6 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

To make contracting out work properly may well mean more skilled supervisory staff are required, so any savings may not be as high as they first look.

...and more important in the long run, how do you find skilled supervisory staff at all if all maintenance is outsourced?

 

Most current CRT middle management is hired in from other fields, e.g. highways. They mostly don't have much direct experience of canal infrastructure and the significance of various details.

 

That leads to a lot of reinvented wheels, alterations that don't consider how structures are used, and a failure to prioritise faults that cause ongoing damage or would be cheap to fix and cause disproportionate problems.

 

Also the "risk"-averse thing where it's easier to do nothing and avoid making as many decisions as possible.

Edited January 5Jan 5 by Francis Herne

10 minutes ago, Francis Herne said:

...and more important in the long run, how do you find skilled supervisory staff at all if all maintenance is outsourced?

 

Most current CRT middle management is hired in from other fields, e.g. highways. They mostly don't have much direct experience of canal infrastructure and the significance of various details.

That leads to a lot of reinvented wheels, alterations that don't consider how structures are used, and a failure to prioritise faults that cause ongoing damage or disproportionate risk/inconvenience.

Undoubtedly true -- but where are these experienced staff to come from? Everyone from the "good old days" would be close to or beyond retirement by now, and AFAIK for many years there was little or no recruitment and training of younger inhouse staff by those with such specialised knowledge, because the canals were largely seen as an old declining and obsolete technology. Once this body of grey-haired knowledge is gone -- which it seems is largely the case -- then the only option is to use external non-specialist contractors who don't have it.

 

Given that it seems this outsourcing/non-renewal process was largely completed under BW by the time CART was formed in 2012, it's difficult to see what CART can (or ever could...) do about it -- again this is a complaint that undoubtedly has a basis in reality, but it needs to be made clear where the blame really lies, and the outsourcing/lack of expertise/lack of finance rot goes back a lot further than CART... 😞 

Edited January 5Jan 5 by IanD

25 minutes ago, IanD said:

Given that it seems this outsourcing/non-renewal process was largely completed under BW by the time CART was formed in 2012

 

A lot of the outsoucing, and selling off / auctions of everything from a shovel to a tirfor winch, to a chain saw to an equipped workboat (and of course all the various buildings, wharfs and marinas) was done under C&RTs "watch"

6 hours ago, phantom_iv said:

That's a good point - do the people writing specs for the contractors work have the requisite knowledge and experience? For example, a bit of work Rothen group did on the Oxford canal;

 

 

they've done a perfectly nice job of a bit of towpath that was falling into the canal, but why the reed beds held on by custom made brackets? All this does is add cost, reduce mooring places (surely you want people to moor next to the fresh armco rather than drive pins into the crumbly towpath?), and create future maintenance headaches... who's going to cut those reeds?

 

Don't blame the contractors for this, someone at CRT must have specced that, but hard to imagine it was anyone with any practical experience of canal maintenance?

Im pretty sure I read somewhere that CRT got a grant for these. Theres quite a few gone in round the electrical substation (?) area before Hawkesbury. I also read on here a few months ago of someone who got one stuck on their prop. 
 

Im not sure how well these are planned as theres a couple on the Hatton flight which didn’t seem a good idea. It’s a shame as some are in the way of features such as the old concreting of the GU obstructing the signs saying when done and depth of dredging. 

We passed the ones at Hawksbury last week. They have signs on to explain they are there to let the watervoles climb out of the water. 

8 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

We passed the ones at Hawksbury last week. They have signs on to explain they are there to let the watervoles climb out of the water. 

Why, there are no services there any more....

Why don't the water voles adopt the other side of the canal? It seems a bit dangerous for such a small mammal to be wandering around on a public footpath.

 

The Sustrans mamil v small mammal Crunch.

 

 

Maybe these voles are a bit thick and need signage. Similar to the two wheelers.

 

Or do the voles specifically need to have access from one side to the other for social reasons, 

 

 

If we get water voles and mamils gaining too much priority maybe it's better not to have a navigable waterway in the first place. 

 

Just widen the path and keep a small water transfer channel with soft edges.

 

53 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Why don't the water voles adopt the other side of the canal? It seems a bit dangerous for such a small mammal to be wandering around on a public footpath.

 

The Sustrans mamil v small mammal Crunch.

 

 

Maybe these voles are a bit thick and need signage. Similar to the two wheelers.

 

Or do the voles specifically need to have access from one side to the other for social reasons, 

 

 

If we get water voles and mamils gaining too much priority maybe it's better not to have a navigable waterway in the first place. 

 

Just widen the path and keep a small water transfer channel with soft edges.

 

The hessian things at Hawkesbury are on the non towpath side generally. I do hope they don’t stray into the substation far, there must be quite a hefty current around. Certainly a loud hum. 

