An open letter from CaRT’s CEO Campbell Robb.

[MtB]

1 minute ago, agg221 said:

Although Tonka hasn’t replied yet, I can confirm that George Ward was supported by NBTA. His case worker at the time is a member on here who popped up in April/May.

 

Alec

 

I'd be astounded if that nice Mr Ward was actually an NBTA member. Not his style. 

 

NBTA supporting him suited them as much as him!

 

But even if he was, a data point of one does not prove a hypothesis. 

 

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

All that really doesn't matter. Nobody believes these figures, or wants to challenge them. They're irrelevant. No business ever reports genuine numbers, they just fiddle them to support their argument for what they want, bit like doing your tax returns. As long as they are vaguely believable, and they serve everybody's purposes, they'll be accepted. You pay accountants or consultants to massage them into credibility.

There's usually another book somewhere with more genuine figures that the managers can use for planning, but it'll be locked away very securely and it certainly will never appear in a public announcement.

Yes the figures were fiddled some years ago. After more than a decade of visitor number figures, CRT decided that the way in which they were calculated from the sample was wrong.

 

The end result was that visitor numbers suddenly more doubled on the previous year.

 

**** Edited to add - the 2019/20 annual report gives average visitors during a two 
week period of 9.2m compared to 4.1m for the previous year. CRT's explanation  - 

Quote

2019/20 saw a change in our measurement methodology – to reflect more accurately visitors to our network.

 

Edited Tuesday at 22:12 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Steve Bassplayer]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

No. they have engaged a marketing company who call/meet with 1000 people and ask them questions (I have the questionnair somewhere - I'll try and find it)

 

Typical questions include such as 

Have you used a pub or restaurant near the canal in the last to weeks, if so how many times ?

Have you walked along the tow path of any canal or river in the last 2 weeks, if so how many times ?

 

Etc, etc

 

This gives some interesting results -

Someone who walks along the canal to work, pops out at lunchtime to the pub, walks back to work, walks home from work it 'using' the canal 4 times per day (56 times per fortnight)

 

A mother walks along the tow path taking the kids to school (1 usage), back on the canal to the canal side Supermarket (1 usage), walks back home along the tow path (1 usage) goes along the towpath to pick the kids up from school (1 usage) and walks back along the tow path to 'feed the ducks' on the way home (1 usage) total 5 visits in one day.

 

The total number of visist/usage from the 1000 people for the 2 week period is added together.

 

 

The total population of GB is around 69 million (AI figure)

1000 people is 0.00204081633% of the population.

 

The figure obtained by marketing is extrapolated by taking the number as 0.00204081633% of the actual total of canal and towpath users in 2 weeks and multiplied to give the annual visits to the canals and towpaths.

 

C&RT went out to tender for a new telemarketig company a couple or three years ago - but, the above is certainly the system previously used, and if the current figures are still aligning with the previous figures, one assumes the process is very similar.

 

Edit to add - found it .......................

 

 

Visitor Numbers Questionnaire

 

Q1 Firstly, I am going to read out some activities that you may have taken part in recently. For each one, can you tell me whether you personally have taken part in this activity in Britain within the past two weeks? So firstly, have you……[rotate activity list]…. on a stretch of inland water which is used by boats, for example a canal, river or lake.
1. Been on a boat with an engine
2. Been on a boat without an engine? Please
3. include activities such as canoeing, rowing boats and sailing boats
4. Been fishing
5. Been cycling
6. Walked a dog
7. Visited a specific attraction, heritage attraction or museum
8. Taken a walk or a ramble for leisure
9. Taken a run or jog for leisure
10. Used or walked along only in order to get somewhere else? For example, to get to work or to go shopping
11. Bought food or drink in a pub
12. Just sat or stood by the water as a break in the day to relax (always penultimate activity)
13. Used or visited for some other purpose? (SPECIFY)

Q2. [For each activity at Q1] On how many days in the past two weeks have you personally……[read out activity]….on a stretch of inland water used by boats, for example, a river, canal or lake in Britain?
WRITE IN NUMBER OF DAYS BETWEEN 1 AND 14.

