Category Archives: Tourism

The campaign to improve Clones

Tender here. No mention of the engine shed amongst the heritage sites to be interpreted, alas. And the General description of proposed works document has a photo of the playground at O’Briensbridge in Co Clare, captioned as “Playground, Shannon Harbour, Co Offaly” even though Tom Burke’s boat is clearly visible in the background. Still, good to see that they’re not just waiting for a canal. And they intend to build a car park in the town park, which could be useful for the camper vans.

Inland fisheries

There was an important debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly on this subject yesterday. While the salmon received much of the attention, the state of the Lough Neagh eel fishery was also discussed.

UC@NIA

The Northern Ireland Assembly mentioned the Ulster Canal twice on 20 February 2012; the Lagan was mentioned too. Nothing new, really.

Limerick dredging

The Limerick Post has news here.

Value for money

Regular readers will be aware that I think the proposed canal to Clones is a bad investment. I thought it might be useful to look for information about other Irish canal restorations to see what they cost and what the return on investment has been. I understand that there was a study of the Shannon–Erne Waterway, but I can’t find a copy on tinterweb (if anyone has one to lend, please get in touch).

I therefore asked Waterways Ireland about the restoration of the Royal Canal:

I would be grateful if you could tell me the cost of the restoration of the Royal Canal, the annual cost of running it and the revenue it generates.

The reply (for which I am, as always, grateful) said:

Restoration of the Royal Canal commenced in 1987.

€37m Capital Expenditure on the restoration project funded through (1) Operational Programme for Tourism 1994-1999 (2) National Development Programme 2000 – 2007 and (3) National Development Plan 2007-2013.

The Maintenance Cost for 2012 is €2.46m.

The revenue generated by the canal in 2011 is not available.

I didn’t really expect that there would be a meaningful figure for revenue. A full assessment of the benefits would cover far more than the (probably minimal) direct revenue; I think such an assessment should be done, but that’s not what really got my attention.

According to Waterways Ireland, the Main Line of the Royal is 146 km long and has 46 locks and many bridges, some of them newly built as part of the restoration. Harbours have been improved, slipways have been provided and service blocks have been built. And all of this was done for €37 million (I don’t know whether that’s in constant prices and, if so, at which year’s rates: I’ve asked a supplementary question).

A canal to Clones would be 13 km long and, according to WI’s final restoration plan [PDF], would have one double lock (staircase pair). Some dredging would be needed on the River Finn and a new canal 0.6 km long would have to be provided; the work at the Finn end would cost €8.5 million altogether. On the line as a whole, work would be required on up to 17 bridges, some major and some minor or private bridges. And there would be a cost for land acquisition, although the Updated Economic Appraisal put that at a mere £1,268,280, a very small portion of the total cost. And then there would be the pumps and pipes to take water from the Erne, pump it to Clones and let it flow back down; it is not clear whether WI would have to pay for the water. And the total cost of this lot would be €38m + VAT, which I am told is about €45 million altogether.

Now, even allowing for the facts that there had been some voluntary and FÁS scheme work on the Royal, that no land had to be acquired and that parts of the canal were in water, I still find it difficult to see how a 13 km canal with one double lock can cost more than a 146 km canal with 46 locks. I have asked WI for a comment, but perhaps readers — especially if any of them are engineers or accountants — would be able to help to explain the mystery. Maybe it’s something simple like a mistake in the figures or maybe I’m missing something about the nature of restorations …. Enlightenment welcome.

 

The steamer Firefly at Crom in 1850

Some time ago I posted a query, asking whether anyone could identify the location shown in this drawing on the National Library of Ireland website. Click on the thumbnail to expand it; you may then need to click “PRINTABLE VERSION”. I said:

The black object between the sailing boats and the church looks to me like a paddle steamer, but the image is quite blurred so I’m not certain.

I have now seen the original in the National Library. I have also seen a print of a painting that is, I think, based on the drawing; the painting was done by Henry Brocas junior and is entitled ”Lord Clarendon’s visit to Crom Castle, Co Fermanagh, 1850″ (tiny thumbnail here).

According to the Erne papers [PDF]:

The earliest known steam boat at Crom was the “Firefly”, which is recorded as having brought the Viceroy, Lord Clarendon, from Crom to Lanesborough Lodge [Belturbet] on his visit of 1850.

