Minworth embankment repair

[ditchcrawler]

2 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

I came through Minworth this morning.

The notices posted say that 'deep draughted boats should check the pound is full' (or words to that effect) and that 'the source of the silt (yes silt!, my emphasis) is being investigated'.

The bywash was running at no 2 lock and also at no 3 when I, eventually, got there.

'Red Wharf' draws about 2'6", or 750mm.

I was all but stuck!

After going backwards and forwards, bumping and grinding my way over the, ahem, silt, I just about got through.

I passed about 3 or 4 hire boats heading towards Brum. Gawd alone knows how they got on or what this makes them think about our waterways.

Rather than investigating the, alleged, silt, I feel CaRT should be hunting down the contractors responsible for this cock up, putting them against a wall and shooting them!

 

Surly until they investigate they have no evidence to shoot whoever was responsible. We all know what we think is there but with it covered with water we can't prove it, unless someone here watched them refilling the canal with what ever is at the bottom of the canal is there.

[Victor Vectis]

I like to think I am a reasonable man, but......

I have passed thay way many times without a problem.

It is not often that I agree with Nick Norman but what I hit this morning was solid, NOT slit, and it sure as hell wasn't beamed there by the Starship Enterprise.

 

[nicknorman]

10 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

I like to think I am a reasonable man, but......

I have passed thay way many times without a problem.

It is not often that I agree with Nick Norman but what I hit this morning was solid, NOT slit, and it sure as hell wasn't beamed there by the Starship Enterprise.

 

Love at last. Shall we get a room?

 

Anyway, I’m disappointed that it hasn’t been sorted yet. You should complain to CRT.

 

Just as a reminder, I’m re-posting the original image so you can see what you were bouncing off...

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by nicknorman

[jonesthenuke]

3 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Surly until they investigate they have no evidence to shoot whoever was responsible. We all know what we think is there but with it covered with water we can't prove it, unless someone here watched them refilling the canal with what ever is at the bottom of the canal is there.

The evidence of responsibility is simple and plain to see. The responsibility lies with CRT.  

I have had long (near 40 years) dealings with the Health and Safety Executive and their pals the Office of Nuclear Regulation. They have a very simple view that the responsibility for works does not ever wholly pass to a contractor, and they would expect control and supervision by suitably qualified and experienced personnel. I realise HSE types would be focussing on health and safety, but the same premise applies to the whole scope of work. CRT should control, supervise and inspect the works. If nothing else, CRT are corporately/collectively liable for spending the funds (from us) and should be held to account. In the same way, how can they ensure value for money from the contractor unless they supervise the work?

Whilst the contractor seems to have done a less than adequate job, its CRT who have allowed the canal to be returned to service in this inadequate state. Either CRT did not inspect it adequately or they did and knowingly allowed it to be refilled with inadequate bottom levels, either way the issue is with them (unless you postulate "someone" has filled the canal with material after it was flooded which I suggest can be discounted).

Rant over (for now).

 

By the way, is there an officially recognised depth that this stretch of canal should be?

[ditchcrawler]

2 minutes ago, jonesthenuke said:

The evidence of responsibility is simple and plain to see. The responsibility lies with CRT.  

I have had long (near 40 years) dealings with the Health and Safety Executive and their pals the Office of Nuclear Regulation. They have a very simple view that the responsibility for works does not ever wholly pass to a contractor, and they would expect control and supervision by suitably qualified and experienced personnel. I realise HSE types would be focussing on health and safety, but the same premise applies to the whole scope of work. CRT should control, supervise and inspect the works. If nothing else, CRT are corporately/collectively liable for spending the funds (from us) and should be held to account. In the same way, how can they ensure value for money from the contractor unless they supervise the work?

Whilst the contractor seems to have done a less than adequate job, its CRT who have allowed the canal to be returned to service in this inadequate state. Either CRT did not inspect it adequately or they did and knowingly allowed it to be refilled with inadequate bottom levels, either way the issue is with them (unless you postulate "someone" has filled the canal with material after it was flooded which I suggest can be discounted).

Rant over (for now).

 

By the way, is there an officially recognised depth that this stretch of canal should be?

I don't disagree that is why I took care with the wording "whoever was responsible"  and not contractor, it could easily be someone within CRT. I have seen Nicks photo but if he didn't watch them refill it he cant say if that is what has been left down there. In all probability it will be at least some of it. At the end of the day its not the blame, thats another problem, what we need is it sorting out.

[Victor Vectis]

9 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Love at last. Shall we get a room?

Sorry NN, you're out of luck there.

I'm spoken for!

