What will be protected

[Higgs]

Under the umbrella of Heritage, what will be protected? What can and can't be put up for sale? Is the canal itself protected?

 

Are some areas greyer than others with some areas definitely up for grabs.

 

Is the main criteria to keep the waterway and the operating systems only?

 

Are some things really not viable or not worth keeping.

[Pluto]

Although many canal structures are listed, they by no means have universal protection. Most of the listing has been done piecemeal, and it often depended upon local pressure groups. Consequently some sections of a particular canal are better protected than other sections. Lock flights sometimes have good protection, whilst the level sections are much less well protected. There has been no systematic look at what should be preserved, and what should not. I will be giving a talk on the subject at Ellesmere Port next Easter to try and get more discussion and action. Although BW do have quite a good heritage and conservation section, interesting historic survivals are still being destroyed during engineering works. Some BW engineers seem less than interested in heritage, and are very poor at listening to suggestions.

[Higgs]

Thankyou for your response.

 

I have a friend who's been many years invovled in conservation. Even though he has retired now, after many years working for our local council, he still spends his time actively involved. I've begun to pick his brain and find out what are the practical ways to be invovled.

 

He understands forums alot better than I do. As with alot of things, knowledge and understanding help. I'm trying to build up a better picture of the canal system.

 

Train enthuists have a sentimental and nostalgic view of the train system long gone. It is gone, save for the examples of the restored engines and stock that function in a very restricted way. From historic accounts, some steam engine crew absolutely loathed the day to day grind of firing these engines up and working them; there is also a great deal of pride expressed too.

 

I would like to find out what, in the main, makes the canal tick now.

 

Now that I have finished painting boats I am working on my main occupation of drawing. The subject is the canal, but I'm a bit rusty. Thanks again.

[Laurence Hogg]

Thankyou for your response.

 

 

Train enthuists have a sentimental and nostalgic view of the train system long gone. It is gone, save for the examples of the restored engines and stock that function in a very restricted way. From historic accounts, some steam engine crew absolutely loathed the day to day grind of firing these engines up and working them; there is also a great deal of pride expressed too.

 

I would like to find out what, in the main, makes the canal tick now.

 

 

What makes it tick? MONEY, BW make it by charging us, the boatbuilders charge us, the painters charge us, the media producers (like me) charge us, these tranquil silent highways are there to enchant, to intrigue and then if you are placed to do so make you money or cost you a lot. "Waterways for all" was the old warcry of BW, waterways for all?? Owning a boat isnt cheap, renting one isnt cheap, only fishermen and dog walkers and towpath users get the use wihtout forking out a fortune. And when NWC comes in grit your teeth and duck.

[Higgs]

I was trying to raise the sights a bit higher than money. If money is all, then we'll end up with nothing but the bare functional waterway.....and museums, books and photos. Possibly the re-introduction of tolls.

[Derek R.]

If you are seeking sights higher than money, such as moral or historical & 'heritage' ones, then they too are ultimately controlled by money.

 

The political/financial world is constructed around money, fiat money, and as long as it is so there will never be any higher sights than that. It's not the way many would wish, but it's the way those with the power, keep their power. Would that the world not be controlled by interest rates and national debt, but it is, and as long as it is, money will be the ever commanding common denominator of all activities and 'things' - the waterways included.

 

If the new waterways trust is to survive, it too will need balance sheets and projected costings - money. The final protection. And if you don't have enough - move over, because someone else will have (until they get bored and move on).

[Higgs]

And if you don't have enough - move over, because someone else will have (until they get bored and move on).

 

Plenty have voted with their' feet. I think you're very optimistic, if you think there's a queue of people waiting in the wings. And in any case, how boring it would be, for the canal, if there wasn't a good mix of people on it.

 

You have alluded to the weakness of money. The fact you think many would wish a different approach is, at least, welcomed. Reality is hard to deny and money is king.

 

If I thought money was the answer to everything I'd miss an awful lot.

