1 hour ago, Tonka said:

Far too top heavy 

 

Judging from the ratio of managers to workers that appear (clipboards in hand) every time there is a issue...I would say your correct 🤨

Edited April 29Apr 29 by JohnE

15 minutes ago, Creaking Gate said:

No.  35 different teams / 1805 staff = 51 people by a team manager.  Doesn't seem to many to me, and actually is well outside recommendations of 7-10 people.

 

So even allowing for middle managers, say another 35. The count per manager is 70 / 1805 = 25 persons. 

 

None of this factors in the management of the vollies, or the volume of calls / complaints / questions received

 

TBF to CRT seems quite low if anything compared to other industries. 

 

Basically you decided it was too many without actually knowing the staff count, or what they even do!   That's some weapons grade CRT bashing

 

*very crude assessment. 

Some people seem to think that "managers" are an expensive overhead which is not needed, without them all the "workers" will somehow magically know what to do and when and where and all the work will get done more quickly and efficiently, without all that planning/supervision/teambuilding/PR/HR rubbish.

 

Meanwhile, back in the real world of organisations today with more than a thousand employees... 😉 

 

P.S. Not saying that CRT don't have too many managers, but a blanket "too many" statement without knowing what they all actually do -- especially in an organisation like CRT which has to deal with a lot of different things including infrastructure, subcontractors, the public and government -- does look very much like mindless CRT bashing to me.

I've seen organisations fall apart when a good manager left or was replaced by a bad one, which rather suggests they were doing something useful/essential not just sitting on their fat a*ses trousering a generous wedge... 😞 

Edited April 29Apr 29 by IanD

2 hours ago, Tonka said:

I don't know which is what I was alluding to as I thought most of the real work was done by contractors 

Contractors still need managing. So an organisation that contracts out a lot of work will have a higher management to employee ratio than one which does all its work using its own employees.

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Some people seem to think that "managers" are an expensive overhead which is not needed, without them all the "workers" will somehow magically know what to do and when and where and all the work will get done more quickly and efficiently, without all that planning/supervision/teambuilding/PR/HR rubbish.

 

Meanwhile, back in the real world of organisations today with more than a thousand employees... 😉 

 

P.S. Not saying that CRT don't have too many managers, but a blanket "too many" statement without knowing what they all actually do -- especially in an organisation like CRT which has to deal with a lot of different things including infrastructure, subcontractors, the public and government -- does look very much like mindless CRT bashing to me.

I've seen organisations fall apart when a good manager left or was replaced by a bad one, which rather suggests they were doing something useful/essential not just sitting on their fat a*ses trousering a generous wedge... 😞 

 

Indeed.

 

One of the reasons why this country performs poorly compared to other European countries is because we don't value properly trained managers and engineers.

 

Instead we promote the better non-managers to these roles, which reduces performance as they are no longer doing a job they were good at and are now struggling in a job they don't have the training or experience for.

28 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Indeed.

 

One of the reasons why this country performs poorly compared to other European countries is because we don't value properly trained managers and engineers.

 

Instead we promote the better non-managers to these roles, which reduces performance as they are no longer doing a job they were good at and are now struggling in a job they don't have the training or experience for.

Not always -- I've always been lucky enough to work for companies*** who don't force good engineers to turn into bad project/people managers as the only way to gain promotion... 🙂 

 

*** all in the UK, one was a UK company (GEC), one Japanese (Fujitsu), and most recently two American (Acacia and Cisco). But still, guess which treated their senior engineers the best... 😉 

Edited April 29Apr 29 by IanD

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Not always -- I've always been lucky enough to work for companies*** who don't force good engineers to turn into bad project/people managers as the only way to gain promotion... 🙂 

 

*** all in the UK, one was a UK company (GEC), one Japanese (Fujitsu), and most recently two American (Acacia and Cisco). But still, guess which treated their senior engineers the best... 😉 

 

So have I but they are usually larger "blue chip" companies with a more enlightened view.

17 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

So have I but they are usually larger "blue chip" companies with a more enlightened view.

