Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 22:21:42 GMT
So that someone else doesn't buy it.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 29, 2019 23:35:25 GMT
Canal and River Trust Ltd are a private operator. Government wanted that. OK. TonyDunkley reckons they need replacing. If this happened what would the mechanism be? I always thought CRT were simply a stepping stone between public and private rather than full privatisation. Designed to fail It is not so much the company that needs replacing, as the entire managerial staff and executive. That would be the simplest, but despite the old BW poisonous ethos spreading unchecked once they went private, government have little to no say in who runs the company and how. They effectively ceded control for the sake of relieving the perceived ‘burden’ on the public purse. Their only control now lies with the issue or not of the grants that are becoming ever more needed. There is a way, connected with that, for government to force a change, but I cannot see the Parliamentary will bending in the necessary direction. Because the core infrastructure property remains vested in the nation under trust, government retained the power to change the trustee should the trustee ‘become’ insolvent. Quite how any company needing government funding from its inception simply to stay afloat can be described as solvent, is beyond my admittedly meagre knowledge of the subject – but if, come the end of the term agreed for guaranteed funding, the government decided not to carry on subsidising them, then steps could be taken to declare them insolvent, and the transfer clause invoked to hand control to another party. Of course, that would leave the problem of handling the non-infrastructure property through the winding-up procedure, so that the new trustees could have that benefit; again, not my field. I can see it being sufficiently fraught with consequences that government would not wish to go that route. Too few of us saw the tragedy arising from the government enthusiasm for ridding themselves of responsibility for BW, and the few who argued against the Public Bodies Bill were steam-rollered over with nary a pause in its progress. At the very last Lords debate in June 2012 before the Transfer Order was approved, only Gilly and I were in attendance from the boating community, so far as I could see. In all honesty, I do not think that I really appreciated, even then, just how bad it would get, and how comprehensively government were (unwittingly?) hobbling themselves in terms of keeping a rein on the trustee’s conduct. Looking back, I can see that I was nursing an entirely unwarranted consolatory hope that the Lords’ Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee would exert some influence as and when proved necessary. As I wrote to Lord Knight of Weymouth following that last debate: “ Any of us would be enthusiastic about working towards some mechanism whereby, in the new and inevitable format of waterways administration, the proper oversight, safety mechanisms and protections could be assured, such that the principal users of the waterways were no longer subject to the arbitrary abuse of powers that has characterised the current administration.” For all his genuine interest however, he could only reply: “ My ability to influence this is marginal . . .” In fact, as it turned out, even the Merits Committee (morphed into the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee), were as helpless, and in any event acted only in terms of examining the terms of proposed Statutory Instruments; there was no ongoing scrutiny of the bodies that were created under Statutory Instrument, as I had forlornly imagined. It makes for a very depressing history. Aside from the insolvency route to replacement, a theoretical power for change and improvement lies with the appointed body of trustees, but to suggest that they could do anything effective in reality – even supposing that they wished to – would not even qualify as a bad joke.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Mar 30, 2019 5:01:37 GMT
I thought it was quite an interesting topic. I met a young fusiast today who said he thought big increases in license fees might be a good idea. Specially referring to London. I'm not sure if he had his own boat as he was crewing a commercial boat but he did go on about boaters doing a class action lawsuit against CRT eventually leading to a boater buyout of the network or part of it. He was quite a young whippersnapper and that's me saying it. Young whippersnappers can be full of fire and drive...its life and reality that puts out the flames...
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Mar 30, 2019 6:31:30 GMT
I thought it was quite an interesting topic. I met a young fusiast today who said he thought big increases in license fees might be a good idea. Specially referring to London. I'm not sure if he had his own boat as he was crewing a commercial boat but he did go on about boaters doing a class action lawsuit against CRT eventually leading to a boater buyout of the network or part of it. He was quite a young whippersnapper and that's me saying it. Young whippersnappers can be full of fire and drive...its life and reality that puts out the flames... Very true, . . but there's still quite a lot of smoke and fumes rising from me !
