IanD

But on what grounds could Peel be challenged if they refused to repair the breach and restore navigation? If they own the canal and do not have any legal obligation to keep it navigable (which seems to be the case), how could they be forced to fix it?

Not exactly a good deal though -- you can take over the canal, but only the expensive-to-run bits not the generating-money bits... 😞

Closed the weekend before last. Lots of complaints about the landlord, attitude, food. Presumably the pubco will be looking for a new manager. Lots of comments on the Buxworth Re-United group on Facebook, for those interested and who can bear to use Facebook... https://www.facebook.com/groups/202542456586634/

Which was exactly what I suggested earlier... 😉 The problem is that even if Peel gave the canal to CART for free -- and being a commercial company, this seems unlikely, I expect they'd want some money in return for the "asset" -- this would then leave CART carrying the can for the costs of the repair, which would undoubtedly be several million quid (the much smaller Lancaster breach which has just been reopened cost £1.6M). Which unless CART find this down the back of the sofa, means several million less to spend on other things like essential maintenance, for which they already have too little money... 😞 Yes it would be good for the long term bringing the Bridgewater back into the unified canal system under an organisation whose job is to make the canals work, not provide profit for shareholders. But in the short term the cost for CART would be painful. I also wonder how much the somewhat decrepit Barton Swing Aqueduct would cost to sort out, it's in a bit of a state so maybe Peel would be glad to be rid of it... 😉 Of course we care, we're all woke culture warriors... 😉

I hope it does, but I suspect it doesn't... 😞 (however I would be delighted if my suspicions proved to be wrong!)

What does "repair the breach" mean, exactly? You have no idea, and AFAIK neither does anyone who hasn't seen one of these letters. Production of a letter -- a legal document -- will hopefully tell us whether the canal is going to be reopened for navigation or not, which should be what everyone wants to know. Peel are only "the bad guys" in the same way that any private company whose motive is to make profit is "bad" -- it's like blaming a crocodile for eating swimmers, it's in their nature. They employ clever lawyers and accountants to help them make profit and avoid losses, like all private companies. The speculation about lawyers and accountants and possibly-deceptive announcements and Peels' motives is simply based on what has happened far too often in the past -- blame diversion, evasion and sometimes deception -- in cases like this. It's why it's a problem having public infrastructure owned by private companies (whose job is to make money) as opposed to public bodies like CART (whose job is to provide a service/infrastructure) -- the Bridgewater Canal is one example, the water companies are another, there are plenty more... 😞

"At 0700, Solong’s master returned to the bridge and took over the watch as the lone watchkeeper. The visibility in the area north of the Humber light float was reported to be patchy and varying between 0.25 nautical miles (nm) and 2.0nm. Neither Solong nor Stena Immaculate had a dedicated lookout on the bridge. At 0947, Solong collided with the anchored Stena Immaculate’s port side on a heading (HDG) of 150° and speed over the ground (SOG) of about 16 knots (kts) (Figure 3)." Which explains why the Solong's captain has been charged with manslaughter...

Because other boaters apart from those moored on the Bridgewater might just possibly want to be able to travel along that stretch of canal, part of the Cheshire Ring and a major N-S link? I would guess there are far more boats in a year wanting to do this than Bridgewater moorers -- who if they stay moored in marinas (like many seem to) may not care if the breach is there or not. What is your objection to me saying that "we" -- meaning, all boaters -- need to see this information?

DFTT...

No, I saw it -- but that came after the post the argument is about. Either way, this is like two bald men arguing over a comb -- what matters is what Peel's letter actually says, which is what we need to see.

That's true -- but on that basis why have VMs anywhere when you can have lucrative private online moorings instead?

I don't know if that can then be imported into the Victron system -- in my case I've got a GPS dongle plugged into a USB port on the Cerbo, the problem is that reception isn't very good because the small patch antenna attached to the dongle is inside the boat, so it often reads "no GPS location data"... 😞

I don't understand why they don't have something like half a dozen visitor moorings next to the basin. Right now there are maybe three (don't know if that's three full-length boats), which means none if two boats with git gaps take them all up... 😞 The problem is that unlike many places with VMs where you can moor on the towpath just outside them so it doesn't matter so much of they're all full, at Whaley Bridge there are no available towpath moorings all the way back to the junction/bridge, they're all private. Anyone would think they don't *want* boaters to visit the place... 😉