9 minutes ago, jonesthenuke said:

By the way, is there an officially recognised depth that this stretch of canal should be?

I seem to recall 900mm as the quoted depth.

10 minutes ago, jonesthenuke said:

Whilst the contractor seems to have done a less than adequate job, its CRT who have allowed the canal to be returned to service in this inadequate state. Either CRT did not inspect it adequately or they did and knowingly allowed it to be refilled with inadequate bottom levels, either way the issue is with them (unless you postulate "someone" has filled the canal with material after it was flooded which I suggest can be discounted).

Yes.

Pure and simple.

The canal ain't fit for purpose.

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, jonesthenuke said:

By the way, is there an officially recognised depth that this stretch of canal should be?

C&RTs internal document "Navigation Channel Maintenance Standards 2006" for the Birmingham & Fazeley canal is 1.1 metres depth x 5.5 metres width

[mrsmelly]

On 23/03/2018 at 15:34, PeterG said:

Yes I am well aware how many boats he built and he had his preferences in ways to do things like we all have. I agree that even though his website said 2’4” for the modern rear engines and 2’9” for the engine room type that was only an approximation, but having seen a number of Hudsons they do vary quite a lot in build for draft.  Yes I agree he could standardise his build quite well saving an amount in the build costs but not a mass producer.

I also like deep drafted boats for the handling but not when you come across problems like at Minworth, so I am glad you have reported this and just hope some action will now happen on this rather than all attention on the breach.  Would have thought that the contractors could be made to sort out their mess as it is possible everything was left as in your photos which is plain daft.

 

Having lived on a boat with a 3 foot draught and a 70 foot " Mock Hudson "  with an approximately 30 inch draught I always giggle at the willy shaking  by those who own boats with such draughts but yet drive a modern car not something from the 1920s. My present boat draws 2 feet and is in daily use a far more sensible modern draught for 2018. So keep shaking your willies with your deep draughts guys and leave room for a boat with a useable draught to squeeze buy whilst you are aground please 

[jonesthenuke]

Just now, mrsmelly said:

Having lived on a boat with a 3 foot draught and a 70 foot " Mock Hudson "  with an approximately 30 inch draught I always giggle at the willy shaking  by those who own boats with such draughts but yet drive a modern car not something from the 1920s. My present boat draws 2 feet and is in daily use a far more sensible modern draught for 2018. So keep shaking your willies with your deep draughts guys and leave room for a boat with a useable draught to squeeze buy whilst you are aground please 

ok, so you are advocating we all move to shallower drafts. My concern is that dredging would simply be reduced and we will all end up with impassable canals.

[mrsmelly]

Just now, jonesthenuke said:

ok, so you are advocating we all move to shallower drafts. My concern is that dredging would simply be reduced and we will all end up with impassable canals.

I am  advocating nothing. The facts are that we are never going to return to well dredged canals is I am sorry to say a solid fact. I purposely looked for a draught of max 26 inches when buying my present boat. In the modern day people dont commute in Standard flying 12s of 1928 vintage or buy 1970s nylon carpets because it simply isnt practical. Deep draughted boats are simply not practical in 2018 a great shame but unfortunately a fact. I love my boating far too much to be sat on the bottom so its horses for courses.

[David Mack]

But the continued passage of 3 ft deep boats, which do get stuck from time to time, ensures that there is adequate depth for all the shallower boats.  Same as the passage of 7 ft (and a little wider) narrow boats ensures that 6ft 10in wide boats can pass through locks, even with silly rubber side fenders down, without sticking. 

Those with long memories will remember the sign at Hurleston Junction advising that boats drawing more than 2 feet should not attempt the Llangollen. It could so easily have been the same everywhere.

[jonesthenuke]

52 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I am  advocating nothing. The facts are that we are never going to return to well dredged canals is I am sorry to say a solid fact. I purposely looked for a draught of max 26 inches when buying my present boat. In the modern day people dont commute in Standard flying 12s of 1928 vintage or buy 1970s nylon carpets because it simply isnt practical. Deep draughted boats are simply not practical in 2018 a great shame but unfortunately a fact. I love my boating far too much to be sat on the bottom so its horses for courses.

I realise what you mean but there is the concept of "backwards compatibility" which I suggest is reasonable to apply.

A 1970s carpet might not be to your taste but it would still work as carpet in a house.

A 1928 Standard might not keep up with modern cars in terms of speed, reliability etc, but they would drive down a modern road OK.

In the same way I would just like canals to be compatible with style of boats that they were designed to take. I do not want to dredge canals to take deeper or wider draughts than the original, just do not allow them to incrementally fill with silt or anything else so that we have to use increasingly shallow boats.

