canal neglect

[adam1uk]

"Then there were staff costs of around £58 million.".

 

Phil, if you believe adam1uk's figures then this is where any necessary money should come from. The figures I quote for highway maintenance (and adam's) include wages of the maintenance staff. There is no way we should be spending more on maintaining the canal system than the county roads network. There is no need for more money. BW needs to be focussed on its task as a public body, charged with the upkeep and maintenance of a public asset, the waterways. Not mucking around in areas that it has no experience, or relevance. We may not get every towpath metalled (we may not want it) we might not have squeaky sterile waterways devoid of character or challenge but we might have a public body that hasn't become such a bloated, grotesque parody of what was originally intended that no'one, including it's staff, knows what it's purpose is.

 

The highway departments of most counties have now shrunk back to where their responsibilities are admin, inspection and enforcement. The actual maintenance work going out to tender on a term contract. Maybe this is the way BW should go (I can't see them privatising the lot after the railways and buses fiascos...then again) at least the costs would go down.

 

Those BW staff costs (not my figures, by the way; they're from the BW annual report), include all staff, not just those involved in maintenance.

 

But surely the main point is that BW gets invloved in other areas to make money, which is spent on the canal system.

 

There's an argument to be had about how much the maintenance should cost -- but it strikes me that a lot of canal related things probably cost quite a bit. For example, how much does a pair of lock gates cost? And what's in worth (not necessarily in monetary terms) to have skilled craftsmen making them?

 

And I'm not convinced that putting maintenance out to tender is such a good idea. After all, on the railways it's proved such a disaster that maintenace has been brought back in house.

[carlt]

Those BW staff costs (not my figures, by the way; they're from the BW annual report), include all staff, not just those involved in maintenance.

 

But surely the main point is that BW gets invloved in other areas to make money, which is spent on the canal system.

 

There's an argument to be had about how much the maintenance should cost -- but it strikes me that a lot of canal related things probably cost quite a bit. For example, how much does a pair of lock gates cost? And what's in worth (not necessarily in monetary terms) to have skilled craftsmen making them?

 

And I'm not convinced that putting maintenance out to tender is such a good idea. After all, on the railways it's proved such a disaster that maintenace has been brought back in house.

Maintenance of the railways hasn't been brought back in house, inspection and enforcement has. The actual work is still contracted out.

 

Why should BW be involved in anything other than it's core activity? Nationalised industries should be providing essential services that cost money, not dipping incompetent fingers in as many 'business' pies as it can.

 

The royal mail is the same. It's one responsibility is to provide an efficient delivery service to every address in Britain, something that cannot possibly be profitable. So it dabbles in leaflet drops, corporate mail shots and catalogue/directory deliveries, which the private providers can do so much better. So the standard of service drops in its core activity, and DHL. UPS and all the others make it look stupid trying to compete in their market. Eventually the private sector will steal all the lucrative private address routes and the royal mail will just be used for delivering letters to farmer giles on the moors. Don't believe me? Just have a look at the frank on your last Gas bill; let me guess...TNT or DHL?

 

BW will go down the same route and we'll end up with the big caterers/brewery giants profiting from BW's 'long term investment' in that market, Property developers are already profiting from the 'improvements' of bankside residential developments, companies will cherry pick the profitable bits and BW will be left with even less money to maintain the dregs.

 

All because BW arrogantly thinks it can do what no public body has ever done, run at a profit. If it's profitable, it gets privatised.

Edited April 12, 2007 by carlt

[fuzzyduck]

That'll be easy, if TNT or DHL try to deliver my gas bill, they will be invited to leave my property. and then told never to enter it again.

 

I really and honestly thought looking after the canals was BW's core activity. why the hell would we want even more fat cats raking in money at the expense of our public infrastructure? (and i'm only taking about the thin wobbly blue bits)

Edited April 12, 2007 by fuzzyduck

[Phil Speight]

Those BW staff costs (not my figures, by the way; they're from the BW annual report), include all staff, not just those involved in maintenance.

 

But surely the main point is that BW gets invloved in other areas to make money, which is spent on the canal system.

