Jump to content

C&RT spends less on mainteance


Allan(nb Albert)

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, frangar said:

I rarely block anyone anywhere but the way the chap who posts “the floater” spam all over the Facebook boating groups meant he was the possibly first person I ever blocked. Total drivel....and if you criticised his viewpoint he wasn’t happy! 

I experienced the disapproval of having an opinion with this guy too on the Facebook boating group page !  It was his post regarding 'school children cruising pattens' proposal by CRT. 

He was not nice at all, I ended up hiding his posts.

Edited by CV32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, frangar said:

I rarely block anyone anywhere but the way the chap who posts “the floater” spam all over the Facebook boating groups meant he was the possibly first person I ever blocked. Total drivel....and if you criticised his viewpoint he wasn’t happy! 

Good Idea to block the Floater, how is it done on Facebook? I would like to flush his  Posts away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Taking the OP at his request:

One of the difficulties in analysing long term trends on costs (spend) is where the underlying unit costs change. Most users (of almost anything) are not concerned with the actual costs but the effectiveness of that spend. However, this is not so easily measured or digested down to a few numbers.

What is clear (at least to me) is that CaRT have been quite seriously trying to develop more cost effective ways of working - not always to the approval of traditionalists who perhaps seem to assume that below-minimum-wage operatives and ignoring H&S expectations are a good basis for business today. Being more costs effective may well require the breaking of the mould!

If an organisation does succeed in find a way of doing a key task at less cost then, if the overall service level is maintained, the actual total spend will decrease without impacting the users. This, surely, is a 'good thing'.

Whilst 'just in time' maintenance is oft derided (wait until it breaks before fixing it) it is not always obvious that the 'stitch in time' principle applies, especially where rapid deployment techniques are used. After all, this is what has driven down retail prices in places such as supermarkets. In this example, stock is not held on shelves in great quantities just because there is a monthly delivery schedule but re-filled on a few hours notice.

It could well be the case that with canals, having rapid deployment and good on-site assessment can result in a lower costs with no, or limited, impact on service levels. after all, canals have always broken down from time to time! Assets with a long life can either be replaced on a schedule (like light bulbs used to be) or left until failure. In the former case it is quite possible that there is considerable 'wastage' whilst just-in-time might mean a rise in service interruptions (although that is not guaranteed). In today's society, perceived wastage is a growing target for adverse comment. (The reason that supermarkets have got into the habit of disposing of short dated food is almost certainly that they calculated it to be the cheapest way of meeting demanded service level but they are now discovering new markets for stuff once unused - I do tend to look for good deals on wonk foods!)

I have certainly noticed this year a significant increase in the number of times that stoppage notices refer to reviews that mean that things are done differently, or deferred, or brought forward, in the light of on-site assessment rather than blindly going ahead with a stoppage that was planned two years ago. To me this is, at least prima facie, a good sign as it shows that CaRT are trying hard to use modern techniques in maintaining a ancient asset! Just one example can be found on a recent thread regarding soil injection technology. The use of radar to plan dredging schemes is another that was not available in the past.

Whilst it is important that folk such as the OP continue to hold CaRT to task over their spending plans, I do hope that it can be done intelligently so that they are not deterred from trying new ways (some of which will inevitably fail if they are being adventurous enough) just because the 'public' don't like it. 

C&RT assume cost inflation of 3% per year net of any efficiency savings. 

To put that another way, if C&RT spent £100m on maintenance this year, it would cost them £103m to do the same amount of work next year despite any efficiency savings.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure that that is the correct interpretation? It would be much more common to state what you expect the cost inflation will be without making efficiency savings. The cost inflation is relatively easy to do as there are plenty of indices to reference. However, estimating efficiency savings is much harder, especially with regard to timing. I recall seeing some organisations who built their budget on the basis that they would make x% of efficiency savings and came unstuck when they did not happen in the required time frame. They tend to be targets with which to beat people down below. The worst offenders are government ministers . . .

I haven't seen the original material you reference but I would have thought it more likely that they mean that if they spent £100K this year then it will cost £103 next year to achieve the same result but that they hope to reduce the total costs by efficiency savings, some of which may include a reduced service level (many so-called efficiency gains are just about deciding what you can stop doing that no-one will complain about - immediately, anyway).

Quite a lot will depend how far CaRT have moved from an expenditure organisation (ie they have a given income and have to decide how best to spend it) to an income organisation (ie a more market orientation in which their income is a result of how ell they sell their product and how efficiently they make it) I have been in both at different times past and they require very different management and budget techniques.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

... they would make x% of efficiency savings and came unstuck when they did not happen in the required time frame. They tend to be targets with which to beat people down below. The worst offenders are government ministers . . .

The same thing happens in TV, I’ve seen it with my own eyes. 

