Jump to content

Whaley Bridge Evacuated


furnessvale

Featured Posts

14 hours ago, AndrewIC said:

If the water comes in much faster than it can get out, as it would when a months rain falls in half a day (or whatever the numbers were, something of that order) with little notice, and the drain valves are relatively small (2 x 15in pipes according to the site about their refurbishment), then there’s probably not a lot you can but watch from a safe distance. The alternative is to keep the reservoir much emptier.

I agree. What I don’t know, (but what somebody knows), is how and when the faster than usual rising water was spotted, and how and when the level reducing steps were first actioned.

 

If the actions started at their maximum as soon as the water started rising faster than normal, then fair enough. If they started after the overtopping began, or even when it became the torrent, then maybe something could have happened earlier or much earlier.

 

My perception is closer to the latter, but it’s obviously open to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Nightwatch said:

I have written to BW and latterly CRT asking if their contractor is responsible for cutting to the edge of the bank. There's evidence of this not happening and weeds and other stuff that I don't know the titles of, grow into, eventually, small bushes and small trees the the contractor is certainly not responsible to cut and clear, even though if they had done their job to the specification in the first instance there wouldn't be small bushes and small trees to remove. These bushes and trees damage the bank and associated fittings.

bushes and trees?   are you sure?

 

as stated in the reports mentioned previously, the last inspection found there is no evidence that CRT is not keeping harmful vegetation under control, and did not consider that weeds growing from the joints between the slabs represented a risk.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

I agree. What I don’t know, (but what somebody knows), is how and when the faster than usual rising water was spotted, and how and when the level reducing steps were first actioned.

 

If the actions started at their maximum as soon as the water started rising faster than normal, then fair enough. If they started after the overtopping began, or even when it became the torrent, then maybe something could have happened earlier or much earlier.

 

My perception is closer to the latter, but it’s obviously open to change.

I think, but am not entirely sure, that if the inflow sluices had been closed before, or even at the commencement of, the period of unprecedented heavy rain , the 'months worth of rain in 24 hours' would've raised the level of the reservoir by about the three or four inches which fell over the surface area. 

A few inches should not pose a problem as there should always be some headroom available.  

Was there any headroom available in the days prior to this event? How much? If not, why not?  

I am sure some of the many local users of the reservoir could answer at least some of these questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LancaCanal said:

I think, but am not entirely sure, that if the inflow sluices had been closed before, or even at the commencement of, the period of unprecedented heavy rain , the 'months worth of rain in 24 hours' would've raised the level of the reservoir by about the three or four inches which fell over the surface area. 

A few inches should not pose a problem as there should always be some headroom available.  

Was there any headroom available in the days prior to this event? How much? If not, why not?  

I am sure some of the many local users of the reservoir could answer at least some of these questions.

err   ..... what about the inflow from streams draining into the reservoir?  do you know the area of the catchment?  try repeating the calculation when you have that information to hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LancaCanal said:

... the inflow sluices ...

Do you have any details of these inflow sluices?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toddbrook_Reservoir describes what is a passive arrangement that diverts flow into the reservoir only when the river is high enough. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/77820 being a photo of the wier (by the same person who took the 2005 photo of the spillway). The wier flowing is shown at the start of the video I linked to earlier in the thread ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXLVRGxsWgc&feature=youtu.be ).

 

It was also reported, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-49189955 , that the water flowing into the reservoir was being diverted using materials being flown in by the helicopter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Murflynn said:

exactly - but it keeps the meedya in bizness, innit?

 

perhaps the meedya would find more fertile ground in the Gulf countries, where typically it might drizzle for an hour or so 2 days a year and then the next year the roads in a major city like Abu Dhabi are a foot deep in water from a local storm.  They could say '5 years' rain in an hour'.

 

I guess its because telling in units that means something doesn't sound difficult or challenging for the reservoir to deal with at all. 

 

"31mm of rain fell in 12 hours" is what actually happened. I doubt this is unusual at all, and happens thousands of times all over the country every year. 

 

 

 

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Get the detail right!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Murflynn said:

bushes and trees?   are you sure?

 

as stated in the reports mentioned previously, the last inspection found there is no evidence that CRT is not keeping harmful vegetation under control, and did not consider that weeds growing from the joints between the slabs represented a risk.

Not talking about this location buy certainly the Southern Oxford that I wrote to CRT about. Next time you're out and about just look for 'more than grass' growing out from behind the armcove or shuttering. Little twigs become bigger twigs that then become little trees, that are probably not in the spec to clear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Murflynn said:

err   ..... what about the inflow from streams draining into the reservoir?  do you know the area of the catchment?  try repeating the calculation when you have that information to hand.

The main inflow from the catchment area is, or should be, able to be diverted by sluice gates. Were these working satisfactorily? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nightwatch said:

Not talking about this location buy certainly the Southern Oxford that I wrote to CRT about. Next time you're out and about just look for 'more than grass' growing out from behind the armcove or shuttering. Little twigs become bigger twigs that then become little trees, that are probably not in the spec to clear. 

sorry, I didn't realise we were discussing the canal bank.   :rolleyes:

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, LancaCanal said:

The main inflow from the catchment area is, or should be, able to be diverted by sluice gates. Were these working satisfactorily? 

The main inflow is not, and has never at any time been, diverted by sluice gates.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, LancaCanal said:

The main inflow from the catchment area is, or should be, able to be diverted by sluice gates. Were these working satisfactorily? 

