Tring Summit closure

[GeoffS]

I was in North Wales for half of last week - got back Sunday night to find the stoppage in place. Judging by the very precarious angle another boat is moored at not far from me, that owner also didn't know about it and the levels at Cow Roast have dropped enough to ground him on a ledge or something now.

 

 

 

Perhaps they hadn't thought of billing stranded boaters then

 

How long have you been in the Cowroast area?

[LEO]

How long have you been in the Cowroast area?

 

Interesting question.. I notified you personally of the stoppage proposals straight after the meeting on Jan 07th and you moved 50 yards back towards the lock after this.

 

Not sure if BW are being so unreasonable over this.

 

L.

[BlueStringPudding]

Leo, you know as well as I do that when you notified me there was no talk of boats being forced to move or being forced to pay. In fact the information you gave me did not imply anything other than to make a snap decision as to which side of the stoppage to moor.

British Waterways have changed the goal posts twice in 8 days IN WRITING and failed to give adequate notice on either occasion. I don't believe they thought it through a week ago and they're making it up as they go along.

 

I stand by my original question: I doubt the legality of their "move with one and a half days notice or be fined hundreds of pounds as we'll reclassify the area you're stranded in to a Winter Mooring" approach especially as all other areas on the banal system that I saw in the autumn that were reclassified as winter moorings were done so with many, many weeks notice and ample signage.

 

Please note they are not asking boats to move due to overstaying, so your argument falls down right there, Leo. This isn't a standard patrol notice. Neither will you find one has ever been placed on my boat in the last two years.

 

The letter is clearly phrased that this is a supposed second opportunity to relocate as the last one was such short notice. All they have done is repeated the same mismanagement as last week except compounded it with what amounts to IMHO extortion, when it is British Waterways who have made this stoppage and the timing of it. And it is British Waterways who are causing the stoppages further down the line which is why one assumes they want to squeeze this window of opportunity to move into an UNREASONABLE time frame.

 

If they want to do this with anything other than what looks to be amateur mismanagement and appaulling customer service, not to mention anyone who chooses to take them to court over this, then they need to give the boats WEEKS notice to move, not a day and a half.

Edited January 20, 2012 by BlueStringPudding

[GUMPY]

How long have you been in the Cowroast area?

Seems like a valid question to me!

If you have been there a day or so then their actions are unrasonable

If however you have been there a week or so already then their actions are perfectly reasonable.

[BlueStringPudding]

Your logic being? If you've read the posts you'll know that I was not on the boat for over half of last week. I don't understand the logic of your argument

 

The stoppage has been in place since the middle of last week with one window of just a couple of hours of it being reopened for boats to escape last Saturday communicated with very short notice. Then they locked down the stoppage again. They have repeated the same mistake and could have communicated this last week but they didn't. They communicated a second opportunity to move out of the stranded area with even less notice than before!

 

They either only just thought of it or IMHO wanted to ensure boaters were less likely to be in a position to make arrangements to move and so forcing them to pay for a mooring they don't want

[alan_fincher]

Lisa, again please don't shoot the messenger but........

 

Reasonable notice (eg. at least a fortnight ideally three weeks) would have been best. That way all moorers are guarranteed to have been able to see the notice and rearrange other commitments.

 

BW would, I'm sure argue that this stoppage has come as an emergency measure, taken to (they claim!) preserve water stocks.

 

It is not yet two weeks since the decision was taken, let alone three weeks, so giving that amount of notice without delaying the stoppage would not have been possible.

 

This was not in the public domain until Jim (Koukouvagia) made it so on Saturday 7th, when BW had not yet, I believe, formally announced.

 

You posted in this thread the same day on the topic, so could not have known any sooner about the stoppage, although I agree it seems that the announcement of the slot to allow moving out each weekend may not havew been best communicated.

 

I'm not even going to be in the county on Saturday. How can I?

 

Sorry, I missed the bit in your post where you said "I am not on the boat after tonight", so didn't see that moving it yourself on Saturday was not a possibility.

 

I guess that in any discussions with BW they might reasonably ask you, "OK, when were you going to move the boat, had this whole incident not happened, then ?". From the way you are describing things, (assuming you can’t easily do weekday moves), it rather sounds like last weekend might have been your only opportunity in the first place, if you had not going to end up being there over 14 days anyway. As you have said, (I think!) that a moving out slot was offered last weekend as well, I think you have to be prepared for them to ask “if you knew you couldn’t do it this weekend, why didn’t you last weekend ?”

