Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2020 9:50:52 GMT
Is now the time for CRT to stop the constant PR spin and admit that they are beginning to lose the maintenance battle?
When Navigation reopened to all on July 4th I thought we needed to take account of potential water shortages when planning our cruising routes. Little did we realise that infrastructure failures were likely to have a far greater influence.
The latest Boaters Update says "As we might have predicted, despite our best efforts, the combined impact of the extensive winter flooding, the long spring dry spell, and the 2-3 months with very few boat movements, and hence almost no regular operation of paddles, locks and move-able bridges, has led to an increased number of asset failures leading to unplanned restrictions on cruising in some places."
This begs the question who was doing the predicting? Surely not those walking the towpath as they were nearly all furloughed. What best efforts ? Surely not those working from home . It must refer to the eyes and ears of those continuous cruisers who have in effect become the first line of CRTs maintenance regime. Soon there will be calculations of boaters cruising hours added to the volunteer hour contributions.
Having reread the above it seems I’m having a bit of a rant and I guess I am. There has been a barrage of stoppage notices in recent weeks and if my memory is correct, seven gate or heel post failures on the southern grand Union alone. These failures were not caused by rain or dry weather not even by lack of paddle movement these are failures that have taken many non Covid months of non detection to develop. We need to move from just planned winter stoppages to year round inspection and maintenance. To be fair to CRT previously unplanned for costs of Reservoir maintenance and the reduction of income from its property investment portfolio no doubt have put pressure on its financial resources. Now is the time to approach government for support for a training and investment programme to invest in maintaining our historic waterways, coupled with a change of maintenance regime that currently seems to hope that things don’t break despite “our best efforts”.
That the PR spin is failing is evidenced on the recent reputational survey recently published on CRTs website? The KPI of overall satisfaction has dropped in 3 years to 60% (76% in 2017). Here are some of the results that bear this out.
• The perception that the Trust is moving away from boating towards wellbeing.
• Frequent comments refer to the money spent on improving facilities for cyclists and other towpath users to the detriment of boater facilities, and the management of waterways.
• Concern that the Trust is not investing in planned maintenance. Unplanned stoppages and failed assets are referenced by many as an indication that the Trust is not carrying out day to day and pro-active maintenance.
• It was felt that improvements could have been made regarding dredging and vegetation management.
• When asked about the conversations they have with other boaters it is clear that the overwhelming tone is negative with 50% saying they hear other people being critical of the Trust and only 16% saying they hear people being positive.
• Only 35% agreed with the statement that CRT valued the view of people who boat on its waterways, widebeam owners again were least likely to agree with support was the lowest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 25, 2020 10:13:18 GMT
I thought I'd go and report a missing paddle I came across yesterday, on a lock they've just spent 2 weeks repairing, putting a new oak floor in it. I can report emergencies, litter weeds and pollution or an incident, accident or near miss. However, tellingly, infrastructure faults, necessary repairs, don't have their own designated contact. Perhaps they don't want to know, or are getting so many it's been shut down. I'll go by the emergency route then!
