CRT dont want skilled equipped volunteers, heres the proof

[NigelMoore]

 

It certainly isn't impossible, BUT....

 

I suspect that unless, as an organisation, you have decided that volunteers that you take prime responsibility for are going to be doing a great deal of work . . .

 

To put this whole discussion in perspective, one should examine the very foundation arguments for CaRT’s existence in the first place.

 

Government [well the oversight committee anyway] were concerned as to the viability of the new privatisation, and sought assurances on this.

 

The argument put forward by Evans & co. when trying to persuade the committee of the financial prospects of the new company was basically two-fold: (i) with charity status lots of people would want to give them money, and (ii) the ability to use volunteers for practically everything would mean spending much of those charitable donations would be unnecessary, so government subsidies would soon be redundant.

 

Just what they wanted to hear, so it all went through – with the volunteer scenario noted as being the central most convincing answer to the committee's concerns. So, "as an organisation", BW/CaRT most definitely had decided that volunteers were "going to be doing a great deal of work."

[mango]

 

If you want to apply to do any paid work for CRT, you have to be registered with the Achilles Utilities Vendors Database, and jump through their hoops

 

I used to do a fair amount for BW, but couldn't be ar**d with that bureaucracy. CRT seem to have a policy now of concentrating work in a small number of hands, and have got rid of a lot of their boats anyway.

 

Tim

The large contractors used by CRT are Achilles-registered but that is not a general requirement. Here is a page about doing work on CRT waterways. See the three links on the right of the page.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/for-businesses/undertaking-works-on-our-property

[Machpoint005]

The large contractors used by CRT are Achilles-registered but that is not a general requirement. Here is a page about doing work on CRT waterways. See the three links on the right of the page.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/for-businesses/undertaking-works-on-our-property

 

Thanks for the link.

 

Section 2 of the Code of Practice, chapter 16, seems to cover the situation here, but it is strictly speaking dealing with work done on the canal infrastructure for other reasons, the benefit to CRT being secondary to the purpose. However, it is quite enlightening on the corporate responsibiities which CRT cannot avoid, no matter how much they might like to, and regardless of how much some of us may want them to.

Perhaps the thread title should be

 

"CRT cannot afford to risk using skilled equipped volunteers, here's the proof"

[Timleech]

The large contractors used by CRT are Achilles-registered but that is not a general requirement. Here is a page about doing work on CRT waterways. See the three links on the right of the page.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/for-businesses/undertaking-works-on-our-property

 

That particular link is for work on their property, not actually working for CRT.

From one of the other links:-

 

"

In the vast majority of cases, we will advertise contract opportunities by way of the following means:

1. Works and site services – the Trust will generally advertise in the Official Journal of The European Union and utilise the Utilities Vendor Database (UVDB) as a Qualification System. The Trust will also generally utilise the associated UVDB Verify assessment and pre-qualification systems that are operated on our behalf by Achilles Information Ltd (see http://www.achilles.com/en/industry-sectors/utilities ) for further details). As such, the best way for any contractor or site services provider to become eligible to work directly for us (or UK utilities) is to maintain registration/pre-qualification via the Utilities Vendor Database (UVDB) and also undertake the UVDB Verify assessment process."

The UVDB requirement was introduced some years ago, by BW.

It was made clear at the time that small contractors such as myself had no alternative but to register, if we wished to continue working for them.

 

Prior to that, there was a requirement to be on their 'approved vendor' list, but that was much simpler and was just a matter of local approval and agreement of financial arrangements.

 

I can see the merits of the UVDB system from their side, but it does mean that their options especially for minor jobs are more restricted.

 

Tim

[mango]

 

That particular link is for work on their property, not actually working for CRT.

From one of the other links:-

 

"

In the vast majority of cases, we will advertise contract opportunities by way of the following means:

1. Works and site services – the Trust will generally advertise in the Official Journal of The European Union and utilise the Utilities Vendor Database (UVDB) as a Qualification System. The Trust will also generally utilise the associated UVDB Verify assessment and pre-qualification systems that are operated on our behalf by Achilles Information Ltd (see http://www.achilles.com/en/industry-sectors/utilities ) for further details). As such, the best way for any contractor or site services provider to become eligible to work directly for us (or UK utilities) is to maintain registration/pre-qualification via the Utilities Vendor Database (UVDB) and also undertake the UVDB Verify assessment process."

The UVDB requirement was introduced some years ago, by BW.

It was made clear at the time that small contractors such as myself had no alternative but to register, if we wished to continue working for them.