Cisco are certainly pretty enlightened/woke (choose your term) -- as well as all the usual perks, employees can take up to 10 fully-paid days a year off for charity work, and the company matches any personal charitable donations -- well, up to a limit of $10000pa... 🙂 

 

And before anyone says "So since you're such a fan, why didn't you donate to CRT then?" -- I prefer to donate to other charities helping people in more desperate need... 😉 

Edited April 29Apr 29 by IanD

With regard to staff numbers, some time back I compared 2024/25 staff numbers and costs with 2012/13 figures.

Over this 12 year period, CRT has increased staff numbers by 15% (on an Full Time Equivalent basis).

 

This is despite a perception that outsourcing has increased over this time.

Staff costs have risen by 50%.

Whilst it seems that the executive team is going down from eleven to nine, there is no indication yet that CRT will launch a redundancy program. 

15 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

With regard to staff numbers, some time back I compared 2024/25 staff numbers and costs with 2012/13 figures.

Over this 12 year period, CRT has increased staff numbers by 15% (on an Full Time Equivalent basis).

 

This is despite a perception that outsourcing has increased over this time.

Staff costs have risen by 50%.

Whilst it seems that the executive team is going down from eleven to nine, there is no indication yet that CRT will launch a redundancy program. 

Given that UK inflation over that period was about 40%, with 15% more staff you'd expect staff costs to have risen by about 60% -- so I assume you're congratulating CRT for keeping their costs down with only a 50% rise... 😉

Edited April 30Apr 30 by IanD

9 hours ago, IanD said:

Given that UK inflation over that period was about 40%, with 15% more staff you'd expect staff costs to have risen by about 60% -- so I assume you're congratulating CRT for keeping their costs down with only a 50% rise... 😉

I suspect most will be more concerned about growth in staff numbers, particularly after promises of a leaner organisation a couple of years ago.  

3 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I suspect most will be more concerned about growth in staff numbers, particularly after promises of a leaner organisation a couple of years ago.  

In other words -- let's divert attention away from the fact that you made a CRT-bashing comment which was found out... 😉 

 

I suspect that -- unlike you! -- most people are more concerned about how effectively CRT maintain the canals given the budget they have, not how many people they employ -- because regardless of how often the management-speak term is used and how many people think it's a good thing, a "leaner organisation" is often a euphemism for sacking people to save short-term money while ignoring any negative longer-term impact that removing their function has.

 

From many reports on things like rapid and timely repairs CRT do seem to have been doing rather better in the last year or so following all the boaters complaints and their commitment to listen to boaters more, but I expect you don't want to hear that... 😉 

Edited April 30Apr 30 by IanD
clarification

1 hour ago, IanD said:

In other words -- let's divert attention away from the fact that you made a CRT-bashing comment which was found out... 😉 

 

I suspect that -- unlike you! -- most people are more concerned about how effectively CRT maintain the canals given the budget they have, not how many people they employ -- because regardless of how often the management-speak term is used and how many people think it's a good thing, a "leaner organisation" is often a euphemism for sacking people to save short-term money while ignoring any negative longer-term impact that removing their function has.

 

From many reports on things like rapid and timely repairs CRT do seem to have been doing rather better in the last year or so following all the boaters complaints and their commitment to listen to boaters more, but I expect you don't want to hear that... 😉 

There is a general perception that CRT has too many staff. The promise of a leaner organisation was probably in response to that and a need to cut costs 

The fact is that staff numbers have increased by 15% and the board of trustees would be failing in its duty if it has not considered cutting numbers to save, say, £10m per year as part of a reorganisation.

My personal view of large reorganisations and redundancies (and in particular voluntary schemes) is that they often fail to deliver the expected benefits.

With regard to maintaining its waterways for navigation, last year was CRT's worst year ever by a country mile.

5 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

There is a general perception that CRT has too many staff.

Genuine question - were do you get the feeling that “there is a general perception that CRT has too many staff”? As one who cruises the canals without getting involved in the politics, and attending meetings, discussion forums, etc. I would have thought CRT has too few staff.

 

And another genuine question . . . 

5 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

With regard to maintaining its waterways for navigation, last year was CRT's worst year ever by a country mile.

How much of this is due to the problems caused by lack of water?

5 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The fact is that staff numbers have increased by 15% and the board of trustees would be failing in its duty if it has not considered cutting numbers to save, say, £10m per year as part of a reorganisation.

And what precise duty is that?

5 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

With regard to maintaining its waterways for navigation, last year was CRT's worst year ever by a country mile.

