CRT dont want skilled equipped volunteers, heres the proof

[Laurence Hogg]

 

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.

 

Your answers are beginning to sound like the old Unipart advert reversed it was "The answer is yes, what was the question" now we seem to have the "the answer is no - what was the question".

 

Just look at CRT, its not big, only 2000 miles of track and 32000 boats, You could run that of a cheap PC from Curry's. Most large cities have more miles of road and infrastructure than the whole of CRT but run efficiently.

 

They have their head in the sand and those within CRT who want things done different are getting very frustrated.

[Texasboater]

Maybe they just don't like Laurence and his team!

Perhaps he has "rubbed someone up the wrong way"?

Could be that they don't want someone with all those years of experience telling them "That's not the way we did it in the old days".

Getting rid of the old guard in any new venture is hardly unheard of.....I know it's like throwing out the baby with the bath water but it happens a lot.

[rrt2]

A bit off from the original topic but as Heritage Railways have been mentioned.

Some interesting reading.

 

https://aib-cms.co.uk/sites/raib/publications/reports_by_type_of_railway/heritage_railways/all_heritage_rail_investigations.cfm

[cuthound]

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 ?

Not sure about the other organisations mentioned but BT stopped local orders over 10 years ago, replacing it with a list of pre-approved suppliers. In most organisations, centralising purchasing & procurement functions limits flexibility but brings substantial cost savings (not always obvious to those at the "coal face".

[churchward]

A bit off from the original topic but as Heritage Railways have been mentioned.

Some interesting reading.

 

https://aib-cms.co.uk/sites/raib/publications/reports_by_type_of_railway/heritage_railways/all_heritage_rail_investigations.cfm

Yep it shows that Heritage railways operate under the same scrutiny as the main network and unfortunately same as they do on the mainline stuff happens from time to time.

[mark99]

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.

 

 

We kicked UVDB (after a few years of complying) into touch because it was a bureaucratic nightmare - and we have resources to deal with it.

 

For individuals it must be a nightmare.

Edited March 24, 2015 by mark99

[Pluto]

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.

I think the main difference between preserved railways and CRT is that CRT are responsible for the land drainage provided by canals and waterways. Were any part of that to fail, there could be major problems. You cannot provide cover for such emergencies using volunteers as they are not guaranteed to be available, even when sufficiently skilled, and certainly not in the numbers needed for a major breach or similar.

 

I have also worked in the heritage industry, restoring and maintaining machinery in industrial museums. At one stage my boss suggested using volunteers until I pointed out that it would take me longer to ensure that the work was done to the correct standards using volunteers, than to do the work in house with my small team.

 

As you suggest in your last sentence, it is important for volunteers to feel they are doing something that they find fulfilling. It is a goal which is quite hard to achieve, particularly where standards have to be adhered to. Volunteers need to be adequately trained, and that can be as expensive as getting the job done professionally. It is particularly difficult with the British style of managing, where the manager, with the rise of academic training, is not skilled in the practical work they are managing. Thus, they rely upon pieces of paper and tick boxes because they cannot evaluate the practical experience offered by volunteers.

[Alan de Enfield]

The newly appointed Head of Asset Management (Julie Sharman) responsible for maintenance and repairs (bridges, tunnels, locks, aqueducts etc) is quoted as saying :-

We have a fantastic team of experts who really understand our waterways but we are always looking for volunteers, so if any boaters happen to have the expertise and desire to want to work alongside us I would be very interested in talking to them."

 

There you go - sorted !!!!!!!

[cotswoldsman]

The newly appointed Head of Asset Management (Julie Sharman) responsible for maintenance and repairs (bridges, tunnels, locks, aqueducts etc) is quoted as saying :-We have a fantastic team of experts who really understand our waterways but we are always looking for volunteers, so if any boaters happen to have the expertise and desire to want to work alongside us I would be very interested in talking to them."

 

There you go - sorted !!!!!!!

Well done Alan it needed sorting

[churchward]

I think the main difference between preserved railways and CRT is that CRT are responsible for the land drainage provided by canals and waterways. Were any part of that to fail, there could be major problems. You cannot provide cover for such emergencies using volunteers as they are not guaranteed to be available, even when sufficiently skilled, and certainly not in the numbers needed for a major breach or similar.

