Jump to content

Aire & Calder Breach


Joe Bourke

Featured Posts

It would be interest to see how the section from Goole to Ferrybridge was improved since the original construction of the waterway to Goole and how this was a factor that relates to the present issue. The size of craft increased over time, but this was a busy waterway in the days coal was transported to Goole for onward shipment. The piles as driven were clearly part of a later program, and no doubt in BW days. Subsidence, as Pluto notes, is another factor, which CRT engineers should be aware of, but is it problem that can be easily remedied. Whilst the breach last Sunday occurred seemingly from lower down in the piling, is this an problem that is occurring along a length of waterway and are there other weak spots yet to make themselves known 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Pluto said:

 The major problem they have is that they are dealing with a 200-year-old structure (190 in this case) for which there are few records.

 

But not always. The recent breach on the Ashby Canal was on a length of canal completely reconstructed and reopened in recent years. So that was a failure of a modern structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/12/2020 at 10:12, magpie patrick said:

A lot of water but a curious breach - it looks to be flowing under the towpath and then emerging in the foreground of the picture, before doing a U turn and pouring into another watercourse. The failure isn't where we can see water, but somewhere under the towpath? 

 

There's a video of the failure at https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/live-west-cowick-flooding-updates-4817590 if you scroll 2/3 of the way down the page to the 11.07 update. I can't work out how to embed the video here. Comparing the video with the Google Earth view at https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6744998,-0.9928815,250m/data=!3m1!1e3 you can see that the breach is on the north side of the canal just east of the culvert. The bank immediately above the culvert seems to be some sort of concrete slab structure with a void underneath, and water is running from the canal into this void and has then washed out the soil of the bank to the east. The water is then running back into the culvert and under the canal, presumably flowing into the River Don. 

 

Its not clear to me what the structure is over the culvert (or why it is there), or what the exact mode of failure is where the water is leaving the canal channel. The washing out of the soil is not the original failure, just a consequence of the water flowing out of the canal.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, fanshaft said:

The relatively small sums spent on marketing and media wouldn't purchase many lock gates, or dredge any distance but do help to keep the waterways in the public eye thus strengthening the case for increased public funding towards maintenance of the waterways as the Trust moves towards its government review.

But would you rather pay the wages of administrators  (who in my experience seem to know sod all about the waterways) or bank staff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mad Harold said:

I have read many of his posts about the Trent and canals,and agree he is very knowledgable.

But his rather blunt manner and at times almost slanderous critiscism of CRT has not won him many friends in high places.

Got libel and slander the wrong way around.Slander is spoken and libel is written.

I have read his stuff too and even been on the receiving end of his cutting wit. I also think he would benefit from understanding the meaning of the phrase "life's too short". None-the-less when it comes to knowledge and experience of the commercial waterways he is king and I have a lot of respect for that. If I ever get to meet him I will offer to buy him a beer but expect the glass to be cracked over my head as a parting gift. The world needs the likes of Tony Dunkley  if only to stir the pot now and again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A report from the BW house magazine in the 1960s regarding the leaks at Keighley Golf Club, where there had been a major breach in 1952. Then, a bank boat had been moored over the leak, which did reduce the damage by reducing the flow of water.

Keighley breach 1.jpg

Keighley breach 2.jpg

Keighley breach 3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting that Pluto - it's nice to see an article written by my Grandfather.

 

In 2013 length inspections (on foot) were done quarterly, with an annual inspection done by boat with a senior engineer onboard. Several years ago (2016 IIRC) the frequency of inspections was halved with the exception of certain key assets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

That is when we had a proper Navigation Authority, not a bunch of incompetents more interested in what the next colour of signage should be.

 

Glad I'm out of it.

I operated regularly over this section of canal (Keighley Golf Course)  in the 1970s and 1980s (passenger and cargo). Unfortunately the repair at Keighley Golf Course was not entirely successful as despite the claim in the article about maintaining the original profile they didn't quite get it right and  I found that I hit the concrete bed quite hard opposite the quarry drawing anything over 3 ft 6 in - admittedly the pool was being kept a few inches lower since the cessation of regular commercial traffic.  When I raised this with the Section Inspector (Les Evans) he said that it wasn't possible to dredge there and told me the story of the repair work.

David L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

So if a lengthsman walks 20 miles a day that would be 100 lengthsmen ish, 

Would that not be 200 lengthsmen?   2000 miles (ish) of canal lengthsman walks 10 miles out and 10 back, presumably he is allowed home everyday and he doesn't have to camp out and return the next day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Would that not be 200 lengthsmen?   2000 miles (ish) of canal lengthsman walks 10 miles out and 10 back, presumably he is allowed home everyday and he doesn't have to camp out and return the next day.

The quoted '2000 miles' include the rivers as well.

