Jump to content

Ian Mac

Member
  • Posts

    477
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Ian Mac

  • Birthday June 9

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Rossendale
  • Interests
    All things transport related, Computers, Farming.

Previous Fields

  • Occupation
    Retired Professional Engineer
  • Boat Name
    NB SPEY
  • Boat Location
    Leigh Lancs

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Ian Mac's Achievements

99

Reputation

  1. We have become very concerned by the changes in headlights, our own included. We switched to a LED headlight a while ago, so we could better see at night, so the more lumens the better was the principle, and we stuck to a fog light reflector so that we got a wide narrow beam, once the technology allowed us to. We started off using a pair of array LEDS. However although it is great for night boating we have discovered that it blinds people coming the other way. Two reasons for this 1) is the number of lumens 2) is the colour temperature. This second one is a real problem for two reasons the colour temperature effects the quantity of lumen quite significantly currently, the higher the colour temp the more lumens you can get. However the higher the temp the more dazing the light becomes, due to the way the human eye works. This is why it is getting harder to drive on the roads at night due to dazzle, as more and more headlights become LED ones, and nearly all road Leds are high colour temps. So we are now in the process of fitting a duel bulb system, where we will have a powerful wide beam and a low power very warm white 2500K bulb and the steerer will be able to switch between them. Hopefully this will mean when we are cycling back towards the boat, we will not cycle into the cut which is why we started to look into this problem, in the first place. Too many near misses. It will also mean if we get dazzled in a tunnel we can totally dazzle back, and maybe the boat coming the other way will get the hint. Till then we will be putting a paper bag over the headlight in tunnels.
  2. I bet you can, as it's free to tax anything built before 1981!!!!!
  3. Own is the wrong legal phrase, MCC have a long lease on the Towpath and some other associated lands. C&RT only have a lease for the water walls and everything between them. I am not sure if this holds true at locks, having never seen the legal document, but only heard the problems this arrangement causes. The original lease was for most of the the Manchester 18 with in Manchester from above Great Ancoats lock 82. Not quite sure but maybe from Henry St bridge upwards. This was the 1970 water channeling project done by MCC. Then in the early 1990's the Council got the lease for the whole of the Manchester 9, this enabled them to bring it up to some sort of working state again. Then the millennium bid happened and Manchester had to make the decision to restore the 18 rather than just saying, they would. Not sure if they then got the missing bit between 84 and Henry St. and also the pound above lock 78. I know they did not have these bits as we worked upon locks 83 & 82 as volunteers for the WRG NW with RCS with permission from RCC in the late 1970's and early 1980's. The rest had been water channelled, except there was also a piece which was not open to the public from lock 78 to lock 77, this was never water channelled and there was never any public access, till the canal was fully reopened. This pound was used as a reservoir and to supply industry.
  4. Ownership and rights of the Rochdale canal are complex! This is my current understand and this is not the full detail. The Canal is still owned by the RCC and therefore Town Centre Securities, and the Ziff empire. The canal is then leased from RCC to now C&RT in the main this is a very long lease 777 years I think and counting down, from when ever the original parts started. The back history is complex for this set of leases and involved both councils and The Waterways Trust. In Manchester it is yet more complex as the original lease was to Manchester City, they in turn have leased just the water part of the canal to now C&RT via TWT. MCC retain the lease for the towpath, and other adjoining lands. RCC still own large tracts of land in Manchester. I do not know if this split ownership also applies in Calderdale, however I have not heard of this before reading it above, and I was under the impression that the C&RT had full rights except in Manchester City. The Drydock & Wharf are leased still by Calderdale. however this is offside land and not normally part of a canal anyway, so the TWT and then C&RT would not have taken it unless they had to, as there would be an associated cost. There is also an ongoing dispute over who owns the bridges in Manchester, particularly the footbridges which replace the low level paths which Manchester installed as part of the water channelling. This dispute is between MCC & C&RT. The offside boundary is complex in places as RCC had leased out land before the restoration, it was unusual for them to sell it outright.
  5. Rochdale Canal water supply. This is an ongoing story, as Pluto says the summit reservoirs were all sold off to Rochdale Council in 1923 for public water supply, with the right to a small supply kept from Chelburn and a larger supply from Hollingworth Lake. The only supplies to the summit level is from Chelburn and from a small stream at Warland, which enters the canal just above Longless Lock 36 which is the eastern summit lock. As has been written elsewhere the stream supplies are under threat as the rules on abstraction have recently been changed by the government and all the grandfather rights have been extinguished C&RT are having to make many thousands of applications in an attempt to retain these old rights. There are also supplies from streams just below lock 44 and above lock 33, and another supply from the Calder below lock 25 lock. There is also a pumped supply again from the Calder below lock 5. The supplies from the Calder are new and therefore already controlled by the EA so can only operate when