|
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Aug 25, 2020 10:25:43 GMT
Is now the time for CRT to stop the constant PR spin and admit that they are beginning to lose the maintenance battle? When Navigation reopened to all on July 4th I thought we needed to take account of potential water shortages when planning our cruising routes. Little did we realise that infrastructure failures were likely to have a far greater influence. The latest Boaters Update says "As we might have predicted, despite our best efforts, the combined impact of the extensive winter flooding, the long spring dry spell, and the 2-3 months with very few boat movements, and hence almost no regular operation of paddles, locks and move-able bridges, has led to an increased number of asset failures leading to unplanned restrictions on cruising in some places." This begs the question who was doing the predicting? Surely not those walking the towpath as they were nearly all furloughed. What best efforts ? Surely not those working from home . It must refer to the eyes and ears of those continuous cruisers who have in effect become the first line of CRTs maintenance regime. Soon there will be calculations of boaters cruising hours added to the volunteer hour contributions. Having reread the above it seems I’m having a bit of a rant and I guess I am. There has been a barrage of stoppage notices in recent weeks and if my memory is correct, seven gate or heel post failures on the southern grand Union alone. These failures were not caused by rain or dry weather not even by lack of paddle movement these are failures that have taken many non Covid months of non detection to develop. We need to move from just planned winter stoppages to year round inspection and maintenance. To be fair to CRT previously unplanned for costs of Reservoir maintenance and the reduction of income from its property investment portfolio no doubt have put pressure on its financial resources. Now is the time to approach government for support for a training and investment programme to invest in maintaining our historic waterways, coupled with a change of maintenance regime that currently seems to hope that things don’t break despite “our best efforts”. That the PR spin is failing is evidenced on the recent reputational survey recently published on CRTs website? The KPI of overall satisfaction has dropped in 3 years to 60% (76% in 2017). Here are some of the results that bear this out. • The perception that the Trust is moving away from boating towards wellbeing. • Frequent comments refer to the money spent on improving facilities for cyclists and other towpath users to the detriment of boater facilities, and the management of waterways. • Concern that the Trust is not investing in planned maintenance. Unplanned stoppages and failed assets are referenced by many as an indication that the Trust is not carrying out day to day and pro-active maintenance. • It was felt that improvements could have been made regarding dredging and vegetation management. • When asked about the conversations they have with other boaters it is clear that the overwhelming tone is negative with 50% saying they hear other people being critical of the Trust and only 16% saying they hear people being positive. • Only 35% agreed with the statement that CRT valued the view of people who boat on its waterways, widebeam owners again were least likely to agree with support was the lowest. It is rare for Waterways World or Towpath Talk to publish anything that is remotely critical of CRT. Well done Mark Tizzard. |
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 25, 2020 11:06:32 GMT
Is now the time for CRT to stop the constant PR spin and admit that they are beginning to lose the maintenance battle? When Navigation reopened to all on July 4th I thought we needed to take account of potential water shortages when planning our cruising routes. Little did we realise that infrastructure failures were likely to have a far greater influence. The latest Boaters Update says "As we might have predicted, despite our best efforts, the combined impact of the extensive winter flooding, the long spring dry spell, and the 2-3 months with very few boat movements, and hence almost no regular operation of paddles, locks and move-able bridges, has led to an increased number of asset failures leading to unplanned restrictions on cruising in some places." This begs the question who was doing the predicting? Surely not those walking the towpath as they were nearly all furloughed. What best efforts ? Surely not those working from home . It must refer to the eyes and ears of those continuous cruisers who have in effect become the first line of CRTs maintenance regime. Soon there will be calculations of boaters cruising hours added to the volunteer hour contributions. Having reread the above it seems I’m having a bit of a rant and I guess I am. There has been a barrage of stoppage notices in recent weeks and if my memory is correct, seven gate or heel post failures on the southern grand Union alone. These failures were not caused by rain or dry weather not even by lack of paddle movement these are failures that have taken many non Covid months of non detection to develop. We need to move from just planned winter stoppages to year round inspection and maintenance. To be fair to CRT previously unplanned for costs of Reservoir maintenance and the reduction of income from its property investment portfolio no doubt have put pressure on its financial resources. Now is the time to approach government for support for a training and investment programme to invest in maintaining our historic waterways, coupled with a change of maintenance regime that currently seems to hope that things don’t break despite “our best efforts”. That the PR spin is failing is evidenced on the recent reputational survey recently published on CRTs website? The KPI of overall satisfaction has dropped in 3 years to 60% (76% in 2017). Here are some of the results that bear this out. • The perception that the Trust is moving away from boating towards wellbeing. • Frequent comments refer to the money spent on improving facilities for cyclists and other towpath users to the detriment of boater facilities, and the management of waterways. • Concern that the Trust is not investing in planned maintenance. Unplanned stoppages and failed assets are referenced by many as an indication that the Trust is not carrying out day to day and pro-active maintenance. • It was felt that improvements could have been made regarding dredging and vegetation management. • When asked about the conversations they have with other boaters it is clear that the overwhelming tone is negative with 50% saying they hear other people being critical of the Trust and only 16% saying they hear people being positive. • Only 35% agreed with the statement that CRT valued the view of people who boat on its waterways, widebeam owners again were least likely to agree with support was the lowest. It is rare for Waterways World or Towpath Talk to publish anything that is remotely critical of CRT. Well done Mark Tizzard. I think it’s also representative of the fact that, it’s most boaters that aren’t happy with carts lack of maintenance nowadays. It isn’t just livaboard boaters anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by quaysider on Aug 25, 2020 11:22:22 GMT
I have to admit that since beginning my adventure, I've become more and more disillusioned with crt. I try my best to report problems we encounter... given the extend of my cruising, there are generally several each day but it DOES become soul destroying to keep doing it... I initially figured the more they get told, the greater the chance of improving things - alas, it makes sod all difference... as is evidenced for example, the leaking paddle at pool stock - .... year 3 and it's STILL leaking and draining over night... I mean - HOW hard is it to sort out 1 paddle ffs?
