Tag Archives: Waterways Ireland

The Exchequer Bill Loan Commission

Posted on Thursday 27 June 2013 | Leave a comment

I noted the other day that the North South Ministerial Council’s inland waterways meeting discussed how it might get the Irish government off the hook of its rash promise to fund the Clones Sheugh. It noted that:

[…] sponsor departments have agreed to examine the potential social benefits and leveraged funding opportunities in that context.

The interesting point is that the blasted thing wonderful investment opportunity was originally funded, using the same excuse, by a loan from the Exchequer Bill Loan Commission set up under the Poor Employment Act 1817. John Strettell Brickwood, Secretary to the Exchequer Loan Commissioners for Public Works [sic], said* that the Commission’s first £1.5 million was allocated in 1817 and that by 1835 £5.5 million had been advanced.

Of that, £200,000 (at 3¼% interest) was allocated to Ireland in 1827 and the Ulster Canal was allocated £120,000 of that; it drew down £40,000 in 1833 and the same again in 1835. Mr Blackwood said that the Ulster Canal money was issued under an express act of parliament, leaving the commissioners no discretion. There would be no repayment until the canal was complete, with the interest and principal payable only from the prospective income.

Isn’t economic development wonderful?

* First and Second Reports from the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the amount of advances made by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland with the Minutes of Evidence, Appendix and Index Ordered, by the House of Commons, to be Printed, 26 June and 27 August 1835

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Charles Wye Williams, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Non-waterway, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Sources, Tourism, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways management

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

News from the NSMC

Posted on Monday 24 June 2013 | 1 comment

The communiqué from the North South Ministerial Council inland waterways meeting held on 19 June 2013 is here. This is my selection of the interesting bits.

The NSMC got reports on WI’s additional moorings (368m during some unspecified period), sponsorship programme, maintenance (“with 99.8% of waterways remaining open during the month of April”), publications (food guide and What’s On 2013) and website.

The WI business plan for 2012 was approved, which seems a bit pointless in the middle of 2013. A budget of €31.15m (£27.10m) was approved for an unspecified year. Then there’s this oddity:

5. They also noted progress on the development of the 2013 Business Plan and budget. Following approval by Sponsor Departments and Finance Ministers the plan will be brought forward for approval at a future NSMC meeting.

This is the middle of 2013. The next NSMC inland waterways meeting will be held in September 2013. What is the point of approving the budget and business plan for 2013 three quarters of the way through the year?

And another point: why is it taking so long? My guess is that, if things were running smoothly, and allocations were easy, the work would have been finished by now, so I deduce that WI’s budget is under pressure, with consequences for its future activity and thus its business plan.

The NSMC “noted” WI’s annual report and draft accounts for 2012; they’re not on its website, so presumably someone else has to note them as well before they can be published.

The unfortunate Bastables seeking treasure to pay for the Clones Sheugh had their second meeting in May 2013 (their first was in September 2012). In the absence of any GB, and with half-sovereigns rather scarce, the Bastables have adopted the “Lo! the poor Indian” strategy:

[…] sponsor departments have agreed to examine the potential social benefits and leveraged funding opportunities in that context.

The NSMC decided that Waterways Ireland won’t have a Board but will think about governance again some time. And it appointed Dawn Livingstone as WI CEO.

1 Comment

Posted in Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Irish waterways general, Non-waterway, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Sources, Tourism, Ulster Canal, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management

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

Dawn Livingstone …

Posted on Monday 24 June 2013 | 2 comments

… is to be the new CEO of Waterways Ireland:

Ministers appointed Dawn Livingstone to the post of Chief Executive of Waterways Ireland for a seven year contract, with effect from 29 July 2013 or the earliest possible date thereafter.

It will be interesting to have a non-engineer running the shop.

 

 

2 Comments

Posted in Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Ireland, Irish waterways general, Operations, People, Politics, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , ,

O say can you see …

Posted on Friday 21 June 2013 | Leave a comment

… any sign of the next North South Ministerial Council inland waterways meeting? I’m interested because (apart from exciting news about the Clones Sheugh) it might announce the appointment of the new CEO of Waterways Ireland. The communiqué issued after the last meeting said the next would be in summer 2013 (assuming there is one).

I asked the press offices of Waterways Ireland, the Council itself and the two departments (DAHG and DCAL) but nobody has responded. I don’t know why the dates of meetings should be kept secret.

Incidentally, I can see the search terms that visitors to this site have used. Over the past week there have been several searches that included the term “waterways ireland” plus the name of a senior WI manager. Two such managers were sought; Google gives almost 1000 returns for one of them but less than fifty for the other.

