Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Orwellian

CRT against freight to Leeds

Featured Posts

Sounds like a wasted opportunity. I hope for CRTs sake there's more to it. Ultimately I hope it goes ahead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately this sort of contradiction is becoming every day fare at C&RT

 

"We want to increase canal traffic ...............…. No you can't use your barges"

 

Surely if he agrees to the same conditions as his Grandfather there shouldn't be a problem :

 

..................his indentures, which stipulate: "He shall not commit fornication nor contract matrimony within the said term. He shall not play at cards or dice tables... he shall not haunt taverns or playhouses"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Unfortunately this sort of contradiction is becoming every day fare at C&RT

 

"We want to increase canal traffic ...............…. No you can't use your barges"

 

Surely if he agrees to the same conditions as his Grandfather there shouldn't be a problem :

 

..................his indentures, which stipulate: "He shall not commit fornication nor contract matrimony within the said term. He shall not play at cards or dice tables... he shall not haunt taverns or playhouses"

His Granddad must have broken at least one of those conditions, or his dad wouldn't have been born. 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

His Granddad must have broken at least one of those conditions, or his dad wouldn't have been born. 😁

Or he saved himself until his indentures were finished! :icecream:

 

Howard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds from the quoted newspaper report that the matter is a bit more complicated than initially suggested. The objection by CaRT is - at least ostensibly - not on whether the water route is OK but the use of the wharf by additional vehicles. It also says that the matter is being reviewed so perhaps a little of of pressure from that well-known environmentalist DjT, might help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to picture where this existing wharf is. Is it the big wharf on the left half a mile or so above Knostrop lock?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, howardang said:

Or he saved himself until his indentures were finished! :icecream:

 

You mean, so he could put his teeth in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It implies that Leeds council are ok with additional road traffic at the wharf so why should CRT be bothered? Is it more likely the condition of the navigation there would prove unsuitable for the barges but they won't admit this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or they are trying to ensure any new traffic goes to their proposed new wharf at Stourton that the council tax payers of West Yorkshire are paying circa £3 million for.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?

Indeed I do. But for the time being I'm going to claim commercial sensitivity so you'll just have to take my word for it!

 

However, the principle behind making temporary use of this wharf is that there are several good reasons why this flow needs to start asap – well ahead of the projected completion date for Stourton Wharf.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Orwellian said:

I thought someone might ask!  Seriously I will try and answer the various points made, respecting commercial confidentiality of course.

As is well known the intention always has been (and is) to move sea dredged aggregate from Hull to the new wharf at Stourton (Port Leeds) when it opens - later this year, or more likely early 2021 - both to a potential readymix plant and also 'out of the gate'.  However rather unexpectedly an opportunity has recently arisen to move the material into Leeds sooner than expected so the Trust was asked by CBOA if the former Leeds Terminal (at Old Mill Lane Knostrop) could be used on a temporary basis pending opening of Stourton terminal.  The wharf at Knostrop has 'protected' status conferred by Leeds City Council at least until Stourton opens and so in principle it can be used.  A part of the wharf (the open area) has to be (and is) kept clear for the purpose.  However there are two challenges, the first of which was not mentioned in the report.  The site is currently fully let which means there is nowhere to store the sand when it's discharged.  However through the generosity of one of the occupiers and CRT there may be a way forward - but it may take a bit of time to sort.  The second challenge, which is mentioned, is that because the site is already very busy the Trust has had to commission a study by an independent traffic consultant to show that there will be no additional risk to users from the extra road vehicle movements generated within the site , or that any such risks can be mitigated/managed.  As the tonnage is relatively small the number of lory movements isn't all that great and it's hoped that this will not be a problem.  It's not traffic on public highways that is a concern.

In terms of taking traffic away from the proposed Leeds Port this is not envisaged as it's expected to transfer there anyway - although Leeds City planners do see Knostrop as providing a potential additional capacity should demand be greater than Stourton can accommodate - an independent study has shown a huge potential demand.  (Stourton is rather better sited for access, has no residential dwellings anywwhere near, and is an industrial zone).

As far as the navigation is concerned a survey has shown a small number of locations where some spot dredging or ploughing will be needed (including Knostrop wharf itself) but this can be organised fairly quickly (as has been done before).

The frustration of the customer, and indeed of the two barge operators involved, can be readily appreciated - as these things take time. 

I hope that helps. 

regards

David L

 

 

Edited by fanshaft
typos
  • Greenie 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

Thank you David a very thorough and clear explanation as always. Good luck!

Fingers crossed to be dodging barges on the aire and calder soon 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, howardang said:

Or he saved himself until his indentures were finished! :icecream:

 

Howard

 

My grandad left his indentures in a mug of Steradent every night! 😁😂

Share this post


Link to post
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.