Falkirk Wheel Closing to Boats?

[WJD]

My comments were made implying that to get around user operation on the F&C you would have to make the bridges fixed bridges with drop locks the only way to navigate them and if you did not understand that then it just shows that some people never change.

[Iain_S]

Yes, but that would not allow user operation, unless the users are allowed to operate drop locks.

I appreciate the problems, and that in some cases user operation may not be possible, but there are some candidates where it could be done. Leamington is a prime example, as is the bascule bridge at Applecross Street. Similar problems and concerns to those at Bonnybridge have been tackled successfully elsewhere, with restricted times for operation included in the control system. 

 

 

[WJD]

Leamington is a poor example as users can only operate the bridge outside SC working hrs. Leamington was used as a political pawn by a commercial company to get a foot in the door for full user operation which is still not the case. The inference was that it impacted on their commercial profit which was never proved. It was used by SC to reduce manning.

As for the rest of both canals for full user op it is not going to happen. 

It would be a disaster for many cruise holiday boaters who have never been in a lock before.

experienced boaters could probably do it themselves but SC cannot set a five year financial plan without at least having some fixed set of numbers for staff.

no matter the will of the boaters, user op is restricted at the moment and in the main the only group pushing for it are commercial.

Should not bother you Ian if you are spending more time on the English canals anyway.

 

[Iain_S]

Leamington could easily be made more user friendly by replacing the current keys arrangement with magnetic locks and detectors as is commonly done on bridges "down south". It can only be operated by SOME users outwith hours. Despite doing the course, I lost my authorisation to operate it, as I didn't work it 4 times in a year. (As I was normally skippering, I was on the boat  )

If the commercial company is/was Capercaillie, my impression is that they are very much against user operation. If it is/was ReUnion, there is a bridge operator in the crew, if required. 

Many cruise holiday boaters in England meet their first lock on their first boating holiday, and seem to manage OK. I would agree that the F&C locks have their peculiarities, though, and it would probably be best to leave assisted passage as an option.

I don't understand the bit about S.C.'s five year financial plan. When there is no user operation, required numbers will vary considerably from no boat movements, to 16-3, plus 3-16, plus 20-17 and 17-20, i.e. 3 teams simultaneously. Easier if at least some of the boaters can be left to get on with it! The plan must be easier without the varying demands of lock operating.

 

[WJD]

6 hours ago, Iain_S said:

Leamington could easily be made more user friendly by replacing the current keys arrangement with magnetic locks and detectors as is commonly done on bridges "down south". It can only be operated by SOME users outwith hours. Despite doing the course, I lost my authorisation to operate it, as I didn't work it 4 times in a year. (As I was normally skippering, I was on the boat  )

If the commercial company is/was Capercaillie, my impression is that they are very much against user operation. If it is/was ReUnion, there is a bridge operator in the crew, if required. 

Many cruise holiday boaters in England meet their first lock on their first boating holiday, and seem to manage OK. I would agree that the F&C locks have their peculiarities, though, and it would probably be best to leave assisted passage as an option.

I don't understand the bit about S.C.'s five year financial plan. When there is no user operation, required numbers will vary considerably from no boat movements, to 16-3, plus 3-16, plus 20-17 and 17-20, i.e. 3 teams simultaneously. Easier if at least some of the boaters can be left to get on with it! The plan must be easier without the varying demands of lock operating.

 

Ian

The key system at Leamimgton is the castell type which is a safety device commonly used in critical safety operations in many industries. It is not rocket science to use it although the training may give the opposite impression. I am sure that at some point in the not to distant future that it will be full user operation.

As for the commercial company we both know that really they are as good as one and the same as Reunion bought Capercaillie a few years ago. From info on company house they own 51%. This may answer some of the original posts in this thread. In fact the press release about not continuing to operate the hire fleet after this years tells you they are  joined but with separate boards.

As for the English locks and the F&C locks there is a big difference and I agree that some form of assisted passage will always be in place. A lot of cruise boat hirers told me that one of the main reasons they booked on these canal was in fact due to the assisted package. Although we did offer to let them join in when we were operating the locks if they had enough crew on board.

