Land Slip - Easenhall Cutting, Brinklow, Oxford Canal

[tree monkey]

6 hours ago, john.k said:

removing fallen vegetation.............why dont they burn it on site ?

Because throwing it through a chipper or stacking on site is a damn site faster than burning, never mind the potential for the fire to spread

5 hours ago, john.k said:

There s a funny thing......burn it and there is CO2................mulch the wood and it decays slowly  releasing methane ,a greenhouse gas 10 times worse than CO2 

Some methane may be released depending on how it decays, normal aerobic decay doesn't produce significant methane but also a fair proportion of the carbon will be locked up in the soil and recycled into the ecosystem 

[Dave123]

On 02/03/2024 at 07:37, john.k said:

removing fallen vegetation.............why dont they burn it on site ?

Probably too wet?

[MtB]

On 02/03/2024 at 07:37, john.k said:

removing fallen vegetation.............why dont they burn it on site ?

 

The eco worryers here object to pretty much anything being burned and have more clout than CRT. 

 

 

[tree monkey]

7 hours ago, MtB said:

 

The eco worryers here object to pretty much anything being burned and have more clout than CRT. 

 

 

Or as I suggested it's a complete waste of time and resources, if it was an 'eco worryers" issue it would be stacked on site

[James Owen]

26 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Or as I suggested it's a complete waste of time and resources, if it was an 'eco worryers" issue it would be stacked on site

There's very little available space along that stretch to stack anything, least of all several tonnes of felled wood.

Notwithstanding that many dossy boaters would then help themselves to a few logs, creating significant mess and further damage along the way whilst posing a risk to themselves and the surrounding area......best to take it all away.

[tree monkey]

2 minutes ago, James Owen said:

There's very little available space along that stretch to stack anything, least of all several tonnes of felled wood.

Notwithstanding that many dossy boaters would then help themselves to a few logs, creating significant mess and further damage along the way whilst posing a risk to themselves and the surrounding area......best to take it all away.

Agreed, either remove or chip, but that wasn't really the point I was making

[magpie patrick]

On 26/02/2024 at 16:53, Kendorr said:

Nice short video showing the task ahead!

 

 

 Very informative - if only all videos could be that concise!

On 26/02/2024 at 17:23, Hudds Lad said:

What should, and what WOULD, be happening under a responsible and competent navigation authority, is that the navigation is re-opened by the means described above, with appropriate signage clearly warning of the serious ground instability throughout the whole length of the cutting, . . and the consequential very high risk of further similar slips occuring, at ANY time and without ANY warning.

 

Thanks for that - I realise it's not you that said it. Does the author really think that a cutting should be reopened in a state where it is predictable that it will slide down on a passing boater? IF we were talking about coal to keep the lights on in Coventry then that risk might just about have been  acceptable in the 1930s, but leisure boaters? Now?

[Hudds Lad]

1 hour ago, magpie patrick said:

Thanks for that - I realise it's not you that said it. Does the author really think that a cutting should be reopened in a state where it is predictable that it will slide down on a passing boater? IF we were talking about coal to keep the lights on in Coventry then that risk might just about have been  acceptable in the 1930s, but leisure boaters? Now?

Correct, i just grabbed it so folk who were interested didn't have to go wading through the comments, or in case it vanished.

 

I doubt modern H&S standards, or indeed common sense, would allow CRT to do what he's suggesting anyway.

[zenataomm]

8 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

 Very informative - if only all videos could be that concise!

 

Thanks for that - I realise it's not you that said it. Does the author really think that a cutting should be reopened in a state where it is predictable that it will slide down on a passing boater? IF we were talking about coal to keep the lights on in Coventry then that risk might just about have been  acceptable in the 1930s, but leisure boaters? Now?

Totally pedantic of course 😏however, Coventry is surrounded by old coalfields.  Therefore it wouldn't be carried North to Coventry through Brinklow.

[ditchcrawler]

Cut and cover tunnel, a few concrete rings laid in the canal bed and cover it over.