 

I have also worked in the heritage industry, restoring and maintaining machinery in industrial museums. At one stage my boss suggested using volunteers until I pointed out that it would take me longer to ensure that the work was done to the correct standards using volunteers, than to do the work in house with my small team.

 

As you suggest in your last sentence, it is important for volunteers to feel they are doing something that they find fulfilling. It is a goal which is quite hard to achieve, particularly where standards have to be adhered to. Volunteers need to be adequately trained, and that can be as expensive as getting the job done professionally. It is particularly difficult with the British style of managing, where the manager, with the rise of academic training, is not skilled in the practical work they are managing. Thus, they rely upon pieces of paper and tick boxes because they cannot evaluate the practical experience offered by volunteers.

I don't think anyone is suggesting you can replace all of CRTs responsibilities out in the field by volunteers or indeed that volunteers should replace peoples paid jobs. I would not like to see that happen at all.

 

However, where volunteers can add to the mix is where an organisation does not have the money to do something but volunteers can do it. That can be a happy marriage. There is a cost to maintaining a volunteer body but it can be and is in many cases cheaper to do it that way. This is particularly so where grants are available for work and volunteer hours contribute to a pound for pound spend agreements.

 

As for your thoughts that volunteers cannot do emergency work due to unreliability have a look at how the RNLI is staffed or pretty much any mountain rescue team for example. There are numerous examples of people committing to volunteering in responsible and emergency positions in this country.

 

See here for Llanberis mountain rescue which operates on one of the worlds busiest mountains Snowdon and rescue a lot of people grateful for their emergency service all paid for by charitable donations.

 

http://www.llanberismountainrescue.co.uk/

Edited March 25, 2015 by churchward

[BrumSaint]

I don't think anyone is suggesting you can replace all of CRTs responsibilities out in the field by volunteers or indeed that volunteers should replace peoples paid jobs. I would not like to see that happen at all.

 

However, where volunteers can add to the mix is where an organisation does not have the money to do something but volunteers can do it. That can be a happy marriage. There is a cost to maintaining a volunteer body but it can be and is in many cases cheaper to do it that way. This is particularly so where grants are available for work and volunteer hours contribute to a pound for pound spend agreements.

 

As for your thoughts that volunteers cannot do emergency work due to unreliability have a look at how the RNLI is staffed or pretty much any mountain rescue team for example. There are numerous examples of people committing to volunteering in responsible and emergency positions in this country.

 

See here for Llanberis mountain rescue which operates on one of the worlds busiest mountains Snowdon and rescue a lot of people grateful for their emergency service all paid for by charitable donations.

 

http://www.llanberismountainrescue.co.uk/

I don't think most employers would object (too much) to staff leaving their work to help in a life or death situation, but if it's to repair a breach in a canal (eg Gas Basin recently - not quite the same level of emergency, but still an emergency) then I'm not aware of many employers who would happily allow their staff time off to deal with it.

[Jerra]

I don't think most employers would object (too much) to staff leaving their work to help in a life or death situation, but if it's to repair a breach in a canal (eg Gas Basin recently - not quite the same level of emergency, but still an emergency) then I'm not aware of many employers who would happily allow their staff time off to deal with it.

A lot of employers allow part time fireman time out and they are getting paid. Up here a lot get time off for mountain rescue. Admittedly both those may have a higher risk to life and limb.

[churchward]

I don't think most employers would object (too much) to staff leaving their work to help in a life or death situation, but if it's to repair a breach in a canal (eg Gas Basin recently - not quite the same level of emergency, but still an emergency) then I'm not aware of many employers who would happily allow their staff time off to deal with it.

No maybe not and I am not suggesting CRT should use volunteers for such work but I am making the counter point to the comment that volunteers are "not good for emergencies because they are not reliable" which is not the case.

Edited March 25, 2015 by churchward

[John Williamson 1955]

While people are making great play of the benefits of using experienced, skilled volunteers, does a paper trail exist that shows that all the volunteers connected with Barnet, Canalscape BCN, and CRT have the appropriate qualifications for the job they are being asked to do? if not, then the insurers may be preventing their use. The problem may be something as simple as a bricklayer not having the appropriate NVQ, or Canalscape not being able to guarantee that the brickie on any particular day has the right protective gear, with a paper trail to prove it.