On the five year plan it is easy to set a fixed number and then adjust the number slightly based on boat movements by increasing or decreasing the seasonals employed each year.

I believe that if SC was not a quango then there would be no canal as they would not be commercially viable without the taxpayers who are pumping in £11 million a year at present. 

 

 

 

[Iain_S]

2 hours ago, WJD said:

The key system at Leamimgton is the castell type which is a safety device commonly used in critical safety operations in many industries. It is not rocket science to use it although the training may give the opposite impression. I am sure that at some point in the not to distant future that it will be full user operation.

It has the drawback of loseable parts, though! I agree it's not rocket science to use it, but that attitude doesn't seem to be shared by Scottish Canals, who believe I, for one, am incapable of operating it without practice .

2 hours ago, WJD said:

On the five year plan it is easy to set a fixed number and then adjust the number slightly based on boat movements by increasing or decreasing the seasonals employed each year.

The adjustment relies on knowing the number of boat movements a year in advance! If the number of seasonals in based on boat movements in the previous year, compromises have to be made on busy days. (As Tuesday to Thursday Locks 21 - 38! )

 

2 hours ago, WJD said:

I believe that if SC was not a quango then there would be no canal as they would not be commercially viable without the taxpayers who are pumping in £11 million a year at present. 

I agree, and CaRT are in the same position. Many of the taxpayers gain benefit from the canals by walking, cycling, increased trade, etc. 

[Up-Side-Down]

6 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

It has the drawback of loseable parts, though! I agree it's not rocket science to use it, but that attitude doesn't seem to be shared by Scottish Canals, who believe I, for one, am incapable of operating it without practice .

The adjustment relies on knowing the number of boat movements a year in advance! If the number of seasonals in based on boat movements in the previous year, compromises have to be made on busy days. (As Tuesday to Thursday Locks 21 - 38! )

 

I agree, and CaRT are in the same position. Many of the taxpayers gain benefit from the canals by walking, cycling, increased trade, etc. 

Locks 21 – 38:

Compromises and CHARGES! SC have brought back the charging regime for use Tuesday to Thursday, currently set at £60 per passage. They have even set about claiming it retrospectively on a couple boats that recently travelled mid-week. 

This is quite separate from the transit fee charged on blue water boats travelling from the Firth of Forth to the Firth of Clyde or vice versa and is being applied to Lowland Canals licence holders.

[WJD]

3 hours ago, WJD said:

Ian

The key system at Leamimgton is the castell type which is a safety device commonly used in critical safety operations in many industries. It is not rocket science to use it although the training may give the opposite impression. I am sure that at some point in the not to distant future that it will be full user operation.

As for the commercial company we both know that really they are as good as one and the same as Reunion bought Capercaillie a few years ago. From info on company house they own 51%. This may answer some of the original posts in this thread. In fact the press release about not continuing to operate the hire fleet after this years tells you they are  joined but with separate boards.

As for the English locks and the F&C locks there is a big difference and I agree that some form of assisted passage will always be in place. A lot of cruise boat hirers told me that one of the main reasons they booked on these canal was in fact due to the assisted package. Although we did offer to let them join in when we were operating the locks if they had enough crew on board.

On the five year plan it is easy to set a fixed number and then adjust the number slightly based on boat movements by increasing or decreasing the seasonals employed each year.

I believe that if SC was not a quango then there would be no canal as they would not be commercially viable without the taxpayers who are pumping in £11 million a year at present. 

 

 

 

 

30 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

It has the drawback of loseable parts, though! I agree it's not rocket science to use it, but that attitude doesn't seem to be shared by Scottish Canals, who believe I, for one, am incapable of operating it without practice .

The adjustment relies on knowing the number of boat movements a year in advance! If the number of seasonals in based on boat movements in the previous year, compromises have to be made on busy days. (As Tuesday to Thursday Locks 21 - 38! )

 

I agree, and CaRT are in the same position. Many of the taxpayers gain benefit from the canals by walking, cycling, increased trade, etc. 

