Update for walkers and boaters as £2m rebuild of historic canal bridge continues

[Alan de Enfield]

Walkers are asked to follow diversions along a picturesque North Staffordshire canal while a £2 million project to rebuild a listed bridge continues. The Hazelhurst Bridge over the Caldon Canal - near Endon - was irreparably damaged when water was drained out.

It came while repairs were being carried out to the 'Hazelhurst Bottom Lock' in March 2020. At the time pressure built up behind the dam wall that was constructed near the bridge’s foundations, causing damage to the bridge, found between Endon and Denford, which then had to be demolished for safety reasons.

 

 

In August 2022 a year-long project began to rebuild the Grade II-listed structure - which provides both vehicle and pedestrian access across the canal for farmers, residents and boaters. The Canal and River Trust says the new bridge’s appearance will be in keeping with the old bridge - matching its location, scale and character - and will use much of the original stone masonry.

 

Earlier this month the Trust said there had been 'several challenges' with a towpath closure set to be extended to July 13 while the issues are not expected to impact on the overall completion date of the project.

Construction work is being carried out by engineering contractor Kier, and while it’s underway the canal has been closed for boaters. The trust has confirmed the waterway will now reopen from April 6 - but some restrictions will remain in place until May 19.

 

There will be a height limit of 2.1m (a reduction of around 30cm) and boaters will only be allowed through during set times of the day. They say passage will only be permitted between 9am and 10am and from 1.30pm until 2.30pm, Monday to Friday.

A temporary car park area has been created for people mooring at Hazelhurst. Meanwhile a temporary pedestrian bridge has also been constructed to maintain access for people walking along the canal.

 

Project manager Ian Bogges, said: “Repairs to the canal wall on the southern side of the bridge have taken slightly longer than expected as they have been more complex than we had planned prior to the start of the physical construction works.

“However, they will be completed and the canal back open for boating in time for the Easter weekend.

“The overall project to restore Hazlehurst Bridge is still on track to be completed this summer. The towpath will remain closed from the junction with the Leek Branch (Hazlehurst Junction), running south east to Hazlehurst Aqueduct until mid-July.

“The public right of way on the access pathway towards the bridge from Leek Old Road will also be closed for the duration of the works. Footpath and towpath diversion signs are in place.”

Moorlands MP Karen Bradley visited the site a few months ago. She said: "I was really pleased to see the work to rebuild the bridge, which was a victim of severe weather a couple of years ago.

“The Canal and River Trust do such good work to maintain the waterways and it was great to hear about this project and the other work they are doing.

 

Update for walkers and boaters as £2m rebuild of historic canal bridge continues - Stoke-on-Trent Live (stokesentinel.co.uk)

[David Mack]

Bloody hell! 2 million quid! 

I know there's a lot of additional costs in terms of temporary car parking, temporary footbridge and working around opening times for boaters, but that's a heck of a lot of money for a pretty small bridge.

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Bloody hell! 2 million quid! 

I know there's a lot of additional costs in terms of temporary car parking, temporary footbridge and working around opening times for boaters, but that's a heck of a lot of money for a pretty small bridge.

 

I'd have fixed it for £1,999,999. Easy.

 

 

[BEngo]

£2Million. Evidence of CRT's lack of the capability or will to supervise and control their contractor and the associated costs.

 

The rebuild of the collapsed lock 12 on the Aylesbury Arm cost £880k in 2012.   It took 6 weeks to do it but 6 months drifting around trying  to decide to do it, and how.  The local team thought it within their capabilities, but were not allowed to try.  During all the 'planning' period Kier were charging for site security, pumps, project management etc. etc.  Then they subcontracted the work to Greenfords!

 

N

[matty40s]

6 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The Hazelhurst Bridge over the Caldon Canal - near Endon - was irreparably damaged when water was drained out.

It came while repairs were being carried out to the 'Hazelhurst Bottom Lock' in March 2020. At the time pressure built up behind the dam wall that was constructed near the bridge’s foundations, causing damage to the bridge, 

...so it's an insurance job then, no cost to the taxpayer or licence paying boater...?

3 minutes ago, BEngo said:

£2Million. Evidence of CRT's lack of the capability or will to supervise and control their contractor and the associated costs.

 

The rebuild of the collapsed lock 12 on the Aylesbury Arm cost £880k in 2012.   It took 6 weeks to do it but 6 months drifting around trying  to decide to do it, and how.  The local team thought it within their capabilities, but were not allowed to try.  During all the 'planning' period Kier were charging for site security, pumps, project management etc. etc.  Then they subcontracted the work to Greenfords!

 

N

Not even touching on Tuckeys bill for the craning out and lifting in at Milton Keynes of 22? Boats, and the craning back in of at least 18?

[Phoenix_V]

and yet my suggestion on another thread that crt might not be the most efficient (at canal maintenance) was rubbished

[matty40s]

3 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

and yet my suggestion on another thread that crt might not be the most efficient (at canal maintenance) was rubbished

I have no idea where you said that, but you are completely correct in your thinking over my last 10 years of canal experience.

