Tring Summit closure

[Theo]

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.

 

Might I be just a teeny bit pedantic and point out that ml is the abbreviation for millilitre of which thre are a thousand in a litre. Ml is the abbreviation for megalitre,

 

Nick

[carlt]

This is when it is good to belong to a user group such as NABO or RBOA as they can sort out BW on your behalf.

Sue

Have they sorted it out then?

 

Typical elitist "I'm alright Jack" rubbish.

 

A representative organisation should be working for all boaters, not just their members.

 

If a member isn't trapped because of this stoppage does it mean that the organisation isn't interested in the overall policy that is being implemented?

 

BW would not favour a boater, because they are a member of a club and NABO or RBOA have no pull whatsoever to "sort out BW",

 

If they are not getting involved in a major national incident, splitting the main spine of the waterways system, just because there are no members stranded, then they are not fit to call themselves "National".

[BEngo]

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! )

 

 

The two sets of figures are not consistent.

 

If 10 lock operations is 7 Ml as BW claim for Cowroast then the summit is losing 61/7 x 10 locks full a week- 203 locks full a week.

 

If 7 lock operations is 1 Ml as BW claim for Marsworth then 61/1 x 7 is 427 locks full per week.

 

One or other is total bolleaux, but then we are dealing with BW. Has Sally Ash been involved yet?

 

N

[jenlyn]

Have they sorted it out then?

 

Typical elitist "I'm alright Jack" rubbish.

 

A representative organisation should be working for all boaters, not just their members.

 

If a member isn't trapped because of this stoppage does it mean that the organisation isn't interested in the overall policy that is being implemented?

 

BW would not favour a boater, because they are a member of a club and NABO or RBOA have no pull whatsoever to "sort out BW",

 

If they are not getting involved in a major national incident, splitting the main spine of the waterways system, just because there are no members stranded, then they are not fit to call themselves "National".

Greenie!!!!!!!!!!

[LEO]

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.

 

Hi,

 

see post 27.

 

Leo

[sueb]

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?

And hard luck for those that like winter cruising and moving around.

Sue

[koukouvagia]

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.....

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'm presuming this BW data comes from the SCADA system which measures, inter alia, lockage and water flows. I suspect that the 10 lockfuls figure for Cowroast also includes thewater sent through the lock to top up the Dudswell pound and not regained by backpumping. (I think I'm right in saying that thebackpumping onto to summit at Cowroast has had problems) Hence the apparent discrepancy between the Cowroast and the Marsworth loss.

 

May be completely wrong, though.

Edited January 20, 2012 by koukouvagia

[sueb]

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?

And hard luck for those that like winter cruising and moving around.

Sue

[jenlyn]

And hard luck for those that like winter cruising and moving around.

Sue

Perhaps NABO or RBOA could come up with something better??

oh, i do like your sig, and both must have worked, you have two posts? lol

Edited January 20, 2012 by jenlyn

[sheriff]

Alan. when you say BW is near its extraction limit :is that per day for that bore ?.

 

and if water is still getting onto the summit do you have any idea if BW are still going to build a coffer dam in place of the planks in situ now?

[carlt]

Perhaps NABO or RBOA could come up with something better??

Possibly...but only for their members, though.

 

Maybe if they had the clout to negotiate an exclusive deal that meant membership of their organisation exempted them from a licence fee, every boater would join.

[koukouvagia]

Alan. when you say BW is near its extraction limit :is that per day for that bore ?.

 

and if water is still getting onto the summit do you have any idea if BW are still going to build a coffer dam in place of the planks in situ now?

 

Each year BW has a licence to extract a certain volume of water from the Cowroast borehole. In normal years there is little or no pumping during the winter period. However, if BW continued to pump constantly throughout the winter, as they were doing until recently, they would have exhausted their extraction quota by the summer when it is most needed.

Edited January 20, 2012 by koukouvagia

[sheriff]

Each year BW has a licence to extract a certain volume of water from the Cowroast borehole. In normal years there is little or no pumping during the winter period. However, if BW continued to pump constantly throughout the winter, as they were doing until recently, they would have exhausted their extraction quota by the summer when it is most needed.

so reading between the lines...passage if and when it happens could be very restricted all year...my concern is I rather not move as close as possible to Tring,if there is good chance of no passage around early march,the trip back could be effected later on in the year also.and onsidering water levels if I go the other way round.

 

if the heavens open soon and looked likely to stay that way for a good time then I would move closer.

 

considering the extraction limit..and no prolonged rain..the outlook is not good....

 

Thanks.

 

also have you seen the chart on the southern oxford thread.that would be helpfull if there was one for Tring area

Edited January 20, 2012 by sheriff

[Proper Job]

.....................

also have you seen the chart on the southern oxford thread.that would be helpfull if there was one for Tring area

I'm not sure who it was, but I'm sure someone posted that a similar chart had been presented at a meeting with BW regarding the Tring summit situation

 

A copy of the graph wasn't posted though

[koukouvagia]

I'm not sure who it was, but I'm sure someone posted that a similar chart had been presented at a meeting with BW regarding the Tring summit situation

 

A copy of the graph wasn't posted though

 

Here it is. Can't remember whether it's been posted before.