It may be that the view is pretty well south from Crom Old Castle with its yew gardens  (Historic 6″), which might explain the odd shapes in the foreground, but it could also be from Crom new castle or even from Inisherk: I don’t know the lie of the land well enough, and would welcome enlightenment. The church on the right-hand side of the picture is Holy Trinity (C of I) church at Derryvore, which originally had a steeple. The drawing shows the island of Innisfendra (Inishfendra) on the left, after which Waterways Ireland’s latest tug has been named.

Another Brocas pic on the NLI site seems to complement the first image: it shows a view to the right of the other, with Gad Island and with Corlatt in the background. I suspect that The regatta  was done (perhaps from a boat) at the same event: the ruins look to me like those of Old Crom Castle.

 

 

 

Riasc report …

… in today’s Irish Times.

Tax-dodging boat-owners redivivus

In December I posted a piece suggesting that the amount of money received by the Revenue Commissioners in Mineral Oil Tax was far below what it should be. New readers may wish to know that, under an insane system introduced by the Irish government to give the impression of complying with a European Union ruling, owners of private pleasure-craft are allowed to buy cheap green (rebated) diesel (marked gas oil) but are supposed to pay to the Revenue the difference between the amount they paid at the pumps and the amount that would have been paid without the rebate. This difference is called Mineral Oil Tax.

Having discovered the total amount received by the Revenue, and deduced from that the number of litres on which the tax was paid, I wrote:

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the average pleasure craft has a 40hp diesel engine (which is what my 1960s cruiser had). That would use two gallons or nine litres per hour. So the 313,748 litres of diesel on which Mineral Oil tax was paid [for the year 2010] would have kept one cruiser going for 34,861 hours.

On the other hand, if there are 10,000 pleasure craft in Ireland, with diesel engines averaging 40hp, then they are claiming to have cruised for an average of three and a half hours each in the whole of the year 2010.

I suspect therefore that there is significant underpayment of the Mineral Oil tax and I suggest that the system should be abolished: boat-owners should pay the full (auto diesel) price.

I later converted that post into a page, to give it more permanence. On that version, I added the suggestion that the inland hire fleet probably accounted for the vast majority of the diesel on which Mineral Oil Tax was paid. Note that the owner of a hire fleet would make a single return covering the entire fleet.

Some folk objected to my mentioning this matter at all; others suggested that I was wrong and that most boat-owners were undoubtedly law-abiding taxpayers. Accordingly, I asked the Revenue for the number of returns received in each of the two full years for which the scheme has operated. The response:

[...] the number of returns for 2009 (received in 2010) was 38 and for 2010 (received, near end of 2010 or in 2011), the figures was 41.

Most boat-owners have been dodging the tax. I rest my case.

 

 

 

 

Killaloe bridge

More on the new bridge here with the full public notice here [PDF]. Interesting to see how many of the names of landowners are known to me.

I see on page 6 of the notice that the ESB owns two rivers, which are occupied by the ESB, Waterways Ireland, the Inland Waterways Association of Ireland and other unknown persons. There is a canal, whose owners are unknown, which is occupied by WI, IWAI and the persons unknown, as is an island. I do hope that the council will return the canal, rivers and island when they’ve built the bridge.

A note for a councillor

Councillor Pat Treanor is a Sinn Féin member of Monaghan County Council. According to the Clones Regeneration Partnership’s website,

Cllr Treanor referred to the recent economic appraisals carried out by Fitzpatrick Associates on behalf of the Government and made reference to the large job creation and physical regeneration that would flow from the [Clones] canal proposal.

As far as I know, the most recent Fitzpatrick study was published in 2007. It said (Ch 10):

In terms of formal quantified economic appraisal, all restoration options involve significant net costs over benefits.

In other words, the Clones canal is a waste of money.

Clones folk might like to have a large wodge of public money spent in their area; Waterways Ireland might like to be able to keep engineers in employment. But neither of those wishes should weigh with those charged with the care of the state’s finances. If proposals like this are seriously considered by Irish government departments, then the sooner Angela Merkel appoints an official to run the place, the better.

Perhaps, though, a household tax in Monaghan could be used to pay for this, er, investment?