You have a point about loseable parts, but the main key is the master and there is a spare set always. If one is lost it is replaced immediately. Not same day but quick enough. If no keys available then bridge would revert to manual operation by SC so no disruption to traffic. It is a very easy bridge to operate. There are always the complications of pedestrians and of course cyclists who may object to it being opened as they have in the past. Maybe something that a boater does not want to deal with. Anyway I am sure that it will change in the future. Dont think that the present key operation will change, but you will be left with a situation same as at present that if the bridge fails for some reason, you require to calll SC for assistance. You dont have and will never have access to the bridge main control panels on any bridge.

As for the manning it is done on the previous years boat movements, not the next years ones. And you are right if the traffic increases then the manning is stretched. Although there is provision for SC to offer short term contracts to increase seasonals if required.

CaRT are slightly different being a trust. Their financies are not all in the one basket as they are in Scotland. I fear that the canals cash may be reduced if austerity continues. There are around 2.5million taxpayers in Scotland and in my view if asked about where money should go they may not want to have canals getting £11MIL a year at present. I have heard the stories about how the canals bring in around £25million in tourism. Its made up. It uses assumptions rather than facts. If what we are saying is that the hire fleet and transits and boaters are generating this amount of money I just dont believe it.

The only improvement I see is for walkers using the towpath. Cyclists in some cases make it a dangerous place to walk as some incidents of injury to people and animals has proved. To make a point about figures. The reports say that over 2 million people used the lowland canal towpaths last year. This is not quite true as it does not take into account the same numbers who use it twice or three times a day. This is evident by the numbers on the towpath counters. If I walk to work and then walk back I am counted as two separate people. So many are counted double. The true number of people , not foot traffic using the towpaths is more likely to be around 2 thirds, if that, of the reported numbers.(and that is being conservative) As for trade there are not enough places on the canals for boaters to spend their cash. You will know that yourself.

Since the millenium the canals are in a worse state than when they were reopened. More boats are up for sale due to austerity and canal pricing structures.

I think we both want the same thing for the canals and the boaters, we just have some differencies in how to get there. Personally I would suggest cutting salaries at the top. You should read the annual accounts to see how much of the cash given to SC is spent on salaries and pension fund. Frightening considering how many employees there are. Just over 300 I believe. I could be wrong on this number as I have not checked it recently.

It is really up to the boaters to change the way in which the canals are run. Not as separate entities but as a collective.

 

 

 

[WJD]

59 minutes ago, Up-Side-Down said:

Locks 21 – 38:

Compromises and CHARGES! SC have brought back the charging regime for use Tuesday to Thursday, currently set at £60 per passage. They have even set about claiming it retrospectively on a couple boats that recently travelled mid-week. 

This is quite separate from the transit fee charged on blue water boats travelling from the Firth of Forth to the Firth of Clyde or vice versa and is being applied to Lowland Canals licence holders.

I agree totally. The canals should be open 7 days a week for all boaters. The days have been reduced I believe due to the number of transits reducing. However this should not impact on the boaters who are paying their annual fees and getting a part time service. With no reduction either for the part time service but actually an increase.

[Iain_S]

2 hours ago, WJD said:

I think we both want the same thing for the canals and the boaters, we just have some differencies in how to get there. Personally I would suggest cutting salaries at the top.

Total agreement from me there. In fact, I'd probably go further and cut some highly paid posts.

 

2 hours ago, WJD said:

It is really up to the boaters to change the way in which the canals are run. Not as separate entities but as a collective.

Agreed, although it would help if the top management contained more than one person with canal experience. I believe the Lowland Canal Association was described as a "bunch of troublemakers" by one of S.C.'s top brass, so they must be doing something right! (LCA, not SC!)

[WJD]

Glad we agree on these issues. At the last stakeholders meeting it was minuted that the top director does not attend these meetings. 

[Up-Side-Down]

11 minutes ago, WJD said:

Glad we agree on these issues. At the last stakeholders meeting it was minuted that the top director does not attend these meetings. 