 

There's an argument to be had about how much the maintenance should cost -- but it strikes me that a lot of canal related things probably cost quite a bit. For example, how much does a pair of lock gates cost? And what's in worth (not necessarily in monetary terms) to have skilled craftsmen making them?

 

And I'm not convinced that putting maintenance out to tender is such a good idea. After all, on the railways it's proved such a disaster that maintenace has been brought back in house.

You`re probably perfectly right . However although as a taxpaying canal dweller/worker/enthusiast I would want the organization charged with running my canal system the way I would like i.e. as a well used and well maintained navigation that has historic value and integrity and no more than that , I don`t think B.W.`s brief is by any means as simple as that. It hasn`t been for years , and that is something to take up with the government I feel rather than the people left holding the baby. Don`t think I`m a fan of todays B.W. - I`m not by and large , but I think I`m beginning to understand that they can only be what government instructs and allows them to be. Beyond that - I know there are some good people in there who get as unhappy as the rest of us sometimes.

Please shoot me down gently - I was feeling quite bouyant there for a minute!

Cheers

Phil

[carlt]

That'll be easy, if TNT or DHL try to deliver my gas bill, they will be invited to leave my property. and then told never to enter it again.

 

I really and honestly thought looking after the canals was BW's core activity. why the hell would we want even more fat cats raking in money at the expense of our public infrastructure? (and i'm only taking about the thin wobbly blue bits)

 

Look at your envelopes, it's already happening.

 

Looking after the canals should be BW's core activity. What they are doing though is equivalent to the Highways agency running motorway service stations. Personally I think the waterways should be given back to the Dept of transport, at least if there's a sniff of profit they privatise it and get on with the job of looking after the roads (though I'm not saying they do a brilliant job but, considering their 'taxes' aren't ring fenced like BW's they do a damn site better job than BW)

[fuzzyduck]

That's what you get for using British Gas.

 

honestly, if they can make a profit from the pub chains etc, why not let em? What's so wrong with BW having a few sidelines that make a bit of cash?

Edited April 12, 2007 by fuzzyduck

[carlt]

That's what you get for using British Gas.

 

honestly, if they can make a profit from the pub chains etc, why not let em? What's so wrong with BW having a few sidelines that make a bit of cash?

It was the bye bye bill, I've switched to powergen.

 

The reason why BW shouldn't get involved in the private sector is because they're rubbish at it. All public bodies are, always have been, always will be. What ends up happening is the private 'partners' get lots of lovely public purse dosh, the state body pays for development, publicity, and propping it all up until it's given to the 'partner' all shiny.

 

Every time I see a public/private partnership handshaking photoshoot I see the private boss doing 'rabbit ears' behind the councillor/minister's back.

[fuzzyduck]

so what you're saying is that our public bodies usually get shafted in PPP deals. I couldn't agree more.

 

But would i want the people driving the NHS IT deal, or the railways, or heaven forbid ID cards doing it either? NO

 

BW are a lot of things, but they are a bit "fluffy" and I like to deal with "fluffy" people. which is why BT got the bullet, and I switched to the Post office for my phone calls.

 

Eugene is a case in point, if John O slagged off say Jarvis like that, do you think they'd unleash Eugene, or an army of Lawyers?

[WJM]

It is wonderful Eugene - there are so many people who clearly can do your job so much better than you - what a pity they dont get on with it then!

[carlt]

It is wonderful Eugene - there are so many people who clearly can do your job so much better than you - what a pity they dont get on with it then!

 

Public Relations? I'd rather sweep the streets with a toothbrush. I'd run their maintenance program a damn sight better though.

[fuzzyduck]

I'll do the public relations.

 

"oi youse, lay off BW, or i'll chin ya"

 

"we're doing this to meet Carl's productivity targets without actually doing anything, what are you going to do about it?"

 

"Look, executive shoe boxes are important, not like the old watery rubbish we have to look after"

 

"yes the Chairman has had another payrise, but he can dance the funky chicken, so we figure he's worth it"

[Phil Speight]

It is wonderful Eugene - there are so many people who clearly can do your job so much better than you - what a pity they dont get on with it then!

