"Following the extreme weather experienced this week a land slippage has occurred on the Rochdale Canal at Hebden Bridge above Lock 13 near Callis Mill. The offside embankment including some mature trees slid into the canal and has thus created a blockage. Investigations are ongoing to establish appropriate works to stabilise the embankment and re-open the canal at the earliest opportunity. Further information will be issued as soon as our investigation works are completed. The canal is closed between locks 13 and 14, winding points are at lock 12 to the East and Bridge 24 to the West. Up to date information regarding this stoppage may be obtained from the Waterway Office Telephone:01925 847 700" -- Martin Clark
Martin Clark wrote... >From British Waterways, dated 6.2.04:
>"Following the extreme weather experienced this week a land slippage >has occurred on the Rochdale Canal at Hebden Bridge above Lock 13 near >Callis Mill.
The latest information, for those interested, is that BW are expecting to re-open this stretch of canal on 8th April, in time for Easter.
A temporary roadway through the sewage works has been built to give access to the site. A lagoon has been created to dry out the wet soil before it is removed from the site. The work is expected to cost a quarter of a million pounds. -- Martin Clark
Martin Clark wrote: > Martin Clark wrote... >> From British Waterways, dated 6.2.04:
>> "Following the extreme weather experienced this week a land slippage >> has occurred on the Rochdale Canal at Hebden Bridge above Lock 13 >> near Callis Mill.
> The latest information, for those interested, is that BW are expecting > to re-open this stretch of canal on 8th April, in time for Easter.
> A temporary roadway through the sewage works has been built to give > access to the site. A lagoon has been created to dry out the wet soil > before it is removed from the site. The work is expected to cost a > quarter of a million pounds.
Where in the old days they would have just run a dredger through it............
Neil wrote: > > A temporary roadway through the sewage works has been built to give > > access to the site. A lagoon has been created to dry out the wet soil > > before it is removed from the site. The work is expected to cost a > > quarter of a million pounds.
> Where in the old days they would have just run a dredger through > it............
Ah, but in the old days they wouldn't have had to stop and count each crayfish removed from the site, build a protective shelter and restore it to a pristine canal. At least we're not being handled by the EA who would have insisted on just leaving the heap of soil to protect the local wildlife and let the boats shift for themselves.
>> > A temporary roadway through the sewage works has been built to give >> > access to the site. A lagoon has been created to dry out the wet soil >> > before it is removed from the site. The work is expected to cost a >> > quarter of a million pounds.
>> Where in the old days they would have just run a dredger through >> it............
>Ah, but in the old days they wouldn't have had to stop and count each >crayfish removed from the site, build a protective shelter and restore it to >a pristine canal. At least we're not being handled by the EA who would have >insisted on just leaving the heap of soil to protect the local wildlife and >let the boats shift for themselves.
I would have thought that the concern would be besides some form of aquatic creature that maybe there. The actual residues that one would be removing ie what is in the soil.
ted wrote: > >Ah, but in the old days they wouldn't have had to stop and count each > >crayfish removed from the site, build a protective shelter and restore it to > >a pristine canal. At least we're not being handled by the EA who would have > >insisted on just leaving the heap of soil to protect the local wildlife and > >let the boats shift for themselves.
> I would have thought that the concern would be besides some form of > aquatic creature that maybe there. The actual residues that one would be > removing ie what is in the soil.
The Rochdale has had a number of issues regarding a rare crayfish. When the slippage first occured there was a press release that mentioned a survey of the aquatic life in the slippage that had to be made before any work could be carried out.
The residues don't seem to come into it. The site is actually a sandy area on the edge of what looks like a pasture, not an agricultural area with pesticides. Those would have been washing down into the canal on a regular basis as it is, so nothing new there to worry about.
If you're interested in a good set of articles on the Rochdale, the Rochdale Observer has a section online that is devoted to the canal.
