Bridgewater Canal Breach

[London Snail]

2 hours ago, Pluto said:

The following was taken, I think, from the 1973 MSC/Bridgewater guide. Not sure what £190,000 is in modern terms.

 

BRIDGEWATER CANAL

Note on collapsed embankment crossing the River Rollin near Altrincham, August 2nd 1971, andthe major reconstruction of the canal to restore navigation.

On 2nd August 1971 at about 07.20 hours the Altrincham Police received a report from two eleven year old boys thatthere was a leak from the Bridgewater Canal near the BoIlin Aqueduct. At 07.50 hours the first stop logs were inserted atAgden and by 11.30 hours stop log dams on each side of the breach had been installed and the remainder of the canalwas safe. The canal in Manchester had dropped 14 inches which was made good with water from the River Medlock by3rd August.

The canal crosses the River Bollin at the site of the breach on the largest Bridgewater Canal embankment; thedifference in height between the canal and river level being thirty-four feet. The canal had washed a hole in the embankment 90 feet wide and some 20,000 cubic yards of material had been deposited in the river bed. The cause ofthe disaster will never definitely be established, but detailed discussions with the Engineering Staff of BritishWaterways Board and circumstantial evidence, leads us to believe that the cause was a complicated leachingprocess of fine sand particles from the bed of the canal which had continued over the two hundred year life of theembankment. There have been several other very similar failures of high canal embankment where the canals hadcrossed rivers. The failure no doubt resulted from slight seepage at canal bed level and special precautions have been taken to seal the canal bed of the new embankment and also to check the canal bed where the Bridgewater crosses the River Mersey.

The design and reconstruction of the aqueduct and canal embankment was under the direction of Mr. Blyth the ChiefEngineer. A detailed survey and cross sections were immediately taken to establish the magnitude of the task. Indealing with an old structure it is always a problem to decide where to draw the line between repair and renewal anddifficult decisions had to be made.

The Company are as yet however bearing the full cost of repairing the breach which together with the associatedcost of rebuilding Woodhouse Lane aqueduct is likely to amount to nearly £190,000.

The Inland Waterways Association representing the pleasure boat owners, and other amenity interests, were veryactive in organising support for the restoration. They held a rally of seven hundred boats at Lymm in August 1972,which in spite of atrocious weather was very well attended. They hope to be able to contribute to the restorationwork.

The contractors were Messrs. Harry Fairclough & Co. Ltd., of Warrington, for the main restoration and WoodhouseLane aqueduct, and Messrs. A. Monk & Co. Ltd., of Warrington rebuilt the wing wall of the Bollin aqueduct.

The canal will be reopened in September, and the Company would like to place on record their appreciation of theefforts made by the contractors and the understanding shown by the canal users.

 

The Manchester Evening News says the total cost of repair was £250,000 - I mentioned that in my post yesterday which too gave an account and picture of the Bolin breach from the Bridgewater Canal book 1973!

[magpie patrick]

3 minutes ago, TunnelTiger said:

 

That doesn't answer the question about public right of navigation.  Do these various acts establish a PRN?

 

Yes, on payment of the appropriate toll (a bit people often forget) 

 

This was true of nearly all canal enabling acts but most were either nationalised or abandoned. The nationalised ones lost their right of navigation in 1968 under the transport act. 

 

 

[Pluto]

1 hour ago, dmr said:

 

I've puzzled over this, everytime I read that the canals are clay lined I think "where did it come from" Transporting clay over any distance would be a huge task, especially before the canals.  My only canal bed experience is a little bit of the Rochdale and that is certainly clay lined with an obvious heavy yellow clay. It contains quite a few biggish rocks. Its a slightly different colour to the immediate local clay but that is maybe a colour change over time?  Where the canal was cut through clay then that clay could have been used for the bed and maybe transported a very short distance. There are also one or two cuttings into the hillside which might have been dug to extract some clay....or maybe the stone?   It feels to me that a whole load of history was never recorded, or has got lost.

