Time to be somewhat -

[TrueBlue]

contentious, perhaps?

The continual breakdowns of the pumpouts (see my thread on Poo) and now "challenges" with rubbish disposal, makes me wonder if EnvAg is the right size of organisation to manage the leisure part of the Thames?

I'm going on the vast size of the organisation (looking at the river levels telemetry web site I can see how large just that water management bit of the enterprise - for one river, is). So our gripes over a very, very tiny aspect of the undertaking - though important to us, the users, can so easily get lost in the fog of bureaucracy, with its inevitable inertia.

Fine, the local staff can be empowered to manage their site - which task they do excellently as far as they have the tools and ability so to do. However, some matters must be passed up the line - and methinks that's where the fog sets in.

So, were things better in the days of the Conservancy, or Thames Water?

Heave forfend that BW should takeover the leisure functions - that's just swapping one large outfit for another.

So what's the solution?
Bring back the Conservancy?
Give the lockies power to manage all aspects of their domain?

Discuss.

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

Well, if we are going to be contentious.

All locks to have rubbish disposal, sewage disposal, water (with a hose) and an electric charging point x 2 for electric boats, which may be used by any other boat if not being used for its intended purpose on payment of a suitable fee to the lock keeper. Lock keeper becomes a site manager with a budget and commensurate salary increase, empowered to ensure that facilities are in working order. SLA with rubbish and sewage firms for the timely recitification of problems with time most usefully measured in hours not weeks, and possibly sooner April-September. To reflect this enhanced status and responsibility a spiffy uniform to be available, I suggest a smart black blazer with brass buttons and a little gold braid, plus a decent peaked cap.

Funded by charging non motor-cruising users of the river for access!

 

[apollo]

Excellent, good work chaps!

 

[boatone]

.... and who is going to play Dorothy ?

 

[apollo]

William Hague?

 

[nickcred]

ROFL

 

[Jaysay]

Well, if we are going to be contentious.

All locks to have rubbish disposal, sewage disposal, water (with a hose) and an electric charging point x 2 for electric boats, which may be used by any other boat if not being used for its intended purpose on payment of a suitable fee to the lock keeper. Lock keeper becomes a site manager with a budget and commensurate salary increase, empowered to ensure that facilities are in working order. SLA with rubbish and sewage firms for the timely recitification of problems with time most usefully measured in hours not weeks, and possibly sooner April-September. To reflect this enhanced status and responsibility a spiffy uniform to be available, I suggest a smart black blazer with brass buttons and a little gold braid, plus a decent peaked cap.

Funded by charging non motor-cruising users of the river for access!

Listen to this guy - he's good....!

 

[boatone]

Listen to this guy - he's good....!

The ideas are highly commendable and I can see why you like them.

However, the devil is in the detail and deciding what you would like is usually a long way from what controlling circumstances will force you (us) to settle for.

All locks to have rubbish disposal, sewage disposal, water (with a hose) and an electric charging point x 2 for electric boats, which may be used by any other boat if not being used for its intended purpose on payment of a suitable fee to the lock keeper.

An admirable aspiration but:
Where is the capital cost going to come from
What about locks where local conditions will either preclude some of these facilities or infrastructure costs and accessibility will be horrendous
How many electric points are there now? Have you ever seen one being used? What happens if an electric boat turns up after someone in a conventional vessel has decided they can moor there?
How do you intend to ensure the 'sensible fee' is collected?

Lock keeper becomes a site manager with a budget and commensurate salary increase, empowered to ensure that facilities are in working order. SLA with rubbish and sewage firms for the timely recitification of problems with time most usefully measured in hours not weeks, and possibly sooner April-September. To reflect this enhanced status and responsibility a spiffy uniform to be available, I suggest a smart black blazer with brass buttons and a little gold braid, plus a decent peaked cap.

Some lock keepers may welcome this change of responsibilities, some may not. What do you propose to do with those who do not? How sure can we be that those that do relish the idea will actually be management capable to the degree that will be required ? Where is the salary increase money going to come from?
Service Level Agreements with suppliers I absolutely agree with - IMHO the pumpouts should have a contractual requirement for routine breakdowns to be fixed with 24 hours of notification. Rubbish collection is probably a Local Authority issue.
Spiffy uniform - nostalgia indeed - but pretty low down the list of how to make things happen.

