Only for London?

[wandering snail]

Press Release: Call for major upgrade of waterways to get freight off roads and onto rivers and canals to cut pollution.

 

The Commercial Boat Operators Association, the Canal & River Trust, the Inland Waterways Association and the Port of London Authority are working together to kickstart a revolution in the way goods are transferred around the country.   

 

Aim is to get more freight off roads, where traffic pollution is known to cause severe health problems in built up areas, and onto freight carriers on the UK’s rivers and canals.

 

“The problem is we’re using 19^th century infrastructure to solve 21^st century problems,” says John Spencer, director of GPS Marine, the largest multi-cargo intra-port barge operator on the River Thames and Medway, “but as an individual company we’ve been hitting our heads against a brick wall. We’re now working with major canal and river organisations to get this moving.”

 

The Port of London Authority has just launched a new consultation and vision for the Thames.  The river is already the UK’s busiest inland waterway. Thames Vision 2050 identifies the development of Trading Thames as a priority, with strong long-term potential for using the river to connect the deepsea port outside London with customers and consumers within London.

 

Richard Parry, chief executive of the Canal & River Trust, said: “The transfer of traffic from trucks to barges can play a significant role in reducing carbon emissions, improving air quality, and supporting the broader Government objective to achieve net zero and mitigate climate change.”

 

 

Between them these organisations are approaching the Department for Transport, Defra and relevant select committees, aiming to deepen understanding of the opportunity and what needs to be done to make the most of it.

ENDS

Further information:   

GPS Marine, Pamela Mounter T: 020 7228 9578, E: pamelamounter@hotmail.com 

CBOA, David Lowe, T: 07785 502478, E: d.lowe@cboa.org.uk 

IWA, Amy Tillson, T: 01494 , E: amy.tillson@waterways.org.uk 

CRT, Jonathan Ludford, T: 07747 897783, E: Jonathan.Ludford@canalrivertrust.org.uk 

PLA, James Trimmer, T: (44) 1474 562360/ 07713 65459, E: james.trimmer@PLA.co.uk

[ditchcrawler]

Lets hope no fish are harmed in this initiative 👿 

[Slim]

How many times have I seen similar press releases in the last 25 years. I think it was ŕeleased ten days too early.

[TheBiscuits]

2 minutes ago, Slim said:

How many times have I seen similar press releases in the last 25 years. I think it was ŕeleased ten days too early.

 

I think you missed the subtext - CRT are very much in favour of commercial water freight transport on waterways they don't have to pay to maintain.  Maybe a little bit less so when they have to foot the dredging bills ...

 

 

[Slim]

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

I think you missed the subtext - CRT are very much in favour of commercial water freight transport on waterways they don't have to pay to maintain.  Maybe a little bit less so when they have to foot the dredging bills ...

 

 

I take your point but think of the issues and costs. Locks, bridges, loading/unloading, transport to and from wharf to customer, water supply etc, etc. OK for niche cargo but no more.

Time will tell.

[Heartland]

Why London indeed

 

What about developing the Severn ,Trent and Weaver again?

 

There has been much talk over time and sometimes odd traffic start up again at least for a time.

 

One of the worst failures must include the BACAT barge scheme that was literally sunk by the unions at Hull Docks!

[fanshaft]

On 24/03/2022 at 19:03, Heartland said:

Why London indeed

 

What about developing the Severn ,Trent and Weaver again?

 

There has been much talk over time and sometimes odd traffic start up again at least for a time.

 

One of the worst failures must include the BACAT barge scheme that was literally sunk by the unions at Hull Docks!

Why not London?  The biggest tonnage is moved on the Thames (about 5 million tonnes a year) followed by the Manchester Ship Canal.  CRT waterways carry about one million tonnes of freight but it could be much more.  The press release doesn't say it's only the Thames and in fact it does say 'around the country'.  It's no secret the Trust is in early discussions with DfT around increased funding for the Commercial Waterways,  starting with those in Yorkshire because that is where the greatest potential lies - especially for aggregates, likely to be the initial tonnage for the proposed Port Leeds at Stourton, and already being moved up to a small wharf in Leeds.  But yes there is also potential for a inland port at Worcester.  The Trent is less attractive owing to depth limitations in the upper tideway and beyond , but should not be overlooked, while the Weaver, currently being dredged to accommodate 'Daniel Adamson' could then accommodate deep drafted barges up to Anderton and possibly to Winsford for the salt trade.

David L.

 

 

[fanshaft]

On 19/03/2022 at 13:26, Slim said:

I take your point but think of the issues and costs. Locks, bridges, loading/unloading, transport to and from wharf to customer, water supply etc, etc. OK for niche cargo but no more.

Time will tell.

