Now somebody actually has fallen from Marple aqueduct, unfortunately.

[GreyLady]

 

I think they are having Corbyn turn up and give them "knowledge" on how to do it. Minus his travelling expenses and paperwork, I think that works out at 37.50 Pounds to his pocket after taxes and VAT.

 

Does that include his evening dining, sausage and chips from a truck stop. lol

[Emerald Fox]

 

Come on now. Let's not let something as silly as facts get in the way of a good old-fashioned Chinese whispers campaign that offers comfort to the cynical by validating their belief that the sort of people who trouble themselves with things like 'heritage projects' (huh!) and 'public safety' (yeah, right!) are bound to be bureaucratic fatcats simply looking for ways to waste taxpayers' money and/or line their own pockets and/or spoil everybody else's fun, probably because of the EU or something.

 

I mean, God forbid that we should support the spending of a very modest amount of public money on a project that aims to preserve a cherished waterways feature, make sure it's safe for users/visitors including children, create a new Heritage Park at the site of Mellor Mill, get local people involved in archaeology and history, etc. Far more fun to oppose the spending of an imaginary amount of money on a railing that one might think is a pretty simple and sensible safety precaution, especially after this incident.

 

Glad you're on our side. More like this please

We don't even know which side he fell off yet!

 

If there was 1.5 million in 5 Pound banknotes down there, that would have cushioned his fall.

 

They would need to erect a safety barrier to protect the public from all those diggers

 

For a moment I thought you were talking about the Houses of Parliament!

[magpie patrick]

To repeat what i said on the other thread, this unfortunate chap is not the first to fall off the aqueduct. One of my class mates fell (or jumped) in 1982, not only did he not survive it was about three weeks before they found him, in the meantime he was regarded as "missing". I will repeat what I said before, that incident didn't then and doesn't now persuade me that a railing is necessary, even though I felt the tragedy first hand. For the railing to prevent someone falling off they need to have got on the offside, there is plenty of warning not to go there and barriers to just walking on from the adjoining canal bank. If they have done this they are either unbelievably unobservant, reckless, or not of sound mind. The railing will only be really effective for the unbelievably unobservant.

 

I know of someone more recently who got off on the wrong side and ran to overtake his boat: I was with him, his girlfriend, who was steering, was unimpressed. His attitude seems to have been that "he wasn't going to fall off". I'd have been horrified if he'd fallen off but both she and thought he was an idiot for taking the risk.

 

To install the rail I guess the workers will wear safety harnesses - to do repair works recently the workers abseiled from the aqueduct.

 

I will now change my stance - IF the rail is a done deal then it needs a competent design that is "in keeping" - I don't mean a slavish copy of the other side or worse a copy of a BCN railing, simply something that does not distract from the structure. Also, if possible, access to both sides should then be provided, if you're going to make it safe you might as well open access up.

[Machpoint005]

But who erects the temporary safety rails? Won't someone have to erect even more temporary rails to protect the temporary rail erector and wouldn't it be cheaper if he just fitted the permanent rail in the first place?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

People who specialise in accessing difficult sites, who can (eg) use harnesses whilst the temporary barriers go up. These are different people from those who undertake civil engineering works on permanent structures. I don't think you could do this safely without a great deal of planning. Life isn't nearly as cheap as it was when the Aqueduct first went up (I'm pleased to say).

[alan_fincher]

We don't even know which side he fell off yet!

 

 

Daniel

 

Quite - I don't think we do, do we?

 

Rather relevant to the debate as to whether a non tow-path side barrier would have made any difference!

[Jerra]

Is there not a danger that a set of railings will give the impression the other side of the canal is safe? This could lead to more incidents of people trying to leap the canal, which could lead to more injuries from not making it or making it and colliding with the railings.

[furnessvale]

 

People who specialise in accessing difficult sites, who can (eg) use harnesses whilst the temporary barriers go up. These are different people from those who undertake civil engineering works on permanent structures. I don't think you could do this safely without a great deal of planning. Life isn't nearly as cheap as it was when the Aqueduct first went up (I'm pleased to say).

Having worked on major civils projects I am aware of that.

 

Sadly my attempt at humour failed (again).

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Is there not a danger that a set of railings will give the impression the other side of the canal is safe? This could lead to more incidents of people trying to leap the canal, which could lead to more injuries from not making it or making it and colliding with the railings.

All having been pointed out to CRT to no avail.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[b0atman]

Will there be a follow up to the reason behind the fall or is it another story that disappears unless the ambulance chaser lawyers get hold of it.

[blackrose]

Will there be a follow up to the reason behind the fall or is it another story that disappears unless the ambulance chaser lawyers get hold of it.

 

You haven't been following the thread Boatman. Apparently the reason for the accident doesn't matter!

 

No, I don't get it either...

Edited September 9, 2015 by blackrose

[mayalld]

 

I mean, God forbid that we should support the spending of a very modest amount of public money on a project that aims to preserve a cherished waterways feature, make sure it's safe for users/visitors including children, create a new Heritage Park at the site of Mellor Mill, get local people involved in archaeology and history, etc. Far more fun to oppose the spending of an imaginary amount of money on a railing that one might think is a pretty simple and sensible safety precaution, especially after this incident.

They aren't "preserving" it. They are sticking a dirty great fence that doesn't belong there. Changing something so it looks different to the way it has looked for 200 years is not preservation.

 

The aqueduct already is safe. Danger only arises if you deliberately put yourself in danger.

 

If they fit the fence and people climb it, what next?

[GreyLady]

They aren't "preserving" it. They are sticking a dirty great fence that doesn't belong there. Changing something so it looks different to the way it has looked for 200 years is not preservation.