 

It really hasn't proved to be the answer to many things. As a charitable body, I even think BW except that. Money markets cannot be relied upon; they are fickle. If the canal was a money market, it would be in a worse state now than it was in the 60's.

 

Money doesn't even come close to an answer. Are you any good with a paint brush or strimmer?

Edited October 3, 2011 by Higgs

[Derek R.]

. . . Are you any good with a paint brush or strimmer?

 

Pretty good - who's paying?

[Higgs]

Pretty good - who's paying?

 

BW will pay for the materials, you would be giving your time for free.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Higgs

[Higgs]

I,m sure that all the volunteers would very much appreciate it if the people that use the canal (boaters, cyclists, walkers and all) were to lend their support to this venture, by helping. Everyone helping each other. A bit weird, I know.

 

It's quite possibly going to help keep the costs of the licenses down a bit. I havn't forgotten all of the objections to this charitable operation; redundancies, bonuses etc. I've tried to raise these points in other threads, but not here.

 

'Charitable', 'Volunteer', a bit pie in the sky; I wish it didn't sound like it. I'm trying to picture the Volunteers on the one hand and Execs on the other. Like trying to mix water and oil.

 

The altruistic working for the selfish. Wow, that's even more outrageous than the existing arrangement. It's genius.

 

I think I know what's protected. Sadly.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Higgs

[Laurence Hogg]

I,m sure that all the volunteers would very much appreciate it if the people that use the canal (boaters, cyclists, walkers and all) were to lend their support to this venture, by helping. Everyone helping each other. A bit wierd, I know.

 

 

I run CanalScape-BCN a volunteer orginisation which helps look after the BCN (in particular the Northern reaches). We struggle to get enough people to run foilage removal days, all we need is 4 to 5 persons! We tried running two weekday work parties and didnt get a single enquiry. BW has a volunteer team. Its headed by Ed Fox, then there is Caroline Killeavy who is senior over Stephen Bicknell who looks after the local volunteer manager - WHY do they need that amount of senior people???

We made a request for help in manning our operations in May this year, the replies I got from Killeavy didnt answer any questions or give us any information asked for even after several repeated emails, then Bicknell contacted us, eventually he came out on an inspection cruise in June, loads of "we can do this" " we can help with that", he promised us he would be in touch and thats the last we heard of him. We have done a number of jobs for BW at our cost with our own boat and tools not knowing we could claim basic expenses as non of the "Volunteer managers" ever mentioned it. The BW volunteer team are in my opinion a load of crap and hot air. Its now October and they have not helped us one bit.

And dont believe BW's count on volunteer hours either, community Payback workers dont count as volunteers in most peoples eyes but do to BW. One thing I find strange is that BW volunteer managers have NEVER asked us for the number of hours we spend out on the canal, now wouldnt you think that would be of serious interest???

Our last work party (thursday last) was 5 people doing 8 hours, thats 40 hours for BW they dont count beacuse they dont ask - why??

 

Dean Davies our waterway manager on the other hand is marvellous. he has helped us with equipment and logistics and couldnt have been more helpful. In my opinion there is no need to have four tiers of volunteer management when a BW manager knows whats going on on his patch.

We maintain and operate a historic working boat kitted up for maintenance at our cost to help BW and to encourage people to join in, we are not succeeding in getting any interest and we are not alone in this field. We need senior BW management to wake up and smell the coffee, otherwise Vince Morans "army of volunteers" will rapidly become the Panzer regiments Hitler thought he had in 1945!

Edited October 3, 2011 by Laurence Hogg

[Higgs]

I've been reading as much reporting as I can of BW. Waterscape is not unbiased. Narrowboatworld seems to be ok. I never buy magazines.

 

I think it's really poxy that it is not easy to find any straight talking, and the only litmus test, that is worth applying, is that of actions speak louder than words. The communication between people and government is very poor. I actually think that the importance of people has been superceded by that of the corporate world/mentality.

