New freight traffic on Aire & Calder?

[Orwellian]

Planning application granted last week for a new sand & gravel quarry at Stanley Ferry with product being exported from site by canal. https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/new-quarry-near-wakefield-bring-19828596#ICID=Android_HuddersfieldExaminerNewsApp_AppShare

 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by Orwellian
correct spelling

[Tracy D'arth]

It will need a canal then?

Anyone told C&RT?   

Is there a dredger anywhere?

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by Tracy D'arth

[furnessvale]

People are right to be wary of change of transport to road once the site is up and running.  This is a regular ploy, although the normal starter transport is railfreight before being dropped in favour of road.

[peterboat]

Doesnt make sense before the breach sand and gravel was being dredged from the sea and taken to leeds which is a better solution than digging up the countryside? But what do I know?

When we were up at ferry bridge the other year we spent a lot of time with our bottom scraping the bottom so I cant see it working without a lot of dredging, as somebody else has said it looks like a con

[Orwellian]

1 minute ago, peterboat said:

Doesnt make sense before the breach sand and gravel was being dredged from the sea and taken to leeds which is a better solution than digging up the countryside? But what do I know?

When we were up at ferry bridge the other year we spent a lot of time with our bottom scraping the bottom so I cant see it working without a lot of dredging, as somebody else has said it looks like a con

This is nowhere near Ferrybridge but the sea dredged gravel does go through there so not sure what your point is.

[Orwellian]

1 hour ago, Tracy D'arth said:

It will need a canal then?

Anyone told C&RT?   

Is there a dredger anywhere?

 

 

 

Well yes of course and I strongly suspect they intend to use the one immediately adjacent to the site! CRT have indicated support as you can see from the attached.

CANAL___RIVER_TRUST_-_SUPPORT_IN_PRINCIPAL-822216.pdf

[peterboat]

30 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

This is nowhere near Ferrybridge but the sea dredged gravel does go through there so not sure what your point is.

Around 1.6 million tonnes of materials will be mined across 22 hectares next to the Aire and Calder Navigation in Stanley Ferry for the next decade

 

Sorry I meant Stanley ferry having a bad hair day ? My point is very large boats from the sea to Leeds seems better than digging big holes in the ground where people are objecting to it

[LadyG]

1 hour ago, Tracy D'arth said:

It will need a canal then?

Anyone told C&RT?   

Is there a dredger anywhere?

 

 

 

The CRT have taken a wee dredger up to Misterton, not sure how much they took out at Clayworth, but I think it was manpower required at that troublesome lock. 

The dredging of sand and gravel from the sea is not without its critics, bound to upset the ecosystem in some way.

The UK is lacking in holes for landfill sites, so it could be a long term plan. 

 

[Alway Swilby]

19 minutes ago, LadyG said:

The CRT have taken a wee dredger up to Misterton, not sure how much they took out at Clayworth, but I think it was manpower required at that troublesome lock. 

The dredging of sand and gravel from the sea is not without its critics, bound to upset the ecosystem in some way.

The UK is lacking in holes for landfill sites, so it could be a long term plan. 

 

That's it!! That's where we can put our pooh!

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, Alway Swilby said:

That's it!! That's where we can put our pooh!

 

 

No, I couldn't bear it.

[peterboat]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

No, I couldn't bear it.

Whats Winnie got to do with it?

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Whats Winnie got to do with it?

 

Eeyore, eeyore, eeyore-ways asks that question !

Edited February 14, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[TheBiscuits]

 

I wonder if this is where @fanshaft was teasing us about his free range pans going to last week? 

 

  

On 07/02/2021 at 22:42, fanshaft said:

The current owners (myself and two colleagues) took them on when Richard died so as to preserve these iconic (if somewhat ungainly) craft for future use and it's hoped they will be transferred elsewhere in the fairly near future. 

 

[fanshaft]

17 hours ago, furnessvale said:

People are right to be wary of change of transport to road once the site is up and running.  This is a regular ploy, although the normal starter transport is railfreight before being dropped in favour of road.

