Jump to content

Whaley Bridge Evacuated


furnessvale

Featured Posts

46 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes I realise it supplies the canal, I meant why does the canal supply need such a mahoosive resevoir? It is only a buffer after all, not the source of the water supply. The Goyt could flow into the cut with no reservoir, on only a small one that poses minimal risk to the town below. 

Unfortunately, rivers and streams do not provide a constant flow, and reservoirs are needed to even out the rate of supply. Supplies for locks are probably less than a third of the water loss from a canal. Evaporation and leakage also need to be replenished, and both are increasing due to global warming and the reduction in maintenance standards over the last hundred years or so. I have said before that the canal system is an important part of land drainage, a part which is increasing as land alongside canals is developed. When CRT was formed, I did complain to the relevant authorities that the government's funding did not appear top specifically include a contribution for land drainage.The floods in the Calder Valley, with the damage to the Rochdale and Calder & Hebble were one result of a lack of government understanding of the nature of canals. I appear to have been the only one to question this aspect of the service to the country provided by canals back in 2012 when CRT was formed. Now is the time to write to your MP asking questions about CRT funding, and suggesting that it really needs increasing, rather than the government reducing it, given the on-going land drainage problems which the government has 'dumped' on a charity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BBC News :

 

Reservoir now down by about 1/3rd but with 1.5" of rain expected in the catchment area tonight there are still huge risks and the Marple area is now being prepared for flooding.

They estimate that if they can get the reservoir down to 25% it should be safe.

 

Police, the Environment Agency, and the Canal and River Trust have all said there is a "real risk" the 188-year-old dam could collapse and flood the town.

The Canal and River Trust has defended the maintenance and safety of the structure, which was built in 1831.

Mr Greenhalgh said: "This dam was inspected regularly, by us and an independent engineer.

"It needs to be remembered there was a huge amount of rain in a short time and this flooded the area."

 

Elevation of the reservoir

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-49222956

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pluto said:

 Now is the time to write to your MP asking questions about CRT funding, and suggesting that it really needs increasing, rather than the government reducing it... .

This writing to your MP isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

 

On different issues, I have written to my MP several times over the past few years. She always passed on my comments to the Minister responsible, and always got a reply thanking me for my comments, information and interest, but what the Government is doing, or is not doing, is correct, and my experience is unusual, (or some other brush off).

 

Unfortunately, I have stopped bothering as it’s a waste of time and effort. We are in an era where lessons are learned after the event, or it wasn’t on my watch, but I am dealing with it now, and similar. Something bad has to happen these days, before Government is diverted from its’ tunnel vision course.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Richard10002 said:

This writing to your MP isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

I wrote to my MP (who is also a JP) following an unresolved argument with my Local Authority over a planning issue  where they were "making the law up as they went along".

 

Long story short, he wrote to the Chief Executive, informed him I was correct and to resolve the matter immediately with suitable recompense for the inconvenience and stress.

 

It was resolved very quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

This writing to your MP isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

 

On different issues, I have written to my MP several times over the past few years. She always passed on my comments to the Minister responsible, and always got a reply thanking me for my comments, information and interest, but what the Government is doing, or is not doing, is correct, and my experience is unusual, (or some other brush off).

 

Unfortunately, I have stopped bothering as it’s a waste of time and effort. We are in an era where lessons are learned after the event, or it wasn’t on my watch, but I am dealing with it now, and similar. Something bad has to happen these days, before Government is diverted from its’ tunnel vision course.

I certainly agree re the reaction from politicians, but you can only complain sanctimoniously if you have complained in the first place.?

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

2016

 

 

 

WhaleyBridgeWeeds.jpg

As anyone who has had a concrete driveway will know weed growth leads to cracks and the frost weakens those so they allow water through which undermines the concrete until it cracks up, Basically it is no longer a strong surface to drive over rather a series of slaps which tip and rock under the wheel.  These are not weeds in the picture they are dirty great bushes and small trees any and all of which show you where the surface has failed and undermining is occurring.  There is no way a good inspector worth his salt would be happy with that, is there?  Still I suppose he wants to come and survey it next year and get paid more money and it looks almost OK and water rarely comes over.

