Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
rgreg

Trent and Mersey stoppage

Featured Posts

Trent & Mersey Canal
Starts At: Lock 62, Pavilion Lock (Off Side)
Ends At: Lock 62, Pavilion Lock (Off Side)

Tuesday 10 July 2018 12:00 until further notice

Type: Navigation Closure 
Reason: Structure failure


 

Original message:

 

Due to damage to the lock gate at Lock 62 which has caused excessive leakage, our engineers have attended site today to review the damage.

Following on from the investigation, the gate will require repairing before it can be put back into operation.

We understand that this closure may disrupt your schedule. We are taking every step to fix the problem as soon as possible and we will keep you updated of our progress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the Trent & Mersey continues to have operational problems. It must also be a concern for the hireboat companies, which now have limited choice options for their customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rgreg said:

Trent & Mersey Canal
Starts At: Lock 62, Pavilion Lock (Off Side)
Ends At: Lock 62, Pavilion Lock (Off Side)

Tuesday 10 July 2018 12:00 until further notice

Type: Navigation Closure 
Reason: Structure failure


 

Original message:

 

Due to damage to the lock gate at Lock 62 which has caused excessive leakage, our engineers have attended site today to review the damage.

Following on from the investigation, the gate will require repairing before it can be put back into operation.

We understand that this closure may disrupt your schedule. We are taking every step to fix the problem as soon as possible and we will keep you updated of our progress

Hmm.

 

Just to add that this is one of the locks where the other lock in the pair is disused (although it is one of the easiest to reinstate), so a complete stoppage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, of all the locks to be closed it had to be one of the few on this flight that isn't paired. I'm waiting to go. The boat moored next to me now was the last boat through this morning before it was closed and said it was pretty bad. A CRT man apparently said it may need a new gate. Let's hope we get a swift resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Update on 10/07/2018:

 

Our teams have completed an investigation at lock 62 and we will be commencing repairs to the lock gate tomorrow, Wednesday 11th July. 

Unfortunately, similar boat impact damage has been caused at Lock 67. We will be bringing in an additional team to deal with the repairs to the damaged gate at lock 67 and they will be starting work on Thursday 12th July.

We will be able to provide a further update on progress at both locks on Thursday 12th July.  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does CaRT ever claim against the boats that cause the damage?

Appreciate accidents happen -but surely thats the reason for having at mininum third party liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would doubt it is boat damage. It looked in a very bad way when we came down on Sunday but it seemed to be just cracks and holes due to age. Wouldn't have wanted to be a full length both going up as front D ex cm would have been flooded. 

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did wonder whether the Daniel Adamson ramming the lock gates on the Weaver and putting them out of action would result in an insurance claim. It ought to really, accidental or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is annoying and I really resent CRT’s new strategy of blaming every infrastructure failure on “vandalism” or “boat damage” when in reality it is because, eg, the lock gates are completely rotten and/or the infrastructure lacks any preventative maintenance. They lie too easily.

  • Greenie 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

I did wonder whether the Daniel Adamson ramming the lock gates on the Weaver and putting them out of action would result in an insurance claim. It ought to really, accidental or not.

I read somewhere, NABO News, I think, that the insurers are meeting the bill for Weston Marsh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

It is annoying and I really resent CRT’s new strategy of blaming every infrastructure failure on “vandalism” or “boat damage” when in reality it is because, eg, the lock gates are completely rotten and/or the infrastructure lacks any preventative maintenance. They lie too easily.

One of C&RTs KPIs is the number of closures due to things within their control :

 

№ of days of unplanned closures to navigation within our control (individual instances over 48 hours)
458 (10 months 2017-18)
400 (Target 2017-18)
441 (Actual 2016-17)

 

If they started to tell the real reason behind all of these 'boater damage' & 'vandalism' incidents they would be so far off their targets the DEFRA grant could be at risk.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PaulJ said:

Does CaRT ever claim against the boats that cause the damage?

Appreciate accidents happen -but surely thats the reason for having at mininum third party liability.

This would move the cost of some repairs from our licence fees on to our insurance premiums.  Unless you're pretty sure that CRT would pass commensurate savings back to licence payers, perhaps we should be careful what we wish for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BruceinSanity said:

I read somewhere, NABO News, I think, that the insurers are meeting the bill for Weston Marsh.

I’ve heard that indeed the insurance is picking the cost up....which I’ve also heard is more money than I care to think about!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

This would move the cost of some repairs from our licence fees on to our insurance premiums.  Unless you're pretty sure that CRT would pass commensurate savings back to licence payers, perhaps we should be careful what we wish for?