 

[jenlyn]

Here it is. Can't remember whether it's been posted before.

 

So basically, by week 43 2011, BW had a problem. By week 2, 2012, someone realised an ooopsy was imminent, and decided to do something?

[mayalld]

I don't have that kinda tech, sorry.

 

Thanks for bearing with me - had to type it out:

 

 

19th January 2012

 

Dear Customer,

 

Further to our letter drop last week, this is to let you know that there will be a small window of opportunity for continuous cruisers currently stranded on the Tring summit to leave the pound to the south this coming Saturday morning (only), 21st January. This will allow you to continue your cruise as required by the conditions of your boat's licence. If you wish to remain at Tring summit level until the waterway reopens, you may do so providing you purchase a mooring permit. This will be priced at the same rate as winter moorings in the ara - £10.74 per metre per month.

 

If you choose to leave the pound, the lock with reopen at 10am on Saturday, and boats will be expected to lock through in pairs, and continue through to beyond lock 49 (Northchurch) because of the winter works stoppage starting next week.

 

Please would you call or email me on XXX, XXX@britishwaterways.co.uk as soon as possible to confirm which of these two options you intend to take. If you decide to remain in the length we will prepare to issue you with an invoice and permit to remain on tehe Summit until 31st March. if the canal reopens before this date and you move on, we will refund pro rate the unsued portion of the permit.

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

XXX

Enforcement Officer

 

 

 

BSP,

 

as you will be well aware, I am something of a stickler for CCers doing just that, and regard the "as is reasonable in the circumstances" fairly narrowly, to encompass unforseen personal circumstances and short notice stoppages.

 

I have never regarded "well I need to be in an area for 4 weeks for something predictable" or " well there is a planned stoppage that I've contrived to be blocked by" as fitting the bill.

 

However, in this case I find myself unexpectedly on the side of the doves, with other forum members distinctly more hawkish.

 

Provided you can honestly say that you moved onto the summit without being aware of the impending closure, and provided you could not easily have left the summit between the closure being announced and it being implemented, you are currently trapped through no fault of your own.

 

BW are within their rights to say "well you must move on or pay", but NOT to impose such a restrictive time window.

 

I would suggest that you respond explaining that you are not able to move on that date, and that you do not wish to remain there. You should then explain that in the absence of this stoppage, you would have continued your journey on [DATE], and again on [DATE], listing all the dates on which you are able to move between now and March, and offering to move off the summit level on any of these dates if they will facilitate it, but making it clear that whilst you are fully able to maintain a cruising pattern that involves moving at least once a fortnight, and have agreed to do so, you are not able to move at a few days notice, and that if you are unable to move as expected on a particular day, you are not able simply to move on the next day.

 

NABO would probably help if you are a member. If you would like me to help with drafting a letter, let me know (and you DON'T have to join my fan club).

[alan_fincher]

I've just been and done some dog walking at various locations, so can give an update on the situation as it appears right now.........

 

These are facts:

 

1) No change has been made to the stop plank arrangements at New Ground bridge. They are still boards with plastic sheet draped over the Cow Roast side.

 

2) There is still not any sign of a level difference still at these planks. No visible water movement can be seen, and I'd judge it to be identical both sides.

 

3) The suggestions that have been made days ago by BW that the summit has been dropped by 330mm are I believe completely unfounded. At no point have I seen it more than about 3 courses of bricks (so 9" or maybe 230 mm) below it's recent typical levels.

 

4) If anything I think it was slightly higher today than on two recent visits, but not by much.

 

5) The pump is once again on at Cow Roast. There is every evidence therefore, that they are continuing to use up the water they are allowed to extract to keep the whole summit filled, not just the marina and the short stretch to New Ground.

 

6) There are a just total of 12 boats in the Cow Roast to New Ground stretch on the tow-path side. This is an unusually low number, and there is bags of free space. Of these 8 are moored North of the marina entrance,and 4 South of, towards the lock, (at least one in the "no mooring area for the winding hole.

 

7) 6 of these 12 boats have packages visibly attached saying "Patrol Notice", (although we can only guess if contents are the same as BSP received). A further 3 boats have hanging Zip ties in the style used for these notices, so it is quite possible they have had them too.

 

8) No boat in that stretch shows any visible sign of a winter mooring permit, nor do just the three further boats in the next pound down below Cow Roast lock. Even if those other 3 boats did have, there is bags of space to move them up above the lock, so on the face of it the "lagoon" has far more spare space than anyone is looking to use.

 

9) There are no visible "Reserved for Winter Moorings" signs here, although I'm sure there were at some stage.