Q3. [For each activity at Q1] And thinking about the last day you have……[read out activity]….which river, canal or lake did you do this on?
RECORD ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
a) Name of Waterway (if known):
b) Nearest Town / Village:
c) Name of County:

Where did you get the sample size of 1000 from?

 

If you mean this study... (where the 888 million VISITS came from...

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/document/80SQOTpJkh2nVV7vP_uIPw/2iOAx1Pg_K0iVyhVY5VUQTiCJ-HqdjaOk3xJs7N4eh0/aHR0cHM6Ly9jcnRwcm9kY21zdWtzMDEuYmxvYi5jb3JlLndpbmRvd3MubmV0L2RvY3VtZW50Lw/018dea6c-eb41-7691-a92b-8d82b06306c0.pdf

 

The sample size was 20,400 not 1000.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

7 hours ago, Steve Bassplayer said:

Where did you get the sample size of 1000 from?

 

 

I really don't remember - it was some years ago.

 

I think it was from the reply to an FOI request

 

7 hours ago, Steve Bassplayer said:

If you mean this study... (where the 888 million VISITS came from...

 

No. it wasn't that - that's just a marketing "fluff" document used to prove to DEFRA they are doing a good enough 'job' to keep getting the grant paid.

 

I took the number of vists from the annual accounts where they have to report the results against a list of "targets" and show growth to retain the DEFRA grant.

Edited Wednesday at 06:37 by Alan de Enfield

[Mike Todd]

10 hours ago, agg221 said:

Although Tonka hasn’t replied yet, I can confirm that George Ward was supported by NBTA. His case worker at the time is a member on here who popped up in April/May.

 

Alec

And George was at the time not quite as old as some might imagine. Certainly seemed fairly agile.

10 hours ago, MtB said:

 

I'd be astounded if that nice Mr Ward was actually an NBTA member. Not his style. 

 

NBTA supporting him suited them as much as him!

 

But even if he was, a data point of one does not prove a hypothesis. 

 

 

 

Not all organisations that aim to support all canal users, including boaters in difficulty, have membership as a gateway to services. 

8 hours ago, Steve Bassplayer said:

Where did you get the sample size of 1000 from?

 

If you mean this study... (where the 888 million VISITS came from...

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/document/80SQOTpJkh2nVV7vP_uIPw/2iOAx1Pg_K0iVyhVY5VUQTiCJ-HqdjaOk3xJs7N4eh0/aHR0cHM6Ly9jcnRwcm9kY21zdWtzMDEuYmxvYi5jb3JlLndpbmRvd3MubmV0L2RvY3VtZW50Lw/018dea6c-eb41-7691-a92b-8d82b06306c0.pdf

 

The sample size was 20,400 not 1000.

 

1000 has long been the statistician's value for a reasonably reliable statistical test - hence widely used in opinion polls. Much bigger samples do not add much to the reliability of the conclusion.

 

However, it comes with caveats: one is that there must be a priori reason to believe the null hypothesis (which is what is being tested). Random application of the formula to data sets with no believable hypothesis does not make them valid. Also, IIRC - after a few decades (!) since I did my final year course on the matter - it is valid only when the parameter being tested is close to 50%. Hence it worked for the polls of yesteryear where most voters supported one or other of two parties, but I wonder how far the pollsters have reacted to the current situation where there are many more options with significant support and so the leader will only have perhaps 25% support.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

8 hours ago, Steve Bassplayer said:

Where did you get the sample size of 1000 from?

 

If you mean this study... (where the 888 million VISITS came from...

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/document/80SQOTpJkh2nVV7vP_uIPw/2iOAx1Pg_K0iVyhVY5VUQTiCJ-HqdjaOk3xJs7N4eh0/aHR0cHM6Ly9jcnRwcm9kY21zdWtzMDEuYmxvYi5jb3JlLndpbmRvd3MubmV0L2RvY3VtZW50Lw/018dea6c-eb41-7691-a92b-8d82b06306c0.pdf

 

The sample size was 20,400 not 1000.

