Land Slip - Easenhall Cutting, Brinklow, Oxford Canal

[Grassman]

It's probably a combination of the above possible explanations, but I think the change in our climate has a lot to do with it. Heavier downpours of rain saturating the ground before it has chance to drain/seep away is bound to put more pressure on the stability of embankments. Also not just heavier downpours but we seem to be having more prolonged spells of rain meaning that in places the ground is already saturated and struggles to cope with any more.

[ditchcrawler]

17 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

As they use to say on Gardner's world "There must be something in the soil" Birmingham to London train delays after landslide - BBC News

[Mike Tee]

That must be the wrong type of soil.................................

[Pluto]

5 hours ago, tree monkey said:

I'm sure there will be someone along soon who has a better grasp of the engineering issues but trees can help reduce erosion and can help hold some embankments together but it does depend on the actual underlying substrate, if that's unstable trees won't offer much long term help, most tree roots are within the top 50cm or so of the soil.

On unstable sites trees eventually become a massive lever and if the soils ability to hold becomes compromised the tree will fail, commonly this failure is brought about by excessive rain or high wind/storm conditions 

 

 

There was certainly much discussion about the use of trees at the time canals were being built. On the Canal du Midi plane trees were planted along the towpath. In sunnier climes, it was thought the benefit of the shade reducing evaporation outweighed the trees extraction of water from the ground. It shaded canal users as well. In this country, the planting of trees was more about providing a supply of timber for lock gates, etc.

 

I would say that embankment and cutting design was the major civil engineering development in the late 18th century. Most canals built around 1770 went out of their way to avoid the need for their construction. Brindley's first canal, the Bridgewater, did have several large embankments, and I suspect he had so much difficulty in their construction that his later canals avoided such work like the plague.

 

By the 1790s, canal engineers were much more confident, and there was sometimes access to more money as the economic benefit of canals had been recognised. The L&LC in East Lancashire, built at this time, has eight high embankments and one cutting, while the earlier canal was very much a traditional contour canal, certainly on the Yorkshire side. Embankment technology was also greatly improved by the problems of building the Grand Canal across bogland in Ireland, where both Smeaton and Jessop struggled to find the answers.

 

Although little was written on the subject at the time, the engineers of the time were certainly able to understand about different types of soil, and how that affected stability. Many embankments were kept clear of tree growth, whilst some used trees to stabilise the slopes. On Ludwig's Canal in Bavaria, the slopes were planted with fruit trees to improve the local economy.

[Hastings]

Lots of photos of canal cuttings and embankments up to the late 1960s (i.e. during the period they were used commercially) show few trees, and railways were the same. Maintenance staff got rid of them when they grew. With canals, the emphasis was probably on avoiding slippages like we see in Easenhall Cutting.  With railways, there was of course another concern - avoing steam locomotives setting fire to bushes and trees. I remember Woodseaves Cutting on the Shroppie (possibly the longest deepest canal cutting) being virtually bare in the 1960s.  Now it's full of trees - may be pretty, but probably not a good thing!

[Captain Pegg]

We’ve covered this before on the forum.

 

The idea that trees are helpful to slope stability is largely myth. A strong well rooted tree is likely to be beneficial but the type of slope they grow on is likely to be one that is well drained with deep soil and not at risk of failure.

 

At risk slopes are generally poorly drained, shallow soil horizons overlying rock and the trees that grow on them have shallow roots which makes them susceptible to overturning by wind action. A combination of saturated soil and wind action on trees are common factors in slope failures.

 

Early canal and railway embankments would likely have been constructed to a gradient of about 1:1.5. Modern slopes to something like 1:3. Early canal and railway cuttings mostly had crest drains that in most cases are long defunct. The nature of the land above the slope - both topographical and usage - is also critical. Particularly if the crest drainage is non-existent. Something as simple as changing the direction a field is ploughed can be a precursor to failure.

 

On the railway de-vegetation is a key tool in the armoury of the Earthworks engineer. For starters it is an enabler to inspection.

 

On the clay soil embankments of south-east England that are prone to seasonal desiccation any tree is bad news.

 

 

Edited February 13 by Captain Pegg

[Mike Tee]

Any informed guesstimates on when it will be open?

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Mike Tee said:

Any informed guesstimates on when it will be open?

 

 

In time for Whitsun bank holiday.

 

 

 

 

[Lady M]

In time for the start of 'the boating season' so before Easter.

[Ronaldo47]

But which year? 

[Stroudwater1]

There’s an interesting image in the Warwickshire archives from 1910 with the cutting almost bare apart from a few young trees and what looks like slightly larger ones on one side as the cutting tails away. It’s got copyright so best post just the link. 
 

https://www.ourwarwickshire.org.uk/content/catalogue_wow/brinklow-easenhall-cutting-oxford-canal

 

 

[David Mack]

35 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

There’s an interesting image in the Warwickshire archives from 1910 with the cutting almost bare apart from a few young trees and what looks like slightly larger ones on one side as the cutting tails away. It’s got copyright so best post just the link. 
 

https://www.ourwarwickshire.org.uk/content/catalogue_wow/brinklow-easenhall-cutting-oxford-canal

 

 

And evidence of numerous slips on both sides more than a century ago!

[ditchcrawler]

11 hours ago, Lady M said:

In time for the start of 'the boating season' so before Easter.

Whos definition of Boating Season, mine, CRT, or Hire companies ?

[Lady M]

CRT - sorry if this was not obvious from the inverted commas.

