Jump to content

Minworth embankment repair


nicknorman

Featured Posts

3 hours ago, Tuscan said:

Thank you for posting. It would appear that this has still not be resolved for deep drafted boats, hopefully your experience will lead to further remedial work to ensure safe navigation 

The report was dated 10th April - I don't think the remedial work was completed then ?

 

As promised:

 

I arrived at Minworth Bottom Lock around 10am (10 April) to find the water level on weir.

We were two boats so this would have had some effect on levels thereafter, although this is a quarter mile pound, albeit shallow and therefore not holding that much water for it's length..

After Forge Lane Bridge I started to scrape on what felt like fairly small hard items the boat rode over.

At the site of the recent embankment repairs progress was very slow with much graunching from under the boat.

I came to a complete standstill twice.

I had a much shallower draft modern boat behind me crewed by close friends so I knew I wouldn't have to call CRT and that they would rescue me and snatch me of if all else failed.

But after much effort I was free and made very slow progress was made to the middle lock.

I telephoned and reported the issue to Sue Cawson.

I soon received an email copy from Sue of one she sent to Jane Marriot, the engineer who oversaw the remedial works.

And one from Ian Lane copied to Sue and Jane, to tell me that they are organising a full survey, and asking Jane to liaise with me.

I will email Jane over the weekend and appraise her of my experience here, copying to both Sue and Ian, but tomorrow it's the Daw End Canal and the Wyrley and Essington so I expect to be rather busy with the shunters' pole!

 

This picture (from Nick Norman) was taken 16th April

 

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

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The report was dated 10th April - I don't think the remedial work was completed then ?

 

At 10 past midnight on the 10th May James said "I'm going up Minworth tomorrow and will report back" and later on the 10th May he did exactly that. I'd suggest that "10th April" in the report is a brain-fart, and should read "10th May".

 

MP.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think he means 10th May, not 10th April.

If so, what a totally unsatisfactory saga this is.

 

For there still to be problems after the remedial work to try to counter the original disastrous decision seems almost unbelievable.

 

This was never a problematic stretch of canal before this, so even now there is clearly still material that should not be.

 

Marquis is an unloaded converted historic boat, and I suspect if an "historic" with a full load on attempted it, its draught would be considerably more, and the difficulties probably greater.

James also reports the pound as "on weir" as he started his ascent, so if levels were down a bit, it would be worse again.

What on earth will this misguided attempt at economy by CRT end up costing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

What on earth will this misguided attempt at economy by CRT end up costing?

If it educates one bean-counter it might be worth it.

 

Whoever signed off on the plan as a cost saving exercise is going to have a lot of egg on their face so might consider value for money, rather than price next time they need to make such a decision.

 

We can only hope!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MoominPapa said:

At 10 past midnight on the 10th May James said "I'm going up Minworth tomorrow and will report back" and later on the 10th May he did exactly that. I'd suggest that "10th April" in the report is a brain-fart, and should read "10th May".

 

MP.

 

Ha ha. Well spotted. It had been a long day.

Edited by JamesWoolcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MoominPapa said:

At 10 past midnight on the 10th May James said "I'm going up Minworth tomorrow and will report back" and later on the 10th May he did exactly that. I'd suggest that "10th April" in the report is a brain-fart, and should read "10th May".

 

MP.

 

I read it as :

 

The post was made on the 10th May and said "I'm going up Minworth tomorrow and will report back"  (I assumed) on the 11th.

 

The report was dated 10th April so I assumed that it was a reminder of the previous months situation.

 

Just shows what assumptions can do for you.

 

With hindsight and other views -  a brain-fart is the more likely reason.

 

If it is still marginally navigable after the remedial work - it just again highlights the incompetence of C&RT management in managing even a small project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JamesWoolcock said:

As promised:

 

I arrived at Minworth Bottom Lock around 10am (10 April) to find the water level on weir.

We were two boats so this would have had some effect on levels thereafter, although this is a quarter mile pound, albeit shallow and therefore not holding that much water for it's length..

After Forge Lane Bridge I started to scrape on what felt like fairly small hard items the boat rode over.

At the site of the recent embankment repairs progress was very slow with much graunching from under the boat.

I came to a complete standstill twice.

I had a much shallower draft modern boat behind me crewed by close friends so I knew I wouldn't have to call CRT and that they would rescue me and snatch me of if all else failed.

But after much effort I was free and made very slow progress was made to the middle lock.

I telephoned and reported the issue to Sue Cawson.

I soon received an email copy from Sue of one she sent to Jane Marriot, the engineer who oversaw the remedial works.

