Whaley Bridge Evacuated

[matty40s]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Simply speculation - I wonder if it was to give the overflowing water some 'direction' to continue its way down into a watercourse ?

Exactly the case, having some flow already turning makes the rest of the water coming directly down turn as well. 

 

I do believe the canal feeder  channel is to the right of the spill way.

 

Interesting to compare the vegetation in your picture to the first pictures of the collapse.

Edited August 4, 2019 by matty40s

[PaulD]

Thankfully no lives have been lost and will not be lost thanks to an enormous effort by the military and emergency services.

Not sure how C&RT are going to pay for Boris' promise to rebuild the dam along with all the others that will need upgrading following the inevitable safety review.

[Pluto]

One of the main problems CRT engineers have is that it is extremely rare to find and detailed specification of how canal reservoirs were built originally. They were surprised when I found one for Foulridge Upper, which is mid-19th century, so almost 100 years younger than those on the Peak Forest. Regarding relief valves, I have been present at reservoirs on the L&LC when these have had one of their regular test, and it is a process which is done regularly. The full test can take several hours. Regulations covering reservoirs have been continually up-dated since the first formal inspection regime was introduced in the 1930s. I have attached a L&LC one for 1937. There have been a number of up-dates to reservoir legislation, and several of these have looked at spillway design and the height of the dam crest. The overflow from White Moor was recently improved such that it does not now flow across the dam, whilst Foulridge Upper had its height increased a year or so ago. Such works form a major part of CRTs responsibilities, so it is to be hoped that the cost of such works is raised when the government reviews its contribution to CRT's finances next year.

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

Exactly this.  The collecting spillway at the bottom runs virtually at right angles acroos the face of the spillway from right to left.  The whole thing was never designed for the quantity of water coming over the other day.

 

Perhaps the valves should have been opened sooner but that relies on a CRT man who knows the reservoirs intimately and he has gone.

 

George

Certainly true in other locations. Local knowledge is very useful.

[Heartland]

Someone who lives in WB  has told me the following-

The reason this has happened is neglect since BW was abolished by the govt and the Canal and River Trust took over without sufficient funding.

There used to be a BW employee living in a tied house right next to the dam;  he managed the reservoir on a daily basis, controlling the water levels with the side sluices and the gates at the bottom, so there was enough capacity to take extra in when necessary, without it getting to the point of flowing over the spillway which is only meant to happen as a 'last resort'.  This employee was made redundant when BW was abolished, and the house was sold.  Daily monitoring has thus been lacking for several years; visits and observations for brief periods a couple of times a week is no substitute  for daily active management of reservoir levels!  People in WB - some of whom knew the BW employee and had helped him in the past - have contacted the CRT over the years with concerns about  damage to the spillway when it was overflowing, but were basically told they were wrong. Now it is alarmingly clear that they were right.   

 

This is the tip of the iceberg,  how many other roles have gone in the CRT in the 7 years since setting up. Whilst the Toodbrook Reservoir emergency was caused through heavy rain fall, it had been my belief, that key areas where staff maintained the dam, was a post that should not be removed as cost cutting. Had there been a member of staff there, the most severe damage could have been averted, but as previously stated only an inquiry will find the answers.

 

Meanwhile the threat continues as more rain is forecast and in response more houses have been evacuated. The threat is still there and the emergency services are doing their best to contain the risk.  

[Tony Brooks]

10 minutes ago, Heartland said:

This is the tip of the iceberg,  how many other roles have gone in the CRT in the 7 years since setting up. Whilst the Toodbrook Reservoir emergency was caused through heavy rain fall, it had been my belief, that key areas where staff maintained the dam, was a post that should not be removed as cost cutting. Had there been a member of staff there, the most severe damage could have been averted, but as previously stated only an inquiry will find the answers.

 

 

You have a lot more faith in enquiries than I do. If they do find cost cutting at CaRT was the reason then it immediately puts final responsibility back to government of both persuasions because they both had fingers in setting up CaRT. It will be a whitewash and I bet the CaRT directors continue to trouser their bonuses.

[Paul C]

What if the conclusion of the enquiry is that its simply not worth the risk vs benefit of having an old dam there, and they recommend its removal? 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

You have a lot more faith in enquiries than I do. If they do find cost cutting at CaRT was the reason then it immediately puts final responsibility back to government of both persuasions because they both had fingers in setting up CaRT. It will be a whitewash and I bet the CaRT directors continue to trouser their bonuses.