Funded by charging non motor-cruising users of the river for access!

Already many non motor boating users are paying licence and other fees but I assume you are taking a tilt at the non floating users such as cyclists, pedestrians etc.
I have often felt moved to 'shake a tin' at the gongoozlers at Boulters but lets be practical here - how on earth are you going to charge in an enforceable way and what will be the costs of collection?

Face up to it guys - we are pretty much stuffed ! Any expectation of allocation of the huge increase in capital expenditure these ideas will require is less likely than you finding a Lion inside a display wardrobe at IKEA.
As for the significant re-organisation of jobs and responsibilities, including salaries and competency issues.

The management control strategy at the present time is probably one of using what capital and revenue is available for essential maintenance. projects that will be PR noticeable and otherwise 'keeping a lid on things' - dealing with those customer complaints that do arise - and I mean real complaints sent to the EA in writing - you can see the statistics and reasons during last year in this extract from the Annual Report.

So, clearly what we whinge and complain about here isn't getting recognised as a reported complaint...........not a mention of moorings or dredging !

Whether the river will be down to the EA or BW to administer after the spending review WE USERS NEED TO BE MUCH BETTER ORGANISED if we are to change anthing.

Any volunteers to be our Mary Whitehouse or Joanna Lumley ?

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

Tone you rotter, you burst my bubble

And I agree with all that you say, I was indulging in some "blue sky desirables" thinking before tempering any of it with sensible and practical considerations.

Where rubbish disposal is concerned, a big wheely bin or two was pretty much what I had envisaged, if there are sufficient collection points then in theory we would not see the local overload so common at, eg, Windsor (I know thats local authority but the point holds) I don't doubt that some form of SLA does exist (Angelaq, still looking now and again?) but from the point of view of those left with full poo tanks, it looks a bit inadequately worded.
>>>
So, clearly what we whinge and complain about here isn't getting recognised as a reported complaint...........not a mention of moorings or dredging !
>>>
And this looks to me to be a very pertinent point. This site, and parent magazines, gets a fair degree of Thames-related comment and I remain surprised that EA don't seem to see it as any sort of a customer feedback source, I know we are not neccessarily utterly representative of all the river's users, but even grumpy old inebriates need their voice!

 

[TrueBlue]

Oh dear B1,

You're probably quite right to shoot Andrew down in flames, but at the risk in discouraging a bit of whimsy - sometimes seemingly outlandish comments can lead to a practical solution.

I'm sure there was a certain amount of tongue in cheek in the post....

However, too many potty ideas will only lead to contempt from any EA person reading these threads and we need cooperation not contempt.

(I've just scrolled down the reply display and note AF has come back with a more sensible argument).

FWIW, I'd like to make some observations on B1's post:-

Power points
These are primarily installed to encourage electric boats, not domestic battery charging.On enquiry I found that if there is an electric point at a lock, then regular boaters are kept at bay until 17:00 (?) in case a ''leccy boat turns up.

Refuse collection
Thinking a bit, rubbish collection looks like a complete nightmare to manage.
As the River is so long, there are / will be a multiple of contractors needed to cover the whole length, as they are location dependent. Howard mentions Biffa for his end of the woods, AF mentions Windsor council, and I may have seen Viridor at Abingdon. Instead of EA being able to place a single contract - which would give them a bit of leverage, I suspect they have a number of small contracts that they may have to bully the contractors into servicing anyway.

The service is probably based on a number of bins contracted for and so an increase in these multiplies the cost. Boaters' use of these is highly seasonal, and I don't expect that the contractor is that flexible.

So more bins = more cost - what would you do??

Water points
I haven't got to the bottom of this one. If there is a tap onsite, why not a bulk supply? The reason offered to me was that taps were part of the domestic supply (sometimes through small boreholes) which hadn't sufficient capacity for bulk demands.

Hmmmm...

I think a more likely reason is that a bulk supply would be subject to an additional charge from Thames Water = more cost

Non paying users
EA want to encourage new users and rightly feel that they should start at the young end of the market. So they think that providing more / better slipways for entry level boats (of all types) is one way to go.
However, how can any fees be collected.

Increase patrols? Man slipways? Other?
all these = more cost

Dredging

Landfill taxes - blame EU- regulations have made this a very expensive operation, so I can only see very limited work here. It's much cheaper to pop pretty coloured red and green buoys in the water. = more cost

I'm not being negative; just trying to see the difficulties.