[MtB]

3 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Cut and cover tunnel, a few concrete rings laid in the canal bed and cover it over.

 

 

Or, just wait for a few more landslips to do the job! 

 

 

[john.k]

So wood be gone ,what next?.....The slip has left a near vertical face in loose material.............proposals from all the chartered engineers living on canal boats?

[magpie patrick]

I haven't checked but I assume a cutting on this scale is one of the 1830s improvements? Could the original route be reopened instead? 😉🙃

[john6767]

2 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

I haven't checked but I assume a cutting on this scale is one of the 1830s improvements? Could the original route be reopened instead? 😉🙃

Yes it is, and no it could not!

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

I haven't checked but I assume a cutting on this scale is one of the 1830s improvements? Could the original route be reopened instead? 😉🙃

 

[Martin Nicholas]

What's odd to me is that there seems to be two slips that are opposite one another. I guess that one happened first and then the tsunami from that caused the second. Either that or there was an earthquake (a tiny one) from mining subsidence or a fault.

[David Mack]

3 minutes ago, Martin Nicholas said:

What's odd to me is that there seems to be two slips that are opposite one another. I guess that one happened first and then the tsunami from that caused the second. Either that or there was an earthquake (a tiny one) from mining subsidence or a fault.

Why is it odd? Both sides of the cutting are through the same ground strata, both would have originally been cut to the same slope angle, being in common ownership both sides have been subject to the same maintenance (or lack thereof), and both have been subject to one of the wettest winters on record.

[john.k]

The first pics show the fields  covered in water ........in the more recent pics the water has gone .............by some strange quirk ,the slip has left the fence standing right on the vertical edge ...........I d imagine the adjacent  landowner would be taking an interest in proceedings.

[MtB]

8 hours ago, john.k said:

The first pics show the fields  covered in water ........in the more recent pics the water has gone .............by some strange quirk ,the slip has left the fence standing right on the vertical edge ...........I d imagine the adjacent  landowner would be taking an interest in proceedings.

 

I'm sure they will be. The law here AIUI, is that if a person digs away the soil on his land he is responsible for providing support to the neighbour's soil. He or she cannot just allow the neighbour's land to collapse or subside as a result of their excavations. 

 

So CRT could be on the hook for many more £millions to support the land at the top, beyond just the cost of digging the mud out of the cut.

 

 

 

Edited March 14 by MtB
Add a bit.

[ditchcrawler]

31 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I'm sure they will be. The law here AIUI, is that if a person digs away the soil on his land he is responsible for providing support to the neighbour's soil. He or she cannot just allow the neighbour's land to collapse or subside as a result of their excavations. 

 

So CRT could be on the hook for many more £millions to support the land at the top, beyond just the cost of digging the mud out of the cut.

 

 

 

I don't see Crown Estates paying out millions at Hemesby where the houses fell off the cliffs 

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I don't see Crown Estates paying out millions at Hemesby where the houses fell off the cliffs 

 

 

And quite right too.

 

Powerful as Crown Estates might be, they didn't erode coast with spades or diggers. I think you can blame the sea for that. 

 

 

[john.k]

the obvious answer is to hire 100 navvies with barrows and spades for 1/- a week , and all the beer they can drink ,and set them to work.

[Mike Tee]

50 minutes ago, john.k said:

the obvious answer is to hire 100 navvies with barrows and spades for 1/- a week , and all the beer they can drink ,and set them to work.

That would be horrendously expensive!

[MtB]

1 hour ago, john.k said:

the obvious answer is to hire 100 navvies with barrows and spades for 1/- a week , and all the beer they can drink ,and set them to work.

 

Oh, so THAT is why the original line of the canal was so wavey!!

 

 

[Ronaldo47]

2 hours ago, MtB said:

The law here AIUI, is that if a person digs away the soil on his land he is responsible for providing support to the neighbour's soil. He or she cannot just allow the neighbour's land to collapse or subside as a result of their excavations. 

I would think that the land slip would be considered to be an Act of God as it is not a result of positive action by the landowner.