Jump to content

Peak Forest Bridge 24

jam

By jam
in Stoppages

 Share

Featured Posts

Jamm Contributor

Jamm

Posted
Posted (edited)

I went to have a look at this tonight as I am stuck on the Whaley Bridge/New Mills side. As mayalld said, there is also access required along the towpath, I witnessed a vehicle using such access (it's a very wide tarmac towpath.)

 

The damage I saw was quite shocking. The barriers on both sides have been bashed and are now very distorted. Must have been a very careless driver! ohmy.png A fellow boater who is moored by the bridge pointed out the damage to the lifting structure. Bolts have come lose and their surrounds have become distorted. There is also a high beam that is out of shape, but it is suspected it has been like this for a while now. The fellow boater advised me of a CRT meeting that took place this morning, at the bridge. It has been revealed that the bridge required attention five years ago, even without this recent damage! I cannot see how there is any way they would allow this bridge to be opened or left open.

 

For now, I am enjoying the facilities in Whaley Bridge. tongue.png

Edited by Benjam
Link to comment
Share on other sites
furnessvale Influencer

furnessvale

Posted
Posted

I went to have a look at this tonight as I am stuck on the Whaley Bridge/New Mills side. As mayalld said, there is also access required along the towpath, I witnessed a vehicle using such access (it's a very wide tarmac towpath.)

 

The damage I saw was quite shocking. The barriers on both sides have been bashed and are now very distorted. Must have been a very careless driver! ohmy.png A fellow boater who is moored by the bridge pointed out the damage to the lifting structure. Bolts have come lose and their surrounds have become distorted. There is also a high beam that is out of shape, but it is suspected it has been like this for a while now. The fellow boater advised me of a CRT meeting that took place this morning. It has been revealed that the bridge required attention five years ago, even without this recent damage! I cannot see how there is any way they would allow this bridge to be opened or left open.

 

For now, I am enjoying the facilities in Whaley Bridge. tongue.png

Thanks for that. Much of the damage you describe is long standing and/or repeat damage.

 

As previously stated this bridge has a 3 tonne weight limit and is regularly used by 16 tonnes tipper lorries.

 

When first reported I fully expected to hear of a lorry AND bridge in the canal. Something has to give!

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ricco1 Rising Star

Ricco1

Posted
Posted

Thanks for that. Much of the damage you describe is long standing and/or repeat damage.

 

As previously stated this bridge has a 3 tonne weight limit and is regularly used by 16 tonnes tipper lorries.

 

When first reported I fully expected to hear of a lorry AND bridge in the canal. Something has to give!

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

Had that been the case George, I reckon the canal would have been open to navigation again quicker than will be the case in reality!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NB Alton Proficient

NB Alton

Posted
Posted

Just a very quick update. We spoke to CRT staff yesterday evening. It's now likely / hoped that this bridge will be operational again by the end of the week (operated by CRT staff on a timed basis). It is thought this will be a temporary restriction until a new bridge is installed.

 

Cheers, Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites
furnessvale Influencer

furnessvale

Posted
Posted (edited)

Interesting. I wonder if they are going to upgrade the bridge to account for its heavier use or if they'll tackle the firm who were abusing it

If they upgrade the bridge the abutments will probably be the next thing to fail.

 

Once upgraded the firm will probably start to use 32 tonnes 8 legger HGVs instead ( much more economical for THEM).

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Edited by furnessvale
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ricco1 Rising Star

Ricco1

Posted
Posted

Shouldn't be too difficult to solve once the new bridge is installed. All it needs is CRT (or a willing volunteer) to provide photographic evidence of the abuse by the firm. Court injunction follows, further infractions are criminal behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
furnessvale Influencer

furnessvale

Posted
Posted

Shouldn't be too difficult to solve once the new bridge is installed. All it needs is CRT (or a willing volunteer) to provide photographic evidence of the abuse by the firm. Court injunction follows, further infractions are criminal behaviour.

It shouldn't have been difficult with the old bridge but somehow BW/CRT found it impossible.

 

God knows why, they spent enough man hours over the years repairing the damage.

 

Perhaps the enforcement officer could be diverted onto useful observations for a few days?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Since there is a 3 tonne weight limit, what is wrong with an effective width restriction? Even a 4x4 with a trailer could easily exceed the weight restriction.

What is the maximum permitted width of a motor vehicle up to 3 tonnes gvw?

 

Presumably that has to be accommodated and that allows the 16 tonner to slip through (even so, the width barriers were frequently bent out of alignment).

