Minworth embankment repair

[archie57]

Wouldn't you have expected the canal to have been cleaned out before starting the job, so they could see what they were doing, or am I being silly.............

[Rob-M]

1 minute ago, archie57 said:

Wouldn't you have expected the canal to have been cleaned out before starting the job, so they could see what they were doing, or am I being silly.............

The new notice states they can't dredge it due to the hazardous nature of the material of the canal bed.

 

[Mike Todd]

1 minute ago, Rob-M said:

The new notice states they can't dredge it due to the hazardous nature of the material of the canal bed.

 

After all the previous speculation, which now seems way off the mark, the main question not answered is when was the hazardous nature discovered? Quiet what the problem is, is also not described but presumably what is underneath the rubble and woodwork is the issue. Today, disposing of dredging material is far from simple, nor cheap, especially if someone has now discovered that there is something really noxious in the silt - which does happen with canals that passed through industrial areas and were once treated as a simple disposal channel.

It would be more than a little interesting to hear back as and when one of the consultative bodies (or whatever they are called) successfully presses CaRT for a fuller explanation. I suspect that the story is much more complex than this thread had hitherto assumed.

[archie57]

9 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

The new notice states they can't dredge it due to the hazardous nature of the material of the canal bed.

 

I dare say most of the canals in that part of the world contain contaminated silt - our lords and masters should/would have expected that and prepared accordingly

[Rob-M]

1 hour ago, archie57 said:

I dare say most of the canals in that part of the world contain contaminated silt - our lords and masters should/would have expected that and prepared accordingly

Depending on the contaminants it could mean that special disposal arrangements are required that could be very costly so maybe the plan was to cover the canal bed keeping a reasonable depth and get the canal reopened rather than keep it closed until the funds were available to deal with the waste material.

[carlt]

1 hour ago, archie57 said:

I dare say most of the canals in that part of the world contain contaminated silt -

Perhaps the canal runs through Brian Aldridge's land.

[RLWP]

9 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

Depending on the contaminants it could mean that special disposal arrangements are required that could be very costly so maybe the plan was to cover the canal bed keeping a reasonable depth and get the canal reopened rather than keep it closed until the funds were available to deal with the waste material.

There are some very exciting contaminants in parts of the BCN, phosphorous for instance

Richard

[system 4-50]

Fascinating.  Does dealing with contaminated land mean digging it up and plonking it down somewhere else?  How does that help?  Or does it mean processing chemically to make it non-hazardous?

[carlt]

3 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

Fascinating.  Does dealing with contaminated land mean digging it up and plonking it down somewhere else?  How does that help?  Or does it mean processing chemically to make it non-hazardous?

Whenever I came across noxiousness I immediately engaged a specialist contractor to deal with it and waited for the very large bill.

I believe they then sold it to the Chinese....(not really).

Edited to add: One surprising substance that got the EA wetting their pants was an overturned tanker of fresh orange juice.

Edited March 26, 2018 by carlt

[system 4-50]

3 minutes ago, RLWP said:

There are some very exciting contaminants in parts of the BCN, phosphorous for instance

Richard

Phosphorus in contaminants perhaps, but not raw phosphorus?  What phosphorus compounds?

Edited March 26, 2018 by system 4-50

[Rob-M]

2 minutes ago, RLWP said:

There are some very exciting contaminants in parts of the BCN, phosphorous for instance

Richard

Is that why I could see the canal clearly at 3am on the BCN challenge last year..?

[MoominPapa]

20 minutes ago, carlt said:

Perhaps the canal runs through Brian Aldridge's land.

The prospect of the Aldridges in penury and Brian in prison is the only thing keeping me going these days.

 

MP.

 

[tree monkey]

13 minutes ago, MoominPapa said:

The prospect of the Aldridges in penury and Brian in prison is the only thing keeping me going these days.

 

MP.

 

I would be happy to see Alice locked up for a very long time

[Tuscan]

2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

After all the previous speculation, which now seems way off the mark, the main question not answered is when was the hazardous nature discovered? Quiet what the problem is, is also not described but presumably what is underneath the rubble and woodwork is the issue. Today, disposing of dredging material is far from simple, nor cheap, especially if someone has now discovered that there is something really noxious in the silt - which does happen with canals that passed through industrial areas and were once treated as a simple disposal channel.

It would be more than a little interesting to hear back as and when one of the consultative bodies (or whatever they are called) successfully presses CaRT for a fuller explanation. I suspect that the story is much more complex than this thread had hitherto assumed.

Surely it would have been possible to require the contractor to recover the whatever he added to the canal bed to at least return the canal to the same navigational level/depth.

[ditchcrawler]

41 minutes ago, carlt said:

Whenever I came across noxiousness I immediately engaged a specialist contractor to deal with it and waited for the very large bill.

 

That is OK until someone finds it in a layby 

[nicknorman]

Regarding the stoppage notice, firstly there is definitely not 0.9m depth mid channel, only 0.8m. Secondly the problem has arisen due to the material (rocks) they have put into the canal. It was shallow before, but it is much shallower now.

