Category Archives: Restoration and rebuilding

WI’s budget: the minister speaks

Posted on Thursday 17 October 2013 | 12 comments

I wrote here about the implications of the RoI 2014 budget for Waterways Ireland. The minister, Jimmy Deenihan [FG, Kerry North/West Limerick], spoke about it in the Dáil on Wednesday 16 October 2013 [h/t KildareStreet.com]. At the end of his lengthy contribution he said:

I am committed to developing North-South co-operation within the broader arts, heritage and commemorative activities of the Department as well as through the funding of North-South bodies. A provision of €38.3 million will be made available to support the two North-South implementation bodies, An Foras Teanga, comprising Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency, and Waterways Ireland. The provision will enable Waterways Ireland to deliver on its core activities and targets, which include keeping the waterways open for navigation during the main boating season and promoting increased use of the waterways resource for recreational purposes. This expenditure should also assist in developing and promoting the waterways, attracting increased numbers of overseas visitors and stimulating business and regeneration in these areas. Capital funding of almost €4 million will be made available to Waterways Ireland to facilitate the ongoing maintenance and restoration of Ireland’s inland waterways, thereby increasing recreational access along the routes of waterways.

The Government has reaffirmed its commitment to continuing to make progress, to improving the economy, to exiting the bailout, and to helping to create jobs. The Department and the sectors it represents will make a significant contribution to this work over the course of 2014.

I pointed out last year that Waterways Ireland is part of northsouthery and that, at budget time, we don’t get a breakdown of the northsouthery budget between An Foras Teanga and Waterways Ireland. In 2011, WI got roughly 60%, but I don’t know what happened after that. Here’s what I thought was happening last year:

Current spending (WI)

2010 Estimates: €25 585 000
2011 Estimates: € 24 335 000
2012 Estimates: €22 929 600 (60% of €38 216 000)

Capital spending (WI)

2008 Estimates: €11 000 000
2009 Estimates: €10 300 000
2010 Estimates: €8 000 000
2011 Estimates: €6 000 000 (or €6 002 000)
2012 Estimates: €4 500 000 (or €4 502 000) (100%)

In his speech, above, the minister said that northsouthery is going to get €38.3 million and that Waterways Ireland is to get capital funding of €4 million. However, the €4 million is included in the €38.3 million. The expenditure report [PDF; see page 160] gives these details:

  • for 2013 northsouthery had €36 210 000 of current spending; for 2014 it will get €34 425 ooo
  • for 2013 northsouthery had €4 080 000 of capital spending (all, or almost all, of which was for Waterways Ireland}; for 2014 it will get €3 958 000
  • the overall budget for northsouthery is down 5%.

We can calculate that the capital budget is down about 3%; the much larger current budget is down 5%. If WI gets 60% of the total, its current expenditure contribution from RoI will be €20 655 000, down over €2 000 000 from the previous year and about €5 000 000 since 2010, and its total current expenditure (85% RoI, 15% NI) will be €24 300 000.

The other interesting part of the minister’s speech is what WI is expected to do:

  • promoting increased use of the waterways resource for recreational purposes
  • developing and promoting the waterways
  • attracting increased numbers of overseas visitors
  • stimulating business and regeneration in these areas
  • increasing recreational access along the routes of waterways.

That should keep them busy. But I omitted one activity:

  • keeping the waterways open for navigation during the main boating season.

Emphasis mine, but does this mean that winter boating (at least if it involves staff time, eg at locks) will become a thing of the past?

 

12 Comments

Posted in Built heritage, Drainage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Irish waterways general, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Shannon, Sources, Tourism, Ulster Canal, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Maureen O’Sullivan and Effin Bridge

Posted on Thursday 17 October 2013 | 4 comments

A knowledgeable written question [h/t KildareStreet.com] from Maureen O’Sullivan [Ind, Dublin Central] about the Effin Bridge over the Royal Canal at Newcomen Bridge:

To ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht if he will identify the parties concerned with the operation of the lifting bridge which occupies the site of the original first lock on the Royal Canal Newcomen Bridge, Dublin 1; the factors that contribute to the status of the lifting bridge; if he will convene a meeting of interests concerned with the operation of the lifting bridge with a view to devising a management and operational system that is less hostile to the use of the waterway as currently it is an impediment and discouragement to navigation on the Royal Canal and an obstacle to navigation-communication between the Royal Canal and River Liffey and between Royal Canal and Grand Canal at their eastern reaches; and if he considers the lifting bridge could be re-engineered as a dropping bridge.

The minister, Jimmy Deenihan [FG, Kerry North/West Limerick], responded:

I can advise the Deputy that the parties concerned with the operation of the lifting bridge over the railway line close to Newcomen Bridge are Irish Rail and Waterways Ireland. The bridge carries the rail line from Connolly Station to the lower line link to the docks area. The bridge was procured and installed by Waterways Ireland’s predecessors. The bridge is operated by Irish Rail staff on a request basis at Waterways Ireland’s expense. The option of introducing a drop lock to replace the need of the lifting bridge has been considered but not deemed viable due to the cost estimate involved.