Leave a comment

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

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

Bottles in Limerick

Posted on Tuesday 18 June 2013 | Leave a comment

Limerick has a new Economic and Spatial Plan, with lots of downloadable files and the general tone of a letter to Santa Claus. It has lots of adjectives, though, and fashionable concepts; all it lacks is money.

It wants a renaissance of the Limerick waterfront. It seems, though, that that doesn’t mean lots of dockers unloading timber, turf boats from Poulnasherry Bog, ships taking the ground at low tide, gales throwing vessels against the bridge, mills at Curragour, tolls on the bridges or other features of past life along the quays. Instead there will be things like this:

A New Public Waterfront

 Arthur’s Quay Park will be transformed into a signature Waterfront public space that draws visitors, hosts special events and provides a key stopping point within the City Centre and along the Waterfront and Riverwalk;

 This new Riverside Park will run the length of the City Centre from Sarsfield Bridge through where Sarsfield House currently stands, along between the Hunt Museum and the River and over a new pedestrian bridge into a pedestrianised Potato Market area linking up to the upgraded King John’s Castle tourist attraction;

 A new appropriately sized iconic building could be developed in the new Riverside Park on the former Dunnes Stores Site to accommodate tourism/cultural uses;

 New landscape, trees, surfaces, lighting, furniture, public art and interpretation should be structured to create a landmark WaterfrontPark, designed to international standards reflecting the prominence of this location within Limerick;

 A new space should be defined to host public events including celebrations, performance, festivals and start and finish points to Limerick based marathons and races;

 Clear, high quality pedestrian connections from Patrick Street and O’Connell Street and Henry Street would draw people to the Park;

 Signage and materials should identify the water’s edge as part of the continuous Riverwalk linking bridges across the Shannon and the two sides of the Shannon River;

 A new public open space should be created at the Sarsfield House site in the event of government office relocation, to reveal the view north along the Shannon to King’s Island from the City Centre and extend Arthur’s Quay Park;

 The Waterfront and public space at the Hunt Museum should be strengthened to provide an intimately scaled green space with external seating from the Hunt Museum restaurant and destination in its own right along the Riverwalk.

What is being proposed here (page numbered 99; page 124 of 172 in An Economic and Spatial Plan for Limerick [PDF]) is that Sarsfield House should be demolished and the area above the Custom House moorings would be opened up, with citizens not just permitted but encouraged to enter. Later on (page 108; PDF page 133 of 172) we read this:

Limerick Quays will be defined as the principal visitor and entertainment zone in the City  Centre – passive and active – accommodating a new visitor destination, walking, as well as eating and drinking in bars and restaurants that will activate the quays overlooking the River. This will be fully pedestrianised.

Now, that’s all very nice in theory, but what it means in practice is that any boats moored at the only safe moorings in Limerick, at Custom House Quay, will be within range of any bottles that may be thrown by the less domesticated portion of the citizenry, on their way home from getting tanked up in the bars and restaurants.

But perhaps the planners have thought of that and solved it in their own way. Figure 36: City Centre Proposals – Aerial View 1 on page 116 (141/172) is an aerial photo with coloured bits added; it shows the Custom House moorings. But Figure 37: City Centre Proposals – Aerial View 2 on page 117 (142/172), taken from a different angle, shows the pontoon at the corner of the weir, and the water space in the corner behind the Custom House, but the mooring pontoons have disappeared.

 

Leave a comment

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

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

The decline of the Shannon

Posted on Tuesday 18 June 2013 | 15 comments

The number of lock and bridge passages for the Shannon, in the first five months of 2013, has been just a little over half what it was in 2003.

Shannon passages

Shannon passages as percentages of the 2003 total

The usual caveats apply: the underlying figures (kindly supplied by Waterways Ireland) do not record total waterways usage as, for instance, sailing, fishing or waterskiing on lakes or river stretches, which did not involve a passage through a lock or Portumna Bridge, would not be recorded. The passage records are our only consistent long-term indicator of usage of the Shannon but they would not show, for instance, a change in the balance of types of activities from those in larger cruising boats to those in smaller (sailing, fishing, waterskiing) boats. On the other hand, they do include the Shannon’s most significant tourism activity, the cruiser hire business.

Cruiser hire activity, January to May 2003–2013

Cruiser hire activity, January to May 2003–2013

Over eleven years, the number of hire-boat passages has fallen from 11440 to 4781, a drop of almost 60%.

There are some minor inconsistencies in the Waterways Ireland figures, but they’re not large enough to affect the general picture.

