Slough Arm Dredged & Extension Planned Across Eton Playing Fields!!

[CJB]

First the good news. But what on earth is the latter scheme about?

CJB.

[Michel Van den Berghe]

Regards to all,

> First the good news. But what on earth is the latter scheme about?
>

May be, it is just not on earth.

--
Michel Van den Berghe
Walking the BW: http://www.thebw.net/WordPress
Althrough strange the email adress works

[Tony Brooks]

"CJB" <chris...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff64a46b-02c7-46f3...@googlegroups.com...

> First the good news. But what on earth is the latter scheme about?
>
> CJB.
>

A while ago someone from Brunel (I think) did his PhD study on the long
discussed plan to link the Slough arm with the Thames. Unlike earlier pland
that as I recall seemed to involve Chalvey Brooks to enter the Thames at
Boveny this one identified a largely unbuilt on route from around where they
hold slogh canal daay to the Jubilee River with a lock at Black Potts (just
down stream of Romney lock). I think they had the plans at the last IWA
Festival.

Airbourn pigs etc.

[canaldrifter]

I've often thought that a road link would be useful. Set up a gantry
lift at Sluff 'Basin' by the timber yard. Load boat. Run it round to a
suitable Thameside boatyard. Dump it in the river. Two round trips a
day, loaded both ways. An opportunity to do some out-of-the-water
blacking before re-immersion. Could be a nice little seasonal business
for an enterprising local haulage company, and needn't be too expensive.

I'm sure the shiny boat brigade, who don't want to risk their boats
getting splashed on the murky tidal Thames, could afford it.

Tone

[John Williamson]

On 14/10/2014 10:04, canaldrifter wrote:
> I've often thought that a road link (Insert: Slough to the Thames) would be useful. Set up a gantry

> lift at Sluff 'Basin' by the timber yard. Load boat. Run it round to a
> suitable Thameside boatyard. Dump it in the river. Two round trips a
> day, loaded both ways. An opportunity to do some out-of-the-water
> blacking before re-immersion. Could be a nice little seasonal business
> for an enterprising local haulage company, and needn't be too expensive.
>
> I'm sure the shiny boat brigade, who don't want to risk their boats
> getting splashed on the murky tidal Thames, could afford it.
>

One problem might be that the shiny boats tend to be wide enough to need
an escort, and the tendency of people with cranes that can lift boats to
charge a fortune for turning them on. Not needed for us scruffy narrow
types, though.

A slipway at each end,and a trailer that could go into the water?


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Adrian]

But that doesn't solve the "wide means escort" problem. The Slough
branch is a broad navigation, the Thames a wide one. The facility
allowing boats to pass between them needs to take craft up to 4.3 m
beam. Catering only for narrow boats just isn't good enough. (see the
now-ironically-named Droitwich Barge Canal).

When Mark Bensted was BW's London czar, a proposal (pretty much an
engineering feasibility study) for a waterway from near the Slough end
of the branch to near Eton was prepared. IIRC the conclusion was that
it was feasible. Trouble is, no-one came up with the construction
funds. However, I believe the local canal society is still beavering
away at a revised version. More power to it.

Adrian



Adrian
Adrian Stott
Tel. UK (0)7956-299966

[canaldrifter]

On 20/10/2014 07:50, Adrian wrote:

>
> But that doesn't solve the "wide means escort" problem. The Slough
> branch is a broad navigation, the Thames a wide one. The facility
> allowing boats to pass between them needs to take craft up to 4.3 m
> beam. Catering only for narrow boats just isn't good enough.

Why not?

Compared with narrowboats, how many wide beams are there?

If you choose to live on a wide-beam, then you choose all the hassle if
trying to move it by road. It could still be done by the road-bridge,
but you, as owner, would have to pay for the movement order and escorts.

It's either that or go round the tidal way, for which your boat is more
suited anyway.

Tone

[John Williamson]

On 20/10/2014 10:09, canaldrifter wrote:
> On 20/10/2014 07:50, Adrian wrote:
>
>>
>> But that doesn't solve the "wide means escort" problem. The Slough
>> branch is a broad navigation, the Thames a wide one. The facility
>> allowing boats to pass between them needs to take craft up to 4.3 m
>> beam. Catering only for narrow boats just isn't good enough.
>
> Why not?
>

Maybe he's got a wide beam?

> Compared with narrowboats, how many wide beams are there?
>

Actually travelling round here, less than 5%. Moored here, 2 wides, 6
narrows, and a handful of portakabins on pontoons. There are 3 empty
narrow berths. (Or 1 wide and one narrow)

> If you choose to live on a wide-beam, then you choose all the hassle if
> trying to move it by road. It could still be done by the road-bridge,
> but you, as owner, would have to pay for the movement order and escorts.
>

Narrowboat owners would have to pay for the lorry, too, don't forget.

> It's either that or go round the tidal way, for which your boat is more
> suited anyway.

It's only a short stretch of tideway from Brentford to Richmond half
tide lock, and another few miles to Teddington lock. When I get the
cooling vents welded over after I've had the keel coolers fitted, I'd be
happy to do it in mine. Many others do it every year.

