Canal Closed

[alan_fincher]

Does anyone on here realize exactly how much water was released on this occasion? We are talking of lock 16 to 19 which is about a mile and a half of canal, that amounted to a tidal wave breaching the banks, the damage IS considerable and all down to vandalism. Dean Davies (CRT manager West Mids) reassures me that every effort is in place to reopen the flight as soon as possible, he is not happy that the BCN main line is closed off in peak summer.

Yes, not in exact numbers of litres, of course, but certainly in terms of scale.

 

When I looked at the pictures, I thought "that has to be may, many months of closure", but apparently they are hopeful that if they don't discover any real horrors that it could be repaired an reopened before the end of July. That surprises me, but is what we were told unofficially today by the director with responsibility. We will have to wait and see!

 

Perhaps some of those complaining now do not remember the horror days of the 1970s / 1980s when infrastructure failures could sever some of the most major canals not just for weeks, or perhaps months, but where the outages literally ran into years, because no money was available to even start a repair?

 

Of course what we have now is not ideal - but it is unrealistic to assume it ever will be, I think - none of us would contemplate paying the real cost of trying to achieve it! None the less, I would judge it phenomenally better at the moment than it has been at some points throughout the life-cycle of BWB!

 

 

[Mick and Maggie]

So, if you feel those things have to be done on a very much larger scale than now, (and I'm sure most of us would fully agree that would be the ideal situation), can you explain where you think the funding will come from, please?

 

I thought I had explained in detail where some £50 million plus was readily available for maintenance or as I like to think of it - an investment in the infrastructure.

 

But someone had a punt on a series of non inland waterways investments with the dosh, Which ultimately turned sour. However, they qualified for a nice big bonus for doing so. I'm sure that will teach them a lesson! I bet they will be doing that again in a hurry...But that's OK then.

 

How do you feel about.... Balloons and bunting... £25k... trees growing in boats...£50k . poetry on lock gates...£20k . Street art (Graffiti) being promoted and encouraged.... investment in voles, newts, birds, etc which have other charities looking out for them... hand picked 'independent' trustees.... Towpath upgrades as cycleways... I could go on...

 

regards

 

Mick

[alan_fincher]

 

I thought I had explained in detail where some £50 million plus was readily available for maintenance or as I like to think of it - an investment in the infrastructure.

 

 

Without going back through all the posts, I assume you are referring to some of the less successful property ventures?

 

Obviously when CRT present their side of any story there is probably as much "spin" in one direction as the CRT bashers choose to "spin" in the other direction, but I was surprised by the funding session that CRT did at Hatton a few months back.

 

They certainly didn't try and hide some of the failed ventures, but equally pointed out that these have to be set against those areas where they have actually pulled off some very good deals.

 

No doubt it is up for challenge (!) but they claim that their performance whilst the whole property market has been through its turbulent past few years actually betters industry averages.

 

What the balance sheet was claimed to show, is that CRT make more money from their property involvement than the total revenue collected from boaters from all sources. Too late at night now to go and find the slides with the breakdown of the numbers, but I certainly came away from the presentation with very different perceptions of how CRT is funded from those I had before I went.

 

I'm now waiting for you or Allan Richards to tell me I am the most gullible person on the planet, but there are certainly arguments that suggest that if BW/CRT were not so heavily into their property activities, that they would overall be in a far worse state, not actually in a better one.

 

 

How do you feel about.... Balloons and bunting... £25k... trees growing in boats...£50k . poetry on lock gates...£20k . Street art (Graffiti) being promoted and encouraged.... investment in voles, newts, birds, etc which have other charities looking out for them... hand picked 'independent' trustees.... Towpath upgrades as cycleways... I could go on...

I'm not a fan if CRT are paying, although £25K or £50K are chickenfeed in the big scheme of things, and both those taken together will almost certainly not repair that lock.

 

I'm actually far more concerned about figures like half a million being set aside around ill conceived attempts to re-invent "visitor moorings" when the record shows that more than half the boaters who express interest would prefer they left things alone. As I understand it those numbers are only start up costs, the ongoing costs of some of the silly schemes could be far more punitive - those ARE worth getting upset about - just to prove I am by no means an unconditional supporter of some of the things they do!