I would bet likewise. 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

What if the conclusion of the enquiry is that its simply not worth the risk vs benefit of having an old dam there, and they recommend its removal? 

 

What is its purpose anyway? 

 

 

[Heartland]

Tony,

 

Until this emergency is over, support must be with those out there facing the issues and, yes, DANGERS,

 

When this is over, I will be one of hopefully a number of voices asking a whole set of questions.

 

People lining pockets, like Andrew Wolstenholme, the former CEO for Crossrail  do sometimes get their reckoning

[Paul C]

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.

[Guest]

What is the importance of the dam from a wildlife point of view? Will this have any influence on its maintain or drain status?

[Paul C]

Just now, catweasel said:

What is the importance of the dam from a wildlife point of view? Will this have any influence on its maintain or drain status?

 

That would need to be determined properly, it is an SSSI but dam removals are normally done for a net positive environmental benefit.

[LancaCanal]

55 minutes ago, Heartland said:

 

 

  This is the tip of the iceberg,  how many other roles have gone in the CRT in the 7 years since setting up. Whilst the Toodbrook Reservoir emergency was caused through heavy rain fall, it had been my belief, that key areas where staff maintained the dam, was a post that should not be removed as cost cutting. Had there been a member of staff there, the most severe damage could have been averted, but as previously stated only an inquiry will find the answers.

 

Meanwhile the threat continues ...

I  have been told that 'Kev' (the dam-keeper/overseer or whatever his title was) was meticulous in his observations 'on the ground' and would use all the means at his disposal to divert flow into the reservoir, and increase flow out of it, during periods of 'unusual' weather conditions. He did everything in his power to minimise or avoid use of the spillway. 

The frequency and volume of water flowing over the spillway - a rare event during the tenure of dam-keepers in the cottage - alarmed many regular observers in the area, but their concerns were pooh-poohed by CRT.  

I confess I am now wondering what - if anything - those dam-keepers had learned or grown to suspect, over the years, about the spillway's condition, construction or possible weaknesses. 

I  doubt any official enquiry will uncover that!

Edited August 4, 2019 by LancaCanal
spelling

[Proper Charlie]

One positive that may come out of this is a greater acknowledgement of the need for government spending on infrastructure, and on the things that make our society tick along (education, NHS, roads etc etc). For the last decade, we’ve been in a situation where the government has been actively engaged in shrinking the state not just because of the financial crisis but also for ideological reasons. Enough is enough, it’s time to redress the balance.

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Proper Charlie said:

One positive that may come out of this is a greater acknowledgement of the need for government spending on infrastructure, and on the things that make our society tick along (education, NHS, roads etc etc). For the last decade, we’ve been in a situation where the government has been actively engaged in shrinking the state not just because of the financial crisis but also for ideological reasons. Enough is enough, it’s time to redress the balance.

 

Had labour been elected last time around, i cant convince myself their first action would have been to reinstate full time reservoir keepers. 

 

 

 

[magpie patrick]

Before commenting further on this situation I'll just mention the Boscastle and Lynmouth Floods  (2004 and 1952) - in both cases a very large amount of rain fell over a small catchment and in both cases there was huge and devastating damage. 34 people died at Lynmouth and whilst thankfully no one was killed at Boscatle homes were destroyed, swept away and so were cars, swept so far out to sea that they were gone without trace. 

 

The reason I mention this is there comes a point where the pattern of rainfall is more than anyone ever reckoned on in their worst nightmares. Todbrook will have been inspected and signed off, and in doing that the inspector will have had regard to the physical condition and the expected rainfall over the catchment - this latter would have probably been significantly higher than any rainfall that had occurred over the catchment to date (I don't know by how much but these regimes don't assume that the worst storm possible has already happened)   Lynmouth had 9 inches in 24 hours. Boscastle got 7 inches of rain in one night, the river there rose 7 feet in one hour, and 20 times the volume of Todbrook reservoir was discharged into the sea in one day - or sixty times the capacity of the release valve outlet in Todbrook, yet only a few miles away there was no rain. The catchment at Boscastle may be rather bigger than Todbrook (I don't have figures to hand), but it isn't sixty times bigger. 