[IanD]

21 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

and yet my suggestion on another thread that crt might not be the most efficient (at canal maintenance) was rubbished

It wasn't a suggestion, it was a statement, for which you couldn't provide any evidence when challenged. Taking a leaf from the Brexit and Trump playbook? 😉

[MtB]

If the canals were privatised, maintenance costs would be halved (yippee!!), license costs would triple (six-fold for wideys) and the canals would be saved.

 

What's not to like?!

 

 

 

[Phoenix_V]

33 minutes ago, IanD said:

It wasn't a suggestion, it was a statement, for which you couldn't provide any evidence when challenged. Taking a leaf from the Brexit and Trump playbook? 😉

It was a view based on relevant experience, the above only serves to reinforce.

If you don't have money to maintain the track of the canal why waste it on stuff like this even at half the price and at that cost!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited April 5, 2023 by Phoenix_V

[Cheshire cat]

I had a look at it on Monday. It is about 70% complete. Reinforced concrete clad with period correct stone.

 

The thing that struck me without knowing the cost is that it is an access bridge. The track that it carries is very basic, no sign of tarmac or any kind of road. No justification for it being painstakingly rebuilt unless the canal as a whole is going to be adequately maintained.

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

It was a view based on relevant experience, the above only serves to reinforce.

Yes it's a view, but not one backed up.by fact.

 

Since the "golden days" 20 years ago or so CART's costs have gone up in real terms (more canals to maintain, bigger backlog) and their income has gone down (lower grant), and unsurprisingly the system has deteriorated given a shortfall of hundreds of millions of quid.

 

No amount of magically better management (how, exactly?) or lower executive bonuses or fewer blue signs -- what the anti-CART brigade keep blaming -- can fill in a gaping financial hole like this, which is fundamentally down to government policy.

 

Saying that the reason for it is that "they're much less efficient" compared to a non-comparable authority with far fewer responsibilities and costs might make you feel better, but as far as I can see has no real justification -- apart from being your opinion, which you're perfectly entitled to but it's still not a fact, unlike the cost and funding numbers referred to above...

Edited April 5, 2023 by IanD

[Phoenix_V]

I agree with you, they are chronically underfunded,   what should be a national asset is being allowed to deteriorate beyond help.

Nevertheless they could spend the money they have on other things that 2 million pound accomodation bridges.

[ditchcrawler]

35 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

I had a look at it on Monday. It is about 70% complete. Reinforced concrete clad with period correct stone.

 

The thing that struck me without knowing the cost is that it is an access bridge. The track that it carries is very basic, no sign of tarmac or any kind of road. No justification for it being painstakingly rebuilt unless the canal as a whole is going to be adequately maintained.

Is it listed?

[Cheshire cat]

No idea Brian. I've seen articles that suggest it is. If the structures are listed the funding should be in place to support the required maintenance.

 

Controvercially I think too much of the country is listed. We are living in a museum

[David Mack]

54 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Is it listed?

Yes.

[Paul C]

8 hours ago, Phoenix_V said:

  what should be a national asset 

 

 

I appreciate this is your opinion and no doubt that of almost all boaters, who are naturally somewhat invested in the future success or ongoing existence of the canal network. 

 

However, is there any/much evidence of a wider public feeling, that there should be significantly more public money being put towards canals (and by implication.....CRT)?

 

I know I've quoted Phoenix_V but its a valid wider question for discussion.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Paul C
To correct Freudian slip

[IanD]

10 hours ago, Cheshire cat said:

No idea Brian. I've seen articles that suggest it is. If the structures are listed the funding should be in place to support the required maintenance.

 

Controvercially I think too much of the country is listed. We are living in a museum

If it's listed and belongs to CART amd needs rebuilding, this has to be done and CART or their insurers need to pay for it, just like if any other listed building was destroyed. So what does "the funding should be in place" mean -- the government should pay? Good luck with that... 😉

10 hours ago, Phoenix_V said:

I agree with you, they are chronically underfunded,   what should be a national asset is being allowed to deteriorate beyond help.

Nevertheless they could spend the money they have on other things that 2 million pound accomodation bridges.

If it was listed CART or their insurers have to pay for restoration, that's the law. Are you suggesting CART should break the law?

Edited April 6, 2023 by IanD

[Alway Swilby]

If it was an accommodation bridge over a railway Network Rail would have spent far more than £2 million rebuilding it.

[Phoenix_V]

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

If it's listed and belongs to CART amd needs rebuilding, this has to be done and CART or their insurers need to pay for it, just like if any other listed building was destroyed. So what does "the funding should be in place" mean -- the government should pay? Good luck with that... 😉

If it was listed CART or Thierry insurers have to pay for restoration, that's the law. Are you suggesting CART should break the law?

you dont think 2 million appears a little high even if listed

[Arthur Marshall]

11 hours ago, Phoenix_V said:

and yet my suggestion on another thread that crt might not be the most efficient (at canal maintenance) was rubbished

The classic case I remember was back in the very early CRT days (I think, though it may have been BW's last gasp) when they rebuilt an aquaduct near Chester that turned out to be too shallow for the working boats to get through, and the entire thing had to be dismantled and rebuilt.