 

I don't have problems with all manner of "improvements" not directly boating related, if they unlock third party money that would not be going into the canal system otherwise. If a local authority, or Sustrans, for example will finance a tow-path upgrade, we are talking about money not otherwise available. Not doing that tow-path upgrade would generally not suddenly unlock that money to repair locks or bridges that might benefit from it.

[RLWP]

Does anyone on here realize exactly how much water was released on this occasion? We are talking of lock 16 to 19 which is about a mile and a half of canal, that amounted to a tidal wave breaching the banks, the damage IS considerable and all down to vandalism. Dean Davies (CRT manager West Mids) reassures me that every effort is in place to reopen the flight as soon as possible, he is not happy that the BCN main line is closed off in peak summer.

 

Anti vandal locks are in place but vandals soon find a way round them as do we when we forget our key, have you tried opening one with a biro case? it works!

 

I realise, and I also support Dean

 

Have a greenie Laurence

 

Richard

[cotswoldsman]

This of course is Bread and Butter to those who have nothing better to do than sit at their computers knocking CRT without any real facts. I will go with Alan Fincher (who was with CRT yesterday) and Laurence (who knows the canals and area far better than most) The fact is as far as I understand it there is a pot of money allocated for maintenance each year Vince Moran than allocates his spend based on the most urgent work. Like Alan I am amazed at the amount of knowledgeable boaters who have come out of the woodwork saying "I knew that was going to happen" when asked "when did you report it to CRT" it seems they did not bother. Yes like others I see money being spent on certain things and say to myself "what a waste of money" but then I see that in all organisations. What I do know is that the vast majority of CRT staff do care about our waterways. The one thing I do know is that I cover a lot of miles every year and this is the first time I have had to make a fairly major change to my plans, but hey it involves about 20 extra miles and a few extra Locks and I will see some canals I have never seen before.

[luctor et emergo]

I find it hard to see how opening up the paddles creates a 'tidalwave' that sweeps away all in it's path. The release of water is no more than what fits through the paddle. It's not as if they managed to open all the gates, and released all that water in one go? Certainly when I have opened paddles in Bath (up to three locks if neccessary), to fill the drained pound(s) above the deeplock, it did not amount to a 'tidalwave'. I appreciate that it can overhwelm the last lock at the bottom, but a 'tidalwave'?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Without going back through all the posts, I assume you are referring to some of the less successful property ventures?

 

Obviously when CRT present their side of any story there is probably as much "spin" in one direction as the CRT bashers choose to "spin" in the other direction, but I was surprised by the funding session that CRT did at Hatton a few months back.

 

They certainly didn't try and hide some of the failed ventures, but equally pointed out that these have to be set against those areas where they have actually pulled off some very good deals.

 

No doubt it is up for challenge (!) but they claim that their performance whilst the whole property market has been through its turbulent past few years actually betters industry averages.

 

What the balance sheet was claimed to show, is that CRT make more money from their property involvement than the total revenue collected from boaters from all sources. Too late at night now to go and find the slides with the breakdown of the numbers, but I certainly came away from the presentation with very different perceptions of how CRT is funded from those I had before I went.

 

I'm now waiting for you or Allan Richards to tell me I am the most gullible person on the planet, but there are certainly arguments that suggest that if BW/CRT were not so heavily into their property activities, that they would overall be in a far worse state, not actually in a better one.

 

I'm not a fan if CRT are paying, although £25K or £50K are chickenfeed in the big scheme of things, and both those taken together will almost certainly not repair that lock.

 

I'm actually far more concerned about figures like half a million being set aside around ill conceived attempts to re-invent "visitor moorings" when the record shows that more than half the boaters who express interest would prefer they left things alone. As I understand it those numbers are only start up costs, the ongoing costs of some of the silly schemes could be far more punitive - those ARE worth getting upset about - just to prove I am by no means an unconditional supporter of some of the things they do!

 

I don't have problems with all manner of "improvements" not directly boating related, if they unlock third party money that would not be going into the canal system otherwise. If a local authority, or Sustrans, for example will finance a tow-path upgrade, we are talking about money not otherwise available. Not doing that tow-path upgrade would generally not suddenly unlock that money to repair locks or bridges that might benefit from it.