[canaldrifter]

On 20/10/2014 11:00, John Williamson wrote:

>>
> Maybe he's got a wide beam?
>

He has.

> It's only a short stretch of tideway from Brentford to Richmond half
> tide lock, and another few miles to Teddington lock. When I get the
> cooling vents welded over after I've had the keel coolers fitted, I'd be
> happy to do it in mine. Many others do it every year.

The tidal Thames above Brentford is a doddle compared with the Trent,
Ouse, Humber or Douglas/Ribble. I don't know what all the fuss is about.

Tone

[John Williamson]

On 20/10/2014 11:12, canaldrifter wrote:
> On 20/10/2014 11:00, John Williamson wrote:
>
>>>
>> Maybe he's got a wide beam?
>>
>
> He has.
>

That would explain it, then.

>> It's only a short stretch of tideway from Brentford to Richmond half
>> tide lock, and another few miles to Teddington lock. When I get the
>> cooling vents welded over after I've had the keel coolers fitted, I'd be
>> happy to do it in mine. Many others do it every year.
>
> The tidal Thames above Brentford is a doddle compared with the Trent,
> Ouse, Humber or Douglas/Ribble. I don't know what all the fuss is about.
>

In my case, 5 inches of freeboard below the vents. Okay for canals, but
no good anywhere else. For others, I suspect it's purely psychological,
as the Thames is Old Man River, with a reputation for sinking boats on
the tidal bit. We read about it in the papers occasionally.

Incidentally, talking about sinkings and such, I saw yesterday that the
Duck Tour DUKWs are back on the river through Westminster. They must
have solved the bouyancy and fire risk issues.

[Adrian]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:00:58 +0100, John Williamson
<johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On 20/10/2014 10:09, canaldrifter wrote:
>> On 20/10/2014 07:50, Adrian wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But that doesn't solve the "wide means escort" problem. The Slough
>>> branch is a broad navigation, the Thames a wide one. The facility
>>> allowing boats to pass between them needs to take craft up to 4.3 m
>>> beam. Catering only for narrow boats just isn't good enough.
>>
>> Why not?

Because that is only one part of the inland fleet. In most fields,
such discrimination is usually felt to be unacceptable.

>>
>Maybe he's got a wide beam?

He actually has a barge which is broad beam.

>
>> Compared with narrowboats, how many wide beams are there?
>>
>Actually travelling round here, less than 5%. Moored here, 2 wides, 6
>narrows, and a handful of portakabins on pontoons. There are 3 empty
>narrow berths. (Or 1 wide and one narrow)

If you total all the powered craft on the Thames and the Slough
branch, I would guess that broad and wide craft may well be in the
majority.

>> If you choose to live on a wide-beam, then you choose all the hassle if
>> trying to move it by road. It could still be done by the road-bridge,
>> but you, as owner, would have to pay for the movement order and escorts.

If accept the characteristics of my vessel. I don't accept new
restrictions being arbitrarily imposed on it.

(BTW I live in, not on, my barge. Especially in winter.)

>Narrowboat owners would have to pay for the lorry, too, don't forget.

Gee! Really?

>> It's either that or go round the tidal way, for which your boat is more
>> suited anyway.
>
>It's only a short stretch of tideway from Brentford to Richmond half
>tide lock, and another few miles to Teddington lock. When I get the
>cooling vents welded over after I've had the keel coolers fitted, I'd be
>happy to do it in mine. Many others do it every year.

It is quite possible for my barge to travel from Slough to Eton via
Brentford (or Limhouse or Bow Creek). But perhaps you would care to
calculate the relative amounts of time, distance, and locks involved
compared to going directly via the proposed new waterway?

We've now seen the Rochdale and the DBC, both barge waterways,
restored in ways that make them unnavigable by barges (the gauges they
were built for). I find this "I'm alright Jack" approach of some
narrow boaters very unpleasant (and a great waste of the amenity of
the waterways concerned).

[John Williamson]

On 24/10/2014 08:28, Adrian wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:00:58 +0100, John Williamson
> <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20/10/2014 10:09, canaldrifter wrote:
>>> On 20/10/2014 07:50, Adrian wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But that doesn't solve the "wide means escort" problem. The Slough
>>>> branch is a broad navigation, the Thames a wide one. The facility
>>>> allowing boats to pass between them needs to take craft up to 4.3 m
>>>> beam. Catering only for narrow boats just isn't good enough.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>
> Because that is only one part of the inland fleet. In most fields,
> such discrimination is usually felt to be unacceptable.

Does that mean that you believe all roads should be rebuilt to take 38
tonne lorries?

>>> Compared with narrowboats, how many wide beams are there?
>>>
>> Actually travelling round here, less than 5%. Moored here, 2 wides, 6
>> narrows, and a handful of portakabins on pontoons. There are 3 empty
>> narrow berths. (Or 1 wide and one narrow)
>
> If you total all the powered craft on the Thames and the Slough
> branch, I would guess that broad and wide craft may well be in the
> majority.
>

I was looking at the Grand Union near Bulls Bridge and up as far as
Uxbridge, as that's what I can see out of the windows most days. It's
rare to see a wide beam boat of any sort moving, and the majority of
barges I see haven't moved in years, going by the greenery on the hulls,
rudders, ropes and fenders, not to mention the way they've got bits on
top that wouldn't go under the bridges. To be fair, about the same
percentage of the narrowboats moored round here don't seem to move much
either.

