Jump to content
Up-Side-Down

Yorkshire Barge Traffic & Mooring

Featured Posts

12 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

Do you have any evidence to support the suggestion that mining subsidence is reducing air draught (and presumably freeboard)?

Recall the bridge at Great Heck had been subsiding for some time. If not from mining what else?

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

Is this anecdotal or is there real hard evidence?

Er the gravel barge has trouble getting under them without getting the stern to squat down? That is pretty good evidence. There has been a lot of coal removed from underneath that whole area. The last deep mine only closed around five years ago. A lot of bridges on the BCN were built so the deck could be jacked up to clear the canal as the land dropped from subsidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good evidence they can't get under the bridges but none at all of mining subsidence. In any case bridges themselves don't subside. It's the land they are built on. If it happens under a canal the freeboard also reduces (and somewhat ironically given the grounding earlier) the water gets deeper.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you travel along that bit of the Aire and Calder, it is on an embankment above the general ground level for long distances. The canal edges are crinkle cut piling driven in. Good evidence that the general ground level has dropped and the canal banks have been built up to stop it breaching. You would drop the canal in a lock to near the local ground level to minimise earth moving when building it in the first place.

These are the same boats that have been used to trade along there for many years before the hiatus. If they used to get under the bridges and now struggle, then what do you think has happened?

Mining subsidence is a real thing. That area of Yorkshire was hollowed out underneath in recent decades/

Edited by Jen-in-Wellies
  • Greenie 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

It's good evidence they can't get under the bridges but none at all of mining subsidence. In any case bridges themselves don't subside. It's the land they are built on. If it happens under a canal the freeboard also reduces (and somewhat ironically given the grounding earlier) the water gets deeper.

There is a lot of mining subsidence in the entire area of the Selby coal field, has been for many years. It will depend wether the bridge subsides at one end or the other or wether the canal bed indeed moves, any combination could happen due to the amount of  mining. My sister owned a terrace house nearby that had severe subsidence but her next door neighbour was not affected. Sudsidence is a hard one to pin point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no doubt that mining subsidence has occurred in this area in the past. Because of the attendant risk of overtopping canals were entitled to carry out advance works (paid for by the mine owners) to mitigate the effects of subsidence by raising the banks (as you have pointed out) and bridges. Everyone else had to wait until the subsidence had occurred before remedial works were carried out.

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

So no hard evidence then just supposition.

Well unless someone has been regularly surveying the bridges, there won't be any evidence.

If, 7 years ago, there wasn't a problem, then nobody would have been surveying at that time, and consequently there is no baseline evidence to compare against the current position.

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

I have no doubt that mining subsidence has occurred in this area in the past. Because of the attendant risk of overtopping canals were entitled to carry out advance works (paid for by the mine owners) to mitigate the effects of subsidence by raising the banks (as you have pointed out) and bridges. Everyone else had to wait until the subsidence had occurred before remedial works were carried out.

This was not the case on the L&LC after about 1890, where the canal company paid for repairs caused by subsidence. The original act for a canal usually allowed the canal company to buy the coal under their line of canal to prevent subsidence. This was fine with the relatively shallow 18th and early 19th century canals, but during the second half of the 19th century mines became much deeper. Mine owners then began complaining about the additional coal they needed to leave in order to stop subsidence, and in the L&LC's case, they were threatening court action to change the basis for the payment for the coal left. The L&LC thought it possible tat they would loose the case, and at the same time did not want to aggravate some of their best customers, so they agreed to allow subsidence, and they would pay for repairs. On the Leigh branch, this resulted in Plank Lane and Dover locks being equalised, and new locks built at Poolstock. I estimate that the area around Leigh has subsided up to 25 feet during the 20th century. The attached 1905 cross-section shows the increasing amount of coal which had to be left to prevent subsidence as mines became deeper. The second image looks down from the canal to a former canal basin and tramroad in 1978.