Alan Fincher is not the most gullible man on the planet. However, I would point out that BW failed on all the long term objectives it set itself. Two of those objectives were to become largely independent of government grant and eliminate backlog of maintenance.

 

.... and, of course, BW's business failures, particularly joint ventures played a big part in it not meeting those objectives.

 

In the three years starting 2008/9, BW planned profits of £55m from its joint ventures. This, they claimed, was a conservative estimate because of a downturn in the property market. In the event they lost over £55m so they were £110m out.

 

It is all very well for BW/CaRT to claim its commercial performance is better than national average but it is a measure that is rather meaningless to most. A much better measure is how much commercial income is used for maintaining the waterways.

 

Some might recall directors being paid bonus the year before last despite saying it would not happen. The backlash caused a press release saying that bonuses were justified because exception commercial performance had allowed BW to spend the same on maintenance as the previous year. It was a complete and utter fabrication.

 

 

This of course is Bread and Butter to those who have nothing better to do than sit at their computers knocking CRT without any real facts. I will go with Alan Fincher (who was with CRT yesterday) and Laurence (who knows the canals and area far better than most) The fact is as far as I understand it there is a pot of money allocated for maintenance each year Vince Moran than allocates his spend based on the most urgent work. Like Alan I am amazed at the amount of knowledgeable boaters who have come out of the woodwork saying "I knew that was going to happen" when asked "when did you report it to CRT" it seems they did not bother. Yes like others I see money being spent on certain things and say to myself "what a waste of money" but then I see that in all organisations. What I do know is that the vast majority of CRT staff do care about our waterways. The one thing I do know is that I cover a lot of miles every year and this is the first time I have had to make a fairly major change to my plans, but hey it involves about 20 extra miles and a few extra Locks and I will see some canals I have never seen before.

The problem is that the pot of money given to Vince Moran each year is not enough. Indeed, it is only two thirds of the sum needed to stop the waterways deteriorating year on year.

 

If water spouts out of the side of a lock as it is emptying do you bother to report it or assume that CaRT are aware but doing nothing about it?

 

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[BEngo]

Quite easy to do- the weirs are generally set up to cope with a bit more than a lock emptying. If you time it right- so that as the first lockful hits the third weir the second lockful is getting there the top end of the third lock is overwhelmed. The effect magnifies down the flight, as additional locksful of water all arrive at the top of lower lock.

 

It can be seen as an accidental consequence on the Buckby flight from time to time and can be set up on the Aylesbury arm to fill the locks ahead (if the bottom gates are not open because the walls leak and CART can't be bothered to repair them).

 

N

[luctor et emergo]

So the locks have weirs, or bywashes, or drain over the gates?

What I can not get my head around (I have just finished a week of night shifts, and have not slept much either), is that if the paddles are opened, surely the next lock let's through as much water as the previous one? In effect, the pound stays level, until the top one runs dry. Not allowing for small size differences in paddles of course.

 

Ahh, is it the by-weirs? They don't restrict the amount flowing down them? Unlike the culvert types in Bath?

[Tuscan]

Without going back through all the posts, I assume you are referring to some of the less successful property ventures?

Obviously when CRT present their side of any story there is probably as much "spin" in one direction as the CRT bashers choose to "spin" in the other direction, but I was surprised by the funding session that CRT did at Hatton a few months back.

They certainly didn't try and hide some of the failed ventures, but equally pointed out that these have to be set against those areas where they have actually pulled off some very good deals.

No doubt it is up for challenge (!) but they claim that their performance whilst the whole property market has been through its turbulent past few years actually betters industry averages.

What the balance sheet was claimed to show, is that CRT make more money from their property involvement than the total revenue collected from boaters from all sources. Too late at night now to go and find the slides with the breakdown of the numbers, but I certainly came away from the presentation with very different perceptions of how CRT is funded from those I had before I went.

 

I'm now waiting for you or Allan Richards to tell me I am the most gullible person on the planet, but there are certainly arguments that suggest that if BW/CRT were not so heavily into their property activities, that they would overall be in a far worse state, not actually in a better one.

 

 

 

I'm not a fan if CRT are paying, although £25K or £50K are chickenfeed in the big scheme of things, and both those taken together will almost certainly not repair that lock.

