Rochdale Canal reduced dimensions

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, Ian Mac said:

As the land agent from Transco told me "the ownership in that area is the ultimate nightmare". Just to the north a fully euro spec roadbridge had to be installed, at vast additional expense, during restoration, at the adjoining landowners insistence. Originally the crossing here was a lift bridge, which gave access to the towpath on the Heywood arm as its main purpose. I believe he had improved this by some dubious means, when the motorways was built and thus was able to claim he had the right of access to his land.
The route under the motorway that the canal now takes was originally provided to provide access for the farm on he south side to the east of the canal. I do not know the history of what happened here, but the farmer was very upset by the changes, and as I understand it ended up getting a custodial sentence for criminal damage to the new canal and lock. This problem or whatever, seems to be still simmering away.
Due to this and practicality, a minimum of two people are required to move the pontoon out from under the motorway. I have helped do this once. It is not a regular event.  There is no reason why a pair of trained volunteers could not do this task.  However there are not that many volunteer lock keepers on the west side.
To move the pontoon you need a van, because you have to go to the depot (Grove Rd on the HVNC) to get the power pack, and a trolley/wheel barrow to move it. The power pack is a petrol? engined powered hydraulic pump, a set of hoses, and a control lever. You use it to lift the legs of the pontoon one at a time. On arrival you go to the south end and erect a towpath closed sign with diversion route, which means the towpath users will have to walk up to the main road and then under the motorway and back down another track back to the towpath,there is no other route, I am aware of.
One then goes to the north of the motorway, erect another closure sign there , unload the power pack and wheel it down to the pontoon, close the gates detach the pontoon, lift the legs and then pull it out of the way, into its layby, let the boat through, get it back into place (this is harder) drop its legs and lift it into place, attach it, open the gates, reload the power pack into the van, and uphill task, remove the diversion signs and retreat to Grove Rd, to drop off the power pack. Takes about three and a half hours approx. It is normal practice not to start till you can see the white of the eyes of the broad beam boater. There are all sorts of stories and myths of the team moving the pontoon, and then discovering the wide beam broken down in the lock above, etc, etc So now they have to be there waiting when you arrive otherwise, its a no show and you go get on with something else - normally clearing yet another poory designed by-wash grid.

 

 

That doesn't sound like the kind of equipment-heavy job that volunteers -- as opposed to CART employees -- could be trained/insured to do easily/cheaply, it's very different to being a volockie or similar.

 

Nothing to do with their ability to do it, all to do with elf'n'safety and responsibility if anything goes wrong or the volunteers get hurt. It's the same reason CART nowadays will let volunteers do "easy" stuff (e.g. clearing undergrowth, painting) but not "difficult" stuff (e.g. clearing/rebuilding locks/walls, chainsawing trees) which they used to do perfectly well in "the old days"... 😞

Edited January 4 by IanD

[Cheshire cat]

The lock next to the underpass was the one that had its lock gate beams cut off with a chainsaw on a regular basis. The cause was a grievance about land ownership so I think any cooperation regarding towpath diversions on a permanent basis is unlikely to be forthcoming.

[Captain Pegg]

Pretty much the most dangerous place on a canal is a lock and volunteers are evidently trusted to operate them safely.

 

I believe Harecastle tunnel is operated by volunteers, that’s certainly how it appeared to me on numerous trips through this past year. There’s some pretty significant fixed plant operation and safety critical tasks to be undertaken there.

[David Mack]

5 hours ago, Ian Mac said:

As the land agent from Transco told me "the ownership in that area is the ultimate nightmare". Just to the north a fully euro spec roadbridge had to be installed, at vast additional expense, during restoration, at the adjoining landowners insistence. Originally the crossing here was a lift bridge, which gave access to the towpath on the Heywood arm as its main purpose. I believe he had improved this by some dubious means, when the motorways was built and thus was able to claim he had an unimpeded right of access to his land, which historically it never had, from the Manchester Rd side.
The route under the motorway that the canal now takes was originally provided to provide an access for the farm on the south side and to the east of the original canal line. I do not know the history of what happened here, but the farmer was very upset by the changes, and as I understand it ended up getting a custodial sentence for criminal damage to the new canal and lock. This problem or whatever, seems to be still simmering away.
Due to this and practicality, a minimum of two people are required to move the pontoon out from under the motorway. I have helped do this once. It is not a regular event.  There is no reason why a pair of trained volunteers could not do this task.  However there are not that many volunteer lock keepers on the west side.
To move the pontoon you need a van, because you have to go to the depot (Grove Rd on the HVNC) to get the power pack, and a trolley/wheel barrow to move it. The power pack is a petrol? engined powered hydraulic pump, a set of hoses, and a control lever. You use it to lift the legs of the pontoon one at a time. On arrival you go to the south end and erect a towpath closed sign with diversion route, which means the towpath users will have to walk up to the main road and then under the motorway and back down another track back to the towpath,there is no other route, I am aware of.
One then goes to the north of the motorway, erect another closure sign there , unload the power pack and wheel it down to the pontoon, close the gates detach the pontoon, lift the legs and then pull it out of the way, into its layby, let the boat through, get it back into place (this is harder) drop its legs and lift it into place, attach it, open the gates, reload the power pack into the van, an uphill task, remove the diversion signs and retreat to Grove Rd, to drop off the power pack. Takes about three and a half hours approx. It is normal practice not to start till you can see the white of the eyes of the broad beam boater. There are all sorts of stories and myths of the team moving the pontoon, and then discovering the wide beam broken down in the lock above, etc, etc So now they have to be there waiting when you arrive otherwise, its a no show and you go get on with something else - normally clearing yet another poorly designed by-wash grid.

 

--

cheers Ian Mac
edited in an attempt to fix my dyslexia

The first time I saw that movable towpath I thought it was a ridiculously complicated solution to a simple problem. What's wrong with a simple floating towpath, which could be chained up and padlocked to rings/bollards in the normal and open positions? No hydraulic jacks or power packs required, easily operated by a couple of staff or volunteers, and no additional equipment needed beyond the padlock key.

[magpie patrick]

51 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The first time I saw that movable towpath I thought it was a ridiculously complicated solution to a simple problem. What's wrong with a simple floating towpath, which could be chained up and padlocked to rings/bollards in the normal and open positions? No hydraulic jacks or power packs required, easily operated by a couple of staff or volunteers, and no additional equipment needed beyond the padlock key.

There was a tendency to overcomplicate these things at the turn of the millennium, two locks on the Huddersfield Canal had pedestals with hydraulic pumps to work the gates, I think these were eventually replaced with cranked balance beams.

 

Edited to add, there was a tendency to assume these things would never be needed. I seem to recall it took quite a bit of persuasion to get Tuel Lane lock long enough for seventy-two foot narrow boats. So maybe this was just a permanent towpath that could be moved but no one really expected it to ever be used. 

[Ian Mac]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

The first time I saw that movable towpath I thought it was a ridiculously complicated solution to a simple problem. What's wrong with a simple floating towpath, which could be chained up and padlocked to rings/bollards in the normal and open positions? No hydraulic jacks or power packs required, easily operated by a couple of staff or volunteers, and no additional equipment needed beyond the padlock key.

Having moved it, its horribly unstable side to side.  You could make it a bit better with a load of ballast, I suspect, but given the length, and therefore the number of people that could be on it at one time - think walking groups!. I think the spud legs are not to bad an idea. Remember the millennium bridge wobble.

--

cheers IAn MAc

[Adam]

On 02/01/2024 at 20:32, Midnight said:

Rumours abound (from a good source) C&RT will find a major defect and close the Rochdale Summit. Seems they can't close the Huddersfield because the tunnel is a heritage site. Some Yorkshire folk would say they already closed it.

Doesn't the Rochdale have a 99 year condition attached through the millennium funding? I guess they will see how long they can keep it closed on safety ground (years and years) and see if anybody mentions it. 