 

1 hour ago, Stroudwater1 said:

The hessian things at Hawkesbury are on the non towpath side generally. I do hope they don’t stray into the substation far, there must be quite a hefty current around. Certainly a loud hum. 

 

 

The offside of the North Oxford in the stretch north of the substation is just about the only place I've seen water voles in recent years.  There are some spots there with an eroded earth bank, some small water plants, and overgrowth of bushes.

2 hours ago, alias said:

 

The offside of the North Oxford in the stretch north of the substation is just about the only place I've seen water voles in recent years.  There are some spots there with an eroded earth bank, some small water plants, and overgrowth of bushes.

I have seen them a couple of miles further south almost half way to Ansty 

2 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I have seen them a couple of miles further south almost half way to Ansty 

Me too- also remembering watching one wandering along the edge for a few yards just outside Brinklow Marina- memorable because I dont often get to see much more than the head/tail as it disappears.

Saw one crossing the canal a hundred yards from the bridge north of Easinghall cutting.  We were walking so they didn’t dive. Made the characteristic ripple. I just managed a photo. 

 

Haven’t seen them anywhere else either for many years. 
 

Juts to add I have seen them in several places on the Ashby, the Coventry between Nuneaton and Coventry City Basin and the N Oxford to North of Newbold Tunnel.
One year the closed a long section of Towpath for mooring while the Crick Show was on because of water voles but I haven't seen any there

Edited January 6Jan 6 by ditchcrawler

19 hours ago, IanD said:

Undoubtedly true -- but where are these experienced staff to come from? Everyone from the "good old days" would be close to or beyond retirement by now, and AFAIK for many years there was little or no recruitment and training of younger inhouse staff by those with such specialised knowledge, because the canals were largely seen as an old declining and obsolete technology. Once this body of grey-haired knowledge is gone -- which it seems is largely the case -- then the only option is to use external non-specialist contractors who don't have it.

 

Given that it seems this outsourcing/non-renewal process was largely completed under BW by the time CART was formed in 2012, it's difficult to see what CART can (or ever could...) do about it -- again this is a complaint that undoubtedly has a basis in reality, but it needs to be made clear where the blame really lies, and the outsourcing/lack of expertise/lack of finance rot goes back a lot further than CART... 😞 

The problem goes back even further. Canals were built by craftsmen who did not learn their trade from books. The first technical description of canal building is in Rees Cyclopaedia, where the canal section was published in 1805. Not only would the cost of the Cyclopaedia have prevent workmen from acquiring it, the text is written for the highly literate, and is a dense block of words which are difficult to take in even today. It does have a useful section on how to kill water voles and the like, to prevent damage to the canal structure. The lack of contemporary source material is why I translated Maillard's book on canal engineering, so that there was an English-language source for those involved in canal engineering today. I am just about to publish a second, a transcription of an American book on canal engineering based upon Rees, but somewhat easier to read, and which will include several other articles on puddle, to try to educate people as to what canal puddling actually was; what we know as clay was rarely used. After that, I will finish a translation of Hogrewe's 1805 book on canal engineering. There should then be sufficient source material for current engineers to understand exactly what it is they are dealing with, that is if they can be bothered to read up on the subject.

On 05/01/2026 at 15:09, IanD said:

Undoubtedly true -- but where are these experienced staff to come from?

 

 

They are still there. I had a long chat with a CRT employee who is now employed in a clipboard hugging role. He started with BW before 2000 in a hands-on maintenance job and he claimed the BW infrastructure was on an improving trend between 2000 and 2010, then things went downhill with the contracting out.

 

The underlying problem has to be faced up to even if it takes 15 years to build up a fresh cadre of inhouse expertise.

 

Generic middle managers love contracting out and offshoring because it creates new problems for them to manage and grow empires. 

 

Edited January 7Jan 7 by Gybe Ho

1 hour ago, Gybe Ho said:

he claimed the BW infrastructure was on an improving trend between 2000 and 2010,

 

Presumably he was not aware of the 'well over' £100 million backlog in maintenance that C&RT inherited.

 

It be worth your while to check the stuff you post from 'random guys on the towpath'.

 

Have a look at the KPMG "state of BW for transfer to C&RT" report from 2011/12

 

Extract ....................

 

 

 

Every year they had spent less than was required to keep a 'steady state' - even without considering the already huge backlog

33 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Presumably he was not aware of the 'well over' £100 million backlog in maintenance that C&RT inherited.

 

It be worth your while to check the stuff you post from 'random guys on the towpath'.

 

 

The "random guy" was driving a CRT coloured vehicle and had been dispatched to cross-check the findings of a surveyors report on a CRT works barge. The CRT had to make a fix/scrap call on the barge.

 

It is entirely possible that someone on the front line of canal maintenance could perceive a net improvement in canal infrastructure over the 10 years 2000 to 2010 and yet London accountants were able to magic up a £100 million backlog estimate.

