CRT are thy taking notice or just turning a blind eye? - sunk boat with no action taken

[Emerald Fox]

Er.... is it still there? Yup.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

A little quick to blame youth for the situation perhaps.

 

We don't know for sure it was the younger generation.

 

 

 

I wouldn't say mad, no. It's not a completely outrageous assumption to make that it was mindless vandals that decided to set fire to an unattended boat and it's not a mad assumption that if it was mindless vandals that they were teenagers. Stereotypes often have some basis in reality and this one more than most.

I think that I'm with NC on this one really. When the Fire Service record a fire as Arson what that means is that they cannot find any other reason for the fire and it enables them to pass the enquiry onto the Police and close their record on it. I don't know whether or not it has actually been recorded by Police as Arson or whether there is any enquiry ongoing. IF it was and arson there are various possibilities which include local yobs setting it on fire but do not exclude the owner from having done so to claim on his insurance.

 

I don't know at what point the boat sunk, whether it was as a result of the Water Fairies playing their hoses on it or whether it was pretty much sunk when they got there. If it had sunk the cynic in me would consider it unlikely that any Fire Officer would have gone on board to carry out any extensive enquiry as to the cause (particularly it it entailed wading around in canal water only a couple of degrees above freezing!). So it is equally possible that the fire may not have been arson but as a result of something occuring on board (gas left on by owner, candle left lit,etc.etc). As Patrick Moore used to say, '...we just don't know!'. Speculate as much as you wish but it seems that facts are a little thin on the ground here!

[Laurence Hogg]

Today (19-02-15) the boat has gone, presumably taken away by road as it is not in the CRT depot in Wolverhampton or at other logical places in the area. That makes 4 weeks on to do a job the old BW would have done the next day.

 

I have lost all faith in CRT being able to run our waterways in any proper way, yesterday Granville st aqueduct was a major problem in Birmingham through leakage, W&B closed UFN. Err maintenance? what maintenance? It was leaking in 1969!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Today (19-02-15) the boat has gone, presumably taken away by road as it is not in the CRT depot in Wolverhampton or at other logical places in the area. That makes 4 weeks on to do a job the old BW would have done the next day.

 

I have lost all faith in CRT being able to run our waterways in any proper way, yesterday Granville st aqueduct was a major problem in Birmingham through leakage, W&B closed UFN. Err maintenance? what maintenance? It was leaking in 1969!

The backlog of maintenance work is in the order of £400m. The funding gap (the difference between what CaRT spends on the waterways and what it needs to spend to stop them deteriorating) is about £50m. There are over 50,000 known defects on the Trust's waterways and that figure is increasing.

 

The good news is that the extra £10m of government funding kicks in next year. However, it is simply not enough.

 

 

 

 

[Mrs Trackman]

Boat still sunk on nottingham canal.Now marked with a crt boat and large fenders. The crt boat was apparently chained on a centre line & we weren't sure that wasn't going to swing in our way when we went by last night.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Today (19-02-15) the boat has gone, presumably taken away by road as it is not in the CRT depot in Wolverhampton or at other logical places in the area. That makes 4 weeks on to do a job the old BW would have done the next day.

 

I have lost all faith in CRT being able to run our waterways in any proper way, yesterday Granville st aqueduct was a major problem in Birmingham through leakage, W&B closed UFN. Err maintenance? what maintenance? It was leaking in 1969!

Glad to hear that the boat has been shifted although I would still guess that the number of people who have been inconvenienced by it will be pretty small judging by how few boats seem to be on the move around the BCN.

 

There is a small inconsistency in your post however if, in the good old days of BW the boat would have been moved next day, why did they ignore the leaking aqueduct? (they were running the system in 1969 weren't they?)

[b0atman]

I suppose leak was not a problem if levels where easily maintained .

This has probably come about as urgent by the Railway operators plans.

[cotswoldsman]

Glad to hear that the boat has been shifted although I would still guess that the number of people who have been inconvenienced by it will be pretty small judging by how few boats seem to be on the move around the BCN)

Are you saying that CRT should react to problems based on boat movements? I thought they were supposed to look after the complete system. Using your thinking less used canals might as well be closed.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Are you saying that CRT should react to problems based on boat movements? I thought they were supposed to look after the complete system. Using your thinking less used canals might as well be closed.

