Boaters manifesto

[sebrof]

BA is not a transport network.

 

Try telling that to BA.

 

I'm not saying privatisation will work, in any meaningful sense. I am saying it is the almost inevitable conclusion of this sorry tale.

 

The simple fact is that the figures don't stack up, and if Robin Evans and his colleagues were worth their salt they would have threatened to resign until more money was put on the table.

 

As it is, it looks to me as though they are going along with a plan that can't and won't work, and will milk the situation for as long as they can. And at the end, big transfers will be made into their pension pots.

 

I am not normally so cynical, but it's difficult to see this from any other angle.

 

ETA to add "almost".

Edited November 14, 2011 by sebrof

[WotEver]

ETA to add "almost".

 

But can something be 'almost inevitable'? Isn't that like 'virtually unique'?

 

/pedant

 

Tony

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I keep reading that the funding package proposed in insufficient and it certainly looks that way but how much would be sufficient? How long and how much will it take until we see a properly and fully maintained system?

 

Keith

 

Last year (2010/11) BW spent £92.1m on maintaining its waterways. My calculations suggest BW needed to spend about an extra £50m just to stop the waterways deteriorating from the previous year. IWA put this 'funding gap' figure lower at £45m and BW's chief executive put it lower still at £39m.

 

The costs associated with maintaining the waterways rise over time and these increased costs are not counterbalanced by savings and efficiencies in maintenance and additional income due to being a charity (or a recovery in BW's commercial performance). However, for simplicity I will assume that that they cancel out.

 

I will also take Robin Evans figure as the lowest of the three I have quoted.

 

What is on the table from Defra is £39m pa for ten years. However, 2010/11 grant was £47m (i.e. grant is £8m down). This brings the shortfall up from £39m to £47m.

 

However, the chief executive also said that BW could not balance its books last year to the tun of £10m. If we make the assumption that CART will not sell off property to maintain the waterways, then that £47m shortfall in funding becomes £57m.

 

That extra £57m does not improve the waterways, it just stops them deteriorating!

 

The problem is that the transition trustees are negotiating on the basis that they just need an extra £20m pa(not £57m) on top of the £39m on offer.

 

The credibility gap goes into this in further detail.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

Have you written to your MP?

 

 

As A CCer I do not have an MP,

[carlt]

Last year (2010/11) BW spent £92.1m on maintaining its waterways. My calculations suggest BW needed to spend about an extra £50m just to stop the waterways deteriorating from the previous year. IWA put this 'funding gap' figure lower at £45m and BW's chief executive put it lower still at £39m.

 

This is a funding gap based on ridiculous wastage.

 

Give the money to someone who can actually control a budget, and knows what maintenance should cost, and you may just find that the shortfall is much less.

 

BW spend far too much on maintenance. I just cannot see where it all goes.

[cotswoldsman]

Try telling that to BA.

 

 

 

BA is now just part of another group IAG. Like most of the privatised companies it is now mostly owned by foreign investors.

 

 

 

BW spend far too much on maintenance. I just cannot see where it all goes.

 

I must say I agree 100% with this statement. Having cruised this year nearly 200 miles and hundreds of locks have not come across anywhere that I thought "This is in need of maintenance"

[carlt]

I must say I agree 100% with this statement. Having cruised this year nearly 200 miles and hundreds of locks have not come across anywhere that I thought "This is in need of maintenance"

It's not so much that the work is getting done (though the waterways are in much better condition than when I started boating) but that they are paying far too much for the work.

 

I'd love to get a look at the detail of the agreements with their contractors because I think they are being taken for a ride.

 

If, on conversion to a charity, term contracts can be renegotiated, the maintenance budget requirements may fall rapidly.

[Sir Nibble]

BA is now just part of another group IAG. Like most of the privatised companies it is now mostly owned by foreign investors.

 

 

 

I must say I agree 100% with this statement. Having cruised this year nearly 200 miles and hundreds of locks have not come across anywhere that I thought "This is in need of maintenance"

Really? I have lost count of the number of paddle gears I have repaired simply by tightening bolts. I suspect that a couple of turns of a spanner by snibs is a £10000 engineering project to BW.

[Steilsteven]

This is a funding gap based on ridiculous wastage.

 

Give the money to someone who can actually control a budget, and knows what maintenance should cost, and you may just find that the shortfall is much less.

 

BW spend far too much on maintenance. I just cannot see where it all goes.

 

Well as some sort of example, BW sold off one of it's maintenance boats to A.R.Rothern,some years back, for £1500. It is now hired out to contractors for work on BW canals at a rate of £1000 per month!

It was in use here for six months continually.Outsourcing is clearly the way to save money!

 

Keith

[cotswoldsman]

Really? I have lost count of the number of paddle gears I have repaired simply by tightening bolts. I suspect that a couple of turns of a spanner by snibs is a £10000 engineering project to BW.

 

Yes really....but then I do not expect perfection, I must have followed you round so thank you.

I am not saying it is perfect yes I have been to locks that leak badly, paddles that have been very difficult or where one paddle does not work.

