Minworth embankment repair

[David Mack]

4 hours ago, koukouvagia said:

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?

 

[PeterG]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

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!

Thank you for the update I hope the tug gets stuck and then perhaps the real depth and amount of rocks etc left in the channel may be formally discovered so the original contactors can fix their mess they left behind?  If this was a highway repair and not a canal by now the contractors would be back sorting this out with a flea in their ear!

[archie57]

But even 0.9 is nowhere near enough.........

[PeterG]

Agreed as that rules out all historic working boats.

[nicknorman]

9 minutes ago, PeterG said:

Agreed as that rules out all historic working boats.

Yes I think he knows that. 0.9m was what it was reported to be after it was discovered it was shallow, not the originally intended depth. Even if it were left at 0.9m it’s only for 25m or so and if the bottom were silt it could be ploughed through. But since it is rocks/stones, that would be much more difficult or impossible.

Edited March 28, 2018 by nicknorman

[ditchcrawler]

5 hours ago, nicknorman said:

 

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!). 

maybe he needs this down there when they finish on the Weaver  https://www.xylemanalytics.co.uk/rqpod-modular-remote-survey-boat

[alan_fincher]

1 hour ago, archie57 said:

But even 0.9 is nowhere near enough.........

 

1 hour ago, PeterG said:

Agreed as that rules out all historic working boats.

Well if it were really, really at least 0.9 metres throughout, with no bits that are 0.85 metres, I think we would eventually get through, (either boat).

But looking at the original pictures of it empty, it's clearly not the same throughout the worst bit, and I don't see how anybody could be confident of that number.

You really do need at least 1.2 metres mid channel for a working boat, (or "ex working boat", before Nick pulls me up on it!), to guarantee getting through, particularly as normal lock operation will likely mean it is not as full as it could be all the time.

[nicknorman]

2 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

You really do need at least 1.2 metres mid channel for a working boat, (or "ex working boat", before Nick pulls me up on it!), to guarantee getting through, particularly as normal lock operation will likely mean it is not as full as it could be all the time.

Anglo Welsh have plenty of working boats that get through, and some of these are now ex working boats having been sold on into private ownership. I think the term you are seeking is “historic boat”

The pound between the locks is about 1km so not much change of level with normal lock operation.

[carlt]

3 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Anglo Welsh have plenty of working boats that get through, and some of these are now ex working boats having been sold on into private ownership. I think the term you are seeking is “historic boat”

 

Now the term "Mock Hudson" has entered the canal vocabulary you should really mind your manners Sir.

[nicknorman]

1 hour ago, carlt said:

Now the term "Mock Hudson" has entered the canal vocabulary you should really mind your manners Sir.

It may have entered the vocabulary, but just because someone invents a phrase doesn’t mean it’s true. Our boat is a Hudson, made by Steve Hudson and there is nothing mock about it. It isn’t even a mock historic boat. Thank god.

[rusty69]

I reckon we must have a mock boat. People are always laughing when I stand on the back.

[tree monkey]

Just now, rusty69 said:

I reckon we must have a mock boat. People are always laughing when I stand on the back.

If you wear that outfit, it's not exactly a supprise

[carlt]

43 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

It may have entered the vocabulary, but just because someone invents a phrase doesn’t mean it’s true. Our boat is a Hudson, made by Steve Hudson and there is nothing mock about it. It isn’t even a mock historic boat. Thank god.

I understand and agree with you.

You should still expect some light joshing though (not washer joshing though...).

[Captain Pegg]

57 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

It may have entered the vocabulary, but just because someone invents a phrase doesn’t mean it’s true. Our boat is a Hudson, made by Steve Hudson and there is nothing mock about it. It isn’t even a mock historic boat. Thank god.

I've got a mock tug. More in common than we dare admit.

[LadyG]

The contractor should be asked for photographic plus documentary evidence be4 the canal is watered, its naive to let them do their own thing. Its so obvious. They should now be removed from tender list if they are proven to have failed to do the work properly, and this made clear as a precedent "pour encourager les autres"  [Voltaire].

