Middlewich Branch breach - Shropshire Union

[furnessvale]

16 hours ago, WotEver said:

But they’re only taking back what was theirs in the first place

Couldn’t they argue that they only loaned it to the river?

I know people are only joking, but the dry dock near me pays every time they pump out into the canal, then pays again when they refill.

George

[Midnight]

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/our-regions/north-wales-and-borders-waterways/middlewich-branch-breach

Here we go again.

 

[Movin' on]

11 minutes ago, Midnight said:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/our-regions/north-wales-and-borders-waterways/middlewich-branch-breach

Here we go again.

 

Remind me again......................... what does our licence fee pay for?

.................... has this been posted on cycling/fishing/rambling websites as well?

[Midnight]

9 minutes ago, Halsey said:

Remind me again......................... what does our licence fee pay for?

Poetry, art, re-branding, duck-lanes, stupid notices, F***ing stupid notices, resurfacing cycle-paths that used to be towpaths, moving mooring bollards and rings to accommodate cyclists etc.etc.

Edited to add
A great line from the re-branding press release
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/canal-and-river-trust-brand

"We understand how important it is to maintain the historic waterway infrastructure in our care and we are spending more money on that vital work year on year."

Does anyone here buy that?

Edited March 22, 2018 by Midnight

[Mike Todd]

17 hours ago, WotEver said:

But they’re only taking back what was theirs in the first place

Couldn’t they argue that they only loaned it to the river?

I think you will find that the original donor was God who loaned the water from Heaven, only on the basis that it is recycled back there after use (an no, in case anyone wondered, I am not being entirely flippant!)

56 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

I know people are only joking, but the dry dock near me pays every time they pump out into the canal, then pays again when they refill.

George

One of the better updatings that CaRT did in its early days (or was it just before) when the contracts and prices for water extraction and disposal via the canal system were reviewed. The contribution overall, I believe, is not insignificant and without it the licence cost would be higher. (It was found, I believe, that some had not been looked at in decades!)

[Jess--]

17 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Poetry, art, re-branding, duck-lanes, stupid notices, F***ing stupid notices, resurfacing cycle-paths that used to be towpaths, moving mooring bollards and rings to accommodate cyclists etc.etc.

Edited to add
A great line from the re-branding press release
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/canal-and-river-trust-brand

"We understand how important it is to maintain the historic waterway infrastructure in our care and we are spending more money on that vital work year on year."

Does anyone here buy that?

they may be spending more money every year maintaining the waterway in terms of pounds spent, I wonder whether that is really an increase when an allowance for inflation is included (to stay level in terms of buying power it needs to go up by around 2.7% every year)

[Pluto]

12 hours ago, WotEver said:

Can I make the tea?

Holme Lock on the Trent, during construction in 1921.

[nbfiresprite]

23 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Does anyone here buy that?

Simple answer 'No', Last time the begging bowl was passed around. It rised less money than it cost to promote the fund in the first place. In all less than 1% was raised. 

Edited March 22, 2018 by nbfiresprite

[WotEver]

1 minute ago, Pluto said:

Holme Lock on the Trent, during construction in 1921.

Where was the kettle?

[Mike Todd]

4 minutes ago, Jess-- said:

they may be spending more money every year maintaining the waterway in terms of pounds spent, I wonder whether that is really an increase when an allowance for inflation is included (to stay level in terms of buying power it needs to go up by around 2.7% every year)

Same when the gov claim to be spending more on schools, police and NHS year on year.

[alan_fincher]

24 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Poetry, art, re-branding, duck-lanes, stupid notices, F***ing stupid notices, resurfacing cycle-paths that used to be towpaths, moving mooring bollards and rings to accommodate cyclists etc.etc.

Whilst I share much of your frustration, very little of CRT's own funds are spent on resurfacing tow-paths to make them more suitable for cycling.

Virtually all such initiative are funded by some other body.  CRT will argue that in this way they can turn muddy tow-paths, barely usable for walking, let alone cycling, into something better, without spending their own money to do so.

As a large part of CRT's new remit is to attract to the canals large numbers of people who are not boaters, I can actually see that getting tow-path improvements at zero cost to them is highly attractive in trying to achieve that aim.

[Jess--]

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

Same when the gov claim to be spending more on schools, police and NHS year on year.

or when they make a big noise about the NHS pay rise of 6%

when you dig into it it's 6% over 3 years (so really 2% per year) or a pay cut of 0.7% if you assume that inflation stays at 2.7%

[Midnight]

4 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Whilst I share much of your frustration, very little of CRT's own funds are spent on resurfacing tow-paths to make them more suitable for cycling.