Maybe. In a roundabout way. I wouldnt expect savings to be passed back but that money be spent well elsewhere. Id personally rather contribute any licencing towards paying for a replacement gate  that is worn out for all than a new gate that has to be replaced because of one numpty thats trashed it!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We came through lock 62 this morning and immediately reported it to C&RT''s emergency line.

The top gate was rotten with a wall of water leaking through.

Within 45mins the lock was closed by C&RT.

I cannot categorically state that the lock wasn't hit by a boat, but the rotten dilapidated state of the gate certainly wasn't caused by such a strike.

If preventative maintenance  does not take place we must expect more of this.

Thank goodness we have new signage to console us ;)

Rog

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dogless said:

We came through lock 62 this morning and immediately reported it to C&RT''s emergency line.

The top gate was rotten with a wall of water leaking through.

Within 45mins the lock was closed by C&RT.

I cannot categorically state that the lock wasn't hit by a boat, but the rotten dilapidated state of the gate certainly wasn't caused by such a strike.

If preventative maintenance  does not take place we must expect more of this.

Thank goodness we have new signage to console us ;)

Rog

For a possible reason as to why C&RT is keen to blame 'hit by boat' -
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

One of C&RTs KPIs is the number of closures due to things within their control :

 

№ of days of unplanned closures to navigation within our control (individual instances over 48 hours)
458 (10 months 2017-18)
400 (Target 2017-18)
441 (Actual 2016-17)

 

If they started to tell the real reason behind all of these 'boater damage' & 'vandalism' incidents they would be so far off their targets the DEFRA grant could be at risk.

I don't think the phrase "within our control" refers to the closures, but to the navigation, ie the damage or cause of closure isn't within their control, just that they've happened on navigations that they run.  There's a bit of a difference.

That being said, it does appear this year that the lack of both maintenance and general oversight is beginning to have the serious effect that some of us have been drivelling on about for years.  I can't remember a year when there have been so many locks falling to bits or so much of the system unusable for extended periods.  On the lower Macc there are a couple of bridges in fairly dire condition and partly collapsed and it wouldn't surprise me if they don't come down before too long and block the cut for a few months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I don't think the phrase "within our control" refers to the closures, but to the navigation, ie the damage or cause of closure isn't within their control, just that they've happened on navigations that they run.  There's a bit of a difference.

That being said, it does appear this year that the lack of both maintenance and general oversight is beginning to have the serious effect that some of us have been drivelling on about for years.  I can't remember a year when there have been so many locks falling to bits or so much of the system unusable for extended periods.  On the lower Macc there are a couple of bridges in fairly dire condition and partly collapsed and it wouldn't surprise me if they don't come down before too long and block the cut for a few months.

Well, I must say I don't read it that way.

I read it as a 'failure' not caused by an outside force (boater, vandalism etc) but by something within C&RTs control (leaking lock gates, maintenance of lock walls, etc.)

 

But I guess one of us is correct & the other one isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can anything be a performance indicator if it is not something you can control? How can C&RT stop people from ramming gates, displacing cills or dropping paddles?

 

Measure them on that for which they do have some influence such as the replacement of rotten infrastructure before it becomes a liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Well, I must say I don't read it that way.

I read it as a 'failure' not caused by an outside force (boater, vandalism etc) but by something within C&RTs control (leaking lock gates, maintenance of lock walls, etc.)

 

But I guess one of us is correct & the other one isn't.

Grammatically, and speaking as a pedant, the adjectival phrase is linked to the immediately previous noun, which is the navigation rather than the closures. Which is why I think it does, not that it makes much difference in the real world. An allowance for accidents or vandalism should be factored into their programme, costings and time management anyway and resources set aside for it so it isn't detrimental to the rest of the system. 

But as they don't even pay much regard to ordinary wear and tear, it's a bit much to hope for. 

Edited by Arthur Marshall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, down here at the other end, Common Lock (the one between Alrewas and Fradley) closed this morning – top gate lifted until the collar came off the upstand. This is undoubtedly down to poor technique, trying to make the boat to stay at the back of the lock when the force drags the boat forward. At Common, the effect is particularly severe and the impact on the top gate shoves it up and off. Fortunately it happens at least once per summer, so the guys at Fradley are well practised at putting it back.

 

The lock reopened this afternoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

How can anything be a performance indicator if it is not something you can control? How can C&RT stop people from ramming gates, displacing cills or dropping paddles?

 

Measure them on that for which they do have some influence such as the replacement of rotten infrastructure before it becomes a liability.

Education?

 

Police have performance indicators relating to disorder, assaults, house breakings, etc; none of which are in their direct control (Unless you count fiddling statistics!)

Share this post


Link to post
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.

×

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.