 

Probably not what you want to hear, but I don’t think they will think you have a cast iron case, if I’m understanding things correctly.

 

I'm not sure if it is any way relevant or not, but so people commenting can see the fullest picture, can you please clarify whether the length of tow-path you are currently moored on is actually marked as reserved as BW winter moorings ?

Edited January 20, 2012 by alan_fincher

[LEO]

Leo, you know as well as I do that when you notified me there was no talk of boats being forced to move or being forced to pay. In fact the information you gave me did not imply anything other than to make a snap decision as to which side of the stoppage to moor.

British Waterways have changed the goal posts twice in 8 days IN WRITING and failed to give adequate notice on either occasion. I don't believe they thought it through a week ago and they're making it up as they go along.

 

I stand by my original question: I doubt the legality of their "move with one and a half days notice or be fined hundreds of pounds as we'll reclassify the area you're stranded in to a Winter Mooring" approach especially as all other areas on the banal system that I saw in the autumn that were reclassified as winter moorings were done so with many, many weeks notice and ample signage.

 

Please note they are not asking boats to move due to overstaying, so your argument falls down right there, Leo. This isn't a standard patrol notice. Neither will you find one has ever been placed on my boat in the last two years.

 

The letter is clearly phrased that this is a supposed second opportunity to relocate as the last one was such short notice. All they have done is repeated the same mismanagement as last week except compounded it with what amounts to IMHO extortion, when it is British Waterways who have made this stoppage and the timing of it. And it is British Waterways who are causing the stoppages further down the line which is why one assumes they want to squeeze this window of opportunity to move into an UNREASONABLE time frame.

 

If they want to do this with anything other than what looks to be amateur mismanagement and appaulling customer service, not to mention anyone who chooses to take them to court over this, then they need to give the boats WEEKS notice to move, not a day and a half.

 

 

No real argument here. I gave you the information to be helpful, as you are a continuous cruiser I thought it may assist you.

 

BW have given notice of their intention to create a locked lagoon on the summit to help the Marina and long term moorers and possibly winters moorers from below Cowroast lock.

 

I don't recall raising the subject of overstaying.

 

I note you are fed up with the mud on the towpath, it's made up and surfaced below Cowroast lock through to Berko.

 

This section of the summit is a 'hot potato' with BW, and begs the question 'who would be a BW patrol officer'? - fails to do his job he is 'kicked in the nuts' by BW, does his job and he is 'kicked in the nuts' by boaters.

 

Bearing in mind the problem, all the publicity and the possible long term implications I would have moved from this section of canal at an early opportunity to continue my travels.

 

L.

[koukouvagia]

According to a BW chap I spoke to last week all but two of the boats on the Tring summit had been notified of the stoppage. The owners of one boat couldn't be contacted andthere is an abandoned cruiser. All the other boats made their own decision. They either went north to temporary moorings at the Marsworth yard; others went south beyond the scheduled stoppage at lock 39. Yet others decided to move into the Lagoon. A further two boats were already paying for a winter mooring within the lagoon and also decided to stay. I expect some boats in the vicinity, and I'm not imputing this to you, BSP, thought, "Aha, we'll stay here and argue that since there is a stoppage, BW won't be able to move us on and we can stay here for the duration."

 

I must say, I'd be a bit peeved if I were one of the boaters with a paid for winter mooring in the lagoon to discover that other boats were being allowed to stay there for free until March.

 

If I were you I'd contact Jeff Whyatt, explain your situation and ask if you could stay until after 3^rdFebruary when the Northchurch stoppage will be open and you can continue your journey south in the normal way. He may well be willing to let just one lock full of water off the summit for you at a later date. Indeed, there was a hint at the boaters' meeting a fortnight ago when the stoppage was announced, that BW might be willing to let a fuel boat into the Lagoon if things became really difficult and talked of bringing in water bowsers in case of hardship.

Edited January 20, 2012 by koukouvagia

[Athy]

I have just looked at a long-range forecast which predicts that it will rain in Tring on five out of the next ten days. If that trend continues the crisis may be over sooner than BW expected, as the reservoirs begin to refill. Don't suppose it'll do much for the condition of that towpath, though.

[RLWP]

I have just looked at a long-range forecast which predicts that it will rain in Tring on five out of the next ten days. If that trend continues the crisis may be over sooner than BW expected, as the reservoirs begin to refill. Don't suppose it'll do much for the condition of that towpath, though.