there is sufficient water in the River Calder. There is a reasonable feed which enters the canal on the Rochdale level below lock 48 from Hollingworth lake. Originally there was a pumped feed from Hollingworth lake via a long sough some of which is underground, to the western end of the summit. This was stopped a long time ago, although the Rochdale Canal Company were still inspecting it in the mid 1980's, however the location of the access shafts to the culvert have been lost. The summit reservoirs and Hollingworth Lake are now the property of United Utilities, the wonders of privatisation. Every now and then UU want to sell the summit reservoirs, especially when the cost of reservoir inspections appears, and there have been no droughts. C&RT will not take them on unless they are fully inspected. Rochdale Council will not let UU just drain them, so there is hope for the future maybe. C&RT are also looking at the cost of installing a pump back scheme up from Littleborough to the summit, however that will not be cheap.
  6. The L&L collapse of the culvert. This is not be be unexpected. Many years ago a culvert collapsed and BW panicked and inspected all the other culverts on the western side. I do not know if the eastern side was also done. The reason for the panic was the style of culvert build was basically a wooden box made of elm, and the elm is now 200 years plus old. There are a lot of these culverts, so the decision was taken that rather than panic and fix them back then, that they would be fixed on fail, as it is very hard to see just how good the wood is still, and therefore if it needs to be replaced. With hindsight this was the correct decision, as they seem to be failing at about 1 every 2 years. The fix is to dig out the old wooden structure and replace it with a concrete pipe. I would predict that this repair will take about 8 weeks, depending on the start date. That will be governed by getting an access agreement to take modern plant in to undertake the job.
  7. Hi Folks, well as Mark99 has said the planning committee have rejected the planning request. Thanks for all you late letters, there was mention at the meeting that there were about 50 late letters, not quite sure what these were but it all added to the PAC unanimously vote to refuse planning. Not sure if it now has to go to main council, but it is unlikely to be changed there. However this in my opinion is not the end of the line, as the applicant will not now just lie down, so we need to remain very vigilant. --cheers and Thanks Ian Mac
  8. All very interesting. I provide another though - My understanding is that the term Puddle Banks referred to sites which were sources Puddle Clay.
  9. What an interesting Document. Does it have the data for the Rochdale HVNC and Ashton canals, oh and the M&BB if so could I have sight of them please. -- Cheers Ian Mac
  10. NOTE . One should get a response to your email. This is a standard reply. It tells you about the public meeting. I believe that only 3 people can speak for either side and that the C&UCT are one of those, due to speak. So please do not panic, it should all be in hand The council officers are recommending refusal, however we are taking part in the longer game, in case an appeal is mounted. So please keep sending in those emails of objection. -- Cheers Ian Mac
  11. It would appear that the application to build over the Uttoxeter canal is now due to be heard by Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Thursday Next 9th September 2021. We are now into playing a numbers game, in an attempt to stop this greedy development. The more people that write an additional objection the better, these are refereed to as late representations. please emailed jane.curley@staffsmoorlands.gov.uk about the Bolton Copper works application SMD/2020/0684 A short paragraph stating that you object, is what is required, together with your full postal address. Pick one of the following rather than writing a long letter. This is a nationally recognised historic monument which will be destroyed by this proposal. When restored it will become an import canal holiday route visiting the fine Staffordshire moorlands. There is a current active team slowly restoring the canal as money become available. The route is in theory protected from development by the Staffordshire moorlands structure plan The route is protected by the Churnet Valley Masterplan. The proof that volunteers can restore it is there they have already restored the first lock. That this restoration will be stopped in its track if the current application goes forwards and therefore you and other will not be bring your tourist money to the area. This application is being driven by greed, and we do not object to the other land already designated for housing to have housing on it. The proposed walking route for the towpath will be destroyed. Please get anyone else you know in your immediate circle of friends to write as well, as long as they are over 18 years old. It does not matter if you have written before. You can send more than one email, about a different point. It is a number game now!!!!! -- Thanks in advance Ian Mac
  12. By definition, if the boat was going uphill, which I have read it was, then the pound above must have been relatively low and therefore the flow over the top gates relatively low, unless there was another boat coming down the flight at the same time, which I believe there was not. It has to be a low flow otherwise they would not have been able to open the bottom gates, against the flow to gain access to the lock. All very unfortunate but as everyone keeps on saying you have to be on your toes all the time.