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 30, 2019 7:45:59 GMT
Shall we pray for some private operators to turn up and save the day? Like maybe Lloyd's private banking who have provided the funds for the management buyout of BWML. Limehouse Basin was BWML managed so I wonder if that now means the lock is actually managed by the newly privatised BWML rather than what was the CRT subsidiary BWML. According to some notices it appears that the lock office building was transferred From CRT To BWML before the sale as was the bin store and parking area beside the Thames lock. Would private be better? Gov don't want it so I can't see any other options unless its something like IWA .
I do agree with you but what do you think the way forward is?
For some reason I think private operators will concentrate on their pockets . to be fair this could actually result in a better maintained waterway in popular areas so may not be all bad.
Canal and River Trust Ltd are a private operator. Government wanted that. And Capita is running the TV-licence scam.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 30, 2019 7:50:29 GMT
I thought it was quite an interesting topic. boaters doing a class action lawsuit against CRT eventually leading to a boater buyout of the network or part of it. Why would boaters want to buy something that along with the rest of the public they already own? The public went into a frenzy buying council houses, shares in British Gas, British Airways, etc. - it's a scramble and panic to grab what you can before the others get in! Blind greed and the usual "Fuck You!" attitude. Just like it is when a closed cash till at the supermarket suddenly opens, those behind you make a dash for it, literally queue-jumping. Shark eat shark.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Mar 30, 2019 10:25:30 GMT
Young whippersnappers can be full of fire and drive...its life and reality that puts out the flames... Very true, . . but there's still quite a lot of smoke and fumes rising from me ! I guess there are always a few who are able to keep the motivation going to fight for what they see as right... Nowadays I avoid getting involved in any flag waving/fund raising/law changing collections of individuals...I just want peace
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 30, 2019 10:40:50 GMT
Very true, . . but there's still quite a lot of smoke and fumes rising from me ! Nowadays I avoid getting involved in any flag waving/fund raising/law changing collections of individuals...I just want peace "We sleep soundly in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
|
|
|
Post by patty on Mar 30, 2019 14:52:13 GMT
Nowadays I avoid getting involved in any flag waving/fund raising/law changing collections of individuals...I just want peace "We sleep soundly in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do us harm." Good for them......
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 2, 2019 10:37:13 GMT
During the course of Summer 2018 it became apparent that, far from looking to the 'wellbeing' of their customers , the C&RT was actively engaged in doing the exact opposite. Boaters from the canals, including those venturing onto the Thames tideway for the very first time, were exposed to unnecessary and serious risk by the Trust, who were routinely dispatching canal boats from Limehouse Basin without adequate guidance and advice to enable them to deal safely with the hazards they were about to face, or taking the trouble to inform the Port of London Authority's Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) of the presence of these highly vulnerable boats and crews on the UK's busiest stretch of commercially used tidal river. This practice led directly to a number of incidents and near misses, from which, by good fortune alone, every boat and everyone aboard escaped without injury or anything more serious than damaged paintwork and soiled underwear. Not content with last years efforts to compromise canal boater's safety in the South East, this sick joke of a Navigation Authority is presently sparing no efforts in arranging for canal boaters in the North East to be exposed to similar or perhaps even greater risk by closing down the one and only suitable and safe route for canal boats from the tidal Trent to the Trust's northeastern broad canals and waterways, via Keadby Lock and the Stainforth & Keadby Canal. On Tuesday 19 March 2019 Wykewell End Lift Bridge on the S & K Canal at Thorne suffered a serious mechanical failure which left the bridge inoperable and the canal closed to navigation until further notice. As a direct consequence of this closure, every boat that would normally have used Keadby Lock and the S & K Canal to get from the Midlands, via the Trent, to the Trust's North East waterways or vice versa, is left with no choice but to either cancel their trip, or to use the next nearest access point to the canal system at Goole, which, in either direction entails nine miles of both the Trent and the Ouse down to where they meet to form the River Humber, and all of which are busy with sea-going commercial shipping, well known for their fearsome tides, and utterly unsuitable for inexperienced crews on boats designed and equipped solely for use on the sheltered and still waters of the canal system. By