Jump to content

Another "consultation"


Arthur Marshall

Featured Posts

Just now, Stroudwater1 said:

 

Not so, without functional locks the water in most canals disappears leaving nothing for any water user at all. Only need to look at derelect canals to see this. Leave locks to their own devices and they rot and are gone. Blunder lock on the Stroudwater needed new gates with almost no craft ever using it after around 20 years. If left then the pound above would run dry and disappear very fast. Sure they could be dammed but still detritis builds up fast and it all silts up. 

 

The locks would be cleared and blocked off at each end by poured concrete. Bywashes would still work and there would be an incentive to provide water along the duck ponds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

 

Not so, without functional locks the water in most canals disappears leaving nothing for any water user at all. Only need to look at derelect canals to see this. Leave locks to their own devices and they rot and are gone. Blunder lock on the Stroudwater needed new gates with almost no craft ever using it after around 20 years. If left then the pound above would run dry and disappear very fast. Sure they could be dammed but still detritis builds up fast and it all silts up. 

 

It would be quite possible to install a weir or similar (there are plenty where duplicate locks have been converted to a single) at minimum cost, keeping the levels appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony1 said:

....

It could be argued that a toll of say 50p levied on pedestrians using the towpath would be just as fair as charging a higher price for the boat license, for example.  Or even a toll on kayakers and fishermen.

.....

Kayakers (and canoeists, paddle boarders, and other small boat users) need a license like any other boat.

And I thought fishermen had to pay, but if not they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

They put out consultations because they have to consult and they can then show they have done that. They don't have to act on the results of that consultation, as you rightly state its not a poll.

Of course they don't *have* to act on polls which are not legally binding either, just like in 2016... 😉

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Steel gates cause damage to the anchoring points when people slam them by opening the paddles before they are closed. 

 

Wood will absorb some of this. 

 

Canal locks are operated by all sorts of different people so you do need to take into account improper use. Steel is too rigid for something like a lock gate. You want wood for this.

I have sometimes wondered about wooden-style gates built with 'timbers' of recycled plastic (as used in some park benches etc).  Network Rail have saved a lot of money replacing historic station daggerboards (the frilly things on the edge of canopies) with plastic imitations as they come up for renewal.

 

It would be considerably cheaper than oak and they wouldn't rot, while having a smaller visual impact  and more flexibility than steel gates. I don't know if the structural strength is adequate though.

EDIT: perhaps a suggestion for the guy in the HDPE boat thread...

Edited by Francis Herne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

Kayakers (and canoeists, paddle boarders, and other small boat users) need a license like any other boat.

And I thought fishermen had to pay, but if not they should.

 

You used to need a license to cycle on the towpath, I remember buying one in the early 80s at Little Venice.

 

Of course this was just honesty-based really since there was no enforcement, I don't remember ever being asked for it in several years...

 

Which is of course the problem with any ideas about licensing/charging walkers or cyclists or fishists or canoeists or paddleboardists -- apart from having to but the mechanism in place to do it (much easier today with the internet), without checks that people have a license (which would need *loads* of expensive enforcement officers risking confrontation) it's useless... 😞

3 minutes ago, Francis Herne said:

I have sometimes wondered about wooden-style gates built with 'timbers' of recycled plastic (as used in some park benches etc).  Network Rail have saved a lot of money replacing historic station daggerboards (the frilly things on the edge of canopies) with plastic imitations as they come up for renewal.

 

It would be considerably cheaper than oak and they wouldn't rot, while having a smaller visual impact  and more flexibility than steel gates. I don't know if the structural strength is adequate though.

 

Almost certainly not, see the discussion about HDPE boats. Unreinforced plastics are much weaker and less rigid than wood, which is actually an excellent structural material (it's effectively a grown composite) and as good or better than steel for many purposes. They're OK for decorative and non-load-bearing applications, but pretty useless where strength or rigidity is needed... 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

It would be quite possible to install a weir or similar (there are plenty where duplicate locks have been converted to a single) at minimum cost, keeping the levels appropriate.

 

Yes though the pounds are still in use so all good. The cost of installing Dams is significant and no doubt many towns would want them filled up to avoid deaths, then why bother with bridges for new roads- its a very rapid downward spiral.

 

Canals need maintenance, silt collects fast especially without use plus added stuff cleared out by boaters. Then there is  trees to cut back that then fall in and no need to remove, nor access for boats to dredge or remove silt/ rubbish . Really most canals would become empty silted up grassed over and fly tip traps  very fast without use, as happened with derelect canals.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

You used to need a license to cycle on the towpath, I remember buying one in the early 80s at Little Venice.

 

Of course this was just honesty-based really since there was no enforcement, I don't remember ever being asked for it in several years...