On the Thames, most boats are broad beamed, but a lot of them won't fit
the Grand Union anyway due to excessive height or width, so wouldn't
count as far as the link goes.

>>> If you choose to live on a wide-beam, then you choose all the hassle if
>>> trying to move it by road. It could still be done by the road-bridge,
>>> but you, as owner, would have to pay for the movement order and escorts.
>
> If accept the characteristics of my vessel. I don't accept new
> restrictions being arbitrarily imposed on it.
>

In this case, there is just a non-removal of an existing restriction for
some vessels.

>>> It's either that or go round the tidal way, for which your boat is more
>>> suited anyway.
>>
>> It's only a short stretch of tideway from Brentford to Richmond half
>> tide lock, and another few miles to Teddington lock. When I get the
>> cooling vents welded over after I've had the keel coolers fitted, I'd be
>> happy to do it in mine. Many others do it every year.
>
> It is quite possible for my barge to travel from Slough to Eton via
> Brentford (or Limhouse or Bow Creek). But perhaps you would care to
> calculate the relative amounts of time, distance, and locks involved
> compared to going directly via the proposed new waterway?
>

About two days and a dozen or so locks from where I'm guessing you are.

As against most of a day and an indeterminate number of locks from the
Grand Union main line using the proposed link.

Would you be willing to pay a toll to save the time if you were on the
Main Line?

Otherwise, there's no economic case for building it, and given the
costs, the toll wouldn't be cheap, and building costs would be greatly
increased by making it wide, although I agree if the link were built, it
would be desirable if it did match the sizes on the Grand Union.

> We've now seen the Rochdale and the DBC, both barge waterways,
> restored in ways that make them unnavigable by barges (the gauges they
> were built for). I find this "I'm alright Jack" approach of some
> narrow boaters very unpleasant (and a great waste of the amenity of
> the waterways concerned).
>

The Rochdale is listed by Nicholsons as being suitable for 72 feet long,
14 foot beam boats with a 7 foot 1 inch headroom at the M62 and 2 foot 6
draught, but the only bridge hole that's smaller than the originals is
the M62 culvert, the rest being 7 foot 6, and the draught is only that
small due to the way it's not been dredged. What needs changing there
structurally to get the original size of craft through? As far as I can
tell, the original boats were 72 feet by 14 feet and horse drawn with a
maximum draught of about 4 feet. The dimensions given are 6 inches lower
and 9 inches narrower than the Bridgewater canal, which is the only link
to it at the West end.


What's the DBC?

[Mike and Krystyna Wooding]

On 24/10/2014 10:27, John Williamson wrote:
>
>
>
> What's the DBC?
>
>
Droitwich Barge Canal

Mike

--
Mike & Krystyna Wooding
tug Draco & butty Bantock no.51 "Success"
Draco Crafts: http://www.dracocrafts.com

[canaldrifter]

On 24/10/2014 08:28, Adrian wrote:

> I find this "I'm alright Jack" approach of some
> narrow boaters very unpleasant (and a great waste of the amenity of
> the waterways concerned).
>
> Adrian

I have found the arrogance of a certain barge owner very unpleasant for
years. But I put up with it.

Do you honestly think, Adrian, that in the present financial climate
CaRT should maintain original profiles where you want to go just to suit
you and a handful of other wide-beam owners? It would be at the cost of
truncating the system elsewhere. What is preferable to the majority? How
is this an "I'm alright Jack" approach?

Tone

[John Williamson]

On 24/10/2014 13:21, Mike and Krystyna Wooding wrote:
> On 24/10/2014 10:27, John Williamson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> What's the DBC?
>>
>>
> Droitwich Barge Canal
>

Thanks, another broad one one with a low motorway culvert, then. Mind
you, even *I'd* have to duck for that one at 6 feet. And if I didn't do
it first, It'd likely clear the bike off the roof, and the chimney...

[furnessvale]

On Friday, 24 October 2014 10:27:16 UTC+1, John Williamson wrote:
>
> Does that mean that you believe all roads should be rebuilt to take 38
> tonne lorries?
>

Given that lorries already weigh 44 tonnes and will soon weigh 62 tonnes,
thanks to our EU masters, I think your proposal is out of date.

George

[Adrian]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:27:14 +0100, John Williamson
<johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Does that mean that you believe all roads should be rebuilt to take 38
>tonne lorries?

I suggest that if you are building a new road as a through route
between two existing A roads, you will be expected to build it to the
A road standard, not the country lane one.

>>>> Compared with narrowboats, how many wide beams are there?
>>>>
>>> Actually travelling round here, less than 5%. Moored here, 2 wides, 6
>>> narrows, and a handful of portakabins on pontoons.