Indeed the public sightings of Mr Dunlop are now becoming so rare that his status has been altered from endangered to extinct (although this might be regarded as wishful thinking on the part of the aforementioned 'troublemakers').

[WJD]

Every single boater, including societies and charities should sign up to the LCA. Acting alone achieves nothing and sometimes is done for self interest. As a collective more can be achieved.

[magpie patrick]

36 minutes ago, WJD said:

Every single boater, including societies and charities should sign up to the LCA. Acting alone achieves nothing and sometimes is done for self interest. As a collective more can be achieved.

I'm not a boater up there but hope to get to these canals one day - where do i sign?

On the lift bridges and locks - severe train set syndrome. The bridges may be as cumbersome as described (I'll come onto that in a moment) but that alone doesn't justify controlling the locks leading up to them. I'm currently on the Oxford Canal at Aynho, facing north, but no one is telling me that if I don't want to go all the way to Banbury I mustn't go through the next lock, I can do what I like so long as I can turn round (or if I really must I can go backwards!). It is frowned upon perhaps to turn round half way down a flight of locks, but you're not actually prevented from doing so. 

Apparently going down the Glasgow Arm is difficult because one needs to pre-book or similar (relayed to me by Odana last year) - why? No one makes you book the Welford Arm or the Titford Canal, or spend all night at the end? These are both short branches with locks on. No one stops you mooring on the less desirable lengths of, say, the BCN either. It appears that Scottish Canals want to tell boaters what they should want. Restrictions on navigation should be because they create a problem for the navigation authority, not because "why would you want to go there just to turn round"

On the three swing/lift bridges, I'm not familar with the canal and I don't doubt these are problematic, main road structures which cause significant disruption when operated (I was peripherally involved in the design of the drop-lock at Dalmuir). I also don't doubt that even getting them permitted was a major negotiation process, but technology moves on, and so does an understanding of the reality of any situation. Standedge Tunnel started out with electric tugs and no way would you ever be allowed actually aboard your own boat under power - less than fifteen years on and things have changed. Railway level crossings are routinely automated and managed centrally with CCTV and just one observer covering a huge area, which was unthinkable say, 30 years ago. The emergency services IT systems also move on so they will be more aware of what is going on in real time. Now the bridges are established there may be potential to change the operating regime, probably not to user operation, but to something less onerous. Of course, there needs to be the will to do that on the part of the navigation authority.

 

 

[David Mack]

47 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

No one makes you book the Welford Arm or the Titford Canal, or spend all night at the end?

But they do for Frankton Locks on the Montgomery, which is also a shortish branch off the Llangollen.

[WJD]

You can only sign up if you have a boat moored on the lowland canals. 

As for the locks, on the Forth and Clyde they are all double and extremely deep. These were originally built for the fishing trawlers moving from East to West and vice Versa. I may be wrong but are the majority in England single locks which are easier to navigate. There is also a good flow of water on the F&C which at times makes the locks more difficult to operate, more so for tourists and novices. Don't get me wrong, both canals are fantastic for scenery and for cruising. 

As for bridges I get your point on technology but unfortunately it costs money which is tight every year.

To be fair to the SC board they are trying to gather more cash through different initiatives but the boaters are suffering through the simple basics being difficult to maintain all of the time.

However I hope you get the chance to visit these canals sometime. You will not be disappointed even with these issues. They are worth a visit.

 

 

[Up-Side-Down]

3 minutes ago, WJD said:

You can only sign up if you have a boat moored on the lowland canals. 

As for the locks, on the Forth and Clyde they are all double and extremely deep. These were originally built for the fishing trawlers moving from East to West and vice Versa. I may be wrong but are the majority in England single locks which are easier to navigate. There is also a good flow of water on the F&C which at times makes the locks more difficult to operate, more so for tourists and novices. Don't get me wrong, both canals are fantastic for scenery and for cruising. 

As for bridges I get your point on technology but unfortunately it costs money which is tight every year.

To be fair to the SC board they are trying to gather more cash through different initiatives but the boaters are suffering through the simple basics being difficult to maintain all of the time.

