Todbrook nears completion

[Alan de Enfield]

Toddbrook Reservoir repairs near completion

 

Workers begin the final stages of construction at the huge project to restore Toddbrook Reservoir in Whaley Bridge, Derbyshire. Part of the spillway of Toddbrook Reservoir broke away after a long spell of heavy rain in August 2019 forcing the immediate evacuation of 1500 homes in the area. An RAF helicopter dropped 400 bags of aggregate to help prevent the dam wall from completely collapsing. The Canal and River Trust’s contractor Kier is now in the final stages of creating a new waterside weir, tumble bay, stepped spillway channel and stilling basin, providing a new route for excess water to reach the River Goyt. The three-year construction project is expected to be finished by Christmas.

 

Video

 

Toddbrook Reservoir repairs near completion | Watch

Edited September 8, 2025 by Alan de Enfield

[Allan(nb Albert)]

At the May 2025 board meeting Trustees approved a further £6.8m spend on the Toddbrook repair. That brings cost to date up from £49.4m to £56.2m.

 

Bearing in mind that the original cost estimate was £10m lets hope that this is the last time the board has had to approve additional spend.

 

[NB Saturn]

they need to start getting fixed price contracts from the companies they appoint for these works 😉

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, NB Saturn said:

they need to start getting fixed price contracts from the companies they appoint for these works 😉

Perhaps an independent investigation into these runaway costs ... 

Can't see it happening myself.

 

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, NB Saturn said:

they need to start getting fixed price contracts from the companies they appoint for these works 😉

And what fixed price are contractors going to submit when a job is estimated (by the client) to cost £10m, but the extent of work is not fully known (and cannot be until the work is under way) and the outcome could easily be 5 times the estimate?

[Mike Todd]

9 hours ago, David Mack said:

And what fixed price are contractors going to submit when a job is estimated (by the client) to cost £10m, but the extent of work is not fully known (and cannot be until the work is under way) and the outcome could easily be 5 times the estimate?

It is usual to pay extra for a fixed price!

[1st ade]

Just now, Mike Todd said:

It is usual to pay extra for a fixed price!

Many years ago, I worked for government, and they placed a major fixed price IT contract with private industry for something that "had" to be installed and working on time. I caught the CEO off guard (he was a personal friend) "how much do you think this will cost?" "About £5m including our margin". "What's your quote?" "£20m, doubled to allow for unexpected work, doubled again in case we get hit for a 'not on time' penalty"

[cuthound]

48 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

It is usual to pay extra for a fixed price!

 

Not where the extent of the work is unknown.

 

What is usual in these circumstances is to ask for the hourly labour rates of each skill the contractor may use and agree a cost plus percentage for any materials used.

[David Mack]

Or to agree a fixed fee for additional packages of work as they are defined, based on the schedule of labour and machinery rates plus materials at an agreed markup.

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

Or to agree a fixed fee for additional packages of work as they are defined, based on the schedule of labour and machinery rates plus materials at an agreed markup.

But this does not prevent the occurrence of cost escalation as the work gradually reveals extra items. As yet, no-one has provided any evidence that the increase in the total for Todbrook is anything other than this, or other external factors such as changes in regulation and general price inflation. Some commentators want to take the escalation as proof of incompetence somewhere (CaRT or contractor) rather than a typical large project with many uncertainties.

2 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

Not where the extent of the work is unknown.

 

What is usual in these circumstances is to ask for the hourly labour rates of each skill the contractor may use and agree a cost plus percentage for any materials used.

The more uncertain the greater the addition for a fixed price. (Every project has uncertainties)

2 hours ago, 1st ade said:

Many years ago, I worked for government, and they placed a major fixed price IT contract with private industry for something that "had" to be installed and working on time. I caught the CEO off guard (he was a personal friend) "how much do you think this will cost?" "About £5m including our margin". "What's your quote?" "£20m, doubled to allow for unexpected work, doubled again in case we get hit for a 'not on time' penalty"

That was how Lord Weinstock used to operate - except that the doubling took place at every level of approval!

[robtheplod]

Thats a good way of doing it, pop in a cheap quote to get the job then keep ramping it up?