Note that the question was about a “dropping bridge” but the answer was about a “drop lock”.

The answer suggests that the number of lifts each year is a function of the number of requests made by Waterways Ireland; it would be interesting to know whether that it actually so. If it is, then WI’s budget [cut again] is probably the ultimate determinant; if Irish Rail has a say in the matter, its operational needs may influence the decisions.

I cannot think of any cost-effective solution. I am not convinced that the bridge in itself discourages navigation.

 

4 Comments

Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Non-waterway, Operations, People, Politics, Rail, Restoration and rebuilding, Safety, Sources, The cattle trade, The turf trade, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Water levels in Athlone

Posted on Thursday 17 October 2013 | 2 comments

At time of writing, the depth of water at Athlone Weir is 1.7m. “Staff gauge zero is 35.360m above Poolbeg datum”, which means the water level is 37.06m OD (Poolbeg). According to Bob Cullen’s 2002 article for Inland Waterways News [PDF], “The minimum navigation level in Lough Ree is 36.88m OD”, so if the level drops another 0.18m, about 7 inches, there may be a WI Marine Notice.

It seems that the dropping of the level of Lough Ree is intended to provide a buffer against flooding in the area from Athlone downstream to Meelick. According to Brian Hayes “A meeting between the ESB, Waterways Ireland and the Office of Public Works to review the interim operating regime is due to take place shortly.” [I have asked Waterways Ireland for a report on the meeting.]

But, if we are to believe the Dublin Evening Mail, the Shannon Commissioners took a rather more robust attitude to flooding downstream of Athlone: steamers [and PR] came first.

2 Comments

Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Charles Wye Williams, Drainage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Natural heritage, Non-waterway, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Safety, Scenery, Shannon, Sources, Steamers, The cattle trade, The turf trade, Tourism, waterways, Waterways management, Weather

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The modernisation of Sinn Féin

Posted on Thursday 17 October 2013 | 4 comments

I have criticised Sinn Féin’s obsession with the cutting-edge transport technology of the eighteenth century, the canal, and particularly with the proposed reconstruction of the Clones Sheugh. I am therefore glad to report that the party has now moved on to more modern transport technology: that of the early nineteenth century, in the form of the railway.

In a written question on 15 October 2013, Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin [SF, Cavan-Monaghan, home to the Clones Sheugh] asked the unfortunate Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport

… if he intends to apply for funding under the Trans European Network–Transport (Ten-T) 2014-2020 for the development of a rail network linking [London*]Derry to Limerick, Shannon and Cork, or any part thereof, along a western arc corridor; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I presume that it took the minister’s civil servants some little time to answer; they would have had to recover from ROTFL [as the young folk say nowadays]. When they recovered, they penned this response to be delivered by the saintly Leo Varadkar [FG, Dublin West, who has enough problems on his hands without extending railways but who has the virtue of a lack of interest in sports]:

As I have indicated to the House previously, I have no plans to develop a so-called “Western Arc” rail line from Cork to Belfast as this would require both the re-opening of the remaining phases of the Western Rail Corridor and also the development of new rail lines to connect with the rail network in Northern Ireland. It should also be noted that the Northern Ireland Executive has no plans to provide such new rail lines. The Government’s policy in relation to the funding of capital projects to 2016, including the development of rail and road links, is set out in the “Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012-16: Medium Term Exchequer Framework”. Due to the overall reduction in funding for transport infrastructure the priority to 2016 is to protect investment made to date and to maintain safety standards. The limited funding available over and above this priority will only be provided for projects which are affordable, meet overall transport objectives and deliver the best return in terms of economic recovery and job creation.

I would draw the Deputy’s attention to the Programme for Government and in particular the commitment that: “We will insist that major capital projects are subjected to proper cost-benefit analysis and evaluation, improving future productivity and growth prospects, and that the value-for-money obtained is significantly enhanced compared to the most recent period.”

The Irish Rail commissioned AECOM/Goodbody “2030 Rail Network Strategy Review” examined the potential for new and re-opened lines and it did not recommend the development of a rail link between Sligo and [London*]Derry or between Donegal and [London*]Derry. Likewise its predecessor, the “Strategic Rail Review” in 2003 did not recommend such rail links. The performance of Phase 1 of the Western Rail Corridor between Ennis to Athenry to date has been very disappointing even allowing for the recession. Given the pressure on the public finances there are no funds for new subsidies or to develop new rail links in any part of the country. Moreover CIE is in a precarious financial situation and is dependent on continued bank funding. For all the reasons outlined above, the Government has no plans to further extend the heavy rail network. In these circumstances the question of applying for Ten-T funding to develop a rail line between Cork and Belfast via Shannon, Limerick and [London*]Derry does not arise.