 

I'd estimate that some 25% will be rivers but cannot find the actual 'split' quoted anywhere, & C&RT simply say :

 

............  has responsibility for 2,000 miles of navigable canals and rivers, together with bridges, tunnels, aqueducts, docks and reservoirs, along with museums and archive collections. At the core of our charity are our charitable objects or purposes. The Trust's objects are set out in the Articles of Association.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The quoted '2000 miles' include the rivers as well.

 

I'd estimate that some 25% will be rivers but cannot find the actual 'split' quoted anywhere, & C&RT simply say :

 

............  has responsibility for 2,000 miles of navigable canals and rivers, together with bridges, tunnels, aqueducts, docks and reservoirs, along with museums and archive collections. At the core of our charity are our charitable objects or purposes. The Trust's objects are set out in the Articles of Association.

 

 

So on a walk and return that would be 150 ish lengthsman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jerra said:

So on a walk and return that would be 150 ish lengthsman.

Whilst 10 miles does not sound much I suspect it is a pretty big ask in a normal working day to do that and properly inspect all if the assets on that length. Need to know the total number of assets and their typical distribution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mike Todd said:

Whilst 10 miles does not sound much I suspect it is a pretty big ask in a normal working day to do that and properly inspect all if the assets on that length. Need to know the total number of assets and their typical distribution. 

That is more or less the point I was making, originally 20 miles was suggested.   Even walking steadily without stopping to inspect anything you are talking about 5-6.5 hours for 20 miles.  For an 8 hour working day and doing the job properly I would think nearer 5 out and 5 back.   After all some of the culvert inspecting etc requires quite long scrambles down banks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jerra said:

That is more or less the point I was making, originally 20 miles was suggested.   Even walking steadily without stopping to inspect anything you are talking about 5-6.5 hours for 20 miles.  For an 8 hour working day and doing the job properly I would think nearer 5 out and 5 back.   After all some of the culvert inspecting etc requires quite long scrambles down banks.

OK so how many lengths men did BWB employ to walk the length of the canal every day as was suggested earlier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is unrealistic to suggest a lengthsman did a patrol of his patch everyday. 
It used to be a 10 mile stretch and the lengthsmen knew that stretch to the extent that any problem areas were monitored frequently.

There were just over 700 bank staff when BW became CRT, that is paye staff that were on the towpath daily.

As of September 2020, that number was just over 200.

CRT suggest there are 400, but that includes bank staff volunteers, number counters, assets checkers, licence support officers and chuggers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

OK so how many lengths men did BWB employ to walk the length of the canal every day as was suggested earlier

I have no idea but if they were expected to cover 20 miles one way they weren't doing a lot other than walk.   Four miles an hour is a steady fast (ish) walking pace so 20 miles means 5 hours of walking with no stopping.   Which at best leaves three hours for inspecting but after 5 hours they are allowed half an hours break so that reduces the inspecting time to 2.5 hours always assuming nobody stops them to ask questions.

 

Do you really think paying a man to do 2.5 hours work and walk for the rest of his shift, oh and we have forgotten time lost while he did odd jobs.   I really do not see how 20 miles  (in one direction particularly) a day can be cost effective.   I would suggest most boats don't cover much more than 20 miles in 8 hours let alone have to inspect or work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I have no idea but if they were expected to cover 20 miles one way they weren't doing a lot other than walk.   Four miles an hour is a steady fast (ish) walking pace so 20 miles means 5 hours of walking with no stopping.   Which at best leaves three hours for inspecting but after 5 hours they are allowed half an hours break so that reduces the inspecting time to 2.5 hours always assuming nobody stops them to ask questions.

 

Do you really think paying a man to do 2.5 hours work and walk for the rest of his shift, oh and we have forgotten time lost while he did odd jobs.   I really do not see how 20 miles  (in one direction particularly) a day can be cost effective.   I would suggest most boats don't cover much more than 20 miles in 8 hours let alone have to inspect or work.

I wasn't the one who suggested that lengthsmen would prevent breaches or that they walked the canal every day.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I wasn't the one who suggested that lengthsmen would prevent breaches or that they walked the canal every day.  

You said "so if a lengthsman walks 20 miles a day ....." and that was after it had been stated they walked it daily and were responsible for minor maintenance.   To me that implies you accepted they were responsible for minor maintenance and spotting potential breaches.

 

EDIT to add the NT who seem to still have lengthsmen on the River Wey seem to give them between 3 & & miles to cover.

Edited by Jerra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

And they had a breach last year, so is the cause of breaches really not having lengthsmen?

Find the post where I said it was.    on't waste your time as I have never said that.  I do however feel a canal will be less likely to have problems if there are regular checks/inspections by somebody who knows it very well rather than has walked it once every 6 months.

  • Greenie 1
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.