I'm actually far more concerned about figures like half a million being set aside around ill conceived attempts to re-invent "visitor moorings" when the record shows that more than half the boaters who express interest would prefer they left things alone. As I understand it those numbers are only start up costs, the ongoing costs of some of the silly schemes could be far more punitive - those ARE worth getting upset about - just to prove I am by no means an unconditional supporter of some of the things they do!

I don't have problems with all manner of "improvements" not directly boating related, if they unlock third party money that would not be going into the canal system otherwise. If a local authority, or Sustrans, for example will finance a tow-path upgrade, we are talking about money not otherwise available. Not doing that tow-path upgrade would generally not suddenly unlock that money to repair locks or bridges that might benefit from it.

 

 

I am broadly in agreement with you however there is a difference I think in selling or developing you existing property portfolio and property speculation in new business ventures like the pubs fiasco. The odd £20k here and there on voles or poetry whilst of little value to navigation could be construed as good advertising from a charity fund raising perspective. The £500k a year so £1.5m allocated on staff , signage and enforcement of visitor moorings could however make a real dent in the preventative maintenance budget and IMO is where it should be spent.

[cotswoldsman]

 

The problem is that the pot of money given to Vince Moran each year is not enough. Indeed, it is only two thirds of the sum needed to stop the waterways deteriorating year on year.

 

If water spouts out of the side of a lock as it is emptying do you bother to report it or assume that CaRT are aware but doing nothing about it?

 

 

 

 

Any ideas on how to increase the pot?

Assume nothing

[alan_fincher]

The odd £20k here and there on voles or poetry whilst of little value to navigation could be construed as good advertising from a charity fund raising perspective. The £500k a year so £1.5m allocated on staff , signage and enforcement of visitor moorings could however make a real dent in the preventative maintenance budget and IMO is where it should be spent.

 

On this we heartily agree, and as you are well aware I am no CRT sympathiser on that particular point!

 

A shame then that it in some cases, (and I'm not accusing those contributing here!), that are happy to continually moan that CRT do not spend enough maintaining, but will also have supported the SEVM proposals because they like the idea of scruffy boats being permanently banished away from poplar mooring locations! If there is only so much money in the pot, and it is not enough, and the trustees sign off large budgets to do "non maintenannce" activities, then it is a no brainer that maintenance must be a loser.

 

I'm still not getting why people think things would be better if CRT had not inherited its large property portfolio though.

 

These are the slides that property director presented at Hatton back in February.

 

Look at the second slide, which shows ottal CRT income for all sources, now, and projected.

 

The biggest single number is the DEFRA grant, but after that income from Investment Property is the next largest contributor, and brings in more money than the total contribution of boat licences and moorings combined.

 

So are these numbers "cooked" in some way, or do they actually correctly show a situation where "property" is a massive overall net income provider?

 

What am I failing to see, and how do people think large sums of extra money can be released, other than by selling off the very assets that are providing a huge amount of ongoing income?

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I am broadly in agreement with you however there is a difference I think in selling or developing you existing property portfolio and property speculation in new business ventures like the pubs fiasco. The odd £20k here and there on voles or poetry whilst of little value to navigation could be construed as good advertising from a charity fund raising perspective. The £500k a year so £1.5m allocated on staff , signage and enforcement of visitor moorings could however make a real dent in the preventative maintenance budget and IMO is where it should be spent.

CaRT were spending £2.2m on enforcement so with the extra £500,000 its £2.7m.

 

It is quite possible that this £2.7m already comes out of the maintenance budget as customer services appears to be lumped in with what we call core maintenance.

 

I suspect the days of property speculation on a large scale are more or less over because of the deal with government will not allow these sorts of high value high risk investments any more.

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

On this we heartily agree, and as you are well aware I am no CRT sympathiser on that particular point!

 

A shame then that it in some cases, (and I'm not accusing those contributing here!), that are happy to continually moan that CRT do not spend enough maintaining, but will also have supported the SEVM proposals because they like the idea of scruffy boats being permanently banished away from poplar mooring locations! If there is only so much money in the pot, and it is not enough, and the trustees sign off large budgets to do "non maintenannce" activities, then it is a no brainer that maintenance must be a loser.