 

When a month or more of rain falls in one night even the most sophisticated system won't cope

[MtB]

1 hour 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.

 

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. 

[Arthur Marshall]

If the inspection was anything like the building regs inspection recently done on my house, I'm not surprised the dam failed. It consisted of a bloke from a private company with a clipboard spending two minutes in the garden looking at the work and signing it off . No doubt he was a fully qualified whatever, but his job was basically to ensure the builders got paid without any hassle, whatever the quality of their work (which has turned out to be shoddy in the extreme). The underlying assumption the dam inspector would have been working on (and the pressure from his superiors ) would have been to make sure this inspection wouldn't cost crt any money, or they'd find another company to do the inspection next time (I'm assuming there's more than one company doing this). Their priority is to keep the money coming in, not the safety of a town or two. 

[Richard10002]

1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

You have a lot more faith in enquiries than I do. If they do find cost cutting at CaRT was the reason then it immediately puts final responsibility back to government of both persuasions because they both had fingers in setting up CaRT. It will be a whitewash and I bet the CaRT directors continue to trouser their bonuses.

and the old, “Lessons have been learned” bollox will be trotted out at every interview.

[furnessvale]

17 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. 

No it can't  When canals were built, landowners were fearful that they would abstract water to the detriment of local rivers and no way would they allow what you say.

 

Indeed, at Whaley Bridge it has often been said that the first 4" over the weir at Toddbrook has to go directly into the Goyt to keep levels up as a payment for allowing the canal to be built in the first place.

 

George

[Richard10002]

41 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

Before commenting further on this situation I'll just mention the Boscastle and Lynmouth Floods  (2004 and 1952) - in both cases a very large amount of rain fell over a small catchment and in both cases there was huge and devastating damage. 34 people died at Lynmouth and whilst thankfully no one was killed at Boscatle homes were destroyed, swept away and so were cars, swept so far out to sea that they were gone without trace. 

 

The reason I mention this is there comes a point where the pattern of rainfall is more than anyone ever reckoned on in their worst nightmares. Todbrook will have been inspected and signed off, and in doing that the inspector will have had regard to the physical condition and the expected rainfall over the catchment - this latter would have probably been significantly higher than any rainfall that had occurred over the catchment to date (I don't know by how much but these regimes don't assume that the worst storm possible has already happened)   Lynmouth had 9 inches in 24 hours. Boscastle got 7 inches of rain in one night, the river there rose 7 feet in one hour, and 20 times the volume of Todbrook reservoir was discharged into the sea in one day - or sixty times the capacity of the release valve outlet in Todbrook, yet only a few miles away there was no rain. The catchment at Boscastle may be rather bigger than Todbrook (I don't have figures to hand), but it isn't sixty times bigger. 

 

When a month or more of rain falls in one night even the most sophisticated system won't cope

Not sure what sophisticated system you are talking about at Todbrook, nor how sophisticated a system needs to be?

 

A bloke in a house by the reservoir doesn’t seem particularly sophisticated but, from what has been said, the chances are he would have seen what was happening, acted earlier, and possibly saved his cost many times over.

 

Added to that, if CRT have been warned, and have ignored warnings in order to save money........

[Richard10002]

I think I read that the reservoir is no longer needed to feed the canal. Water can be pumped up from somewhere, or diverted from the Goyt.

 

Cant remember where I read it, but it was in the last few days.

[magpie patrick]

18 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Not sure what sophisticated system you are talking about at Todbrook, nor how sophisticated a system needs to be?

 

A bloke in a house by the reservoir doesn’t seem particularly sophisticated but, from what has been said, the chances are he would have seen what was happening, acted earlier, and possibly saved his cost many times over.

 

Added to that, if CRT have been warned, and have ignored warnings in order to save money........

The point I'm making is that if it rains hard enough nothing will prevent the reservoir overflowing. The rain wouldn't have had to have been anything like Boscastle levels to outpace a release valve that could drain the reservoir in three days. 

[Momac]

On 03/08/2019 at 11:10, Murflynn said:

May I suggest that the 1971 spillway design was fundamentally flawed? 

 

 

B.Sc. (civil engineering), C.Eng, M.I.C.E.

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?