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Machpoint005 Veteran II

Machpoint005

Posted
Posted

What is the maximum permitted width of a motor vehicle up to 3 tonnes gvw?

 

Presumably that has to be accommodated and that allows the 16 tonner to slip through (even so, the width barriers were frequently bent out of alignment).

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

I don't know, but I suspect the max. width is somewhere in the Construction and Use Regulations or their modern equivalent. In practice, there won't be many 'light' vehicles over 6ft 6in. I wouldn't have thought it beyond the wit of mankind to design a sufficiently robust width restriction, but that is presumably a Council job rather than CRT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
furnessvale Influencer

furnessvale

Posted
Posted

 

I don't know, but I suspect the max. width is somewhere in the Construction and Use Regulations or their modern equivalent. In practice, there won't be many 'light' vehicles over 6ft 6in. I wouldn't have thought it beyond the wit of mankind to design a sufficiently robust width restriction, but that is presumably a Council job rather than CRT.

Yes, it is more of a legal question. If a road vehicle of 3 tonnes can legally be say, 2.5 metres wide, then any person with a legal right of access along that road and over that bridge, is entitled to a width of 2.5 metres unless there is a legally prescribed width restriction.

 

I doubt CRT could unilaterally impose one.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Link to comment
Share on other sites
furnessvale Influencer

furnessvale

Posted
Posted

Contractors at the bridge today.

 

The bridge has now been secured with a metal bar and padlock to prevent it being opened.

Thanks to Brian's (Alton) sterling work it is now looking like in about a week's time boat access will be available through the bridge under CRT supervision on a timed or booked basis.

 

A replacement bridge will be needed which will take considerably longer to build.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pete & Helen Proficient

Pete & Helen

Posted
Posted

I watched a tractor and trailer cross one day. It was the type with the very large tyres front and back. It only had about an inch each side when crossing. i would bet that the combined weight was well over 3 ton.

 

Maybe when they refit the bridge they can make it with a reduced height so cars etc can pass but trucks would not. I suppose, as mentioned before, it depends on the legal aspect of this, if indeed CRT even consider trying to prevent the problem happening again in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
furnessvale Influencer

furnessvale

Posted
Posted

They will have to build any "new" bridge tall enough to allow a Fire Engine or Ambulance to pass.

Given that the bridge has a 3 tonnes weight limit I doubt the fire brigade would plan to use it with a standard appliance.

 

I would imagine their plans have alternative arrangements for such locations.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Machpoint005 Veteran II

Machpoint005

Posted
Posted

Doubt it!

Remember that in an emergency they are exempt from the weight regulations and they will take the risk, plus you haven't taken into account the Ambulance heights.

 

Might not be quite as cut-and-dried. The 'fast response' ambulances in our area are Skoda Octavia estate cars. The Fire and Rescue service have some Land Rovers. I can think of any number of places where a full size ambulance or fire appliance won't fit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Barry Veteran

Barry

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

Given that the bridge has a 3 tonnes weight limit I doubt the fire brigade would plan to use it with a standard appliance.

 

I would imagine their plans have alternative arrangements for such locations.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

 

Agreed. And if I remember rightly when I was on the watch the average fully laden fire appliance weighed about 7 tons. They seem to be a bit bigger these days though.

 

 

 

Doubt it!

Remember that in an emergency they are exempt from the weight regulations and they will take the risk, plus you haven't taken into account the Ambulance heights.

 

 

Are they exempt from weight regulations? That's something I've never heard of.

 

I reckon any appliance commander who ignored a weight restriction (even if they are exempt) and ended up with close to a quarter of a million quid's worth of appliance and equipment in the canal would have a great deal of explaining to do.

 

They might have taken a risk in the old days but I strongly doubt they would now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
furnessvale Influencer

furnessvale

Posted
Posted

Interesting that they ask boaters to avoid touching the bridge or bank.

 

Many complaints have been made to BW/CRT about the need for dredging through this bridge. At least there will now be CRT staff to witness deep draughted boats coming to a stand mid channel, then slewing about, hitting the walls as they wriggle through!

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Graham Davis Veteran

Graham Davis

Posted
Posted

I believe a public right of way exists over this bridge which was previously a swing bridge and was replaced many years ago. As it has been said in a previous post we lost the right of navigation in 1968.

 

If the MR is SJ 976 856 then there is no RoW across the bridge.

There is a footpath along the towpath on the northern side of the canal, and another down the lane to the canal from the north. There is no RoW shown on the lane south of the canal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.