

[David Mack]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

Got a result from the IWA, see attached letters from IWA and Bridgewater Canal Company.

 

The key point is here -- "I can confirm it is the intention of...". Which does sound like good news, but I have to point out that a possibly uncosted intention is not the same as a costed/funded commitment, fine words butter no parsnips etc. etc. ... 😉 

 

 

IWA.pdf

 

 

"For clarity, I write in the capacity as the Managing Director of the Canal Company and not on behalf of the Peel Group".

 

I don't doubt Mr Parkinson's desire to see the canal reopened, and no doubt the costs to date have been borne from Canal Company reserves, but would Peel really allow the company to build up reserves high enough to cover the breach repair cost? Or is Mr. P ultimately going to need some money from the parent company to see this through?

 

 

 

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

"For clarity, I write in the capacity as the Managing Director of the Canal Company and not on behalf of the Peel Group".

 

I don't doubt Mr Parkinson's desire to see the canal reopened, and no doubt the costs to date have been borne from Canal Company reserves, but would Peel really allow the company to build up reserves high enough to cover the breach repair cost? Or is Mr. P ultimately going to need some money from the parent company to see this through?

 

 

That's what I meant about reading very carefully what has been said. Given that repairing the much smaller Lancaster Canal breach cost £1.6M, I expect this one will cost at least 2x-3x this, so maybe £3M-£5M. I doubt that the BCC could come up with such a large sum so it will have to come from Peel, who presumably will have to justify this outlay. And there's the rub -- no matter how good the BCC intention is to fully re-open, if Peel refuse to cough up then where will the money come from?

 

On the positive side, at least the BCC have said they do intend to restore navigation; the problem now is going to be finding the money to pay for this... 😉 

Edited April 8, 2025 by IanD

[wandering snail]

9 hours ago, IanD said:

I've asked the IWA Sustainable Boating Group members if anyone has any knowledge of this.

Not too sure why this IWA group would have an interest. As chair of NABO, I will have another attempt at acquiring some up to date info.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, wandering snail said:

Not too sure why this IWA group would have an interest. As chair of NABO, I will have another attempt at acquiring some up to date info.

 

Thanks.

 

But "another attempt"? Have you asked before and been rebuffed? 

 

 

[IanD]

2 hours ago, wandering snail said:

Not too sure why this IWA group would have an interest. As chair of NABO, I will have another attempt at acquiring some up to date info.

Well I got the information posted earlier by asking people in the IWA... 😉

[magnetman]

11 hours ago, IanD said:

 

The key point is here -- "I can confirm it is the intention of...".  

IWA.pdf

 

On 03/04/2025 at 10:20, magnetman said:

The letter might be a forward looking statement like 'We intend to ..."

 

 

A bit like this? 

Edited April 9, 2025 by magnetman

[IanD]

5 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

A bit like this? 

 

Yes, but that's missing the point. As noted above, I don't think there's any doubt that the BCC *want* to restore navigation, after all if there isn't any then there isn't really any Bridgewater Canal and the Company becomes kind of pointless. However this can only be an "intent" until Peel agree to fund the repairs, and they haven't done this -- hence this and the reservation that "I'm speaking on behalf of the BCC not Peel", anything else would be lying.

 

And for sure Peel are not going to agree to do this without knowing how big the tab is they're going to have to pick up, which won't become apparent for some time until the engineers report together with a proposed fix has been costed. The most that we're likely to see until then is a similarly woolly "we hope to see the canal reopened" statement from Peel -- but maybe not even that, since it would then look bad if they backtracked when the real cost (£3M? £5M? more?) became apparent, so they may just prefer to say nothing.

 

Unfortunately I think that as it stands the most likely outcome is that Peel balk at the prospect of paying out multiple millions for little return, and refuse to fund a full re-opening to navigation -- assuming their insurers refuse to cover the cost, which seems likely. Then we're back to the question of "who pays?" -- or more pointedly, "who is willing to pay millions to a private company to improve the condition of their assets"... 😞 

 

The only way round this might be a massive PR campaign to convince Peel that it's better for them to cough up than have their public image trashed by a combination of CART, boaters, campaigning groups like the IWA/NBOA/NBTA/RYA, and the section of the press which loves nothing more than sticking the boot into companies trying to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

 

Of course I could be wrong, and Peel could offer to pay for the whole thing out of the goodness of their corporate heart and bask in the glow of approval from boaters and canal groups across the country... 😉 

Edited April 9, 2025 by IanD

[magnetman]

I also think Peel will refuse to pay. It is getting repetitive and despite the fact we hold exactly the same views you still seem to want to argue about it. 

 

 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

I also think Peel will refuse to pay. It is getting repetitive and despite the fact we hold exactly the same views you still seem to want to argue about it. 

 

 

Yes. What you and I might often express in a sentence or two, Ian seems to like repeating in several paragraphs!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2025 by MtB
Clarify.

[haggis]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

Yes. What you and I might often express in a sentence or two, Ian seems to like repeating in several paragraphs!

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, but he had to keep repeating it until all us dunderheads catch on 😃

Edited April 9, 2025 by haggis

[MtB]

20 minutes ago, haggis said:

Ah, but he had to keep repeating it until all us dunderheads catch on 😃

 

That's because we get bored before the end of the post and stop reading. 

 

The TL:DR effect! 

 

[Mike Tee]

Sorry, you lost me at 'that's '

[IanD]

If my posts are too long and difficult and have too much information for you, don't read them. Simples... 😉 

[haggis]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

If my posts are too long and difficult and have too much information for you, don't read them. Simples... 😉 

Ah, but you might be saying something new 😃