You won't find *any* wide craft on the south GU, as they won't fit
through the locks

>On the Thames, most boats are broad beamed, but a lot of them won't fit
>the Grand Union anyway due to excessive height or width, so wouldn't
>count as far as the link goes.

You cavil, sir. The question was the number of broad craft, with no
mention of air draft.

>
>>>> If you choose to live on a wide-beam, then you choose all the hassle if
>>>> trying to move it by road. It could still be done by the road-bridge,
>>>> but you, as owner, would have to pay for the movement order and escorts.
>>
>> If accept the characteristics of my vessel. I don't accept new
>> restrictions being arbitrarily imposed on it.
>>
>In this case, there is just a non-removal of an existing restriction for
>some vessels.

See "country lane" above.

BW pledged never to create any new pinch points.

>> It is quite possible for my barge to travel from Slough to Eton via
>> Brentford (or Limhouse or Bow Creek). But perhaps you would care to
>> calculate the relative amounts of time, distance, and locks involved
>> compared to going directly via the proposed new waterway?
>>
>About two days and a dozen or so locks from where I'm guessing you are.
>
>As against most of a day and an indeterminate number of locks from the
>Grand Union main line using the proposed link.

More like a couple of hours, I would expect.

>Would you be willing to pay a toll to save the time if you were on the
>Main Line?

Of course.

>Otherwise, there's no economic case for building it, and given the
>costs, the toll wouldn't be cheap,

It is fairly certain that even the operation, let alone the
construction, of the new waterway could not be financed by toll
revenue.

>building costs would be greatly increased by making it wide,

I'm suggesting it be broad, not wide.

I doubt that building it broad would cost much more than building it
narrow. Many of the costs are not related to gauge beam (approvals,
design, contract letting, number of locks, contractor mobilisation,
etc.). Excavating an extra 2m of width in the trench for the length
of the thing would be a relatively minor task. The difference might
be less than 10% in total.

> although I agree if the link were built, it would be desirable if it did match the sizes on the Grand Union.

Hooray!

>> We've now seen the Rochdale and the DBC, both barge waterways,
>> restored in ways that make them unnavigable by barges (the gauges they
>> were built for). I find this "I'm alright Jack" approach of some
>> narrow boaters very unpleasant (and a great waste of the amenity of
>> the waterways concerned).
>>
>The Rochdale is listed by Nicholsons as being suitable for 72 feet long,
>14 foot beam boats with a 7 foot 1 inch headroom at the M62 and 2 foot 6
>draught, but the only bridge hole that's smaller than the originals is
>the M62 culvert, the rest being 7 foot 6, and the draught is only that
>small due to the way it's not been dredged.

> What needs changing there structurally to get the original size of craft through?

Nicholson's is wrong. Or, perhaps, it is reporting today's effective
gauge.

The as-built gauge beam of the Rochdale was 4.4 m. The shortest lock
was/is 24.7 m quoin to quoin (so you need to subtract a little to
allow the bottom gates to open, to get the gauge length).

> As far as I can tell, the original boats were 72 feet by 14 feet

Nope. They were bigger.

>and 2 foot 6 draught, but the only bridge hole that's smaller than the originals is
>the M62 culvert

Which rules out many barges.

>the draught is only that small due to the way it's not been dredged.

Not so, I'm afraid. That draft is set by the concrete of the culvert.
If that culvert had been too shallow for narrow boats, you just know
that it would have been altered.

The dredging done to reopen the infilled length above the Ashton
junction was *really* a notch down the middle. This "dredging"
consisted of scooping fill from the middle and dumping it in the water
again at the sides of the canal (on the water side of the original
piling) then coralling it there with geotextile. The resulting
channel is too narrow and too shallow for many barges, and certainly
too restricted for one to pass another. The reduction in water
surface means the depth now fluctuates far too much when the lock
downstream is worked, grounding deeper-draft boats.

The promise was that this was a quick fix necessary to complete the
work before the grant deadline was reached, and that the original
profile would be recovered there when it was next dredged. However,
C&RT has now withdrawn the original profile pledge.

>> Droitwich Barge Canal

>Thanks, another broad one one with a low motorway culvert, then.

Yes. And another one that was not properly dredged during
restoration, and hasn't been since.

> Mind you, even *I'd* have to duck for that one at 6 feet.

I believe you are confusing the narrow culvert on the DBC downstream
of Droitwich with the very low one on the Droitwich canal upstream of
the town.

[Brian]

After serious thinking canaldrifter wrote :

O that's a slippery slope, most Narrowboats are under 2 foot draft, sod
the deep ones we only need 3ft of water over the cill.

--
Brian on Harnser

[Adrian]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:46:56 +0100, canaldrifter
<canald...@gmx.com> wrote:

>Do you honestly think, Adrian, that in the present financial climate
>CaRT should maintain original profiles where you want to go just to suit
>you and a handful of other wide-beam owners? It would be at the cost of
>truncating the system elsewhere.

You reveal a misunderstanding of the dredging situation. Always
recovering original profile is actually the best approach for all
boaters.

