Tag Archives: Operations

There is no houseboat policy

British Waterways (now in the process of transferring its waterways to the Canal and River Trust) has a commercial subsidiary called British Waterways Marinas Ltd. And BW says:

Our involvement in the commercial moorings business is monitored and regulated by the Board’s Trading Committee [9KB PDF] to ensure that we gain no unfair advantage from our statutory roles and that we comply fully with UK competition law.

BWML, incidentally, has two marinas catering for seagoing boats and also has some caravan pitches available.

As well as providing marinas through BWML, British Waterways also controls long-term moorings along the waterways; its policy on long-term moorings is outlined here with more details here. It uses a system of auctioning moorings, with its own website at BW Mooring Vacancies.

From a quick look at the price list on that second page [PDF], the cheapest mooring seems to be £37.59 (incl VAT) per metre at the Saracens Head on the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, which would be £676.62 a year for an 18m boat; I presume that there would be no services. At the upper end, you can have a residential berth on Regents Canal in London for £8,949.95 a year. Most prices, though, seem to be in the range £70–120 per metre.

The Waterways Ireland houseboat facility

In October 2010 Waterways Ireland announced this (which is hard to find on the WI website):

10/38 Shannon Harbour Developments

Following receipt of planning permission, Waterways Ireland is progressing with the development of a houseboat facility in Shannon Harbour where the Grand Canal meets the Shannon.

The result will be a serviced mooring facility in Shannon Harbour for 6-8 boats. This will include moorings, area lighting, electricity and water.

A section of the Grand Canal, from the 34th Lock to the 35th Lock inclusive, will be closed to navigation between 1st November 2010 and 14th March 2011 to facilitate the improvement works. The towpaths will also be closed during the period of the works.

The design and commissioning of the work has been undertaken by Waterways Ireland. The tenders are currently being assessed and will be awarded shortly.

Waterways Ireland regrets any inconvenience to its customers during the period of the improvement works.

Ends Word Count 133

For further information please contact Waterways Ireland Press Office: Katrina Mc Girr Tel no +353 (0)87 991 8412

Senior Engineer (Technical Services) Joe Mc Mahon Tel no +353 (0)48 6634 6270

Here is the tender for “Development of House Boat Facility”. There are some photos of the work in progress here. Early in 2011 WI reported (inter alia) that:

11/05 Works at Shannon Harbour

Works at Shannon Harbour Continue Despite Weather Conditions

[…] The work on the house boat facility is still on programme with completion expected in early March 2011.

During Engineers Week in 2011, WI provided site visits:

11/08 Engineers Week

Waterways Ireland Offers Engineering Insights

[…] The site visit to the Grand Canal was based at Shannon Harbour, near Banagher. The tour took in the completed regeneration works in Shannon Harbour and the ongoing work to develop a new houseboat facility.

L+M Keating describe the work here. And in April 2011 WI Marine Notice 34/11 announced that the navigation had reopened:

MARINE NOTICE No. 34 of 2011 […]

Marine Notice No. 27 of 2011 refers.

Waterways Ireland wishes to advise masters and users that the navigable channel in Shannon Harbour is now open.

The new house boat facility remains closed to the public as construction work continues.

Waterways Ireland regrets any inconvenience that this may cause its customers.

So that’s all clear, then: WI was developing houseboat berths at Shannon Harbour, although it was having difficulty in finalising a houseboat policy. I commented on some of the issues here.

The latest developments

In January 2012 page2rss alerted me to a new item on the WI website and it turned out to be about the berths in Shannon Harbour. There is a link in the menu on the left-hand side of the WI home page; it says “One Year Serviced Moorings” and leads to a page whereon we read this:

Waterways Ireland’s Extended Term Serviced Mooring Vacancies

This page advertises vacancies that arise at Waterways Ireland’s directly managed mooring sites. Vacancies are advertised for 28 days in advance of allocation.

If you are not a regular internet user and would prefer to receive vacancy details and apply for a vacancy by post, please call (028) 6632 3004 or (048) 6632 3004 from Southern Ireland for an application form.

Latest Release: Shannon Harbour, Grand Canal, Co Offaly
Deadline for Application: 23 February 2012
Minimum entry bid Price €1,250

View full details

Download an application form

View the Mooring Agreement 

Each of the links is to a Word *.doc file.