 

Dean Davies sounds like a good bloke. Maybe the other not so helpful people don't want you to steal their thunder, have bigger fish to fry, are busy climbing the greasy pole. If you are having difficulty, these less than helpful people may not want be involved in a difficulty. There's alot of the shallow knocking around......only appearances matter.

 

Fine words butter no parsnips. We hear plenty of fine words permeating down. Words, smiles, glossy brochures. Once a person acts false, it isn't easy to allow them much/any slack.

 

................................................//...........................................

 

How regular is this help you need? I'm game, but have a bit of a tight budget. Don't know that part of the world.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Higgs

[Chertsey]

Of course Waterscape is not unbiased, it's BW's website. NarrowboatWorld is mad. HNBOC does a lot of campaigning around heritage, even though it's nominally an organisation about boats. People who care about preserving the moving parts of waterways heritage tend to be keen on the stationary stuff too.

[Higgs]

Of course Waterscape is not unbiased, it's BW's website. NarrowboatWorld is mad. HNBOC does a lot of campaigning around heritage, even though it's nominally an organisation about boats. People who care about preserving the moving parts of waterways heritage tend to be keen on the stationary stuff too.

 

 

Yes, as I said, Waterscape is biased. " NarrowboatWorld is mad "/ or not . HNBOC? Don't know, will look it up later.

 

I'm a big Fred Dibnah fan and love to see industrial engineering. My background is art and paint. My father was a blacksmith who worked on the forges at the railway. Steam engines were very much part of his scene.

 

Having painted boats for 10 years, I never found the work quite complete until the signwriting had been done or the 'traditional' forms of decoration. Before accidentally finding my way into the canal scene my only other experience was as a boy, living by a canal full of pith helmets, tin baths, rusty bikes and, newts.

 

I am now doing research. I have my own personal view of the waterway. I am, at least, trying to do some work in order to be accurate, eventually.

[alan_fincher]

Narrowboatworld seems to be ok.

 

Frightening!

 

I am, at least, trying to do some work in order to be accurate, eventually.

If accuracy is important to you, I very strongly suggest you stay away from Narrowboatworld.

[carlt]

Frightening!

 

Check the time of the post.... delirium due to sleep deprivation.

[Higgs]

Frightening!

 

 

If accuracy is important to you, I very strongly suggest you stay away from Narrowboatworld.

 

 

Possibly. But you haven't offered any help. I you had, I would listen.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Higgs

[Higgs]

Check the time of the post.... delirium due to sleep deprivation.

 

 

 

I'll have to start reading your posts, instead of counting sheep.

[Chertsey]

Possibly. But you haven't offered any help. I you had, I would listen.

That is help. Stay away from NarrowboatWorld is some of the best advice you will get if you are interested in sanity and accuracy.

 

Anyway, what exactly do you want help with? It's not really been clear so far.

[carlt]

 

I'll have to start reading your posts, instead of counting sheep.

Evidently you already do...Has it worked?

 

I've read yours and am unsure what it is you are actually saying.

 

I hope that the new charitable trust will include, in its constitution, a commitment to preserving the heritage and historical structures, and boats, of the waterways it will have responsibility for.

 

As someone who has experience of a major national charity inadvertently wandering away from its aims, as written in its constitution, I can assure you that the Charities Commission has a pretty big stick to wield, despite what some people may say.

[alan_fincher]

Possibly. But you haven't offered any help. I you had, I would listen.

On the contrary.

 

You have stated something like "Narrowboatworld is OK".

 

Narrowboatworld is not OK - it publishes a load of factually inaccurate nonsense, because it thinks it is "good press", but steadfastly refuses to correct stuff it has wrong.

 

Many of the articles are directly plagiarised from other (uncredited) sources, often claiming to have been penned by NBW "journalists" when they clearly have not. This is dishonest, at the least.

 

If you are interested in doing something positive for the waterways, my very strong advice is to spend every minute you might have been reading NBW to do something useful instead.

