Droitwich barge canal cock up

[Guest]

 

No, I haven't had any involvement in the Droitwich ( I don't have the time or money to be involved with everything much as I'd like to )but does that deny me any right to comment on it?

 

Keith

 

Of course it doesn't - that is unless you post your 'comments' in this sarcastic and patronising manner.

 

 

I hope that, considering the amount of money and effort that has gone into this ''restoration'', all those who have been involved are suitably embarrassed by this.

 

 

For me that is what you need to apologise for.

[MoominPapa]

And I would emphasise that this culvert was put in in 1971, 40 years before the canal reopened, and at a time when it probably seemed like a pipe dream.

Was the railway new in 1971, or did the culvert replace another bridge? There's evidence on Google that the railway coming in from the East used to curve around to go North, so I guess it could have been a new East-South chord that necessitated the culvert.

 

MP.

[magpie patrick]

Was the railway new in 1971, or did the culvert replace another bridge? There's evidence on Google that the railway coming in from the East used to curve around to go North, so I guess it could have been a new East-South chord that necessitated the culvert.

 

MP.

 

The railway had a bridge that became structurally unsound. BR wanted to replace it with an embankment (bear in mind in 1971 the canal was filled in at this location) but were persuaded to put a culvert in. I think they just made an ARMCO culvert small enough to fit in the bridgehole and then built the embankment around it. It was an act of goodwill, there was then no requirement to protect canal restoration schemes, indeed few had been restored then. It was only about seven years after BW had seriously proposed demolishing Marple Aqueduct, and they still were being less than helpful on the Caldon and Ashton Canal

 

edited because BW have never run any railways, and don't own the canal

Edited February 28, 2011 by magpie patrick

[Josher]

I worked on the Droitwich for many years - looking forward to going back (by boat) this year.

 

From Geograph

 

 

Droitwich Canal

Looking along the canal from the roadbridge visible in the distance in SO8963 : The Droitwich Canal at an early stage in the restoration of the Droitwich Barge Canal. The channel has been re-excavated in the foreground and work has commenced on digging out under the railway bridges. It was the need to replace the second railway bridge, visible through the arch of the first, that gave a major impetus to getting the restoration work under way. Fortunately BR were persuaded to replace the bridge with a navigable culvert otherwise the restoration could have become prohibitively expensive. Work has progressed slowly but steadily ever since and now the recent announcement of major funding LinkExternal link should see the job completed within a couple of years. The signal box and the semaphore signals are still there today, although the windows in the box have now been replaced with double glazed units thus damaging its appearance.

[Steilsteven]

Now that is a bizzare comment, the Hereford and Gloucester always was a narrow canal...

 

Having just looked at their website I see, of course, you're right. Can't imagine how that confusion arrose.

 

Edited to add, it appears you expect me to be embarrassed because you haven't checked your facts for a number of years, whatever you might say you are complaining about a structure that was built 40 years ago.

 

But the point is that I shouldn't have to check my facts in the way you suggest it should be common knowledge, I'm sure that had the culvert only measured 6 feet wide the whole world would know about it.Another barge owner I know of, following many telephone conversations knew nothing of this until he was firmly turned away by BW when he got there.

 

Keith

[magpie patrick]

But the point is that I shouldn't have to check my facts in the way you suggest it should be common knowledge, I'm sure that had the culvert only measured 6 feet wide the whole world would know about it.Another barge owner I know of, following many telephone conversations knew nothing of this until he was firmly turned away by BW when he got there.

 

Keith

 

Are you sure he wasn't turned away because it isn't yet open? Other than about ten boats going up for Salt Day last year by invitation, it isn't yet in use. (and if you didn't have an invitation to Salt Day you didn't get your boat in).

 

It IS common knowledge to people who know something about canals rather than just boats. So far. not only have you had a go over this but you've made an erroneous statement about the Hereford and Gloucester Canal and also stated that someone has been turned away from the Droitwich Canal (to give it the parliamentary title) because their boat is too big when in fact it isn't open yet. I thought it was common knowldge that the locks on the H and G were always only 7 feet 6 inches wide

 

You remind me of a motor boat owner I once knew who was looking forward to going through the Grand Western Canal from Bridgwater to Exeter. I had to advise him that the scheme had been abandoned, incomplete, 150 years earlier.

[sociable_hermit]

For me that is what you need to apologise for.

Hmm... I'd be more bothered about the term "cock up" in the title. That implies that the restoration team have been deliberately negligent in some way, when in actual fact they did the best they could with an inherited problem.

[Steilsteven]

Are you sure he wasn't turned away because it isn't yet open? Other than about ten boats going up for Salt Day last year by invitation, it isn't yet in use. (and if you didn't have an invitation to Salt Day you didn't get your boat in).