[matty40s]

1 hour ago, Victor Vectis said:

I like to think I am a reasonable man, but......

I have passed thay way many times without a problem...

 but what I hit this morning was solid, NOT SILT!!,

and it sure as hell wasn't beamed there by the Starship Enterprise.

 

..as sure as hell it gets ya, gets ya gets ya,

 

[nicknorman]

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

Having lived on a boat with a 3 foot draught and a 70 foot " Mock Hudson "  with an approximately 30 inch draught I always giggle at the willy shaking  by those who own boats with such draughts but yet drive a modern car not something from the 1920s. My present boat draws 2 feet and is in daily use a far more sensible modern draught for 2018. So keep shaking your willies with your deep draughts guys and leave room for a boat with a useable draught to squeeze buy whilst you are aground please 

But in reality, a Hudson draught of 32" is not much of a problem nearly all the time. But it does have the advantage of going where it is pointing even in a strong crosswind, and having a propeller that is better at moving the boat than it is of creating a stream of froth out of the back end. Having moved from regular use of a 24" draught boat, to our present one, I have no desire to go back.

[MtB]

2 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Having lived on a boat with a 3 foot draught and a 70 foot " Mock Hudson "  with an approximately 30 inch draught I always giggle at the willy shaking  by those who own boats with such draughts but yet drive a modern car not something from the 1920s. My present boat draws 2 feet and is in daily use a far more sensible modern draught for 2018. So keep shaking your willies with your deep draughts guys and leave room for a boat with a useable draught to squeeze buy whilst you are aground please 

 

Frankly this is plain silly. I'm surprised at you mrsmelly.

If we all accept 24" as the standard maximum depth I predict it will be only a few years before CRT try to make that 18".

 

[BruceinSanity]

9 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I don't disagree that is why I took care with the wording "whoever was responsible"  and not contractor, it could easily be someone within CRT. I have seen Nicks photo but if he didn't watch them refill it he cant say if that is what has been left down there. In all probability it will be at least some of it. At the end of the day its not the blame, thats another problem, what we need is it sorting out.

I doubt if the planks are still down there, unless they were made from non-floating wood. IMHO, it's clearly CRT's problem. Might be worth pointing out the risk of a damages claim if someone wrecks their prop on what CRT calls "silt".

[nicknorman]

1 hour ago, BruceinSanity said:

I doubt if the planks are still down there, unless they were made from non-floating wood. IMHO, it's clearly CRT's problem. Might be worth pointing out the risk of a damages claim if someone wrecks their prop on what CRT calls "silt".

No not the planks, but the rocks are. 

[jonesthenuke]

11 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

C&RTs internal document "Navigation Channel Maintenance Standards 2006" for the Birmingham & Fazeley canal is 1.1 metres depth x 5.5 metres width

Thanks, thats interesting.

 

So far I have not found that, but the IWA has the following policy in their "Standards for Construction, Restoration and Maintenance of Inland Waterways". I note that the IWA definition of gauge draught for a narrow canal is by default 4'3" or 1.3 m. So the expected depth would be 1.6m unless the canal was formally designed for a smaller draught.

Whilst it may be a little unreasonable to expect canals to be dredged to this (generous) depth on the basis of costs and practicability, it sets a standard that CRT should be attempting to comply with, rather than moving to ever shallower canals. It particularly applies where work is undertaken on a canal that has been drained for repairs (surely!)

Some  extracts from the IWA document:-

 

2. Retention and Recovery of Gauge

2.1 The Association will oppose all attempts to reduce the craft gauge of a waterway (i.e. the maximum size of vessels able to use it).

2.2 The Association will press navigation authorities to maintain each waterway in a satisfactory condition safely to accommodate vessels of its craft gauge and to permit access by such vessels and to ensure that the navigation channel is not blocked by craft so as to prevent through navigation by vessels of its craft gauge.

2.3 The Association will press for the restoration of dimensions suitable for the passage of vessels of the constructed gauge where subsequent works or deterioration (such as subsidence or structural movement) have created pinch points.

3 Minimum Channel Dimensions

Width and Depth - In slack water lengths (e.g. canals and some canalised sections of river navigations), the minimum dimensions of the channel required to accommodate craft of gauge beam B and gauge draught D are:

• Depth of fairway: D + 20% or 0.3 m, whichever is greater
• Width of fairway: 2.1 x B or 6 m, whichever is greater
• Depth at landings, wharves, and moorings: D + 0.2 m
• Depth at other banks: At 1.0 m from every bank, or where there is a bank-side vegetation fringe at the waterside of that fringe, no less than 0.6 m. Where protection is installed on the towpath bank, the depth at this bank shall be the depth the protection was designed to make possible. The depth at the non-towpath bank shall be deep enough to achieve the required fairway dimensions.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, jonesthenuke said:

Thanks, thats interesting.

