After 4 Years Of Fighting - C&RT Settle Out Of Court

[Mike Todd]

Thanks Alan F for your extended saner view of the situation than some of the conspiracy theory contributions. Locks built from large stones are always likely to have opportunities to catch a boat, although even what were once good brick walls can be a problem, as you say, when they start to lose bricks.

 

Surprisingly (as I rarely see a boat out of water) and with nearly 50 years experience, I was unaware of the small base plate protrusion until seeing our new boat hull after delivery!

 

Our first experience of a hang up was about 46 years ago with a small 20 ft boat in the Wigan flight when a gunnel caught on the top edge of the lock - with a very small baby the only human on board at the time! (As an aside, I do occasionally have nightmares about some of the narrow (!!) escapes that we have had over the years from various causes and try not to think about just how many lives this cat has consumed thus far . . .)

 

Also, Googling for relevant pix, one of the first that came up was this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034409/Narrowboat-lifted-crane-getting-wedged-lock.htmlwhich shows how possible such things are - and probably always were. I suspect that with working boats the saving factor was that the operators were much more focused on getting through a lock quickly than chatting to a bystander or viewing the scenery!

Edited January 13, 2017 by Mike Todd

[alan_fincher]

Also, Googling for relevant pix, one of the first that came up was this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034409/Narrowboat-lifted-crane-getting-wedged-lock.htmlwhich shows how possible such things are - and probably always were. I suspect that with working boats the saving factor was that the operators were much more focused on getting through a lock quickly than chatting to a bystander or viewing the scenery!

 

One difference with most original working narrow boats, is that they would seldom, (if ever), have been built with a base-plate that overlapped the vertical sides to give a projecting lip.

 

On many, although the chine couldn't be described as "radiused", the general construction often dives at least a generally rounded feel to "the corners".

 

One thing that owners of ex-working boats now need to be aware of, is that often replacing either a wooden bottom, or a life expired riveted steel bottom in modrrn steel has been done by simply welding on a baseplate that does now project by a centimetre or so beyond the vertical edges. In some ways this is the worst of all worlds. The boats are anyway built a couple of inches wider in the first place than a modern build, and the hull sizes are often truly vertical, rather than tapering in to a narrower base plate. This means that on an old boat so treated, possibly the widest bit of the boat is the baseplate, and that guard irons on the hull side will not necessarily keep it clear of protruding stonework as the lock empties.

 

Occasionally working boats were built with truly round chines. Our "Sickle" has these, and the sides join the bottom smoothly round a radiused plate of some 9" radius. Definitely nothing that can get caught there, but generally not the kind of construction that goes into a modern build.

 

I have seen some modern boats where the baseplate projects over an inch beyond the hull sides. This seems excessive, and likely to increase the possibility of hang ups.

[Rod Bender]

2017 01 13 POST for CANALWORLD FORUM

Reference: ALAN D - Since 2007 BW/C&RT have had minimum safety standards. These include that locks ( Ref CRT's adopted 'Standard for Pubic Risk Management' Pages 66 & 67.) should be free of indentations and protrusions that can cause hang ups. They have known for years that lock 40 does not comply with minimum safety standards and also fails on the generic risk assessment for locks.

When Ken Churchill took the matter up with HSE, the Trust failed to disclose that the lock in question and other locks on the flight failed to meet their own standards. Instead, they blamed the hang up incident on boater error.

Quite simply, C&RT should fix locks such that they meet minimum safety standards. Cost should not be an issue.

Indeed when I took the matter up with CRT they provided incident records of at least six boat hang-ups at Lock 40 and later stated that “they look out for trends”. Six hang-ups at Lock 40 IS A TREND. Lock 40 does not meet CRT adopted Minimum safety standards and thus should have priority attention.

In total CRT provided twenty two incident reports of boat chamber wall hang-ups at the Bank Newton Locks flight of locks. HELLO! Isn't that a TREND which needs attention before lives are lost.