 

Which is of course the problem with any ideas about licensing/charging walkers or cyclists or fishists or canoeists or paddleboardists -- apart from having to but the mechanism in place to do it (much easier today with the internet), without checks that people have a license (which would need *loads* of expensive enforcement officers risking confrontation) it's useless... 😞

 

Almost certainly not, see the discussion about HDPE boats. Unreinforced plastics are much weaker and less rigid than wood, which is actually an excellent structural material (it's effectively a grown composite) and as good or better than steel for many purposes. They're OK for decorative and non-load-bearing applications, but pretty useless where strength or rigidity is needed... 😞

 

To be fair plastics are good for signage and we will be needing more of that. 

 

Things like "warning. Shallow water". "Water is wet". "Do not swim here" etc. 

 

There will be a lot of plastics. Some of it will be green. 

 

Maybe the towpath could be decked with green plastics to avoid the mowing issue. 

 

Someone will have already suggested this. 

One could even incorporate signage into the surface.  Bark..grrr..woof. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

Kayakers (and canoeists, paddle boarders, and other small boat users) need a license like any other boat.

And I thought fishermen had to pay, but if not they should.

I wonder if they all pay, I suspect not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are a member of the BCU canoeing association you get licensing for CRT and EA waterways included in your membership fee apparently. 

 

Don't know if they do a good ID card with a horrorgran on it though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, magnetman said:

If you are a member of the BCU canoeing association you get licensing for CRT and EA waterways included in your membership fee apparently. 

 

Don't know if they do a good ID card with a horrorgran on it though. 

They have a card with name, number, dates, magic QR code. No holograms.

Anecdotally, I'm one of very few individual canoe/kayak owners using the canals who's bothered to license it. Most such are the casual go-for-a-paddle-occasionally variety and CRT don't give a damn about canoes in any case. EA were a bit more active in enforcement when I was in Cambridgeshire. Those who canoe as a serious hobby might join BC in greater numbers for the other benefits, but usually find more interesting places to do it!

Edited by Francis Herne
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The issue there being that the 'free access and free use of the towpaths' is enshrined in law.

I think this is a misunderstanding. Free public access is not enshrined in law. One of the reasons for government funding of CRT is to ensure that free access continues (my bold).

 

Quote

 

4. To safeguard:

 - the canals and associated heritage infrastructure through the Trust Settlement, in perpetuity, for the benefit of the nation; and

 - free pedestrian access to the towpaths.

 


Obviously that might change post 2027 and the public might be reliant on the Waterways Infrastructure Trust settlement and CRT's charitable objects only. These make no mention of "free".

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is perhaps worth saying that that CRT has recorded a slight fall in the number of licenced boats on its waterways recently which can not be explained by higher "evasion". This has cost the trust £250,000 in income so far and trustees have been warned that licence income might fall next year. This despite the 9% increase on April 1 and the in-year increase of 4%.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, magnetman said:

Yars ago there were boats which had horses connected to them via long ropes so the towpaths were essential infrastructure. this is no longer the case. The only use for a towing path these days is for mooring and as a public amenity for various users. A boater does not need to access the towing path during boating procedures. They need a little bit around the locks but not the miles and miles of bankside. The only function of this is to provide moorings and if those moorings are free then it is incredibly obvious what happens. 

Over much of the network the towpath is on the downhill side of the canal, on top of the bank which retains the canal water from flowing to lower ground. So it is an essential engineering structure for maintaining the navigation channel. The path along the top is merely incidental. CRT cannot give up responsibility for owning and maintaining significant water retaining structures, and no local authority in its right mind is going to want to take on that responsibility.

Local authorities can and do contribute to funding the maintenance and upgrading of the towpath surface.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Over much of the network the towpath is on the downhill side of the canal, on top of the bank which retains the canal water from flowing to lower ground. So it is an essential engineering structure for maintaining the navigation channel. The path along the top is merely incidental. CRT cannot give up responsibility for owning and maintaining significant water retaining structures, and no local authority in its right mind is going to want to take on that responsibility.

Local authorities can and do contribute to funding the maintenance and upgrading of the towpath surface.

Good point. I was thinking about the surface in particular and control of its use. This would of course include the mooring of vessels alongside towards because you can not reasonably do this without gaining access to the towpath or causing an obstruction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

The locks would be cleared and blocked off at each end by poured concrete. Bywashes would still work and there would be an incentive to provide water along the duck ponds. 

As was done on much of the Huddersfield and Rochdale canals in the 60s and 70s...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as mentioned above the paired locks on the Regents section of the Grand Union. 

And the second of Bow locks but that one does not have or need a Weir. I think they have used the stop plank groove irons for that one with concrete slabs which would be removable if needed. 

It would actually be quite straightforward to stank off locks like that. Modern materials could be used to create an effective seal. 

 

People would want to see a certain amount of water in the ditches but one obvious advantage is the cyclepath could be widened significantly creating a better shared space for people moving over land. 

 

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.