[Ronaldo47]

If the image dates from 1910, copyright could well have expired years ago. I have seen lots of examples of unsubstantiated assertions  of copyright ownership from people, and even organisations  such as museums, that seem to think they own the copyright in photographs or printed documents that they have in their collections simply because they own the copy.  Unlike Patents,  there is no specific criminal offence for claiming copyright that you do not possess or which no longer exists,  and to establish, in legal proceedings, ownership of copyright in a work you did not create yourself, you would normally need to produce a chain of assignments in writing between the original creator or owner of the work to yourself,  as transfer of ownership of copyright must be done in writing. At least, that was the law as I understood it when I retired more than a decade ago, and I am not aware of any significant changes since.  

[Hastings]

4 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

If the image dates from 1910, copyright could well have expired years ago. I have seen lots of examples of unsubstantiated assertions  of copyright ownership from people, and even organisations  such as museums, that seem to think they own the copyright in photographs or printed documents that they have in their collections simply because they own the copy.  Unlike Patents,  there is no specific criminal offence for claiming copyright that you do not possess or which no longer exists,  and to establish, in legal proceedings, ownership of copyright in a work you did not create yourself, you would normally need to produce a chain of assignments in writing between the original creator or owner of the work to yourself,  as transfer of ownership of copyright must be done in writing. At least, that was the law as I understood it when I retired more than a decade ago, and I am not aware of any significant changes since.  

In general, copyright in photographs normally ends 70 years after the death of the photographer, so a 1910 image could well still be in copyright.  Let's assume the photographer was born in 1885 (so the photo was taken at age 25), and lived to 90, dying in 1975.  The photo will be in copyright till 2045.  Indeed, it's possible, though extremely unlikely, that an 1890 photo might just still be in copyright.

 

I agree with the point about museums etc. who have copies of photos.  Buying a collection of photos, even if curated and from a good source, doesn't automatically give you ownership of the copyright.  That only comes if it was transferred in writing by the copyright owner. 

 

As a canal book publisher, I'm always conscious of these issues!

[Ronaldo47]

A photograph taken in 1910 would have been covered by the Fine Arts Copyright Act of 1862, then by the Copyright Acts of 1911. 1956, and the present act of  1988.  Transitional provisions apply to copyright subsisting at their commencement. For the present Act, if something was out of copyright on 1st August 1989, then it is not resurrected and the longer term of copyright afforded by the present Act dies not apply.

 

N.B.  A footnote in the standard work on UK Copyright (Copinger & Skone James, 1991 edition) in the section of ownership of copyright in photographs under the 1911 Act,  states "The copyright in all pre-1911 photographs will by now have expired." 

 

 Possibly this explains why the book discusses the pre-1911 situation for other artistic works, but does not address pre-1911 photographs other than in the footnote.

 

The date of first publication of a previously  unpublished work can also trigger copyright term, but this is  not really the place to discuss this topic as Copyright law can be a bit of a minefield, especially where it has had to be amended to comply with subsequent EC directives which could have had the effect of resurrecting expired rights.

Edited February 14 by Ronaldo47

[MtB]

3 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

A photograph taken in 1910 would have been covered by the Fine Arts Copyright Act of 1862, then by the Copyright Acts of 1911. 1956, and the present act of  1988.  Transitional provisions apply to copyright subsisting at their commencement. For the present Act, if something was out of copyright on 1st August 1989, then it is not resurrected and the longer term of copyright afforded by the present Act dies not apply.

 

N.B.  A footnote in the standard work on UK Copyright (Copinger & Skone James, 1991 edition) in the section of ownership of copyright in photographs under the 1911 Act,  states "The copyright in all pre-1911 photographs will by now have expired." 

 

 Possibly this explains why the book discusses the pre-1911 situation for other artistic works, but does not address pre-1911 photographs other than in the footnote.

 

The date of first publication of a previously  unpublished work can also trigger copyright term, but this is  not really the place to discuss this topic as Copyright law can be a bit of a minefield, especially where it has had to be amended to comply with subsequent EC directives which could have had the effect of resurrecting expired rights.

 

 

All of which leads me to wonder what the penalty might be for copyright infringement arising from publishing that photo on here.  Would it be damages perhaps? How would those damages be evaluated, given the photo has already been published on the owner's website?

 

Lets imagine the rather opaque organisation "Our Warwickshire" is putting together a claim for copyright infringement against CWF. My guess their claim for losses might be as high as £0.01, plus legal expenses. Or is that the wrong way of looking at it? 

 

 

Edited February 15 by MtB
Fiddle with it

[Mike Tee]

If you need legal representation O.J. Simpson had a fairly good team.

[Ronaldo47]

My understanding is that they would need to prove:

a. That copyright still exists, and

b. That they own it, by providing evidence in the form of an unbroken chain of written assignments  of copyright, in the case of a pre-1911 photo, normally from the person who owned the camera film.  

 

While damages for copyright infringement is covered by civil law, my understanding is that demanding money that you know you are not entitled to, is an offence under criminal law, so they would need to be very sure of their facts before taking legal action. Of course, my understanding might well be incorrect. 

[frangar]

To get back on topic…..

 

Ive read reports on farcebook that there’s been another slippage not far from the first….does anyone know if this is the case and if so how bad it is? 

[ditchcrawler]

4 hours ago, frangar said:

To get back on topic…..

 

Ive read reports on farcebook that there’s been another slippage not far from the first….does anyone know if this is the case and if so how bad it is? 

Someone said the gabions that were there after the last one have now moved across the towpath.

[Cheshire cat]

I think the drone footage showed that the gabions had moved.

 

[ditchcrawler]

54 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

I think the drone footage showed that the gabions had moved.

 

Yes but the chap who walked down was able to pass it, I thought it was now closing the towpath 

[Rob-M]

I've seen a photo of the gabions twisted partially across the towpath.

 

Here's the photo