Phew.

But Mr Ó Caoláin cannot have expected any other answer, so I wonder why he wasted civil service time by asking his question. Perhaps he has been inspired by the shade of Arthur J Balfour and hopes to kill northern Home Rule with southern kindness?

* “[London]” inserted in the interests of parity of esteem and intelligibility to unionist readers.

 

 

 

 

4 Comments

Posted in Ashore, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Foreign parts, Ireland, Non-waterway, Operations, People, Politics, Rail, Restoration and rebuilding, Sources

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

WI budget

Posted on Tuesday 15 October 2013 | 6 comments

In 2014 the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht [.pdf: go to page 51] is to cut its current expenditure on North–South Co-operation by €2.1 million:

Savings, in excess of the agreed 3% per annum efficiency savings, for the North-South Implementation Bodies will require the approval of the North-South Ministerial Council.

The 85% of Waterways Ireland’s current budget that comes from the [Republic of] Ireland government is in there somewhere; the NI executive pays the other 15% and, in theory, the North–South Ministerial Council will have to give its blessing, but in practice the NI ministers can hardly force the RoI ministers to pay up.

There’s a list of 14 High Level Programme Activities [mustn’t hurt anyone’s feelings by leaving out their favourite fodder] of which No 13 is

Development of inland waterways within the context of the implementation of the Good Friday and St. Andrews Agreements.

Translation: Ulster Canal, even if there’s no money for it. But there is half a million for a

20-Year Strategy for Irish with a range of concrete measures, including supportive actions to roll out the language planning process on the ground, in line with the Gaeltacht Act 2012. These actions will include direct support to community organisations to enable them to prepare and implement practical and deliverable Irish language plans – not only in the Gaeltacht itself but also in selected towns and areas in other parts of the country.

Do they ever give up? They’d be better off supporting Ulster Scots, which has at least some chance of showing a growth in the number of speakers. But page 51 has a long list of imaginary measures to allow the department to claim that it will save €15 million in 2014: more efficient working, review, examining the scope for achieving further efficiencies … waffle.

On the capital expenditure side, RoI and NI each pays for works within its own jurisdiction. The RoI spending will be down from €4071000 in 2003 to €3858000 for 2014: a cut of just over 5%.

Maybe the money is being put aside to pay for the Clones Sheugh, although it’s not specifically mentioned in the document.

 

6 Comments

Posted in Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Industrial heritage, Ireland, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Tourism, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Waterways minister keen on waterways

Posted on Friday 11 October 2013 | Leave a comment

An exchange from the Northern Ireland Assembly on 7 October 2013, thanks to theyworkforyou.com.

Pam Brown (DUP) asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure whether inland waterways could be developed to provide a major leisure and recreational activity resource.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin; Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure): Waterways Ireland is one of the all-Ireland bodies that my Department has responsibility for. You can see the value of the work that it does, particularly in rural areas. I am also working with some councils to improve some of the waterways within their control. I agree with the Member that inland waterways provide brilliant opportunities not just for tourism but for local leisure. They are the economic driver in some towns and villages.

Pam Brown (DUP): I thank the Minister for her answer. She has touched on my supplementary question. Does the Minister agree that the development of inland waterways, while a great source of leisure and recreational activities, can also act as a catalyst for urban and rural regeneration?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin): I agree. I made a statement to the House in July, I think, about some of the events that take place at inland waterways across the island. Those events include festivals and family fun days. Huge numbers attend those events, and they act as economic drivers. Not only are those responsible keen to make sure that they are further developed, but people from other areas visit those festivals in towns and villages to see how they can extract that product for their area. They see the potential and outcome of those events.

That’s good: nice cheap family fun days, not expensive and unnecessary waterway restorations.

Leave a comment

Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Scenery, Tourism, Ulster Canal, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , ,

Work begins at Sallins

Posted on Friday 11 October 2013 | Leave a comment

New moorings: Waterways Ireland press statement here and marine notice here.

Leave a comment

Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Safety, Sources, Tourism, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Newry and Narrow Water

Posted on Friday 4 October 2013 | 10 comments

I wrote a few days ago about the proposed bridge across Carlingford Lough at Narrowwater (or Narrow Water). I was reminded of that today on reading a debate, held in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 30 September 2013, about a proposed Newry Southern Relief Road [thanks to theyworkforyou.com].