1905 Leigh seams.jpg

tramway basin 812.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

My comment related to post nationalisation of mines & transport. British Waterways had a specialist mining section based in Leeds and they worked with the NCB to protect all canals in mining areas from the consequences of mining subsidence. To eliminate the risk of consequential flooding advance works were carried out. I personally witnessed this at Armitage in the 1970s.

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

post nationalisation of mines & transport. British Waterways had a specialist mining section based in Leeds and they worked with the NCB to protect all canals in mining areas from the consequences of mining subsidence.

Nowadays, the CaRT office in Leeds would just erect signs along the canal saying "No Subsidence Allowed". Job done!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Orwellian said:

Is this anecdotal or is there real hard evidence?

Well there is a document entitled  "Great Heck  Mining Subsidence Remediation Works Environmental Impact Assessment", complete with maps etc. Would that be adequate?   Apparently Kellingley Colliery was mining below there.  I also believe there was at one time a move by the CBOA and British Waterways to get compensation from British Coal regarding subsidence issues but I don't know what the outcome was.

  • Greenie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Joe Bourke said:

Great Heck  Mining Subsidence Remediation Works Environmental Impact Assessment

https://www.shiregroup-idbs.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Volume-1-Great-Heck-Mining-Subsidence-Remediation-Scheme-Non-Technical-Summary-FINAL.pdf

 

I found that last night but I didn't post it as I wasn't sure it would be convincing enough......🤣🤣

 

Anybody who boats or lives in the area knows the area is fairly extensively undermined - you cruise directly behind Kellingley for one thing.  It's perfectly reasonable to accept that any bridge subsidence in the area can be attributable to under mining.

 

 

Edited by The Happy Nomad
  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hensall is less than 2 miles as the crow flies from The Aire & Calder and the bridge at Great Heck.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-15716431

 

https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/news/article/ps1m-scheme-repair-subsidence-damage-road

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-39026258

 

 

Hensall.JPG

Edited by The Happy Nomad
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Nowadays, the CaRT office in Leeds would just erect signs along the canal saying "No Subsidence Allowed". Job done!

"Please Allow Subsidence a Space"

"Subsidence Makes Cycling More Interesting"

"Subsidence Improves Natural Regeneration"

 

I think those are more likely.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Joe Bourke said:

Well there is a document entitled  "Great Heck  Mining Subsidence Remediation Works Environmental Impact Assessment", complete with maps etc. Would that be adequate?   Apparently Kellingley Colliery was mining below there.  I also believe there was at one time a move by the CBOA and British Waterways to get compensation from British Coal regarding subsidence issues but I don't know what the outcome was.

Heck Road bridge has reduced air draft because of a subsidence due to mining.  The legal air draft (1968 Act) is 3.8 metres and the maximum recommended now is 3.6 metres.  British Waterways tried to get the Coal Authority to pay to have the bridge raised but the Coal Authority resisted legally (successfully) owing to the fact that empty barges were still passing underneath without difficulty by ballasting and pleasure craft didn't have a problem. 

As part of the study into the carriage of containers the bridges, Goole to Stourton, were all measured some years ago and Heck and Stubbs (3.76 m)  are the only ones below 3.8 metres at normal water level.  Seven are between 3.6 m and 4 m (albeit one is 3.99 m!)) - 4 m being considered the minimum air draft for containers at the time.  The bridges (heck in particular)  are  monitored by a qualified CRT surveyor following comments from users but the surveyor tells me that Heck bridge has settled down and doesn't seem to be moving. Of course the water levels can fluctuate slightly and that was also discussed in the report.

 I recall the 500 tonners when tankers doing exactly as has been described when passing under the lowest bridges - very occasionally it didn't work!

The comment about lifting bridges is interesting as the rail industry has being using simple techniques to achieve this quite successfully for electrification.