 

It IS common knowledge to people who know something about canals rather than just boats. So far. not only have you had a go over this but you've made an erroneous statement about the Hereford and Gloucester Canal and also stated that someone has been turned away from the Droitwich Canal (to give it the parliamentary title) because their boat is too big when in fact it isn't open yet. I thought it was common knowldge that the locks on the H and G were always only 7 feet 6 inches wide

 

You remind me of a motor boat owner I once knew who was looking forward to going through the Grand Western Canal from Bridgwater to Exeter. I had to advise him that the scheme had been abandoned, incomplete, 150 years earlier.

 

Ok, the H&G comment has given you a chance to mock and you're taking full advantage, fair enough.

The barge owner did have an invitation, he called in a couple of favours is how he put it.

 

I like to think ( despite the H&G comment ) that I have a pretty good knowledge of canals aswell as boats but that is tempered by the information easily available. Before posting on here I searched through the Droitwich Canal Trust website for information regarding this but found nothing. It is obviously not considered important enough to highlight that there is a width restriction and ,I suspect, that because narrow boats will be able to traverse the entire length of both canals, there is no intension of raising funds to overcome this. As I said earlier, had the culvert only measured 6' wide it would be a whole different story, the canals would still be open and in water from Worcester to the Severn but only small boats would be able to reach Droitwich from the Severn.Would that be acceptable? Of course not but it seems so for the restoration as it stands that because it's only a few hundred yards we're talking about, it's not worth the effort or expense.

 

Had I been involved in the restoration, I would be embarrassed to say, when asked if it was fully restored, yes but barges can't reach the terminus of the barge canal.

 

Perhaps the motor boat owner was an incurable optimist like the WRG member who said when asked, what will you do when all the canals are restored? Build new ones!

 

Keith

[greywolf]

Anyone that tries to improve the lot of others is always to be commended.No matter the ideal when you are faced with the reality of the situation it is better to settle for the best you can get than go off in a huff and get nothing at all.the Lichfield Hatherton canal is having to deal as best they can with all sorts of difficulties and i am sure they will archive the best fit between the dream and reality of the situation [unfortunately i have not as yet volunteered for this restoration just read the web site].This is the best they can do today, tomorrow a rich person may donate the money to get closer to the dream

 

well done to the people involved in this restoration.

Edited February 28, 2011 by greywolf

[magpie patrick]

Ok, the H&G comment has given you a chance to mock and you're taking full advantage, fair enough.

The barge owner did have an invitation, he called in a couple of favours is how he put it.

 

I like to think ( despite the H&G comment ) that I have a pretty good knowledge of canals aswell as boats but that is tempered by the information easily available. Before posting on here I searched through the Droitwich Canal Trust website for information regarding this but found nothing. It is obviously not considered important enough to highlight that there is a width restriction and ,I suspect, that because narrow boats will be able to traverse the entire length of both canals, there is no intension of raising funds to overcome this. As I said earlier, had the culvert only measured 6' wide it would be a whole different story, the canals would still be open and in water from Worcester to the Severn but only small boats would be able to reach Droitwich from the Severn.Would that be acceptable? Of course not but it seems so for the restoration as it stands that because it's only a few hundred yards we're talking about, it's not worth the effort or expense.

 

Had I been involved in the restoration, I would be embarrassed to say, when asked if it was fully restored, yes but barges can't reach the terminus of the barge canal.

 

Perhaps the motor boat owner was an incurable optimist like the WRG member who said when asked, what will you do when all the canals are restored? Build new ones!

 

Keith

 

I've just had a look at the DCT website and I would agree that it is pretty appalling all round. DCT don't exist now by the way, they've merged with the Worcs and Brum canal society. My interest (as many know) is that I handle the HLF money for the restoration, a total of £5 million. Other funders have put in around £3 million (mainly Advantage West Midlands). I don't think any of the funders were under any illusions about this constraint, obviously HLF weren't as I knew about it (although I was not the monitor when the decision was made to provide funding).

 

It is also a shame that BW haven't yet got a boaters guide for this canal on Waterscape. Nicholsons cover it, but not in it's restored state, people will be planning to use it, and could do with information. It will, after all, be open throughout in May

 

There is no way that bridge could have been tackled in the above budget, BW struggled as it was (partly because the first project manager didn't get his act together and put the start of restoration back two years. I recall thumping the table in frustration because he wasn't even getting claims into me, so BW were spending money and not getting it back). Equally, there was no budget for a winding hole (we're in talks about further grants now, but until they've completed on the one they've got, they can't have another one). If you've got stakes then mooring before the culvert is practical, but I'd guess you'd have to reverse back to Salwarpe to turn.