Most canal reservoirs take the whole input from the catchment area. The level can be controlled by a valve in the dam itself, but this is only used in an emergency or for maintenance. Any excess water flows over the spillway. Of the L&LC reservoirs, only Slipper Hill has a feed controlled by a sluice next to a weir in a stream (other small streams feed directly into the reservoir), and Barrowford takes any excess off the summit. All the others take the full runoff from the catchment area without any controls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canal and River Trust were concerned that most members of the public had never heard of them and had no idea what they did. Their lack of brand recognition was a problem to them, hence the Sinking Tyretm logo rebrand and the new blue signs everywhere. No longer a problem! No such thing as bad publicity apparently.

 

Jen ?

Edited by Jen-in-Wellies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Canal and River Trust were concerned until recently that most members of the public had never heard of them and had no idea what they did. Their lack of brand recognition was a problem to them, hence the Sinking Tyretm logo rebrand and the new blue signs everywhere. No longer a problem! No such thing as bad publicity apparently.

 

Jen ?

They just missed their chance, they could have painted a giant sinking tyre logo on the spillway.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mayalld said:

The main inflow is not, and has never at any time been, diverted by sluice gates.

 

 

According to the Wikipedia link above, at times of low flow, all of the water in the Tod Brook flows around the reservoir. Only at times of higher flow does water flow over a weir to enter the reservoir.  This was presumably originally intended to maintain water flows to mills downstream.

During the recent emergency I presume this weir was blocked to ensure that even if the brook flow was high water would continue to flow along the brook channel and not into the reservoir. Water from smallr streams and direct runoff from the hillsides would continue to enter the reservoir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

I agree. What I don’t know, (but what somebody knows), is how and when the faster than usual rising water was spotted, and how and when the level reducing steps were first actioned.

 

If the actions started at their maximum as soon as the water started rising faster than normal, then fair enough. If they started after the overtopping began, or even when it became the torrent, then maybe something could have happened earlier or much earlier.

 

My perception is closer to the latter, but it’s obviously open to change.

It would be silly to go to the expense of building a large spillway, and then enlarging it, if you did not expect that at some time, even once a century, it was used. What then was wrong about letting it over top on this occasion?

 

Just because it had never been used to that extent before which showed that it did not function as planned is no reason not to have used it in the first place.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

It would be silly to go to the expense of building a large spillway, and then enlarging it, if you did not expect that at some time, even once a century, it was used. What then was wrong about letting it over top on this occasion?

 

Just because it had never been used to that extent before which showed that it did not function as planned is no reason not to have used it in the first place.

If it was "allowed" to overtop, that would suggest that someone was monitoring the situation, and making some decisions about what to do. Is that what happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

If it was "allowed" to overtop, that would suggest that someone was monitoring the situation, and making some decisions about what to do. Is that what happened?

let's be honest here - even if the whole of the British Army had been 'monitoring' the dam during the recent freak (??) weather, any 'decisions' about what to do would have had no impact on the water being 'allowed' to overtop the dam.  It was, simply, inevitable.  Much of civil engineering is about dealing with the inevitable and minimising the consequential damage, be it related to dams, sea defences, sewers, river banks, earthquakes, landslips, or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kettleshulme is a village which has a stream that flows into Todd Brook above the reservoir. I've just stumbled across this video of damage caused by the rainfall https://youtu.be/LBadbPs6_v0 , also a video at https://www.newsflare.com/video/308209/ross-nursery-in-kettleshulme-near-toddbrook-dam-took-the-brunt-of-the-cloud-burst?a=on 

The village pub also has some photos of the flooding on its Facebook page https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2688859381188500&id=154838791257251

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought this might be of interest to some - from the Vicar and the local volunteers to the emergency services and the military. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49275929

 

Whaley Bridge dam: The people who saved a village

By Duncan Leatherdale BBC News
 
More than 1,000 people have worked day and night for the past seven days to stop a reservoir dam collapsing and destroying a village in the Peak District. These are some of the stories of those who helped save Whaley Bridge from near disaster. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

Thought this might be of interest to some - from the Vicar and the local volunteers to the emergency services and the military. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49275929

 

Whaley Bridge dam: The people who saved a village

By Duncan Leatherdale BBC News
 
More than 1,000 people have worked day and night for the past seven days to stop a reservoir dam collapsing and destroying a village in the Peak District. These are some of the stories of those who helped save Whaley Bridge from near disaster. 

 

 

So many heroes! That's a brilliant article. Everyone deserves to be honoured in some way.

 

But... now that a horrendous disaster has been diverted; I can't help but wonder about the fish? Did they get swept away by the pumps? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jennifer McM said:

So many heroes! That's a brilliant article. Everyone deserves to be honoured in some way.

 

But... now that a horrendous disaster has been diverted; I can't help but wonder about the fish? Did they get swept away by the pumps? 

The latest news is that they are to be rescued from the low water and sent on holiday while the last of the water is removed.

 

One very fat cormorant at the dam will be most disappointed!

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jennifer McM said:

But... now that a horrendous disaster has been diverted; I can't help but wonder about the fish? Did they get swept away by the pumps? 

That's a good point and one I'm not sure about. I would have though there would be something that covered the pumps so the they could only hoover up water because drowned fish aside they wouldn't want to suck rubbish and debris into the pumps. I think the area is a SSSI so they would need to have something in place to protect that. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

I would have though there would be something that covered the pumps so the they could only hoover up water because drowned fish aside they wouldn't want to suck rubbish and debris into the pumps. I think the area is a SSSI so they would need to have something in place to protect that. 

God forbid that any SSSI's get sucked into the pumps and dispersed throughout the land.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.