6 hours ago, Gybe Ho said:

It is entirely possible that someone on the front line of canal maintenance

 

So because he cut the grass and did a bit of painting he had detailed access to the backlog of work across the whole network.

 

 

Again do some research and find the facts.

 

In the 1975 report (by Fraenkel) on the condition of the canals and the maintainance needed it was highlighted that there was a large backlog of maintenance amounting to some £30 million +.

 

extract ................

 

16.6 Standards of Maintenance
16.6.1. The standards which we have defined in Chapter 10
and the deficiencies revealed by our inspections are of two
kinds, quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative standards
were defined in relation to the specific navigational obligations
laid down by Section 105 of the Transport Act 1968, and their
main effect was to identify for each waterway critical dimensions
such as width and depth of water, headroom, etc. which have to
be observed; if not currently available then these dimensions
must be achieved by dredging or other works. In most cases we
found that the required dimensions can be obtained without
difficulty, some overtaking of dredging arrears being all that is
required. In a few cases however we found it necessary to allow
for bank revetment works in order that additional dredging may
be carried out.
 

 

The requirements / options (close it or bring it back up the the legally required standard) for each canal were listed - eg Caldon.

 

 

 

 

Grand Union 

 

 

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

So because he cut the grass and did a bit of painting he had detailed access to the backlog of work across the whole network.

 

 

Again do some research and find the facts.

 

In the 1975 report (by Fraenkel) on the condition of the canals and the maintainance needed it was highlighted that there was a large backlog of maintenance amounting to some £30 million +.

 

...which had increased to £100M+ by the early noughties (2005?), and going by inflation and the state of the system is presumably several hundred million by now, 20 years later... 😞 

 

This sounds a lot but it's not really, it's maybe 2-3 years of the CART maintenance budget -- a shortfall of not much more £10M per year for the last 20 years but it's built up. The problem is that to fix this needs not only the £10M per year making up, but the backlog needs filling as well -- to fix this in 5 years (difficult given the resources needed!) would need maybe an extra £50M per year, or half this to catch up in 10 years... 😞

Edited January 7Jan 7 by IanD

56 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

So because he cut the grass and did a bit of painting he had detailed access to the backlog of work across the whole network.

 

Again do some research and find the facts.

 

 

The fact is someone who has worked for the BW & CRT for 25 year and who was a member of the inhouse major failures heavy mob team for 10 years told me directly he believed the state of canal infrastructure was improving between 2000 and 2010.

 

You choose to believe management accountants, I trust front line staff.  

While a stitch in time, saves nine, continually patching repairs don't solve any underlying problem inherent in two hundred-year-old structures. While it might not have happened if a patch had been applied, many of the structures may now require a more thorough refurbishment to fit them for the next hundred years. Particularly in view of changes in climate and usage. And there is no money.

3 hours ago, IanD said:

..which had increased to £100M+ by the early noughties (2005?),

But there had been some significant injections of government cash during that time. One of the purposes of the Fraenkel Report was to highlight the backlog, which it did, and that led to some additional funding. And government chipped in again in the mid 80s when there were several tunnel closures at the same time, most notably Blisworth, but also I think Preston Brook and Saddington, which were beyond the funds available to BW at the time.

If the CRT are the only organisation funding the embankment at Whitchurch maybe it should be just a canal and no towpath as this part is obsolete. Yes I need a landing point for the lift bridge but other than that why would the path be needed? It just gets used by people who are not contributing.

 

There are no horses. 

 

 

 

 

 

If a canal was built now with no funding from other organisations would there be a towpath? It seems a bit of a pointless extra liability. 

 

 

 

 

The towpath is the problem zone. Always trouble. Get rid of this part.

 

If possible the towpaths should be taken out by just not allowing access or transfer to another local body or over time the canals will be lost.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 hours ago, David Mack said:

But there had been some significant injections of government cash during that time. One of the purposes of the Fraenkel Report was to highlight the backlog, which it did, and that led to some additional funding. And government chipped in again in the mid 80s when there were several tunnel closures at the same time, most notably Blisworth, but also I think Preston Brook and Saddington, which were beyond the funds available to BW at the time.

 

But those were "one-off" emergency, major repairs (Tunnels, Breaches etc) the core daily maintenance has not been undertaken in full since the '60s and as each years underspend is carried forward the backlog becomes larger and larger.

 

It was only 5 years ago that C&RT put in a plea (6 page letter) for a one-off grant of £220,000,000 to improve the resilience of the canals (it was refused)

 

 

 

 

I'm not quite sure why 'weather damage' to the railways and canals in Scotland is relevant as neither are under the control or responsibility of C&RT .

Edited January 8Jan 8 by Alan de Enfield

I now can't remember if it was CRT or BW before them, but around the time of the take over, who had to survey the canals looking for culverts because they found that they had never been fully recorded. They had people living and traveling on a narrowboat to do it. I very much doubt they picked up every one.