Jump to content

Forth and Clyde Closure


Tim Lewis

Featured Posts

42 minutes ago, AllanD said:

What would be another way to go is the release of land at reasonable cost to promote the development of facilities such as moorings, engineering and other businesses to support the existing and future boaters on the canal by independent companies other than SC. 

A Community Asset Transfer (or CAT) in effect. New legislation came into force in Scotland covering this in either January 2017 or January 2016 – the former I believe.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Looks like good news for boaters - however every silver lining has a cloud around it.

 

If Transport Scotland 'bail-out' Scottish Canals, what incentive is there for SC to do anything different in the future ?

Another few years and it all happens again ....... "Don't worry Transport Scotland will bail us out again"

 

And how / who will monitor it ?

What penalties are applied when / if they don't meet their obligations ?

 

But - it does look like short term good news.

The attitude that "the Scottish Government will always bail us out" was why the contingency budget was dropped from Scottish Canals' accounts, so that they have no money to do the necessary repairs. I find the letter encouraging, particularly

Quote

 

 It may be used for the creation of new operational canal assets but may not be used in respect of Scottish Canals’ non-operational activity where it is acting commercially within the market.

and

 
Quote
 

Scottish Ministers expect Scottish Canals to be mindful of its statutory obligations and core public service function, and to deliver these competently. In particular Ministers expect Scottish Canals to ensure adequate funding is directed to maintenance of its operational assets.

 

which suggests that Transport Scotland will be keeping a closer eye on BWS than in the past, and will be less easily fobbed off by politspeak. It also suggests that someone in Transport Scotland has read the Transport Act 1968 !
Edited by Iain_S
Screwed the quote!
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody  know if the transport act 1968 mentions anything about how many operating  days the canal navigation  must be available, obviously  scottish  canals have a statutory  obligation  to keep the canal maintained  for navigation, but if it's not stipulated  it could mean , on two days per year or 4 days per week etc, in other words am I fighting a battle I can't win?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jokar said:

Does anybody  know if the transport act 1968 mentions anything about how many operating  days the canal navigation  must be available, obviously  scottish  canals have a statutory  obligation  to keep the canal maintained  for navigation, but if it's not stipulated  it could mean , on two days per year or 4 days per week etc, in other words am I fighting a battle I can't win?

The Lowland Canals were upgraded from Remainder Waterways to Cruising Waterways in 2011 and as such they should be open for navigation 365 days of the year. SC are not currently meeting their statutory duties as a navigation authority. It's as simple as that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Jokar said:

Does anybody  know if the transport act 1968 mentions anything about how many operating  days the canal navigation  must be available, obviously  scottish  canals have a statutory  obligation  to keep the canal maintained  for navigation, but if it's not stipulated  it could mean , on two days per year or 4 days per week etc, in other words am I fighting a battle I can't win?

Read commencing  "Part VII page 104" of the attached Act

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/73/contents

 

104.-(1) For the purposes of sections 105 to 111 of this Act the inland waterways comprised in the undertaking of the Waterways Board shall be divided into-

 

(a) the waterways for the time being specified in Part I of Schedule 12 to this Act, being waterways (in this Part of this Act referred to as " the commercial water- ways ") to be principally available for the commercial carriage of freight ;

 

(b) the waterways for the time being specified in Part II of that Schedule, being waterways (in this Part of this Act referred to as " the cruising waterways ") to be principally available for cruising, fishing and other recreational purposes ; and

 

(c) the remainder. 

 

Relevant to Scotland (Sub-Section 106)

 

Enforcement of maintenance duty.

 

(1)If, on an application by any person under this section to the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session, the court determines that there has been, in respect of any waterway, a serious and persistent failure by the Waterways Board to discharge the duty imposed on them by—

 

(a)subsection (1) of section 105 of this Act; or (b)any order made under subsection (3) of that section, the court may, subject to the provisions of this section, require the Board to remedy that failure; but, save as aforesaid, neither the said subsection (1) nor any order under the said subsection (3) shall be construed as imposing any duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court to which the Board would not otherwise be subject.

 

(Read on in the Act (Section 106) for the rest of the Sanctions that can be applied to BW Scotland).