 

Visitor numbers have been quoted in annual reports since 2002/3. The base data used to come from a telephone survey of about 1,000 members of the public. Since 2012, they have also formed part of 'publication data'. This is a set of key performance indicators that are provided as part of CRT's grant agreement with DEFRA.

 

More recently a 'panel system' has replaced the telephone survey. It is claimed that this gives similar results.

 

However, as I pointed out in a previous post, CRT decided some years back that the method used to convert the base data into meaningful figures was incorrect. This meant that visitor numbers more than doubled. The timing of this change suggests that they might have been trying to impress DEFRA (more visitors=greater benefit=justification for grant).

[ditchcrawler]

11 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Yes the figures were fiddled some years ago. After more than a decade of visitor number figures, CRT decided that the way in which they were calculated from the sample was wrong.

 

The end result was that visitor numbers suddenly more doubled on the previous year.

 

**** Edited to add - the 2019/20 annual report gives average visitors during a two 
week period of 9.2m compared to 4.1m for the previous year. CRT's explanation  - 

 

Didnt they at one time have posts on towpaths that recorded people, dogs etc passing in some places ?

[IanM]

21 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Visitor numbers have been quoted in annual reports since 2002/3. The base data used to come from a telephone survey of about 1,000 members of the public. Since 2012, they have also formed part of 'publication data'. This is a set of key performance indicators that are provided as part of CRT's grant agreement with DEFRA.

 

More recently a 'panel system' has replaced the telephone survey. It is claimed that this gives similar results.

 

However, as I pointed out in a previous post, CRT decided some years back that the method used to convert the base data into meaningful figures was incorrect. This meant that visitor numbers more than doubled. The timing of this change suggests that they might have been trying to impress DEFRA (more visitors=greater benefit=justification for grant).

 

But isn't that what all organisations do?  You watch an advert on TV about how 95% of people prefer something and the small print at the bottom gives the sample size of 35 or something.

 

My brother works with statistics for a living and there is a huge amount of fudging of data that goes on to give the answer you want.  Not making up data, just manipulating it to sound better.

 

This constant bashing of CRT for doing things that other organisations do every single day as well just sounds of people wanting them to fail to be honest.  If someone is giving you money to do something you are going to do your best to tell them how good a job you're doing and as long as you can justify the figures then why not?

[IanD]

17 hours ago, Orwellian said:

As far as I know no one has ever produced any evidence to prove this so it's just speculation.

You do know there's a search facility on CWDF?

 

During the last discussion on the subject there was a post from a member who was actually involved in the financing process for the HNC, who said that the grants were conditional on the canal remaining navigable for a long period (60 years IIRC) and refundable if this criteria was not met -- so closing them now would mean CRT refunding more than half of the money, a very large sum (>£10M?) which would dwarf any cost savings from closure.

 

Since they have direct knowledge about this not just uninformed speculation, I think they are far more likely to be correct than you... 😉

Edited Wednesday at 09:21 by IanD

[Hudds Lad]

Unsure if it helps, a quick look at back issues in the archive found;

 

"An Operation and Maintenance Agreement between British Waterways, Huddersfield Canal Company, Millennium Commission, Kirklees, Oldham and Tameside Councils has been signed to ensure maintenance to cruising standard for 125 years after reopening, clearly demonstrating the sustainability of the project. This involved the local authorities agreeing to provide a total of €150,000 each year for twenty years from 2001 for a sinking fund, which, together with British Waterways’ contribution from their income, would provide sufficient funds for British Waterways to operate and maintain the canal."

 

Quoted from: Regeneration through restoration: the Huddersfield Narrow Canal project by Alan Stopher BSc(Eng) MIMM CEng

[Orwellian]

30 minutes ago, IanD said:

think they are far more likely to be correct than you... 😉

I never stated anything as factual or otherwise I just questioned the veracity of opinions expressed without evidence. 

10 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

Unsure if it helps, a quick look at back issues in the archive found;

 

"An Operation and Maintenance Agreement between British Waterways, Huddersfield Canal Company, Millennium Commission, Kirklees, Oldham and Tameside Councils has been signed to ensure maintenance to cruising standard for 125 years after reopening, clearly demonstrating the sustainability of the project. This involved the local authorities agreeing to provide a total of €150,000 each year for twenty years from 2001 for a sinking fund, which, together with British Waterways’ contribution from their income, would provide sufficient funds for British Waterways to operate and maintain the canal."

