The Rochdale closed again and again and again .....

[dmr]

4 minutes ago, Midnight said:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices?waterway[]=RD&start-date=01%2F08%2F2020&start-date_submit=01%2F08%2F2020&end-date=31%2F10%2F2020&end-date_submit=31%2F10%2F2020&type[]=1&order-field=startDateTime&order-direction=descending#form

Thats a list of Rochdale "Stoppages", its very very silly, some are fallen trees, one is a cill problem that was fixed in LESS THAN AN HOUR, pretty daft of CRT to even issue a stoppage notice..

 

...............Dave

[Midnight]

1 hour ago, dmr said:

Thats a list of Rochdale "Stoppages",...

.... showing the doubters that it's been impossible to transit the Rochdale since 27/08/20

[LadyG]

On 14/09/2020 at 17:00, Goliath said:

Oh dear, I can’t possibly move then. 
Being a few locks above it, I’ll have to stay put. 
 

It doesn’t usually take CRT long to bodge up sink holes. 
I’ve seen them pour a cement mixture down until they see it seep out somewhere. 
Quick fix and forget about it until the lock collapses. 
 

I reported a sink hole at lock 1, Sowerby Bridge, winter before last. Big enough to climb/fall down and disappear. Got filled with cement and back filled with earth. 
 

 

Novice here, why are these sink holes forming, and why is cement infill the wrong approach?

tx

[IanD]

12 hours ago, Goliath said:

Whilst I can’t argue CRT are a bag of shit, you’re really just making shit up. 
You have just made a less than sensible risk assessment about summat you know nowt about. 
Everything you just wrote is bollocks. 
 

what you drinking?

can I have some? 

Since you obviously think you understand probability and how to calculate and assess risk (and I don't), please provide *your* expert assessment of the risk ?

 

Otherwise you're just another troll who uses personal insults to argue with facts, just like people have been complaining about recently on this very forum...

[dmr]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Since you obviously think you understand probability and how to calculate and assess risk (and I don't), please provide *your* expert assessment of the risk ?

 

Otherwise you're just another troll who uses personal insults to argue with facts, just like people have been complaining about recently on this very forum...

I doubt if probability plays a big part in this sort of decision. If its likely that a large bit of masonry is going to fall down then the structure is dangerous and the canal is closed. Working out the probability that a boat will be under it at the time should not be a factor. Its a bit like choosing not to wear a seatbelt on less dangerous journeys?

 

 

..................Dave

[IanD]

31 minutes ago, dmr said:

I doubt if probability plays a big part in this sort of decision. If its likely that a large bit of masonry is going to fall down then the structure is dangerous and the canal is closed. Working out the probability that a boat will be under it at the time should not be a factor. Its a bit like choosing not to wear a seatbelt on less dangerous journeys?

 

 

..................Dave

Anyone who does risk assessment professionally has to assess both the risk and consequences of doing something or not doing it, because almost nothing in life is risk-free, and the only way to avoid all risks is to close *everything* down. If the bridge was over the M1 and the things falling off it once a year were dried peas the conclusion would be that the costs of closing a major motorway far exceeded any cost/risk of a dried pea putting a dent in somebody's car roof. If the bridge was dropping housebricks every few minutes then the conclusion would be to close it.

 

Exactly the same calculations are made any time that a defect is found in a car or household appliance -- sometimes wrongly (look up Ford Pinto petrol tank), but that doesn't make the method wrong, risk assessment is all about balancing out the risk of something happening and the cost of what happens if it does with the costs of taking preventative action. Probabilites are *exactly* what all this is about, because they affect risk.

 

We *really* don't want people who don't understand this evaluating risks on the canal, because the conclusion would be that nearly everything on it (especially locks) is an elf'n'safety nightmare and the only safe thing to do is to close down the entire canal system...

 

(the right answer is to balance the risk/cost of accidents against the positive contribution that the canals make to people and society)

 

For example if not taking some precaution might cause a death, there's a number used for what a life is worth (don't get into the philosophical arguments, go and read the link)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

 

Governments and companies across the world use this number (it's typically a couple of million quid) to either decide whether they should spend large sums of money to reduce the risk of something bad happening, or allow the risk to continue.