And one from Ian Lane copied to Sue and Jane, to tell me that they are organising a full survey, and asking Jane to liaise with me.

I will email Jane over the weekend and appraise her of my experience here, copying to both Sue and Ian, but tomorrow it's the Daw End Canal and the Wyrley and Essington so I expect to be rather busy with the shunters' pole!

 

James

What is your draught please?

My understanding from crewing on Nuneaton and Brighton with the NBT is that as a historic boat is loaded up the draught doesn't increase much at first because the bow is not far into the water when empty; as we load the bow goes down a lot and the stern a little. But once the boat is level, the depth increases about an inch for every extra ton of cargo. Of course, if we really fully loaded a Grand Union Town class pair, we'd go aground in a lot of places on today's canals!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question, and will be interested in James' answer.

 

Some pictures I have suggest well ballasted down at the back, but this one suggests it is run with the counter perhaps not quite on the water.

 

IMG_0170.JPG


It looks like it might have some kind of small "skirt" at the back to allow it it run slightly less ballasted than might otherwise be ideal, but perhaps I'm misreading what I'm looking at.

They all actually tend to run at something like about 3' static, (sometimes a bit less), and that's what I'm guessing here, unless it's history as a a former steamer means it is deeper under the counter than a boat originally built for a diesel engine.

Edited by alan_fincher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We came down through Minworth on Friday, 11th May, in our modern boat drawing around 2ft 3in, progress was slow going through the pound although I didn't notice much grinding noise. Lots of rubbish around and many likes on the towpath where others boaters had been down their weedhatch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/05/2018 at 13:54, alan_fincher said:

Good question, and will be interested in James' answer.

 

Some pictures I have suggest well ballasted down at the back, but this one suggests it is run with the counter perhaps not quite on the water.

 

IMG_0170.JPG


It looks like it might have some kind of small "skirt" at the back to allow it it run slightly less ballasted than might otherwise be ideal, but perhaps I'm misreading what I'm looking at.

They all actually tend to run at something like about 3' static, (sometimes a bit less), and that's what I'm guessing here, unless it's history as a a former steamer means it is deeper under the counter than a boat originally built for a diesel engine.

MARQUIS is indeed a former FMC steamer of 1898, shortened to 54ft during her later working life on the BCN.

The 'skirt' is in fact a 'false counter' or sub counter, added by Eddie Hambridge and a rather young Andrew Rothen when they worked for Pinders at Horninglow in Burton on Trent in the mid 1960s.

They put the steel bottom on then too.

Like all early steamers she has both a very long swim and entry so when shortened there is only about 16ft where the baseplate sides are parallel.

The purpose of the false counter is twofold: to give greater stability to a now rather wobbly boat and to raise the counter.

The first it must do to some extent, although she can still wobble!

At the last out of water survey in 2017 it was observed that the false counter had become perforated and was full of mud and water. After an excellent repair at Canal Cruising Co's dock in Stone, there is no difference in draught. In the latter respect I don't think it does much. Nevertheless Malcolm Braine advised me not to have it removed because of the stability issue.

She draws 3ft at the back of the skeg and around 2ft 3in at the stem post, representing a load of some 12 tons. This was scientifically measured by popping her alongside EMU with 11 tons of coal on! MARQUIS was lower at the deck beam.

All this is when the two water tanks at the forend are full. When I crossed the lower pound at Minworth they were partly down so she might have been drawing half to one inch more. She does draw down more than this when under way, where here she barely was.

I hope this adds something to the discussion.

 

James

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hmmmm, came up Minworth today. Glided over the point where we had previously grounded, before coming to an abrupt stop just beyond (slightly nearer the lock). Something solid, mid channel. Felt rather familiar! As we left the bottom lock, I noted significant flow over the weir. Fortunately there was a boat entering the middle lock and after they had started to drain the lock, we were able to float free with much revving of the engine. Disappointing! We were pretty much mid-channel. At least this shallow point is now only a few feet long. Probably if I had been going a bit faster we would have got through, but I had slowed to await the descending boat. Here we are firmly on the bottom with the stern abeam the towpath barrier

 