Yes maintenance is required but not convinced about the millions stated are needed.

[Mac of Cygnet]

Having cruised this year nearly 200 miles and hundreds of locks have not come across anywhere that I thought "This is in need of maintenance"

 

I too find this statement incredible, especially since I cruised some of the same waterways as you (although I admit that these were possibly some of the most-used and better-maintained in the system). Especially on the outer (especially northern) fringes, a basic toolbox and some ingenuity is needed to make progress, let alone ensure others can make progress after you. In fact , I suspect that a lot of 'maintenance' is already done by boaters like Sir Nibble to ensure that others can sail through, complaining and wasting BW's time and resources when the slightest difficulty is encountered.

[sebrof]

But can something be 'almost inevitable'? Isn't that like 'virtually unique'?

 

/pedant

 

Tony

 

No, and virtually unique is OK, too, in some circumstances. It's comparatives which don't work, such as "very unique".

[sebrof]

BA is now just part of another group IAG. Like most of the privatised companies it is now mostly owned by foreign investors.

 

Oh dear.

 

First, BA's ownership is not relevant. You mentioned it to appear "clever". You'd have seemed more clever if you had kept quiet.

 

Second, IAG is the holding company formed when BA merged with Iberia, and shareholders in BA received shares in IAG. BA is the larger part of IAG, and the BA CEO became CEO of the new holding company. So to say dismissively that BA is "just part of another group" is misleading. Nothing new there, of course.

 

Having cruised this year nearly 200 miles and hundreds of locks have not come across anywhere that I thought "This is in need of maintenance".

 

I have been to locks that leak badly, paddles that have been very difficult or where one paddle does not work.

Yes maintenance is required...

 

Is it just me, or is there just a scintilla of a whiff of a hint of a suspicion of a possibility of a MASSIVE inconsistency between these two statements?

 

Somewhere, there is a circus with a job for you. Colourful uniform provided, including red nose and large shoes.

[Sir Nibble]

Oh dear.

 

First, BA's ownership is not relevant. You mentioned it to appear "clever". You'd have seemed more clever if you had kept quiet.

I have no wish to join in this spat but you are right. BA's ownership is not relevant, and nor is anything else about BA because as Carl says, it is not a transport network.

[matty40s]

Somewhere, there is a circus with a job for you. Colourful uniform provided, including red nose and large shoes.

 

Sebrof, why should he join you in the custard pie throwing team, quote him fully....

 

"Yes really....but then I do not expect perfection, I must have followed you round so thank you.

I am not saying it is perfect yes I have been to locks that leak badly, paddles that have been very difficult or where one paddle does not work.

Yes maintenance is required but not convinced about the millions stated are needed."

 

then you may have a response that means something, not just a cheap shot.

 

I have done over 400 miles this year, and seen a network that with regular maintenance is not in danger. With maintenance cut, and/or outsourced to cowboys/unskilled odd job men, then the network will gradually fall apart. There are areas where I am now (The Soar) where erosion of towpath side block walls is obvious, and with a flood or two will lead to major works being required, however this would have been easy to carry out this year with teh lack of water. It hasn't happened and BW congratulates itself for saving money off it's budget. A simple rule of any business that I have ever worked in is don't under spend on any maintenance budget if possible, because if you do, it gets cut the following year.

[CV32]

It's not so much that the work is getting done (though the waterways are in much better condition than when I started boating) but that they are paying far too much for the work.

 

I'd love to get a look at the detail of the agreements with their contractors because I think they are being taken for a ride.

 

If, on conversion to a charity, term contracts can be renegotiated, the maintenance budget requirements may fall rapidly.

 

I propose you for contracts manager Carl I am sure you would be able to save hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

[carlt]

I propose you for contracts manager Carl I am sure you would be able to save hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

I am pretty sure I could control a budget and negotiate a term contract better than the shower we've got now.

 

As a Highways maintenance engineer I'd have been sending money back, if I'd had the amount, per mile, that BW spend on maintenance.

Edited November 14, 2011 by carlt

[cotswoldsman]

Oh dear.

 

First, BA's ownership is not relevant. You mentioned it to appear "clever". You'd have seemed more clever if you had kept quiet.

 

Second, IAG is the holding company formed when BA merged with Iberia, and shareholders in BA received shares in IAG. BA is the larger part of IAG, and the BA CEO became CEO of the new holding company. So to say dismissively that BA is "just part of another group" is misleading. Nothing new there, of course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think I said foreign investors. As the majority of BA shares were held by shareholders outside UK mainly in USA I stand by that statement, Then just as a slight side line Heathrow BA main hub is also owned by foreign investors

 

 

 

Is it just me, or is there just a scintilla of a whiff of a hint of a suspicion of a possibility of a MASSIVE inconsistency between these two statements?

 

Somewhere, there is a circus with a job for you. Colourful uniform provided, including red nose and large shoes.

 

I was talking about urgent maintenance and the amount people are saying needs to be spent today on the system. No different really than the fact that my boat could do with a lick of paint but hey it works fine just does not look great.