 

I have to admit that I'm a bit surprised that someone with so little knowledge of the canal sought to attend the Salt Festival, as generally the invitees had been involved in either the process or the campaign (yes, I was invited to take my boat). Clearly he was able to pull strings. Whilst I still think you and your mate should have known about this if you have a "reasonable" knowledge, I have picked up the BW are not posting the most basic information about a canal that is likely to be popular this summer, and am about to email them about this.

 

I still think however, that posting "cock up" and "hope you are embarrassed" was not on. HLF, Wychavon District and Worcestershire County Councils are justifiably proud of a project that will bring major benefits for Droitwich. In this, like in many restorations, it is a case of get it open, then work on improving it.

 

edited to add, I assume you realise that even if you could get through this bridge, there would be little point in going through the somewhat confusingly named "barge lock" at the other end of Vines Park.

Edited February 28, 2011 by magpie patrick

[Graham Davis]

Steilsteven,

Perhaps you should be shouting your mouth off at the people who built this Armco bridge under duress. Not the ex Droitwich restorers but Network Rail, who took over from the numerous predecessors. If they had got their way there would probably have been a 6' pipe, and no chance of any navigation. After all the Navigation had been legally closed and filled in at this point.

 

The original bridge that was here I understand was built by the Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway and opened in 1852/53 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford,_Worcester_and_Wolverhampton_Railway). It is on the original line of the Railway

Edited February 28, 2011 by Graham Davis

[Guest]

Hmm... I'd be more bothered about the term "cock up" in the title. That implies that the restoration team have been deliberately negligent in some way, when in actual fact they did the best they could with an inherited problem.

 

Possibly - but it seems academic any way as thus far the OP has steadfastly refused to acknowledge he was in anyway wrong for the wording used in either the title or the post content...

 

ho hum...

[Pluto]

Steilsteven,

Perhaps you should be shouting your mouth off at the people who built this Armco bridge under duress. Not the ex Droitwich restorers but Network Rail, who took over from the numerous predecessors. If they had got their way there would probably have been a 6' pipe, and no chance of any navigation. After all the Navigation had been legally closed and filled in at this point.

 

The original bridge that was here I understand was built by the Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway and opened in 1852/53 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford,_Worcester_and_Wolverhampton_Railway). It is on the original line of the Railway

There are several other pinch points which have a much more problematic history than that on the Droitwich. How about the motorway bridge at Ellesmere Port or, worse still, the Ribble Link. Funding for the Ribble Link was based on voluntary workers doing a lot of the work, and when the scheme was pushed through to be done professionally, there wasn't really enough money for a proper job. It was made worse by the so-called engineers on the job not listening to Harry Mayor, who has many years experience of the estuary and canal craft. The result is a a new canal between two wide canals which cannot be used by the traditional wide boats of the area, as well as the tidal entrance being difficult for smaller boats.

[T.A]

I am deeply appreciative of those people amongst us that get off their backsides and undertake these tasks to the great benefit of many, I think these sort of people are of sufficent thick skin to ignore this type of post. There is nothing worse than those that sit on the sidelines and then with no hesitation feel it is their god given right to criticise. Well done to all those involved in the project.

[sueb]

Possibly - but it seems academic any way as thus far the OP has steadfastly refused to acknowledge he was in anyway wrong for the wording used in either the title or the post content...

 

ho hum...

And made himself look a prat in doing so

Sue

[Steilsteven]

Having now received the information that, had it been easily obtainable, could have avoided this discussion, I can now see that I have done an injustice to all those involved in the restoration and apologise unreservedly.

 

Perhaps it would've been better to entitle the thread with dissapointment rather than cock up.

 

Keith

 

And made himself look a prat in doing so

Sue

 

We're all capable of doing that Sue.

 

Keith

[mayalld]

Ok, the H&G comment has given you a chance to mock and you're taking full advantage, fair enough.

The barge owner did have an invitation, he called in a couple of favours is how he put it.

 

I like to think ( despite the H&G comment ) that I have a pretty good knowledge of canals aswell as boats but that is tempered by the information easily available. Before posting on here I searched through the Droitwich Canal Trust website for information regarding this but found nothing. It is obviously not considered important enough to highlight that there is a width restriction and ,I suspect, that because narrow boats will be able to traverse the entire length of both canals, there is no intension of raising funds to overcome this. As I said earlier, had the culvert only measured 6' wide it would be a whole different story, the canals would still be open and in water from Worcester to the Severn but only small boats would be able to reach Droitwich from the Severn.Would that be acceptable? Of course not but it seems so for the restoration as it stands that because it's only a few hundred yards we're talking about, it's not worth the effort or expense.

 

Had I been involved in the restoration, I would be embarrassed to say, when asked if it was fully restored, yes but barges can't reach the terminus of the barge canal.