Virtually all such initiative are funded by some other body.  CRT will argue that in this way they can turn muddy tow-paths, barely usable for walking, let alone cycling, into something better, without spending their own money to do so.

As a large part of CRT's new remit is to attract to the canals large numbers of people who are not boaters, I can actually see that getting tow-path improvements at zero cost to them is highly attractive in trying to achieve that aim.

and re-branding at a cost of ??? will be funded by ?? and will improve ??? for ???

[rgreg]

To be fair, I don't think CRT are suggesting that the repairs won't be undertaken without this emergency fund raising, but if the appeal brings in contributions from folk who wouldn't normally pay anything towards the waterways then it's worth a try.

[Victor Vectis]

It's that sheeted over thing on the right.

(It's a big portable one!)

[TheBiscuits]

52 minutes ago, Halsey said:

Remind me again......................... what does our licence fee pay for?

Not much.  Boat licences provide about £20m out of CRT's total income of £185m (2016/17).

 

9 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Whilst I share much of your frustration, very little of CRT's own funds are spent on resurfacing tow-paths to make them more suitable for cycling.

Virtually all such initiative are funded by some other body.  CRT will argue that in this way they can turn muddy tow-paths, barely usable for walking, let alone cycling, into something better, without spending their own money to do so.

As a large part of CRT's new remit is to attract to the canals large numbers of people who are not boaters, I can actually see that getting tow-path improvements at zero cost to them is highly attractive in trying to achieve that aim.

Absolutely spot on Alan.  

My only complaint with the towpath upgrades is the lack of mooring provision when they go edge-to-edge with tarmac or concrete and do not provide rings or bollards.  Goat chains work well if there is something to hook them round, but this is not always the case.

[kawaton]

20 minutes ago, rgreg said:

To be fair, I don't think CRT are suggesting that the repairs won't be undertaken without this emergency fund raising, but if the appeal brings in contributions from folk who wouldn't normally pay anything towards the waterways then it's worth a try.

Well I have shared on my Facebook page in the hope that walkers, cyclists etc who appreciate our canals, and don't contribute in any way can help if they wish.  Doubt most will.

I don't currently have a boat, and so don't pay a license fee. I have made a donation as I want to give a little back

[alan_fincher]

46 minutes ago, Midnight said:

and re-branding at a cost of ??? will be funded by ?? and will improve ??? for ???

That was not what I was challenging.

I was only trying to debunk (yet again!) the idea that CRT spend huge amounts of money building a linear velodrome.  They don't!

The rebranding issue is a quite different matter, but I was making no comment on that at this stage.

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Jess-- said:

or when they make a big noise about the NHS pay rise of 6%

when you dig into it it's 6% over 3 years (so really 2% per year) or a pay cut of 0.7% if you assume that inflation stays at 2.7%

Since the comparator should be compound interest then it is less than 2%

1 hour ago, Midnight said:

and re-branding at a cost of ??? will be funded by ?? and will improve ??? for ???

According to the CaRT statement it will cost nothing in new money as it is being done over a number of years just changing the patterns on items as they have to be replaced in the normal course of wear and tear.

You may or may not choose to believe that but I am unclear where the alleged £2 million came from.

[furnessvale]

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

Not much.  Boat licences provide about £20m out of CRT's total income of £185m (2016/17).

 

 

But boating related income contributes considerably more.  Or do people imagine that marinas etc would still exist without boats?

George

[Midnight]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

According to the CaRT statement it will cost nothing in new money as it is being done over a number of years just changing the patterns on items as they have to be replaced in the normal course of wear and tear.

You may or may not choose to believe that but I am unclear where the alleged £2 million came from.

Do I believe CaRT's statement?

I would if they can point me to a marketing agency that doesn't charge for a  new logo, a printer that doesn't charge for re-branded posters, leaflets etc. a web agency that does charge for re-branding a website, a vehicle graphics company .... etc. 

I don't know where to £2m figure came from but I suspect the costs they will incur in the short term could be better spent on keeping the system available "to engage effectively with all the millions of people on and around the waterways"

[Alan de Enfield]

From 'the other side' - not bad as rants go.

 

What a bloody cheek!

I UNDERSTAND that CaRT have launched an emergency fundraising campaign to pay for the repairs to the breach at Middlewich. I say what a bloody cheek! Writes John Coxon.