 

Quoted from: Regeneration through restoration: the Huddersfield Narrow Canal project by Alan Stopher BSc(Eng) MIMM CEng

Thanks for that. Some real evidence!

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

I never stated anything as factual or otherwise I just questioned the veracity of opinions expressed without evidence. 

Thanks for that. Some real evidence!

Not all posts which don't repost at great length what was posted previously are just opinions without evidence toba k them up... 😉

 

If you search for the previous discussion this had some detailed figures about exactly where all the money came from and how much would have to be refunded on closure -- or failure to maintain navigation IIRC.

 

The conclusion was that closing the HNC (and the Rochdale, IIRC) would cost CRT *far* more than any maintainance savings even over many years. Which was presumably why those conditions were imposed, to stop them being closed by a cash-strapped CRT after huge sums and so much volunteer effort had been spent reopening them... 😉

Edited Wednesday at 10:03 by IanD

[Ewan123]

12 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Yes the figures were fiddled some years ago. After more than a decade of visitor number figures, CRT decided that the way in which they were calculated from the sample was wrong.

 

The end result was that visitor numbers suddenly more doubled on the previous year.

 

**** Edited to add - the 2019/20 annual report gives average visitors during a two 
week period of 9.2m compared to 4.1m for the previous year. CRT's explanation  - 

 

That probably just aligned their methodology/results with other organisations though. If everyone else has calculations that make their numbers look better, CRT would be shooting themselves in the foot not to do the same, as their numbers would look comparably low. That might be a problem with the system, but I wouldn't say it's a fault of CRT.

[Ian Mac]

16 hours ago, David Mack said:

Having taken a Big Woolwich, built to a beam of 7ft 1/2", up to beyond Trevor last year, I can confirm there are no unreasonably narrow locks on the Llangollen. Depth, on the other hand, is an issue and the reason we only got to just beyond the aqueduct before we could go no further.

The boat has been to Llangollen in the past, long before the latest rebuilding at Hurleston

We have reduce the max width of our boat by 1inch with the last rebuild, and we are now 7ft at the max point. Being a tanker the width is fixed and was as built 7ft1" We took an inch out of the tank stanks.
We have to adjust the lower pound as lock 3 at Hurlston to get through into the lock and we bind at Grindley Brook lower lock.

We draw 3ft1" at the back the places we really struggled for depth were The east Marton locks and the far side of Chrick tunnel I believe the form has been fixed. We also struggled in a couple of the Bridge holes down the Mont. Just silt but hard work. It is hard to complain as the Welsh cut is still only 2ft draught officially. We winded at Trevor no point in trying the feeder.

So I still class the Welsh canal as out of gauge as 7ft1" should be the gauge. Originally the T&M, Coventry, Oxford, and B&F Companies agree the gauge would be Seven and quarter feet in 1794 - see Hadfields Book of the West Midlands, I think!
However in the Oxford book by Crompton which I think maybe writing about the same thing, it says the Oxford and Coventry companies agreed in the George Inn that the gauge would be 74ft9" by 7ft by 4ft4"
History is so unreliable!
- Another cope out because, I do not know!

Edited Wednesday at 10:27 by Ian Mac
Added winding at Trevor

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

1 hour ago, Hudds Lad said:

Unsure if it helps, a quick look at back issues in the archive found;

 

"An Operation and Maintenance Agreement between British Waterways, Huddersfield Canal Company, Millennium Commission, Kirklees, Oldham and Tameside Councils has been signed to ensure maintenance to cruising standard for 125 years after reopening, clearly demonstrating the sustainability of the project. This involved the local authorities agreeing to provide a total of €150,000 each year for twenty years from 2001 for a sinking fund, which, together with British Waterways’ contribution from their income, would provide sufficient funds for British Waterways to operate and maintain the canal."