 

So far I have not found that, but the IWA has the following policy in their "Standards for Construction, Restoration and Maintenance of Inland Waterways". I note that the IWA definition of gauge draught for a narrow canal is by default 4'3" or 1.3 m. So the expected depth would be 1.6m unless the canal was formally designed for a smaller draught.

Whilst the IWA can 'specify' what they want for the restoration of canals there is no obligation for BW/C&RT to accept it.

The following BW/C&RT documents / dates all show the depth of the B&F canals as being 1.1 metres (except the Fraenkel Report)

1975 Fraenkel Report - No depth shown for the B&F

1998 Future Dimensions Draft Report

2000 BW Dredging Standards

2006 Navigation Channel Maintenance Standards

2010 Hydro team MOC Dimensions

 

Mind you, its all 'good intentions'.

The River Trent (Meadow Lane Lock to Cromwell) is supposedly dredged to a minimum of 2 metres (6' 6").

The Fraenkel Report of 1975 stated 1.83m (6 feet)

I draw 4' 6" and grounded in the MNC a couple of times last year.

 

[Dave_P]

12 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Having lived on a boat with a 3 foot draught and a 70 foot " Mock Hudson "  with an approximately 30 inch draught I always giggle at the willy shaking  by those who own boats with such draughts but yet drive a modern car not something from the 1920s. My present boat draws 2 feet and is in daily use a far more sensible modern draught for 2018. So keep shaking your willies with your deep draughts guys and leave room for a boat with a useable draught to squeeze buy whilst you are aground please 

My boat draws just over 2' and I am very grateful to those boats with over 3' draft.  They bring me coal, and the carve a nice deep channel for me to cruise without much hinderance.  If all boats had the same draft as mine, we'd all be scraping along the 'silt'.

[mrsmelly]

9 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Frankly this is plain silly. I'm surprised at you mrsmelly.

If we all accept 24" as the standard maximum depth I predict it will be only a few years before CRT try to make that 18".

 

Im not saying its right Mike but I have accepted as a fact of life that dredging is way below the list of priorities. You forget that CART have no excess money and remember ensuring cyclists have good access obviously comes first.

[alan_fincher]

Having passed through there last year before this all happened in a 3 foot draughted ex-working boat, we had no difficulties at all that I can recall.

It is an absolue nonsense to suggest that a dredged depth of only 0.9 metres can possibly be acceptable on a mainstram canal such as this one.  It allows absolutely no margin of error for the deeper boats, ang guarantees that if levels are even slightly down you are guarantted to get stuck.  If the bottom below the 0.9m is hard and rocky, rather than sludge this is insustainable.

Clearly, whatever the responses from CRT, this was not a bad pound with just 0.9m of water available before these works.  This can only be properly resolved by removing what has now been put there that was not there before.

Thisa is a mssively dissapoining outcome, and another example of a completely unnecessary cock up that should have been fully avoidable.

[mrsmelly]

11 hours ago, nicknorman said:

But in reality, a Hudson draught of 32" is not much of a problem nearly all the time. But it does have the advantage of going where it is pointing even in a strong crosswind, and having a propeller that is better at moving the boat than it is of creating a stream of froth out of the back end. Having moved from regular use of a 24" draught boat, to our present one, I have no desire to go back.

Mmmmmmmm  well having had a boat similar to yours although at 70 feet with 15 mil baseplate and beta etc etc with a proper crowther prop I agree they sit well in the water and dont blow about but in fairness this 68 foot colecraft doesnt blow all over either and I can make it do what I want it to. The Hudson at 70 foot though with the very heavy rudder was a pig to turn for my little arms and its build quality was awesome but we deffo prefer this and yes agree the Hudson could go near everywhere but this is still capable of going where that couldnt. Hey ho 

[Tuscan]

2 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

It is an absolue nonsense to suggest that a dredged depth of only 0.9 metres can possibly be acceptable on a mainstram canal such as this one.  It allows absolutely no margin of error for the deeper boats, ang guarantees that if levels are even slightly down you are guarantted to get stuck.  If the bottom below the 0.9m is hard and rocky, rather than sludge this is insustainable.

Totally agree and this seems to be the case

[nicknorman]

It’s looking like CRT will have a stoppage to drain the pound again and sort it out. 16th -19th (ie next week) is the probable date. You are warned! But it had to be sorted out. Although of course it would have been better to get it right first time!

Edited April 11, 2018 by nicknorman