 

Prior to that, there was a requirement to be on their 'approved vendor' list, but that was much simpler and was just a matter of local approval and agreement of financial arrangements.

 

I can see the merits of the UVDB system from their side, but it does mean that their options especially for minor jobs are more restricted.

 

Tim

Thanks Tim. I see your point. One way of getting around these requirements is if a canal trust or society employs a local contractor, which can be substantially cheaper than using one of the approved contractors.

[Stilllearning]

On the face of it, it is rather depressing to hear that volunteer labour appears to be little valued by the management of CRT.

As has been pointed out, many charities run on volunteers that do skilled, complicated work, on a regular basis. (E.G. railways, museums, conservation charities.)

CRT was identified when it was being set up, as similar to the National Trust, who simply wouldn't exist without the volunteers who do so much work.

It is therefore on the face of it incomprehensible for CRT to be turning its back on skilled volunteers, after all, Richard Parry et al talk of CRT as a membership led organisation. Well I have skills that CRT could use, but as it stands at the moment, there is no way they will be offered to CRT.

[RLWP]

I'm not sure the comparison is totally valid, mainly because canals are open areas full of water.

 

Getting it wrong on a preserved railway obviously has possible consequences, the most likely is damage to infrastructure and loss of service

 

Getting it wrong on a canal could mean flooding out people's homes or injury to the general public.

 

I'm not sure I have explained that very well, it's something about the ability of water to spread a very long way beyond CRT property

 

Richard

[Laurence Hogg]

Just to recap on some points. We have been working with BW for a considerable time without issues arising, nothing in our make up changed when CRT was formed, Since CRT they do not seem to want to work with volunteers outside of the spheres they create, ie lock keepers, litter pickers.

 

CRT are not doing what they said, go listen to the recording of the BW annual meeting 2011 (on the BW site http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/meetings/annual-meeting ) and hear what's said, there is a few classic moments like Ruth Ruderham ensuring a member of the audience that there will be no people with clip boards chasing people on the towpaths to become friends!!

[churchward]

I'm not sure the comparison is totally valid, mainly because canals are open areas full of water.

 

Getting it wrong on a preserved railway obviously has possible consequences, the most likely is damage to infrastructure and loss of service

 

Getting it wrong on a canal could mean flooding out people's homes or injury to the general public.

 

I'm not sure I have explained that very well, it's something about the ability of water to spread a very long way beyond CRT property

 

Richard

Of course it is valid. You are not thinking it through far enough. The examples you give of the possible consequences is not so. It may be if the public did not travel on the trains but they do.

 

There is ample reason to think it equates between canal volunteering and railway.

 

The public rides on the trains therefore there are ample ways that something a volunteer has done may effect the well being of the public. The possibilities are many be that simple maintenance of platforms through to running of trains has the ability to injure the public.

 

One example may be incorrect route setting and derailing a train or making it run into another and carriages turn over or people injured when thrown forward by the sudden stop.

 

CRT would do well to see how volunteer labour is used on Heritage railways.

 

In any case there are also many examples more close to home of volunteer labour providing all sorts of skilled activities via organisations like WRG or some of the canal societies. The modern canal system has been rejuvenated by a long line of volunteers. The thought that only paid professional are able to do these things is laughable.

Edited March 24, 2015 by churchward

[Pluto]

 

That particular link is for work on their property, not actually working for CRT.

From one of the other links:-

 

"

In the vast majority of cases, we will advertise contract opportunities by way of the following means:

1. Works and site services – the Trust will generally advertise in the Official Journal of The European Union and utilise the Utilities Vendor Database (UVDB) as a Qualification System. The Trust will also generally utilise the associated UVDB Verify assessment and pre-qualification systems that are operated on our behalf by Achilles Information Ltd (see http://www.achilles.com/en/industry-sectors/utilities ) for further details). As such, the best way for any contractor or site services provider to become eligible to work directly for us (or UK utilities) is to maintain registration/pre-qualification via the Utilities Vendor Database (UVDB) and also undertake the UVDB Verify assessment process."

The UVDB requirement was introduced some years ago, by BW.

It was made clear at the time that small contractors such as myself had no alternative but to register, if we wished to continue working for them.

 

Prior to that, there was a requirement to be on their 'approved vendor' list, but that was much simpler and was just a matter of local approval and agreement of financial arrangements.

 

I can see the merits of the UVDB system from their side, but it does mean that their options especially for minor jobs are more restricted.