Yes the rain is unprecedented and coming from the south west I know both Lynmouth and Boscastle so understand the problem but we have to try to help ourselves and not be ostriches as CART management / accountants seem to believe. Maintenance is not money wasted it is spent in-case the unexpected occurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

Would  it not  be difficult to sustain a  argument that a design is fundamentally  flawed if it has been okay for almost half a century?

yes, it would be difficult if the reservoir had been designed for a '50 year event'.   Dams and spillways should be designed for significantly more than the traditional '100 year event', possibly for a '1000 year  event'.   But as Magpie observes, it is all statistical, with no guarantees.  If the rainfall experienced in the catchment of the reservoir is not repeated for 1000 years then the design may prove to be adequate according to conventionally accepted design standards, however, any spillway of that type can be optimised, and should not have any constraints to simple sheet flow over the crest and down the slope.  Anything else is just asking for trouble.    .....................  imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

BBC News :

 

Reservoir now down by about 1/3rd but with 1.5" of rain expected in the catchment area tonight there are still huge risks and the Marple area is now being prepared for flooding.

They estimate that if they can get the reservoir down to 25% it should be safe.

 

Police, the Environment Agency, and the Canal and River Trust have all said there is a "real risk" the 188-year-old dam could collapse and flood the town.

The Canal and River Trust has defended the maintenance and safety of the structure, which was built in 1831.

Mr Greenhalgh said: "This dam was inspected regularly, by us and an independent engineer.

"It needs to be remembered there was a huge amount of rain in a short time and this flooded the area."

 

Elevation of the reservoir

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-49222956

In reality the problem is everything is tarmac and concrete instead of grass so water floods down drains rather than soaking into the ground! As always we are the problem, we stop nature doing what it does best 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The design wasn't fllawed - it was fine when it was designed. Without being a po-faced self-righteous plonker, no one then expected us to trash the planet, or could even imagine that it could be done. 

However, politicians and professional designers (and inspectors) of weather dependent stuff have known about it for years, taken their salaries and lied. Too late to do much about it now. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Detling said:

As anyone who has had a concrete driveway will know weed growth leads to cracks and the frost weakens those so they allow water through which undermines the concrete until it cracks up, Basically it is no longer a strong surface to drive over rather a series of slaps which tip and rock under the wheel.  These are not weeds in the picture they are dirty great bushes and small trees any and all of which show you where the surface has failed and undermining is occurring.  There is no way a good inspector worth his salt would be happy with that, is there?  Still I suppose he wants to come and survey it next year and get paid more money and it looks almost OK and water rarely comes over.

Yes the rain is unprecedented and coming from the south west I know both Lynmouth and Boscastle so understand the problem but we have to try to help ourselves and not be ostriches as CART management / accountants seem to believe. Maintenance is not money wasted it is spent in-case the unexpected occurs.

Looking at the photo however, the greatest amount of weed growth was in the centre of the spillway, which seems to have held up relatively OK. Looking at the images following the damage it would seem that it was caused principally where the excessive water was hitting the retaining wall (which has also been undermined). Perhaps if the retaining wall had been built in line with the expected flow from the reservoir (your photo shows the direction of flow straight towards the retaining wall) the undermining may not have occurred (I'm no civil engineer so there may be perfectly valid reason for it being built the way that it is). When you divert a large quantity of water in that way, turbulence is bound to occur and it is probably that which pulled up the lining.

 

The theory of maintenance not being wasted money is all well and good, but if we were all to be told that next year our licences were going to increase by 50% because CRT had decided to concrete line all of their reservoirs, there would be comments along the lines of 'Those reservoirs have stood for the last hundred years, this is just Health and Safety gone mad' would soon be heard. The theory is good until we get asked to dip into our pockets to pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

The theory is good until we get asked to dip into our pockets to pay for it.

Agree with what you say - however, the figures for the eye-wateringly large salaries/bonuses/expense accounts of the upper echelons of CRT; plus the expensive re-branding exercise that went on, makes me feel it shouldn’t be OUR pockets! 

Surely the preservation and proper maintenance of the reservoir should be partly funded by local or indeed national government?  For the greater good, sort of thing..  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lampini said:

Agree with what you say - however, the figures for the eye-wateringly large salaries/bonuses/expense accounts of the upper echelons of CRT; plus the expensive re-branding exercise that went on, makes me feel it shouldn’t be OUR pockets! 