 

Saying "but a life is infinitely precious, it doesn't have a value" ignores reality, which is that every government and company in the world could bankrupt itself tomorrow (meaning, no jobs and nothing to buy) if they didn't do this, because you can *never* reduce risk to zero no matter how much you spend, which means even if you spend all the money in the world (and more) making things safer there will still be risk.

 

It sounds hard-hearted, but it's the way that the world (and risk) works.

 

The right action for the Rochdale bridge would have been to put up a warning sign, not close the canal, because it's still probably much less risky than sinking in a flight of locks due to cilling -- and we don't close these, we put up warning signs.

 

P.S. The seatbelt argument is a red herring because there's no cost to put one on, you just balance the risks of crashing with one to crashing without one. The risk assessment was done by governments looking at how much it would cost to install seatbelts in cars vs. lives saved, and the answer was obvious.

Edited October 24, 2020 by IanD

[David Mack]

54 minutes ago, dmr said:

I doubt if probability plays a big part in this sort of decision. If its likely that a large bit of masonry is going to fall down then the structure is dangerous and the canal is closed. Working out the probability that a boat will be under it at the time should not be a factor. Its a bit like choosing not to wear a seatbelt on less dangerous journeys?

 

 

..................Dave

If the structure is that dangerous, why is road traffic still being allowed across? Surely not because the economic value of the factory it serves is more than that of a few 'holidaymakers'!

[Midnight]

36 minutes ago, David Mack said:

If the structure is that dangerous, why is road traffic still being allowed across? Surely not because the economic value of the factory it serves is more than that of a few 'holidaymakers'!

And why is the canal closed at lock 36 (Longlees) immediately before the only winding hole after lock 30 and preventing access to the summit pound?  

Looking at the photo and then comparing it to some bridges with huge cracks in the brickwork or landing stages that are sinking into the canal I would say the risk here is relatively low. If given the chance who on here would rather be stuck for weeks than take a risk.

Wouldn't slinging a net or similar under unsafe part reduce the risk to acceptable?

Wouldn't assisted passage or roping through reduce the risk to acceptable?

Considering boats cannot get to or from the Calder region because of long stoppages or those who don't fit the Standedge Tunnel gauge, and the imminent winter stoppage programme I think CaRT could do something here.

[dmr]

3 hours ago, David Mack said:

If the structure is that dangerous, why is road traffic still being allowed across? Surely not because the economic value of the factory it serves is more than that of a few 'holidaymakers'!

I expect because the top of the bridge is controlled by the council, and the bottom by CRT, and CRT make daft decisions?  But maybe the bridge is structurally sound and its just the render that is falling off? There are loads of bridges on the system that have render in the arch, never quite sure what it was supposed to achieve.

 

...............Dave

[dmr]

3 hours ago, Midnight said:

And why is the canal closed at lock 36 (Longlees) immediately before the only winding hole after lock 30 and preventing access to the summit pound?  

Looking at the photo and then comparing it to some bridges with huge cracks in the brickwork or landing stages that are sinking into the canal I would say the risk here is relatively low. If given the chance who on here would rather be stuck for weeks than take a risk.

Wouldn't slinging a net or similar under unsafe part reduce the risk to acceptable?

Wouldn't assisted passage or roping through reduce the risk to acceptable?

Considering boats cannot get to or from the Calder region because of long stoppages or those who don't fit the Standedge Tunnel gauge, and the imminent winter stoppage programme I think CaRT could do something here.

Locking Longlees is daft and unfair. A lot of hire boats like to get onto the summit, its the objective of their holiday. The shorter ones go right over the summit and can just turn above lock 37. Maybe CRT believe the unofficial winding hole right below lock 36 is actually the winding hole?

 

For your info, above lock 32 is a brilliant winding hole, we can turn easily and we are over 70 foot, its almost 6 foot deep right to the offside bank, I know because my long shaft is barely long enough. I also suspect that just above lock 39 (I think) is also good, probably better than the summit winding hole, but not quite big enough for us.

 

I reckon the unofficial winding holes on the Rochdale are better than the official ones which are mostly silted up.