Is that statement supported by any data?

56 minutes ago, Col_T said:

Genuine question - were do you get the feeling that “there is a general perception that CRT has too many staff”? As one who cruises the canals without getting involved in the politics, and attending meetings, discussion forums, etc. I would have thought CRT has too few staff.

 

And another genuine question . . . 

How much of this is due to the problems caused by lack of water?

It's Allan's perception, so like with Peterboat this obviously means (to him) that everyone else thinks the same... 😉 

 

Lots of it -- a large part due to the exceptional weather, obviously CRT are to blame for climate change. Plus long-term loss of water supplies and reservoir capacity, IIRC much of this from before CRT was formed.

 

And a lot due to long-term lack of investment to keep the canals maintained leading to stoppages, obviously it's CRT's fault that they didn't raise £100M a year from donations... 😞 

 

/s

8 minutes ago, Col_T said:

Genuine question - were do you get the feeling that “there is a general perception that CRT has too many staff”? As one who cruises the canals without getting involved in the politics, and attending meetings, discussion forums, etc. I would have thought CRT has too few staff.

 

And another genuine question . . . 

How much of this is due to the problems caused by lack of water?

The number of staff has risen by 15% but outsourcing suggests that the number should have fallen. The number of executives has risen, each having a department. Initiatives aimed at reducing staff numbers, such as the reduction in Regions from 13 to 12 and then 6 should have resulted in staff reductions but the numbers have gone up.

A parallel perception is that, whilst staff numbers have increased, there are less staff to be seen on the frontline.

Using the measure of number of unplanned stoppages, last year was the worst year ever. Taking stoppages where a reason of "water resources" or "low water" is given out of the equation then last year was still the worst year ever.

 

19 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

And what precise duty is that?

Statutory and Charitable duty to maintain the waterways for navigation,

 

21 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Is that statement supported by any data?

Yes, I have been collecting stoppage information on a daily basis for years. In 2012, the stoppage database would show an average of 8 unplanned stoppages active each day. This has climbed year on year and now we are about three times that figure. Last year,however, was exceptional due to water resources and at the worst times we were seeing over 50 stoppages active. 

Click here for a todays list.

I'd prefer to hear Allan's reply to our questions not your assumptions of what they should be.

1 minute ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Statutory and Charitable duty to maintain the waterways for navigation,

That in and of itself does not require them to reduce the number of employees.

11 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The number of staff has risen by 15% but outsourcing suggests that the number should have fallen. The number of executives has risen, each having a department. Initiatives aimed at reducing staff numbers, such as the reduction in Regions from 13 to 12 and then 6 should have resulted in staff reductions but the numbers have gone up.

A parallel perception is that, whilst staff numbers have increased, there are less staff to be seen on the frontline.

Using the measure of number of unplanned stoppages, last year was the worst year ever. Taking stoppages where a reason of "water resources" or "low water" is given out of the equation then last year was still the worst year ever.

 

Statutory and Charitable duty to maintain the waterways for navigation,

 

Yes, I have been collecting stoppage information on a daily basis for years. In 2012, the stoppage database would show an average of 8 unplanned stoppages active each day. This has climbed year on year and now we are about three times that figure. Last year,however, was exceptional due to water resources and at the worst times we were seeing over 50 stoppages active. 

Click here for a todays list.

And I don't think anybody would argue that last year was terrible for stoppages, because so many of us suffered from them... 😞 

 

So why don't you tell us what *you* would have done differently in CRTs shoes then, given their historical/budget constraints and the exceptional weather and the unexpected major breaches?

 

Because otherwise you're coming over like all those Reform councillors, endlessly moaning about how the current government is useless and making a mess of everything and how they'd cut out all the waste and save loads of money if only they were running things -- but then being completely unable to find any better solution when actually presented with the job of having to fix it themselves... 😞 

 

P.S. Fewer staff... 😉 

Edited April 30Apr 30 by IanD

13 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

 

That in and of itself does not require them to reduce the number of employees.

Quite true, but I am sure they will have considered it alongside all other options for reducing expenditure and increasing income. 

27 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The number of staff has risen by 15% but outsourcing suggests that the number should have fallen. The number of executives has risen, each having a department. Initiatives aimed at reducing staff numbers, such as the reduction in Regions from 13 to 12 and then 6 should have resulted in staff reductions but the numbers have gone up.

