Shroppie Closure

[Mike Todd]

There have been closure notices about a fallen tree on the Shroppie between Bridges 131 and 132A . The closure seems to have been on-going for three weeks with the latest update giving no specific news.

 

Fortunately I am not in the position of waiting for navigation to re-open but I have been surprised that there has been no chatter about what is going on. The explanation (such as it is) seems to point to a serious dispute with land owners.

 

Anyone know what is going on? Is there a back story?

Edited December 15, 2021 by Mike Todd

[MoominPapa]

From the latest stoppage update:

 

Quote

Our teams continue to liaise with the third party landowners (Network Rail)

 

Dunno if that helps.....

 

 

MP.

[ditchcrawler]

47 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

There have been closure notices about a fallen tree on the Shroppie between Bridges 131 and 132A . The closure seems to have been on-going for three weeks with the latest update giving no specific news.

 

Fortunately I am not in the position of waiting for navigation to re-open but I have been surprised that there has been no chatter about what is going on. The explanation (such as it is) seems to point to a serious dispute with land owners.

 

Anyone know what is going on? Is there a back story?

Isn't this a problem with land access?

[Graham Davis]

May also mean that NR need to block the line so that they can get access and deal with the tree. That can take a while to organise.

[tree monkey]

3 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

May also mean that NR need to block the line so that they can get access and deal with the tree. That can take a while to organise.

My experience is NR work at the pace of a drunken snail when acces is required but there isn't a safety issue that affects their network and it's pricey, so it will take some time and may even require night works line dependent 

[magpie patrick]

6 hours ago, tree monkey said:

My experience is NR work at the pace of a drunken snail when acces is required but there isn't a safety issue that affects their network and it's pricey, so it will take some time and may even require night works line dependent 

 Indeed - more than three years to get consent to put a footpath under an existing railway bridge in Frome - the footpath bridged the land and didn't touch the structure or the land under it - about as risk free as you could get. 

Their tree on your land - what's the problem? They can be quick to move when it's your tree and their land though! 

[frangar]

When I was stuck by the breach at Rufford one of the many delays was in network rail allowing plant to be moved across the farm track manual level crossing. This was despite there only being one train an every half hour with none on Sundays. Took weeks for a RA to be agreed…and none of the kit was larger or heavier than the farm machinery that regularly used the same crossing without incident on a daily basis. 
 

I did suggest that CRT drew up a skeleton RA for all such crossing/land access situations in future but I doubt if that was done…or if indeed NR would accept them. 

[tree monkey]

36 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 Indeed - more than three years to get consent to put a footpath under an existing railway bridge in Frome - the footpath bridged the land and didn't touch the structure or the land under it - about as risk free as you could get. 

Their tree on your land - what's the problem? They can be quick to move when it's your tree and their land though! 

Yes I could believe it, honestly I was being polite about working with NR, only open reach are worse, the difference is of course the consequences of things going wrong on NR land is much worse than damaging a phone line

 

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Yes I could believe it, honestly I was being polite about working with NR, only open reach are worse, the difference is of course the consequences of things going wrong on NR land is much worse than damaging a phone line

 

 

Yes I would imagine the normal procedure of lopping the bits of the tree off intruding over one's own land and bunging them back over the fence is not the right course of action when its onto a railway, lol. 

 

 

[Idle Days]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

Yes I would imagine the normal procedure of lopping the bits of the tree off intruding over one's own land and bunging them back over the fence is not the right course of action when its onto a railway, lol. 

 

 

I'm not so sure, it would certainly get Network Rail's attention and early action.  Bit rough on the train though. 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Idle Days said:

I'm not so sure, it would certainly get Network Rail's attention and early action.  Bit rough on the train though. 

 

Might be ok if it is a branch line....

[Alan de Enfield]

14 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Might be ok if it is a branch line....

 

I think he had already twigged that.

[David Mack]

What is it about this location which stops CRT's contractors from accessing the tree from the canal and removing enough of it to get the canal open, even if access to NR land is required for the rest?

[BlueStringPudding]

31 minutes ago, David Mack said:

What is it about this location which stops CRT's contractors from accessing the tree from the canal and removing enough of it to get the canal open, even if access to NR land is required for the rest?

I was wondering similar. 🤔 

[MoominPapa]

46 minutes ago, David Mack said:

What is it about this location which stops CRT's contractors from accessing the tree from the canal and removing enough of it to get the canal open, even if access to NR land is required for the rest?

Just speculation. 132A is the railway crossing and the railway crosses the canal at high level and a significant skew, so that the railway embankment is almost parallel to the canal and approaches to zero distance from it at the start of the bridge. A tree on the railway embankment which went over towards the canal could end up with the crown of the tree blocking the canal, but a large and heavy trunk above that going up the embankment and supported only by the crown. You really wouldn't want to remove the crown and have the now-unsupported trunk descend onto your head.

 

MP.