Another caveat is that the picture to the end of May doesn’t predict the outcome for the year. Things like the weather and the date of Easter can cause boating activity to occur earlier or later in the year. In the first year of this series, 2003, private boaters seem to have been slow to get started; the number of passages in the first five months was lower than that for 2004. However, private boaters’ total for 2003 was higher than that for 2004.

Private boats January to May 2003–2013

Private boat activity, January to May 2003–2013

But 2013 is the first year in the series in which private boat passages have fallen below 3000.

Total Shannon passages, January to May 2003–2013

Total Shannon passages, January to May 2003–2013

And there are the totals: 51.15% of the 2003 figure.

We’re still in the first shoulder season; if the peak season is better than usual (and if the weather is good), the final figures for 2013 may end up looking more cheerful.

One small point, if I may: this sort of decline makes it pretty well impossible to justify increasing the cruising area by building sheughs in Cavan, Monaghan, Longford or anywhere else.

Addendum: if this story is true, we won’t be needing any increase in waterways capacity for quite some time to come.

15 Comments

Posted in Economic activities, Extant waterways, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Operations, Shannon, Sources, Tourism, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management, Weather

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

Elfinsafety and DUKWs

Posted on Sunday 16 June 2013 | 4 comments

In October 2011 I was in Liverpool, where I took a couple of photos of DUKWs taking trippers around the still waters of the no-longer-used docks.

DUKW in the Salthouse Dock, Liverpool

DUKW in the Salthouse Dock, Liverpool

DUKWing under the bridge into the Albert Dock, Liverpool

DUKWing under the bridge into the Albert Dock, Liverpool

In Dublin, Viking Splash offers similar tours, with the regrettable addition of horned helmets, as not worn by Vikings. The Dublin operation seems to have added two other items that were not discernible on the Liverpool DUKW.

VikingSplash DUKW Thor 18_resize

Extra buoyancy on the Dublin DUKWs

First, before they enter the water at Grand Canal Dock, Ringsend, the DUKWs are fitted with extra buoyancy in cylinders that slide into racks along their sides. I saw the VikingSplash crew removing the cylinders from the yellow DUKW; it took only a couple of minutes, and I presume that it didn’t take much longer to put the cylinders on.

VikingSplash DUKW Thor 25_resize

Buoyancy aids being collected after the trip around the dock

Second, the Dublin passengers are issued with buoyancy aids before they take to the water. I can’t see any buoyancy aids on the Liverpool passengers, although it’s possible that they are out of camera shot.

Sometimes we complain about extra health and safety (which often means insurance) requirements. Then something like this happens: a yellow DUKW sank yesterday in Liverpool — for the second time this year. I don’t know whether the precautions taken in Dublin would have averted the accident or enhanced the safety of the passengers but it does suggest that the Maritime Safety Directorate bods in Dublin do have a point.

Addendum: the speaker on this clip says that passengers began putting on buoyancy aids, which suggests that aids were issued but not worn. Given how quickly the vessel sank, and how constricted the space inside is, it seems to me that passengers should wear their buoyancy aids throughout the waterborne trip.

Later: scary video.

Later still: a BBC story saying that a tyre may have caused the problem, the Liverpool mayor’s opinion (and some good photos) and the firm going into administration.

4 Comments

Posted in Ashore, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Operations, People, Tourism, Water sports activities, waterways

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

Longford

Posted on Friday 14 June 2013 | Leave a comment

I thought I might make some rude remarks about Longford — the town rather than the county — but I felt I should investigate the case for the defence first. I decided to see what tourist attractions it had to offer, so I looked at the Longford page on the Discover Ireland website. It’s about the county, but that includes the town, whose many attractions will no doubt be listed. Clicking on the Highlights tab gave me a page listing three places for sightseeing:

  • Belvedere House and Gardens, which are in Co Westmeath
  • Strokestown Park House, Gardens and Famine Museum, which are in Co Roscommon
  • Corlea Trackway Visitor Centre, which is in a bog, although it is at least in a County Longford bog.

The Longford Tourism website is slightly more cheerful, mentioning walks by the Camlin on the north side of the town and along the line of the abandoned Longford Branch of the Royal Canal on the south. And the county council (I think) runs the Longford.ie website here.

Longford also has a place that fixes alternators and some nice bypasses, which is just as well as it also has the most infuriating one-way system in Christendom, allied with an almost complete lack of comprehensible signposts, especially if you want to go to Athlone, and a non-industrial wasteland to the south that adds nothing to the town’s charms.