 

Quoted from: Regeneration through restoration: the Huddersfield Narrow Canal project by Alan Stopher BSc(Eng) MIMM CEng

I wonder if this agreement is still in place and if it was carried over in full from BW to CaRT?

 It was 25 years ago and a lot of things have changed and a 125 year agreement seems a little optimistic. Also it states €Euro’s, were the councils relaying on us still being in Europe and using EU funding to support the agreement?

 I think with this open letter he’s sort of realising he has a bit of a task ahead and difficult decision to make Let’s hope he’s committed long term and won’t jump ship in a few years with his sole achievement being an extra past employer and a couple more paragraphs on his CV.

Edited Wednesday at 11:04 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2

[MtB]

35 minutes ago, IanD said:

Not all posts which don't repost at great length what was posted previously are just opinions without evidence toba k them up... 😉

 

If you search for the previous discussion this had some detailed figures about exactly where all the money came from and how much would have to be refunded on closure -- or failure to maintain navigation IIRC.

 

The conclusion was that closing the HNC (and the Rochdale, IIRC) would cost CRT *far* more than any maintainance savings even over many years. Which was presumably why those conditions were imposed, to stop them being closed by a cash-strapped CRT after huge sums and so much volunteer effort had been spent reopening them... 😉

 

They may be "cash strapped" but I suspect they have near-infinite lines of credit available. I'd have thought the government is guarantor of last resort. 

 

So closing the HNC and paying the £10m would just hasten the government stepping in to pay it and support CRT. If they don't, surely similar applies and forcing a close-down of CRT would just result in a bigger bill for the government to pay.

 

Or something along those lines.

 

 

[Hudds Lad]

28 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

Also it states €Euro’s, were the councils relaying on us still being in Europe and using EU funding to support the agreement?

Unsure on that point, PDF on the HCS site showed it as a square due to font/formatting, so could be £ or €. It only appeared as € when i pasted it into the reply box, so don't take the symbol as gospel.

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

4 hours ago, Hudds Lad said:

Unsure on that point, PDF on the HCS site showed it as a square due to font/formatting, so could be £ or €. It only appeared as € when i pasted it into the reply box, so don't take the symbol as gospel.

No matter what the costs, I wonder if the councils have the same commitment now, as they did 25 years ago.
 I doubt it. As a lot has changed and council run services are being run down and closed.
 Would a canal payment still be priority for navigation and the passing non local constituents, not paying local council tax?

When the towpath can still be used for leisure/wellness by the local constituents paying their council tax.

Edited Wednesday at 15:23 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

You do know there's a search facility on CWDF?

 

During the last discussion on the subject there was a post from a member who was actually involved in the financing process for the HNC, who said that the grants were conditional on the canal remaining navigable for a long period (60 years IIRC) and refundable if this criteria was not met -- so closing them now would mean CRT refunding more than half of the money, a very large sum (>£10M?) which would dwarf any cost savings from closure.

 

Since they have direct knowledge about this not just uninformed speculation, I think they are far more likely to be correct than you... 😉

Wasn't that something to do with the Stanage Tunnel and visitor centre  

[cuthound]

17 hours ago, MtB said:

 

I'd be astounded if that nice Mr Ward was actually an NBTA member. Not his style. 

 

NBTA supporting him suited them as much as him!

 

But even if he was, a data point of one does not prove a hypothesis. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tacet]

On 03/08/2026 at 19:27, cuthound said:

 

Me too. However unless more finding can be secured I don't see any other option but to cut the size of the network to the size of the funding for the medium term future of the network.

 

I think it unlikely that those responsible for the level of funding would fail to notice cuts to the size of the network.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

5 hours ago, IanM said:

 

But isn't that what all organisations do?  You watch an advert on TV about how 95% of people prefer something and the small print at the bottom gives the sample size of 35 or something.

 

My brother works with statistics for a living and there is a huge amount of fudging of data that goes on to give the answer you want.  Not making up data, just manipulating it to sound better.

 

This constant bashing of CRT for doing things that other organisations do every single day as well just sounds of people wanting them to fail to be honest.  If someone is giving you money to do something you are going to do your best to tell them how good a job you're doing and as long as you can justify the figures then why not?