There is an article on the wildlife mangement of the canal at:
>>> A temporary roadway through the sewage works has been built to give >>> access to the site. A lagoon has been created to dry out the wet >>> soil before it is removed from the site. The work is expected to >>> cost a quarter of a million pounds.
>> Where in the old days they would have just run a dredger through >> it............
> Ah, but in the old days they wouldn't have had to stop and count each > crayfish removed from the site, build a protective shelter and > restore it to a pristine canal. At least we're not being handled by > the EA who would have insisted on just leaving the heap of soil to > protect the local wildlife and let the boats shift for themselves.
In the old days BW had a dredger! (that they were allowed to use, before Health and Safety condemed the majority of their plant)
I see they have stolen a map from my site without permission. It must have been a few years ago as the map is out of date and has been superseded by another. -- Martin Clark
> I see they have stolen a map from my site without permission. It must > have been a few years ago as the map is out of date and has been > superseded by another.
Nothing worse than a copyright thief. Perhaps you should complain? Or would that give them the incentive to be inconsiderate again?
Do you recall which press release it was that discussed the need to examine the site where the slip happened in order to asses the invertebrate population? I can't locate it at the moment.
> > I see they have stolen a map from my site without permission. It must > > have been a few years ago as the map is out of date and has been > > superseded by another.
> Nothing worse than a copyright thief. Perhaps you should complain? Or > would that give them the incentive to be inconsiderate again?
> Do you recall which press release it was that discussed the need to examine > the site where the slip happened in order to asses the invertebrate > population? I can't locate it at the moment.
> -Su
Slightly O/T, but have any of you been following the nonsense at Mosytn docks on the Dee Estuary? 3 or so years ago it was decided that the new Airbus A800 wings, made at BAE's Broughton works, would be loaded onto barges on the Dee, taken 2-3 miles downriver, then transhipped at Mostyn docks for the jorney to France. Everything proceeded well, but it was noted that the channel leading up to the docks would have ot be dredged a bit - this needed doing anyway as there were plans to route some Irish ferries thereas well - bit of a renaisssance for the docks really.
The EA said - there may be an issue on the dredging, we'll check and come back to you. Since then the EA have been officially notified by Welsh Nature that there *may* be an issue with the wildlife, although I hav't seen which wildlife specified anywhere, it seems to be shrouded in mystery.
Scroll forward to now, the current situation is: 1. The EA still havn't come off the pot and are claiming the only way the dredging will happen is if 2 jags officially overrules them 2. The first wings need to ship out in 6 weeks, & it's a three week dredging programme (minimum) 3. Two jags & blair are making sympathetic ineffective noises 4. there is a looming risk that the works (x thousand local jobs) will be closed and wing manufacture transferred to Filton 5. Oh, and Irish ferries quit after less than 1 year for the same reason
I used (as many waterway types) to be generally pretty sympathetic to the reasonable needs of the natural history that we co-exist with on the cut and elsewhere. But the actions of these offical tree hugging jobsworths, both here and on the cut, has utterly sickened me. I have fantasies of sneaking up to the end of the Mont and tipping in a few drums of potent weedkiller or something...... (spits out dummy and throws tantrum...)
>> I see they have stolen a map from my site without permission. It must >> have been a few years ago as the map is out of date and has been >> superseded by another.
>Nothing worse than a copyright thief. Perhaps you should complain? Or >would that give them the incentive to be inconsiderate again?
There was another website, also based in Rochdale, that copied almost the entire content of a web page from another of my web sites (non-canal-related). When I emailed to complain I received a very rude and unco-operative reply from the webmaster. I decided at that time that it wasn't worth the hassle factor to argue back.
>Do you recall which press release it was that discussed the need to examine >the site where the slip happened in order to asses the invertebrate >population? I can't locate it at the moment.
Martin wrote: > There was another website, also based in Rochdale, that copied almost > the entire content of a web page from another of my web sites > (non-canal-related). When I emailed to complain I received a very rude > and unco-operative reply from the webmaster. I decided at that time that > it wasn't worth the hassle factor to argue back.