 

.................Dave

 

[David Mack]

43 minutes ago, dmr said:

But maybe the bridge is structurally sound and its just the render that is falling off?

In which case there are no grounds to close it. They could, though put a notice up. They're good at that!

[IanD]

I'm sure anyone who's driven much abroad has been on roads through the mountains which have signs saying "Danger, falling rocks" (in the appropriate language) -- and bear in mind that this is not because they're worried about rocks falling onto a car (because AFAIK this has almost never happened) but to warn drivers to look out for a fallen rock sitting in the road that they might crash into and wreck their car.

 

Rocks do fall like this quite often (I've seen plenty), and there are far more cars than boats on those roads, but they have more sense than to close the road in spite of the fact that the risk is far *far* higher than a boat on the Rochdale being hit by render falling from the bridge, because it would just go "plop" as it fell into the water, and the half a dozen boats a day then can't drive into it 'cos it sits on the bottom.

 

Closing the canal in response to a bit of render falling off a bridge is an idiotic reaction by CaRT -- I'm sure that in "the good old days" somebody with some nous would look at it and say "Better get round to fixing that when we do some work round here next month, stick a sign up in the meantime just so nobody can say they weren't warned".

[dmr]

I can't quite explain it, but feel having a canal split into two sections under two different regions is not helping here. Nobody is closing a complete canal to navigation, they are just closing their little bit, and the Manchester end is maybe seen as an undesirable barely used waterway at the edge of the system rather than as the quieter part of a busier canal?.

 

................Dave

[Midnight]

Unbelievable what a useless shower CaRT is!

 

13/11/2020 16:29

Discussions and investigations continue into the repair works needed to third-party owned bridge, Bridge 43, Punchbowl Bridge on the Rochdale Canal.

Our teams are working with local authorities to establish a method of repair, however, due to reasons beyond our control, we anticipate navigation will remain closed between Lock 36 and Lock 45 for the duration of the winter period.

A further update will be provided by Monday 11 January 2021.

[Jon57]

13 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Unbelievable what a useless shower CaRT is!

 

13/11/2020 16:29

Discussions and investigations continue into the repair works needed to third-party owned bridge, Bridge 43, Punchbowl Bridge on the Rochdale Canal.

Our teams are working with local authorities to establish a method of repair, however, due to reasons beyond our control, we anticipate navigation will remain closed between Lock 36 and Lock 45 for the duration of the winter period.

A further update will be provided by Monday 11 January 2021.

Well at least Sustrans can get on with moving the bollards to make it easier for the cyclists.

[dmr]

A few norty boats have gone through of late, the padlocks on the summit locks presented some problems but the lateral thinkers managed, nobody noticed anything wrong with the bridge. Its all very odd, there was a huge failure in Manchester that got fixed very quickly but a little bit of render coming loose needs a 6 month stoppage. 

CRT have just threatened to limit us to a 6 month licence so I have been through the stoppages, this year there have been less than 50 days when a full length boat could get off the Rochdale.

 

...............Dave

[Midnight]

 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Midnight

[Midnight]

What's going on with CaRT? The navigation on the Selby Canal has been closed for weeks since a vehicle strike on Tankards bridge yet traffic is being diverted over it to avoid the A19 road works. CaRT have now decided to allow restricted passage "From Tuesday 17th November 2020 the bridge will be re-opened to canal traffic with a restriction limiting passage to vessels with a maximum height of 7ft. This limitation will be clearly signed on site, and vessels greater than 7ft in height will not be able to pass the protective scaffold mitigating the risk of any falling masonry. " How come the Punchbowl Bridge which also is open to traffic, has not suffered a vehicle strike and doesn't look to be seriously damaged (see above pics) remains closed for the rest of the winter? And why close the canal across the summit? Someone somewhere is a waste of oxygen!  

[dmr]

CRT removed the padlocks today to let a boat through, but I expect they will be replaced soon. It does feel like there is something political going on here.

They have responded really well to two huge failures on the Rochdale this year so why is a little thing like this defeating them?

 

................Dave

 

[TheBiscuits]

29 minutes ago, dmr said:

They have responded really well to two huge failures on the Rochdale this year so why is a little thing like this defeating them?