 

10) Locks are on the gates at Cow Roast (46) and Dudswell bottom (48). But Lock 49 (Northchurch) is not padlocked, and in fact boats are using it freely. So what is currently in the stoppage notice is still wrong.

 

11) In fact Lock 49 (Northchurch) had massive amounts of water coming over the gates from the pond above when I looked at it. I do not know why. This must be flowing in somewhere in that pound, as it is certainly not travelling down from the Dudswell lock, (The short pound between the two Dudswell locks is down about 9" - perfectly OK to navigate, but certainly not able to overflow into the one below, leading to Northchurch.

 

12) There are BW workboats moored close to Northchurch Lock 49, and a pile of the railings they put around locks during a stoppage. So no reason to expect that the stoppage there will not go ahead next Monday.

 

So, the conclusion ?????

 

Right now today, but for some padlocks, and the planks at New Ground, boats could still be passing from at least Northchurch to the top of Bulbourne at least......

 

I really can't see where any water is being saved right now.

[alan_fincher]

Adding some current photos......

 

Planks at New Ground a short while ago.....

 

 

 

Current level in the part that is supposed to be lowering.....

 

 

 

Pumped water from bore hole entering above Cow Roast lock

 

 

 

The most listed boat of any (?) Below the lock - but appears unfitted and unoccupied.

 

 

 

This is all the towpath side boats in the pound below the lock, (there is one further one towards Dudswell, but on the non-towpath side).

 

 

 

Lower Dudswell lock (48) has gates chained together.

 

 

 

But Northchurch lock (49) is not only unlocked but being used.

 

 

 

For some reason there is much excess water over the gates at Northchurch. Should be helping keep levels up in Berkhamsted, at least !

 

[Proper Job]

So...........

 

In short, the actions that BW have taken in closing the summit and stopping navigation are total bollox?

 

Especially as navigation has a minimum effect on summit levels in comparison to ground water losses (BW's data)

[sheriff]

Adding some current photos......

 

Planks at New Ground a short while ago.....

 

 

 

Current level in the part that is supposed to be lowering.....

 

 

 

Pumped water from bore hole entering above Cow Roast lock

 

 

 

The most listed boat of any (?) Below the lock - but appears unfitted and unoccupied.

 

 

 

This is all the towpath side boats in the pound below the lock, (there is one further one towards Dudswell, but on the non-towpath side).

 

 

 

Lower Dudswell lock (48) has gates chained together.

 

 

 

But Northchurch lock (49) is not only unlocked but being used.

 

 

 

For some reason there is much excess water over the gates at Northchurch. Should be helping keep levels up in Berkhamsted, at least !

 

Alan that first picture with the bost listing...does it have red plates or did it have last year.guy leaves it for periods.seen it other side of summit before...being fitted out inside

[alan_fincher]

Alan that first picture with the bost listing...does it have red plates or did it have last year.guy leaves it for periods.seen it other side of summit before...being fitted out inside

Yes,

 

I think that one was on trade plates.

 

I walked past about 15 towpath boats around Cow Roast area. Several look very unoccupied, and there was no obvious sign of anyone on any of them. Had I spotted anyone to talk to, I might have tried asking them for their experiences of the last 2 weeks, and the extent to which BW had tried to talk to them or otherwise contact them.

[sheriff]

Yes,

 

I think that one was on trade plates.

 

I walked past about 15 towpath boats around Cow Roast area. Several look very unoccupied, and there was no obvious sign of anyone on any of them. Had I spotted anyone to talk to, I might have tried asking them for their experiences of the last 2 weeks, and the extent to which BW had tried to talk to them or otherwise contact them.

seen it when Ive been up there a few times and visiting...bloke arrives now and again does some work then goes...thats what I thought....I would guess he might live nearish because ive only seen that boat within the marsworth/cowroast area....he may not be aware the the boat is listing

[KevMc]

I have been leaving this for more expert opinions but as no-one else seems to have mentioned it (or I missed it if they did) surely the problem with trying to reduce the level above the planks/tarpaulin is that you need a seal all the way down to the floor of the canal.

 

Any gap at all is going to allow water flow between the two sides of the planks making them redundant - where a section of canal is being fully drained I can see where the water would force a tarpaulin to seal small gaps but the differential pressure when you are only looking at a maintaining a small difference will leave the tarpaulin loose under the surface and not form a seal.

 

Or have I missed a point somewhere?

[koukouvagia]

 

Or have I missed a point somewhere?

 

No, you're absolutely correct. When the BW chaps first cleared out the bridgehole, they were not very confident that the seal would work. They also told me that there was no "ring on the bottom". I should have asked about this further, but I understood this to be a sort of anchor point so that the planks could be pulled down flush onto the bed of the canal. Has anyone else any knowledge of this arrangement?

Plan B is is make a more permanent coffer dam, although no work seems to have started on this yet.