 

Another point is that if I were a CRT officer asking for a job to be done, could Canalscape guarantee a finishing date or be able to pay the penalties for non-completion or damage caused to a third party, where such jobs affect a third party?

 

We also need to bear in mind that BW was a Government department, while CRT is a limited company, albeit with charitable trust status, and so operates under different rules regarding public liability. This could easily explain the difference in attitude since they took over. Work like a survey carried out by seeing if a loaded boat grounds anywhere is easy to do without many specialist skills, although the skipper might be required to have the appropriate qualification as there would be people on board, but in the example given of work repairing brickwork on a tunnel lining, specialised skills are needed, which need to be documented.

[Machpoint005]

Thank you.John, for a well reasoned and knowledgeable post.

[Thorfast]

It appears that C&RT are contracting out most of the maintenance work.

Unless Canalscape-BCN take on an entire contract, they will only be offering to 'help' or subcontract a part of the main contract.

Perhaps a part of the problem is that it is the main contractor that is not geared up or willing to work with a volunteer group?

Edited March 25, 2015 by Thorfast

[Machpoint005]

Perhaps the thread title should be

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

 

This is not a personal dig at Laurence, and never has been. I'm not being negative, I'm being realistic from the viewpoint of the 21st century world of business..

[churchward]

Perhaps the thread title should be

 

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

 

This is not a personal dig at Laurence, and never has been. I'm not being negative, I'm being realistic from the viewpoint of the 21st century world of business..

Then you have not understood the counter point at all and I could not disagree more.

 

CRT may not want to but it has little to do with being realistic in the world of business in the 21st century. There are no real financial or health & safety barriers to using volunteer labour in skilled roles as proved by WRG and canal societies week after week and indeed in general many other organisations that use volunteers to augment their workforce in all sorts of situations ranging from life & death in the RNLI and Mountain Rescue through Heritage organisations with responsibility for the public access and safety to more less skilled and responsible work litter picking and in charity shops. It is a major feature of modern life and CRT is not so extra special in its organisation (see National Trust as well) and operation to be above or exempt from this. It just takes commitment and resolve.

While people are making great play of the benefits of using experienced, skilled volunteers, does a paper trail exist that shows that all the volunteers connected with Barnet, Canalscape BCN, and CRT have the appropriate qualifications for the job they are being asked to do? if not, then the insurers may be preventing their use. The problem may be something as simple as a bricklayer not having the appropriate NVQ, or Canalscape not being able to guarantee that the brickie on any particular day has the right protective gear, with a paper trail to prove it.

 

Another point is that if I were a CRT officer asking for a job to be done, could Canalscape guarantee a finishing date or be able to pay the penalties for non-completion or damage caused to a third party, where such jobs affect a third party?

 

We also need to bear in mind that BW was a Government department, while CRT is a limited company, albeit with charitable trust status, and so operates under different rules regarding public liability. This could easily explain the difference in attitude since they took over. Work like a survey carried out by seeing if a loaded boat grounds anywhere is easy to do without many specialist skills, although the skipper might be required to have the appropriate qualification as there would be people on board, but in the example given of work repairing brickwork on a tunnel lining, specialised skills are needed, which need to be documented.

Many private companies/trusts/charities that have nothing to do with government bodies use volunteers in skilled work using machinery and the like in life and death scenarios or otherwise. Not being a government body is no barrier to using volunteers.

 

Any of what you say will need consideration and if one is looking for them could be used as an excuse to not use and train volunteers but they will be just that, excuses to not do something.

 

It of course may make a lot of sense to use paid for labour and use a professional contractor in all sorts of circumstances but it doesn't mean they will do a better job than a volunteer body.

Edited March 25, 2015 by churchward

[Machpoint005]

It's not about reality, it's about perception, a realistic view of perception.

 

I'm not against volunteer involvement but I can see where CRT and its contractors perceive a problem. An ability to see things from the opposite point of view might be helpful on both sides, but passion can overrule reason, and jobsworths can trump everything else.

[churchward]

It's not about reality, it's about perception, a realistic view of perception.

 

I'm not against volunteer involvement but I can see where CRT and its contractors perceive a problem. An ability to see things from the opposite point of view might be helpful on both sides, but passion can overrule reason, and jobsworths can trump everything else.