 

I can see why they want to close the west side, 90 percent of boats don't make it past Tod

[Midnight]

11 hours ago, dmr said:

I have heard that shifting the walkway gave a lot of trouble a while ago, so maybe CRT are no longer willing to guarantee passage for widebeams. This is sad but times are hard and maintaining the moveble walkway just for the one or two widebeams that us it each year is probably not the best use of funds. CRT have reduced the navigable width of the GU recently so are obviously prepared to do this.

As IanD points out, CRT really don't want boats just turning up at awkward times and demanding passage, though I am still amazed at the number of boats that set of on a big journey without doing even basic research of what might lie ahead. 

 

The C&RT lads were definitely having trouble with it when we came through last October. A widebeam was in the M62 lock going west but it seemed like the walkway was jammed in the open position. A young chap maybe staff was letting water down from the lock above. 

[TheBiscuits]

Fit some of those annoying windlass driven hydraulic pumps to it, no need for a power pack then, and make the wide beam crew operate them ...

 

That should reduce the effort for CRT staff and volunteers!

 

As there's a valid diversion route for the three or four hours it's out of position why not arrange/hope for a mechanical breakdown while it's in it's layby?

 

[dmr]

1 hour ago, Adam said:

Doesn't the Rochdale have a 99 year condition attached through the millennium funding? I guess they will see how long they can keep it closed on safety ground (years and years) and see if anybody mentions it. 

 

I can see why they want to close the west side, 90 percent of boats don't make it past Tod

 

I think there is a long "keep open" condition, Ian Mac knows much more than me, but if there is no money then what can be done? I suppose they can't fill it in or replace the lock gates with wiers but could just neglect it or take forever to repair any problems. There must be some sort of get out clause for major failures, it would be good yo know more about these things.

I did read somewhere that it costs almost as much to maintain a closed canal as an open one, but thats a bit hard to believe.

32 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Fit some of those annoying windlass driven hydraulic pumps to it, no need for a power pack then, and make the wide beam crew operate them ...

 

That should reduce the effort for CRT staff and volunteers!

 

As there's a valid diversion route for the three or four hours it's out of position why not arrange/hope for a mechanical breakdown while it's in it's layby?

 

 

It was maybe a council requirement that the towpath was continuous? and I expect using the diversion long term would get protests from the cyclists 😀. Quite a few walkers use the next bit down, towards the Ship Inn, I don't know how many also use the underpass walkway.

[Mike Todd]

5 hours ago, dmr said:

 

I think there is a long "keep open" condition, Ian Mac knows much more than me, but if there is no money then what can be done? I suppose they can't fill it in or replace the lock gates with wiers but could just neglect it or take forever to repair any problems. There must be some sort of get out clause for major failures, it would be good yo know more about these things.

I did read somewhere that it costs almost as much to maintain a closed canal as an open one, but thats a bit hard to believe.

 

It was maybe a council requirement that the towpath was continuous? and I expect using the diversion long term would get protests from the cyclists 😀. Quite a few walkers use the next bit down, towards the Ship Inn, I don't know how many also use the underpass walkway.

Canals are much more of a live water object than is oft realised. Even if closed, a canal still needs water management, especially to protect adjacent properties and also to fulfil existing contracts for water in or water out. This has long been a problem for politicians to understand when proposing defunding as they think it is a simple matter of disabling the gates at either end of the canal. If only . . . 

[magpie patrick]

9 hours ago, dmr said:

I did read somewhere that it costs almost as much to maintain a closed canal as an open one, but thats a bit hard to believe.

 

 

Unless one can drain them they are almost as much of a liability closed as open, and they can't just be filled in as they have a land drainage function. The major difference comes when a failure occurs, if a lock wall starts to lean put a pipe through the lock and fill it in rather than repair it, but even this isn't cheap. 

 

Even draining them isn't as straightfoward as it sounds - there are bits of the Dorset and Somerset Canal, which never opened, which hold water 228 years after the company gave up building it, and the Coal Canal summit was deliberately drained and the lining punctured after closure - bits still hold water after heavy rain. 

 

One of the factors that enabled the early restorations was that "something had to be done" with a decaying asset, and making the canals safe or eliminating them was as expensive as restoring them - the Newton Heath shallows on the Rochdale is a case in point, the canal was filled in to a few inches below water level to make it safe - this was hugely expensive and not that successful, as accidents still happened and rubbish thrown in the canal stayed at the surface.