 

Tim

I can confirm this, as I was asked to register under the Achilles scheme. I did point out that providing heritage advice and assistance only required me to have access to sites, and I would not be undertaking any physical work. Some BW staff, including very senior staff, did agree that it was an unnecessary requirement for my type of work, but it proved impossible to get this generally accepted. They do seem happier for me to do similar work for nothing, though.

[FadeToScarlet]

It is a massive shame, but perhaps the ire needs to be aimed at the compensation culture, insurance bureaucracy, and the external (and some internal) reasons why CRT don't feel they can risk using volunteers for more skilled jobs.

[churchward]

It is a massive shame, but perhaps the ire needs to be aimed at the compensation culture, insurance bureaucracy, and the external (and some internal) reasons why CRT don't feel they can risk using volunteers for more skilled jobs.

If that is the given reason it is just an excuse. It is not a barrier for an organisation if they wish to use volunteer labour.

[NigelMoore]

It is a massive shame, but perhaps the ire needs to be aimed at the compensation culture, insurance bureaucracy, and the external (and some internal) reasons why CRT don't feel they can risk using volunteers for more skilled jobs.

 

Big question is: if, for whatever reason, the deciding factor in passing the Transition Order has proved to be invalidated, what rationale for their continued existence remains? Government were fooled, or did they jump at whatever empty promises enabled their desire to be shot of BW?

[Thorfast]

Lots of interesting comments here....and perhaps several sides to this story.

I would find it useful to know from Laurence what jobs they have done in the past for BW, and what skilled jobs they are able and willing to perform now, but not getting the chance. ( I don't mean litter picking etc. it has already been made clear that they want to do more than this.

 

I have worked with voluteers in the heritage industry and although the volunteers are invaluable, it is often very time consuming matching up what the volunteers want to do with what you really need doing. One volunteer run local railway society I know have several volunteers who really hate running the trains for the public because it interfers with the volunteers wanting to do what they want to do.

[Machpoint005]

>> The public rides on the trains therefore there are ample ways that something a volunteer has done may effect the well being of the public. The possibilities are many be that simple maintenance of platforms through to running of trains has the ability to injure the public.

 

One example may be incorrect route setting and derailing a train or making it run into another and carriages turn over or people injured when thrown forward by the sudden stop.<<

 

Which is why there is a whole book full of legal requirements to be met before a preserved railway is allowed to carry passengers.

 

It is a massive shame, but perhaps the ire needs to be aimed at the compensation culture, insurance bureaucracy, and the external (and some internal) reasons why CRT don't feel they can risk using volunteers for more skilled jobs.

 

That's what I've been getting at in several posts. It simply isn't a question of "how we want it to be", it's how it is.

 

 

Big question is: if, for whatever reason, the deciding factor in passing the Transition Order has proved to be invalidated, what rationale for their continued existence remains? Government were fooled, or did they jump at whatever empty promises enabled their desire to be shot of BW?

 

Government -- this current coalition government -- was dead set on getting rid of state ownership of assets for political reasons (whether you agree with them or not).

Lots of interesting comments here....and perhaps several sides to this story.

I would find it useful to know from Laurence what jobs they have done in the past for BW, and what skilled jobs they are able and willing to perform now, but not getting the chance. ( I don't mean litter picking etc. it has already been made clear that they want to do more than this.

 

I have worked with voluteers in the heritage industry and although the volunteers are invaluable, it is often very time consuming matching up what the volunteers want to do with what you really need doing. One volunteer run local railway society I know have several volunteers who really hate running the trains for the public because it interferes with the volunteers wanting to do what they want to do.

 

A valuable contribution straight from the horse's mouth. Thank you.

[Alan de Enfield]

Many large national organisations (MOD, British Telecom, etc etc) have a system where 'local' offices can purchase goods up to a certain value on a "local purchase order" - for example each RAF base seems to 'local purchase' bird scaring / shooting people.

 

Does C&RT operate on a similar basis where regions can decide on their own suppliers for 'small' value jobs ?

[FadeToScarlet]

Big question is: if, for whatever reason, the deciding factor in passing the Transition Order has proved to be invalidated, what rationale for their continued existence remains? Government were fooled, or did they jump at whatever empty promises enabled their desire to be shot of BW?

I'm actually certain that moving CRT to a charity was the right decision. DEFRA's budget's been cut by £37m already with more to come; financially, the canals are better off as a charity than as part of the government.

[luctor et emergo]

 

Big question is: if, for whatever reason, the deciding factor in passing the Transition Order has proved to be invalidated, what rationale for their continued existence remains? Government were fooled, or did they jump at whatever empty promises enabled their desire to be shot of BW?