What Longford doesn’t have is any particular reason for tourists to want to go there. So restoring the Royal Canal branch to Longford would not attract more people to the canal as a whole; it would simply displace them from elsewhere. For a boat entering the canal from the west, a night spent in Longford means a night not spent in Killashee or Keenagh or one day less to travel eastward.

The invaluable KildareStreet.com tells me that this point was not considered in a written question and answer in the Dáil on 11 June 2013.

James Bannon [FG Longford-Westmeath]: To ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht if he will provide an update on the restoration plan for the section of the Royal Canal from Killashee, County Longford to Longford Town, in view of the fact that this has been characterised as the missing link on the Royal Canal system; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Jimmy Deenihan [FG, Kerry North/West Limerick]: I can confirm to the Deputy that the Waterways Ireland Corporate Plan for 2011-2013, which has been approved by the North South Ministerial Council, plans for the completion of the feasibility study on the extension of the Longford Branch of the Royal Canal in December 2013, I am informed by Waterways Ireland that this study is presently on target.

I presume that, on the principle of a canal for everybody in the audience, an Inter-Agency Group will be set up shortly to find the money for the Longford Sheugh. But it makes no sense for the state to spend a penny on such a canal, although it might make sense for Longford Town Council (if it continues to exist) to spend its own money on the job of attracting visitors away from villages in County Longford.

Mr Bannon is known for his earlier attempt to promote the Irish organ.

Leave a comment

Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Irish waterways general, Non-waterway, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Tourism, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

No money for sheughs …

Posted on Wednesday 5 June 2013 | Leave a comment

… in the government’s new €150 million election manif exchequer works programme 2013–2014, announced today. Maybe it will be in the “New PPP [public–private partnership, I presume] Pipeline”, but I note that

The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform will be engaging with his colleagues the Minister for Education and Skills and the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in order to bring forward these additional PPPs.

No mention of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, thus depriving keen investors of the opportunity of making a profitable return on an investment in the Clones Sheugh.

Leave a comment

Posted in Ashore, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Non-waterway, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

FF -v- SF on C18 economic development

Posted on Friday 31 May 2013 | 4 comments

More from the splendid KildareStreet.com, this time an actual Dáil debate, with real people speaking, on 30 May 2013. The debate was initiated by Micheál Martin [head honcho in FF, Cork South Central], who asked the minister …

… his plans for capital investment in Waterways Ireland in the coming year; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

There are three odd aspects to that question.

The first is that Micheál Martin should already know that the capital expenditure allocation for WI within RoI for 2013 is €4 071 000: I can understand that he wouldn’t have wanted to plough through the vast wodges of budgetary bumpf, but I’m sure he would have read the highlights on this site.

The second oddity is that Micheál Martin must have known that the minister would not himself have any plans for capital expenditure: they would be WI’s plans.

The third oddity is that FF didn’t seem to have any particular reason for asking this question: the rest of the debate (see below) seems rather desultory. Could it be that it’s trying to reclaim the waterways limelight from the Shinners, who’ve been keeping an eye on WI dredging as well as on thon sheugh?

To be honest, it all seems a bit pointless: waterways may be interesting to me, and presumably to readers of this site, but they’re hardly of great national importance. A serious debate, by informed participants, might be useful, but (with all due respect to the contributors) there was little sign of that here.

Jimmy Deenihan did actually give some interesting, albeit minor, details about WI’s plans for this year. I omit the first two paras and the last, which are boring boilerplate bumpf that will be familiar to regular readers.

Jimmy Deenihan [FG, Kerry North/West Limerick]: While the Waterways Ireland 2013 business plan and budget is the subject of ongoing discussions with the co-sponsoring Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in Northern Ireland and will require formal approval by the North-South Ministerial Council, I have provided an indicative funding allocation of €4.071 million to Waterways Ireland for capital projects in this jurisdiction in the coming year. This will facilitate capital works by Waterways Ireland in developing, restoring and improving infrastructure for water based and activity recreation and tourism, consolidating facilitates and improving access to the waterways across the navigations.

I am advised that the Waterways Ireland draft 2013 business plan has a development schedule providing for 1354 m of additional moorings across the navigations. Works planned within this jurisdiction include a range of major projects such as upgrading Bagenalstown Lock on the Barrow; provision of a slipway and stabilisation of the dock walls at Grand Canal Dock, dredging the Grand Canal; development of houseboat facilities at Lowtown and Sallins; lifting the bridge at Tullamore depot; bridge upgrades, works on weirs and locks on the Shannon; and commencement of work on the Belturbet Service Block on the Shannon Erne and purchase of plant and machinery.