Canal & River Trust waste money left right and centre, they have no idea how to generate funds and they have very poor customer relations especially with their main paying customers—boaters.

Licence fee to rise again

Boaters already pay a large amount every year for their licence. They have just been told that it is to rise again this year and that the early payment discount is to be stopped. As far as I know the only other users who are charged a compulsory fee to use CaRT's waterways are fishermen, but they only pay a token amount.

CaRT's last emergency appeal generated just 1% of he total cost of the breach repair. That was the breach at Dutton on the Trent & Mersey Canal. So lessons not learned there then!

If CaRT want to generate some funds then here are a few suggestions for them:

♦ Ditch the expensive waterways partnerships. So far this must have cost them hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds and generated just a few hundred pounds.

♦ Stop wasting money by building silly canoe moorings and ramps and painting lines on towpaths for duck lanes.Let's have a bit of common sense here.

♦ Stop wasting money on stupid sculptures and carving poetry into lock gate beams.

♦ Stop wasting money on stupid signs telling people where they are!

♦ Get rid of all the excess managers and their teams. CaRT appears to be turning into a jobs-for-the boys club.

Money wasting advisory groups

CaRT also has a plethora of advisory groups. Just to give an instance of how big and potentially expensive they are, this is a list of the members in CaRTs 'Arts Advisory Group':

Jonathan Watkins, director of Ikon Gallery, Chairman
Tony Hales CBE
Ian Banks, director Atoll Ltd, member of NW Waterways Partnership
Tamsin Dillon, director of Art on the Underground (London)
Claire Doherty, director of Situations
Mark Dunhill, dean of CSM School of Art, Central Saint Martins
Deirdre Figueiredo, MBE, director of Craftspace, Birmingham
Manick Govinda, arts admin, head of artists’ advisory services
Marianne McNamara, artistic director, Mikron Theatre
Judith Palmer, director, Poetry Society
Megan Piper, director, Piper Gallery and The Line
Sarah Weir OBE, chief executive, Waddesdon Manor, National Trust.

Freight

CaRT even has a FREIGHT advisory group. What freight is carried on the canals nowadays that it needs an advisory group? In total there are nearly 90 advisory group members. How much are they costing CaRT one wonders?

Environment

Leave environment matters to the EA, it is, after all, its job. CaRT has shown it is totally incompetent at it anyway, like dredging an unnavigable section to improve the environment for various mayflies only to actually dredge up and kill the nymphs which are the said mayfies young!

Reedbeds

More money wasted on planting reedbeds on navigable waterways that just break free and block the waterway instead. So much for the Environmental Advisory groups expertise.

Unavigable waterways

It also beggars belief that CaRT spent a large amount of money replacing the gates on a lock on an unnavigable section of waterway. Need I say more?

Cycle tracks

Which brings us to CaRTs most ridiculous waste of money, upgrading towpaths to dangerous cycle tracks. This must have cost them millions of pounds by now even though they say that they have also had grants for it. This one is that is going to bite them very soon when someone gets killed by a cyclist and CaRT are found liable in court. It's not a case of IF but a case of WHEN!

Generate funds

Perhaps they might make a start at generating some funds and start charging canoeists etc a licence fee. Also if they started charging all the continuous moorers in places like London, Bristol, Oxford etc, a mooring fee that represents the cost of housing in those places then they would generate large amounts of income.

If they charged continuous moorers in London £40 per night then that would reflect the cost of a cheap B&B in central London and generate CaRT £14,600 per boat per year. Still a cheap residence in London. If there are 300 boats then this would generate £4,38 million in one year. More than enough to pay for the breach repair in Middlewich don't you think? It would also bring in enough funds to reduce the tens of thousands of faults in the repair backlog.

Inept organisation

As a licence payer I for one will not be dipping into my pocket to give CaRT another penny until I see a tangiable effort to reduce the excessive waste that this inept organisation is responsible for.

I pay around £1,000 for my licence now. What other user group members pay to this extent?

As far as I can see the only thing that CaRT have been successful in doing over the six years of it's existence is going broke.

[John coxon is a continuous cruiser]

[Naughty Cal]

John Coxon has a very narrow minded view of the world 

[Athy]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

♦ Stop wasting money on stupid sculptures and carving poetry into lock gate beams.

 

YAY!

Alas, too late in some places. Hillmorton may never be the same again.

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

John Coxon has a very narrow minded view of the world 

Fair comment, but I do have some sympathy re the 'advisory groups' - just what does the Freight Advisory Group do ?