Are you suggesting that Robin et al made things up told government what it wanted to hear, to persuade government to go ahead? Or that government were looking for any, even remotely, credible excuse to get rid of BW?

 

What if they colluded? What are the odds of a government bod of the time, miraculously joining CRT after the next election?

[Machpoint005]

Are you suggesting that Robin et al made things up told government what it wanted to hear, to persuade government to go ahead? Or that government were looking for any, even remotely, credible excuse to get rid of BW?

 

What if they colluded? What are the odds of a government bod of the time, miraculously joining CRT after the next election?

 

I suspect we don't know the half of it, and never will, given the way CRT is apparently ignoring FOI legislation (and yes, that was Labour!)

[churchward]

 

Which is why there is a whole book full of legal requirements to be met before a preserved railway is allowed to carry passengers.

Yet the point is, despite all that regulation (which I agree exists) Heritage railways prime source of labour is volunteers. Go figure.

 

The other point is that if a Heritage railway can do it CRT could too if they wished.

Edited March 24, 2015 by churchward

[Machpoint005]

Yet the point is, despite all that regulation (which I agree exists) Heritage railways prime source if labour is volunteers. Go figure.

 

The other point is that if a Heritage railway can do it CRT could too if they wished.

 

I'm not so sure - CRT is responsible for an enormous network and infrastructure. Can you think of a preserved railway that has even a tenth of the "track mileage" of CRT? I'm doubtful that it would scale up -- or more to the point, the problems and practical difficulties would scale up.

 

I'm happy to "go figure" as you put it, if and when all the input data are available.

[churchward]

 

I'm not so sure - CRT is responsible for an enormous network and infrastructure. Can you think of a preserved railway that has even a tenth of the "track mileage" of CRT? I'm doubtful that it would scale up -- or more to the point, the problems and practical difficulties would scale up.

 

I'm happy to "go figure" as you put it, if and when all the input data are available.

The amount of mileage is not relevant of a given railway system (although if you added them all up it would be at least a few hundred) or the canal system. The ability to do harm to the public is of a similar nature and so comparable which is the point of my reply to RWLP. It doesn't effect the liability if you have 1 mile of canal or 2000 miles the law and regulation is the same. Also true for a Heritage railway and miles of track.

[Machpoint005]

The amount of mileage is not relevant of a given railway system (although if you added them all up it would be at least a few hundred) or the canal system. The ability to do harm to the public is of a similar nature and so comparable which is the point of my reply to RWLP. It doesn't effect the liability if you have 1 mile of canal or 2000 miles the law and regulation is the same. Also true for a Heritage railway and miles of track.

 

I beg to disagree -- the greater the mileage, the greater the maintenance costs, and the greater the amount of labour necessary. Hence the complications.

[Laurence Hogg]

Lots of interesting comments here....and perhaps several sides to this story.

I would find it useful to know from Laurence what jobs they have done in the past for BW, and what skilled jobs they are able and willing to perform now, but not getting the chance. ( I don't mean litter picking etc. it has already been made clear that they want to do more than this.

 

I have worked with voluteers in the heritage industry and although the volunteers are invaluable, it is often very time consuming matching up what the volunteers want to do with what you really need doing. One volunteer run local railway society I know have several volunteers who really hate running the trains for the public because it interfers with the volunteers wanting to do what they want to do.

 

Hello Thorfast,

We have done a number of things, some include a 22 ton demo load on to show canal carrying was still an option, we have carried out numerous surveys for dredging again semi loaded and drawing 3ft 3". We have cleared the weir in Horseley fields, removed large objects that the local team couldn't handle. We have taken CRT staff out on educational trips and the "Boating buddy" scheme. We have offered to transport materials, and to help clear the embankment collapse at Coseley. on the Coseley job we went out with CRT tested the unloading wharf for depth and then visited the fall and worked out how to do the job, we offered to be part of it but this was given to a contractor.

In the team we had HGV drivers, a crane operator and a ex professional boatman..

[churchward]

 

I beg to disagree -- the greater the mileage, the greater the maintenance costs, and the greater the amount of labour necessary. Hence the complications.

What complications? How do the regulations change? I agree scale can be an issue but not a total obstacle. In any case the OP was talking about a group of 20 people not 2000.

 

Heritage railways is just one example of volunteer labour. There are many that do responsable work ranging from RNLI to Charity shops. It is possible to use that labour source if a company or organisation has the will and commitment to do so.

Edited March 24, 2015 by churchward