I said that I would welcome information about what “lifting the bridge at Tullamore depot” means. The answer was provided in the Comments below; here is a photo of the bridge in question.

The (currently non-lifting) lifting bridge at Tullamore

The (currently non-lifting) lifting bridge at Tullamore

 

Most of the rest is unsurprising.

The FF follow-up came from Seán Ó Fearghaíl [FF, Kildare South], who said:

I welcome the many positive developments to which the Minister referred but one of our concerns is that since 2011 the funding available for Waterways Ireland has been cut from €35 million to approximately €32 million.

Studies over the years have shown that waterways tourism is one of the activities that is most likely to generate return visits. As a regular user of places like the Shannon Navigation, one never ceases to be amazed at the number of non-nationals one meets on that waterway who have been coming back to Ireland year in, year out. I wonder to what extent the funding the Minister has available to him should be augmented by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. These waterways are of immense value to the local populations privileged to live in the catchment area of each amenity, along with their huge tourism importance. What sort of interaction does the Minister have with tourism bodies north of the Border and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport? Is anything planned for the waterways under the auspices of The Gathering?

What has happened in Kildare this week? We had Bernard Durkan [FG, Kildare North] the other day and Clare Daly [Socialist Party, Dublin North, but originally from Newbridge, Co Kildare] a moment ago; now we have a new chap from Kildare South.

Anyway, it can’t have come as any surprise to Mr Ó Fearghaíl that WI’s budget has been cut: so has everybody else’s, and the budgets were announced last December. I note that he didn’t ask how the Clones Sheugh was to be funded, never mind the Cavan Sheugh to Lough Oughter. But his question is the sort that a journalist might ask: vague, unfocused, couched in generalities, lacking in evidence of research into the subject. I would like to know more about his “Studies over the years”, with particular reference to the balance between and the allocation of the costs and benefits of investment in waterways; generating return visits is not in itself terribly useful (I really do not want Great Aunt Maud here again).

Not that the minister offered many hard facts in his reply:

I have seen for myself the provision of moorings at Killaloe and Ballina. Those have made a major difference to both towns in different counties on either side of the Shannon. The result of that investment is obvious and local people would accept that.

As regards involvement from Fáilte Ireland, Waterways Ireland is augmenting Fáilte Ireland’s promotion of the waterways. Waterways Ireland is providing funding on an annual basis for the promotion of tourism on its waterways. It is a North-South body, which is also very important, because Tourism Ireland promotes the entire island and the waterways network of more than 1,000 navigable kilometres can really be pushed on an all-island basis and we are doing that. I have tried to minimise the reduction in funding for Waterways Ireland because of its North-South significance and its potential and considerable work has been done. We have improved facilities for tourists so we are now ready to proactively promote this great facility.

Any, like, figures? Statistics? References to analyses? How much of WI’s budget is being diverted to the tourism bods and what is the benefit?

Next (and last) up was Peadar Tóibín [SF, Meath West], with “now for something completely different“:

A number of groups are actively trying to create a green way along the Boyne from the estuary to its source. The Boyne is littered with internationally recognised heritage monuments and would be a fantastic tourist attraction that would bring people into the region. People who holiday in the region visit Trim Castle and Newgrange on coach trips and as ar result Meath does not get the full value of their tourism. The Boyne Canal runs from Navan to Drogheda. It is not covered by the Waterways Ireland network. Would the Minister agree that such a canal should be brought within the ambit of Waterways Ireland, along with other canals, and would he consider the funds that might be available to help with the development of such a green way along the River Boyne?

The minister’s reply is interesting:

We have no plans to extend the present 1,000 kilometres of navigable waterways. The focus of our investment in capital development will be from Clones to Lough Erne to the value of €35 million.

What? No Cavan Sheugh? No Kilbeggan, Longford or Mountmellick Branch?

Oh, and note that the figure of €35 million is being quoted for the Clones Sheugh, although the last estimate I had form WI was higher than that.

The minister continued:

As regards the green way, I do not have direct responsibility but any way I can help through Waterways Ireland, I will do so. As a keen cyclist and walker, I am all for encouraging green ways wherever possible. If the Deputy has a proposal I can forward to Waterways Ireland for discussion, I will gladly take it.

Well, well. A Monaghan greenway is being developed; why not a Clones greenway too, instead of an expensive canal?

4 Comments

Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Irish waterways general, Non-waterway, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Shannon, Sources, Tourism, Ulster Canal, Uncategorized, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management

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