Ken Churchill / Rod Bender

[Horace42]

 

2017 01 13 POST for CANALWORLD FORUM

 

Reference: ALAN D - Since 2007 BW/C&RT have had minimum safety standards. These include that locks ( Ref CRT's adopted 'Standard for Pubic Risk Management' Pages 66 & 67.) should be free of indentations and protrusions that can cause hang ups. They have known for years that lock 40 does not comply with minimum safety standards and also fails on the generic risk assessment for locks.

 

When Ken Churchill took the matter up with HSE, the Trust failed to disclose that the lock in question and other locks on the flight failed to meet their own standards. Instead, they blamed the hang up incident on boater error.

 

Quite simply, C&RT should fix locks such that they meet minimum safety standards. Cost should not be an issue.

 

Indeed when I took the matter up with CRT they provided incident records of at least six boat hang-ups at Lock 40 and later stated that “they look out for trends”. Six hang-ups at Lock 40 IS A TREND. Lock 40 does not meet CRT adopted Minimum safety standards and thus should have priority attention.

 

In total CRT provided twenty two incident reports of boat chamber wall hang-ups at the Bank Newton Locks flight of locks. HELLO! Isn't that a TREND which needs attention before lives are lost.

 

Ken Churchill / Rod Bender

 

Out of curiosity, what constitutes an 'incident', how does an incident get notified to CRT. How does CRT 'know' of an incident? - to the extent that it is acknowledged by CRT as an 'incident' - and as such to be formally lodged in their records?

[Graham Davis]

 

2017 01 13 POST for CANALWORLD FORUM

 

Reference: ALAN D - Since 2007 BW/C&RT have had minimum safety standards. These include that locks ( Ref CRT's adopted 'Standard for Pubic Risk Management' Pages 66 & 67.) should be free of indentations and protrusions that can cause hang ups. They have known for years that lock 40 does not comply with minimum safety standards and also fails on the generic risk assessment for locks.

 

When Ken Churchill took the matter up with HSE, the Trust failed to disclose that the lock in question and other locks on the flight failed to meet their own standards. Instead, they blamed the hang up incident on boater error.

 

Quite simply, C&RT should fix locks such that they meet minimum safety standards. Cost should not be an issue. [1]

 

Indeed when I took the matter up with CRT they provided incident records of at least six boat hang-ups at Lock 40 and later stated that “they look out for trends”. Six hang-ups at Lock 40 IS A TREND. Lock 40 does not meet CRT adopted Minimum safety standards and thus should have priority attention. [2]

 

In total CRT provided twenty two incident reports of boat chamber wall hang-ups at the Bank Newton Locks flight of locks. HELLO! Isn't that a TREND which needs attention before lives are lost.

 

Ken Churchill / Rod Bender

 

 

1. Cost is always going to be an issue, especially where in-coming funds are limited. The only result if you follow your demands as stated, is that any lock affected will be closed until funds are available. Enjoy the wait!

 

2. 6 incidents in how long a period and with what sorts of boats? Sorry, but if that was over a long term and with different types of boats then it isn't a "trend" to me.

[Naughty Cal]

 

1. Cost is always going to be an issue, especially where in-coming funds are limited. The only result if you follow your demands as stated, is that any lock affected will be closed until funds are available. Enjoy the wait!

 

2. 6 incidents in how long a period and with what sorts of boats? Sorry, but if that was over a long term and with different types of boats then it isn't a "trend" to me.

I would agree.

 

To fully establish if this is a trend you would need to know the time period over which these incidents occured but also other data such as how many other boats have used the locks over that same time period.

[Paul C]

Its always going to be a struggle. The infrastructure is 200+ years old in places and 200 years ago there were the commercial considerations to go with the fact that it was, basically, the "motorways" of its day - so it got maintained to a standard. And that standard is not the same as today's health and safety culture either. Nowadays, its predominantly leisure use and some canals get used much less than others - making maintenance on a per boat/per journey basis very inefficient. If one looked logically at it, certain canals would get closed.

