Middlewich Branch breach - Shropshire Union

[Dave123]

It says now on the CRT website that the suspected cause of the breach was both sets of paddles on Stanthorne lock being left open, and the increased flow overtopping the canal - as opposed to poor maintenance or inadequate inspections. But could the lock really let water down fast enough to overcome the by wash at Wardle lock and the overflow on the embankment? I would have thought wash from speeding boats would cause more damage? Just seems a bit convenient for CRT to be able to blame 'vandalism'.

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

Just seems a bit convenient for CRT to be able to blame 'vandalism'.

Are you just voicing what 30,000 boaters are thinking ?

Were you aware that all lock damage is now down to boaters - even when the rotten balance beams snap-off.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[dor]

1 minute ago, Dave123 said:

It says now on the CRT website that the suspected cause of the breach was both sets of paddles on Stanthorne lock being left open, and the increased flow overtopping the canal - as opposed to poor maintenance or inadequate inspections. But could the lock really let water down fast enough to overcome the by wash at Wardle lock and the overflow on the embankment? I would have thought wash from speeding boats would cause more damage? Just seems a bit convenient for CRT to be able to blame 'vandalism'.

I suspect if the top of the wash wall was quite near the water level it could start running over the towpath., especially at night with Wardle lock not being used.  This could quite soon cause problems on such a sandy substrate.  It is a long pound above Stanthorne so there wouldn't have been much reduction in flow through the lock for quite a while. 

Of cvourse if we still had proper lengthsmen then they would have been questioning the height of the wash wall long before it had subsided enough to cause this problem.

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, dor said:

Of cvourse if we still had proper lengthsmen then they would have been questioning the height of the wash wall long before it had subsided enough to cause this problem.

 

Lets say 200 lengthsmen looking after ten miles each.  Lets also say they are on 30k a year each. Cost to CRT will be approx £60k each once all employer expenses are loaded in (sick pay, pension provision, maternity leave and all that). 200 x £60k = £12m a year.

Cheaper to fix the breaches. 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Lets say 200 lengthsmen looking after ten miles each.  Lets also say they are on 30k a year each. Cost to CRT will be approx £60k each once all employer expenses are loaded in (sick pay, pension provision, maternity leave and all that). 200 x £60k = £12m a year.

Cheaper to fix the breaches. 

Many moons ago as a supplier to Ford Motor Company I became aware of a problem and the need for them to make a tough financial decision. 

In the US there was one model of car that had had a number of unexplained fires, the fault was found and the component was identified - this component was fitted to many different models.

A cost analysis was undertaken on the recall of many millions of vehicles.

A cost analysis was taken on the likely number of fires, the likely number of deaths resulting from the fires and the overall cost of compensation.

It was decided it was commercially sensible to take the risk and pay out for any deaths / compensation claims

[Dave123]

24 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Are you just voicing what 30,000 boaters are thinking ?

Were you aware that all lock damage is now down to boaters - even when the rotten balance beams snap-off.

I know...and it makes it easier to get out the begging bowl if it wasn't CRT's fault

[TheBiscuits]

13 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Lets say 200 lengthsmen looking after ten miles each.  Lets also say they are on 30k a year each. Cost to CRT will be approx £60k each once all employer expenses are loaded in (sick pay, pension provision, maternity leave and all that). 200 x £60k = £12m a year.

Which is within 20% of what they currently pay Fountains to mow the grass and clean the toilets ...

[Dave123]

13 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Lets say 200 lengthsmen looking after ten miles each.  Lets also say they are on 30k a year each. Cost to CRT will be approx £60k each once all employer expenses are loaded in (sick pay, pension provision, maternity leave and all that). 200 x £60k = £12m a year.

Cheaper to fix the breaches. 

They do still have lengthsmen in some form, I recently met one, but this chap covers some 20 miles of the lower G.U.

[Peter Thornton]

21 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Many moons ago as a supplier to Ford Motor Company I became aware of a problem and the need for them to make a tough financial decision. 

In the US there was one model of car that had had a number of unexplained fires, the fault was found and the component was identified - this component was fitted to many different models.

A cost analysis was undertaken on the recall of many millions of vehicles.

A cost analysis was taken on the likely number of fires, the likely number of deaths resulting from the fires and the overall cost of compensation.

It was decided it was commercially sensible to take the risk and pay out for any deaths / compensation claims

You are Ralph Nader, and I claim my prize,

[rgreg]

22 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

Which is within 20% of what they currently pay Fountains to mow the grass and clean the toilets ...

Where does that figure come from? As far as I can see, in 2016/17, according to CRT accounts, they spent £7.9 million on vegetation. I can't see a specific number for toilet cleaning but £7.3 million was spent on "customer services and facilities".