CBOA has been assisting with this project for some years so it's great news!  Road transport would only be used if it were cheaper or had other benefits. In this case at least one of the proposed destinations is an 'end user' and 'waterside to waterside' barge transport is significantly cheaper than road as well as offering environmental benefits.  Where road is cheaper than rail or water the Department for Transport offers Mode Shift Revenue Support grants to bridge the gap.  Most MSRS grants are for rail currently but there is nothing to stop anyone applying in respect of inland water or coastal shipping.  The MD of the applicant company has considerable previous experience of barge transport and is keen to utilise it.

16 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

I wonder if this is where @fanshaft was teasing us about his free range pans going to last week? 

 

  

 

Possibly!  They certainly fit the dimensions of the waterway.

[fanshaft]

17 hours ago, peterboat said:

Doesnt make sense before the breach sand and gravel was being dredged from the sea and taken to leeds which is a better solution than digging up the countryside? But what do I know?

When we were up at ferry bridge the other year we spent a lot of time with our bottom scraping the bottom so I cant see it working without a lot of dredging, as somebody else has said it looks like a con

This quarried material may have different properties and uses compared to the sea dredged material so it can complement rather than compete with it. Dredging at Ferrybridge, Fishpond, and Bank Dole is to commence shortly.  Lemonroyd will be tackled nearer to New Bridge  re-opening date.  On the rest of the A&CN depth is generally good in the channel - over three metres, four in places (from surveys). The Wakefield branch will be dredged where necessary although apart from Methley (possibly) none or not much is anticipated.  In general terms peterboat is correct: planners do prefer to avoid extending the life of or opening new quarries while encouraging use of marine aggregate although the latter is more expensive to win - even if better quality - which is why it was generally only competitive in the port area.  Lower costs provided by barge transport helps of course especially if there is an end user or 'virtual quarry' at the destination.

[Orwellian]

11 hours ago, fanshaft said:

CBOA has been assisting with this project for some years so it's great news!  Road transport would only be used if it were cheaper or had other benefits. In this case at least one of the proposed destinations is an 'end user' and 'waterside to waterside' barge transport is significantly cheaper than road as well as offering environmental benefits.  Where road is cheaper than rail or water the Department for Transport offers Mode Shift Revenue Support grants to bridge the gap.  Most MSRS grants are for rail currently but there is nothing to stop anyone applying in respect of inland water or coastal shipping.  The MD of the applicant company has considerable previous experience of barge transport and is keen to utilise it.

Possibly!  They certainly fit the dimensions of the waterway.

I do hope there is a clear and robust definition of 'cheaper' in this context. The waterway option requires the construction of a wharf and maybe the acquisition of new vessels. Lorries are plentiful, can be easily hired and require no investment in capital works. Also who decides which mode is 'cheaper'? And what does 'had other benefits' mean?  Of course the developer is keen on the waterway option if it helps them obtain planning permission. I would be worried if I lived in the area.

[fanshaft]

19 hours ago, Orwellian said:

I do hope there is a clear and robust definition of 'cheaper' in this context. The waterway option requires the construction of a wharf and maybe the acquisition of new vessels. Lorries are plentiful, can be easily hired and require no investment in capital works. Also who decides which mode is 'cheaper'? And what does 'had other benefits' mean?  Of course the developer is keen on the waterway option if it helps them obtain planning permission. I would be worried if I lived in the area.

The wharf at Birkwood/Stanley Ferry  has been planned and costed by a very well known waterway engineering company active on Trust waterways.  Clearly the customer (who is long established and very experienced in both aggregates and barge transport) makes the final choice as to modes, unless mandated by planning permission.  There is a government presumption in favour of rail and water freight (and the waterways minister commented on this recently in the Commons) with DfT making grants available to rail or water to level the costs if road transport is cheaper.  The benefits to the populace in terms of reduced emissions, noise, accidents, damage to roads, etc of using rail or road are calculated by DfT and work out at £x per lorry movement removed from the roads - more for A and B and unclassified roads of course.  No new barges need to be constructed for the current project - although a future route to Ravensthorpe would need new, modern barges constructing.  These, of course, have a very much longer life than lorries! I live near Stanley Ferry and know it well - I don't think the locals have much if anything to worry about.