Yes, I suppose that I am really. Should they suspend the repairs to the Gas Street leak to rush out to remove a boat from a little used section (at this time of year) of canal? Not really sensible I would suggest. If CRT had an infinite budget so that as soon as a problem came in they could immediately dispatch a full team of workmen/contractors to resolve it then I would agree with your point, on a limited budget they have to prioritise what they do. Whether they set the right priorities can be argued over endlessly but I still fail to see why a lot of people were getting excited about a sunken boat that was not blocking the canal on a lightly used section of canal. It has now gone, job done.

[Sabcat]

I had a chat with someone who works for CRT and mentioned this boat. By his account CRT don't actually have any pumps or much of anything else of use for maintaining waterways in the area. A depressing conversation all round really about sold off dredgers and maintenance neglected.

[kris88]

Most of the maintenance tools and equipment has been sold off, over the last few years. Some of it is hired back to them at daily rates by the contractors who bought it. I know the maintenance gang on this stretch hire a van and power tools on a yearly basis. Can this really be cost effective ?

Regards kris

[FadeToScarlet]

Most of the maintenance tools and equipment has been sold off, over the last few years. Some of it is hired back to them at daily rates by the contractors who bought it. I know the maintenance gang on this stretch hire a van and power tools on a yearly basis. Can this really be cost effective ?

Regards kris

Probably can, seeing as it removes their need to test it, maintain it, store it, and transport it around to where it has to be.

[kris88]

Yea I've heard that argument, I just have a problem understanding it.

Regards kris

The van of power tools I mention stays in possession of CRT all the time.

Edited February 26, 2015 by kris88

[PaulG]

Most of the maintenance tools and equipment has been sold off, over the last few years. Some of it is hired back to them at daily rates by the contractors who bought it. I know the maintenance gang on this stretch hire a van and power tools on a yearly basis. Can this really be cost effective ?

Regards kris

Probably. It depends on the amount of use.

If you take into account annual running costs like depreciation, insurance, repairs and servicing etc, it can be cheaper to hire a van when you need one.

Edited February 26, 2015 by PaulG

[FadeToScarlet]

Yea I've heard that argument, I just have a problem understanding it.

Regards kris

Well, CRT don't have a constant year-round need for tools.

 

They'll need lots of pumps, heavy plant like site generators, concrete mixers, air compressors, jackhammers etc. in the winter, during the stoppage season, whereas in the summer, they'll need grass and vegetation cutting equipment, etc. And, in the event of an emergency stoppage etc., it makes sense to go to a local hire place or contractors to get the heavy plant needed, rather than store that kind of thing in a warehouse "just in case".

 

If they need, say, 10 diesel pumps in one area during the winter, for say 1 month each, but not during the rest of the year, it makes sense to just hire them from the local Speedy or HSS or wherever, rather than spending lots of money on stuff that sits around during the year, needs maintaining, and depreciates over time.

 

It makes sense to hire what they need just for the period they need it, rather than having to store the kit the other part of the year when it's not used, maintain it, test it, take it from the storage to the job site or from site to site, etc.

[cuthound]

Virtually all companies do this now as it ensures a predictable spend, and is tax deductible. If an expensive bit of kit blows up, the hire comapny simp!y give you a new one.

It also ensures that the cost of each job is proper!y accounted for, as the tools will be usually be hired for specific jobs.

 

Its the way of the modern world.

[kris88]

What about workers sat around on site for a day and half waiting for hired plant to turn up. Which I've also witnessed.

Regards kris

It's obviously common practice now days, but it still doesn't make sense to me

Edited February 26, 2015 by kris88

[cuthound]

Poor management. It is not hard to ensure the tools are available when required and back charge the supplier if his delays costs you lost time.

[IanD]

If there's equipment that you genuinely use most or all of the time then you should own it because it's cheaper that way.

 

If it's used sporadically or in emergencies for a short time and can be hired, then you should do that. So instead of having 3 pumps sitting around most of the year doing nothing and then not being enough when something big happens, you hire 10 when you need them (result: quicker repairs) and send them back when you've finished. Saves money and provides a better service. We do exactly this with expensive test equipment in the lab; if used all the time buy it, if used occasionally lease/rent it.

 

There's nothng clever about having a load of gear sitting there gathering dust and wasting money.

 

Incompetent mangement, now that's a different story...

Edited February 26, 2015 by IanD

[Wanderer Vagabond]

What about workers sat around on site for a day and half waiting for hired plant to turn up. Which I've also witnessed.

Regards kris

It's obviously common practice now days, but it still doesn't make sense to me

Since a lot of the people doing the work now seem to be contractors, it is down to the contractor to supply the equipment. Whilst it is far from idea to have the workers sitting around waiting for plant to show up, in theory CRT shouldn't be paying anything for this.