A good deal of the cost of any dredging project is fixed independent
of the amount of material to be removed. These project-specific costs
include getting approvals, bed surveys, letting the contract,
assembling the equipment and subsequently dispersing it, etc.

As a result, it is most economically efficient (i.e. least costly per
m3 of material dredged overall for the project) to remove as much silt
as possible from the length to be dredged whenever dredging is to be
undertaken. In other words, to recover the original profile. So, by
recovering the original profile, the authority can remove the most
silt for its money.

The long-term average of the total amount of silt deposited in the
network per year remains about the same irrespective of current
depths. If less than that amount is removed on average each year, the
network on average gets shallower. In the end, if the average annual
amount dredged is not increased, routes will one by one become
unnavigably shallow. So you are going to get truncation.

Before the recent increase in the annual dredging budget, there was no
question that more silt was being deposited than being removed in
total over the network each year. I think that is still the case even
with the increase. Vince Moran, C&RT's head of engineering, thinks
that for the current budget, efficiency savings (in particular
reductions in the cost/m3 of silt disposal) can trip the balance. I
hope he's right, but I remain to be convinced.

If the total dredged/year is still too small, then the key question is
"How do you allocate the shallowing?". You can let the whole network
shallow gradually, or you can keep some routes properly dredged and
let others (presumably, the little used ones) go undredged (except
for, maybe, spot dredging to preserve a notch down the middle). With
the former, you end up with much the worse problem, as the whole
network eventually begins to fail. With the latter, you have only to
recover the lesser routes when more dredging money becomes available.
I go for the latter. I'd rather see e.g. the GU mainline at design
depth and routes like the Slough branch shallow, rather than the whole
lot silted up. Also, by doing the latter, you gain the efficiency
savings and more usable channels of original profile dredging. With
the former, you don't, as all the dredging projects achieve only
smaller channel profiles. Yes, with the latter you get effective
truncation of some routes earlier, but with the former you are moving
towards total system collapse.

So, it's got nothing to do with the size of vessel I own, but
everything to do with how most sensibly to spend the money available
for dredging.

You can't save money on dredging by adopting smaller profiles. It's a
shame how many narrow boat owners (and their associations) haven't yet
grasped this point.

[canaldrifter]

On 28/10/2014 10:28, Adrian wrote:
> You can't save money on dredging by adopting smaller profiles. It's a
> shame how many narrow boat owners (and their associations) haven't yet
> grasped this point.

I know of no narrow boat association.

I do know of a boating association that has a grasp on reality, to which
you no doubt feel excluded.

Tone

[c...@isbd.net]

No comment on what Adrian actually said then?

--
Chris Green
·

[Roger Lynn]

On 28/10/14 10:28, Adrian wrote:
> You reveal a misunderstanding of the dredging situation. Always
> recovering original profile is actually the best approach for all
> boaters.

You missed that a shallow canal, particularly one which is shallow at the
edges, gets more wash and more damage to the banks, is harder to moor on
causes higher fuel consumption. It does feel that there is now less and less
tow path that is suitable for mooring against.

Roger

[canaldrifter]

I don't see the point of arguing with him. He is always right, in his
own right wing mind.

If there was the funding available then I would have no objection at all
at all to them dredging to original profile. But in the real world, not
the one that Adrian inhabits, due to the greed of the right wing rich
bar stewards who run our country, there is not the funding because they
would rather keep it in their own family coffers than share it with the
rest of us.

So we have to make the best of what pittance we've got, and if that
means keeping open more mileage of canals, even though they might be
shallower than they should be, that is far betterer than seeing dead end
branches being closed down, just to keep the wide-beam rings open.

Far canal.

Tone

[c...@isbd.net]

So you seem to have totally ignored or misunderstood what he was saying.

His point was that, given the funding we have which won't keep the
all the canals even at their existing profiles we either:-

Don't dredge to profile, i.e. spread it thinly and accept that
eventually *every* canal will be silted up.

Decide which canals to dredge to profile and allow the others
to silt up quicker.

... at least I think that's what he was saying.

--
Chris Green
·

[John Williamson]

There's a middle case which dredges all canals to the minimum profile
necessary to let two narrowboats comfortably pass each other, as the
vast majority of boats on the canals now are shallow drafted
narrowboats, and the minorities with old working boats and barges get
lucky now and then.

n alternative is for boat owners to accept a vastly increased licence
fee to improve maintenance, as the Government will be reducing their
subsidy over the next few years, there will be no more property to sell
off or rent out, and CRT will probably have trouble making up the
shortfalls from charitable donations once businesses realise they're not
a charity that will give them pictures of cuddly animals or tragic kids
to use in their publicity. If they use pictures of boats, people will be
asking why rich people (They're the only ones that can afford boats in
the public's opinion) need charitable help. If they don't use pictures
of boats, then people will say they don't need to have things like
working locks, so they don't need the money. I'd say it's going to be
boat owners and anglers paying the entire bill within a decade or so.

[canaldrifter]

On 29/10/2014 15:11, John Williamson wrote:
> I'd say it's going to be boat owners and anglers paying the entire bill
> within a decade or so.