Regards David L

[fanshaft]

19 hours ago, Orwellian said:

I do hope there is a clear and robust definition of 'cheaper' in this context. The waterway option requires the construction of a wharf and maybe the acquisition of new vessels. Lorries are plentiful, can be easily hired and require no investment in capital works. Also who decides which mode is 'cheaper'? And what does 'had other benefits' mean?  Of course the developer is keen on the waterway option if it helps them obtain planning permission. I would be worried if I lived in the area.

Sorry - 'other benefits' - I was thinking where the lorry can go direct to a location on a site thus reducing handling costs.  But in the case of the movement of oil to Rotherham for Exol another benefit is actually created by using barges -  that the barge goes directly to site and reduces congestion in a restricted area which would be the case if lorries were used.  Also the barge cargo only needs sampling once, whereas every lorry would need sampling. 

[fanshaft]

On 14/02/2021 at 16:08, furnessvale said:

People are right to be wary of change of transport to road once the site is up and running.  This is a regular ploy, although the normal starter transport is railfreight before being dropped in favour of road.

Confirmed today planning permission does not allow road transport.  A change to road haulage would require a further planning application which would attract huge local opposition.

[furnessvale]

13 hours ago, fanshaft said:

Confirmed today planning permission does not allow road transport.  A change to road haulage would require a further planning application which would attract huge local opposition.

That is good.  Sadly it automatically means no grants will be available either.

 

As a note of caution I will quote the refuse powered power station at Runcorn which had a requirement for a large percentage of rail carried waste.  After several years the only rail waste was from Manchester so they reapplied for road use and it was granted against fierce local opposition.

 

Sorry to be a moaning minny but I have seen this so many times over the years.  Lets hope this one is a DIRFT and not a Telford.

[Orwellian]

I agree a clear and unambiguous planning condition is infinitely better than relying on nebulous concepts like 'cheaper'. But as furnessvale says it could be varied so it's not a 100% guarantee. But then nothing is except we all die at some point!

[peterboat]

20 hours ago, fanshaft said:

Sorry - 'other benefits' - I was thinking where the lorry can go direct to a location on a site thus reducing handling costs.  But in the case of the movement of oil to Rotherham for Exol another benefit is actually created by using barges -  that the barge goes directly to site and reduces congestion in a restricted area which would be the case if lorries were used.  Also the barge cargo only needs sampling once, whereas every lorry would need sampling. 

Because Pride isn't running the end of my road has turned into a nightmare! On top of the delivery tankers a building is being demolished and a much bigger one built! Chaos is the only way to describe it, still the breach might be repaired by next year or maybe the year after ? let's be honest CRT arnt quick with these things

[billh]

4 hours ago, furnessvale said:

 

 

As a note of caution I will quote the refuse powered power station at Runcorn which had a requirement for a large percentage of rail carried waste.  After several years the only rail waste was from Manchester so they reapplied for road use and it was granted against fierce local opposition.

 

 

That has created the amusing situation of 2  daily waste trains passing us within an hour of each other, one full and one empty  but both going in the same direction!

the full one starts at Knowsley  ,(not very far from Runcorn) with Merseyside's rubbish   and goes to Teeside , well over a hundred miles (why does that make sense?). The empty train is returning from Runcorn to  a Manchester waste transfer station. Economics, mad-house etc!

[Heartland]

The Stanley Ferry Quarry was promoted in 2020 and has had objections against a scheme may well have potential for transport by water to Dewsbury. For  that to occur would mean transport also along the Calder & Hebble Navigation.

 

The plan of the quarry places it near the Workshops at Stanley Ferry

 

  

[PD1964]

I wonder where it’s going to be unloaded at Dewsbury?

As I can’t see big gravel barges getting that way especially anything near 400 tonne. Last time they ran they were loaded at Fairies Hill causing underwater sand banks which caught many a boater out if they didn’t know the area. Then they ran to Google through the big locks. With the size of the locks to Dewsbury I just can’t see it that way.