  13. I believe that the Boating Reps have set this Facrebook group up so boaters can join if they wish, it is a moderated group so that flame wars, etc can be avoided. I believe Helen is doing a good job of disseminating what is happening at council. As elected reps there are also Myself and David Williams who are on council on the behalf of the volunteers and @StarUKKiwi is there as the friends choice, she of course no longer has a boat, due to ill health. David Kent is the elected rep for fisheries. There are 2 for the businesses who use C&RT and another for the employees. Then there are the nominated ones - see the C&RT web site for the full details. Please remember the main function of a council member, as determined by the government, when it created the charity, and created council members, is not like that of an MP, to act as a representative. A council members main function is to appoint trustees, and monitor them, although we do have connections and the boaters reps are using them, for the good of boaters, as you will have seen if your following Helens reports. -- Cheers Ian Mac
  14. Hi All need your help! Its a relatively easy task. First, some nearly really good news A developer is proposing to restore the 1936 breach above Prestolee Locks at Nob End, Little Lever, Bolton. Unfortunately the plan is only to restore it for narrow boats, even though the M&BB is a broad waterway, and the new locks in Salford off the Irwell have been created as broad locks :) I would be good if you could all to write to Bolton Council and object to the restoration plans for the 1936 breach above Prestolee Locks at Nob End Bolton and that the restoration should be to the original gauge of the canal of 14ft 2inches or 4.32m in modern speak. There are two parts which matter to the canal, first is the new bridge to access the Creams site, this is proposed to have a 2m towpath and a 3m channel. The second part is the restoration of the breach its self, where again only a 3m channel is proposed. I believe we should object to both, on the grounds it will stop wide beam boats reaching Bury when the restoration is completed. One can object online at https://www.planningpa.bolton.gov.uk/online-applications-17/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application with the reference no. is 09775/20 Unfortunately they do not make it very simple!!! One has to create a login. Go to the link above, put the reference 09775/20 into the simple search box at the bottom, and click search, this should bring up the Planning » Application Summary page for the ERECTION OF 274 DWELLINGS ON TWO SITES Then click the comments tab, then click login and comment, you have to create a login identity, before you can comment, and that process sends you a verification email - uhhh! Once you have leapt these hurdles, the site has a timeout, so it is better to create your comment elsewhere and copy and past it in. Oh and you only have 2000 chars to play with! But you can repeat the process if you want more space. The M&BB Canal Soc think that getting a 3m channel is the best they can get, and want to go with this. I believe otherwise and that we should all push the council, so that Bury is not excluded from getting history wide beams back, because of the short-sightedness of Bolton Council. The bridge is not a major problem as the designed can be modified I believe with a floating/removable towpath which can be pulled out of the way to allow wide beam boats to get through it, and on to Bury. This should enable the developer to not have to build a huge spanning bridge over the canal, which would cost significantly more, I'm guessing. The bridge design can be modified so that it does not have a towpath, it would be cheaper to build for the developer and either the developer could provide or C&RT or the M&BB Canal Soc could raise the money for a floating towpath, as the final solution. In the mean time access could be via paths going up to the road from either side., which should be provided so that the local residents have easy access to the canal. The floating towpath could be constructed of standard narrow canal boat hulls in principle with support legs, a walking deck and hand rails, giving an approximate 2m width of path through the bridge. By definition two narrowboats will fit through a 5m gap! The termination of the towpath at the bridge abutments would have to be redesigned so that it links to the floating towpath. Please see the Rochdale Canal passage under the M62 at Castleton, for an example of how this can be done. The length through the breach can also be re-organized by doing two straight sections of 4.32m min width we really can keep it that tight, and why not? That is what the locks are. This is only another 4ft 8inches on the currently proposed 2.92m channel. Then at the intersection of the two straight lengths a rotating area can be provided which would allow full length maximum beam boats to realign for the other straight section and then carry on. They would not be able to simply sail through, but would need to be guided through as at locks, but they would get through, a slight increase of another 100mm would help but is not totally necessary. please see brown markup on attached plan. The realignment area can either be at the front (towpath side) or at the back away from the towpath. I personally think at the towpath side is best and a curve can be used. The architects would need to do the detail but its not far away from what is being proposed. They could gain some of this extra 1.4m by pushing the northern wall back into the bank a little further. By totally removing the old offside wall. They could also shrink the towpath a bit and make the apron that supports it slightly wider, and hey presto we are there. The area for the twist to realign the boat will be at the back of the breach area and so would not cause significant addition loading on the land slip area, and would need to be approximately another 3.3m wide at the apex of the two offside lines, I calculate. It is easy to fix and not that much more expensive. It may also be possible for volunteer labour to help. please see the Granthan canal and the Lichfield canal restorations, I for one would be keen to help. Its not ideal, however it would work. It means that the costs are not running out of hand, and it's a workable solution for the developer. Below I have added an image showing roughly how I think a 4.32m channel could be achieved through the breach area, shown in brown.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.