[Alan de Enfield]

10 hours ago, IanD said:

Since the "golden days" 20 years ago or so CART's costs have gone up in real terms (more canals to maintain, bigger backlog) and their income has gone down (lower grant),

 

Actually the figures show that the grant has increased (although inflation in the last couple of years will have eroded that). Part of the problem appears to be that C&RT have replaced their 'lower earnings bankside staff' with expensive new Managers and Directors

 

Despite 'throwing more people at the problem' C&RTs income from 'charitable activities; has fallen by ~£10 million in 3 years.

 

In the last year their employee numbers have increased by 75, and their employment cost have risen by ~£5 million. All during a period of falling income. One should "cut ones coat according to ones cloth"

 

 

 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_V said:

you dont think 2 million appears a little high even if listed

Yes, but I don't know what it *ought* to cost -- and neither do you... 😉

 

I also doubt that CART would spend more on it than they have to given their cash-strapped state, they're perfectly well aware that they don't have a bottomless money pit.

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Actually the figures show that the grant has increased (although inflation in the last couple of years will have eroded that). Part of the problem appears to be that C&RT have replaced their 'lower earnings bankside staff' with expensive new Managers and Directors

 

Despite 'throwing more people at the problem' C&RTs income from 'charitable activities; has fallen by ~£10 million in 3 years.

 

In the last year their employee numbers have increased by 75, and their employment cost have risen by ~£5 million. All during a period of falling income. One should "cut ones coat according to ones cloth"

 

 

 

 

As I'm sure you realise -- or maybe don't want to admit? -- those numbers are not adjusted for inflation.

 

£46M in 2010 would be equivalent to £63M in 2022, this means the real £56M is a 10% reduction in real terms. Given that inflation in the last year was about 10%, that means a 20% reduction today, increasing in future.

 

And that's starting from a 2010 baseline, not a 2000 one which is where the "golden years" seem to be.

 

Your comment about "expensive Managers and Directors" is pure speculation unless you can provide some actual figures -- also inflation-adjusted, obviously... 😉

 

Of course they have reduced the number/cost of "lower earnings bankside staff", by either getting rid of them/allowing them to retire or replacing them with contractors, as I'm sure you know perfectly well. Maybe this was a bad idea (what you think), or maybe it actually saves them money (what CART think), who knows...

 

If the number of employees and annual wages have gone up in the past year then it's also hardly surprising that their employment cost has also risen, is it?

 

You're just trying to selectively pick out numbers to justify your "CART are expensive money-wasters" view... 🙂

 

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying CART are a shining example of how to run a company (or a charity...), like many others they will have some less competent employees and ones who may be paid too much, but I see no evidence that they are exceptionally bad compared to their contemporaries. CART are trapped in a worsening underfunding hole dug by a government unwilling to invest in infrastructure and which believes that privatisation is the solution to everything, and which wants to see evidence of benefits to non-boaters (blue signs, towpaths) to even justify the current grant level, never mind reducing it in future.

 

What magic wand would you wave to fix this?

 

(and please don't go on about executive salaries and blue signs *again*, this is just dog-whistle posturing, the cost of these isn't even a drop in the funding ocean)

Edited April 6, 2023 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

What can't be denied is that there are a lot fewer workers on the ground,  and there certainly appear to be more managers managing them. This may be because so much critical work is now done by volunteers  who,  being basically unmanageable, take more managing than staff who know what they're doing. Virtually everything is now contracted out which,  as we all know, keeps expenditure on labour off the books while usually tripling the actual cost and halving the efficiency.

What also can't be denied is that maintenance is on an urgent basis only - see the forthcoming Star Lock stoppage in Stone, for example.

It's a nice day at Westport Lake, though.

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

What can't be denied is that there are a lot fewer workers on the ground,  and there certainly appear to be more managers managing them. This may be because so much critical work is now done by volunteers  who,  being basically unmanageable, take more managing than staff who know what they're doing. Virtually everything is now contracted out which,  as we all know, keeps expenditure on labour off the books while usually tripling the actual cost and halving the efficiency.

What also can't be denied is that maintenance is on an urgent basis only - see the forthcoming Star Lock stoppage in Stone, for example.

It's a nice day at Westport Lake, though.

 

And despite getting 'loads of labour off the books' their labour force (numbers) has increased by 75 and the cost of the labour has increased by £5m.

 

They must be employing a lot of staff to 'manage' the alleged "cost savings" business done by the contractors - this is of course in addition to the costs of employing contractors to do a job rather than in house staff. The likes of Kier and Fountains are not going to do the work for nothing - they also have to pay their staff, run machines and, in addition will actually be adding a profit margin to the cost price - something C&RT would not need to do.

 

I wonder how many on the forum who cannot see this have actually run a business and had financial responsibility, rather than being an employee, doing the job 9-5 and getting paid at the end of the month.

There are examples of where sub-contract can be viable for specialist work, but where it is just standard maintenance work (grass cutting, bridge repairs etc) then the added costs are just not viable vs in-house.