Much certainly has been lost. The only English description of canal building is the article in Rees Cyclopedia, published in 1805, and that is comparatively brief. This lack of technical publications in English is probably because craftsmen-taught English canal builders did not need anything beyond that passed down to them, plus what their intelligence could develop. This lack of contemporary published technical works is why I translated Maillard's book, which was based on his visit to English narrow canals in 1795.

 

As you have suggested, clay was too heavy to carry any distance, and its availability locally depended on the local geology. I have been going through the Engineer's Reports sent to the Canal Committee during the construction of the northern section of the Lancaster Canal. There Sammel is sometimes referred to as being cut through during construction, and noting that it could be used elsewhere nearby for lining the canal.The description in the Reports is very similar to thatb given by Maillard in his canal engineering book. I have found reference to similar material in the L&LC Engineer's Reports, particularly for the length above Johnsons Hillock, which had a reputation for leaking. 

2 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

Yes, on payment of the appropriate toll (a bit people often forget) 

Not all people needed to pay a toll. A land owner through which a canal passed could be given the right to a pleasure boat, but not to pass through locks, while owners of farmland could have manure delivered without payment. In the 1920s, the L&LC did investigate what comprised manure, and what was being carried under that title.

 

Isn't canal history complicated.😀

[Cheshire cat]

The Bridgewater is no longer flowing. 

 

 

Nothing is getting past the earth bund ay Dunham School Bridge. Some seepage past the builders bags bund but nothing a pump wouldn't be able to handle, Sadly, there is a boat high and dry just to the west of Dunham Town Bridge. There's no vehicle access so it could be there for the duration. 

[Jim P]

Impressed by how quickly someone’s started a cafe (table and chairs!)

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Cheshire cat said:

The Bridgewater is no longer flowing. 

Nothing is getting past the earth bund ay Dunham School Bridge. Some seepage past the builders bags bund but nothing a pump wouldn't be able to handle, Sadly, there is a boat high and dry just to the west of Dunham Town Bridge. There's no vehicle access so it could be there for the duration. 

 

Given the embankment was presumably built to a far higher standard than that dam, I hope when levels return there isn't a tiny trickle of water through it anywhere. That turns into a slightly larger trickle, then .... well, you get the picture!

[Cheshire cat]

Short of someone vandalising it I think it will be OK. The builders bag dam is nearer to the breach but access for large earth movingvehicles is much more difficult.

[junior]

Apparently the structural engineer etc will be on site tomorrow to start working on a plan of how to progress. 

[userscott]

On the topic of clay, I have had the opportunity to visit the damage and the sheer amount of clay present within the depths of the failure is staggering. Wherever it originated from, there is plenty of it.

[ditchcrawler]

I follow an Australian Blogger called Tom, he lived in the UK for quite some time and was a keen boater, he may even have been a member here. He has just done a posting about the Bridgwater canal as a company and who may have the money. Waiouru: Just my opinion is a safe link to his blog

[frangar]

7 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I follow an Australian Blogger called Tom, he lived in the UK for quite some time and was a keen boater, he may even have been a member here. He has just done a posting about the Bridgwater canal as a company and who may have the money. Waiouru: Just my opinion is a safe link to his blog

That’s quite worrying but sort of what I expect of how peel in run. 

[haggis]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

I follow an Australian Blogger called Tom, he lived in the UK for quite some time and was a keen boater, he may even have been a member here. He has just done a posting about the Bridgwater canal as a company and who may have the money. Waiouru: Just my opinion is a safe link to his blog

That's worrying and it looks like there might be lots of wriggle room for Peel.

 

[Cheshire cat]

I have been wondering about the money since this whole thing started. How many boats have a Bridgewater licence? A shot in the dark but I would guess at around a thousand. 

If they could even get away with putting everyone's licence up by a hundred pounds that would only raise £100k. 

If they are lucky it might cost £2 million to fix. So ignoring inflation and the interest they might have got be investing that two million it will take 20 years to get their money back. There's no way Peel will wait that long. It's a poor investment and Peel's only concern has always been their shareholders. Interesting times ahead.

 

 

 

[magnetman]

 

Maybe more of it wll mysteriously collapse. 

[b00ke23]

25 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

If they are lucky it might cost £2 million to fix.