 

I doubt it. A reservoir needs more like five months of rain to fill, not five days

 

Richard

[alan_fincher]

I have just looked at a long-range forecast which predicts that it will rain in Tring on five out of the next ten days.

I'm afraid it just doesn't work like that.

 

This is to do with months and months of inadequate rainfall, apparently coupled with a falling of the water table.

 

The reservoirs at Marsworth / Wilstone etc really do make sad viewing, and are not going to recover much just on a week or less of heavy rain!

 

No one should be under any illusions that boating on this part of the GU will not likely to continue to be impacted for a long while to come.

 

What I really don't understand is why BW applied no restrictions at all of any consequence around this area long before now, to try and preserve more of their dwindling stocks, (although in fairness we are now told that Lockage only represents a very small amount of the water being lost).

 

With those reports on the Southern Oxford too, I'd not be at all optimistic about Southern canals generally.

 

I haven't commented in the thread on the Leicester, because it is too far from my experience, but my gut feel is that will quickly become a problem again this summer too.

 

I hope I'm wrong, but available evidence isn't good!

 

Move your boats North, people!

[jenlyn]

Having read the letter, I think BW are doing what everyone has been pushing for, to get firm with movement on cc'ers. I must say, the letter could have been worded a little better, in its present form, it does look like something from a protection racketeer. I think BW should do away with winter moorings, and perhaps up the price of a cc'ing license to include a winter mooring charge. This way, they would collect the extra revenue without so much hassle. Then come august, give us a list of winter moorings, we contact them and give preferences? first come first served?

[Athy]

I'm afraid it just doesn't work like that.

 

This is to do with months and months of inadequate rainfall, apparently coupled with a falling of the water table.

 

I did not imagine that the impending rainfall would be an instant panacea for the area's problems, but it surely represents a step in the right direction: the reservoir levels will stop falling, and should start to rise gradually.

Surely it does work like that.

[matty40s]

I think BW should do away with winter moorings, and perhaps up the price of a cc'ing license to include a winter mooring charge.

 

you b&%*&r off you ...... most years I don't want a winter mooring, and CC throughout.

Does the above premium CC licence give me refunds when I can't get to where I want to go????

 

This year slightly changed, got myself a proper mooring with leccy while I do some work on engine and have still managed several trips out.

[jenlyn]

you b&%*&r off you ...... most years I don't want a winter mooring, and CC throughout.

Does the above premium CC licence give me refunds when I can't get to where I want to go????

 

This year slightly changed, got myself a proper mooring with leccy while I do some work on engine and have still managed several trips out.

by including winter mooring into a cc license, it would be more affordable for all, and a good source of income for BW. I dont want a winter mooring, but we cant continue as we are, its not working

[bizzard]

Its not just the lack of rainfall but as spring and summer approaches the sun gets stronger and warmer and then evaporation starts to to play a very large part indeed by sapping up huge amounts of water regardless of rainfall from large expanses of water like reservoirs,and indeed the canals themselves.

[GUMPY]

As has been ssaid they are getting "tough" on CCers

if you have been there for over 14days then being asked to cough up fro a winter mooring is reasonable.

Could have been worded a bit better mind you.

[Hairy-Neil]

I doubt it. A reservoir needs more like five months of rain to fill, not five days

 

Richard

 

And as I understand it the main problem is the aquifer is down....

 

 

This is to do with months and months of inadequate rainfall, apparently coupled with a falling of the water table.

 

 

 

Here in Mid Lincolnshire, last year's rainfall was down by over one third....

[sheriff]

by including winter mooring into a cc license, it would be more affordable for all, and a good source of income for BW. I dont want a winter mooring, but we cant continue as we are, its not working

jenlyn... has your wife got you tied up to a chair and is typeing this her self....... .

 

I would love to be on my up north by now or at least passed Tring...considering geting a refund to a river only license and just doing the Lee & Stort.. keeping an eye for when the stoppages clear on the thames....and as Alan mentions the lack of water on the oxford canal area..not looking good at the moment,unless we get some mighty rain fall from now onwards

 

will decide end of febuary what I shall do.....

Edited January 20, 2012 by sheriff

[alan_fincher]

I did not imagine that the impending rainfall would be an instant panacea for the area's problems, but it surely represents a step in the right direction: the reservoir levels will stop falling, and should start to rise gradually.