 

The cost of eliminating the Bentley Canal, near Walsall, was more than the cost of restoring it although the way it was done did at least largely remove future maintenance requirements. To properly eliminate a canal one needs to rip the lining out and pipe the water before filling it in - if this isn't done then the canal remains a liability. I had a phone call from a contractor recently, working on a site near Shrewsbury: they'd been excavating a trench and suddenly had lots of water to deal with - the trench had gone across the bed of the Shrewsbury Canal, which had been filled in with rubble and then had a layer of blacktop applied, under the blacktop it was still gathering water from the uphill side and redistributing to heaven knows where. One more example, when the Derby Canal at Draycott was filled in, the nearby railway started to flood, and Network Rail (or RailTrack - not sure which it was then) paid for it to be dug out again. 

[Alan de Enfield]

34 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

Even draining them isn't as straightfoward as it sounds - there are bits of the Dorset and Somerset Canal, which never opened, which hold water 228 years after the company gave up building it, and the Coal Canal summit was deliberately drained and the lining punctured after closure - bits still hold water after heavy rain. 

 

When we had the farm in Wales the old Ffrwd** Canal ran across our land.

It was started in 1796 and closed in 1798 having built only 2 miles of canal - but it still (2005) holds water (where it has not been built over)

 

** Or Frood as it was written by the English in the 1800s records.

 

 

This shows how effectively it was puddled over 200 years ago.

 

 

 

Edited January 5 by Alan de Enfield

[Ian Mac]

The cost of managing a closed canal is almost the same as managing an open one, on a day a to day basis. We know all these numbers from when we were campaigning in the 1960's, and with hindsight, we under estimated the costs of closure, particularly in built up area's. We are not talking about virtual payback blue green corridors have here but had currency.
The Bentley canal has already been mentioned, and is a classic example. I can remember a party coming from the local council there, to see the Rochdale water channelling, Manchester also showed them the re-openned Ashton Canal and said this was by far the cheaper option. However they opted for the most expensive option of total elimination. This ended up costing a mega fortune, and the pay back that was claimed for the possible land sales, never happened as predicted, as a quick look at Google maps will confirm, because one can not easily build on top of the pipe which had to be installed to replace the canal. So you can still see the route of the old canal (the pipeline culvert) being open land. It is built over in a couple of places, but this meant lots of additional cost for the developer, far cheaper to leave a gap normally.
It is a shame they did not go for the water channel solution because this is what saved the Rochdale canal as it meant that the route did not get built on in Manchester. The only significant loss to buildings, was the Mega Co-op built on the line in Failsworth, and the loss of various short lengths to road re-alignments and builds.

--

cheers Ian Mac

[Adam]

Another response from crt after asking for confirmation

 

 

"I have spoken to the team leader on the Rochdale Canal. He has advised that the width was reduced due to subsidence at several locks along the network leading to a maximum beam of 9ft5. 

Kind Regards, "

 

 

 

 

Looks like the thin end of the wedge. More likely floating towpath related than 4 and a half feet of lock subsidence.

[Ian Mac]

1 hour ago, Adam said:

Another response from crt after asking for confirmation

 

"I have spoken to the team leader on the Rochdale Canal. He has advised that the width was reduced due to subsidence at several locks along the network leading to a maximum beam of 9ft5. 

Kind Regards, "

 

Looks like the thin end of the wedge. More likely floating towpath related than 4 and a half feet of lock subsidence.

Well that has given me something to raise with the senior management when I talk to them next. Just out of interest, so I can ensure get the exocet missile launched in the correct direction which team leader, as there are two!  One for Yorkshire and one for Lancashire.

[dmr]

57 minutes ago, Ian Mac said:

Well that has given me something to raise with the senior management when I talk to them next. Just out of interest, so I can ensure get the exocet missile launched in the correct direction which team leader, as there are two!  One for Yorkshire and one for Lancashire.