A parallel perception is that, whilst staff numbers have increased, there are less staff to be seen on the frontline.

Using the measure of number of unplanned stoppages, last year was the worst year ever. Taking stoppages where a reason of "water resources" or "low water" is given out of the equation then last year was still the worst year ever.

 

Statutory and Charitable duty to maintain the waterways for navigation,

 

Yes, I have been collecting stoppage information on a daily basis for years. In 2012, the stoppage database would show an average of 8 unplanned stoppages active each day. This has climbed year on year and now we are about three times that figure. Last year,however, was exceptional due to water resources and at the worst times we were seeing over 50 stoppages active. 

Click here for a todays list.

3 of today's list were "completed" 

1 was "cancelled

And Kidlington was inserted twice so not a true state

On 29/04/2026 at 14:01, Creaking Gate said:

No.  35 different teams / 1805 staff = 51 people by a team manager.  Doesn't seem to many to me, and actually is well outside recommendations of 7-10 people.

 

So even allowing for middle managers, say another 35. The count per manager is 70 / 1805 = 25 persons. 

 

None of this factors in the management of the vollies, or the volume of calls / complaints / questions received

 

TBF to CRT seems quite low if anything compared to other industries. 

 

Basically you decided it was too many without actually knowing the staff count, or what they even do!   That's some weapons grade CRT bashing

 

*very crude assessment. 

When I worked for British Airways they did a lot of restructuring and at one time there was only 3 levels of management between I ( a lowly engineer) and the Chief Executive so that chart looks too big.

Also if the work is mainly subcontracted then you don't need admin staff to look after their pay, leave, sickness and qualifications etc etc.

It would be interesting to look at similar size firms or charities leadership chart as comparison. Perhaps @IanD can actually prove his point that the chart is right instead of accusing people of being CRT bashers

41 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The number of staff has risen by 15% but outsourcing suggests that the number should have fallen. The number of executives has risen, each having a department. Initiatives aimed at reducing staff numbers, such as the reduction in Regions from 13 to 12 and then 6 should have resulted in staff reductions but the numbers have gone up.

All of which is fine, but you haven’t answered the “there is a general perception” point?

I would assume the number of direct employees on the ground has reduced considerably, seeing as what you usually now meet is a working party of volunteers with one CRT bod in charge, or, on most manned locks or flights, solely volunteers - occasionally, again, with one CRT person. The Harecastle , for example, now often has volunteers at both ends.

This may, of course, have led to CRT having to employ more office staff to manage them and coordinate stuff when they don't turn up.

1 hour ago, Tonka said:

3 of today's list were "completed" 

That's the way it has always worked and no different from 2012. The list includes stoppages that have started or ended today (or both) as well as stoppages started and not ended before today.

 

1 was "cancelled"
This is one of the enhancements included when CRT moved to a new database in May last year. The idea is to show planned stoppages which have been subsequently cancelled. I discount "cancelled" stoppages when analysing data.

 

And Kidlington was inserted twice so not a true state.
Both old and new systems seem to allow duplication of stoppages

 

If anyone is interested in analysing stoppages, there are dumps of old and new databases (CSV format) in response to this FOI request.

 

Alternatively, you analyse the new database using traditional techniques.

2 hours ago, Col_T said:

All of which is fine, but you haven’t answered the “there is a general perception” point?

I think if you read back through this thread you will find a number of people saying CRT has too many employees. What I have done is suggested why they might hold that view.
 

Edited April 30Apr 30 by Allan(nb Albert)

On 29/04/2026 at 15:21, cuthound said:

 

Indeed.

 

One of the reasons why this country performs poorly compared to other European countries is because we don't value properly trained managers and engineers.

 

Instead we promote the better non-managers to these roles, which reduces performance as they are no longer doing a job they were good at and are now struggling in a job they don't have the training or experience for.

 

 

An effect that first gained widespread recognition back in 1970, when described by Laurence Peter in his book "The Peter Principle".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

 

Not that widespread understanding of it has made one jot of difference to it happening! 

 

Closely related to the "Dilbert Principle", which states that companies tend to promote incompetent employees to management to minimize their ability to harm productivity.

 

 

 

Edited May 1May 1 by MtB
sp