 

Much like broad beam boats can't reach the terminus of the Huddersfield Broad Canal.

 

If we can achieve 99% restoration, should we really say "all or nothing"?

[magpie patrick]

Having now received the information that, had it been easily obtainable, could have avoided this discussion, I can now see that I have done an injustice to all those involved in the restoration and apologise unreservedly.

 

 

 

Thanks, apology accepted

 

PM being sent

[the grinch]

thanks patrick and josher the pictures as they say paint a better picture!! sadly as patrick has said already the droitwich trust site is sadly lacking in information and I agree that finding out any info is difficult as a result.

 

I've no doubt that we will get a similar slating in the future here on the Wey and Arun as we connect up to the wey at Shalford all the new locks will be 74 x 14 dimensions so we will have that as far as Southland lock, then Devils hole although extended to 74 is only 12 wide, loxwood lock is back to 74 x 14, before Brewhurst which again is the same as devil's Hole finally we then reduce the length to 68 at Baldwin's Knob as this is an original structure along with the rest of the locks lower down.

[alan_fincher]

Having now received the information that, had it been easily obtainable, could have avoided this discussion, I can now see that I have done an injustice to all those involved in the restoration and apologise unreservedly.

 

Perhaps it would've been better to entitle the thread with dissapointment rather than cock up.

 

Keith

Well done you!

 

If a few more on here could be as gracious, the forum would improve markedly!

[Guest]

Having now received the information that, had it been easily obtainable, could have avoided this discussion, I can now see that I have done an injustice to all those involved in the restoration and apologise unreservedly.

 

Perhaps it would've been better to entitle the thread with dissapointment rather than cock up.

 

Keith

 

Hats of to you Sir..

 

 

We're all capable of doing that Sue.

 

Keith

 

Done it many times...

[Max Sinclair]

I can not leave that lie. You can get your barge to Netherwich tunnel (the structure you are referring to) and BW are looking to put visitor moorings in on the downstream side for that reason, and also are looking at where they could get a winding hole.

 

The Netherwich Tunnel was put in the the 1970's by the then British Rail, given that the canal was totally derelict then, and it was only a bunch of hard working enthusiasts who were campaigning for the canal, it could so easily not have had a structure at all, in which case the restoration would have been looking at a new structure under an operational railway, probably doubling the £8 million cost.

 

There are other bridges that restrict headroom to around 7 foot 6 inches, but again these were built before restoration really got going. Also 7 feet 6 is only 6 inches lower than the maximum given in Bradshaws 1904.

 

It really, really irritates me when people make posts like this because what you have done is denigrate the hard work of a few hundred people, from which many thousands will benefit, on the basis of an historic situation that is beyond their control

 

edited to add, assuming the barge is the one in your avatar, it will be taller and deeper than anything intended to be used on this canal, you've got a Dutch barge, it was built for Severn Trows

Chawson Basin off the Barge Canal should be an ideal volunteer dredging project which would provide Barge winding and mooring.It is quite large, mud filled and may provide some interesting relics.

[Max Sinclair]

I am deeply appreciative of those people amongst us that get off their backsides and undertake these tasks to the great benefit of many, I think these sort of people are of sufficent thick skin to ignore this type of post. There is nothing worse than those that sit on the sidelines and then with no hesitation feel it is their god given right to criticise. Well done to all those involved in the project.

When British Rail proposed replacing the bridge which was collapsing with salt subsidence by using a soil embankement Nick Grazebrook and I met their engineers and persuaded them to consider a Armco galvanised tube.We had to accept the 14 ft tube or nothing.Droitwich Council as the landowners could have insisted on full dimensions but we hadn't persuaded them restoration was possible.We just hoped that the highly saline canal would corrode the tube but no evidence yet. If all the boats passing through rub away the galvanising we might get a larger dimension.

 

I worked on the Droitwich for many years - looking forward to going back (by boat) this year.

 

From Geograph

 

 

Droitwich Canal

Looking along the canal from the roadbridge visible in the distance in SO8963 : The Droitwich Canal at an early stage in the restoration of the Droitwich Barge Canal. The channel has been re-excavated in the foreground and work has commenced on digging out under the railway bridges. It was the need to replace the second railway bridge, visible through the arch of the first, that gave a major impetus to getting the restoration work under way. Fortunately BR were persuaded to replace the bridge with a navigable culvert otherwise the restoration could have become prohibitively expensive. Work has progressed slowly but steadily ever since and now the recent announcement of major funding LinkExternal link should see the job completed within a couple of years. The signal box and the semaphore signals are still there today, although the windows in the box have now been replaced with double glazed units thus damaging its appearance.

This section of the canal was restored by a Royal Engineers work camp and helped to show restoration was possible.It also stopped encroachment on canal property.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Max Sinclair