 

I'm still not getting why people think things would be better if CRT had not inherited its large property portfolio though.

 

These are the slides that property director presented at Hatton back in February.

 

Look at the second slide, which shows ottal CRT income for all sources, now, and projected.

 

The biggest single number is the DEFRA grant, but after that income from Investment Property is the next largest contributor, and brings in more money than the total contribution of boat licences and moorings combined.

 

So are these numbers "cooked" in some way, or do they actually correctly show a situation where "property" is a massive overall net income provider?

 

What am I failing to see, and how do people think large sums of extra money can be released, other than by selling off the very assets that are providing a huge amount of ongoing income?

 

They show that property is a large gross income provider rather than a 'massive overall net income provider'.

 

Selling property to buy other property does not actually provide money to maintain the waterways. However, it is still income.

 

 

 

 

[PaulG]

He was just playing at it, a cowboy builder who took year and years to complete a small job. In ancient China, large canals for river transport had already been established. The longest being the Grand Canal of China. Which is still the longest canal in the world today, and the oldest extant one. Which is not bad considering that it is over 1100 miles long. The project began in 605 and was completed in 609. Even in its narrowest sections it is rarely less than 90 feet wide. Imagine building a canal 1100 miles long and a minimum of 98 feet wide in just four years. Then some 1400 years later is is still in daily use. All on a bowl of rice a day.

 

regards

 

Mick

**pedant alert**

The Grand Canal was not completed in 609. It was the date that the first major section was completed.

Wikipedia notes "The Grand Canal at this time was not a continuous, man-made canal but a collection of often non-contiguous artificial cuts and canalised or natural rivers."

It would not have been built originally to the current dimensions - over the years it has been subject to many renovations and rebuilds.

Although it is indeed 1,104 miles long, the only section that is navigable today runs from Hangzhou to Jining.

If anyone is interested there are some photos in my album, towards the bottom of the page:-

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?app=gallery&album=338&sort_key=&sort_order=&st=50

[Tuscan]

Any ideas on how to increase the pot?

Assume nothing

 

Interesting question and in the current economy a real challange some personal ideas ( that have not been thought through or costed )

 

1. Outsource licensing process

2. Outsource enforcement process ( once there is clarity of what can be enforced)

3. Get companies to sponsor locks - logos not poetry to include a maintenance fund

4. Get Councils to adopt facilities that are in their area

5. CRT cafes/gift shops at most honeyspotx

6. Double cost of CC license for those that cruise less than X miles

7. Bring maintenance back in house

8. Tap EU for further heritage funding

9. Increase basic license by 50% for wide beam

10. Make licences payments into "donations" so that gift aid applied

11. charge for water

12 . Charge for all visitor moorings

13. Get planning authorities to ensure that LTM's are created for every canal side development or marina (affordable housing concept)

14. No funded towpath improvements without provision of VM's

 

just to get you going I am advocating any particular idea.

[lydfordcastle]

Does anyone on here realize exactly how much water was released on this occasion? We are talking of lock 16 to 19 which is about a mile and a half of canal, that amounted to a tidal wave breaching the banks, the damage IS considerable and all down to vandalism. Dean Davies (CRT manager West Mids) reassures me that every effort is in place to reopen the flight as soon as possible, he is not happy that the BCN main line is closed off in peak summer.

 

Anti vandal locks are in place but vandals soon find a way round them as do we when we forget our key, have you tried opening one with a biro case? it works!

 

I'm not trying to play the awkward card here Lawrence, nor am I coming down on either side of the arguement as to whether the stoppage is due to vandalism or lack of maintenance but I'm having great difficulty getting my head around your 'tidal wave'. How exactly would that happen. I can understand that a ;lot of water would have been released and may well have ended up in roadways and resident's houses if three pounds were to be drained over a period of time, but I would have thought it beyond the wit of the average scroat to do this in such a manner as to create a tidal wave. I genuinely would welcome your explanation as I'm sure it would help me the next time I have to refill the top five pounds of the Northampton flight. The last time I cruised up it, it took me four hours to do the last five locks and even with all paddles and bottom gates open it took a hell of a long time to reach the top of the gates of the next lock down.Surely at any one moment in time, you can't have a flow volume any greater than that able to pass through the paddles of the topmost lock being drained other than by careful management of the paddles on the lower locks?

