Tag Archives: Erne

UC@NIA

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

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.

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?

 

Unrealistic expectations

1818

It has not been shown that sobriety increased in Co Leitrim after the canal to Lough Allen was built.

1845

The waterway, completed in 1859, closed in the 1860s. It is not clear that any Killaloe slates ever reached Ulster by the waterway.

2007

The Clones canal today, a united Ireland tomorrow?

 

Show me the money

The Clones dudes have got Jimmy Deenihan to say that the canal to Clones is a great idea.

They haven’t got him to fund it. Or to say where money is to be found (perhaps the Monaghan gold mines?)

Is it kind to keep these chaps hanging on in this way? I blame the department. I begin to suspect that its northsouthery section fears that it will never gain fame and fortune from Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch (whatever about its companion, Foras na Gaeilge) and is reluctant to kill off its chance of getting its photo in the papers at the ceremonial turning of a sod. Brendan Howlin might usefully direct his department‘s attention to the matter.

I love it when you talk tough to me ….

Mooring Warning for Lough Erne Public Jetties

As a result of continual breaches of the mooring bye-laws, Waterways Ireland intends to prosecute using the penalties set out in the Lough Erne Bye Laws (Northern Ireland) 1978 as authorised by Department of Culture Arts & Leisure (DCAL).

From Waterways Ireland press release 12/01 of 27 January 2012.

 

Northern subsidy?

The Waterways Ireland Corporate Plan 2011–2013 [PDF] tells us how the body is funded:

Waterways Ireland receives grants from money voted by the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Houses of the Oireachtas. At present 15% of recurrent or maintenance funding is provided by the Assembly in Northern Ireland and 85% by the Irish Government reflecting the current distribution of the navigable waterways, while capital development works carried out by Waterways Ireland are funded separately by the jurisdiction where the works are carried out.

This is not new information; I quote it here only for convenience (but note how “the Houses of the Oireachtas” becomes “the Irish Government”).

Now look at these figures from Annex C of the Corporate Plan. They show, for 2011, the proposed budget for current expenditure on each waterway. I have rearranged them in descending order of amount:

  • Grand Canal €4,559,160
  • Shannon Navigation €4,240,398
  • Royal Canal €2,713,052
  • Barrow Navigation €1,296,538
  • Shannon–Erne Waterway €1,269,450
  • Erne System €380,239
  • Lower Bann €375,270.

It would be interesting to compare the value for money offered by each waterway. However, it would be necessary to allow for the non-navigational responsibilities WI has for each waterway: for example, it has to look after a lot more bridges on the Grand Canal than it does on the Erne. I do not have enough information to make valid comparisons.

My immediate interest is in the figures for the Erne and the Lower Bann. Granted, the burdens on WI are in some respects lower than for other waterways. But the two northern waterways are getting a total of €755,509 spent on them out of a waterways total of €14,834,107, which is about 5%. Yet the NI Assembly is paying 15% of WI’s current expenditure.

Perhaps I’m missing something. I would welcome enlightenment.

 

Waterways Ireland salary reductions

Annex E of the Waterways Ireland Corporate Plan 2011–2013 [PDF] ssets out the Efficiency Savings Delivery Plan:

This Delivery Plan describes the measures Waterways Ireland will implement to achieve its target savings for 2011–2013.

Efficiency Programme

The Body will realise total efficiencies of £5,229,000/€6,377,000 from 2011-2013 as shown in the Total Efficiency Table below. […]

One problem for WI is that it expects to have to increase its pension costs by €1,175,000 over the three years, which means that WI actually has to save about €7.5 million over three years. It is showing a “Reduction in Capital Spend” of €3,102,ooo over the three years, plus reductions in Admin of €1,637,000 and in Resource of €2,813,000.

Here is how WI intends to achieve the Admin savings (€1,637,000 over three years):

Increase control in administration including negotiation of reductions in rates for Back Office Managed Services, new mobile phone contract and overtime control.

And the Resource savings (€2,813,000 over three years):

Controls over maintenance costs including lockkeepers agreement, salary reductions in Ireland and overtime control.

That looks as if most of the Resource savings are going to come from the wages bill; that in turn suggests that other costs have already been cut. The Resource reductions are allocated to waterways. In descending order of size the total figures for the three-year period are:

  • Grand Canal €910,000
  • Shannon Navigation €662,000
  • Royal Canal €503,000
  • Barrow Navigation €387,000
  • Shannon–Erne Waterway €232,000
  • Erne System €70,000
  • Lower Bann €69,000

 

 

A slight delay

Keeping up with Waterways Ireland’s corporate publications is a bit of a chore: there doesn’t seem to be any system allowing interested citizens to sign up for alerts, so you have to troll on over to the relevant web page and check for new stuff (I’ll see whether Page2RSS works).

Anyway, I don’t know when the WI Corporate Plan 2011–2013 [PDF] was uploaded, so it may be that everybody has already read it, although it wasn’t approved until October 2011:

This Corporate Plan 2011 – 2013 was approved by the North/South Ministerial Council on 12th October 2011 subject to budgetary considerations by the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Naturally, I had a look for mentions of the Ulster Canal. It’s still there in Business Objective 2, which includes this:

Progress restoration of the Ulster canal from Upper Lough Erne to Clones.

But what isn’t there is any money (other than small change). Annex B shows these amounts of expenditure:

  • 2011: €390,000
  • 2012: €140,000
  • 2013: €390,000

With an expected total cost of €45,000,000, it seems that there won’t be much progress in the next few years.

Thank goodness.