MBM News item re pump-outs
- Thread starter boatone
- Start date
Actionmat
Well-Known Member
Madness.
There must be a cheaper more reliable way of running such a basic piece of machinery.
And why would anyone want to steal the O rings?
There must be a cheaper more reliable way of running such a basic piece of machinery.
And why would anyone want to steal the O rings?
Chill
Well-Known Member
Purchased my token from Shiplake lock on the way up river, 5 days later on way back machine kaput!! Card reader error.
abraxus
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure that it's about cheapness or reliability, and more how it's accounted for.
To me the problem seems to be that the pump outs are expected to be a profit centre in themselves, rather than an integral part of the overall service provided on the river.
If their cost was considered as part of the overall licence revenues then there would be no issue, and any charge for usage would simply be an added bonus to offset some of that cost.
TrueBlue
Well-Known Member
After the 'Windsor area' there are very few alternative pumpouts, so boaters have to rely on EA's kit.
Of course, so it is rumoured, some folks don't bother and dump their muck in the oggin; safe in the knowledge that they're unlikely to be caught in the act.
Others have portapotties - for which there are more disposal points (and less volume if they want to be antisocial).
EAs response - 'ocs it's a Govt department say "you'll be prosecuted if caught", thus letting themselves off the hook of having to provide a facility.
To my mind it's an essential part of the infrastructure - like gates on the locks.
CaRT - you know, the folks who run the really ditchy bits have a number of pumpouts and I don't hear of perennial complaints about their kit.
Indeed they get more use than EA's
So what's the difference.
My guess is maintenance
I have it on reasonable authority that the kit is solid - all it needs is an annual checkover and change the oil. Does EA do that??
Possibly not ....
OTOH perhaps EA boaters treat the equipment with contempt/
More info needed
(I have an awful feeling that a lot of the equipment is very old and needs replacement, rather than patching up.
Of course, so it is rumoured, some folks don't bother and dump their muck in the oggin; safe in the knowledge that they're unlikely to be caught in the act.
Others have portapotties - for which there are more disposal points (and less volume if they want to be antisocial).
EAs response - 'ocs it's a Govt department say "you'll be prosecuted if caught", thus letting themselves off the hook of having to provide a facility.
To my mind it's an essential part of the infrastructure - like gates on the locks.
CaRT - you know, the folks who run the really ditchy bits have a number of pumpouts and I don't hear of perennial complaints about their kit.
Indeed they get more use than EA's
So what's the difference.
My guess is maintenance
I have it on reasonable authority that the kit is solid - all it needs is an annual checkover and change the oil. Does EA do that??
Possibly not ....
OTOH perhaps EA boaters treat the equipment with contempt/
More info needed
(I have an awful feeling that a lot of the equipment is very old and needs replacement, rather than patching up.
boatone
Well-Known Member
Your comments re profit centres are well made. I made exactly this point at the last TNUF meeting in June and believe that it was, albeit reluctantly, accepted - but that doesn't mean there is enough money available to ensure they are maintained properly.
The problem for most of us is that we find it difficult to understand how what would be normal commercial attitudes to running a "business" are so clearly absent within a public sector organisation.
The whole concept of budgeting in the sense of recognising demands and revenues to allocate resources etc is almost completely absent. There are no cash flow targets to be met as the books are "balanced" at the end of the financial year using whatever figures have accrued. Although the financial year started in April there is still no agreed detailed budget for running the EA Thames operation.
We have been told approx. £4million is needed to maintain the fabric and infrastructure yet the allocation appears to be only £2million. If the £4million is correct - and we can only assume it is - then the result must be that essential maintenance work cannot be undertaken and the state of the assets - locks, weirs etc will decline. However, the EA have a statutory duty to maintain the navigation so this should not be permitted to happen. In contrast, however bizarre it may seem, there is no statutory duty to supply us boaters with assisted passage through locks or to provide pump out facilities. There is a statutory duty to levy registration charges but there is no statutory duty to enforce payment.
Quite frankly, it is surprising that the river runs as well as it does. The situation is a mess which has been created by many decades of chop and change management responsibility.
Ironically, the canal network through the C&RT now knows exactly how much government funding it will receive for many years ahead and is free to pursue its own agenda with regard to financial management and income generation. Whilst the Thames remains part of the EA waterways it will continue to suffer continued reductions in funding, both budgetary and grant in aid.
Last edited:
abraxus
Well-Known Member
Sadly this is very true.
As for whether there's enough money to ensure upkeep, it would appear from the article you linked that the shortfall was £13k. In another thread about licence enforcement, it was noted that 26 boats in just one marina were without a licence, and so the fees from these boats alone would more or less cover that deficit. Who knows how much goes uncollected in total.
It's utterly bizarre that there's a legal obligation on boaters to dispose of waste properly, and yet no statutory duty to provide the facilities to do so. Maybe they could set up a mobile pump out barge, to travel up and down the river offering a pump out service, and at the same time it can check up on licences.
oldgit
Well-Known Member
A river paved with gold !
Will cut and paste the answer and immediately forward it to my local river authority.
Only got 10 locks no need for house at each lock and about 6 new staff should do nicely.
......and you are entitled to this because ? .....the rest of the UK world of boating awaits the answer with interest.
Will cut and paste the answer and immediately forward it to my local river authority.
Only got 10 locks no need for house at each lock and about 6 new staff should do nicely.
boatone
Well-Known Member
Stop stirring it, Fred ! I did not say it was an entitlement. I specifically pointed out that it is not, but, because it has been the norm for the boating lifetime of most river users it has become an expectation and some are finding it painful to accept that government will no longer bankroll such a service.
boatone
Well-Known Member
No, not a shortfall - that would imply that a budgeted income and costs were recognised before the event. The £13k is simply the difference between direct costs (not overheads etc) and income from pump-out payments. In other words the costs are swept up in the general budget but this time someone decided to try and recognise that it was not financially self funding
We only know how many actual licences were issued during 2013 - about 9,000 for private powered craft. Nobody knows exactly, or even approximately, how many boats are actually on the river and how many avoid payment. My estimate is that it could be as high as 10% river-wide which could represent £300-400k p.a. in uncollected income.
However, bear in mind that it costs to collect !
Anything they do will have an associated cost and has to be funded from current year income. Most sensible initiatives will require initial start-up funding which is simply not available and the EA Thames management seem incapable of convincing those higher up that they need to speculate to accumulate.
Last edited:
oldgit
Well-Known Member
Bit grumpy.Just driven 500 miles to look at two piles of poo.