Spot on, but less so anglers. They'll just go angle elsewhere.

It twaz Margaret Beckett that said to me years ago that if boaters want
the canals, they are going to have to pay for them. Tiz all coming
'orribly true.

If Adrian and his ilk want original profile dredging, then let them pay
for it.

Tone

[c...@isbd.net]

I think they want canals, unlike you apparently.

--
Chris Green
·

[John Williamson]

Everyone in this group wants workable canals, and all people owning
boats on the canals want to be able to use them. I know that
canaldrifter has worked in favour of the restoration cause for many
years. I've been off the water since the late 1970's but now I'm back
and worried.

What needs to be worked out now is how the users are going to pay for
them in the future. In the final analysis, we will get the canal system
we the boaters pay for and CRT will have to cut their cloth accordingly.

Unwelcome fact. The current government subsidy will go away without any
money coming in to replace it apart from boaters' payments and some rent
from waterside properties that CRT own, such as wayleave payments from
power and communication companies. Even CRT admit this in their
published plans for the future. All maintenance and improvements will
have to be paid for out of this income, as the government have
effectively washed their hands of it once the currently agreed funding
runs out. In spite of what some people claim, I suspect this was a major
reason behind turning British Waterways (A government department with
responsibilities to and funded by Whitehall) into Canal and River Trust
(A notionally independent charitable trust, partially funded by less and
less government money as time goes on).

As far as central government goes, they don't care whether the canals
are beautifully clean, deep waterways usable by the largest boats, or
festering, weed filled ditches with locks replaced by weirs, under the
auspices of the water companies, as long as they perform the essential
drainage and water transport functions needed. They don't have to pay
them directly either way, as neither budget is the responsibility of
Whitehall.

Local councils may be persuaded to pay for work on the towpath in their
area, but will be reluctant to pay for works that don't make it safer
and easier to use for cyclists and pedestrians. In their eyes, boaters
are rich enough to pay for their own waterways, thank you very much. And
if you have the cheek to actually *live* on a boat, then they'll happily
take your council tax and give you very little back.

And--- Breathe.

[canaldrifter]

That all sums it up nicely, and sensibly.

Tone

[Adrian]

Thank you.

Tony still seems not have accepted/understood the following, which I
will emphasise:

YOU CAN'T REDUCE THE DREDGING REQUIRED BY ADOPTING A SMALLER PROFILE.

So, as you said, unless the annual dredging budget is increased (or
the costs of dredging are reduced through e.g. cheaper spoil
disposal), the choice is between letting all routes get shallow
(eventually too shallow to navigate), or letting some get shallow and
keeping the rest properly dredged.

>If Adrian and his ilk want original profile dredging, then let them pay
for it.

*All* boaters who understand the economics of dredging want it,
because that is the way to get best value from the maintenance budget.
"Notch down the middle" dredging makes things worse for everybody.

Think of it like battlefield triage. You don't have enough medical
resources to attend to all the injured, so you ruthlessly let those
who are going to die anyway (because their wounds are so serious) die,
and give your attention only to those you can save. Otherwise, more
of the saveable will die.

I would rather have left the Slough branch to the weeds (unless the
Slough-Eton waterway is built, the branch is a lowest priority on
almost everyone's lists), and deployed the dredging team on the main
line.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:11:33 +0000, John Williamson

>There's a middle case which dredges all canals to the minimum profile
>necessary to let two narrowboats comfortably pass each other, as the
>vast majority of boats on the canals now are shallow drafted
>narrowboats, and the minorities with old working boats and barges get
>lucky now and then.

(and when the waterways get too shallow for modern narrow boats, which
they eventually will under your proposal, will you be advocating that
we switch to kayaks?)

There is no such middle case. You are making the same false
assumption as Tony, i.e. less dredging is needed to keep a shallow
narrow canal channel dredged than an original profile one. It isn't.
The same amount of silt per year falls in both channels, so the cost
of the required dredging is, and remains, the same.

The least expensive way to dredge is always to recover the original
profile.

>An alternative is for boat owners to accept a vastly increased licence
>fee to improve maintenance

Sorry, there is no such alternative either.

There is a point of diminishing returns on navigation charges , and
the total revenue achievable at that point is a great deal less than
is needed to maintain the waterways for navigation. Yes, we are quite
a bit below that point at the moment, and a re-design of C&RT's
cumbersome licence system could extract quite a lot more revenue with
least pain, but if the waterways are to be retained there will always
be a need for substantial non-boater funding. That's why the canals
went bust, of course.

[canaldrifter]

For all of the above to make any sense at all at all, we would have to
dredge all canals to original profile in order to continue to dredge to
original profile. That would be to remove millions of tons of silt and
dump it somewhere. Nowadays they won't let us spread it on the nearest
farmer's field. It would have to be treated as contaminated waste, and
that is horrendously expensive to shift.

What you are selfishly suggesting is that we all pay, through our
licence fees, to just dredge to original profile the broad canals where
you want to go and let the rest silt up.