Surely the preservation and proper maintenance of the reservoir should be partly funded by local or indeed national government?  For the greater good, sort of thing..  

Sort of illustrates what I'm saying really. Even if the entire wages of all upper echelons went into the repair of this dam, it would barely make an impression on the eventual cost. You can probably forget all about local government, they don't have the money for the important stuff that they are mandated to provide, Elderly Care, Childrens Services,etc and by comparison having a canal in their town isn't that important (yes it is to us, but not in the bigger picture) so they aren't in the frame at all.

 

That leaves central Government, who are looking to reduce the grant that they pay to CRT over time, so that then leaves it down to us, and of course we'd rather not be the  one's having to foot the bill :huh: So yes, we need to keep up maintenance, but who foots the bill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Sort of illustrates what I'm saying really. Even if the entire wages of all upper echelons went into the repair of this dam, it would barely make an impression on the eventual cost. You can probably forget all about local government, they don't have the money for the important stuff that they are mandated to provide, Elderly Care, Childrens Services,etc and by comparison having a canal in their town isn't that important (yes it is to us, but not in the bigger picture) so they aren't in the frame at all.

 

That leaves central Government, who are looking to reduce the grant that they pay to CRT over time, so that then leaves it down to us, and of course we'd rather not be the  one's having to foot the bill :huh: So yes, we need to keep up maintenance, but who foots the bill?

It would have a big “public perception “ effect if the bigwigs did put their salaries in! 

 

But it’s not the canal wot failed, did someone say earlier that the canal could be fed by means other than the reservoir? 

 

Im seeing it all over; when maintenance gets farmed out to contractors, and then re-farmed our to yet another contractor, all that seems to be happening is that yet more layers of bureaucracy and large “admin” costs are inserted and more funding disappears into this black hole. Have seen it happen with other charities; utility companies, bus companies, building projects... profit becomes the over-arching motivation. And yes, from first hand knowledge, safety considerations come a very poor second.. there is a whole new industry for “H&S consultants”, who’s only real remit is that they find “a way past” actual safety, and increase the fat cats profits. Those who are a bit “old school” and actually care about the safety of say; the folks living below the dam, the passengers on the bus, the folks using the gas, the people needing to get out of that building on fire; those h&s types, those engineers etc, will find themselves not asked back... In other words, these companies tend to contract those who are “yes men”, for want of a better phrase.. 

 

 

Bring back the Tony Dunkleys of this world! ?

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paul C said:

I am not sure why you're asking this because its been widely mentioned on this thread already? Its mainly to provide a water supply to the Peak Forest Canal, although the reservoir serves a recreation/amenity function too.

Whilst that is its function now, I have read that it was originally primarily to provide hydraulic power to industrial activities in the area below the dam, with canal feeder as a secondary purpose. I suspect that if that be the case then the canal feeder purpose would need much less capacity, in which case it may be that a reduced dam height or, perhaps more likely, a reduced 'normal' level would be sufficient. The reduction in the normal level would increase the ability to cope with extreme weather events which we are warned may increase in frequency and hence shift the cost benefit ratio.

 

I guess it would be fairly easy to do an order of magnitude calculation about the number of lockfuls per day needed as a canal reservoir. Does anyone local know how many boats pass through Marple each day (the crucial point for the feeder)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, lampini said:

It would have a big “public perception “ effect if the bigwigs did put their salaries in! 

 

But it’s not the canal wot failed, did someone say earlier that the canal could be fed by means other than the reservoir? 

 

Im seeing it all over; when maintenance gets farmed out to contractors, and then re-farmed our to yet another contractor, all that seems to be happening is that yet more layers of bureaucracy and large “admin” costs are inserted and more funding disappears into this black hole. Have seen it happen with other charities; utility companies, bus companies, building projects... profit becomes the over-arching motivation. And yes, from first hand knowledge, safety considerations come a very poor second.. there is a whole new industry for “H&S consultants”, who’s only real remit is that they find “a way past” actual safety, and increase the fat cats profits. Those who are a bit “old school” and actually care about the safety of say; the folks living below the dam, the passengers on the bus, the folks using the gas, the people needing to get out of that building on fire; those h&s types, those engineers etc, will find themselves not asked back... In other words, these companies tend to contract those who are “yes men”, for want of a better phrase.. 