Locks and bridges, for the most part, are fine - though some small scale enlargement (e.g. Bulholme Lock part widening) and some bridge raising on the A&CN would be beneficial though not needed right now.  Loading and unloading needs wharves which are in short supply and that is a challenge.  Water supply - not often an issue on the Commercial Waterways - too much sometimes!. The ideal cargoes are those that go direct to the customer, so for example a ready mix plant on the wharf, or an oil storage depot (as at Rotherham).  Another excellent destination is a storage facility where goods are called off as needed, and that is how the aggregate terminals in Leeds, London etc work - having, in effect, a 'virtual quarry' in the centre of the conurbation with quick call off is a great benefit.   There are other opportunities which could be described as 'niche' such as the wheat from Seaforth to Runcorn where it is transferred for final delivery to Stockport by truck.  Loading to barge is much cheaper than to road, and using barges saves lorry miles. 

David L

[Heartland]

What about oil, if that is not a bad word these days ? As early as 1872 Edward Leader Williams argued that water was the best means of conveyance for petroleum in view of its explosive nature. He did that in the parliamentary enquiry when the Midland Railway failed to take over the Worcester & Birmingham Canal.

[Tony Brooks]

2 minutes ago, Heartland said:

What about oil, if that is not a bad word these days ? As early as 1872 Edward Leader Williams argued that water was the best means of conveyance for petroleum in view of its explosive nature. He did that in the parliamentary enquiry when the Midland Railway failed to take over the Worcester & Birmingham Canal.

 

I get the impression that there is a national pipeline system linking depots and large users like airports to the refineries/tank farms. There is no way I can see water transport being cheaper then pipelines.

[Ronaldo47]

I seem to remember it being said that the restored Bow backwaters would be used to transport building materials  for the 2012 London Olympics as a green way to reduce lorry traffic, and that a firm had suitable barges available. In the event, nothing went by water. 

[Tim Lewis]

2 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I get the impression that there is a national pipeline system linking depots and large users like airports to the refineries/tank farms. There is no way I can see water transport being cheaper then pipelines.

 

Map of oil pipelines

 

Operations - BPA | Oil and gas pipeline operator | Oil and gas pipeline consultant

 

Tim

Edited April 4, 2022 by Tim Lewis

[mrsmelly]

On 24/03/2022 at 19:03, Heartland said:

Why London indeed

 

What about developing the Severn ,Trent and Weaver again?

 

There has been much talk over time and sometimes odd traffic start up again at least for a time.

 

One of the worst failures must include the BACAT barge scheme that was literally sunk by the unions at Hull Docks!

My Dad used to run out of Goole down to Nottingham, taking all manner of goods from Goole to be taken off at Colwick and onto the narrow system boats. Apparently it was very busy in his days doing it 1934 until ww2 . How times change eh. Funnily enough 70 plus years later I skippered The Nottingham Princess and we moored about 30 yards from the old disused wharf he had used

[PaulJ]

2 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I get the impression that there is a national pipeline system linking depots and large users like airports to the refineries/tank farms. There is no way I can see water transport being cheaper then pipelines.

You may remember a few years ago when someone else discovered this fact and drilled a hole in the one that crosses the canal at Gayton. The Marina had to be evacuated and took a while to clean up.

[David Mack]

9 hours ago, Tim Lewis said:

 

Map of oil pipelines

 

Operations - BPA | Oil and gas pipeline operator | Oil and gas pipeline consultant

 

Tim

Not just oil pipelines.

https://www.sabic.com/en/about/ehss/sabic-uk-pipelines

[fanshaft]

11 hours ago, Heartland said:

What about oil, if that is not a bad word these days ? As early as 1872 Edward Leader Williams argued that water was the best means of conveyance for petroleum in view of its explosive nature. He did that in the parliamentary enquiry when the Midland Railway failed to take over the Worcester & Birmingham Canal.

Oil traffic boomed after WW2, especially on the Severn and the Humber waterways, also on the Ship Canal and Thames. Pipelines eventually took over some of this traffic (including a very long running narrow boat movement from Stanlow to Oldbury).    In the 1980s (I am not sure of the date) there was a change in the way that duty was paid and instead of being ex inland terminal it was to be ex refinery and that made inland terminals uneconomic though some remained in use for a while - Fleet terminal at Woodlesford until 2012.  Another nail in the coffin was a requirement by the major oil companies (not MCA, BW or CRT as some said) that oil tanker craft have to be double skinned to load at the major oil terminals.  This does not apply to the base oil moved by tanker from a storage facility in Hull docks up to Rotherham.  So petroleum product is now moved in small lots by road from the refineries as needed.

[fanshaft]

10 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

I seem to remember it being said that the restored Bow backwaters would be used to transport building materials  for the 2012 London Olympics as a green way to reduce lorry traffic, and that a firm had suitable barges available. In the event, nothing went by water. 

That was the intention - barges were obtained as you say - barging sea dredged aggregate to the site at Bow.  However no-one had foreseen there would be a recession and a glut of aggregates available at rail connected inland quarries e.g. in the Mendips. With an existing rail facility at Bow and quarried material being cheaper than marine aggregate  it was more cost effective to transport all the material needed in by rail.