The missing word

Have you noticed what word is not used there or on the front page?

HOUSEBOAT

or even

HOUSE BOAT

Previous discussion of the Shannon Harbour development, including notices from Waterways Ireland, has been about a facility for houseboats. However, what we have here is something much broader than that: a system by which Waterways Ireland can auction and allocate long-term serviced moorings. WI is going into business and, presumably, aiming to make a few quid (no bad thing, considering that it has been suffering budget cuts).

The current offering

Now, admittedly the present offering does hope to attract houseboats. The “full details” document says:

These are Extended Term Serviced Mooring sites where it is expected that the licence holders will live on board their vessels as their sole or main residence.

That is the only mention of living aboard in that document. There is another in the application form:

I confirm that I am applying for an extended term serviced mooring and the vessel is my sole or principal residence.

As far as I can see, though, the licence agreement refers only to extended term serviced moorings and contains no mention of houseboats, residences or living on board.

So let us suppose that WI doesn’t get seven houseboat-owners who don’t work from their boats, have no pets and want to live in Shannon Harbour. It could then advertise the spaces to barge-owners who wanted non-residential moorings. And at €1250 a year, they are charging about one third of the rate at certain marinas on the Shannon.

Further afield

The licence agreement could also be used, mutatis mutandis, to cover moorings elsewhere within the WI estate. It would not be difficult, for instance, to apply it to the moorings in the inner basin of the Grand Canal Dock in Ringsend in Dublin, with most changes confined to the second schedule.

And it could be applied just as easily to unserviced moorings anywhere along the waterways. Indeed the agreement specifically caters for that:

The Licensor regards the development of extended term and/or serviced moorings as an integral part of the functions referenced at B. above.

So it could be used, for example, to control the allocation of unserviced moorings at Shannon Harbour, Lowtown, Sallins or Hazelhatch, to residential or non-residential boaters: in other words, to anyone who parks their boat on a canal. I have, of course, no evidence that WI has it in contemplation to do any such thing, but it is interesting that the agreement provides for it.

Legal authority

It may be that WI has solved the problem of developing a houseboat policy by deciding not to have a houseboat policy. IANAL, but it may be significant that the licence agreement cites legislation on extended mooring:

D. Pursuant to the Canals Act 1986 and the Canals Act 1986 (Bye-Laws) 1988 (SI No. 247 of 1988) (“the Bye-Laws”) the Licensor is authorised to issue permits to authorise and regulate the use of boats on the canal property so as to permit not only mooring on the canals generally but also, pursuant to Clause 25(d) of the Bye-Laws, extended mooring at the same place, or within 500 metres of the same place, for a period of more than five days at a time.

E. The Licensor regards the development of extended term and/or serviced moorings as an integral part of the functions referenced at B. above.

F. To this end, the Licensor has developed at Shannon Harbour, on lands adjacent to the Grand Canal, a dedicated area containing seven berths for the purpose of extended term serviced mooring, with facilities provided to include the construction of fixed timber jetties with lighting, a clean water supply and electricity supply.

G. The Licensor in exercise of the powers conferred under the Act and the Bye-Laws and of all other powers enabling has agreed to grant to the Licensee a permit to moor his boat named _________ and more particularly described in Part 1 of the First Schedule hereto (“the Boat”), in this mooring facility subject to the terms set out herein, including a charge (“the Licence Fee”) of €_________ payable in consideration of the particular nature of the mooring as described at F above.

It regards the legislation as providing authority not just for regulation of extended mooring itself but also for the development of extended moorings. Could it be that WI feared that the development of houseboat moorings might be ultra vires?

In any event, by approaching the matter in this way, WI has given itself a system that can be applied much more widely to canal issues than just to the regulation of liveaboards.

Behavioural and Technical issues

These documents raise some further issues. For example, there are stipulations about behaviour:

7c Biodegradable products must be used for all cleaning water that is discharged into the navigation.

8a No pets are allowed.

9b If social events are to take place on Boats then noise levels must be contained so as not to disturb other Berth holders and there should be no noise after midnight.

11i Generators may only be used between 08:00hrs and 20:00hrs.

None of these is unreasonable, especially in the context of residential moorings, but they are indicative of WI preferences that might be applied elsewhere.