[cuthound]

53 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

But this does not prevent the occurrence of cost escalation as the work gradually reveals extra items. As yet, no-one has provided any evidence that the increase in the total for Todbrook is anything other than this, or other external factors such as changes in regulation and general price inflation. Some commentators want to take the escalation as proof of incompetence somewhere (CaRT or contractor) rather than a typical large project with many uncertainties.

The more uncertain the greater the addition for a fixed price. (Every project has uncertainties)

That was how Lord Weinstock used to operate - except that the doubling took place at every level of approval!

 

In my experience as a project manager, you cannot get anyone to bids for a contract with a large degree of uncertainty if you demand that they give a fixed price. Very occasionally one may give you a ridiculously large quote which includes generous contingencies for the uncertainties.

 

[TunnelTiger]

7 hours ago, robtheplod said:

Thats a good way of doing it, pop in a cheap quote to get the job then keep ramping it up?

 

It's been explained in the replies above. Unknown problems, unexpected horrors. Nothing unusual with 200 year old infrastructure.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

On 09/09/2025 at 20:43, Allan(nb Albert) said:

At the May 2025 board meeting Trustees approved a further £6.8m spend on the Toddbrook repair. That brings cost to date up from £49.4m to £56.2m.

 

Bearing in mind that the original cost estimate was £10m lets hope that this is the last time the board has had to approve additional spend.

 

The £10m would have been a "wet finger in the air" estimate. The estimate after two consultations and a report by Arup was £12-16m. CRT were still using this estimate, in public, in 2022. The actual provision made in both 2020/21 and 2021/22 Annual Reports was £15.2m. 

[IanD]

10 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The £10m would have been a "wet finger in the air" estimate. The estimate after two consultations and a report by Arup was £12-16m. CRT were still using this estimate, in public, in 2022. The actual provision made in both 2020/21 and 2021/22 Annual Reports was £15.2m. 

So does anyone know what unexpected extra work caused the final cost to be £40M bigger than the estimate?

 

P.S. Please don't flog the usual "CRT incompetence" dead horse, it looks like they did everything possible to get an accurate estimate... 😉 

[NB Saturn]

Just now, IanD said:

So does anyone know what unexpected extra work caused the final cost to be £40M bigger than the estimate?

 

P.S. Please don't flog the usual "CRT incompetence" dead horse, it looks like they did everything possible to get an accurate estimate... 😉 

 

Probably the cost of  “two consultations and a report” 😉

[Allan(nb Albert)]

On 11/09/2025 at 10:53, NB Saturn said:

 

Probably the cost of  “two consultations and a report” 😉

Many a true word is spoken in jest. CRT spent £14m before the main work on repair started. Half of that was spent on dealing with the initial incident and half on design and investigation ahead of the main works.

On 11/09/2025 at 10:52, IanD said:

So does anyone know what unexpected extra work caused the final cost to be £40M bigger than the estimate?

 

P.S. Please don't flog the usual "CRT incompetence" dead horse, it looks like they did everything possible to get an accurate estimate... 😉 

As is normal business practice, CRT's board has  to approve spend over a certain amount. CRT went to its board to approve increased spend on Toddbrook four times in three years. It would appear to me that the £14m CRT spent prior to the main work starting was not included in the figures given to the public but is included in the "board approved" figures.

 

? 2019 - £24.4m (Public told £10)

July 2022 - £32.4m (Public told £12-16m)

November 2023 - £37.6m

March 2024 - £49.4m

May 2025 - £56.2m 

 

CRT have given its board about two dozen reasons for the cost increases but as these are, in the main, not quantified in money terms it is difficult to say which have had the most impact (see May 2024 board minutes). 

Edited September 12, 2025 by Allan(nb Albert)

[IanD]

9 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Many a true word is spoken in jest. CRT spent £14m before the main work on repair started. Half of that was spent on dealing with the initial incident and half on design and investigation ahead of the main works.

As is normal business practice, CRT's board has  to approve spend over a certain amount. CRT went to its board to approve increased spend on Toddbrook four times in three years. It would appear to me that the £14m CRT spent prior to the main work starting was not included in the figures given to the public but is included in the "board approved" figures.

