Worcester & Birmingham, ufn btwn Gas st & Granville St

[Dave_P]

Here you are, then:

 

 

 

 

I see that Dave got in before me with a very similar set.

 

Our 5 day estimate for draining was a bit wrong! Perhaps there was just enough flow to get the seal.

 

N

We're you stood right next to me when I was taking photos? :-s

 

No. I really ought to look him up!

 

If you are reading this, Dave, we are on Theodora, moored at Cambrian Wharf. Call in for a cuppa, but not until next Saturday!

 

No more updates from me until then.

 

N

I'll try and pop over!

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Yes, especially when the best you could apparently come up with is this:

 

"Quite honestly, I think a serious breach with the attendant damage and flooding would have been ( and could yet be) a beneficial outcome of this."

 

That question and the statement you've quoted are not at odds, both arising from a belief that C&RT are nothing less than a total disaster for the future of our waterways . . . . something they constantly demonstrate, although clearly not seen or recognized by those too blind to see or too gullible to understand.

[Dave_P]

 

Moving a few boats, unbolting a pontoon and standing a few more lengths of safety fencing on the towpath hardly compares with the time taken and expense incurred in hiring and installing temporary dams when the means for stopping off the affected section is already there to be used, and deployable within a hour or two.

Living here and following all the progress I would say that they've made hard work of this, but, draining the whole length with the issues of moving a very large pontoon and 2 smaller pontoons complete with lines of electric bollards and cabling, along with moving all the other commercial boats who require the basin facilities for their businesses, and the amount of heras fencing which would be needed, and the additional cost with the fish rescue, and the fact that there simply isn't enough room on the North side of the basin for all the boats to moor and be safely accessible, and the additional pumps needed to empty a far bigger section - compare that to the temporary dams which have been installed pretty quickly once they got going and the canal is drained and I imagine the inspection will happen tomorrow. It's an absolute no brainer.

 

Tony - I do understand your animosity towards CRT but blindly attacking them at every opportunity does you no favours and undermines your valid grievances.

[Ray T]

 

That question and the statement you've quoted are not at odds, both arising from a belief that C&RT are nothing less than a total disaster for the future of our waterways . . . . something they constantly demonstrate, although clearly not seen or recognized by those too blind to see or too gullible to understand.

 

I'm neither blind nor gullible, just not bitter like you. As I have said before you know nothing of my feelings about C&RT as I have never expressed any opinion to you or on this forum. You however.................

[nicknorman]

Just got back to the marina having had a look by car, I took all the same photos as Dave and Nick did, so no point in posting them!

[Dave-Shrop]

Has the water pouring out of the Tunnel doors Stopped?

[Tony Dunkley]

Living here and following all the progress I would say that they've made hard work of this, but, draining the whole length with the issues of moving a very large pontoon and 2 smaller pontoons complete with lines of electric bollards and cabling, along with moving all the other commercial boats who require the basin facilities for their businesses, and the amount of heras fencing which would be needed, and the additional cost with the fish rescue, and the fact that there simply isn't enough room on the North side of the basin for all the boats to moor and be safely accessible, and the additional pumps needed to empty a far bigger section - compare that to the temporary dams which have been installed pretty quickly once they got going and the canal is drained and I imagine the inspection will happen tomorrow. It's an absolute no brainer.

 

Tony - I do understand your animosity towards CRT but blindly attacking them at every opportunity does you no favours and undermines your valid grievances.

 

I can't agree with any of that except that they definitely have made hard work of it. Additional pumps would not have been needed if stopping off at the Bar lock and the next bridge round the turn, and don't forget, they only gave up trying to stop off at those two places because they didn't know how to stop the leaks at the stanks.

This isn't a 'blind attack' as you put it, but an assessment arising from the comparison of this long, drawn out shambles with how I've seen similar situations handled in the past by British Waterways using practices and methods developed and proven over more than a Century and a half of building and maintaining canals.

 

Incidentally, I'm not looking for any 'favours', and I'm not in the least bit concerned about what the C&RT apologists and sycophants, or anyone else with equally ill informed and worthless opinions, think about anything I say or write.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[john6767]

There has just been quite a big piece on this on the local ITV news.

 

My take on the approach would be that draining back to Worcester Bar was going to cause issues for the commercial boats, and the pontoon would have to be delt with, so a dam to prevent that was the right approach, and perhaps when getting in the contractors to do that it was a case of may as well put in two dams.

 

Anyway it is great to see good progress, let's hope they find the problem quickly, and that the fix is not too difficult.

[Graham Davis]

 

It's taken 4 days to get to this stage in a short length of cut, using slow to deploy and costly temporary dams, when there are existing structures, for the express purpose of stopping off, at each end of the affected section.

Do you consider that to be the performance of a competent and 'fit for purpose' navigation authority ?

 

Yes I do.

They first planned to drain a far bigger section, using just stop planks.

Found that might cause a problem elsewhere.

Then had to obtain a set of suitable dams and get them fixed.

Therefore they seem to have done a good job.

 

Plus I don't have a warped and twisted attitude to CaRT.

[RLWP]

Armchair civil engineer. Is this a first on here?

Not that civil

 

Richard

Just got back to the marina having had a look by car, I took all the same photos as Dave and Nick did, so no point in posting them!

You might have the vital image of the missing green rake

 

Richard

[Dave_P]

 

I can't agree with any of that except that they definitely have made hard work of it. Additional pumps would not have been needed if stopping off at the Bar lock and the next bridge round the turn, and don't forget, they only gave up trying to stop off at those two places because they didn't know how to stop the leaks at the stanks.