 

Regrettably it will cost much more than this. The Middlewich breach cost £3M and it was much less severe than this….and that was a few years ago now.  

 

It’s been suggested earlier in the tread that £10M is closer to the mark, which seems likely. 

Edited January 8, 2025 by booke23

[Jim P]

Don’t get me started on the bridge over the Mersey…..

 

That scares the hell out of me. I’ve been going down every day while it’s been in high flow. 
it looks terrible; cracked, bulging, not level. There was a mixed gang of “engineering suits” including peel, looking at it a month or so ago, but no action.

They’ve been avoiding fixing that for decades, and that’s a much dearer job.

[IanD]

37 minutes ago, booke23 said:

 

Regrettably it will cost much more than this. The Middlewich breach cost £3M and it was much less severe than this….and that was a few years ago now.  

 

It’s been suggested earlier in the tread that £10M is closer to the mark, which seems likely. 

That was we, when I questioned whether Peel would bother fixing and reopening the canal because it made no financial sense for them to do so.

 

There was a reply that they'd have to because they need to keep the MSC open and even expand traffic on it (which now seems like it's not happening...) and this was tied to keeping the Bridgewater open, but this now seems less likely.

 

Unless there's some legal pressure which stops them closing the Bridgewater -- or somebody else (DEFRA?) financing this and then suing Peel to get the money back -- then there doesn't seem to be much to stop them leaving the dams there and saying "That's it, we're not rebuilding the breach, the Bridgwater can stay closed".

 

I know there has also been some comment about Peel saying they will repair it, but until that comes as a binding commitment from Peel top management together with a timescale and plan for doing it I for one will take what they say with a very large pinch of salt -- because as a private sector company driven by shareholders and profit, spending a fortune to reopen it makes no sense unless they're legally forced to do it... 😞 

[Ian Mac]

A few points.

Firstly, the Government is no longer the backstop for the C&RT. the Secretary of State resigned his golden share. This happened because the OBR said that the government was no long allowed to concess the debt help by the Trust, as not being part of the National Debt.

The Bridgewater breach 1971 repair was done by reclaiming all the materials from the flooded area to rebuild the embankment, a layer of crushed limestone was then placed on top of this and then clay puddle was used. Then a narrow channel was piled This was different to the original construction which relied on tight ground, basically sand with mud mixed together. This explains why the is clay in the flood debris.

 

The 1971 method of repair is not how it would be repaired this time, I suspect. A concrete channel would be created, similar to the way the breach at Middlewich was repaired. The channel could be self-supporting should anything untoward happen to the rebuilt embankment. The whole of the embankment will be treaded to this design, my guess at cost £5M-£10M

Contrary to what others are saying, I believe Peel Holding will not sanction the repair, so although the BCC are saying all the right things, when push comes to shove Peel will not provide the funds. Peel Holding's only objective is to make John Whittaker more wealthy.  Peel will play the long game here. £10M can be invested in property and make a considerable return, from this they can siphon off some money and pay to have a publicity team there who promise Jam tomorrow. Remember, Peel are very good at fighting the long game. There are lots of examples.
There is no return from fixing the canal. It will also cost to close it so they will go down the road, kicking the can with them.
 

The only way it will get fixed is if it starts to hurt John Whittaker wealth. This can only be achieved politically, if the Mayors of the Northwest band together and stop his development of his property portfolio.

 

We have to be careful of what we wish for. Transferring it to the charity C&RT will bring large liabilities, especially as Peel have transferred the maintenance of the Barton tank from the MSC to the BCC, purely as an admin accounting action. Peel will not provide any form of Golden Egg to support the canal, and they will have already stripped the BCC of all its assets.

We are up against ruthless professionals here.

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Ian Mac said:

A few points.

Firstly, the Government is no longer the backstop for the C&RT. the Secretary of State resigned his golden share. This happened because the OBR said that the government was no long allowed to concess the debt help by the Trust, as not being part of the National Debt.

