Nick Atty wrote: > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:24:04 -0000, Neil Arlidge wrote: > >> There is one school of thought that says we should just let BW get >> on with it. The waterways will survive in some form or other. With a >> slight downturn in the economy BW will hang themselves...after all >> that is what happens when you mess with virtual privatisation, >> market forces and 200 year old infrastructure...look what happened >> to Railtrack...and Metronet. >> There is another view (mainly subsribed by Steve Haywood) that BW >> have made powerful enemies in the govt and that the poor waterways >> will have to suffer as old scores are settled. >> >> <The TNC rant removal tool has removed the rest of this text> >> >> Hopefully Nick Atty will now pop up and present us with a refined >> version of his rather accurate view on the way BW "works", in a >> better way than I ever could :-) > > I've only just caught up with this. I'm not sure which particular of > my points of view you're after at this stage - though honoured by the > comment. > > I think I am coming to the view that for the waterways as we love them > to survive a period of downturn is not only inevitable, but essential. > Given the choice between the atmospheric waterways I grew into, and > the sanitised and tarted up ones we are getting (and I'm not arguing > against the occasional central Birmingham here [the destruction of > Gas Street excepted]) I find it hard not to wish for a return to the > late 70s and early 80s. I am arguing against: > > Endless rows of identikit fake-wharehouse-shaped housing on both banks > of miles of waterways in the suburbs. > Endless shiny office buildings in the centres > Both of which take a lot of value from being by the waterways, and > from having boats passing, but return nothing other than the > occasional "No Mooring" sign or the closure of a useful facility > because it doesn't fit in. > New boat after new boat crewed by people who have no interest in the > waterways per se, and with precious little knowledge of the waterways, > and who view any attempt to get from a to b in under a fortnight - by > doing something obscene like lock-wheeling or moving past endless rows > of moored boats instead of sitting there with the generator running as > all good boaters should - as something to object to with jibes about > "relaxing". > > Against that, of course, will come the closures (remember the endless > tunnel failures), and a lower standard of maintenance. But - let's > be honest - how many of your most treasured waterways memories not of > doing something against the odds, rather than in complete ease? In > this I > find myself echoing something Robert Aikman said that I can't be > bothered to go and look for at the moment. > > So a cut in funding, a few collapses and a lot more scuffiness drives > out the people for whom a boat is an alternative to a cottage in > spain, > and leaves the waterways for those who can see beneath the surface to > the true heart of the canals. > > More cuts! Now! > > Is that what you were on about?
Not quite, but I think you are quite right! I also think (fear???) this will be the outcome. I have detected the first signs of BW staff on the ground, turning against the boaters, to protect their position and BW taking a "dog in the manger" attitude to users (boaters targeted first)...again a return to the bad old days of the 60's and 70's. This was all part of boating then, God...these modern boaters have it all to easy! I don't think you need to be honoured, you certainly have more of a handle on what is going on than me, or virtually anyone else! I just come form an obssesive boating background over the past (very nearly) 40 years, where I have quietly followed the trials and tribulations of BW, EA (TC, NRA - Thames) and *their* associated user groups, IWA, Formation of NABO etc. I have forgotten the exact content and where the old posting was, but ISTR that you had a view on what *really* is going on at BW, which is proving to be correct. I have often wondered why BW want a larger property portfolio and the provision to borrow and seen to make no real attempt to get in money from community sources, could it be that they have not *quite* got a large enough portfolio (and they KNOW this?) to weather any down turn in the property market. Shirley a lot of their forcasts for their income from property was based on the past few good years and even if their income levels out, or takes even a tiny down turn, they will be in complete $hit? -- Neil Arlidge - NB Earnest - Shannon Reg 7410 Read about our Irish travels at: http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk/Tour_07/index.html
