Jump to content

Minworth embankment repair


nicknorman

Featured Posts

From memory C&RT have stated that dredging costs vary between £30 and £100 per m3 removed. Higher disposal costs of contaminated silt is just one of the factors involved.

Regarding this project not being the responsibility of West Miidlands office but run centrally, this is true. About two and a half years ago C&RT set up a centralised integrated delivery team. Responsibilities include engineering and construction projects (Kier) and dredging projects (Land & Water).

Much of the centralisation that took place just a couple of years ago will be reversed in the next few months.

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Removed redundant comma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2018 at 21:29, nicknorman said:

Hmmmmm, from Wikipedia (which, as we know, is always right):

 

it is often stated that the Union Flag should only be described as the Union Jack when flown in the bows of a warship, but this is a relatively recent idea. From early in its life the Admiralty itself frequently referred to the flag as the Union Jack, whatever its use, and in 1902 an Admiralty circular announced that Their Lordships had decided that either name could be used officially. In 1908, a government minister stated, in response to a parliamentary question, that "the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag"

https://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/british-flags/the-union-jack-or-the-union-flag/

A 'jack' is a smaller version of the flag that could be flown from a mainstaff.  The guy who wrote the above suggests that the position is not the determining factor; it really should not be called a 'jack' but an ensign now if flown from the bow, unless I have misunderstood, which is entirely possible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, JamesWoolcock said:

<SNIP>

Jane Marriott tells me that they now know this was a great mistake from which they have now learnt. And can't apologise enough.

Whilst I was there Kier had a large machine back in the canal bed and were removing the now 'hazardous' stone, which will be very expensive to dispose of.

All round the very best of intentions but a great cock up nevertheless.

<SNIP>


Thanks indeed for this very detailed follow up, James.

As you say one very almighty, and doubtless very expensive cock up.

Hopefully whoever at CRT took the decision that the canal could realistically be re-watered with all that still in there will have had the error of their ways very forcefully pointed out to them.  Presumably this must fall fully under the remit of Julie Sharman?  If so I found her to be a highly switched on professional engineer - I wonder what she must think of this happening on her watch, and what steps she will now be taking to ensure nothing similar happens in future.

Not their finest hour!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously the contaminated silt is an issue, but those rocks look to me like they could easily be put on a mesh grid and hosed down, then no longer contaminated! They look pretty clean even sitting on the bottom of the cut! It would seem doubtful that the contamination would significantly penetrate solid rock.

Edited by nicknorman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/04/2018 at 08:45, pearley said:

This picture which shows the rebuilt wash wall would appear to show, by the nicely graded bank, that all the silt/muck was put back against the wall. 

A79A5364-F6E0-4646-AE30-9940C8654368.jpeg.1956f1d8a90b020915195dbf7b5dc2e2.jpeg

Yes.

Coming through the other week the water at the lock tail was fine. The bumpin' & grindin' started next to the barrier on the towpath and all along by that nice new brickwork.

ETA I was single handing that day. As I was coming out of the lock another boat was trying to come in. I use the boat pole to close the gates when coming down a narrow lock but I wonder if I could have got on the lock landing had I needed to?

Edited by Victor Vectis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has Ms Sharman ever got into her nice comfy expensive company car and driven out there, put her CRT issue green Hunter wellies on and had a look? Never seen her in wellies, or on public transport.

Or is the whole thing below her dignity?

Edited by Boater Sam
  • Unimpressed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Boater Sam said:

Has Ms Sharman ever got into her nice comfy expensive company car and driven out there, put her CRT issue green Hunter wellies on and had a look? Never seen her in wellies, or on public transport.

Or is the whole thing below her dignity?

Another totally unhelpful comment.

I would judge her as very much hands on, given her pre CRT background, and I'd be very surprised if she hadn't got directly involved.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Obviously the contaminated silt is an issue, but those rocks look to me like they could easily be put on a mesh grid and hosed down, then no longer contaminated! They look pretty clean even sitting on the bottom of the cut! It would seem doubtful that the contamination would significantly penetrate solid rock.

I completely agree. Its common practice to reduce contamination of such materials so that they can be disposed of as normal waste. As you say the silt could remain in situ if they cannot afford removal.