[WotEver]

If one looked logically at it, certain canals would get closed.

 

Let's hope we don't get one of Dr Beeching's descendants working for C&RT

[Allan(nb Albert)]

C&RT has about £750 million of assets. To do £30,000 of remedial work on, say, 1,000 locks would not put a serious dent in that.

 

Its always going to be a struggle. The infrastructure is 200+ years old in places and 200 years ago there were the commercial considerations to go with the fact that it was, basically, the "motorways" of its day - so it got maintained to a standard. And that standard is not the same as today's health and safety culture either. Nowadays, its predominantly leisure use and some canals get used much less than others - making maintenance on a per boat/per journey basis very inefficient. If one looked logically at it, certain canals would get closed.

I don't agree Paul.

C&RT has already tried the trick of suggesting it might need close part of a waterway on safety grounds until funding became available. It's still open. The fact is they have substantial assets of about 750m which they can use (subject to the Defra agreement).

The same holds true for locks where walls do not meet minimum safety standards.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Graham Davis]

I suggest you look at what those "assets" are. They are certainly NOT cash.

[Paul C]

C&RT has about £750 million of assets. To do £30,000 of remedial work on, say, 1,000 locks would not put a serious dent in that.

 

I don't agree Paul.

 

C&RT has already tried the trick of suggesting it might need close part of a waterway on safety grounds until funding became available. It's still open. The fact is they have substantial assets of about 750m which they can use (subject to the Defra agreement).

 

The same holds true for locks where walls do not meet minimum safety standards.

 

That's fine, I know lots don't agree. However I'll stick to my point, that LOGICALLY, the canal system as it is, is not - and never will be - cost effective to run as a going concern. Looking at the broader picture, its not simply a failure in management which, if things were done differently, would change it into being a cost effective operation. The infrastructure vs the use, of certain canals, is simply skewed so far against efficiency that to divert money from other (more busy) areas is not a long term solution, it would basically be a waste of money (illogical). A better long term solution might be to close certain canals and concentrate on a core network of the more popular ones.

 

Whether there's additional funding streams which can be found for the lesser-used canals, or some other way - maybe - but with the evidence today (like charitable donations so far), they've not found the magic solution yet.

[Chewbacka]

C&RT has about £750 million of assets. To do £30,000 of remedial work on, say, 1,000 locks would not put a serious dent in that.

 

I don't agree Paul.

 

C&RT has already tried the trick of suggesting it might need close part of a waterway on safety grounds until funding became available. It's still open. The fact is they have substantial assets of about 750m which they can use (subject to the Defra agreement).

 

The same holds true for locks where walls do not meet minimum safety standards.

They can only spend the 'assets' by one of two methods. These being to borrow money against them or by selling some of them.

If they borrow they still have to pay back the loan, or continue to pay interest.

They could sell assets they don't need, but that is the start of a slippery slope.

[Rod Bender]

Out of curiosity, what constitutes an 'incident', how does an incident get notified to CRT. How does CRT 'know' of an incident? - to the extent that it is acknowledged by CRT as an 'incident' - and as such to be formally lodged in their records?

INCIDENTSRef CRT's Boaters ' Handbook page 24 “If you do have an accident, or near miss, you should report it to the local waterway officer or member of staff on the bank. Your report could help to save others.”

[Rod Bender]

QUOTE Alan "C&RT has about £750 million of assets."

 

Does this £750 million include the £300 million held in reserves?

If not then surely CRT will have £300 million to spend on the waterway system.

Rumor has it CRT are hanging on to the £300 million and using grant funding, joint funding and the like until 2020 when government funding runs out. Is this true ?

 

However, £20,000 remedial work on Lock 40, with a known "trend" of at least seven chamber wall hang-ups on record, pre August 2012, is peanuts.

[Rod Bender]

QUOTE GRAHAM DAVIS - 6 incidents in how long a period and with what sorts of boats? Sorry, but if that was over a long term and with different types of boats then it isn't a "trend" to me.

