CanalScape-BCN to cease in operational mode

[Machpoint005]

 

>>The fact is that the Coseley project will difficult and space constrained, moving very large volumes of material in a tight programme. The project team looked in detail in good faith at involving you/ your boat, and once you raised your concern with Simon and me last week, Vince undertook a further thorough review. I understand that we have explained why your boats could not be involved in the Coseley cutting project, given its specific challenges<<

 

 

Sent from Samsung Mobile

 

 

 

It was disappointing that in Richard Parry's reply there was no reason given why a boat, designed for carrying, on a canal, designed for its efficient use, was 'unsuitable' for the job.

 

Am I the only one who has read the other side of this disagreement? It seems obvious to me that a volunteer operation could not be dovetailed into a time-critical programme. Whether it was desirable or not, logistical considerations have scuppered the chances on this one. Perhaps someone else who has professional experience of construction project management, against a budget, would care to comment?

 

That's the CRT view, anyway, as I understand it.

[greywolf]

 

 

 

Am I the only one who has read the other side of this disagreement? It seems obvious to me that a volunteer operation could not be dovetailed into a time-critical programme. Whether it was desirable or not, logistical considerations have scuppered the chances on this one. Perhaps someone else who has professional experience of construction project management, against a budget, would care to comment?

 

That's the CRT view, anyway, as I understand it.

i did read it and i agree to some extent but Lawence was only suggesting doing some of the carrying not the digging up and making good. It does sound more like they want to keep them on so that they can fill there volunteer quoter . That attendance is dwindling suggests that what is given is less than interesting to the people carrying it out,you volunteer usual because you find things interesting so it is failing at the first hurdle

[Machpoint005]

Exactly my point - the carrying would also have to be scheduled (I imagine) and it's not a trivial matter to do this if there are lots of locks on the route (to give just one example -- I'm sure there are others).

 

Another point -- the contractors may have a penalty clause for late completion, and they wouldn't take the work on if there were going to be factors beyond their control (not if they had any sense, that is). If I were CRT I'd certainly want a penalty clause in there for time-critical work, to protect against knock-on costs.

[Laurence Hogg]

Exactly my point - the carrying would also have to be scheduled (I imagine) and it's not a trivial matter to do this if there are lots of locks on the route (to give just one example -- I'm sure there are others).

 

Another point -- the contractors may have a penalty clause for late completion, and they wouldn't take the work on if there were going to be factors beyond their control (not if they had any sense, that is). If I were CRT I'd certainly want a penalty clause in there for time-critical work, to protect against knock-on costs.

There are no locks on the route and the distance to the tip on the Bradley arm is only a mile and a half. Using two "Joey" boat as transport and the hold of Barnet was the intention, running loaded with one joey to the tip whilst the other was loaded on a circuit run. The job of loading and unloading would not involve our crew, we would just be there a steerer's and to supervise the loading being done correctly.

Its a very simple job in reality.

[Machpoint005]

I acknowledge your specialist knowledge. Perhaps, then, the savings were so slight that CRT thought the trouble of involving you was not worth it?

[Laurence Hogg]

There may be a last minute turn round in the fate of the CanalScape-BCN operation. After much badgering and begging from CRT not to stand down and dispose of the boat they are now considering giving us some sensible work. Simon Salem has become involved so the push is coming from the top, we will wait and see.

"Barnet" when pulled out for inspection has shown some work needs to be done to make her more safe to use so this is going ahead now and we hope she will be returned freshly blacked to her mooring in Wolverhampton in time for Christmas.

Its really up to CRT now to have a re think, recently one of their volunteer co-ordinators was given a tour of the construction sites on the Lichfield and Hatherton, she was amazed that volunteers dig our canals, line them, rebuild locks and get aqueducts constructed. Its strikes me CRT doesn't have a clue what ordinary people are capable of!!

[Laurence Hogg]

Despite doing a "U" turn on this decision to shut down in January after much persuasion from the top end of CRT and entering into quite lengthy discussion with CRT at all levels, I am sad to report nothing has happened.