Apart from an admittedly minor mistake made by a Sinn Féin MLA about the Newry Canal (first summit-level canal, not “oldest inland waterway” in These Islands), the debate was remarkable for its demonstration of cross-party agreement: not so much on the desirability of public works (a desideratum of Irish politicians since the eighteenth century) as on the irrelevance of the Narrowwater bridge. Jim Wells [DUP] said:

There has also been some progress on the Narrow Water bridge project, although we do not know exactly where we stand. First, that bridge is far from certain, and, secondly, even if it were built, it would not relieve much of the traffic that we are dealing with. It would certainly not relieve the large number of juggernauts coming through from Warrenpoint harbour.

Sean Rogers [SDLP] said:

Narrow Water bridge is merely a tourist bridge, but the relief road would take heavy goods vehicles off the streets of Newry, reduce traffic congestion and attract even more shoppers to the city. Heavy goods vehicles would also have a direct route to Warrenpoint port, increasing trade in the port area.

And the other contributors to the debate did not mention it, which suggests to me that it is seen as irrelevant to the traffic problems of Warrenpoint and of Newry.

The Minister for Regional Development, Danny Kennedy [UUP], gave a lengthy response to the debate, including this point:

A more detailed technical investigation of the specific options for crossing the Newry canal was also recommended, given the sensitive nature of this important heritage feature. It is expected to require at least the provision of a bascule, or lifting bridge, to allow the passage of tall ships on the canal. The width of the Victoria lock already limits the size of ship that can enter the canal and it is expected that any bridge would maintain a navigation channel that matches the width of the sea lock. My Department will continue to consult with NIEA on how the impact of the proposal on the canal might be mitigated and an appropriate design developed.

And it seems that one of the areas being considered for the road is Fathom, which is where the Victoria Lock is. It is a short distance north (and upstream) of the border.

It must surely be unlikely that there will be two crossings of Carlingford or the Newry River [and canal] within a few miles of each other. But if one option, the Newry Southern Relief Road, helps to relieve Newry and Warrenpoint traffic and the other, the Narrowwater bridge, doesn’t do so, then the first option would seem to be the rational choice.

Although I wouldn’t bother providing for “tall ships”.

 

 

10 Comments

Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Non-waterway, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Scenery, Sea, Sources, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Not weed?

Posted on Monday 30 September 2013 | Leave a comment

Waterways Ireland and the Japanese knotweed, courtesy of KildareStreet.

Leave a comment

Posted in Ashore, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Ireland, Natural heritage, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , ,

Erie warning: stuck with a sheugh

Posted on Thursday 26 September 2013 | Leave a comment

New York is a place in the Americas. There is a town of that name and there is also a state, whose economic development in the nineteenth century was assisted by the development of a canal, about which you can learn more on this excellent site. There is a trail along the canal that can be walked or cycled.

The canal is run by the New York State Canal Corporation, which is a subsidiary of the New York State Thruway Authority [a thruway is, it seems, a sort of road]. The canal loses money (naturally). The Thruway Authority sought to increase tolls; the State Controller said it should save money and improve management instead. Inter alia, it should

Commission an independent analysis of the Canal System to examine ways to streamline operations, seek new funding streams, and develop a realistically attainable vision for its future role in the upstate economy.

In his full report [Assessment of the Thruway Authority’s  Finances and Proposed Toll Increase [PDF] Office of the New York State Controller August 2012], the Controller said that

[…] the New York State Constitution forbids the Legislature to sell, abandon or otherwise dispose of the canals […]

but that

[…] choices regarding operational control and financial support for the Canal System are policy matters to be determined by the Governor and the Legislature.

His summary said that

Additional factors in the Thruway Authority‟s current weakened condition include the Authority‟s responsibility for financing and operating the State‟s Canal System as a result of legislation enacted two decades ago. The Canal System has consumed more than $1.1 billion of Thruway resources in the ensuing period. Contrary to the original legislative intent, responsibility for supporting the canals has diminished the Authority‟s ability to pursue its core mission. Moving the Canal System into the Thruway Authority was intended, in part, to stimulate tourism and economic development along the historic
canal corridors. This goal, too, has been elusive; boating activity on the canal has  declined substantially under Thruway control.

Later in the report he said

Second, the Authority‟s financial resources and organizational expertise, along with the then-newly created Canal Recreationway Commission, would position the underused Canal System to improve its facilities and marketing such that new users would be attracted from around the country, and even around the world.

Neither of these hoped-for outcomes has occurred. The Thruway Authority has invested more than $1.1 billion in the Canal System, and this drain of toll resources has also contributed to the deterioration of the Authority’s financial condition over the past decade. Meanwhile, despite major investments and new amenities, pleasure-craft activity on the Canal System in recent years is down by nearly one-third since the period immediately before the Thruway Authority assumed control.

The local media seem to take a somewhat more informed interest in their sheugh than do those in these parts:

Ireland and the United Kingdon could avoid finding themselves in these difficulties by refusing to recreate any more sheughs.

 

Leave a comment

Posted in Built heritage, Drainage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Sources, Steamers, Tourism, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,