 

[boatone]

You're probably quite right to shoot Andrew down in flames,

I was not intending to shoot Andrew down in flames at all - and. indeed, I indulged in the whimsy when I asked who was going to play Dorothy. Unfortunately, though, your original serious post was going the way of many where something with merit gradually gets lost in the humour and chichat.

The rest of your comments reinforce exactly what I was saying and I think we do need to stay seriously focussed on the things we MAY be able to do something about. However, we also need to make sure we make our points to the right people and in the right way - ie be a lot better organised.

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

Don't worry B1, Nomex suit saves the day!

But its very true, using modern terminology, focussing on the acheiveables and deliverables is the sensible solution.

My summation of the most viable wishes on the thread so far would be:

Sanitary facilities; general agreement that reliability of these has become an issue and that downtimes are too long and inadequately reported. Not helped by their being relatively widely spaced, there may well be a case for a couple of additional ones, one between Molesey and Boveney and one between Boveney and Reading, if only to provide cover and system redundancy during downtime and winter closure periods.

Refuse facilities; general agreement that, for whatever reason, they are not cleared frequently enough during the season.

Water depths; if general dredging is impracticable on grounds of cost then more channel markers are needed (whether lit at night or not is a whole new ballgame) and the limited resources should focus on lock cuts to allow uniform depth over sufficient channel to permit safe passing of larger craft and pubic moorings. Reported groundings in narrow channels should be cause for attendance/action by EA staff.

Are those three areas in which some co-ordinated action might get a result?

 

[NeilT]

Apologies for a couple of newbie questions but as I'm about to have a boat on the Thames, I'm interested.
Is there not a "thames motor boat users group" type organisation or is the forum the Voice?
What percentage of the EA's "Thames" based income is from motor boats?
I only ask as a fella who races his dinghy every weekend isn't going to care about facilities 7 locks up like we do, and rightly so from his point of view.
Sorry if I'm asking old questions but I'm playing catch-up.
Cheers
N

 

[boatone]

Apologies for a couple of newbie questions but as I'm about to have a boat on the Thames, I'm interested.
Is there not a "thames motor boat users group" type organisation or is the forum the Voice?
What percentage of the EA's "Thames" based income is from motor boats?
I only ask as a fella who races his dinghy every weekend isn't going to care about facilities 7 locks up like we do, and rightly so from his point of view.
Sorry if I'm asking old questions but I'm playing catch-up.
Cheers
N

I think I can confidently say that this is the only really active forum for the non tidal Thames so stick with us and we'll see you right

As far as the EA's income is concerned probably best if you take a quick read of last years EA Thames Annual Report which should answer most of your questions:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/GETH0710BSVS-e-e_FINAL.pdf


Do take a good browse back through the forum archives though - you'll find it a wealth of information.

 

[TrueBlue]

No it's not an old question -

Apologies for a couple of newbie questions but as I'm about to have a boat on the Thames, I'm interested.
Is there not a "thames motor boat users group" type organisation or is the forum the Voice?
What percentage of the EA's "Thames" based income is from motor boats?
I only ask as a fella who races his dinghy every weekend isn't going to care about facilities 7 locks up like we do, and rightly so from his point of view.
Sorry if I'm asking old questions but I'm playing catch-up.
Cheers
N

and asking it gives me an excuse to raise an old saw (if that's an appropriate term).
There is no one group representing boaters in general or mobos in particular.
There are:-

• Riparian User Groups (RUGs) representing local land owners,
• Rowing Clubs,
• Sailing Clubs,
• ATYC who represent their constituent club members,
• NABO
• IWA, these last two represent narrowboat owners, and are more concerned with canal users.

The result is a complete mish-mash. That's why "we" are trying to raise awareness at EA by posting matters here.

EA have recently produced their first annual report
see pdf file here; scroll to page 5 and shows some insight to what's happening.

I reckon that the vast majority of users keep well within their local area - perhaps no more than a couple of locks - as you may do.

Folks like myself and BoatOne have a wider cruising area and see how disjointed things can be.

However, each to his own, so there's nothing right or wrong in anyone's approach. BUT it is difficult to get an overall view as each class of user has a valid viewpoint - usually at variance with other's!