“You’ll have to cut those inserts in 2 days instead of 3”

”OK”

”This is awful, it looks thrown together”

”It was”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Are you sure that that is the correct interpretation? It would be much more common to state what you expect the cost inflation will be without making efficiency savings. The cost inflation is relatively easy to do as there are plenty of indices to reference. However, estimating efficiency savings is much harder, especially with regard to timing. I recall seeing some organisations who built their budget on the basis that they would make x% of efficiency savings and came unstuck when they did not happen in the required time frame. They tend to be targets with which to beat people down below. The worst offenders are government ministers . . .

I haven't seen the original material you reference but I would have thought it more likely that they mean that if they spent £100K this year then it will cost £103 next year to achieve the same result but that they hope to reduce the total costs by efficiency savings, some of which may include a reduced service level (many so-called efficiency gains are just about deciding what you can stop doing that no-one will complain about - immediately, anyway).

Quite a lot will depend how far CaRT have moved from an expenditure organisation (ie they have a given income and have to decide how best to spend it) to an income organisation (ie a more market orientation in which their income is a result of how ell they sell their product and how efficiently they make it) I have been in both at different times past and they require very different management and budget techniques.

Yes, I am sure.

Contrary to your view, a report in 2008 commissioned by BW from KPMG found it hard to predict  cost inflation. Potential savings - well BW gave them figures. They therefore provided a number of scenarios, including a best case (a need to spend £155m in 2016/17) and a worst case (a need to spend £185m). Some of these scenarios take into account potential cost savings identified by BW (over the next ten years) others don't.

However, its a bit academic as C&RT admit to gross underspending against their steady state model. One of the side effects of this is that the number of recorded defects is rising.




 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem as I see it, all over is that outsourcing repairs and maintenance may cut costs, but it is leading to more work needing to be done.

For example, a CRT survey is done of bricks in a lock that need rebricking and grouting. The survey shows a critical area of 100 bricks. The job sheet is outsourced.

By the time the actual works take place, 127 bricks are needing repair. 

The contractor does the specified 100 bricks, the other 27 are left for the next survey.......even though BW , and CRT would have done the whole lot in years gone by.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, matty40s said:

The problem as I see it, all over is that outsourcing repairs and maintenance may cut costs, but it is leading to more work needing to be done.

For example, a CRT survey is done of bricks in a lock that need rebricking and grouting. The survey shows a critical area of 100 bricks. The job sheet is outsourced.

By the time the actual works take place, 127 bricks are needing repair. 

The contractor does the specified 100 bricks, the other 27 are left for the next survey.......even though BW , and CRT would have done the whole lot in years gone by.

Exactly, in my career I have a manged contracts with both direct labour and contractor resource. 

Contractors can do an excellent job, but only when the specification and contract supervision elements are of the highest order. (Same can apply to direct labour who often feel a sense often entitlement and become lazy if not adequately supervised).

From what I  see of CRT contractors, neither the specification or the supervision elements are up to scratch. 

Edited by cuthound
Grandma
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maintenance, or mainteance, dredging and vegetation works are done only as a grand publicity splash, (expect an exculsive soon on how they have cut back all the offside vegetation from Rugby to Braunston......hillmorton to Braunston probably just to keep the fatboats happy).

Ongoing necessary works are being neglected or not done at all.

The dredging of the north end of the Coventry is long overdue, there is no way a radar survey cannot have picked this up.

Barton Turns lock has been leaking onto the towpath for 2 years now, it was barriers off for repair 12 months ago. ..it continues to leak, how soon before the side of the lock collapses.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Maintenance, or mainteance, dredging and vegetation works are done only as a grand publicity splash, (expect an exculsive soon on how they have cut back all the offside vegetation from Rugby to Braunston......hillmorton to Braunston probably just to keep the fatboats happy).

Ongoing necessary works are being neglected or not done at all.

The dredging of the north end of the Coventry is long overdue, there is no way a radar survey cannot have picked this up.

Barton Turns lock has been leaking onto the towpath for 2 years now, it was barriers off for repair 12 months ago. ..it continues to leak, how soon before the side of the lock collapses.

The grand publicity splash at this time of year always includes national and local press releases saying how much C&RT is spending over the winter works period. This is part of the national one for this winter -

Quote

November sees the start of a five-month-long programme of repairs to England and Wales’ waterways, as the Canal & River Trust spends £38 million to restore some of the nation’s best loved sites. As part of this work the charity is organising 10 free public open days across the country, offering the chance to see a part of the nation’s ‘hidden history’ and some of our most extraordinary waterway locations as you have never done before. The Trust’s team of skilled and passionate experts, from construction supervisors, civil engineers and volunteers, to heritage advisors and apprentices, will be on hand at the open days to explain about the varied work they do.

What C&RT don't explain is why this figure is £7m lower than that for previous years ...

They also don't explain that the figure quoted is not the amount spent on 'a five-month-long programme of repairs' (i.e. winter works) but rather the total maintenance spend over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What seems to be true is revenue is up generally and specifically from boaters (licensing and mooring) and spend on dredging and vegetation maintenance specifically was £1M down from last year. It could be CRT are working more efficiently/effectively  or it could be that the capacity of staff/contractor’s has been reached so they could not spend more even if they wanted to. There certainly seems to be need for additional dredging and maintenance as Matty stated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.