On the basis of what CRT set out to do in its ten year plan and its achievements against that plan, I think it is safe to say that it has already failed ...

 

With regard to it's sudden doubling of visitor numbers in an Annual Report being used by DEFRA to judge its performance and future funding needs (if any), it is probable that CRT wished to give the impression that it was providing more public benefit than it actually was. For example, it uses visitor numbers to justify its claim that it is saving the NHS over one billion pounds per year. 

In the event, DEFRA spotted the massive increase from the previous year, queried it and did not get a satisfactory response as to why the method of calculation of these figures had changed after 17 years or why the previous years figures had not been restated. 

4 hours ago, Ewan123 said:

That probably just aligned their methodology/results with other organisations though. If everyone else has calculations that make their numbers look better, CRT would be shooting themselves in the foot not to do the same, as their numbers would look comparably low. That might be a problem with the system, but I wouldn't say it's a fault of CRT.

One of CRT's goals for 2025 (from its Ten Year Plan) was to increase visits from 350m (2015) to 500m (2025). Although, it is almost certain that the doubling of visitor numbers in 2019/20 was done to influence a decision on future funding it means that they have achieved one of the long term goals. 

[Arthur Marshall]

9 minutes ago, Tacet said:

I think it unlikely that those responsible for the level of funding would fail to notice cuts to the size of the network.

It's back to supply and demand economics, always with the proviso that if it's too simplistic a calculation, it's going to be nonsense. But CRT have got to look at what the canal system is for in 2026, not what it was for in 1900. 

Which, largely, as far as the navigation goes, is for two or three week holidays in what CRT regards as the cruising season, which is April to October, and for currently mostly illegal residential boaters who don't want to move in a few big towns.

The latter don't really make much odds to the former, and vice versa. Sadly, what are almost completely irrelevant are the few genuine enthusiasts who like permanently cruising the system, and who keep on the move. There aren't enough of them to matter.

The logical decision would to keep the few viable and popular rings open, dump the rest, and set up paid moorings for the residentials. Cutting maintenance as unaffordable on the other canals would soon make them unviable unless local demand (and local money) kept them open.

The two immutable rules are "Use it or lose it" and "You get what you pay for".

[David Mack]

5 hours ago, Hudds Lad said:

Unsure if it helps, a quick look at back issues in the archive found;

 

"An Operation and Maintenance Agreement between British Waterways, Huddersfield Canal Company, Millennium Commission, Kirklees, Oldham and Tameside Councils has been signed to ensure maintenance to cruising standard for 125 years after reopening, clearly demonstrating the sustainability of the project. This involved the local authorities agreeing to provide a total of €150,000 each year for twenty years from 2001 for a sinking fund, which, together with British Waterways’ contribution from their income, would provide sufficient funds for British Waterways to operate and maintain the canal."

 

Quoted from: Regeneration through restoration: the Huddersfield Narrow Canal project by Alan Stopher BSc(Eng) MIMM CEng

So £150,000 per year for 20 years to provide a sinking fund to maintain the canal to cruising standard for 125 years.

So does that sinking fund exist as a specific ring-fenced sum, and if so who administers it? Or did the money disappear into general BW/CRT coffers, and can no longer be identified, let alone used only for the HNC?

Since the local authorities are no longer making contributions to the sinking fund, they don't have much leverage to ensure the original terms are being complied with.

[Orwellian]

4 minutes ago, David Mack said:

So £150,000 per year for 20 years to provide a sinking fund to maintain the canal to cruising standard for 125 years.

So does that sinking fund exist as a specific ring-fenced sum, and if so who administers it? Or did the money disappear into general BW/CRT coffers, and can no longer be identified, let alone used only for the HNC?

Since the local authorities are no longer making contributions to the sinking fund, they don't have much leverage to ensure the original terms are being complied with.

I question the use of the term sinking fund in the quoted article. A sinking fund is usually defined in the uk to mean payments made to cover future occasional liabilities (major replacement works). It does not mean the payment of annual running (maintenance) costs. So who paid the additional annual running costs for the restored Huddersfield Narrow Canal over and above BWB's statutory duty for a Remainder Waterway?