Given that CRT spend a lot of money on towpath repairs, investment in a crusher (or hire) would give them free material and gain them environmental browny points by recycling.

I am interested in the degree of contamination, after all the water in canals usually enters watercourses, either via overflow points or through leakage. I do wonder if the reported contamination is a real concern or if its just easier to to declare its all contaminated. Has any information ever been made available on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, jonesthenuke said:

I am interested in the degree of contamination, after all the water in canals usually enters watercourses, either via overflow points or through leakage. I do wonder if the reported contamination is a real concern or if its just easier to to declare its all contaminated. Has any information ever been made available on this?

As I understand it, much of the contamination in the industrial parts of the system is a horrible mix of heavy metals and unpleasant chemicals depending on who dumped what into the canal in years gone by.

If this is buried under a couple of feet of silt on the canal bed it does not generally present a hazard, but as soon as you start dredging or clearing the silt it releases the nasty stuff that has sat undisturbed for 30 years or more.

It isn't an easy one to fix - we don't want all the industrial canal sections to be declared a hazardous material exclusion zone, and if CRT assume that all silt is hazardous any planned dredging would have to reduce significantly at the same budget level.

There probably are traces of contamination in the water in these sections, but toxicity is in the dose and I know the Environment Agency do check the water quality from time to time. 

Last year they checked the horrible brown water coming down the L&L through Blackburn, and the chap doing the testing said the water quality was better than that feeding the local drinking water reservoirs.  The amount of weed growth and the numbers of fish would tend to suggest the water is good stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

As I understand it, much of the contamination in the industrial parts of the system is a horrible mix of heavy metals and unpleasant chemicals depending on who dumped what into the canal in years gone by.

If this is buried under a couple of feet of silt on the canal bed it does not generally present a hazard, but as soon as you start dredging or clearing the silt it releases the nasty stuff that has sat undisturbed for 30 years or more.

It isn't an easy one to fix - we don't want all the industrial canal sections to be declared a hazardous material exclusion zone, and if CRT assume that all silt is hazardous any planned dredging would have to reduce significantly at the same budget level.

There probably are traces of contamination in the water in these sections, but toxicity is in the dose and I know the Environment Agency do check the water quality from time to time. 

Last year they checked the horrible brown water coming down the L&L through Blackburn, and the chap doing the testing said the water quality was better than that feeding the local drinking water reservoirs.  The amount of weed growth and the numbers of fish would tend to suggest the water is good stuff.

Agreed, this appears to be the general story that you hear, but is there any data? If the risk is less than perceived then the extent of dredging could be greater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps executive responsibility lies with Simon Bamford rather than Julie Sharman.

From C&RT's website 10 November 2017 -

Quote

 

Simon Bamford becomes Asset Improvement Director, responsible for delivering the Trust’s long-term asset programmes – both through the Trust’s Direct Services teams and its contractors. 

 

That may change in June if responsibility is devolved to regions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Obviously the contaminated silt is an issue, but those rocks look to me like they could easily be put on a mesh grid and hosed down, then no longer contaminated! They look pretty clean even sitting on the bottom of the cut! It would seem doubtful that the contamination would significantly penetrate solid rock.

My thoughts exactly, they could removery a small amount of the stone, put it in a net, hose it down over the canal and then test the stone for contamination by hazardous materials.

If it proves successful then remove the remainder of the stone from the canal. If not you will  only have incurred a small cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned depth of water alongside the services. Are there any? We went past several times last year and they were out of order. At the time I did manage to pull alongside to de-foul the prop. A builders bag from the new development was a bit of a sod to remove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cheshire cat said:

Someone mentioned depth of water alongside the services. Are there any? We went past several times last year and they were out of order. At the time I did manage to pull alongside to de-foul the prop. A builders bag from the new development was a bit of a sod to remove.

No, they have been closed for a while "due to repetitive vandalism" but I think the water point might still work, not sure. There used to be a rubbish skip just above the top lock but that too is gone due to abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nicknorman said:

No, they have been closed for a while "due to repetitive vandalism" but I think the water point might still work, not sure. There used to be a rubbish skip just above the top lock but that too is gone due to abuse.

The offside skip went because CRT lost access to it

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
  • 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.