 

[tree monkey]

Just now, MoominPapa said:

Just speculation. 132A is the railway crossing and the railway crosses the canal at high level and a significant skew, so that the railway embankment is almost parallel to the canal and approaches to zero distance from it at the start of the bridge. A tree on the railway embankment which went over towards the canal could end up with the crown of the tree blocking the canal, but a large and heavy trunk above that going up the embankment and supported only by the crown. You really wouldn't want to remove the crown and have the now-unsupported trunk descend onto your head.

 

MP.

 

This, any works off NR land likely to effect NR land needs cooperation with the secret squirrels of NR, I'm not sure but is the line electrified? Assuming it is you also need to maintain a certain distance from the overheads whilst working and obviously avoid big booms because big booms annoy passengers and cost CRT a LOT of money

 

If the power needs to be isolated it also needs or at least possibly needs a night time possession of the line which isn't quick to sort

 

Railtrack work is a black art to organise, once organised its still muppets with chainsaws tripping on red bull and roll ups but its the paper work that slows stuff up, well and trying to avoid trains smearing tree monkeys across the tracks that's also bad

 

MP

Windblown trees have a habit of suddenly sitting back up once you start breaking down the crown and trust me that's almost as scary as the tree trying to fall on you

[Idle Days]

Beavers perhaps?

[MoominPapa]

25 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

This, any works off NR land likely to effect NR land needs cooperation with the secret squirrels of NR, I'm not sure but is the line electrified?

 

It's the line to Ellesmere Port. Probably still running on steam.

 

MP.

[Stilllearning]

1 hour ago, tree monkey said:

This, any works off NR land likely to effect NR land needs cooperation with the secret squirrels of NR, I'm not sure but is the line electrified? Assuming it is you also need to maintain a certain distance from the overheads whilst working and obviously avoid big booms because big booms annoy passengers and cost CRT a LOT of money

 

If the power needs to be isolated it also needs or at least possibly needs a night time possession of the line which isn't quick to sort

 

Railtrack work is a black art to organise, once organised its still muppets with chainsaws tripping on red bull and roll ups but its the paper work that slows stuff up, well and trying to avoid trains smearing tree monkeys across the tracks that's also bad

 

MP

Windblown trees have a habit of suddenly sitting back up once you start breaking down the crown and trust me that's almost as scary as the tree trying to fall on you

We had much fun just after the 1987 storm, tidying up bits of the New Forest and Staunton Country Park. It was a great way to show local volunteers why one had to be careful when sawing through parts of a tree.

[tree monkey]

1 minute ago, Stilllearning said:

We had much fun just after the 1987 storm, tidying up bits of the New Forest and Staunton Country Park. It was a great way to show local volunteers why one had to be careful when sawing through parts of a tree.

Windblown trees are fun, multiple windblowns are fun and scary at the same time

[Stilllearning]

26 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Windblown trees are fun, multiple windblowns are fun and scary at the same time

Agreed. Add in steel cable aerial walkways that came down along with the windblowns but the cables didn’t break, but just got amusingly tensioned, and whoopee!

ETA they were zipwires not walkways.

Edited December 16, 2021 by Stilllearning

[wandering snail]

Here's the latest: 

Further investigations have concluded that Network Rail are not responsible for the offside land between Bridge 131, Knolles and Bridge 132A, Backford Railway on the Shropshire Union Canal.

Whilst the land still belongs to a third party, we have taken the decision to remove the tree with our contractors to speed up the removal. We have now negotiated access to the third-party land to remove the tree with an excavator and our contractors are currently arranging the required equipment. Our contractors will be onsite next week.

This removal remains a priority for the Trust and our contractors are aiming to remove the tree so we are able to re-open navigation by Wednesday, 22 December.

An update will be provided by Wednesday 22 December.

[tree monkey]

18 minutes ago, wandering snail said:

Here's the latest: 

Further investigations have concluded that Network Rail are not responsible for the offside land between Bridge 131, Knolles and Bridge 132A, Backford Railway on the Shropshire Union Canal.

Whilst the land still belongs to a third party, we have taken the decision to remove the tree with our contractors to speed up the removal. We have now negotiated access to the third-party land to remove the tree with an excavator and our contractors are currently arranging the required equipment. Our contractors will be onsite next week.

This removal remains a priority for the Trust and our contractors are aiming to remove the tree so we are able to re-open navigation by Wednesday, 22 December.

An update will be provided by Wednesday 22 December.

So it's a landowner issue rather than anything really complicated 

[Stroudwater1]

Why it is possibly going to take 5 days to allow navigation again? When a tree came down in the nearby farm the Oak was cut up and sold on within 2 days.  It seems to be more complex than it needs to be , or am I missing something? 

 

Is this a giant redwood? 

 

 

[tree monkey]

7 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Why it is possibly going to take 5 days to allow navigation again? When a tree came down in the nearby farm the Oak was cut up and sold on within 2 days.  It seems to be more complex than it needs to be , or am I missing something? 

 

Is this a giant redwood? 

 

 

Just a guess, 

 

Embankment 

Disputed landownership

No right of access 

 

Tbh CRT have been doing the right thing trying to find the landowner because now CRT are going to do it CRT going to pay for it and that means we are paying for it