The guys on the ground - most of them DO try their best to work around bollocky "procedures" being implemented by them upstairs but they are fighting a losing battle and their frustrations show.
Then they rub salt in wounds by putting up signs all over the place such as "portage 2 mins this way" near swing bridges etc so that kayakers know what do do... er... it's a swing bridge.. if you can't fit under it, get out and carry round and then get back in... do they REALLY need signage to that effect?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2020 11:28:38 GMT
Is now the time for CRT to stop the constant PR spin and admit that they are beginning to lose the maintenance battle? When Navigation reopened to all on July 4th I thought we needed to take account of potential water shortages when planning our cruising routes. Little did we realise that infrastructure failures were likely to have a far greater influence. The latest Boaters Update says "As we might have predicted, despite our best efforts, the combined impact of the extensive winter flooding, the long spring dry spell, and the 2-3 months with very few boat movements, and hence almost no regular operation of paddles, locks and move-able bridges, has led to an increased number of asset failures leading to unplanned restrictions on cruising in some places." This begs the question who was doing the predicting? Surely not those walking the towpath as they were nearly all furloughed. What best efforts ? Surely not those working from home . It must refer to the eyes and ears of those continuous cruisers who have in effect become the first line of CRTs maintenance regime. Soon there will be calculations of boaters cruising hours added to the volunteer hour contributions. Having reread the above it seems I’m having a bit of a rant and I guess I am. There has been a barrage of stoppage notices in recent weeks and if my memory is correct, seven gate or heel post failures on the southern grand Union alone. These failures were not caused by rain or dry weather not even by lack of paddle movement these are failures that have taken many non Covid months of non detection to develop. We need to move from just planned winter stoppages to year round inspection and maintenance. To be fair to CRT previously unplanned for costs of Reservoir maintenance and the reduction of income from its property investment portfolio no doubt have put pressure on its financial resources. Now is the time to approach government for support for a training and investment programme to invest in maintaining our historic waterways, coupled with a change of maintenance regime that currently seems to hope that things don’t break despite “our best efforts”. That the PR spin is failing is evidenced on the recent reputational survey recently published on CRTs website? The KPI of overall satisfaction has dropped in 3 years to 60% (76% in 2017). Here are some of the results that bear this out. • The perception that the Trust is moving away from boating towards wellbeing. • Frequent comments refer to the money spent on improving facilities for cyclists and other towpath users to the detriment of boater facilities, and the management of waterways. • Concern that the Trust is not investing in planned maintenance. Unplanned stoppages and failed assets are referenced by many as an indication that the Trust is not carrying out day to day and pro-active maintenance. • It was felt that improvements could have been made regarding dredging and vegetation management. • When asked about the conversations they have with other boaters it is clear that the overwhelming tone is negative with 50% saying they hear other people being critical of the Trust and only 16% saying they hear people being positive. • Only 35% agreed with the statement that CRT valued the view of people who boat on its waterways, widebeam owners again were least likely to agree with support was the lowest. It is rare for Waterways World or Towpath Talk to publish anything that is remotely critical of CRT. Well done Mark Tizzard. Yes indeed. Although a very good article, the rather sad fact is that Tizzard during his spell on the nag group helped crt implement much of the policy results we are now seeing. CRT used NAG to promote and push policy through, then disposed of the group once the goals had been achieved. Sad group with egos bigger than their brains. |
|
|
|
Post by patty on Aug 25, 2020 12:32:43 GMT
A declining canal system is sad...
To loose that part of our heritage would be a disaster but CRT just doesn't seem to want to put the £££ into locks etc..
All the adverts seem to refer to welcoming cyclists etc to towpaths..