However I hope you get the chance to visit these canals sometime. You will not be disappointed even with these issues. They are worth a visit.

 

 

The key point in all this, that everyone seems to miss when bleating on about SC and train sets, is that the locks on the F&C Canal (apart from being rather large) lack both ground paddles and by-washes. With large quantities of water weiring over the top gates, in both winter and summer, they require a great deal of knowledge and skill to operate safely. All the water to fill the chambers is admitted through massive gate paddles which are not covered until the lock is at least half full. Balancing water flow against the length and size of the vessel(s) using the lock to retain the craft against the lock side is considerably more difficult than it looks and each lock is different. Here I am referring to Locks 21 – 38 on the western end of the F&C mainline down to Bowling and the its junction with the River Clyde.

Contrary to what MP has stated the lock-free arm down to Glasgow presents no problems (apart from the odd ned).

Similarly Locks 17 – 20 at the eastern end of the canal, encountered by boaters travelling from Falkirk west onto the top pound, are mere pussy cats compared with Locks 21 – 38 which is why, with a bit of training, they are suitable for experienced boater operation.

Having boated most of the English canal system, both wide and narrow (and often solo) there is no way I'd want to see Locks 21 – 38 cleared for user operation. It would be just plain dangerous.

Often, in times of high rainfall, water is coming into a lock quicker than the bottom paddles can let it out when descending and more than once I've witnessed four hefty SC guys, together with a Transit van hung on the end of rope, attempting to crack a gate open! Great care is required with a 60' and above boat when going up, in order to keep the water coming over the top gates out of the front of the vessel and, when going down, to keep the water from going into the stern of the boat. A lapse of concentration on the part of the helmsman, can have unpleasant consequences – and the potential to sink a vessel!

This, then, is perhaps the only area of SC's navigational policy where we are both in full agreement!!

[magpie patrick]

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

But they do for Frankton Locks on the Montgomery, which is also a shortish branch off the Llangollen.

That's because of water supply issues, this will continue even when the Monty is fully open to Welshpool/Newtown. By far the larger part of the flow is water supply to Hurleston and thus losses to the Montgomery Canal have to be carefully controlled.

Edited to add - and the numbers using the Monty are very low as a result of the need to book. In this case of course that is partly the intention - fewer boats, less water use

[magpie patrick]

1 hour ago, Up-Side-Down said:

 

Contrary to what MP has stated the lock-free arm down to Glasgow presents no problems (apart from the odd ned).

http://www.glasgowcanal.co.uk/regeneration-projects/new-canal-basin

This may not technically be the Glasgow Branch but it is certainly an extension of it and it certainly has locks

[WJD]

1 hour ago, Up-Side-Down said:

The key point in all this, that everyone seems to miss when bleating on about SC and train sets, is that the locks on the F&C Canal (apart from being rather large) lack both ground paddles and by-washes. With large quantities of water weiring over the top gates, in both winter and summer, they require a great deal of knowledge and skill to operate safely. All the water to fill the chambers is admitted through massive gate paddles which are not covered until the lock is at least half full. Balancing water flow against the length and size of the vessel(s) using the lock to retain the craft against the lock side is considerably more difficult than it looks and each lock is different. Here I am referring to Locks 21 – 38 on the western end of the F&C mainline down to Bowling and the its junction with the River Clyde.

Contrary to what MP has stated the lock-free arm down to Glasgow presents no problems (apart from the odd ned).

Similarly Locks 17 – 20 at the eastern end of the canal, encountered by boaters travelling from Falkirk west onto the top pound, are mere pussy cats compared with Locks 21 – 38 which is why, with a bit of training, they are suitable for experienced boater operation.

Having boated most of the English canal system, both wide and narrow (and often solo) there is no way I'd want to see Locks 21 – 38 cleared for user operation. It would be just plain dangerous.

Often, in times of high rainfall, water is coming into a lock quicker than the bottom paddles can let it out when descending and more than once I've witnessed four hefty SC guys, together with a Transit van hung on the end of rope, attempting to crack a gate open! Great care is required with a 60' and above boat when going up, in order to keep the water coming over the top gates out of the front of the vessel and, when going down, to keep the water from going into the stern of the boat. A lapse of concentration on the part of the helmsman, can have unpleasant consequences – and the potential to sink a vessel!

