Jump to content

Dredging the Chesterfield?


noddyboater

Featured Posts

For anyone who knows the canal this is shocking news.. As I write this 2 chaps are surveying what’s possibly the worst stretch with hopefully a real prospect of it being dredged! Amazing isn’t it. 

Some depth readings just taken- 

0.6,  0.5, 0.6, 0.8, and this was from the centre of the canal in a winding hole!  This hole was actually spot dredged about 10 yrs ago. The mud pans were filled to their gunnels then half emptied again as they couldn’t get up the canal to be unloaded. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, noddyboater said:

For anyone who knows the canal this is shocking news.. As I write this 2 chaps are surveying what’s possibly the worst stretch with hopefully a real prospect of it being dredged! Amazing isn’t it. 

Some depth readings just taken- 

0.6,  0.5, 0.6, 0.8, and this was from the centre of the canal in a winding hole!  This hole was actually spot dredged about 10 yrs ago. The mud pans were filled to their gunnels then half emptied again as they couldn’t get up the canal to be unloaded. 

 

I know the canal fairly intimately

 

Which section is it you are referring to please? Which winding hole? 

 

....and as has already been asked - what units are you quoting please? 

 

While it is indeed a shallow canal we have managed to clock up 178 miles trundling up and down the entire 32 mile length with Python with her draught at over 30" without any major problems with going aground (except when we were asking her to go places so self respecting deep draughted boat should ever be asked to go when we were vegetation cutting) 

 

It would be great to get some more dredged, CRT did a great job of listening to us when we advised of the area that was the worst (downgate of Bridge 31) and acted upon it having done a significant amount of dredging between there and Ranby over the last two years. I will be thrilled to know which stretch is next. 

 

There is a good opportunity for them to deal with the brickworks stretch at Walkeringham too if they can work with the landowner. 

Just to add - I am assuming you do mean the eastern section and not the unconnected stretch of Derbyshire waters? Python managed almost all of that a couple of years ago too - right up to the flood lock at Mill Green. After that it was far too silted to go any further and although trip boats have done it there are a lot of boulders in the water so that really does need some dredging 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, matty40s said:

Good luck with that, the Weedon pound was dredged this Summer to great press release fanfares and corex information signs. Its no better now than it was when they started.

Yes, I had the pleasure of cruising that length last October. They seem to have forgotten to dredge the bridge holes.

 

1 hour ago, zenataomm said:

Feet?

Inches?

Boxes of tomatoes?

Tubes of kippers?

Bags of mice?

Forgive me. It was of course a couple of good fellows in otter skin britches, knee deep in the mire. They were scribing with quills and ink onto parchment the quoted measurements in yards, feet and inches. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, matty40s said:

Good luck with that, the Weedon pound was dredged this Summer to great press release fanfares and corex information signs. Its no better now than it was when they started.

 

16 minutes ago, noddyboater said:

Yes, I had the pleasure of cruising that length last October. They seem to have forgotten to dredge the bridge holes.

 

What boat are you doing it in for goodness sake?

Both our boats are ex-working boats not far off 3 foot static draught, so a lot deeper than most newer boats.

We do it without much trouble, though admittedly bits of it have not been done as thoroughly as they might have been.

My far greater concern about that dredging, (and similar South near Grove and Three Locks), is the use of tanalised posts and netting as "piling" to retain all the stuff that has been dredged out and put behind it.  CRT state this can last 20 years, but the evidence of use of those materials elsewhere, done not even half that many years ago, says otherwise.  I predict that within 10 years much f the bank will have collapsed, and the dredgings will be back where they took them from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, noddyboater said:

Yes, I had the pleasure of cruising that length last October. They seem to have forgotten to dredge the bridge holes.

 

Forgive me. It was of course a couple of good fellows in otter skin britches, knee deep in the mire. They were scribing with quills and ink onto parchment the quoted measurements in yards, feet and inches. 

It is good to know the old traditions are still being kept alive in the Dukeries :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

 

 

What boat are you doing it in for goodness sake?

Both our boats are ex-working boats not far off 3 foot static draught, so a lot deeper than most newer boats.

We do it without much trouble, though admittedly bits of it have not been done as thoroughly as they might have been.

My far greater concern about that dredging, (and similar South near Grove and Three Locks), is the use of tanalised posts and netting as "piling" to retain all the stuff that has been dredged out and put behind it.  CRT state this can last 20 years, but the evidence of use of those materials elsewhere, done not even half that many years ago, says otherwise.  I predict that within 10 years much f the bank will have collapsed, and the dredgings will be back where they took them from.

My boat draws a mere 2’6” (that’s FEET AND INCHES), but as it’s ballasted level that’s along it’s full length- 60’.  Unless you’ve suddenly started loading your boats I’d guess that the static draught of 3’ is to around your engine hole. Much better for skimming along the muddy bottom than a deep draughted modern boat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still confused as to the units of measurement.

2 hours ago, noddyboater said:

 

Some depth readings just taken- 

0.6,  0.5, 0.6, 0.8, and this was from the centre of the canal in a winding hole! 

 

 

59 minutes ago, noddyboater said:

 

Forgive me. It was of course a couple of good fellows in otter skin britches, knee deep in the mire. They were scribing with quills and ink onto parchment the quoted measurements in yards, feet and inches. 

Is it 0.6 yards 0.5 feet, 0.6 inches and 0.8 of some other smaller unit?

 

My suspicion is that you are really talking metres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:

 

 

What boat are you doing it in for goodness sake?

Both our boats are ex-working boats not far off 3 foot static draught, so a lot deeper than most newer boats.

We do it without much trouble, though admittedly bits of it have not been done as thoroughly as they might have been.