Well sorry, mate, but you are well outnumbered by thousands of
narrowboat owners who want to use those narrow dead ends. So dredging
as and when it becomes necessary to keep canals open for narrowboats is
the way it will go, (if it goes at all at all, and I have me doubts
about that) unless you personally want to donate a few millions to get
us all back to original profile first?

Tone

[c...@isbd.net]

canaldrifter <canald...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> What you are selfishly suggesting is that we all pay, through our
> licence fees, to just dredge to original profile the broad canals where
> you want to go and let the rest silt up.
>
> Well sorry, mate, but you are well outnumbered by thousands of
> narrowboat owners who want to use those narrow dead ends. So dredging
> as and when it becomes necessary to keep canals open for narrowboats is
> the way it will go, (if it goes at all at all, and I have me doubts
> about that) unless you personally want to donate a few millions to get
> us all back to original profile first?
>

I think you are deliberately misunderstanding what Adrian is saying.
He is saying that it makes no difference *what* profile you dredge to,
you still have to take the same amount of sludge out in the long term.

Think about it, if there's 50 tons of leaves, bicycles, prams, old
boots and whatever falling into a section of canal every year then you
*have* to pull 50 tons out again. It makes no difference what profile
you dredge to. If you don't pull out as much as falls in then,
whatever profile you choose, the canal will eventually fill up.

As you say, there may be a big 'step' dredge required to get back to
original profile but it would surely be reasonable to dredge enough to
maintain profile plus a couple of percent extra. Then in the long
term you'd get back to original profile and once there maintenance is
the same as any profile.

Dredging *less* than the amount required to maintain profile is, I
agree with Adrian here, not a sensible option.


--
Chris Green
·

[canaldrifter]

On 03/11/2014 09:46, c...@isbd.net wrote:
> As you say, there may be a big 'step' dredge required to get back to
> original profile but it would surely be reasonable to dredge enough to
> maintain profile plus a couple of percent extra.

That is where, quite frankly, you are not thinking reasonably. Who is
going to pay for this huge step? How much will it cost, including the
transportation and disposal of what is now classified as contaminated
spoil?

I agree that theoretically the idea is good*, but in practice, in the
current financial environment, when keeping ANY part of the system open
is doubtful, how can you suggest that your ideals are a reasonable
proposition? Dredging to original profile hasn't been a reasonable
financial prospect for years.

*Sometimes I agree with Adrian, but not often. He disregards the initial
cost of what he proposes.

Tone

[Adrian]

On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 20:23:30 +0000, canaldrifter
<canald...@gmx.com> wrote:

Tony,

You are simply missing the point. You are letting your entrenched (ha
ha) "original profile is a plot by owners of big vessels" bias cloud
your judgment.

>For all of the above to make any sense at all at all, we would have to
>dredge all canals to original profile in order to continue to dredge to
>original profile.

In time, yes, but that time is 20 to 40 years. The extra amount each
year is manageable.

The appropriate regime is to dredge a length whenever the silt in that
length starts to intrude into the minimum fairway required for
full-gauge craft to navigate (and pass each other) without hindrance.
That is approximately "gauge draft plus 15 cm x twice gauge beam".
Plus the total water cross section should be at least four (better
five) times the cross section of a full gauge craft. BW used to call
this "the box", or "the trigger".

Let's say that Tony's standard would be to dredge to achieve only the
box. The difference between that and dredging to original profile
will then be the extra cost, typically 15 cm to 30 cm over the entire
width of the waterway. But when dredging is being done anyway, the
marginal cost per m2 of taking out that difference is relatively
small, so it is very good value to shift it then.

Look at it another way. If dredging is supposed to occur whenever
silt starts to intrudes into the box, then the dredging backlog is all
the silt in the box now. Shifting that silt is a one-time cost,
because subsequent dredging on the length concerned will occur
whenever the box starts to be obstructed.

So C&RT would need a one-time capital allocation to cover removal of
the dredging backlog, like BW had for dealing with the crumbling
structures. Quite doable, over 20 to 40 years..

>That would be to remove millions of tons of silt and
>dump it somewhere. Nowadays they won't let us spread it on the nearest
>farmer's field. It would have to be treated as contaminated waste, and
>that is horrendously expensive to shift.

The present regulations on disposing of dredged spoil are overly
strict to the point of being goofy. C&RT still hopes to get some
relaxation, especially in rural areas where the "pollution" is usually
fertiliser from the very fields the silt should be (and was always)
disposed on. To compare it with heavy metal deposits is unreasonable
(although there are a *few*, mainly urban, lengths which are seriously
contaminated and will be expensive / T to clear, but only once).

>
>What you are selfishly suggesting is that we all pay, through our
>licence fees, to just dredge to original profile the broad canals where
>you want to go and let the rest silt up.

No, it isn't. Please re-read my previous posts in this thread.
Original profile dredging is best for *all* boaters, because it is the
least expensive way / T to dredge.

If C&RT does not dredge at least as much silt per year as that which
accumulates on average per year, then the waterways are going to silt
up. As I've said, the decision then is whether to let them all silt
up, of to keep some in good dredged condition and only spot-dredge the
rest. The latter makes much more sense, as with the former the whole
network will eventually be at risk.