There are also some technical issues. They include a stipulation that would mean that no large Dutch barges, or other Shannon-size-only vessels, could use the Shannon harbour berths, and that no engineless houseboats are allowed:

g. Boats must be capable of moving under their own steam and be capable of navigation in the canal network.

The dimensions of the Shannon Harbour berths confine them to GCC-size vessels, but would (for instance) a high wheelhouse or a deep draught mean that a boat could not use these berths?

Here are some other technical stipulations. It is not clear how or whether WI would enforce these, but it has the power to do so:

6a All Boats must carry adequate fire fighting equipment and have same serviced as per the manufacturer’s recommendations.

10a Boats must comply with all current bye-law legislation in relation to construction and equipment.

10b Boats must be fitted with an operational waste water holding tank.

10c Engines must be fitted with a drip tray. Engines must be maintained so as to minimise the likelihood of fuel or oil leaks into bilges.

10d Boats must have a manual bilge pump fitted.

10e Boats must have appropriate certification for gas and electrical fits.

10f Boats must have had a recent survey (3 yearly).

Again, these indicate WI desiderata. Might they be introduced in other contexts? Note in particular the reqirement for three-yearly surveys and for certification of gas and electricity installations.

Envoi

I should say that, on the whole, I welcome these documents, but I do think that their provisions — and the context — need to be considered. And I have some reservations about this, if anyone is living aboard:

The Licensor’s Inspectorate staff shall be permitted access to Boats in order to secure same, make safety checks, or routine inspections.

 

The Ballycuirke Canal and Lough Corrib

Thanks to Padhraic Conneally, who left a Comment that started the hunt, and to Zara Brady (IWAI Corrib), who visited the site to ask about something else entirely, and finally to Trevor Northage of AnglingCharts.com, who provided the name and other information, we now have two extra Galway waterways to add to the list. They’re both covered, with maps, on this page, although only the larger, the Ballycuirke Canal, gets its name in the heading.

I would welcome more information about both canals. It seems that the Ballycuirke was built for drainage but also used for transport; I would be glad to know more about such transport.

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.

 

Limerick bridge

Just as Killaloe is to have a new bridge, so too is Limerick. Or perhaps more than one …. This page (on a site whose ownership I do not know) has a map of proposed routes for the proposed Limerick Northern Distributor Road, which is to provide a northern bypass of Limerick. You can read about it on the websites of the promoters, Limerick County Council, Clare County Council and Limerick City Council. You can download stuff. And you will be pleased to hear that there are to be consultations (only not many of them).

This road is to be built in two phases, the first covering the area from west of the city to Parteen and the second from there to the old Dublin road (N7 as was, now demoted to the status of boreen). There are (or were) several options for each section, but the decision to cross the navigation at the Ardnacrusha tailrace, between the power station and the existing bridge, seems to be set in, er, concrete: that is, it seems, where the ESB wants it.

Ardnacrusha and the tailrace seen from the existing bridge at Parteen

The current consultation is about Phase 2, south-east from Parteen. There are several possible routes.

Two of them, B1 and B2, would cross the Shannon downstream of Plassey and the Black Bridge; they would not cross the Plassey–Errina Canal. It would be important to ensure that they did not further damage the towing-path and its artefacts on the Limerick side.

The west bank below Plassey

Four other routes — C1, D1, D2 and E1 — would cross the Plassey–Errina Canal between Gillogue and Wooden Bridge; they would cross the non-navigable Shannon upstream of Plassey, between there and a point just above the confluence of the Mulcair. C1 seems to run very close to Gillogue Lock, although that may be an effect of the scale of the route markings.

Woodenbridge (which isn't)

I am sure that the ESB will look after the interests of the existing navigation (through Ardnacrusha) and that Waterways Ireland will look after those of the former navigation (the river to Plassey and the canal thence to Errina). However, it might be worthwhile lobbing in a comment to TPTB, first to sttress the heritage value of the abandoned navigation and second to suggest that a new road near Plassey might improve rather than diminish access to that area.

One final thought: this new road seems likely to put the final nail in the coffin of the Limerick Tunnel under the Shannon estuary downstream of Limerick. I very much enjoy using the tunnel, but many folk are deterred by the charges and they drive through the city instead — or, worse, cross the Shannon at O’Briensbridge. As a result, revenue is less than expected, so the traffic guarantee mechanism means that the National Roads Authority has to compensate the tunnel operators.