This, then, is perhaps the only area of SC's navigational policy where we are both in full agreement!!

I have seen it, done it and got the T shirt. Locks 17 to 20 have bywashes fitted and that is why they are the only ones where user operation is allowed but only after training. I agree wholeheartedly with your other comments. For which I am being monitored through other social media. For clarity I am no longer an SC employee and have posted no confidential information or anything not available on the net. I have posted from my own operational experience and knowledge of these canals which in my view quite extensive.

[magpie patrick]

1 hour ago, Up-Side-Down said:

The key point in all this, that everyone seems to miss when bleating on about SC and train sets, is that the locks on the F&C Canal (apart from being rather large) lack both ground paddles and by-washes. With large quantities of water weiring over the top gates, in both winter and summer, they require a great deal of knowledge and skill to operate safely. All the water to fill the chambers is admitted through massive gate paddles which are not covered until the lock is at least half full. Balancing water flow against the length and size of the vessel(s) using the lock to retain the craft against the lock side is considerably more difficult than it looks and each lock is different. Here I am referring to Locks 21 – 38 on the western end of the F&C mainline down to Bowling and the its junction with the River Clyde.

Contrary to what MP has stated the lock-free arm down to Glasgow presents no problems (apart from the odd ned).

 

I can think of at several English River Navigations (and one canal) where the locks are as big, if not bigger than the F&C, and have only gate paddles, and that are user operated. I will concede I don't know the F&C locks and also that I don't know the competence of the boaters there either, however never being allowed to operate locks is a sure fire way to ensure that the status quo remains

What I can say with some confidence, because it's my field, is that a heavily locked navigation that depends on manned locks is  going to struggle to get a significant economic benefits from boaters, and that to increase these benefits one will have to increase the hours of operation, which has a cost to the operator. Given that, it's hardly surprising SC have gone for the property benefits - if I was advising them my advice would be two fold (1) sort out user operation, it will save money and increase tourism benefits (2) focus on property, because that isn't dependent on boater numbers. What  I wouldn't say, but is self-evident, is that if you follow the property you don't need to do much to accommodatee boaters. 

If you don't want the lowland canals to become a property playground, get at least out of hours user operation sorted out

[BoatyMacBoatface]

3 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

I'm not a boater up there but hope to get to these canals one day - where do i sign?

Seconded. And I have family in Edinburgh who would jump at the chance.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

With regard to salary levels - Steve Dunlop's total remuneration at SC is actually less than when he was with BW.

From BW 2011/12 Annual Report - £155,929

From SC 2015/16 Annual Report - £146,519

The above figures include basis salary, benefits (e.g. medical insurance, company car) and performance related bonus.

I would suggest that anyone researching SC top level remuneration plays particular attention scheme. 

 

[Up-Side-Down]

48 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

With regard to salary levels - Steve Dunlop's total remuneration at SC is actually less than when he was with BW.

From BW 2011/12 Annual Report - £155,929

From SC 2015/16 Annual Report - £146,519

The above figures include basis salary, benefits (e.g. medical insurance, company car) and performance related bonus.

I would suggest that anyone researching SC top level remuneration plays particular attention scheme. 

 

But these figures do not include pension which brings the gross sum quite close to two hundred grand! Call me cynical if you like but I can't see Mr Dunlop taking an overall cut in salary.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

33 minutes ago, Up-Side-Down said:

But these figures do not include pension which brings the gross sum quite close to two hundred grand! Call me cynical if you like but I can't see Mr Dunlop taking an overall cut in salary.

Steve Dunlop and most of his direct reports are members of the BW defined benefits pension scheme. Unfortunately, there is not enough information in SC accounts to say if reduction in gross salary has seen an increase in pension benefits. What is needed is Transfer Value (TV) which is not recorded.

However, if you add the amount paid into his pension pot (£47,876) to his gross salary then you do get close to £200,000.