|
Post by Jim on Jun 13, 2018 15:09:24 GMT
Yes anybody who reads your posts is aware of this. Where are you headed instead of Liverpool? I'd like to be able to warn the locals in advance. Tarleton, down the Rufford Arm, is a nice little detour. Get the bus from there to Southport with your bus pass, a grand day out, marine lake and fabulous pier. They might have plugged the leak by the time you get back up to the main line. There was a decent coffee shop, charity shop and other stuff there.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jun 13, 2018 15:11:32 GMT
Yes anybody who reads your posts is aware of this. Where are you headed instead of Liverpool? I'd like to be able to warn the locals in advance. Tarleton, down the Rufford Arm, is a nice little detour. Get the bus from there to Southport with your bus pass, a grand day out, marine lake and fabulous pier. They might have plugged the leak by the time you get back up to the main line. There was a decent coffee shop, charity shop and other stuff there. You just concentrate on getting your blacking done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 15:11:34 GMT
What is Richard Parry saying about it on his new Facebook account? Nothing, coz its fake.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jun 13, 2018 15:12:16 GMT
What is Richard Parry saying about it on his new Facebook account? Give us more money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 15:13:54 GMT
They need Geldof!
'Give us ya fucking money'
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jun 13, 2018 15:17:17 GMT
They need Geldof! 'Give us ya fucking money' You've hit on a good idea there, canalaid. They could release a charity single, do they know what water is or some such. There are plenty of dead beat celebrity's trying to kickstart their careers.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 13, 2018 15:47:57 GMT
So it would appear, . . and I see you're still busy spouting more of your customary twaddle over on Arseholeworld as well. How does the closure of Marsh Lock at Weston Point prevent boats getting to Liverpool via Ellesmere Port and Eastham, or Salford and Eastham ? I’ve no idea? Why would you think it did. I appreciate that you eyes are dim with age but FYI the thread was entitled “The NW is closed” and last time I looked, Weston Point was in the North West. But perhaps you struggle with the points of the compass? The thread was not entitled “Oooh good, some people are stuck in Liverpool and others can’t get there. What a laugh!” which is no doubt what it would have been called if you’d started it. That's a laughably pathetic attempt at distancing yourself from your ill thought out remark about - quote "Marsh Lock closed", when it followed directly on from the suggestion to - ''Pop out onto the estuary and go by sea. If anything, it'll be 'interesting'! ". Something else which seems to have escaped you is the fact that nobody's stuck in Liverpool, or prevented from getting there, . . unless they want to be, or they're too nervous to cross the Mersey and use the ship canal between Eastham and Salford. It's only the C&RT cursed route in and out of Liverpool itself that's buggered, . . the one that God provided and looks after is open for business as usual.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 13, 2018 15:53:43 GMT
We’re coming up your way. Be warned. I doubt it as you don't know where I am. Somewhere within bridge-hopping distance of Leeds no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jun 13, 2018 16:21:27 GMT
I doubt it as you don't know where I am. Somewhere within bridge-hopping distance of Leeds no doubt. Not often your right, but your wrong again.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jun 13, 2018 16:32:34 GMT
The C&RT controlled canals and navigations have already fallen into disrepair and, truth to tell, we 'lost' the lot on the day C&RT was conceived. Back in, I think it was 1968, BWB produced a report titled "The Facts about the Waterways" dealing with each canal and river navigation separately giving a cost breakdown of three options for their future - 1) Maintain in navigable condition, 2) Convert to water/drainage channels or 3) Eliminate completely. No prizes for predicting which one of those 50 year old options is going to be resurrected once Parry and Co. have finished doing their worst. “Facts about the Waterways” was actually published in 1965, and the following year MP’s were enthusiastically quoting it to ridicule those who claimed that filling in canals would cost more than repairing them. The BW Report heavily influenced the Transport Act 1968, which consigned a third of the waterways to oblivion, cut maintenance standards for another third, and minimised requirements for what they