30199202-F24E-4DCA-9587-BCED93F8633A.jpeg.ecf89fa1a3a7b6b34c736e3e4939dc35.jpegE4C3320B-8421-41AF-B4CA-F9207E372D5D.jpeg.82862c639cc6d1af1b40fa1fee2b4902.jpeg9F445A13-D214-4E92-A4FE-FD904529BD63.jpeg.e26befbfe0b29d463ed2be95be95b302.jpeg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Hmmmm, came up Minworth today. Glided over the point where we had previously grounded, before coming to an abrupt stop just beyond (slightly nearer the lock). Something solid, mid channel. Felt rather familiar! As we left the bottom lock, I noted significant flow over the weir. Fortunately there was a boat entering the middle lock and after they had started to drain the lock, we were able to float free with much revving of the engine. Disappointing! We were pretty much mid-channel. At least this shallow point is now only a few feet long. Probably if I had been going a bit faster we would have got through, but I had slowed to await the descending boat. Here we are firmly on the bottom with the stern abeam the towpath barrier

 

30199202-F24E-4DCA-9587-BCED93F8633A.jpeg.ecf89fa1a3a7b6b34c736e3e4939dc35.jpegE4C3320B-8421-41AF-B4CA-F9207E372D5D.jpeg.82862c639cc6d1af1b40fa1fee2b4902.jpeg9F445A13-D214-4E92-A4FE-FD904529BD63.jpeg.e26befbfe0b29d463ed2be95be95b302.jpeg

 

 

That tiller needs a good polish, you could have done that whilst you were stopped there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a very interesting conversation with Richard Parry about this at the weekend.

His frank explanations of what happened didn't entirely align with the statements previously made by CRT.

I don't know to what extent this has been explained or discussed, but Richard said this was not actually about attempted cost saving.

I'll not try to replay the whole conversation here, in case I mangle it, and add to the misinformation, but basically when they came to do the job they found it a far bigger job than they had planned for - the voids that needed filling were huge compared to expectations.  So, as a result, the clock was ticking, and they knew the job would over-run severely, and that they would face criticism for the canal remaining closed at a popular time.

So the decision was taken to remove less of the infill than planned, thinking it would not cause serious problems, but with an expectation that more removal would probably be necessary in a future planned stoppage.

He fully accepted that wrong decisions had been made, but to my view gave reasons for them that I am more inclined to be sympathetic to than most versions of events that have either been surmised by us, or (I think) so far stated by CRT.

I suggested that publishing the entire explanation in detail might attract less criticism than they have so far received.  I got the impression that Richard might well set such an explanation in motion.  I certainly would be interested to see it, as I have been publicly quite critical of this gaffe up until now, and think I have perhaps been overly so, now I am more aware of the isses CRT faced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

We had a very interesting conversation with Richard Parry about this at the weekend.

His frank explanations of what happened didn't entirely align with the statements previously made by CRT.

I don't know to what extent this has been explained or discussed, but Richard said this was not actually about attempted cost saving.

I'll not try to replay the whole conversation here, in case I mangle it, and add to the misinformation, but basically when they came to do the job they found it a far bigger job than they had planned for - the voids that needed filling were huge compared to expectations.  So, as a result, the clock was ticking, and they knew the job would over-run severely, and that they would face criticism for the canal remaining closed at a popular time.

So the decision was taken to remove less of the infill than planned, thinking it would not cause serious problems, but with an expectation that more removal would probably be necessary in a future planned stoppage.

He fully accepted that wrong decisions had been made, but to my view gave reasons for them that I am more inclined to be sympathetic to than most versions of events that have either been surmised by us, or (I think) so far stated by CRT.

I suggested that publishing the entire explanation in detail might attract less criticism than they have so far received.  I got the impression that Richard might well set such an explanation in motion.  I certainly would be interested to see it, as I have been publicly quite critical of this gaffe up until now, and think I have perhaps been overly so, now I am more aware of the isses CRT faced.

....or Mr Parry has found a way to ameliorate the embarrasment , perhaps he will furnish Allan(nb FOI) the details of exactly how much extra the voids were with pictures to back up his claims otherwise the floater will go well floaty.

 

Alan, you shouldn't back down, CRT are top dollar with PR on closures, saying how much they are spending and sticking scaffolding in locks to attract 5000 visitors in a weekend.

Had they have mentioned it (like Marple) shown us Hi-vis managers explaining why the stoppage had been extended, may be we would have believed them.

 

Instead, we had Nicknorman shaving .25mm off his 3 foot Hudson baseplate with photos, before, during and perched on top - even then we had fudged responses until finally someone bit the bullet and admitted a fault- now being superceded by a Parry disclosure that undermines those few CRT bods that have been so honest already.

I dont take you as being gullible, dont start now.

Edited by matty40s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

We had a very interesting conversation with Richard Parry about this at the weekend.

His frank explanations of what happened didn't entirely align with the statements previously made by CRT.