Depending on where the site is hosted, a complaint to the hosting service can work wonders.
> >Do you recall which press release it was that discussed the need to examine > >the site where the slip happened in order to asses the invertebrate > >population? I can't locate it at the moment.
> No, sorry.
Ah well. Perhaps it's simply my overactive imagination again. Or something.
"tim noakes" <tim.noakesspamstuf...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:c2uoom$ll$1@titan.btinternet.com... > > > > > > Slightly O/T, but have any of you been following the nonsense at Mosytn > docks on the Dee Estuary? 3 or so years ago it was decided that the new > Airbus A800 wings, made at BAE's Broughton works, would be loaded onto > barges on the Dee, taken 2-3 miles downriver, then transhipped at Mostyn > docks for the jorney to France. Everything proceeded well, but it was noted > that the channel leading up to the docks would have ot be dredged a bit - > this needed doing anyway as there were plans to route some Irish ferries > thereas well - bit of a renaisssance for the docks really. > > The EA said - there may be an issue on the dredging, we'll check and come > back to you. Since then the EA have been officially notified by Welsh Nature > that there *may* be an issue with the wildlife, although I hav't seen which > wildlife specified anywhere, it seems to be shrouded in mystery. > > Scroll forward to now, the current situation is: > 1. The EA still havn't come off the pot and are claiming the only way the > dredging will happen is if 2 jags officially overrules them > 2. The first wings need to ship out in 6 weeks, & it's a three week dredging > programme (minimum) > 3. Two jags & blair are making sympathetic ineffective noises > 4. there is a looming risk that the works (x thousand local jobs) will be > closed and wing manufacture transferred to Filton > 5. Oh, and Irish ferries quit after less than 1 year for the same reason > > I used (as many waterway types) to be generally pretty sympathetic to the > reasonable needs of the natural history that we co-exist with on the cut and > elsewhere. But the actions of these offical tree hugging jobsworths, both > here and on the cut, has utterly sickened me. I have fantasies of sneaking > up to the end of the Mont and tipping in a few drums of potent weedkiller or > something...... (spits out dummy and throws tantrum...) > > Cheers > > Tim > > Perhaps worth opening under new topic for further discussion .
>>> I see they have stolen a map from my site without permission. It >>> must have been a few years ago as the map is out of date and has >>> been superseded by another.
>> Nothing worse than a copyright thief. Perhaps you should complain? >> Or would that give them the incentive to be inconsiderate again?
> There was another website, also based in Rochdale, that copied almost > the entire content of a web page from another of my web sites > (non-canal-related). When I emailed to complain I received a very rude > and unco-operative reply from the webmaster. I decided at that time > that it wasn't worth the hassle factor to argue back.
It is rife. This article appeared yesterday in Silicon.com
-- Andy B for personal replies, given email address will return to sender. Please use Andrew<full-stop>Belton<curly-at>btopenworld<full-stop>com instead.
> I used (as many waterway types) to be generally pretty sympathetic to the > reasonable needs of the natural history that we co-exist with on the cut and > elsewhere. But the actions of these offical tree hugging jobsworths, both > here and on the cut, has utterly sickened me. I have fantasies of sneaking > up to the end of the Mont and tipping in a few drums of potent weedkiller or > something...... (spits out dummy and throws tantrum...)
The time is right - just buy it from the middle east & make sure its labled for domestic consumption.
If you'd trimmed even more Martin and I would have been free and clear of the discussion entirely. I've altered the subject line as it's getting to be a bit annoying to see a Usenet convention used so predictably.
>If you'd trimmed even more Martin and I would have been free and clear of >the discussion entirely. I've altered the subject line as it's getting to >be a bit annoying to see a Usenet convention used so predictably.
David wrote: > Didn't work for me - it still arrived under the original subject > heading. I think you have to cut the posting out and paste it into under > a "New Thread" subject heading to make an effective subject line change.
Must be the difference in newsreaders. Your reply came under the altered header.