As far as I`m concerned no-one is , underneath it all ,absolutely suggesting that Eugene and his colleagues are not doing the job right ( it would be hard to blame them if they were though). Not at all - because it all depends on the job they are instructed to do . So perhaps( especially if the canal is your long term workplace , your home , the world in fact that you exist in , not just a place you drop in and out of in your leisure time or no more than an interesting or convenient alternative to a house or a hobby) it`s more the case that they aren`t , as custodians of a liesure/commercial/heritage national asset,doing the right job. As to "gett(ing) on with it then" having a close and specialist working involvement with the canal world is definately not a quality B.W. prioritize when they make appointments in the upper reaches of their company ( equally true of The Waterways Trust )- and that is not , NECESSARILY*, an issue .Besides , if Eugene is at all fazed by comments here ( and I`m sure he isn`t ), people "doing his job better" etc , he should be grateful he isn`t a painter who also owns a paint company !

Cheers

Phil

* me spill chucker may be at fault here.

Edited April 13, 2007 by Phil Speight

[GRPCruiserman]

I think we need to face the fact that DEFRA have robbed us all (including BW) of vital funds due to the incompetance/inneficiency/'requires training needs' or whatever of the DEFRA civil servants not paying the farmers on time. THEIR fine they now expect other departments (including BW and Boat Owners) to pay. Has the person responsible for not making the payments and incurring the fine suffered? No-one knows.

 

I sold my boat as a result of this as I don't see why I should pay someone elses fine.

 

I still beleive that the way forward is not for BW to cut back on the maintainence/jobs etc, and the water bill at Carnforth (apparently (alledgedly) the sanitary station has been closed for some time due to the water bill not being paid), but to hit the general public, not boaters. It is the taxpayer in general who is now paying less towards the canal, not the boat owner who still pays the licence, mooring, etc, and so it is the Towpaths that should be closed in all practical areas to non-boaters until DEFRA funding is restored to the agreed level. Imagine the centre of Birmingham, Nottingham, and Manchester with signs stating 'Towpath Closed due to lack of DEFRA funding'.

 

This would have a much larger effect than all the cuts that boat owners now have to suffer.

 

I am glad I sold my boat, although I miss the canal, there are plenty of other boating areas in the North West, and I will simply take my custom there as a result of the DEFRA cuts, I still have seaworthy craft for these locations and much boating will be done.

 

Windermere is a case in point where government legislation (speed limit) has absolutely killed a strong tourist area and people have taken their custom elsewhere; Preston Dock has a much greater number of speed boats encouraging spending in the area, as has North Wales and Scotland. Loch Lomond worked out their issues and has not suffered.

 

BW need to work harder in this issue and make heavy decisions to hit the general public, not the boater who continues to pay.

 

As boaters, if you feel strongly enough, move your boat off BW waterways, there are plenty of alternatives. If you do not, and whilst the demand for boats etc increases, and richer people continue to pay more, there is only BW who suffer, and as they suffer, the canals will end up in the state they were in the 1950s and 1960s. If you insist on staying on the canal, get used to it. Buy that plastic sheet to cover badly maintained paddles, buy a rake, and expect more closures, stoppages, and lack of facilities. We've already lost a sanitary station at Carnforth on The Lancaster which was only bought a few years ago. Expect more of the same, and get a larger water tank fitted, you are going to need it!!

[fender]

John

 

"Fiddling the figures" is a strong allegation, I hope that you can substantiate this, or if you can not, you should retract it.

 

Licences and moorings in 2005/06 accounted for £11.4m and £4.6m respectively, which is only 13.5% of the direct costs incurred in maintaining the network year on year. So, in fact, it's actually less than 20% quoted elsewhere.

 

I can see from other comments on this thread that we are not currently meeting the expectations of all boaters in terms of maintenance on the Cut. But John, can you honestly tell me that the canals were better maintained 30 years ago than to the standard they are maintained at these days? Can you tell me that you had more miles available to cruise 30 years ago than you do today?

 

How do you think BW is able to maintain the waterways at today's costs without additional income other than that proportion provided by licences and moorings? Total maintenance is well over £100m each year. Add the figures above to £55.4m Government grant and it doesn't reach "over £100m". Where else should the money come from?