[ditchcrawler]

I just saw this on a New Group, remember them? I can't get it to work but others may https://sketchfab.com/models/8b1ee55ef2984cbc86f9a87033454bcf

[haggis]

47 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I just saw this on a New Group, remember them? I can't get it to work but others may https://sketchfab.com/models/8b1ee55ef2984cbc86f9a87033454bcf

I tried to open it and it is hogging my PC. Beware!

I couldn't close it down and even coming out of Chrome, it kept running. Tried a restart but the PC wouldn't shut down so I pulled out the power plug. Switched back on and it took ages to come up so I think that something nasty is going on in the back ground. I have my fingers crossed!

haggis

Edited March 28, 2018 by haggis

[john6767]

35 minutes ago, haggis said:

I tried to open it and it is hogging my PC. Beware!

I couldn't close it down and even coming out of Chrome, it kept running. Tried a restart but the PC wouldn't shut down so I pulled out the power plug. Switched back on and it took ages to come up so I think that something nasty is going on in the back ground. I have my fingers crossed!

haggis

Worked OK for me in Chrome.  It is a 3D model of the breach site.

[WotEver]

1 minute ago, john6767 said:

Worked OK for me in Chrome.  It is a 3D model of the breach site.

Worked ok for me on Safari on me phone too. It’s pretty cool. 

[Jess--]

39 minutes ago, haggis said:

I tried to open it and it is hogging my PC. Beware!

I couldn't close it down and even coming out of Chrome, it kept running. Tried a restart but the PC wouldn't shut down so I pulled out the power plug. Switched back on and it took ages to come up so I think that something nasty is going on in the back ground. I have my fingers crossed!

haggis

works fine here (Chrome / Windows 7), nothing unusual seems to be happening with it and cpu usage is at 0-2% even with it blown up across 2 screens.

I will add that I have a fairly hefty video card which chrome has access to for 3d rendering, if your machine doesn't have that available it may be having to do all the rendering via the cpu (which will slow things down a lot)

[Alan de Enfield]

Worked fine for me in IE and Win 10

[rusty69]

Worked fine for me in the pub . Hicuupp!

[haggis]

That's great that it is working OK for folk. It is probably my PC which is not in the first flush of youth :-) . 

haggis

[ditchcrawler]

I think my problem is connection speed

[Dr Bob]

5 hours ago, haggis said:

That's great that it is working OK for folk. It is probably my PC which is not in the first flush of youth :-) . 

haggis

It hasnt run on my Mac.

I didnt fancy clicking the link after the doom and gloom of earlier.

[jam]

Works fine for me on Firefox and is quite a good variable 3 dimensional view of the breach taken from the drone footage. Had no issue in escaping from it.

[Peter X]

Also OK for me on Chrome and Windows 7, on quite an old PC; don't know what video card I have but probably nothing special.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

On 3/18/2018 at 12:22, speedypete202 said:

Having been the one who spoke at length to the poor chap and helped the him recover some belongings from his boat he said he had lost a mooring pin earlier in the day because someone went past him too fast. He was tied to the bank on only one pin when the embankment went! He must have grounded. He is undoubtedly extremely lucky/unlucky depending on how you look at it.

It may have leaked more seriously for a period of up to five and a half hours before the breach as all four paddles were up on Stanthorne lock when the police and I closed them just after midnight. I assume that the level had dropped and someone had, with the best intentions, opened them to fill the pound back up. Of course, they could have been left up through negligence or recklessness but lazy boaters tend to leave just one set of paddles up. If this is the case, I would hope it serves as a stark reminder of the disastrous consequences such stupidity can cause. 

Whether the increased flow / level had a hand in causing the breach I can't say but the extra water coming down from Stanthorne certainly led to much faster erosion of the canal. 

Sadly our share boat is stuck until the re-float can commence. I am hearing Facebook rumours that this might be completed "within the week". Seems unlikely, but fingers crossed!!

 

On 3/27/2018 at 13:54, Dave123 said:

It says now on the CRT website that the suspected cause of the breach was both sets of paddles on Stanthorne lock being left open, and the increased flow overtopping the canal - as opposed to poor maintenance or inadequate inspections. But could the lock really let water down fast enough to overcome the by wash at Wardle lock and the overflow on the embankment? I would have thought wash from speeding boats would cause more damage? Just seems a bit convenient for CRT to be able to blame 'vandalism'.

Doesn't the CRT theory tie in with the post above from earlier in the thread? I have been told (so it is third hand info) that they put the stop planks in at Aqueduct Marina on the night of the breach,which by my reckoning is over 6 miles away. That would be a serious amount of water to have passed through Stanthorpe Lock if some half wit had intentionally left all the paddles open.

[Keeping Up]

One thing that is fairly certain is that no boater would accidentally leave all 4 paddles open. It's not possible to get through a lock that way.

[Rob-M]

2 minutes ago, Keeping Up said:

One thing that is fairly certain is that no boater would accidentally leave all 4 paddles open. It's not possible to get through a lock that way.

I've seen a few try when they haven't had a clue what to do.