 

 

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be easier for SC (volunteers and finances) if they let people operate the locks/bridges themselves? But only after a short training session. I only mention the training as I remember you guys saying that the locks were pretty dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ronnietucker said:

Wouldn't it be easier for SC (volunteers and finances) if they let people operate the locks/bridges themselves? But only after a short training session. I only mention the training as I remember you guys saying that the locks were pretty dangerous.

Some boaters have been trained to operate Locks 17–20 on the eastern side of the summit pound Ronnie but they are pussycats when compared to Locks 21–38 on the western side : Maryhill to Bowling.

Take five large friends with you and a Transit van and you should stand a reasonable chance of getting up to Glasgow and back down to Bowling. Have one handle the bow rope for you while you steer and handle the stern rope. The remaining bodies and van you may well have to deploy to crack open the bottom gates when you descend, as water is often weiring over the top gates faster than it can get out through the paddles on the bottom gates. No by-washes or ground paddles remember and Scotland is never short of water.

And if you're wondering about the Transit van: that gets attached via a rope to the lock beam and, together with four beefy blokes, there's a fighting chance that a bottom gate can be cracked open!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks up-side- down & Alan De Enfield,  next thing is enforcing it. According  to the Scottish transports Justin Huthersall, the opening times is an operational matter, he then told me he had contacted Scottish  canals and produced the email we received showing the new hour chart, starting on 1/5/18 based on 50 transiting boats etc, and in 2019 moving on to user operation.

 

 

Edited by Jokar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jokar said:

........next thing is enforcing it.

Any one (you included) can instigate action.

 

11 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If, on an application by any person under this section to the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session, the court determines that there has been, in respect of any waterway, a serious and persistent failure by the Waterways Board to discharge the duty imposed on them

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JOKAR – I've pulled together all the relevant bits of the Transport Act(s) that we've so far seen posted in this thread, together with a colleague's observations, so that you can better form a balanced judgement about invoking it with SC. Beware of the sting in the tale – the 'get out of jail free card' – that the Government might play in extremis which Iain Street posted back at #143!

 

The 1968 Transport Act and SC’s Statutory Duties

 

 

 

Alan de Enfield CWDF

 

Read commencing "Part VII page 104" of the attached Act

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/73/contents

 

104.-(1) For the purposes of sections 105 to 111 of this Act the inland waterways comprised in the undertaking of the Waterways Board shall be divided into-

 

(a) the waterways for the time being specified in Part I of Schedule 12 to this Act, being waterways (in this Part of this Act referred to as " the commercial water- ways ") to be principally available for the commercial carriage of freight ;

 

(b) the waterways for the time being specified in Part II of that Schedule, being waterways (in this Part of this Act referred to as " the cruising waterways ") to be principally available for cruising, fishing and other recreational purposes ; and

 

(c) the remainder. 

 

Relevant to Scotland (Sub-Section 106)

 

Enforcement of maintenance duty.

 

(1) If, on an application by any person under this section to the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session, the court determines that there has been, in respect of any waterway, a serious and persistent failure by the Waterways Board to discharge the duty imposed on them by—

 

(a)subsection (1) of section 105 of this Act; or (b)any order made under subsection (3) of that section, the court may, subject to the provisions of this section, require the Board to remedy that failure; but, save as aforesaid, neither the said subsection (1) nor any order under the said subsection (3) shall be construed as imposing any duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court to which the Board would not otherwise be subject.

 

(Read on in the Act (Section 106) for the rest of the Sanctions that can be applied to BW Scotland).

 

Richard Davies

You also need to look at section 105 which uses the words “general availability”. I suspect that lawyers would tell you (for a fee) that this can only be interpreted by the Courts. The plain English meaning of “general availability” seems to me to be a bit more than 1 day a week.

 

105 Maintenance of the Board’s waterways.

(1)With a view to securing the general availability of the commercial and cruising waterways for public use, it shall be the duty of the Waterways Board, subject to the provisions of this section—

(a)to maintain the commercial waterways in a suitable condition ……

(b)to maintain the cruising waterways in a suitable condition for use by cruising craft,  . . . .