 

CRT provided me with twenty two (22) Bank Newton Chamber Wall incident reports, six at Lock 40, from 2006 to August 2012.

In their correspondence CRT stated the above as "a trend which we pay particular attention to". We know different...

 

Narrowboat hang-ups plus one wide-beam hang-up. A shallow draft wide-beam, less than 23", is more likely to hang-up on the hidden ledge 23" below the water line.

 

Incident report - YER TIS...

 

26.04.2010. 15:15 Ruth Moran (RMORAN) 11125965 MoP = Boat Caught on Lock Wall

Lock 40 Bank Newton 2^nd Lock

• It has been reported that on 02.04.2010 a wide beam craft was going down into the lock & the bottom plate caught on a projecting ridge stone on the tow path side, 3^rd course to square quion.

• Crew started to shut down tail gate paddle & boat slipped off stonework

• 30.04.2010 09:22 Steve Astles (SASTLES) Phone 01606723901

• HSA has requested that a visual inspection of the lock be undertaken to confirm that projecting brickwork is not presenting a significant hazard. Email sent to MM 30/04/2010

Nine months later the visual inspection took place, details unavailable at the moment but it described a high risk chamber wall with copious ledges 30 mm deep, altogether a very sorry state. However, no remedial work was carried out.

 

Despite two lives almost lost during my boat sinking CRT did not inspect Lock 40 until 7 days later when Iain Weston declared "No remedial work required." My solicitors requested minutes of this meeting - result - Nil Reply.

 

If this was not so I would tell you so.

 

Ken Churchill

[Chris_marigold]

I suspect that CRT view is that the quicker they admit liability and pay out money the more people will claim.

If they always roll over without a fight then how long before they get compensation claims for "my boat got stuck, I managed to free it so no damage to the boat, but I was so frightened and now can not sleep" etc etc. It could become the boating equivalent of whiplash.

 

CRT could then end up spending lots of money on compensation claims which they would pass on to the rest of us boaters.

 

You may be right, but look where it leads. In this case they spent half a million, nearly all in legal fees - the damages were a fraction of that.

 

I don't believe that if boating people saw that CRT was doing their level best to correct problems on these vintage waterways and being open and honest with people, then it would lead to a spate of litigation. But when they lie and deny and cover up it puts people's backs up, quite rightly.

 

Chris

[Arthur Marshall]

 

You may be right, but look where it leads. In this case they spent half a million, nearly all in legal fees - the damages were a fraction of that.

 

I don't believe that if boating people saw that CRT was doing their level best to correct problems on these vintage waterways and being open and honest with people, then it would lead to a spate of litigation. But when they lie and deny and cover up it puts people's backs up, quite rightly.

 

Chris

Well, being open and honest doesn't work anywhere else, so why should it work with a load of bolshie boaters, not all of whom are that open and honest about their adherence to the boating laws either? Everyone sues at the drop of a lawyer's hat these days, and any company worth its salt has to take that into account. And even if the boater didn't sue, the insurance company probably would.

[Chewbacka]

 

You may be right, but look where it leads. In this case they spent half a million, nearly all in legal fees - the damages were a fraction of that.

 

I don't believe that if boating people saw that CRT was doing their level best to correct problems on these vintage waterways and being open and honest with people, then it would lead to a spate of litigation. But when they lie and deny and cover up it puts people's backs up, quite rightly.

 

Chris

I was responding to a general tone developing.

 

The policy for CRT should be that if they are in the wrong and the boater has a strong case they should quickly settle without forcing it to court as that just adds cost. Having accepted it, they should take remedial action.

Should the claim be without foundation, they should fight it even if the cost of fighting is much greater than the compensation sought to discourage future baseless claims.

Maybe this is their policy, in which case they got this badly wrong and should look who/why they got it so wrong. Again maybe that is what they are doing, but we will never get willing told.

[Graham Davis]

QUOTE GRAHAM DAVIS - 6 incidents in how long a period and with what sorts of boats? Sorry, but if that was over a long term and with different types of boats then it isn't a "trend" to me.