This isn't a 'blind attack' as you put it, but an assessment arising from the comparison of this long, drawn out shambles with how I've seen similar situations handled in the past by British Waterways using practices and methods developed and proven over more than a Century and a half of building and maintaining canals.

You're wrong. They changed the plan following discussion with the commercial boaters here and concerns about damage to the pontoons and the worcester bar itself. Stating personal conjecture as fact whilst sitting a screen many miles away also does you no favours. I'm not saying the situation was handled brilliantly, but putting the dams in was clearly the right thing to do. The work which would be needed in dealing with the pontoons is reason enough on it's own. Have you even been here in the last few days and measured the rate of leakage from the stop lock yourself?

Not that civil

 

Richard

 

You might have the vital image of the missing green rake

 

Richard

If only they'd dammed off the area round by Holliday Wharf, I might have got my coolie hat back which I lost in December.

[RLWP]

Slip the workmen a tenner, they might shift the dam for you

 

Richard

[Dave_P]

Slip the workmen a tenner, they might shift the dam for you

 

Richard

Damn good idea!

[The Bearwood Boster]

My book will be coming out soon-' Me,Heartbreak & My Missing Green Rake'

Trina

[Tony Dunkley]

You're wrong. They changed the plan following discussion with the commercial boaters here and concerns about damage to the pontoons and the worcester bar itself. Stating personal conjecture as fact whilst sitting a screen many miles away also does you no favours. I'm not saying the situation was handled brilliantly, but putting the dams in was clearly the right thing to do. The work which would be needed in dealing with the pontoons is reason enough on it's own. Have you even been here in the last few days and measured the rate of leakage from the stop lock yourself?

 

There's no element of conjecture in anything I've said, but it's interesting to me that the decision to use the temporary dams was influenced by people who wanted to avoid the inconvenience of shifting their boats round to the other side of the Bar. The leakage past the stank at the Bar lock ( and at the stop gates if they were also leaking) is of no importance at all. Leaks round stanks can always be stopped . . . . . by those who know how, of course.

[nicknorman]

You might have the vital image of the missing green rake

Richard

I just had a look through them. 2 boat poles but no rakes, sorry. I guess rakes can be fished out with a magnet (and then "recycled") whereas poles can't.

[Dave_P]

There's no element of conjecture in anything I've said, but it's interesting to me that the decision to use the temporary dams was influenced by people who wanted to avoid the inconvenience of shifting their boats round to the other side of the Bar. The leakage past the stank at the Bar lock ( and at the stop gates if they were also leaking) is of no importance at all. Leaks round stanks can always be stopped . . . . . by those who know how, of course.

You didn't answer my question

Actually, Tony, the first person to suggest that draining the South side of the basin might cause a problem for the pontoons was a commercial operator with 4 boats on the north side of the basin, so it didn't affect him at all. He's been working on boats here for nigh on 50 years and learnt from old boaters who ran operations as far back as the 1920s. Perhaps you know who I'm referring to. Also you might want to stop making false assumptions since you're beginning to look a bit silly now.

[springy]

Bit of video on here

 

http://www.itv.com/news/central/story/2015-02-22/fish-rescued-from-birmingham-canal-before-its-drained/

 

springy

[RLWP]

Bit of video on here

 

http://www.itv.com/news/central/story/2015-02-22/fish-rescued-from-birmingham-canal-before-its-drained/

 

springy

That looked like a big old pike they took out with the net

 

Richard

[Richard T]

Any sign of any safes in there?

[john6767]

Bit of video on here

 

http://www.itv.com/news/central/story/2015-02-22/fish-rescued-from-birmingham-canal-before-its-drained/

 

springy

That is the piece that was on the local news earlier.

[Tony Dunkley]

You didn't answer my question

Actually, Tony, the first person to suggest that draining the South side of the basin might cause a problem for the pontoons was a commercial operator with 4 boats on the north side of the basin, so it didn't affect him at all. He's been working on boats here for nigh on 50 years and learnt from old boaters who ran operations as far back as the 1920s. Perhaps you know who I'm referring to. Also you might want to stop making false assumptions since you're beginning to look a bit silly now.

 

Yes, I know who you're referring to, I also know why he would suggest the 'problem' with the pontoons, and that it would be better not to empty the cut up to the Bar. If you're happy to believe that moving everything round from the southside wouldn't have affected him, well you just carry on thinking that.

[Dave_P]

 

Yes, I know who you're referring to, I also know why he would suggest the 'problem' with the pontoons, and that it would be better not to empty the cut up to the Bar. If you're happy to believe that moving everything round from the southside wouldn't have affected him, well you just carry on thinking that.

It wouldn't any more than had already happened. You're grasping at straws now.

 

You still haven't answered my question.

[Tony Dunkley]

It wouldn't any more than had already happened. You're grasping at straws now.

 

You still haven't answered my question.

 

What question ?

[Dave_P]

It wouldn't any more than had already happened. You're grasping at straws now.

 

You still haven't answered my question.

I can tell from what you're saying that you have pretty much no idea what the situation here is. I do because I'm here. Following the helpful suggestion from a certain commercial boater, the dams were introduced. This has not made any difference at all to that boater and whether or not CRT took his advice also wouldn't have made any difference to him. Perhaps you need to consider that people might just want to be helpful, and don't necessarily need a selfish motive.

 

p.s. You still haven't answered my question.

 

What question ?

This one "Have you even been here in the last few days and measured the rate of leakage from the stop lock yourself?"