way of adding to the risk to which this situation is already exposing pleasure boaters, the Trust is presently operating Keadby Lock with only one working sluice (paddle) on the bottom set of gates, and were this one to fail too then the lock would be completely inoperable, and there is then the very real prospect of boats needing to get out of the Trent to safe haven in the canal being marooned out in the river at the mercy of the tides and the ships that regularly engage in turning manoeuvres in the immediate vicinity of Keadby Lock. It is high time for this now utterly discredited and irreparably flawed organization to be consigned to history and replaced by a body capable of doing the job in which the C&RT has failed so miserably and completely. Thanks to the sloppy, second-rate job that C&RT have made of fencing off the failed lift bridge, on the S & K at Wykewell End, Thorne from public access, it has been possible to gain access and for the failed components of the bridge to be independently inspected, photographed, and measured. The findings of that inspection are as follows: * The Notices and explanations issued and given by the C&RT saying that "Part of the main bridge structure has failed" are entirely false and misleading. One single component - a screw-on end fitting on the lower end of one of the counterweight hanger bars - has failed due to wear, lack of lubrication, and deterioration of the seal intended to prevent water ingress into the pivot bearing at the lower end of the hanger bar. * The lift bridge has suffered a highly dangerous and potentially catastrophic failure of the lower eye of one of the two hanger bars connecting the overhead counter weight beams to the lifting end of the bridge deck. If one of the end connections on the other hanger bar had failed at the same time then both the counter weight beams would have swung uncontrollably upwards whilst at the same time the counter weight, estimated to be of a mass of between five and ten tons, on the other end of them would have swung uncontrollably downwards in an arc, ending only a matter of a few feet above the roadway and the bridge deck. * A 5 ton SWL Chain Block onto 6.5 ton SWL bow-shackles at the ends of webbing slings/strops passing round the hanger bar pivot pins on the side of the bridge deck, and over the ends of the counter-weight beams is at present serving as a temporary replacement for the hanger bar with the broken end fitting. * The failure occurred when an excessively worn and weakened lower eye/end fitting on the counter weight hanger bar on the eastern side of the lifting section of bridge deck cracked and broke within its lower arc segment, opened out under load to the approximate profile of the two arms of a pair of pincers, and pulled away over the equally severely worn pivot pin that it fits and works over. * The extent of the wear on both the failed eye/end fitting of the hanger bar and the pivot pin it worked with are such that the pin is reduced to something in the region of only around three-quarters of it's original diameter, and the wear to the inner diameter of the eye it was working in was sufficient to have created, together, a total running/working clearance approximately equal to the remaining diameter of the excessively worn pin. * The working surfaces of both the failed eye/end fitting and the lower pivot pin were examined and found to have been operating without any form of lubrication other than the rainwater which had found it's way into the bearing surfaces past the severely degraded seals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 10:46:36 GMT
A similar thing sometimes happens on playground swings. The shackle pins at the top act as bearing surfaces and get worn right down. I always check shackle pins when putting my girls on swings and I have seen some that were worn down to about half their original thickness. Regarding the lifting bridge that is quite shocking. If the other hanger failed as well with deck raised the entire deck would fall under gravity. This could easily be fatal if a boat steerer were under it. Or if a small GRP were under t it could be destroyed. Quite remarkable in a bad way that this is not a routine inspection item given the catastrophic outcome of a failure. I still think the other one had been replaced but they did not do both maybe for cost saving reasons. Maybe my April fool closure of all moveable bridges will actually happen !
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 2, 2019 10:52:05 GMT
So ....... for the lack of a grease nipple and a man with a grease gun two or three times a year....... sigh
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 2, 2019 10:53:59 GMT
The decline in routine maintenance is going to prove fatal at some point, it's just a matter of when.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 2, 2019 10:57:16 GMT
I suppose they would have trouble finding a suitably qualified person ..... probably someone with a degree in Transport Management systems.
They wouldn't realise that what you need for maintaining Victorian or Victorian style equipment is someone good at old fashioned "back street mechanicing"
from the Fred Dibnah school of "fixin"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 11:00:46 GMT
I think the bridge is 1970s.
|
|