Edited March 28, 2018 by LadyG

[matty40s]

21 minutes ago, LadyG said:

The contractor should be asked for photographic plus documentary evidence be4 the canal is watered, its naive to let them do their own thing. Its so obvious. They should now be removed from tender list if they are proven to have failed to do the work properly, and this made clear as a precedent "pour encourager les autres"  [Voltaire].

It is shockingly obvious that CRT are not checking contractor works for quality or finish standards.

This has been seen quite glaringly this Winter.

Filance lock wall leaking the day after opening , Braunston bottom lock wall fountaining over a 10 foot length, Zouch cut wall 'rebuild' and now this.

Last year was the Buckby locks rebricking - large patches done, but missing bricks next to the patch not done as not specified.

Also going on are the grounds contractors mowing non-existent grass in February just to get their tally of cuts in,  at Sileby, Cossington and Junction lock they strimmed grass 2" out from the coping stones, no more.

How about getting a water pump on a tug boat fixed costing in excess of £2k.....

It doesn't matter because 3 .29 Trillion visits are made to the canals every month, Torquoise jumpers will make the public relate better to the brand and it doesnt mattter about speeding cyclists because someone else paid for the towpath superhigway and it was to late to re-instate the bollards once boaters told us they had been removed.

[nicknorman]

Update from Ian, he says they struggled to source a tug but have now done so and it has been lifted in and travelling to the site, but since it won't be there until tomorrow and with the bank holiday weekend he is concerned that not much will get done before next week, however because it is the bank holiday (lots of boats expected) he is pushing for it to get done sooner. He sent me this email at 21:00 tonight so he is nothing if not a hard worker!

[carlt]

37 minutes ago, LadyG said:

The contractor should be asked for photographic plus documentary evidence be4 the canal is watered, its naive to let them do their own thing. Its so obvious.

To be fair if there is no trust between contractor and client then the engineers spend all their time chasing around checking up and not enough time inspecting and ordering works.

If a works order is not accurate then the job turns out just as bad as if the contractor is useless.

The contractor may have failed but the works order may have also not have explicitly specified removal of the materials.

Common sense doesn't prevail if the engineer has not ordered and costed the clear up.

[archie57]

27 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Update from Ian, he says they struggled to source a tug but have now done so and it has been lifted in and travelling to the site, but since it won't be there until tomorrow and with the bank holiday weekend he is concerned that not much will get done before next week, however because it is the bank holiday (lots of boats expected) he is pushing for it to get done sooner. He sent me this email at 21:00 tonight so he is nothing if not a hard worker!

But not all tugs, old or modern, draw 3 feet........

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, archie57 said:

But not all tugs, old or modern, draw 3 feet........

Yes I don't think he means that sort of tug, I think he means one of those modern tiny things with big engines they attach to the dredging barges. I doubt they draw much.

[Rob-M]

We could have taken Nansen II down there and blasted a channel through.

[matty40s]

7 minutes ago, archie57 said:

But not all tugs, old or modern, draw 3 feet........

Most definitely not

[nicknorman]

21 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

We could have taken Nansen II down there and blasted a channel through.

I think you would have struggled with the thick layer of sharp-edged rocks and stones.

[Tuscan]

56 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Update from Ian, he says they struggled to source a tug but have now done so and it has been lifted in and travelling to the site, but since it won't be there until tomorrow and with the bank holiday weekend he is concerned that not much will get done before next week, however because it is the bank holiday (lots of boats expected) he is pushing for it to get done sooner. He sent me this email at 21:00 tonight so he is nothing if not a hard worker!

Thanks for keeping us updated. If it was silt we could hopefully plough through it but it looked more like rubble from your original photigraoh. 

[matty40s]

14 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

Thanks for keeping us updated. If it was silt we could hopefully plough through it but it looked more like rubble from your original photigraoh. 

You've got no chance, that's like me trying to get Baldock over a fridge below Camp Hill locks.....not going to happen successfully.

I can almost see the next stoppage to empty the pound and clear the debris......the week before the BCN challenge, Tipton Festival and BCN explorer cruises.....

Edited March 28, 2018 by matty40s