Could this be the future for the Thames?

Pretty certain canal banks and stuff have been collapsing since the day they were built,matters not if they are in private ownership as when they were constructed or later in public ownership,stuff is going to happen.It simply not feasiable to check every metre of bank every week.
 
Our problem is that, at the moment, we don't even have a clue as to how responsibilities would be split between the EA and C&RT if the transfer of the navigation was to take place. Anything we assume is pure conjecture.
For instance, does anyone think that the EA are going to hand over flood risk management to the charity? Will C&RT just take over the licensing and leisure facilities management? Will capital works on weirs be separated from locks and lay-byes? We just do not have a clue and until the intentions become clearer we don't know what we are up against.
 
boatone said:
Our problem is that, at the moment, we don't even have a clue as to how responsibilities would be split between the EA and C&RT if the transfer of the navigation was to take place. Anything we assume is pure conjecture.
For instance, does anyone think that the EA are going to hand over flood risk management to the charity? Will C&RT just take over the licensing and leisure facilities management? Will capital works on weirs be separated from locks and lay-byes? We just do not have a clue and until the intentions become clearer we don't know what we are up against.
Click to expand...

Introducing yet another layer of management / responsibilities / resources is unlikely to produce any benefits for the users (again mostly powered boaters).

As it is EA have a muddle in getting things fixed. Years of expediency, juggling budgets has resulted in a tangled web. This is nspeciousciuos comment...
 
A collapse like that is usually caused by a build up of water behind the bank. This is why frontage is always adequately drained either by enabling drain offs into the watercourse or by some other method. About 25 years ago the bank downstream of the Shillingford Bridge collapsed. I took one look at it and said at the time "where are the drainage holes?" It later transpired that when the Hotel had the bank done they had neglected to bore holes in the metal work to drain off excess water.
 
Did you notice that it will be reopened app August and they are lifting the boats that are stuck back into the main system, also the EA have advised users of the Ouse it will be at least 3 months of paperwork before they can begin removing silt in the river.

So; CRT can rebuild a lock in 3 months and get the people who are stuck out quickly.
EA take 3 months of paperwork before they can do anything and's its tough tity if your stuck.(the Anglian EA also charge 25% more than CRT for a Seamaster 27)

Perhaps CRT are not that bad?
 
macnorton said:
Did you notice that it will be reopened app August and they are lifting the boats that are stuck back into the main system, also the EA have advised users of the Ouse it will be at least 3 months of paperwork before they can begin removing silt in the river.

So; CRT can rebuild a lock in 3 months and get the people who are stuck out quickly.
EA take 3 months of paperwork before they can do anything and's its tough tity if your stuck.(the Anglian EA also charge 25% more than CRT for a Seamaster 27)

Perhaps CRT are not that bad?
Click to expand...

To be fair - CaRT own the water, land towpath and the infrastructure, so only their own hoops to jump through.

EA only own the water, not the land, not nothing. SO they have to inform and consult a whole raft of folks. Being a government body it is answeParliamentrilarment.

CaRT being a charity are not answerable to anybody.....
 
TrueBlue said:
To be fair - CaRT own the water, land towpath and the infrastructure, so only their own hoops to jump through.

EA only own the water, not the land, not nothing. SO they have to inform and consult a whole raft of folks. Being a government body it is answeParliamentrilarment.

CaRT being a charity are not answerable to anybody.....
Click to expand...

Surely EA own their locks and weirs.
 
boatone said:
macnorton was referring to the removal of silt which is a much more complex issue. The EA do not own the river bed and dredging requires them to jump through all sorts of hoops from hazardous waste issues to transporting and dumping the dredged material.
Click to expand...

That is the stated reason for the delay, and I don't think there is a problem with landowners. but consider that CRT began clearing silt on rivers they control as soon as the flood water subsided.
This is the point.
 
boatone said:
macnorton was referring to the removal of silt which is a much more complex issue. The EA do not own the river bed and dredging requires them to jump through all sorts of hoops from hazardous waste issues to transporting and dumping the dredged material.
Click to expand...

Yes I know. I was referring to the statement by TrueBlue that the EA only own the water. If thats the case who owns the locks and weirs they operate?
 
dash300 said:
Yes I know. I was referring to the statement by TrueBlue that the EA only own the water. If thats the case who owns the locks and weirs they operate?
Click to expand...

I understand some are leased from riparian owners (well, the land on which they are built)
 
TrueBlue said:
I understand some are leased from riparian owners (well, the land on which they are built)
Click to expand...

I have it on good authority that is definitely not the case. The EA inherited the locks weir and many areas of land, free public mooring areas, lock islands etc from its predecessors the NRA, Thames Water Authority and originally the Thames Conservancy. The Thames Conservancy was formed by the original land, mill and weir owners along the length of the Thames. Therefore the locks, islands, moorings, houses, weirs and associated structures have cost the EA nothing, only the cost to maintain them.
 