The Bridgewater breach 1971 repair was done by reclaiming all the materials from the flooded area to rebuild the embankment, a layer of crushed limestone was then placed on top of this and then clay puddle was used. Then a narrow channel was piled This was different to the original construction which relied on tight ground, basically sand with mud mixed together. This explains why the is clay in the flood debris.

 

The 1971 method of repair is not how it would be repaired this time, I suspect. A concrete channel would be created, similar to the way the breach at Middlewich was repaired. The channel could be self-supporting should anything untoward happen to the rebuilt embankment. The whole of the embankment will be treaded to this design, my guess at cost £5M-£10M

Contrary to what others are saying, I believe Peel Holding will not sanction the repair, so although the BCC are saying all the right things, when push comes to shove Peel will not provide the funds. Peel Holding's only objective is to make John Whittaker more wealthy.  Peel will play the long game here. £10M can be invested in property and make a considerable return, from this they can siphon off some money and pay to have a publicity team there who promise Jam tomorrow. Remember, Peel are very good at fighting the long game. There are lots of examples.
There is no return from fixing the canal. It will also cost to close it so they will go down the road, kicking the can with them.
 

The only way it will get fixed is if it starts to hurt John Whittaker wealth. This can only be achieved politically, if the Mayors of the Northwest band together and stop his development of his property portfolio.

 

We have to be careful of what we wish for. Transferring it to the charity C&RT will bring large liabilities, especially as Peel have transferred the maintenance of the Barton tank from the MSC to the BCC, purely as an admin accounting action. Peel will not provide any form of Golden Egg to support the canal, and they will have already stripped the BCC of all its assets.

We are up against ruthless professionals here.

 

Your first point is valid, but if Peel won't cough up who else could? And if they did, would there be any grounds for suing Peel to recover the cost? Nobody -- including the government -- is going to pay Peel £10M to fix something they own.

 

I agree there's no return for Peel on fixing the canal, but what cost to them is there is they just leave the dams in place either side of the breach and keep the rest in water, as opposed to completely closing/infilling?

 

Your last point is just as valid as is is for any other commercial private sector company, whose fundamental purpose and job it is to make money for their shareholders/executives -- that's what their business is, not maintaining 200-year-old infrastructure that they can't make money out of... 😞 

[Arthur Marshall]

A marginal licence increase isn't the critical point. If theres a thousand boats already on the Bridgewater, that already about 2 million a year in income for which they need do nothing. I don't know how the mooring fees work, but no doubt they get a cut of that too, and there's not a lot of maintenance needed on the canal as no locks, as far as I recall. That, and the rents from any waterside businesses, is surely a reasonable revenue stream .

It could if course be maintained perfectly well by just splitting the canal in two.

Edited January 8, 2025 by Arthur Marshall

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

A marginal licence increase isn't the critical point. If theres a thousand boats already on the Bridgewater, that already about 2 million a year in income for which they need do nothing. I don't know how the mooring fees work, but no doubt they get a cut of that too, and there's not a lot of maintenance needed on the canal as no locks, as far as I recall. That, and the rents from any waterside businesses, is surely a reasonable revenue stream .

It could if course be maintained perfectly well by just splitting the canal in two.

 

And that's the problem -- if fixing the breach would cost Peel £10M but bring in little or no extra revenue, why should they do it unless they're forced to somehow?

[magnetman]

Out of good will

[Arthur Marshall]

22 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

And that's the problem -- if fixing the breach would cost Peel £10M but bring in little or no extra revenue, why should they do it unless they're forced to somehow?

Because if it brings in a steady four or five million a year, the repair cost hardly dents it over a ten year period.

[matty40s]

1 hour ago, Jim P said:

Don’t get me started on the bridge over the Mersey…..

 

That scares the hell out of me. I’ve been going down every day while it’s been in high flow. 
it looks terrible; cracked, bulging, not level. There was a mixed gang of “engineering suits” including peel, looking at it a month or so ago, but no action.

They’ve been avoiding fixing that for decades, and that’s a much dearer job.

It does seem rather low slung for the modern day Mersey heights!!

 

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Because if it brings in a steady four or five million a year, the repair cost hardly dents it over a ten year period.

But since most of the income is from moored boats, why does fixing it increase income?