[rusty69]

11 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Regarding the stoppage notice, firstly there is definitely not 0.9m depth mid channel, only 0.8m. Secondly the problem has arisen due to the material (rocks) they have put into the canal. It was shallow before, but it is much shallower now.

Did you receive a response to your e-mail to Ian Lane? (sorry if I missed it)

Edited March 26, 2018 by rusty69

[nicknorman]

20 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Did you receive a response to your e-mail to Ian Lane? (sorry if I missed it)

I just got an email from Ian sent 20:17 (he is a hard working chap!). It is lengthy and I am still digesting it, but cause of the problem aside he has a multi-point plan to fix it, so I am confident that normal navigation will be resumed shortly.

[Victor Vectis]

4 hours ago, carlt said:

Perhaps the canal runs through Brian Aldridge's land.

An Archers reference.

Well done sir!

May I recommend this podcast, it's great fun: Dum Tee Dum

 

[Victor Vectis]

3 hours ago, MoominPapa said:

The prospect of the Aldridges in penury and Brian in prison is the only thing keeping me going these days.

 

MP.

I relish the prospect of Jennydarling and Kate working nights at the chicken factory, Rurai (or however else his name is spent) at Borchester comp, Adam trying to earn a living as a rent boy in the seedier parts of Felpersham, Debbie picking cabbages in Hungary and Alice in rehab.

Far be it for me to relish in the misfortunes of House Aldridge.

(NOT!)

 

[pearley]

12 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Regarding the stoppage notice, firstly there is definitely not 0.9m depth mid channel, only 0.8m. Secondly the problem has arisen due to the material (rocks) they have put into the canal. It was shallow before, but it is much shallower now.

We came from Rugeley to Fazeley on Saturday, passing the tug  Enterprise on the way. I thought they moored at Hawne so would have come through Minworth with a 3 ft draught (might be mistaken)  but on the otherhand spoke to another boater on Sunday who said he was dragging the bottom at Minworth with a 2 ft draught. 

Oddly there is a notice on the signpost at Fazeley Junction stating that the Cudworth Flight is closed UFN due to low water levels at Minworth. I assume not removed when the stoppage ended. 

[Graham_Robinson]

Enterprise is heading to Ellesmere Port From Brinklow.

[koukouvagia]

On 26/03/2018 at 19:05, carlt said:

Perhaps the canal runs through Brian Aldridge's land.

No, I think the canal is safe.  The pollution would have had to travel a long way via the Am and the Perch before it reached Felpersham canal.

By the way, what happened to the proposed Felpersham canal restoration scheme announced by CRT a few years ago?

Edited March 28, 2018 by koukouvagia

[PeterG]

On 26/03/2018 at 20:46, nicknorman said:

I just got an email from Ian sent 20:17 (he is a hard working chap!). It is lengthy and I am still digesting it, but cause of the problem aside he has a multi-point plan to fix it, so I am confident that normal navigation will be resumed shortly.

Would be great to hear what he has to say as the Navigation Restriction posting is reading like there is no problem at Minworth which is obviously not the case.  The instructions to keep in the centre of the pound are what we have had to do for the last couple of years and even when they reinstate the depth by removing the rubble the contractor left in I am not at all confident the situation will be improved from then.

As I normally go up the flight I do not even have the option of flushing a lock or more of water through to help out.

[nicknorman]

2 hours ago, PeterG said:

Would be great to hear what he has to say as the Navigation Restriction posting is reading like there is no problem at Minworth which is obviously not the case.  The instructions to keep in the centre of the pound are what we have had to do for the last couple of years and even when they reinstate the depth by removing the rubble the contractor left in I am not at all confident the situation will be improved from then.

As I normally go up the flight I do not even have the option of flushing a lock or more of water through to help out.

As he had the courtesy to send me a lengthy personal email about it, I don’t want to breach trust by publicising it on here. However the gist is that on the one hand he is being told by his guys there should be 0.9m, whilst on the other hand in no way trying to dispute or dismiss my side of the story which is that there is probably only 0.75m maximum, and a rocky/stony bottom.

The plan (as of Monday) is to have a tug on site today to redistribute the silt to clear a channel in the middle, and do some general depth soundings. He is as keen as me to find out exactly what is down there (well actually, I already have a pretty good idea!). Look at adding a temporary weir board to raise the level, however it is already close to the top of the bank/piling in places so this could only be a temporary measure due to the risk of overflowing/ flooding. Maybe look at reinstating the poles to keep boats centre channel past the repair.

He said they already took out 100 tonnes of contaminated material in the vicinity of the repair (I said that a lot more new material has been put back in!) and that longer term they will need to dredge the entire 1km pound, removing about 500 tonnes of material based on previous depth data and what they found during the repair.

He was very apologetic for the difficulties caused and in no way trying to play it down. I think he gets a bit frustrated being stuck in an office and no longer hands-on!