Regarding the new traffic to Leeds Andy Collins (AC Marine Aggregates Ltd) reminded me the other day that it's actually 14 years since we first met to discuss his vision for getting sea dredged material into Leeds.  This was based on his (correct) belief that as local quarry sources dwindled and new quarries would not get planning permission, marine material, which is more expensive than land-won would eventually be competitive in West Yorkshire. CBOA and ACMA have worked together on this since then, firstly with the Crown Estate (owners of the material) who have been most helpful, then many meetings with dredger operators in the UK and abroad (Van Oord provides the dredger).  About five years ago we were at the stage when it would be economic to bring a dredger into the Humber and again there were numerous meetings with wharf and port operators. At John Branford's suggestion Hardings in Albert Dock were approached and could provide the facility needed.  Inland terminals and wharves were then looked at including two in Knottingley, and two or three sites in Leeds, including Knostrop which was then available but the time wasn't right in terms of local material availability etc.  By mid last year it was beginning to stack up.  Knostrop's open space was fully let (apart from the wharf itself which is protected) but one of the occupiers agreed to give up enough space for storage next to the wharf and while agreeing terms and changing leases took longer than any of us would have wished we are now delighted that the traffic has started up and will hopefully increase.  The vision of Andy Collins and his family and colleagues has been justified!

regards David L

 

  • Greenie 2
  • Happy 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, fanshaft said:

Heck Road bridge has reduced air draft because of a subsidence due to mining.  The legal air draft (1968 Act) is 3.8 metres and the maximum recommended now is 3.6 metres.  British Waterways tried to get the Coal Authority to pay to have the bridge raised but the Coal Authority resisted legally (successfully) owing to the fact that empty barges were still passing underneath without difficulty by ballasting and pleasure craft didn't have a problem. 

As part of the study into the carriage of containers the bridges, Goole to Stourton, were all measured some years ago and Heck and Stubbs (3.76 m)  are the only ones below 3.8 metres at normal water level.  Seven are between 3.6 m and 4 m (albeit one is 3.99 m!)) - 4 m being considered the minimum air draft for containers at the time.  The bridges (heck in particular)  are  monitored by a qualified CRT surveyor following comments from users but the surveyor tells me that Heck bridge has settled down and doesn't seem to be moving. Of course the water levels can fluctuate slightly and that was also discussed in the report.

 I recall the 500 tonners when tankers doing exactly as has been described when passing under the lowest bridges - very occasionally it didn't work!

The comment about lifting bridges is interesting as the rail industry has being using simple techniques to achieve this quite successfully for electrification.

Regarding the new traffic to Leeds Andy Collins (AC Marine Aggregates Ltd) reminded me the other day that it's actually 14 years since we first met to discuss his vision for getting sea dredged material into Leeds.  This was based on his (correct) belief that as local quarry sources dwindled and new quarries would not get planning permission, marine material, which is more expensive than land-won would eventually be competitive in West Yorkshire. CBOA and ACMA have worked together on this since then, firstly with the Crown Estate (owners of the material) who have been most helpful, then many meetings with dredger operators in the UK and abroad (Van Oord provides the dredger).  About five years ago we were at the stage when it would be economic to bring a dredger into the Humber and again there were numerous meetings with wharf and port operators. At John Branford's suggestion Hardings in Albert Dock were approached and could provide the facility needed.  Inland terminals and wharves were then looked at including two in Knottingley, and two or three sites in Leeds, including Knostrop which was then available but the time wasn't right in terms of local material availability etc.  By mid last year it was beginning to stack up.  Knostrop's open space was fully let (apart from the wharf itself which is protected) but one of the occupiers agreed to give up enough space for storage next to the wharf and while agreeing terms and changing leases took longer than any of us would have wished we are now delighted that the traffic has started up and will hopefully increase.  The vision of Andy Collins and his family and colleagues has been justified!

regards David L

 

Very comprehensive and authoritative post as always David thank you. 

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

Very comprehensive and authoritative post as always David thank you. 

You're very welcome!  As always I need to be careful as regards commercially sensitive information and my account was very much a precis of all that had to be achieved to get to this stage. 

Rgds David

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.