CRT Winding Hole Survey

[David Mack]

Message from CRT just posted to the HNBC mailing list:

 

 

 

Subject: RE: Winding Hole Survey - Update 12 May 2016

 

Good morning all

Can you encourage boaters to complete the survey on winding holes available from the link below or direct from our website,

Thank you in advance.

Blog now online - https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/blogs/boating-team/mapping-boating-facilities-and-winding-holes

 

The form and updated list are both in the blog but, for ease;

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/27859-winding-holes-surveyed-13-may-2016.pdf

 

https://form.jotformeu.com/53123405848353

 

 

 

Dee Inglis

Health & Safety Technical Administrator

Canal & River Trust

First Floor North

Station House

500 Elder Gate

Milton Keynes

MK9 1BB

 

Tel: 01908 302505 DD Ext 3705

 

For Canal & River Trust people, go home safe – is a right, work safe – it’s a responsibility.

The Trust is never satisfied, for its people and customers, when it comes to safety performance.

[junior]

With pleasure!

[b0atman]

Staffs & Worc. winding hole at Penkridge ?

[Leo No2]

Although it doesn't show on the PDF file I am aware that the Oxford (Hawkesbury to Isis) has been done in conjunction with the IWA and the Grand Union North team as has the Leicester Line Line from Leicester to Norton Junction and GU from Norton Junction to Radford Semele (Grand Union North team only) - I'll try and find out why the 'Date of Survey' column hasn't been updated.

[Athy]

I have just read the letter. It is appalling. It appears to have been written by a civil servant who has been told that her target audience has a mental age of seven.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Athy

[b0atman]

A few winding holes appear to be missing Penkridge and Gailey in my immediate area on S&W

[Leo No2]

A few winding holes appear to be missing Penkridge and Gailey in my immediate area on S&W

 

Are they in Nicholsons? There seem to be a number that appear in Nicholsons (and probably Pearsons) but are not (probably understandably) on CRT's asset management system - that can be for a number of reasons e.g. CRT do not own the land on the non-towpath side and therefore may have no right to maintain the winding hole, there are also a number (e.g. Thrupp Wide is a good example) that are marked as winding holes that in effect need no maintenance but are shown as a place to wind and use the same notation as a winding hole. I know a little bit about this as I have been doing some work to help with this survey whilst my broken hip repairs mainly with the Oxford and GU in the SE Region.

[b0atman]

Penkridge has signs saying winding hole but there and Gailey are both old Wharves with boats moored

[john6767]

I have spotted at least one winding hole missing, and one on the list that is fiction. The list also lists some places that you can turn a boat that are not a winding hole, Hawkesbury Junction for example, but not other junctions, Napton Junction as an example. I don't think the list is very useful if it is intend to show all places where you can turn a boat.

Edited May 18, 2016 by john6767

[cuthound]

I have spotted at least one winding hole missing, and one on the list that is fiction. The list also lists some places that you can turn a boat that are not a winding hole, Hawkesbury Junction for example, but not other junctions, Napton Junction as an example. I don't think the list is very useful if it is intend to show all places where you can turn a boat.

Particularly as shorter boats can turn in places longer boats cannot!

[Raybo]

I have just read the letter. It is appalling. It appears to have been written by a civil servant who has been told that her target audience has a mental age of seven.

And a civil servant who can't spell Macclesfield (Maccalsfield) or Peak Forest (Forrest). Pretty embarrassing really for an officially released document.

Also, there don't appear to be any winding holes on the Upper Peak Forest - shome mishtake shurely.

[furnessvale]

Unless I have missed something, the entire Upper Peak Forest is missing!

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

xpost with #11

Edited May 18, 2016 by furnessvale

[Arphamoe]

Why some negativity? Seems to me that CRT are making an effort to do what everyone has been asking for - getting proper information and seeing what can be done about it.

I will contribute what I can by using the links.

[furnessvale]

I have just read the letter. It is appalling. It appears to have been written by a civil servant who has been told that her target audience has a mental age of seven.

Doesn't that fit nicely with CRTs attitude to boaters?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Why some negativity? Seems to me that CRT are making an effort to do what everyone has been asking for - getting proper information and seeing what can be done about it.

I will contribute what I can by using the links.

If you could see behind the scenes you would realise just how much CRT have been dragged, kicking and screaming, to the party, by the work of HNBC and IWA.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[14skipper]

Once again the C&RT are dammed if they do and dammed if they don,nt.

Perhaps instead of all the usual negativity you could all try and help them get it right.

 

14skipper

[RLWP]

I have spotted at least one winding hole missing,

 

Black Bouy winding hole is missing, and the one we use every cruise below Hatton top lock - that one probably isn't official

 

Richard

[john6767]

Why some negativity? Seems to me that CRT are making an effort to do what everyone has been asking for - getting proper information and seeing what can be done about it.

I will contribute what I can by using the links.

The survey does not let you correct the list by adding missing ones, nor in the case of fictional ones does it let you say it does not exist (ok you can make a comment, which I have done). The person compiling this list should have checked it out with local CRT representatives to ensure that is is accurate before making it public, that just makes common sense.

 

The actual survey has not been thought through either, why use American data format?, it asks for the "waterway" which is the CRT region, why it needs then when you supply the function code I don't know, but at least include that in the list if you do.

 

 

 

 

Black Bouy winding hole is missing, and the one we use every cruise below Hatton top lock - that one probably isn't official

 

Richard

The missing one I was thinking of is Calcutt Top lock, that is very most certainly a winding hole.

[Athy]

Once again the C&RT are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.

Perhaps instead of all the usual negativity you could all try and help them get it right.