[alan_fincher]

They show that property is a large gross income provider rather than a 'massive overall net income provider'.

 

Selling property to buy other property does not actually provide money to maintain the waterways. However, it is still income.

 

 

 

 

Are you suggesting that "property income" figure includes all the money made from sale of property in any given year, but if it does, then does not offset it by the amount spent on buying other properties?

 

If you are suggesting that, do you have evidence that that is the case?

[Mike Todd]

Charitable organisations generally ofer two conflicting elements of experience:

 

1. People have only limited amounst of time available and organisations have to work around that making it difficult to use volunteers in critical service delivery

 

2. People are most committed when they are involved in something with a sense of belonging. Well before the arrival of CaRT I have been advocating the development of a schme for adopting a length of canal with either an individual or a club/group taking on the lengthsman duties (generally those of tidying up and wee removal etc as well as keeping an eye out to report back to the engineering team).

 

It would take several years to build up momentum but my guess is that this would eventually lead to quite strong senses of ownership in the way that a lot of good work is done on the Shrippie for example. What is not likely to gain commitment is asking for volunteers for non-specific work which has no lasting sense of belonging. Even volunteer lock keepers are likely to be better if they have their 'own' locks to look after.

 

Interesting question and in the current economy a real challange some personal ideas ( that have not been thought through or costed )

1. Outsource licensing process
2. Outsource enforcement process ( once there is clarity of what can be enforced)
3. Get companies to sponsor locks - logos not poetry to include a maintenance fund
4. Get Councils to adopt facilities that are in their area
5. CRT cafes/gift shops at most honeyspotx
6. Double cost of CC license for those that cruise less than X miles
7. Bring maintenance back in house
8. Tap EU for further heritage funding
9. Increase basic license by 50% for wide beam
10. Make licences payments into "donations" so that gift aid applied
11. charge for water
12 . Charge for all visitor moorings
13. Get planning authorities to ensure that LTM's are created for every canal side development or marina (affordable housing concept)
14. No funded towpath improvements without provision of VM's

just to get you going I am advocating any particular idea.

[sueb]

Why not use volunteers to inspect canal structures? One team of volunteers were mainly retired engineers. They were given the job of grass cutting & painting locks. At the beginning of the next session they were not invited to the volunteers meeting and several tins of paint still sit in one volunteers garage. Hopefully Cart are getting better dealing with volunteers.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Are you suggesting that "property income" figure includes all the money made from sale of property in any given year, but if it does, then does not offset it by the amount spent on buying other properties?

 

If you are suggesting that, do you have evidence that that is the case?

The point I am making Alan is that it appears to be gross income and we do not know what is included. Thus it is rather meaningless. The important figure is the net contribution which is not stated.

 

I tend to judge BW's financial performance based on the long term self sufficiency targets that they set themselves. They failed miserably. It is probably just as well that a protector has been appointed as part of the deal with government to ensure that they invest wisely in future.

 

 

 

[alan_fincher]

Why not use volunteers to inspect canal structures?

But this lock was already the subject of regular inspections by paid staff, who presumably know how to spot defects that are openly visible.

 

According to Vince Moran inspections had not shown it to be a lock any more at risk than many others.

 

I think to predict which locks are about to fail spectacularly you would need more than volunteer ex-engineers giving them an "eyeball", however thorough that "eyeball" was.

[cotswoldsman]

The point I am making Alan is that it appears to be gross income and we do not know what is included. Thus it is rather meaningless. The important figure is the net contribution which is not stated.

 

I tend to judge BW's financial performance based on the long term self sufficiency targets that they set themselves. They failed miserably. It is probably just as well that a protector has been appointed as part of the deal with government to ensure that they invest wisely in future.

 

 

 

Allan what do you think might be included in the gross income?

[alan_fincher]

Allan what do you think might be included in the gross income?

I don't think he knows John, or are you asking for a best guess?

 

The point I am making Alan is that it appears to be gross income and we do not know what is included.

 

If we don't know what's included, why do we necessarily thing it is a gross figure?

[cotswoldsman]

I don't think he knows John, or are you asking for a best guess?

 

 

Either would do.