 

The aqueduct already is safe. Danger only arises if you deliberately put yourself in danger.

 

If they fit the fence and people climb it, what next?

 

well they will have to put up a another safety rail up to stop them getting access to the main safety rail, and cardboard is out for a start.

 

its not suppose to happen.

Edited September 9, 2015 by grumpy146

[mayalld]

 

well they will have to put up a another safety rail up to stop them getting access to the main safety rail, and cardboard is out for a start.

 

its not suppose to happen.

Not when it's right outside the environment

[BruceinSanity]

Come on now. Let's not let something as silly as facts get in the way of a good old-fashioned Chinese whispers campaign that offers comfort to the cynical by validating their belief that the sort of people who trouble themselves with things like 'heritage projects' (huh!) and 'public safety' (yeah, right!) are bound to be bureaucratic fatcats simply looking for ways to waste taxpayers' money and/or line their own pockets and/or spoil everybody else's fun, probably because of the EU or something.

 

I mean, God forbid that we should support the spending of a very modest amount of public money on a project that aims to preserve a cherished waterways feature, make sure it's safe for users/visitors including children, create a new Heritage Park at the site of Mellor Mill, get local people involved in archaeology and history, etc. Far more fun to oppose the spending of an imaginary amount of money on a railing that one might think is a pretty simple and sensible safety precaution, especially after this incident.

Greenie for that.

[Little Else]

Has magictime been over the aqueduct? The point is that the aqueduct is already pretty safe! There is a fence on the tow path side and the off side is about 6 feet or so wide before the edge. It is well blocked off either side as well to prevent people coming on to it from the off side. You can't just fall off! The Ponty is far more dangerous as is Chirk.

[Machpoint005]

Having worked on major civils projects I am aware of that.

 

Sadly my attempt at humour failed (again).

 

Indeed, but many on here haven't, and some would be delighted to jump in and blame elfin safety gorn mad...

 

Just getting my retaliation in first!

[b0atman]

Greenie for that.

Why there is no preservation element in the fence and we do not know what actually happened !

[magictime]

They aren't "preserving" it. They are sticking a dirty great fence that doesn't belong there. Changing something so it looks different to the way it has looked for 200 years is not preservation.

 

The aqueduct already is safe. Danger only arises if you deliberately put yourself in danger.

 

If they fit the fence and people climb it, what next?

 

 

Has magictime been over the aqueduct? The point is that the aqueduct is already pretty safe! There is a fence on the tow path side and the off side is about 6 feet or so wide before the edge. It is well blocked off either side as well to prevent people coming on to it from the off side. You can't just fall off! The Ponty is far more dangerous as is Chirk.

 

 

Why there is no preservation element in the fence and we do not know what actually happened !

 

Fair enough, there are differences of opinion over whether the danger to the public justifies the installation of a railing that changes the look of a Grade 1 Listed structure. Personally I can see why the CRT are inclined to err on the side of caution, since they are actually responsible for the safety of people using the aqueduct and so not in a position simply to shrug their shoulders if people fall or nearly fall because they "must have been doing something stupid".

 

I know that the railing itself is not about preserving the aqueduct. I'm just pointing out that this £1.5 million figure being bandied about is not the cost of installing a railing we might or might not be in favour of, but a Lottery Fund contribution to a wider conservation/heritage project that is by and large the sort of thing we should probably be supporting.

[b0atman]

Will the pontsillynameduct be having a fence next ?

No offence to our Welsh friends but that is one hell of an hard language I barely manage English.

Edited September 10, 2015 by b0atman

[Hawkmoth]

Ok, armour and tin hat on. For the ? time we don't know how it happened, but does look, so far, that may well be a Darwin. Very sorry for the parents, but it's impossible to make anything foolproof, fools are too ingenious.

Bob

[Machpoint005]

Will the pontsillynameduct be having a fence next ?

No offence to our Welsh friends but that is one hell of an hard language I barely manage English.

 

No danger to silly walkers at Pontcysyllte, and no temptation to "daredevils" to jump across the navigation -- there is no walkway at all on the offside.

Unlike Marple.

[Emerald Fox]

Will the pontsillynameduct be having a fence next ?

 

Can't CRT just put it in a tunnel?

 

No danger to silly walkers at Pontcysyllte, and no temptation to "daredevils" to jump across the navigation -- there is no walkway at all on the offside.

 

Huh? THAT sounds like more of a dare...!

[Jerra]

 

Can't CRT just put it in a tunnel?

I did suggest a see through half pipe a bit like you see in some aquaria.

[Paul G2]

 

Thanks.

 

As I said the forum search is no longer working for me as it used to, and I'm currently struggling to find reliable ways of looking for things like this.

 

Alan - you can use Google to search a single site, like CWDF. In any Google search box type "site:canalworld.net search term(s)". Make sure there is no space after "site:" and that there is a space between site:canalworld.net and your search term(s).

[churchward]

 

No danger to silly walkers at Pontcysyllte, and no temptation to "daredevils" to jump across the navigation -- there is no walkway at all on the offside.

Unlike Marple.

True for the Pontcysyllte but the Chirk aquaduct just down the canal from it and is very similar in design to Marple I wonder if this will get a fence?

[magpie patrick]

 

No danger to silly walkers at Pontcysyllte, and no temptation to "daredevils" to jump across the navigation -- there is no walkway at all on the offside.

Unlike Marple.

 

There is a significantly greater risk of falling of your boat though, or rather, the risk is the same but the consequences much more severe. I don't think I'd like to go over in Juno whilst sitting in the driving seat (wheel steering) even though I've never fallen out of it