Well that is a very insubstantial argument I think. It is not about perception in any case as I see it but intent or commitment to something. CRT can have what policy they wish that they think gives them advantages but they should not in turn say one thing and do another.

 

It is not about passion over ruling reason because there are no real reasons given that could not be over come to employ the OPs team.

[Laurence Hogg]

There is much intelligent conversation on here so far but I do say listen to what is said in the handover comments from the last BW annual meeting in 2011, there is a lot of hot air blowing with facts and figures which don't seem to match up to what we are experiencing today. Here is the link:

 

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/meetings/annual-meeting

 

I have to admit I supported the idea of the change but now have grave reservations.

[John Williamson 1955]

Many private companies/trusts/charities that have nothing to do with government bodies use volunteers in skilled work using machinery and the like in life and death scenarios or otherwise. Not being a government body is no barrier to using volunteers.

 

Any of what you say will need consideration and if one is looking for them could be used as an excuse to not use and train volunteers but they will be just that, excuses to not do something.

 

It of course may make a lot of sense to use paid for labour and use a professional contractor in all sorts of circumstances but it doesn't mean they will do a better job than a volunteer body.

I agree that just many private trusts, companies and charities of all sorts use volunteer labour in many roles. However, last time I wanted to play at doing anything even semi-skilled connected with operating a heritage railway, I had to undergo their training course, or I wouldn't be allowed to even use the ticket machine or tea urn, and even if I bought my own locomotive, I'd not be allowed to use it until both it and I had passed muster and been signed off as being safe or qualified. It was a close call whether I was to be allowed to use kango hammer to ram in some ballast under supervision. I'd say that CRT are in the same position as the heritage railways in that even semi-skilled jobs have to be signed off as being done by someone capable, with a paper trail to prove it. I gather BW were quite lax about such things. They may also be worrying about things like listed building works, which have to be approved by English Heritage who have their own rules about who's allowed to hack wood about and lay bricks and stones.

 

All the problems can be overcome in time, I'm sure, but CRT are at the bottom of a steep learning curve here, as the management has changed greatly in the last couple of years.

[MtB]

 

Your answers are beginning to sound like the old Unipart advert reversed it was "The answer is yes, what was the question" now we seem to have the "the answer is no - what was the question".

 

 

It's beginning to look to me as though someone personally benefits from the placing of work with members of the little clique of 'approved contractors' rather than free volunteers..

 

Just as the private disposal of NB RUSSIA to a narrow clique of 'approved bidders' seems to suggest the same.

 

It stinks.

[James Owen]

You're right Laurence, CRT do not want skilled, equipped volunteers...put simply, they are too much of a liability.

 

Sell up, move on and stop whining about it.

[churchward]

I agree that just many private trusts, companies and charities of all sorts use volunteer labour in many roles. However, last time I wanted to play at doing anything even semi-skilled connected with operating a heritage railway, I had to undergo their training course, or I wouldn't be allowed to even use the ticket machine or tea urn, and even if I bought my own locomotive, I'd not be allowed to use it until both it and I had passed muster and been signed off as being safe or qualified. It was a close call whether I was to be allowed to use kango hammer to ram in some ballast under supervision. I'd say that CRT are in the same position as the heritage railways in that even semi-skilled jobs have to be signed off as being done by someone capable, with a paper trail to prove it. I gather BW were quite lax about such things. They may also be worrying about things like listed building works, which have to be approved by English Heritage who have their own rules about who's allowed to hack wood about and lay bricks and stones.

 

All the problems can be overcome in time, I'm sure, but CRT are at the bottom of a steep learning curve here, as the management has changed greatly in the last couple of years.

I agree you can't just let someone turn up and do what they like. No one has said or implied otherwise. I as a heritage Signalman have had to train pass an exam and be re examined every two years to be able to operate the signalbox.

 

I would also take issue with your use of the word "playing" in the end that is exactly what it is not. The work has to be done right whether you pay someone to do it or you get a volunteer. Just because you may enjoy the exercise doesn't make it "playing". In my case I don't play at operating trains it is all very real and observance of the rules at all times is required the training and experience kicks in particularly when it goes wrong and you need to correct an issue safely.

 

However, all these things can be done with as I keep saying the will and commitment to do so. If CRT don't wish to do that they should be honest enough to say so.

Edited March 25, 2015 by churchward