regarded as still commercially viable waterways. Even so, a couple of years later, in 1970, BW tendered the results of their engineering Report on maintenance costs, demanding more funds to overcome the arrears in maintenance to the 1968 standards. They recommended that government supply funds incrementally over the following 15 years, to achieve that goal. Government mulled over that unpalatable analysis for a few years, and decided they would get an independent analysis of the comparative costs of maintaining or destroying the waterways. Hence, in 1974, their decision to put the job out to tender, subsequently commissioning the Fraenkel report to get a definitive answer to that question. While comparison of the options was complicated by drainage, water supply, pleasure use and ecology considerations by then, the general conclusion was that maintenance was preferable to abandonment in turns of return on investment [or rather, perhaps, minimised losses on expenditure]. Neither BW nor government were happy with the Report – for differing reasons – but as we know, government eventually bowed out of most of their fiscal responsibility and eagerly seized on the nonsensical prognostications of Evans & Co as to the happy situation that would arise from privatisation and charity status, and the resultant CaRT has seized thankfully upon the statutory exemption from prosecution for maintenance failure, on the grounds of their increasing impecuniosity.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 13, 2018 22:34:33 GMT
The C&RT controlled canals and navigations have already fallen into disrepair and, truth to tell, we 'lost' the lot on the day C&RT was conceived. Back in, I think it was 1968, BWB produced a report titled "The Facts about the Waterways" dealing with each canal and river navigation separately giving a cost breakdown of three options for their future - 1) Maintain in navigable condition, 2) Convert to water/drainage channels or 3) Eliminate completely. No prizes for predicting which one of those 50 year old options is going to be resurrected once Parry and Co. have finished doing their worst. “Facts about the Waterways” was actually published in 1965, and the following year MP’s were enthusiastically quoting it to ridicule those who claimed that filling in canals would cost more than repairing them. The BW Report heavily influenced the Transport Act 1968, which consigned a third of the waterways to oblivion, cut maintenance standards for another third, and minimised requirements for what they regarded as still commercially viable waterways. Somewhere in my horde of obscure treasures there's a copy of that report that a law student/hotelboat crew girlfriend got hold of in 1968, . . which is probably what made me think that was the year the report was published. I remember those three categories of waterway that were introduced after the 1968 Transport Act. In descending order of maintenance standards they were - 'commercial waterways', 'cruiseways' and finally 'remainder waterways', the last of which, if I remember correctly, meant that maintenance and repairs would be at an absolute minimum with no obligation to maintain in a useable/navigable condition. Not long afterwards BWB published details of their vision of the pleasure boat of the future for the new 'cruiseways' - 45'-50' LOA x 6' 10'' Beam x 2' 0'' Draught . Half a Century on, and C&RT have degraded almost all the waterways under their control to something akin to that 1968 'remainder' standard.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jun 14, 2018 18:17:29 GMT
Somewhere in my horde of obscure treasures there's a copy of that report that a law student/hotelboat crew girlfriend got hold of in 1968, . . which is probably what made me think that was the year the report was published. I remember those three categories of waterway that were introduced after the 1968 Transport Act. In descending order of maintenance standards they were - 'commercial waterways', 'cruiseways' and finally 'remainder waterways', the last of which, if I remember correctly, meant that maintenance and repairs would be at an absolute minimum with no obligation to maintain in a useable/navigable condition. Not long afterwards BWB published details of their vision of the pleasure boat of the future for the new 'cruiseways' - 45'-50' LOA x 6' 10'' Beam x 2' 0'' Draught . Half a Century on, and C&RT have degraded almost all the waterways under their control to something akin to that 1968 'remainder' standard. It was worse than that Tony – there was no obligation to do anything with the remainder waterways, other than to do whatever was most profitable with them – which could include eliminating or disposing of them : - 107 Amendments as to general duties of Board.