 

? 2019 - £24.4m (Public told £10)

July 2022 - £32.4m (Public told £12-16m)

November 2023 - £37.6m

March 2024 - £49.4m

May 2025 - £56.2m 

 

CRT have given its board about two dozen reasons for the cost increases but as these are, in the main, not quantified in money terms it is difficult to say which have had the most impact (see May 2024 board minutes). 

So like I asked -- instead of slagging CRT off for incompetence by implication, what was the actual reason for the increased cost?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

5 hours ago, IanD said:

So like I asked -- instead of slagging CRT off for incompetence by implication, what was the actual reason for the increased cost?l

If you bothered to read what I wrote, CRT have provided about two dozen reasons but these are mostly not quantified.

 

You can do further reseach on on this by reading the minutes l have directed you to.

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

If you bothered to read what I wrote, CRT have provided about two dozen reasons but these are mostly not quantified.

 

You can do further reseach on on this by reading the minutes l have directed you to.

So you don't know then. Thought not, just looking for an excuse to kick CRT as usual... 😞

 

The most likely cause for the cost increase is that when they came to actually do the job it turned out to need a lot more work than was planned for. I can't see how the blame for this can be put on CRT, but I bet you can... 😉

Edited September 13, 2025 by IanD

[dogless]

Isn't that view totally disregarding the condition CRT had allowed the reservoir to descend to?

 

Rog

[Allan(nb Albert)]

21 minutes ago, IanD said:

So you don't know then. Thought not, just looking for an excuse to kick CRT as usual... 😞

 

The most likely cause for the cost increase is that when they came to actually do the job it turned out to need a lot more work than was planned for. I can't see how the blame for this can be put on CRT, but I bet you can... 😉

As I have said twice, CRT gave about two dozen reasons to its board for cost increases but they are not costed. If you actually read the board minutes instead of guessing then you would perhaps be in a better position to comment ...

 

[TheBiscuits]

30 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

As I have said twice, CRT gave about two dozen reasons to its board for cost increases but they are not costed. If you actually read the board minutes instead of guessing then you would perhaps be in a better position to comment ...

 

 

And if you quoted the reasons here as you seem to know what they are, the conversation would flow much better.

 

Do you have the minutes to hand for a quick copy and paste?

 

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/document/7FtSaJXHxOL4IIgW2U5w1w/mJRFFPmNoNYlFep90WrQcdEGuuAxlupvgpTri5EpqTo/aHR0cHM6Ly9jcnRwcm9kY21zdWtzMDEuYmxvYi5jb3JlLndpbmRvd3MubmV0L2RvY3VtZW50Lw/01946eb5-3687-7cc0-a191-32b21b07b610.pdf

 

Annex 1 is the relevant bit

 

Annex 1: Toddbrook project cost history

 

Board paper - 22 July 2022

The original B19 provision for the project was £24.4m (from B19-22).

The original provision was only in place up to B22, whereas the works will extend into B24, which carries substantial preliminaries (the running cost of being on site each month).

 

The ‘containment package’ to manage the initial incident and immediate actions was £7m and the ‘enabling works package’ (design and investigations ahead of the main works) was another £7m.

 

The current forecast has the project cost

at £32.4m (across B19-24). The main additional cost, alongside extended duration, is the containment pumping (averaging £60k per month).

 

Other reasons for the project cost increase include the following:

• Significantly increased design scope and complexity of both the spillway itself and other surrounding items of the scheme; and resultant temporary works design and planning.

• Increased scope of ground investigations.

• Extensive seismic review and analysis.

• Inlet penstock automation of the bywash.

• Increased legal fees for several items, and the purchase of Toddbrook Lodge.

• Night cover for bywash water management.

• Increased project management and design time.

 

Board paper - 24 November 2023

An additional £5.2m to cover delivery of the main construction elements, taking the total project value up to £37.6m.

• Inflation – original forecast ~5% inflation, Kier construction costs have been impacted by ~20%.

• Tension piles – the no. of CFA piles has increased in the final design from earlier estimates.