So now that a new, free, presumably fast road is to link the east and west sides of the city, what will happen to the numbers of vehicles using the tunnel and to the taxpayers who are ultimately paying the compensation? They’ll pay more. The tunnel is on a national primary route, so it’s the NRA’s problem, whereas the new bypass is a regional or local route, which is in the hands of the local authorities.

 

 

 

=p-po-

The Box in the Docks

From the website of the Dublin City Business Association:

Dublin City Business Association commissioned Jerome Casey and Felim O’Rourke to undertake a study of tourism in Dublin and to make least-cost recommendations for its rejuvenation. The World Tourism Organisation concluded (in relation to Ireland) that “there appears to be very little correlation between marketing spending by National Tourism Organisations and international arrivals”.

Within Ireland, there is a mismatch between the Irish tourism market and the public resources devoted to it.

33 existing tourist attractions in Dublin were reviewed, and low-cost initiatives suggested for their improvement.

From 2000 – 2010 Ireland’s share of world tourism visitors has fallen sharply. In 2004, Ireland changed from being a destination country for incoming tourists to an origin country for Irish, outgoing tourists.

Dublin must move from passive approval of tourist activities to an active development of tourism as a priority industry in regenerating the city’s economy.

As my piece on the Park Canal in Limerick shows, I’m all in favour of low-cost improvements, so I downloaded the full report (PDF: 949.7 kb). Folk interested in waterways might like to proceed directly to page 46, which reviews the Box in the Docks, the Waterways Ireland visitor centre in the Grand Canal Basin at Ringsend.

Some other water-based attractions get much better reviews.

 

 

 

 

Russells of Portarlington, timber merchants

I am indebted to Eleanor Russell for permission to reproduce four photos of the canal operations of Messrs Russells of Portarlington, timber merchants and sawmills operators. They used the Royal and Grand Canals (and the Barrow Line and Mountmellick Branch) to carry timber cut on large estates to their sawmills. One of the estates on which they cut timber was Rockville, and Eleanor Russell has also given me permission to use a photo of Rockville House, taken in 1913, on my page about the Rockville Navigations.

Pollardstown Fen

Pollardstown Fen is the source (via the Milltown Feeder) of much of the Grand Canal’s water supply. Here is a BBC programme about the sounds of the Fen (h/t John McCormack) and other aspects of the magical area close to Robertstown, Lowtown and the Hill of Allen.

Lock your door, turn off your telephone and spend half an hour listening. Shoot anyone who interrupts.

Since the programme was made, the sound recordist Tom Lawrence has died. His website is still up here.

Water feature

As part of the tourism-oriented improvements at Dromineer, a new water feature is being tested.

Dromineer water feature

 

 

Annoying the neighbours

It would be unfair to condemn the proposed opening of a canal to Clones without also condemning the proposed reopening of the Park Canal in Limerick (and the Newry, when I get around to it). The link is to a top-level page; the first substantive page has a lead to the second, the second to the third and so on up to the fifth.

Fracking Leitrim

This morning, on the wireless, I heard two people opposing the use of fracking to find gas around Lough Allen in Co Leitrim. Neither of them was convincing. One started by objecting to big multinationals being given licences to investigate the resources available; it is not clear that there was any ban on small native companies or workers’ cooperatives (or soviets of workers, peasants and soldiers) applying for licences, and presumably they could use traditional Irish implements like sleans if they wanted to.

The general line of argument adopted by the objectors was that anything that could go wrong would go wrong, probably all at the same time, wiping out the whole of Irish agriculture (some of which is not in Leitrim) and, er, eco-tourism. There would, the objectors seemed to suggest, be no preventive or mitigating measures and no insurance and the full cost of every accident would be borne by the residents of the area.

Remains of a pier at the brickworks, Spencer Harbour, Lough Allen

 

But the bit that really annoyed me was the depiction of the area as one of rural seclusion. Yet Lough Allen had canals, railways, coal mines, dams, iron works and brick works.

Spencer Harbour on Lough Allen

 

The very canal linking Lough Allen to the
rest of the Shannon Navigation owes its very existence to the desire
to carry coal from around Lough Allen to Dublin. And one of the most best tourism initiatives in the area, the Arigna Mining Experience, recognises that heritage.

Part of a brick

 

Insist on proper assessment and management of risk by all means, but don’t exaggerate it — and don’t ignore Leitrim’s industrial heritage.