I don't actually remember any that have been directed at boaters
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2020 13:28:11 GMT
In the words of private James Fraser 'We're all doomed'
Said it before and I stand by it, they need to sell off the canals or hand over to local groups to look after, only way they will survive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2020 14:25:08 GMT
In the words of private James Fraser 'We're all doomed' Said it before and I stand by it, they need to sell off the canals or hand over to local groups to look after, only way they will survive. I've always assumed that CRT was simply a way of facilitating a break-up of the system. An organisation which was designed to fail and force changes. Perhaps even separating the "track" from the paths which run alongside it. It would make sense for boat-focused organisations (marina companies?) to run the canals and local authorities to deal with the towpaths including moorings. That would sort out a lot of issues which people moan about and also help keep the canals viable and working. The old story about BW trying to force people into marina moorings is an interesting and very persistent one. Maybe that is what will happen once a framework for charging for towpath moorings is arranged. I'm not saying this is what I would like to happen and I don't have a great deal of personal interest in the future of CRT waterways myself but something has to happen at some point. I was going to ask Nigel to comment on the legal feasibility of this but sadly he's permanently unavailable  |
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Aug 26, 2020 7:01:43 GMT
Sorry MM but there will never be enough profit from anything canal based other than marinas to encourage investment. The gov don't care, it was an escalating cost they've put a lid on and won't be volunteering to take it back, particularly as CRT are letting it fall apart...as planned...which they've distanced themselves from by creating crt in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2020 7:52:30 GMT
The idea that CRT is simply a wrecking crew is a horrendous notion and all the more so when all the system failures that are reported every day, and which increasingly go un-repaired (in some cases for years), are considered. But if it were the case then why did CRT bother fixing (for example) the Middlewich breach? And why are they bothering to spend a reported £4,000,000 (and rising) on the Montgomery Canal restoration?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2020 8:22:34 GMT
C&RT are currently piling the bank in Rugeley, from the cemetery bridge to the bridge at Tescos. Long overdue work, and will greatly assist both boaters and home owners, allowing mooring on a stretch not bordered by houses. However the plant being used is former C&RT equipment which was sold off to Rothen's and now leased back ... the workforce are wearing C&RT logos but may also be sub contractors. It isn't that C&RT are not doing work ... rather that the work they do is responsive which MUST be more costly. The Middlewich breach was repaired at great cost (millions ?) ... yet their own engineers had recommended preventative work eighteen months earlier at a cost of around ten thousand ... it was not done. It is management's role to direct finances and labour to achieve the maximum beneficial effect in line with their purpose and aims. It is this direction, and perhaps hands-on knowledge that is lacking in my view ... I like to think due to ignorance rather than a deliberate policy of attempting to close the system down ... I like to think  Rog |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2020 8:48:46 GMT
The Middlewich breach was repaired at great cost (millions ?) ... yet their own engineers had recommended preventative work eighteen months earlier at a cost of around ten thousand ... it was not done. Is there any evidence for that? (not intended as dismissive). Middlewich: circa £3,000,000. The part about leasing stuff previously owned has more than a ring of truth, but it could be argued they don't have to pay rates or insurance on a maintenance yard, a bloke to manage the maintenance yard, someone else to carry out maintenance on assets, etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2020 8:52:32 GMT
The Middlewich breach was repaired at great cost (millions ?) ... yet their own engineers had recommended preventative work eighteen months earlier at a cost of around ten thousand ... it was not done. Is there any evidence for that? (not intended as dismissive). Middlewich: circa £3,000,000. The part about leasing stuff previously owned has more than a ring of truth, but it could be argued they don't have to pay rates or insurance on a maintenance yard, a bloke to manage the maintenance yard, someone else to carry out maintenance on assets, etc. Outsourcing is very sensible on stuff that only gets used very occasionally. Most of the 'trouble' comes when you outsource routine stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 26, 2020 9:00:41 GMT
Is there any evidence for that? (not intended as dismissive). Middlewich: circa £3,000,000. The part about leasing stuff previously owned has more than a ring of truth, but it could be argued they don't have to pay rates or insurance on a maintenance yard, a bloke to manage the maintenance yard, someone else to carry out maintenance on assets, etc. Outsourcing is very sensible on stuff that only gets used very occasionally. Most of the 'trouble' comes when you outsource routine stuff. Yup, all the outsourcing of routine unscheduled maintenance simply inserts a middleman to make profit from the jobs, thus increasing costs. |
|