 

On 13/11/2020 at 19:40, Jon57 said:

Discussions and investigations continue into the repair works needed to third-party owned bridge, Bridge 43, Punchbowl Bridge on the Rochdale Canal.

Our teams are working with local authorities to establish a method of repair, however, due to reasons beyond our control,

 

The council can't afford it until the new financial year would be my guess.  It won't be started on until April next year, when the council get their next budget allocation.

 

CRT won't pay to fix a bridge they don't own/have responsibility to even if it would make sense to fix it before March and bill the council in April.

[dmr]

36 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

 

The council can't afford it until the new financial year would be my guess.  It won't be started on until April next year, when the council get their next budget allocation.

 

CRT won't pay to fix a bridge they don't own/have responsibility to even if it would make sense to fix it before March and bill the council in April.

You could be right.

Post 42 shows a boat going under a very dodgy bridge and I remember something similar on the Oxford not so long ago, plus a seriously subsided bridge at Seend (K&A) so why stop navigation for this one?  I believe the councils have some "ownership" of the Rochdale, or at least some responsible, so if you are correct this could be CRT making a point/putting pressure on the council, which is also why they are happy to discretely let boats through???

 

...............Dave

[Mad Harold]

On 14/11/2020 at 00:02, dmr said:

A few norty boats have gone through of late, the padlocks on the summit locks presented some problems but the lateral thinkers managed, nobody noticed anything wrong with the bridge. Its all very odd, there was a huge failure in Manchester that got fixed very quickly but a little bit of render coming loose needs a 6 month stoppage. 

CRT have just threatened to limit us to a 6 month licence so I have been through the stoppages, this year there have been less than 50 days when a full length boat could get off the Rochdale.

 

...............Dave

Lock 1E on the HNC is locked with a combination lock and transit has to be booked in advance.Not mentioning any names,but a couple of enterprising boaters "helped" the CRT man get a pre booked boat through and when he walked around the lock (they're not allowed to cross lock gates ) made a note of the combination.

All for nothing really,because when I tried to get through,I found that the combination had been changed!

Either someone has reported us,or the CRT man wasn't as daft as he looked.

[dmr]

9 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

Lock 1E on the HNC is locked with a combination lock and transit has to be booked in advance.Not mentioning any names,but a couple of enterprising boaters "helped" the CRT man get a pre booked boat through and when he walked around the lock (they're not allowed to cross lock gates ) made a note of the combination.

All for nothing really, because when I tried to get through,I found that the combination had been changed!

Either someone has reported us,or the CRT man wasn't as daft as he looked.

Boaters are an enterprising bunch. On the K&A one worked out how do get free pumpouts and the news traveled fast. If you ever go there you will see that CRT have now fitted big padlocks and substantial metal straps to all the control cabinets.,

When I was at school most of the kids knew how to get a combination lock open, I assume the design has improved since then.

 

.............Dave

[ditchcrawler]

1 minute ago, dmr said:

 

When I was at school most of the kids knew how to get a combination lock open, I assume the design has improved since then.

 

.............Dave

Done that more than once, the torpedo bike locks were a piece of cake the rotary ones that came out about 30 years ago with a dial took a bit longer.

 

When I moored at the engine Arm Napton. The farmer that owned it put a large combination lock on the gate to the lock side car park, All moorers had the combination, but some objected to have to open and close the gate. Needles to say some bright idiot decided while the lock was undone, he/she would change the combination before relocking the gate. The farmer had to take the angle grinder to it.

[cuthound]

13 hours ago, dmr said:

Boaters are an enterprising bunch. On the K&A one worked out how do get free pumpouts and the news traveled fast. If you ever go there you will see that CRT have now fitted big padlocks and substantial metal straps to all the control cabinets.,

When I was at school most of the kids knew how to get a combination lock open, I assume the design has improved since then.

 

.............Dave

 

BT used to use combination locks on the internal access doors to telephone exchanges.

 

You had to phone up a national centre to get the code, which could take ages before they rang you back.

 

Whilst waiting for the reply  I would go through the combinstions logically, 001, 002 etc. More often than not I had found the combination before they called me back.

Edited November 18, 2020 by cuthound
To unmangle the effects of autocorrect.