 

I spoke to a boater last year who said that he had shared all of of the Western locks as he did not see the signs 😀. This would be the lock in Littleborough and both of the Punchbowl locks. However boats sharing did lift a coping stone on one of the Punchbowl locks recently.

As said before, I have often shared lock 34, its bulged out at the top near the bottom gate so is ok as long as the offside boat is no more than about 57 foot and stays towards the top gates, but it is fairly tight. I don't know how tight the Mytholmroyd lock is but I doubt that any are less than 13 feet.

[Ian Mac]

4 hours ago, dmr said:

 

I spoke to a boater last year who said that he had shared all of of the Western locks as he did not see the signs 😀. This would be the lock in Littleborough and both of the Punchbowl locks. However boats sharing did lift a coping stone on one of the Punchbowl locks recently.

As said before, I have often shared lock 34, its bulged out at the top near the bottom gate so is ok as long as the offside boat is no more than about 57 foot and stays towards the top gates, but it is fairly tight. I don't know how tight the Mytholmroyd lock is but I doubt that any are less than 13 feet.

Interesting that because lock 34 which is the last lock where I had a full on emergency drop everything panic, as the pair of boats caught coming uphill. This may have been because one boat twisted and got caught by the C&H recess overhang or it was too narrow, either way I was amazed just how fast it all went wrong. Fortunately we recovered and all was well.

I agree that the signage needs improving.

From Memory I thought the narrow locks were
Lock 6

Lock 7
Lock 34
Lock 37 only for historic pairs. ie 2 * 7ft 1"
Lock 40
Lock 41
Lock 47

I am not aware of any limit on width which is less than 13ft other than the Rodwell Tower car park pillar. So think the C&RT guy was talking out of his hat.

[Midnight]

Just a thought. Considering the trouble C&RT were having with the M62 floating walkway I wonder have they decided they won't be moving it again? In which case the new dimensions are correct.

[dmr]

1 hour ago, Midnight said:

Just a thought. Considering the trouble C&RT were having with the M62 floating walkway I wonder have they decided they won't be moving it again? In which case the new dimensions are correct.

Making a charge would be another option but thats the thin end of a big wedge.

Its not much staff effort as I reckon no more than one or two widebeams each year. A charge would discourage them (and they have a horrible time anyway) but still keep the option available for essential passages and the adventurous boaters.  The problem will be when some essential and expensive maintanance is required and it will be difficult to justify.

Removing the structure would be a better option and then let the council sort out a small pedestrian diversion.

 

We shared with another boat when we went down in July and gates not fully opening was a significant problem, though only one lock totally defeated us, so this could also limit the really wide widebeams.

[Midnight]

1 hour ago, dmr said:

Making a charge would be another option but thats the thin end of a big wedge.

 

 

Charge or no charge if it won't move or is too much trouble to move It's not going to be an option. It looked to me like the C&RT lads were having a lot of trouble putting it back into place when we passed. 

[David Mack]

3 hours ago, Midnight said:

Just a thought. Considering the trouble C&RT were having with the M62 floating walkway I wonder have they decided they won't be moving it again? In which case the new dimensions are correct.

If such a decision has been made, then the Rochdale Canal is still accessible to wide boats from the Calder & Hebble and Bridgewater Canals as far as the M62, so the published dimensions should still show that.

[dmr]

15 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

Charge or no charge if it won't move or is too much trouble to move It's not going to be an option. It looked to me like the C&RT lads were having a lot of trouble putting it back into place when we passed. 

Maybe Ian can give us some of the history of the walkway? but I understand that the final resoration of the Rochdale as a through route was done in a huge rush against rapidly disappearing funding, so its quite possible that the walkway was designed in a great rush.

[pearley]

21 minutes ago, dmr said:

Maybe Ian can give us some of the history of the walkway? but I understand that the final resoration of the Rochdale as a through route was done in a huge rush against rapidly disappearing funding, so its quite possible that the walkway was designed in a great rush.

5 weeks from the CPO being confirmed to the canal opening to build the new channel and lock. Though I doubt the walkway was fitted until much later.

[Lady M]

The first time we went through the disputed area we had to stay on our boat and carry a site workman.