 

As long as the winding holes themselves aren't dammed!

I don't see that suggesting that improvements are desirable constitutes negativity.

 

? There seem to be a number that appear in Nicholsons (and probably Pearsons) but are not (probably understandably) on CRT's asset management system - that can be for a number of reasons e.g. CRT do not own the land on the non-towpath side and therefore may have no right to maintain the winding hole.

I am not sure about this. Are the great majority of winding holes (junctions excluded) on the offside? Do CART not own the water and the canal bed beneath it? They don't need to dredge the adjoining land.

[Arphamoe]

Doesn't that fit nicely with CRTs attitude to boaters?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

If you could see behind the scenes you would realise just how much CRT have been dragged, kicking and screaming, to the party, by the work of HNBC and IWA.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Is it not progress, however obtained! If it needs wild horses or cattle prods, blunderbuss or stroking gently, forward momentum is better than stagnation.

[BruceinSanity]

I thought this was an excellent idea until I came to fill out the form (for Hurdsfield on the Macc, where we couldn't get 70 foot round the other week). It's a horrible form, not at all user friendly and the suggestion that the whole exercise is being done under protest certainly explains a lot.

[Horace42]

As long as the winding holes themselves aren't dammed!

I don't see that suggesting that improvements are desirable constitutes negativity.

I am not sure about this. Are the great majority of winding holes (junctions excluded) on the offside? Do CART not own the water and the canal bed beneath it? They don't need to dredge the adjoining land.

 

Athy has touched on a point that is the basis of my approach to CRT about navigation rights for boaters using winding holes.

 

As general principle a cruising license, where subject to safety and due care, we are entitled to use all the water and CRT facilities for our enjoyment.

 

The object of identifying all the winding holes to enter them on a map and list is admirable and will serve a useful purpose when complete, and who best to ask than boaters themselves, made easier now by an 'official' form that can be up-dated as required.

However, there is a basic problem looming, because although we call them winding holes (is this Wind - as in breeze or gales, or Wine -ding?) most boaters simply want to know if the canal is wide enough to turn regardless of what it is called.

 

Here's the problem, a number of places wide enough to turn have had notices put up to say NO TURNING.

And whilst there might be I good reasons for this (in the eyes of the person putting up the sign) I would argue that they have no authority whatsoever to say no turning.

 

I have no objection to signs saying no landing, or no entry, or private, or whatever, but no turning has no authority at all - and can be ignored. In fact CRT advised me on this point some time ago when I first raised it with them, that for signs to be 'official' they will be identified as such by appropriate wording - and the CRT logo.

 

CRT therefore need to clarify their position on this because many of the winding holes likely to be identified on the new map are likely to be unofficial (the official ones they know about) (and with clever legal argument forced to be excluded from the map) - which defeats the whole point of having a map.

 

Either way, boaters will need to be advised what to do if they want to turn their boat at no turning winding holes.

[valrene9600]

I guess unofficial winding points will remain as known to individuals by word of mouth.

For instance I can turn 58 below Radford Semele and also below Cape locks. It is done without use of engine by just pushing bow out and walking stern along towpath.

[Hawthorn]

I have just read the letter. It is appalling. It appears to have been written by a civil servant who has been told that her target audience has a mental age of seven.

 

And a civil servant who can't spell Macclesfield (Maccalsfield) or Peak Forest (Forrest). Pretty embarrassing really for an officially released document.

Also, there don't appear to be any winding holes on the Upper Peak Forest - shome mishtake shurely.

 

 

The curve of normal distribution will show that some of the target audience will have mental age of seven. Although I do not know if boaters fit a normal demographic, or whether there is a greater or fewer number who have cognitive difficulties, there is no reason at all to try and snipe at CRT if they are trying to be inclusive and make sure they communicate with all their stakeholders.

 

Actually it would be better if you were critical of them because they do not make their written material accessible. As matter of fact, readability is key factor in good communication, the Sun newspaper has a reading age of 8-9 years and the Guardian 13-14. The piece you mention has a reading age of 16-17. I suggest that if the letter were written personally to you, then you would be justified in feeling patronised, but to suggest that CRT should only address those of average to above average cognitive ability when they publish open letters, is discriminatory.

 

The Campaign for Plain English would prefer that shorter words and shorter sentences were used in all official documents.

 

However - good communication is best served when there is nothing that gets in the way - and incorrect spelling does get in the way. With word processing there is no excuse for that.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Hawthorn

[Pluto]

However, there is a basic problem looming, because although we call them winding holes (is this Wind - as in breeze or gales, or Wine -ding?) most boaters simply want to know if the canal is wide enough to turn regardless of what it is called.

 

The term comes from the Germanic; in German 'wenden' is to turn.

[dor]

Regarding right of use for winding holes. There is one in Waverton on the Shroppie which has a sign saying no turning. Not surprised about this one as it is quite tight and the wooden piling will easily get damaged, judging by how much damage gets done to concrete edges. I don't think the sign is an offical C&RT one, although it has been painted to look like one.

 

Where I moor is wide enough to turn a 60ft+ boat, but has an offical C&RT sign saying no turning, with an arrow pointing out the winding hole 200 metres further up. The not turning is because of damage done to legitimately moored boats.

 

The winding hole at the top of Tyrley locks on the Shroppie has a sign say something like "Turnng by permission of the landowner". I presume this is because C&RT do not own the land under the winding hole but the landowner has given permission for it to be used. Quite unusual this as many lock flights have a winding hole close to the top or bottom, for obvious reasons. I guess this one must be tied up with the original private ownership of the wharf.