 

CRT provided me with twenty two (22) Bank Newton Chamber Wall incident reports, six at Lock 40, from 2006 to August 2012.

In their correspondence CRT stated the above as "a trend which we pay particular attention to". We know different...

 

Narrowboat hang-ups plus one wide-beam hang-up. A shallow draft wide-beam, less than 23", is more likely to hang-up on the hidden ledge 23" below the water line.

 

Incident report - YER TIS...

 

26.04.2010. 15:15 Ruth Moran (RMORAN) 11125965 MoP = Boat Caught on Lock Wall

Lock 40 Bank Newton 2^nd Lock

• It has been reported that on 02.04.2010 a wide beam craft was going down into the lock & the bottom plate caught on a projecting ridge stone on the tow path side, 3^rd course to square quion.

• Crew started to shut down tail gate paddle & boat slipped off stonework

• 30.04.2010 09:22 Steve Astles (SASTLES) Phone 01606723901

• HSA has requested that a visual inspection of the lock be undertaken to confirm that projecting brickwork is not presenting a significant hazard. Email sent to MM 30/04/2010

Nine months later the visual inspection took place, details unavailable at the moment but it described a high risk chamber wall with copious ledges 30 mm deep, altogether a very sorry state. However, no remedial work was carried out.

 

Despite two lives almost lost during my boat sinking CRT did not inspect Lock 40 until 7 days later when Iain Weston declared "No remedial work required." My solicitors requested minutes of this meeting - result - Nil Reply.

 

If this was not so I would tell you so.

 

Ken Churchill

 

6 "incidents" over a period of 6 years certainly does not show a "trend" to me, especially when you consider how many other boats will have used the lock in that period.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I suggest you look at what those "assets" are. They are certainly NOT cash.

I know what most of the assets are - property.

 

Last year C&RT sold 75 properties for a total of £27m which could have been used to fix locks that do not conform to minimum safety standards.

[Chris_marigold]

Well, being open and honest doesn't work anywhere else, so why should it work with a load of bolshie boaters, not all of whom are that open and honest about their adherence to the boating laws either? Everyone sues at the drop of a lawyer's hat these days, and any company worth its salt has to take that into account. And even if the boater didn't sue, the insurance company probably would.

 

In my experience bolshie boaters are quite capable of emptying a full elsan over your boat when they're annoyed but most of them couldn't run a successful lawsuit.

[Arthur Marshall]

 

In my experience bolshie boaters are quite capable of emptying a full elsan over your boat when they're annoyed but most of them couldn't run a successful lawsuit.

You obviously haven't run into Nigel Moore or Tony Dunkley yet...we aren't all as thick as gangplanks. I've met boat owners who are solicitors, doctors, sundry businessmen and admittedly one or two as well who seem to struggle with which end of the boat goes in front.

[MtB]

Thank you for posting the photos. I doubt Tom Rolt would have considered the lock so dangerous it needs £20k spending on it.

 

My personal view it the canals are a derelict infrastructure pressed back into use by interested amateurs, and as such are going to be riven with minor risks such as lock walls with ledges. I use them at my own risk.

 

I'm just wondering about starting a poll to see how many here think the lock should be closed until the sides can be straightened, and how many think it should be left as it is.

[Chris_marigold]

You obviously haven't run into Nigel Moore or Tony Dunkley yet...we aren't all as thick as gangplanks. I've met boat owners who are solicitors, doctors, sundry businessmen and admittedly one or two as well who seem to struggle with which end of the boat goes in front.

 

That wasn't my point. I think I can count 3 lawyers among my liveaboard friends - one of them is (was) a barrister. But they weren't the bolshy ones!

 

Chris

[NigelMoore]

 

That wasn't my point. I think I can count 3 lawyers among my liveaboard friends - one of them is (was) a barrister. But they weren't the bolshy ones!

 

Chris

 

And, of course [i hope], you were not counting me as bolshy either.