Riverleak said:
I have it on good authority that is definitely not the case. The EA inherited the locks weir and many areas of land, free public mooring areas, lock islands etc from its predecessors the NRA, Thames Water Authority and originally the Thames Conservancy. The Thames Conservancy was formed by the original land, mill and weir owners along the length of the Thames. Therefore the locks, islands, moorings, houses, weirs and associated structures have cost the EA nothing, only the cost to maintain them.
Click to expand...

Now that seems logical.
 
macnorton said:
That is the stated reason for the delay, and I don't think there is a problem with landowners. but consider that CRT began clearing silt on rivers they control as soon as the flood water subsided. This is the point.
Click to expand...

The C&RT claim to have around 1,500 employees, not to mention the dedicated bands of volunteers who have been largely responsible for the restoration and maintenance of much of the network.
On the other hand, EA THames has a staff of little over 100 (over half of which are direct lock and weir staff) to cover the whole river plus a relatively small band of volunteers assisting with lock keeping duties and patrol boats. I believe EA Thames is barely 1% of the total EA empire, small wonder that it has little clout in the fight for resources or that some would be glad to be rid of it.

I am not aware of any major problems affecting navigation in the fairway which is the EA's primary concern. Cuts, backwaters etc are not their responsibility and, tough though it may seem, others need to play their part in keeping the river alive.

No doubt I will now be castigated for being a pawn of the powers that be in Reading but the reality is that they, in the main, are doing a damn good job with limited resources and, when it comes to enforcement, with their hands tied behind their backs. The real battle needs to be joined further up the chain in Whitehall where the Government have decreed that public expenditure must be drastically reduced and that those that use facilities should, wherever possible, pay for them. Government directs Defra - Defra instructs EA board - EA Board hand down budget to EA Thames who are expected to get on with it.

Maybe the C&RT could make a better fist of it but none of us have enough knowledge of what could happen, or how the responsibilities might be split and the transfer achieved, to form any considered opinion.
 
Last edited:
boatone said:
The C&RT claim to have around 1,500 employees, not to mention the dedicated bands of volunteers who have been largely responsible for the restoration and maintenance of much of the network.
On the other hand, EA THames has a staff of little over 100 (over half of which are direct lock and weir staff) to cover the whole river plus a relatively small band of volunteers assisting with lock keeping duties and patrol boats. I believe EA Thames is barely 1% of the total EA empire, small wonder that it has little clout in the fight for resources or that some would be glad to be rid of it.

I am not aware of any major problems affecting navigation in the fairway which is the EA's primary concern. Cuts, backwaters etc are not their responsibility and, tough though it may seem, others need to play their part in keeping the river alive.

No doubt I will now be castigated for being a pawn of the powers that be in Reading but the reality is that they, in the main, are doing a damn good job with limited resources and, when it comes to enforcement, with their hands tied behind their backs. The real battle needs to be joined further up the chain in Whitehall where the Government have decreed that public expenditure must be drastically reduced and that those that use facilities should, wherever possible, pay for them. Government directs Defra - Defra instructs EA board - EA Board hand down budget to EA Thames who are expected to get on with it.

Maybe the C&RT could make a better fist of it but none of us have enough knowledge of what could happen, or how the responsibilities might be split and the transfer achieved, to form any considered opinion.
Click to expand...

Some good points which I mostly agre with, but the point is while the EA take 3 months to talk with the EA about permission ect, the CRT seem to be able to talk to the EA and get the job done.(see below)

The Thames may be clear in the freeway but the same is not true of all EA rivers (see Anglian restrictions for the problems they admit to round these parts), did you know the Nene has 37 locks, 1 lock keeper and two river inspectors? (btw; all three are top blokes)

£80M to be spent on CRT waters
http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/our-work/dredging

I think the CRT should be given the chance to run All the rivers in 2015, by then they will have proven themselfs, or not as the case may be.
 
macnorton said:
£80M to be spent on CRT waters
http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/our-work/dredging

I think the CRT should be given the chance to run All the rivers in 2015, by then they will have proven themselfs, or not as the case may be.
Click to expand...
Unless you have some specific personal knowledge of recent work I tend to regard that web page as nothing more than good PR speak. Read the lower section "Waste Not, Want Not" and you will see they mention the same problems associated with dredging that face the EA only, unlike the EA, they are able to use or deposit dredge on their own land which in most cases the EA cannot do.

Also, much of the plant used to maintain canals is light enough to be moved around by road whereas the EA has to move most of its plant by river so cannot quickly relocate from , say, Oxford down to, say, Chertsey. The continuous flood conditions in recent months have made it virtually impossible for the EA to carry out much remedial work - viz the lifting of the NB that blocked Godstow Bridge.

I agree completely that we need to see how well they set about their stewardship.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

T
Notices to Mariners - Week 01 of 2026(!)
Replies
9
Views
1K
tillergirl
T
F
Webasto Thermotop not starting
Replies
7
Views
222
PaulRainbow
PaulRainbow

Share this page

Top