I don't know to what extent this has been explained or discussed, but Richard said this was not actually about attempted cost saving.

I'll not try to replay the whole conversation here, in case I mangle it, and add to the misinformation, but basically when they came to do the job they found it a far bigger job than they had planned for - the voids that needed filling were huge compared to expectations.  So, as a result, the clock was ticking, and they knew the job would over-run severely, and that they would face criticism for the canal remaining closed at a popular time.

So the decision was taken to remove less of the infill than planned, thinking it would not cause serious problems, but with an expectation that more removal would probably be necessary in a future planned stoppage.

He fully accepted that wrong decisions had been made, but to my view gave reasons for them that I am more inclined to be sympathetic to than most versions of events that have either been surmised by us, or (I think) so far stated by CRT.

I suggested that publishing the entire explanation in detail might attract less criticism than they have so far received.  I got the impression that Richard might well set such an explanation in motion.  I certainly would be interested to see it, as I have been publicly quite critical of this gaffe up until now, and think I have perhaps been overly so, now I am more aware of the isses CRT faced.

I think that reasonably aligns with what we have already been told. Yes, not specifically about cost saving but about engineering judgement. Yes, the job was bigger than expected but ultimately, if you add material to an already fairly shallow stretch, that is likely to cause problems especially if it is solid chunks of rock! With the easy availability of laser levels etc, it is trivially easy to determine the depth of water that will result when the channel is refilled. If it supposed to be 0.9m (which isn’t really enough) but is actually less than 0.8m (definitely not enough) then an obvious, basic error has been made. And we are not talking about surveying any great length, the length at issue was only 10-15 metres or so.

 

I can to some extent sympathise with an error. But when the remedial action results in an adjacent bit of the channel being 0.8m, that is harder to excuse!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, matty40s said:

I dont take you as being gullible, dont start now.


If, as I hope he might, Richard Parry gets the full detail behind what he was saying to us on Saturday written up by those involved, and put in the public domain, we can all make up our own minds about whether we are being "gulled" or not.

I don't think that would be a bad thing in the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:


If, as I hope he might, Richard Parry gets the full detail behind what he was saying to us on Saturday written up by those involved, and put in the public domain, we can all make up our own minds about whether we are being "gulled" or not.

I don't think that would be a bad thing in the circumstances.

I suspect that the more time passes since the event, the more the explanation will be massaged into something more acceptable.

 

It was an error, I hope they will do better in the future and I certainly hope they will plan a stoppage to correct the current problems properly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jonesthenuke said:

I suspect that the more time passes since the event, the more the explanation will be massaged into something more acceptable.

 

It was an error, I hope they will do better in the future and I certainly hope they will plan a stoppage to correct the current problems properly. 


There was no attempt by Richard Parry to suggest it was anything other than a cock-up - in fact he used exactly those words.

I would always like to know the actual truth of what went on, and I didn't get the impression on Sunday that if any furher explanation is given it will have been massaged to put a better slant on things.

 

If nothing is forthcoming, I may well give him another 2nudge" on the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

Tiller polishing is Jeff’s department - complain to him!

Is that a euphemism for something?

Edited by MJG
Crap spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rob-M said:

That tiller needs a good polish, you could have done that whilst you were stopped there.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Hmmmm, came up Minworth today. Glided over the point where we had previously grounded, before coming to an abrupt stop just beyond (slightly nearer the lock). Something solid, mid channel. Felt rather familiar! As we left the bottom lock, I noted significant flow over the weir. Fortunately there was a boat entering the middle lock and after they had started to drain the lock, we were able to float free with much revving of the engine. Disappointing! We were pretty much mid-channel. At least this shallow point is now only a few feet long. Probably if I had been going a bit faster we would have got through, but I had slowed to await the descending boat. Here we are firmly on the bottom with the stern abeam the towpath barrier

 

30199202-F24E-4DCA-9587-BCED93F8633A.jpeg.ecf89fa1a3a7b6b34c736e3e4939dc35.jpegE4C3320B-8421-41AF-B4CA-F9207E372D5D.jpeg.82862c639cc6d1af1b40fa1fee2b4902.jpeg9F445A13-D214-4E92-A4FE-FD904529BD63.jpeg.e26befbfe0b29d463ed2be95be95b302.jpeg

 

 

So it wasn't just me!

I suggest to help to improve things you should tell of this to jane.marriot@canalrivertrust.org.ok

She is the engineer trying to solve this situation and I know she would really welcome your input.

She's very approachable and really would welcome your comments.

James

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.