• Mine drainage diversion.

• Kier additional staffing requirements.

• Additional Trust staffing.

• Pumping costs of c£65k/month.

• Reservoir Road resurfacing.

 

Board paper – 21 March 2024

An additional £11.8m to cover delivery of the main construction elements, taking the total project value up to £49.4m.

• Delays to CFA piling for the spillway foundations.

• Additional temporary works.

• Missing items from the agreed Target Cost price (liability is under dispute).

• Multiple additional dewatering provisions.

• Disputes regarding ground conditions.

• More plant, equipment and site staff.

• Additional ‘pain’ – the Option D contract mechanism shares the excess cost (vs the Target).

• Substantial programme delays – preliminaries for the site are in the region of ~£250k / month.

• Additional consultancy spend.

• Implemented (accepted) compensation events.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2025 by TheBiscuits
Add a bit

[Tony Brooks]

Thanks, although very general, that goes some way to explaining the increased costs.

[IanD]

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

And if you quoted the reasons here as you seem to know what they are, the conversation would flow much better.

 

Do you have the minutes to hand for a quick copy and paste?

 

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/document/7FtSaJXHxOL4IIgW2U5w1w/mJRFFPmNoNYlFep90WrQcdEGuuAxlupvgpTri5EpqTo/aHR0cHM6Ly9jcnRwcm9kY21zdWtzMDEuYmxvYi5jb3JlLndpbmRvd3MubmV0L2RvY3VtZW50Lw/01946eb5-3687-7cc0-a191-32b21b07b610.pdf

 

Annex 1 is the relevant bit

 

Annex 1: Toddbrook project cost history

 

Board paper - 22 July 2022

The original B19 provision for the project was £24.4m (from B19-22).

The original provision was only in place up to B22, whereas the works will extend into B24, which carries substantial preliminaries (the running cost of being on site each month).

 

The ‘containment package’ to manage the initial incident and immediate actions was £7m and the ‘enabling works package’ (design and investigations ahead of the main works) was another £7m.

 

The current forecast has the project cost

at £32.4m (across B19-24). The main additional cost, alongside extended duration, is the containment pumping (averaging £60k per month).

 

Other reasons for the project cost increase include the following:

• Significantly increased design scope and complexity of both the spillway itself and other surrounding items of the scheme; and resultant temporary works design and planning.

• Increased scope of ground investigations.

• Extensive seismic review and analysis.

• Inlet penstock automation of the bywash.

• Increased legal fees for several items, and the purchase of Toddbrook Lodge.

• Night cover for bywash water management.

• Increased project management and design time.

 

Board paper - 24 November 2023

An additional £5.2m to cover delivery of the main construction elements, taking the total project value up to £37.6m.

• Inflation – original forecast ~5% inflation, Kier construction costs have been impacted by ~20%.

• Tension piles – the no. of CFA piles has increased in the final design from earlier estimates.

• Mine drainage diversion.

• Kier additional staffing requirements.

• Additional Trust staffing.

• Pumping costs of c£65k/month.

• Reservoir Road resurfacing.

 

Board paper – 21 March 2024

An additional £11.8m to cover delivery of the main construction elements, taking the total project value up to £49.4m.

• Delays to CFA piling for the spillway foundations.

• Additional temporary works.

• Missing items from the agreed Target Cost price (liability is under dispute).

• Multiple additional dewatering provisions.

• Disputes regarding ground conditions.

• More plant, equipment and site staff.

• Additional ‘pain’ – the Option D contract mechanism shares the excess cost (vs the Target).

• Substantial programme delays – preliminaries for the site are in the region of ~£250k / month.

• Additional consultancy spend.

• Implemented (accepted) compensation events.

 

Thank you.

 

So like I said, more unexpected work than anticipated and delays/increased costs meant more money. 

 

Perhaps @Allan(nb Albert) could now stop the tedious digging at CRT about this with implications they mismanaged the project or tried to mislead about or hide the costs? 😉

 

Bet he doesn't though, because it's a drum he just *loves* banging... 😞

Edited September 13, 2025 by IanD