 

NBW is doing nothing useful for the waterways. There is more BW bashing on there than you ever get on CWDF, but not in a way that will ever achieve anything. Any debate is stifled. It really does come across as a load of Daily mail readers nodding sagely and saying "tut, tut - the whole thing will fall apart".

 

Like Sarah, I really cannot really follow what it is you are doing to save the waterways, or what you are trying to encourage others to do. Whatever the solution, it's never going to come from NBW.

[sociable_hermit]

Volunteering is largely driven by job satisfaction. Volunteers need clear objectives, good management, and chances to shine and to progress.

 

There is a common misconception that with volunteers you need to lower your expectations. No, you need to raise them, and foster good teams.

 

Money is very important as spending becomes a series of value judgements between competing teams of volunteers."Not for profit" organisations are amongst the most cut-throat as their spending is under constant scrutiny.

 

"If you hadn't wasted $ on x you could have spent it on y"

 

On the plus side, because the core motivation is improvement of the organisation and its assets, and profit is just a means to an end, voluntary bodies tend to be very good at long term planning.

[Derek R.]

Higgs, it appears you are seeking not just a source of help in terms of physical work done on a maintenance basis, but time and money also. You acknowledge an impasse twixt a management structure and the work structure, yet that will always remain unless the canal system and its industrial artefacts are 'protected' by some form of lottery backed finance. There are certainly enough people buying lottery tickets to provide the likes of Camelot with sufficient monetory clout to do some impressive things, but there are limits. What they are I do not know. Comparing the railway enthusiast with steam on main line and preserved does not take into account that the railway is still an operational network providing transport, whereas most of the canal system is not. We can 'play' - and even still 'work' some of the system, whereas the railway enthusiast is severely restricted in what can be used. As such, the railways are supported by huge public subsidies to keep going. The canals in the main were almost abandoned completely, though others will have the figures, and the history is well documented. The existence of the canal network relied upon it supplying a demand - and industrial demand. That has now been usurped.

 

What should be retained, why and where? Much has been lost, not only to the vandal in isolated places where manpower had been contracted or removed, but corporate vandalism also - the selling off of the 'family silver' has taken place piecemeal. Some of the latter can be seen in the Historic Narrow Boat Owners Club booklet 'Our Disappearing Heritage', but when does a working warehouse, stable block, or maintenance yard become uneconomical to retain in their original format or purpose? And what does one do with it to retain its infrastructure reflecting its original use and at the same time allow it to 'move on' to keep economically viable. Only the bottom line on an account sheet will decide - money.

 

Some of the canalside property never had road access nor the facilities expected by todays generations, and so they become lost to some expensive development, or the JCB. As the sack barrow was replaced by the pallet, fork lift and container, so those fine warehouses became redundant. There are active pockets of industrial preservation, but it's the paying public that supports them, and mostly the private boater supplying the floating element at rallies and gatherings.

 

Attempting to see higher than the monetory stakes will alas find you landing with a hefty bump. The nations economic situation will see to that. Much will only ever be captured in art form. Ink, paint and the historic photographic medium may be the penultimate protectors, and even they can be lost to the flame. That leaves memory, and none lives forever.

[Higgs]

Thankyou. At last. I don't mind being corrected or put straight. If you're going to call NarrowboatWorld totally barking, it's worth saying why; and then offer alternatives. It isn't just the articles in NBW that I've been reading. I also take notice of what is said on this forum and any other source I come across.

 

There are some pretty scathing criticisms coming from all around. Most of the praise is for the people on the 'ground'.

 

It is not the easiest thing to decipher where the balance is.

 

Will have to come back later...to finish post.

[carlt]

I also take notice of what is said on this forum and any other source I come across.

 

If you've taken notice of what is said on this forum then you will know what NBW's critics' opinions are, here.

 

Sometimes it is easier to use the search facility rather than expect people to keep repeating the justifications, for their views, every time someone new comes along wanting to discuss it again.