 

 

Bring back the Tony Dunkleys of this world! ?

Sadly, public perception wont pay the bills, the actual repair and maintenance money is still going to have to come from somewhere. I'm not sure about feeding the canal from somewhere else other than the reservoir, from my understanding the Upper Peak Forest canal remains closed from Bridge 26 which is way back the other side of New Mills. I suppose that back pumping may be possible, I don't know enough about that canal to say.

 

I would be in agreement with your contracting out argument, though there is a place for sub contracting (Farmers using contractors to harvest their crops being a good example) but these days it seems that everything has to be contracted out, even the paying of my works pension is contracted out, to a building company (Kier) is that really necessary or effective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

 

 

I guess it would be fairly easy to do an order of magnitude calculation about the number of lockfuls per day needed as a canal reservoir. Does anyone local know how many boats pass through Marple each day (the crucial point for the feeder)

+ loss due to permeable canal basin, evaporative loss and desired normal canal flowrate (to avoid stagnation). I don't know the figures but you're right, its not a complicated calculation to do; and I suspect this could be supplied by the other reservoirs. Hence my original suggestion that the dam (and reservoir) possibly isn't needed at all, so if it were deemed needed to substantially rebuild it, the option to completely remove it may make more economic (and environmental, in the long run) sense. I imagine public perception is that the safety issue and environmental impact will be far more important in the public's mind, than needing to supply a certain amount of water to (partially) support boating.

 

Also I suspect, someone will be demanding compensation for the displacement from their homes, and it could very well be the end of CRT as we know it - the government will probably (have to) step in. It will be not much more than a "name change" exercise again, much like the transfer from BW to CRT was anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Does anyone local know how many boats pass through Marple each day (the crucial point for the feeder)

2016 - 1215

2017 - 1009

2018 - Shut!

 

Figures for lock 8 Marple from https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/39733-annual-lockage-report-2018.pdf?v=9844f8

 

Bosley top is much higher usage:

 

2016 - 2786

2017 - 2952

2018 - 1871 (note the through route via Marple was closed)

 

So between Bosley and Marple we need around 4500 locks worth annually plus wastage and leakage ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

2016 - 1215

2017 - 1009

2018 - Shut!

 

Figures for lock 8 Marple from https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/39733-annual-lockage-report-2018.pdf?v=9844f8

 

Bosley top is much higher usage:

 

2016 - 2786

2017 - 2952

2018 - 1871 (note the through route via Marple was closed)

 

So between Bosley and Marple we need around 4500 locks worth annually plus wastage and leakage ...

and what proportion of the reservoir capacity does that represent? Also, does anyone know the relative importance of Todd Brook to Combs reservoir, both of which I believe are feeders to Peak Forest?

 

In Googling around this matter I came across a couple of interesting historical documents which reveal that the Peak Forest and Ashton Canals at one time did a good business in being water suppliers into Manchester.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

yes, it would be difficult if the reservoir had been designed for a '50 year event'.   Dams and spillways should be designed for significantly more than the traditional '100 year event', possibly for a '1000 year  event'.   But as Magpie observes, it is all statistical, with no guarantees.  If the rainfall experienced in the catchment of the reservoir is not repeated for 1000 years then the design may prove to be adequate according to conventionally accepted design standards, however, any spillway of that type can be optimised, and should not have any constraints to simple sheet flow over the crest and down the slope.  Anything else is just asking for trouble.    .....................  imho.

I see what you mean.

In 1970 perhaps they did not have  all the rainfall data that is a available now. And climate change had not been invented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Boater Sam said:

Thinking that if Marple lock had been open 2018 and the start of 2019 there would have been less water in the reservoir?

That's a very interesting point.  We were one of the very few boats that got through Marple Flight last year between the opening of lock 16 and the closing then reopening then closing again of  lock 11.

 

How deep are Marple locks? 14 feet or so for the deeper ones?

 

14 x 7 x 73 = 7154 cubic feet ~= 200,000 litres

 

1200 lock cycles at 200,000 litres = 240 million litres of water.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps there should be a separate body to look after reservoirs and such like.  Entrusting it to a 'Charity' with all its other problems does not make sense.  I would not trust CaRT to look after the local duckpond.

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.