My far greater concern about that dredging, (and similar South near Grove and Three Locks), is the use of tanalised posts and netting as "piling" to retain all the stuff that has been dredged out and put behind it.  CRT state this can last 20 years, but the evidence of use of those materials elsewhere, done not even half that many years ago, says otherwise.  I predict that within 10 years much f the bank will have collapsed, and the dredgings will be back where they took them from.

I've done it in Old Friends and about 7 other boats of varying draughts and styles since September once it was finished Alan and every one struggles to get through the bridge holes on the stretch from Whilton to Weedon without loosing steerage, speed or both. Other sections in between are getting very silted now, you can feel the bottom goingvpastvthe Bedazzled moorings and the Bugbrooke cut.

 

49 minutes ago, cheshire~rose said:

...tell me which winding hole it is you mention and whether they were working upgate or downgate? 

...very Ernie Clark....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

 

 

What boat are you doing it in for goodness sake?

Both our boats are ex-working boats not far off 3 foot static draught, so a lot deeper than most newer boats.

We do it without much trouble, though admittedly bits of it have not been done as thoroughly as they might have been.

 

Agreed. I travelled the Weedon pound in October in Belfast without noticing any particular problems. Belfast draws 3 ft at the stern. I had more problems with leaves - a quick blast of astern needed from time to throw them off the prop and restore a reasonable speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, matty40s said:

 

 

...very Ernie Clark....

It is actually the way it was traditionally referred to upon The Chessie.  Instead of referring to upstream and downstream the boaters were facing upgate or downgate, "Boaty Clark" was a Chesterfield Boater and used the language that was the norm for this canal. (we have ponds rather than pounds too) All canals tend to have their own terminology and I think it is nice to try and keep some of the traditions alive where possible.

 

We have a daily checklist on Python that the helm has to fill in to confirm the usual checks have been carried out at the start and end of the day. It has the start and end points of the trip at the top. The first few days when folks filled it in they would put they were facing Worksop or Shireoaks but once Richard had filled one in with "Upgate" everyone soon realised it made more sense and so that is a term we have adopted and it now appears on formal reporting from our crew. Python may not ever have had a history on The Chessie but that doesn't mean to say we can't do our bit to keep the history of this bit of cut alive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

Perhaps Noddyboater observed the survey chaps from his bedroom window, as he lives canalside.

I am unsure if I knew that but it still doesn't help me pinpoint the location and if it were from his bedroom window it isn't on the stretch that I believe is now in the greatest need for dredging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cheshire~rose said:

It is actually the way it was traditionally referred to upon The Chessie.  Instead of referring to upstream and downstream the boaters were facing upgate or downgate,

Excellent. I'll use that from now on. It may baffle people at first but I'm sure they'll catch on soon enough.

Though I have never been on the canal, I was born in Chesterfield so I think I'm qualified to use a local expression like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Athy said:

Excellent. I'll use that from now on. It may baffle people at first but I'm sure they'll catch on soon enough.

Though I have never been on the canal, I was born in Chesterfield so I think I'm qualified to use a local expression like that.

You mean you need a qualification to baffle people? Where can I get my certificate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:


She will no doubt print and frame that and hang it alongside her many marketing diplomas awarded by the Aunty Wainwright institute!

Good point - I should have sold it to her

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cheshire~rose said:

I am unsure if I knew that but it still doesn't help me pinpoint the location and if it were from his bedroom window it isn't on the stretch that I believe is now in the greatest need for dredging.

The length between the Gate Inn winding hole and Bonemill Bridge has been one of the worst for years.

A walk along it on a day without any boat movements ( not difficult) when the water is gin clear confirms it without needing a depth survey.

Yes, like much of the canal you can skim along nicely in a springer or shallow draughted boat, but try it with something a bit more substantial and it becomes a bit tedious. 

As mentioned earlier, Python may have a 3’ draught but it’s only at its arse end, she’s also quite short. A long, deep boat doesn’t follow the channel on the Chessy, it ploughs a new one. Talk to people who visit with such boats and it really does put them off returning, and then they tell their friends.. which as we know is a shame. 

Good luck engaging the heavy handed business man at Walkeringham brick yard with your plans. Unless it will help his previously failed planning applications I fear his interest in the canal will be very short lived.

On a lighter note, with all the talk of the view from my bedroom window here it is.

3186D7A3-4396-4E94-AD18-FA1E8CD6BCB1.jpeg

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To illustrate my point.

This apparently doesn’t need dredging according to some.. That really is the bottom in the foreground, about a foot deep. This extends until you hit the “channel”, which is around half the width of a narrowboat. This was actually very near a bridge hole, that’s why the channel is off centre. There’s visitor moorings with piled banks and bollards on here, but it’s still the same depth!

AD6004BA-C2DC-4E0B-A47A-0C071CDA8F22.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, noddyboater said:

That really is the bottom in the foreground, about a foot deep. This extends until you hit the “channel”, which is around half the width of a narrowboat. 

Are you allowing for refraction at the water surface? Try dipping a stick in the "about a foot" bit and see how much deeper it is.

 

small.png

Edited by TheBiscuits
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

Are you allowing for refraction at the water surface? Try dipping a stick in the "about a foot" bit and see how much deeper it is.

 

small.png

I wish it was as deep as your picture!

Allowing for refraction, reflection and anything else it really is that shallow (read my first post). It’s not hard stuff like on the Llangollen, just years of rotting vegetation and general shite. One brave boater who attended the historic gathering in Retford commented that you can be miles from anywhere on the Chesterfield but still be churning up crisp packets from the 1970’s. 

Handy sometimes though, we recently found this Victorian ink bottle where Python had disturbed the mud while clearing vegetation. Cheers Cheshire Rose. 

96D61D10-2AF1-416C-9A40-33BD24E53B3B.jpeg

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.