 

But watch out, Iain Street** first spotted a nasty extra provision in the 1968 Act to allow Ministers to sign a certificate saying that any obligation imposed by a Court might cost too much and that they are considering making an Order (which would be a re-classification).  If that happens, the Court may not impose a requirement whilst the Ministers are in the process of processing the Order.

 

Section 106(4) says: “ . . . certificate in writing to the effect that it appears to the [Scottish] Ministers that the imposition of any requirement on the Board on the basis of their existing duty would result in their incurring substantial expense and that, having regard to their financial position and their duty under section 18 of the Act of 1962 and section 41 of this Act, it would be unreasonable for them to bear that expense without a grant or further grant under section 43 of this Act.”

 

** Part of the millennium legislation was the reclassification of the Edinburgh & Glasgow Union and Forth & Clyde from "remainder" to "cruising" waterways. Scottish Canals therefore have a duty to maintain them, under Sec. 105 of the Transport Act 1968.

Enforcing that duty, however, is not simple, unless the Scottish Transport Minister sees fit to get involved. Failing that, it would be possible to seek an order before the Court of Session (equivalent of High Court), but it would be necessary to prove " a serious and persistent failure by the Waterways Board to discharge the duty imposed on them by

(a)subsection (1) of section 105 of this Act, ", and there is a get out in that the Transport Minister can sign a certificate stating  " that the imposition of any requirement on the Board on the basis of their existing duty would result in their incurring substantial expense and that, having regard to their financial position and their duty under section 18 of the Act of 1962 and section 41 of this Act, it would be unreasonable for them to bear that expense without a grant or further grant under section 43 of this Act." 

 

As the said expense would be paid by the Scottish Government, it is likely that such a certificate would be forthcoming, IMO.    (CWDF Post 143)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The caption to the above image should read: 'the new multiplier fitted to one of the Forth & Clyde bascule bridges'. You can compare this rather neat version with the one in my avatar. Why it took so long to sort the issue beggars belief!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, 13-10 said:

Email sent out by SC. Also on their website

Found it: 'With 50 sea to sea transits last year on the Lowland canals and the temporary suspension of Bonnybridge and Twechar lift bridges affecting navigation, it makes good business sense to trial a different way of operating this year. This forms part of wider review of the way Scottish Canals can best meet customer demand with the resources available to us which also includes the proposed move to user operations on the Lowland canals in 2019'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Up-Side-Down said:

Found it: 'With 50 sea to sea transits last year on the Lowland canals and the temporary suspension of Bonnybridge and Twechar lift bridges affecting navigation, it makes good business sense to trial a different way of operating this year. This forms part of wider review of the way Scottish Canals can best meet customer demand with the resources available to us which also includes the proposed move to user operations on the Lowland canals in 2019'.

Couldn't put it on as using my phone. Have trouble with cut and paste at the best of times?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just up a wee run to Kirkintilloch,  both seagull  trust boats out on a wee trip with some oaps other than that no boats moving but nice setting,we then nipped into my Auld berth at Auchinstarry an awfull lot of neglected  boats there, none moving again. Same senario at Bowling on Monday night, nice marina view with no boats moving, I think no wonder scottish  canals are happy to let it stay like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We walked from Maryhill Locks to Cadder today with no boat movements to be seen. 

A wonderful asset being under-utilized. 

Strolled passed some nice canalside apartments just east of Maryhill but looking onto an empty canal I don't think was in the plans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, AllanD said:

We walked from Maryhill Locks to Cadder today with no boat movements to be seen. 

A wonderful asset being under-utilized. 

Strolled passed some nice canalside apartments just east of Maryhill but looking onto an empty canal I don't think was in the plans. 

Alan, there is no reason why the Forth and clyde is not in the same league as the Crinan,the stretch from Falkirk to Maryhill is everybit as good as  the Crinans scenery and inbetween there are  more places to stop over to get a meal or drink, then the engineering like the Kelpies, Falkirk wheel, and Dalmuir drop loch. If anything the f&c has more to offer the biggest issue is the amount of weed in the water, far more boats would transit west for the best sailing waters in the UK.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Up-Side-Down said:

Some boaters have been trained to operate Locks 17–20 on the eastern side of the summit pound Ronnie but they are pussycats when compared to Locks 21–38 on the western side : Maryhill to Bowling.