(1) The duty of the Waterways Board under subsection (1) of section 10 of the Act of 1962 to provide services and facilities on the inland waterways owned or managed by them shall extend only to the commercial waterways and cruising waterways.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Board—
(a) to secure that each of the inland waterways comprised in their undertaking which is not a commercial waterway or cruising waterway is dealt with in the most economical manner possible (consistent, in the case of a waterway which is retained, with the requirements of public health and the preservation of amenity and safety), whether by retaining and managing the waterway, by developing or eliminating it, or by disposing of it; and
(b) to secure that the best possible financial return is obtained from any asset of the Board which is not an inland waterway or harbour and is not required in connection with the provision of services and facilities by the Board, whether by exploiting it, by developing it, or by disposing of it.
(3) Subsection (4) of the said section 10 (which provides that the duties of the Board under that section are not to be legally enforceable) shall apply also to the duty imposed on the Board by subsection (2) of this section.
You were fortunate to have got hold of a copy of ‘The Facts about the Waterways’; I have been able only to find it in the National Archives at Kew. Some time I should go and take copies.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 14, 2018 23:32:44 GMT
Somewhere in my horde of obscure treasures there's a copy of that report that a law student/hotelboat crew girlfriend got hold of in 1968, . . which is probably what made me think that was the year the report was published. I remember those three categories of waterway that were introduced after the 1968 Transport Act. In descending order of maintenance standards they were - 'commercial waterways', 'cruiseways' and finally 'remainder waterways', the last of which, if I remember correctly, meant that maintenance and repairs would be at an absolute minimum with no obligation to maintain in a useable/navigable condition. Not long afterwards BWB published details of their vision of the pleasure boat of the future for the new 'cruiseways' - 45'-50' LOA x 6' 10'' Beam x 2' 0'' Draught . Half a Century on, and C&RT have degraded almost all the waterways under their control to something akin to that 1968 'remainder' standard. It was worse than that Tony – there was no obligation to do anything with the remainder waterways, other than to do whatever was most profitable with them – which could include eliminating or disposing of them : - 107 Amendments as to general duties of Board.
(1) The duty of the Waterways Board under subsection (1) of section 10 of the Act of 1962 to provide services and facilities on the inland waterways owned or managed by them shall extend only to the commercial waterways and cruising waterways.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Board—
(a) to secure that each of the inland waterways comprised in their undertaking which is not a commercial waterway or cruising waterway is dealt with in the most economical manner possible (consistent, in the case of a waterway which is retained, with the requirements of public health and the preservation of amenity and safety), whether by retaining and managing the waterway, by developing or eliminating it, or by disposing of it; and
(b) to secure that the best possible financial return is obtained from any asset of the Board which is not an inland waterway or harbour and is not required in connection with the provision of services and facilities by the Board, whether by exploiting it, by developing it, or by disposing of it.
(3) Subsection (4) of the said section 10 (which provides that the duties of the Board under that section are not to be legally enforceable) shall apply also to the duty imposed on the Board by subsection (2) of this section.
You were fortunate to have got hold of a copy of ‘The Facts about the Waterways’; I have been able only to find it in the National Archives at Kew. Some time I should go and take copies. I haven't seen that copy of it for years, Nigel, and I never did read through completely, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't thrown out. I'll have a hunt round for it as soon as I get a chance, and if I find it you're welcome to have it, . . last time I saw it the cover pages were missing but I think the report itself was otherwise intact.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jun 15, 2018 7:12:37 GMT
I've locked the poll, as I think most people who would want to vote have voted. Whilst I'm not surprised by the result, it does seem that a lot of people have lost confidence in carts managements ability to look after the waterways network.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2018 7:22:14 GMT
I've locked the poll, as I think most people who would want to vote have voted. Whilst I'm not surprised by the result, it does seem that a lot of people have lost confidence in carts managements ability. I bet you’d see a different picture on CWF if anyone fancies starting a poll there. It would be interesting to know what percentage actually do a lot of boating. That’s really the only way you can see the effectiveness/non-effectiveness of CRT’s management policies and decisions.
|
|