 

CRT unlike other organisation's simply appear to want to give everything physical to contractors. Even their own men complain of not having enough work, a ludicrous situation.

 

Whilst In the Wolverhampton depot last week we witnessed guys sitting around having finished the work for the day but not being able to go to another job. The site too is now unkempt with weeds and grass growing through the setts and cobbles. Fountains have the contract for weed killing but have subbed it to someone else who (I am told) doesn't use good quality weed killer.

 

Richard Parry still wants to have a meeting which I will agree too but without any sign of proper work "Barnet" is now on the market.

 

http://narrowboats.apolloduck.co.uk/feature.phtml?id=407043

 

After volunteering with the "firm" since 1972 I feel thoroughly disillusioned with CRT. There is now so many people running it the numbers are unbelievable and seem greater than BW achieved. The toothless waterway partnerships can do nothing and aren't really needed, the fundraisers are a joke, the management is akin to mickey mouse. Bring back the old BW any day.

 

Compared to the National Trust and other large charities CRT is a joke, how hard is it to run 2000 miles of track and 32000 boats in this day and age with modern technology?

Edited March 22, 2015 by Laurence Hogg

[Bee]

Good grief, if the days of BW are the good old days things must be bad.

[fanshaft]

Despite doing a "U" turn on this decision to shut down in January after much persuasion from the top end of CRT and entering into quite lengthy discussion with CRT at all levels, I am sad to report nothing has happened.

 

CRT unlike other organisation's simply appear to want to give everything physical to contractors. Even their own men complain of not having enough work, a ludicrous situation.

 

Whilst In the Wolverhampton depot last week we witnessed guys sitting around having finished the work for the day but not being able to go to another job. The site too is now unkempt with weeds and grass growing through the setts and cobbles. Fountains have the contract for weed killing but have subbed it to someone else who (I am told) doesn't use good quality weed killer.

 

Richard Parry still wants to have a meeting which I will agree too but without any sign of proper work "Barnet" is now on the market.

 

http://narrowboats.apolloduck.co.uk/feature.phtml?id=407043

 

After volunteering with the "firm" since 1972 I feel thoroughly disillusioned with CRT. There is now so many people running it the numbers are unbelievable and seem greater than BW achieved. The toothless waterway partnerships can do nothing and aren't really needed, the fundraisers are a joke, the management is akin to mickey mouse. Bring back the old BW any day.

 

Compared to the National Trust and other large charities CRT is a joke, how hard is it to run 2000 miles of track and 32000 boats in this day and age with modern technology?

 

I totally understand and sympathise with Laurence's situation. However with respect I don't think you can compare CRT with the National Trust. It's true the NT has lots of historic buildings which are open to the public and a challenge to fund and maintain but there the similarity ends. I would say CRT is more like one of the Routes (Regions) of Network Rail with major infrastructure such as embankments, cuttings, bridges, aqueducts / viaducts, tunnels, locks etc - but NR doesn't have reservoirs which could fail with catastrophic results, nor 32000 train operaters each wanting to run their own trains on the system!

To my knowledge BW shed a lot of office staff prior to CRT take-over and from my own experience within a Partrnership and getting to know how CRT works behind the scenes I would say that given the Trust's objectives and responsibilities (which is more than just providing for 32000 boats) the back office staff numbers are not huge. Partnerships are there to assist and advise the waterway manager, providing a link with local communities and so on. Partnerships can lead or partner other bodies in projects - in my Partnership's case it's freight, visitor moorings, restoration, towpath improvements, dredging etc. A major task was reviewing the waterways in our region in detail, putting together a long term strategy or vision, and selecting from a huge list of aspirations a number which could be delivered within a feasonable timescale (five years). The Trust did not have the resources to do this in house and to have employed consultants would have cost a fortune - but it was a task which definitely needed doing so the Trust could focus its efforts on where it needs to go. . Partnerships are not there to tell the waterway manager how to run his or her waterways , nor generally to get involved in detail.

regards

David L