The common interest is or should be that each enjoys the river in his own way and it's incredibly difficult to represent them all.

I for one would enjoy hearing your viewpoint and your needs. In my youth I was involved in sailing at Putney and Kingston and I have notice what appears to be a marked decline in sailing dinghies being used in recent years.

Is that correct or only my supposition?

Drat upstaged by B1;so duplication

 

[NeilT]

Thanks for the links, I have by no means got a complete picture yet but one thing strikes me as fairly obvious.
Going by the published figures the vast majority of traffic is powered boats, yet on the Working Group membership I can't see anyone representing mobo owners.
If one of the various groups does claim to represent my needs a cruiser owner (well in 2 weeks I will) they have made a p**s poor effort of letting me know!!
In contrast I found the forum in the first 48hrs of looking at returning to
boating.
Quite prepared to be shot down but that's how I see it so far.
Cheers
N

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

>>>
I for one would enjoy hearing your viewpoint and your needs. In my youth I was involved in sailing at Putney and Kingston and I have notice what appears to be a marked decline in sailing dinghies being used in recent years.

Is that correct or only my supposition?
>>>
In the last few weeks of pottering between Sunbury and Teddington I've noticed Minima, Hampton and Aquarius all active and busy with racing, pottering and training so they at least are busy.

I occasionally feel that ATYC could do a bit more but their remit seems too diverse. I'm also sure that the EA don't have a group of influential managers who see boats as a bit of a nuisance on their river, despite the impression we sometimes get

 

[boatone]

If you really would like to know more about some of the 'representative' groups on the river that represent many and varied users take a look at the River User Groups (RUGs)

http://www.riverusergroups.co.uk/

Read some of the minutes of meetings - not too many, you might lose the will to live ......

Also note how out of date some of the stuff is.

The ATYC is probably the largest organisation but only has about 800 members of constituent clubs out of a total powered craft population of over 8,000 - ie barely 10%

They all seem to spend most of their time arguing about things they perceive to be important without realising that a more focussed approach towards things that could be achieved would be more productive.

As an example - take a look at the enforcement info in the Annual Report and try to reconcile the number of unlicensed boats with the perception that they are a major problem.

Have fun .......

 

[NeilT]

Thanks (I think) for the link
Now I see the problem it's part "old boys club" and part "pink and fluffy groups"
who are all totally foucsed on absolutely nothing outside their own remit.
Who the hell is shouting for us ?
Apart from B1 that is !
Just the view of a gobby newbie!
N

 

[TrueBlue]

Thanks (I think) for the link
Now I see the problem it's part "old boys club" and part "pink and fluffy groups"
who are all totally foucsed on absolutely nothing outside their own remit.
Who the hell is shouting for us ?
Apart from B1 that is !
Just the view of a gobby newbie!
N

Shouting - That's the point of these many and various posts on this forum.
There is no one body - as yet - who can represent Thames boaters.
There is a great diversity of users with conflicting requirements spread over the 150 miles or so of the River. This forum is in a good position to start the ball rolling - which Tony has very nobly taken upon himself to start.

It's a very difficult job as on the one hand the issues have to be raised in such a form that EA can accept as being valid, and subject to a possible resolution; bearing in mind whatever constraints EA has within itself.

Although there's a lot of noise here, it comes from a tiny minority of folk - say 20 (?) - and that's minuscule when you look at the number of "members" on the YBW sites, not to mention the even larger number of registered Thames boaters. Thus whatever is done has to be softly softly and possible of resolution.


Gobby - If by that you mean you do, and intend to, make lots of posts, then that's great. It keeps the flow of thought going and broadens the spread of opinions.

IF - on the other hand by "gobby" you mean disruptive and unreasonable - then that's a completely different kettle of fish. If you look at at the other YBW fora you will see loads of people who enjoy slagging off other members and that becomes destructive. I'm sure that's not what you intend.

As you can see on this thread, there are some wishful thinking suggestions around - which with a modicum of thought - are highly impracticable (impossible). Although these generate some heated discussion, I suppose it's reasonable to throw that hat into the ring as it gets ideas moving.

I suppose what I am trying to say is if anyone has a requirement, idea, or whatever, then a suggested practical suggestion for a solution should be part of that post. That way perhaps, EA might listen.

So after a lengthy waffle from me - a belated "welcome" and keep 'em coming.