Surely it does work like that.

Yes,

 

But, although I'm no expert, I don't think that after a weeks heavy rain, I would necessarily expect to see any significant visible difference in reservoir levels.

 

They claim to have been pumping 61 megalitres, (about 13.4 million gallons in "old money"), into the summit a week, I believe, most of it just leaking out again, (220 lock-fulls by their figures, but I make it more like 300 lock-fulls, making me wonder if they have actually measured the locks in question!).

 

Question to Koukouvagia, if he sees it......

 

Was that 61 megalitre figure meant to be total water in, or total leakage, (i.e. is known usage for lockage included in that weekly figure as well, or not?)

[koukouvagia]

 

Question to Koukouvagia, if he sees it......

 

Was that 61 megalitre figure meant to be total water in, or total leakage, (i.e. is known usage for lockage included in that weekly figure as well, or not?)

 

BW's figures for the first week in Janaury are as follows:

 

Supply

 

Cowroast borehole (40ml/wk)

 

Tring reservoirs (20ml/wk)

 

other feeders (5ml/wk)

 

Total input 65 ml/wk.

 

 

 

 

Outputs

 

Cowroast lockage 3ml/wk (about 10 lock operations)

 

Marsworth lockage1ml/wk (about 7 lock operations a week)

 

Thus 61 ml/wk or 94% of the water entering the canal is lost.

Edited January 20, 2012 by koukouvagia

[alan_fincher]

Thanks Jim,

 

Very clear, (and sorry if its already in one of the many hundred posts)!

 

In which case, if they are saying 61 mega litres is lost, I think that must be way more than the stated 220 lock-fulls.

 

(Perhaps they have used what the fall of a lock might only be with the summit severely lowered, rather than what it ought to be if the summit was at the correct point! )

[GeoffS]

I might be totally wrong as I know nothing about water tables and boreholes but can it be the case that if they are pumping water from a bore hole right next to the canal that this in itself can contribute to lowering the water table?

[Proper Job]

I might be totally wrong as I know nothing about water tables and boreholes but can it be the case that if they are pumping water from a bore hole right next to the canal that this in itself can contribute to lowering the water table?

It will certainly have an impact

 

I would suspect that there are a number of boreholes extracting in the area.

 

I'd have thought the EA would be looking at extraction rates in the area and conserving ground water supplies for domestic/commercial use.

[alan_fincher]

Cowroast lockage 3ml/wk (about 10 lock operations)

 

Marsworth lockage1ml/wk (about 7 lock operations a week)

 

On the other hand! (I just noticed a "funny"......)

 

Given that Cow Roast and Marsworth locks are same depth, locking through either should use same water......

 

So operating one 10 times instead of 7, isn't even as much as 50% more, so the water extra requirement can't be more than 50% more, can it ? - it can't possibly be 200% more!

 

Repeating my earlier estimate, (that nobody has challenged I think), then either lock needs about 200,000 litres to fill.....

 

Cow Roast or Marsworth Top Locks.

 

Dimensions, say (between gates).....

 

Long 80 feet / 24 metres

Wide bit under 15 feet / 4.5 metres

Fall 6 feet / 1.8 metres

 

Sound about right ? (It's going to be at least that, I'd say, not less in any dimension.)

 

So volume on each lockage is about 24 * 4.5 * 1.8 cubic metres = (as near as damn it) 200 cubic metres, or 200,000 litres.

 

So 7 lock fillings should be about 1.4 megalitres, but 10 only about 2 megalitres, not 3 ???

 

That's more than a rounding error, isn't it, although overall it sounds like lockage is even less than their calculation, namely 3.4 megalitres overall, not 4.

 

I'd have thought the EA would be looking at extraction rates in the area and conserving ground water supplies for domestic/commercial use.

It has been stated that they are close to their extraction limit at the Cow Roast bore hole.

 

Those figures show it supplying double what has been taken from the reservoirs.

 

The BW men I spoke to the other day said water still being pumped at the bore hole to keep what seems to have been dubbed "the lagoon" (and the marina) up is actually still flowing into the whole summit, because they were not expecting stop planks and a plastic sheet to be able to prevent it.

 

I don't know what additional has been done by BW in the last 2 to 3 days, but if it is "not a lot", then I'd be surprised if similar amounts of water to those BW numbers are not still being lost right now, despite the closure.

 

I hope I'm wrong, but I rather fear I am not.