 

Eugene

 

I've been away so have missed much of what has gone on in the forums. But I was interested to see this comment by Eugene.

 

It is generally recognised that BW does throw money away. For example the Toll House at Little Venice. BW could have stayed there rent free and been imaginative in using its own resources. Instead it choose to rent expensive offices just round the corner. Now WHERE does the extra money for this have to come from? I'm sure there are many examples similar.

[mayalld]

The royal mail is the same. It's one responsibility is to provide an efficient delivery service to every address in Britain, something that cannot possibly be profitable. So it dabbles in leaflet drops, corporate mail shots and catalogue/directory deliveries, which the private providers can do so much better. So the standard of service drops in its core activity, and DHL. UPS and all the others make it look stupid trying to compete in their market. Eventually the private sector will steal all the lucrative private address routes and the royal mail will just be used for delivering letters to farmer giles on the moors. Don't believe me? Just have a look at the frank on your last Gas bill; let me guess...TNT or DHL?

And who actually delivered it?

 

 

Look at your envelopes, it's already happening.

 

No it isn't.

 

I will guarantee that TNT did NOT deliver that envelope.

[17Tomodachi]

InThe Times today, it is written that The Treasury is looking at either floating on The Stock Exchange or selling off to banks British Waterways and all the associated assets to avoid the annual grant it gives BW and to raise £6billion.

[John Orentas]

And who actually delivered it?

No it isn't.

 

I will guarantee that TNT did NOT deliver that envelope.

 

 

In my view Royal Mail have had a raw deal with the latest arrangements. They are under an obligation to deliver 1st or 2nd class mail anywhere in the UK and that includes some barbaric territories around the north of of Gretna Green. In the past it was accepted that their monopoly position would take care of the anomalies with the profitable bits of the service subsidising the loss making sectors.

 

Now it appears that private companies are permitted to operate a mail service, they will be doing very well with inner city deliveries but cherry picking the rest and leaving the RM to take the losses.

Edited May 24, 2007 by John Orentas

[carlt]

And who actually delivered it?

No it isn't.

 

I will guarantee that TNT did NOT deliver that envelope.

Of course they didn't. Why should they want to get involved in door-to-door when there is a public body here to do it. The problem is the corporate mail will still be there when the royal mail goes. The daily door to door won't. They were chucking the idea around of 'local mail pick up points' when I was working for them. The only obstacle is legislation, which can easily be changed.

 

Unfranked mail is the top of a slippery slope. The Royal Mail is doomed to either extinction or becoming what it should be, a publicly owned and financed organisation who's only role is to provide a mail delivery service (daily) to every address in the country and not to compete with the private sector for corporate business and leaflet dropping.

 

Just the same as BW should shrink back to a publically owned and financed organisation whose only role is to maintain, manage and restore (where feasible) the inland waterways transport system and dump all its pretensions to be a self financing business empire.

[mayalld]

Of course they didn't. Why should they want to get involved in door-to-door when there is a public body here to do it. The problem is the corporate mail will still be there when the royal mail goes. The daily door to door won't. They were chucking the idea around of 'local mail pick up points' when I was working for them. The only obstacle is legislation, which can easily be changed.

 

Some of the other providers are looking to do delivery in urban centres, so RM will be left with 11p an item for the difficult to deliver stuff.

 

Unfranked mail is the top of a slippery slope. The Royal Mail is doomed to either extinction or becoming what it should be, a publicly owned and financed organisation who's only role is to provide a mail delivery service (daily) to every address in the country and not to compete with the private sector for corporate business and leaflet dropping.

 

In which case, I need a new job, because it isn't going to become a publicly financed organisation.

 

BTW, prior to the recent glitch (from 2000-2004), RM was a profitable company for the previous 25 years.

[Adam]

Look at the air and calder for example as soon as you go onto the leeds and liverpool they are the old push locks. British waterways don't really care about the average boater its the commercials that they care about. Anybody noticed there exempt from BSS. You have to drop everything to let them pass. They spend loads of money on the commercial locks. They have back up generators.