Take five large friends with you and a Transit van and you should stand a reasonable chance of getting up to Glasgow and back down to Bowling. Have one handle the bow rope for you while you steer and handle the stern rope. The remaining bodies and van you may well have to deploy to crack open the bottom gates when you descend, as water is often weiring over the top gates faster than it can get out through the paddles on the bottom gates. No by-washes or ground paddles remember and Scotland is never short of water.

And if you're wondering about the Transit van: that gets attached via a rope to the lock beam and, together with four beefy blokes, there's a fighting chance that a bottom gate can be cracked open!

Problem here is too much water going down the flight, combined with no bywashes, compounded by an extra lockfull from each lock when going down. There is a similar, but not nearly so severe, problem at times on 16 to 3. The volunteers there only have bikes, no Transit, and the solution is to let water down ahead of you when locking down, if necessary. (And only when necessary; some S.C. guys get very upset if they see you doing it ! :) )

 

One contributor to this thread came up with a self financing solution to 21 onwards ; bywashes, with built in turbines to generate electricity. Missed the boat on that one, possibly, as Feed In Tariffs have been reduced.

Edited by Iain_S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Iain_S said:

Problem here is too much water going down the flight, combined with no bywashes, compounded by an extra lockfull from each lock when going down. There is a similar, but not nearly so severe, problem at times on 16 to 3. The volunteers there only have bikes, no Transit, and the solution is to let water down ahead of you when locking down, if necessary. (And only when necessary; some S.C. guys get very upset if they see you doing it ! :) )

 

One contributor to this thread came up with a self financing solution to 21 onwards ; bywashes, with built in turbines to generate electricity. Missed the boat on that one, possibly, as Feed In Tariffs have been reduced.

'Twas me Iain – and I shared the idea with Richard Millar many moons ago. I doubt it was original then. Missing boats is SC's forte methinks! Or should I say the Lowland Canals sad epitaph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jokar said:

Alan, there is no reason why the Forth and clyde is not in the same league as the Crinan,the stretch from Falkirk to Maryhill is everybit as good as  the Crinans scenery and inbetween there are  more places to stop over to get a meal or drink, then the engineering like the Kelpies, Falkirk wheel, and Dalmuir drop loch. If anything the f&c has more to offer the biggest issue is the amount of weed in the water, far more boats would transit west for the best sailing waters in the UK.  

Union is no better (at least F&C is wide), in many places you can't get within 2ft of the bank without running aground on rocks which have fallen in from the canal wall 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, 13-10 said:

Union is no better (at least F&C is wide), in many places you can't get within 2ft of the bank without running aground on rocks which have fallen in from the canal wall 

The Union is built shallow at the edges; it's saucer in cross section rather than "U". I confirmed this  when I tried to use one of the "access points" to pull in to sort out a minor problem with Gamebird. 100 yards further on, however, there was no problem pulling in at the spot where I think there used to be a wharf. If the edge is vertical, it's OK; if the edging is sloping slabs, it's shallow! ( Ignoring for the meantime the weed, which in some places prevents getting within 6 feet of the towpath :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

The Union is built shallow at the edges; it's saucer in cross section rather than "U". I confirmed this  when I tried to use one of the "access points" to pull in to sort out a minor problem with Gamebird. 100 yards further on, however, there was no problem pulling in at the spot where I think there used to be a wharf. If the edge is vertical, it's OK; if the edging is sloping slabs, it's shallow! ( Ignoring for the meantime the weed, which in some places prevents getting within 6 feet of the towpath :) )

Thanks Iain. Unfortunately on some of the vertical edges rocks from the side have fallen in, some are visible, some aren't (scout hut at the visitor mooring at Bridge 48 being one). I'm starting to get my eye in and not pulling quite so far in when passing(every day's a school day)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always wanted to go through the union, but I remember  the  story of the princess 32 getting the legs wrapped  with barbed wire, the dinghy  may be the solution, I can do enough damage on the F&C 

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.