|
When there are were no permanent closures on the waterway
system, one might ask why everyone is going round prophesying dire consequences
when only a few million pounds are removed from the government's contribution
to the £190 million needed to look after British Waterways' network. The
explanation goes something like this:-
- Most of that money goes on day-to-day expenditure like
vegetation management, litter clearing, inspections, lock-keepers etc.
- Only the remainder is available for mending things, and
it is out of this that BW has to save those 'few million pounds', a much bigger
proportion.
So, what does a reduction in maintenence budget actually
mean? 
There is a curve that can be applied to almost anything from
housework to aqueducts. It shows what it costs in money or effort to restore
the item to a particular standard according to how long it has been left to
deteriorate.
Let's use the curve on the life expectancy of a new BW
'asset' which is due to become a write-off after 50 years, i.e costs more to
repair than replace. Let's say that after 48 years it is about to become
unusable and BW spends just enough to restore it to a 'fair' condition. Left to
decay after this it is only about 7 years before it is unusable again.
If twice that amount was spent, bringing it up to a 'good'
condition, the asset would remain usable for nearly three times as long.
Restore it to 'As New', which may not cost that much more,
and you get another 48 years of usability.
Bearing in mind there is also a fixed amount to be spent on
each repair getting the gear on site, it really does makes sense to go round
the worst cases first and do them up properly. If BW isn't allowed to do that
it won't be long before the previously repaired assets need doing again at the
same time as other ones are due to become unusable.
That is what the realists predict if BW is starved of funds
over any significant period. The problem is that the people in DEFRA making
these decisions won't be there to hear the words 'We told you so'. |