>Well sorry, mate, but you are well outnumbered by thousands of
>narrowboat owners who want to use those narrow dead ends. So dredging
>as and when it becomes necessary to keep canals open for narrowboats is
>the way it will go,

Sorry, but that option isn't on offer. Either the network is getting
shallower on average, or it isn't. In the former case, (which I think
obtains at present) you can choose only where to feel the pain -- all
over, or selectively. You do need to try to get your head around this
point.

> (if it goes at all at all, and I have me doubts
>about that) unless you personally want to donate a few millions to get
>us all back to original profile first?

C&RT has enough revenue at present to maintain only a smaller network
than it now runs. If it is to keep all those narrow dead-ends open,
it needs more money (or improved efficiency). If that money is not to
be available, then it will have to trim its network. Not nice to
realise, but that's the way it is. And not because of bad men with
barges.

Adrian


>Tone

[c...@isbd.net]

canaldrifter <canald...@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 03/11/2014 09:46, c...@isbd.net wrote:
> > As you say, there may be a big 'step' dredge required to get back to
> > original profile but it would surely be reasonable to dredge enough to
> > maintain profile plus a couple of percent extra.
>
> That is where, quite frankly, you are not thinking reasonably. Who is
> going to pay for this huge step? How much will it cost, including the
> transportation and disposal of what is now classified as contaminated
> spoil?
>

I didn't advocate a big step! I said ".... it would surely be

reasonable to dredge enough to maintain profile plus a couple of

percent extra." Stop jumping up and down and shouting and try reading
what people have said.

--
Chris Green
·

[canaldrifter]

On 04/11/2014 10:39, c...@isbd.net wrote:
Stop jumping up and down and shouting and try reading
> what people have said.
>

I'm not shouting. Maybe your ears are at fault?

I wish I could jump up and down. Unfortunately I can't any more.

Tell you what. You and Adrian just hang around for another 30 or 40
years and see how much of your brilliant ideas about dredging get taken
up by what's left of CaRT. That will prove who is right around here.

If I'm wrong, I'll eat my cap, even though I will be 115.

Tone

[Paul E Bennett]

There is a similar story in railway circles (told to me by an ex-railway
Civils Engineer friend) in relation to Brunel's Piles. This is on a section
of the Great Western Route near Swindon which traverses over Green Sand.
Admittedly the oak piles were getting quite old and starting to rot out
(they were about 150 years old at that point). Instead of taking the more
capital intensive replacement of the piles with new ones, they removed
Brunel's Piles and back-filled with gravel and other hard-core, then re-
built sleeper track over the top. They have probably spent much more money
on the maintenance of that section now than they would have done if they
inserted new piling as replacements.

Sometimes, you have to bite a bigger (financial) bullet to ensure the long
term cost effectiveness of what you do. I follow Adrian's logic and it does
seem like a sensible approach given limited funding to ensure that the best
dredging operation that can be achieved for most of the network is carried
out such that most of it will survive for much longer than the minimalist
approach. After all, getting plant to site is costly, but removing the spoil
does not increase at the rate that moving plant does (and not all of it can
go by canal).

--
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E....@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

[c...@isbd.net]

canaldrifter <canald...@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 04/11/2014 10:39, c...@isbd.net wrote:
> Stop jumping up and down and shouting and try reading
> > what people have said.
> >
>
> I'm not shouting. Maybe your ears are at fault?
>

I don't use my ears to read E-Mails.

> I wish I could jump up and down. Unfortunately I can't any more.
>
> Tell you what. You and Adrian just hang around for another 30 or 40
> years and see how much of your brilliant ideas about dredging get taken
> up by what's left of CaRT. That will prove who is right around here.
>
> If I'm wrong, I'll eat my cap, even though I will be 115.
>

So you're still criticising us rather than addressing the points we made.

You made no comment about my complaint that you hadn't read what I
actually said, just tried to shout me down basically.

--
Chris Green
·

[canaldrifter]

On 04/11/2014 14:27, c...@isbd.net wrote:
> canaldrifter <canald...@gmx.com> wrote:
>> On 04/11/2014 10:39, c...@isbd.net wrote:
>> Stop jumping up and down and shouting and try reading
>>> what people have said.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not shouting. Maybe your ears are at fault?
>>
> I don't use my ears to read E-Mails.

I don't use my voice to write them.

>
>
>> I wish I could jump up and down. Unfortunately I can't any more.
>>
>> Tell you what. You and Adrian just hang around for another 30 or 40
>> years and see how much of your brilliant ideas about dredging get taken
>> up by what's left of CaRT. That will prove who is right around here.
>>
>> If I'm wrong, I'll eat my cap, even though I will be 115.
>>
> So you're still criticising us rather than addressing the points we made.
>
> You made no comment about my complaint that you hadn't read what I
> actually said, just tried to shout me down basically.
>

My apologies if that is the way you read it, Chris. But you see, I
pragmatically start with how much money is available now, and how much
will be available, and then look at the mentality of those who spend it
before considering whether this idea is workable. Unless some charitable
multi-millionaire chucks a few billion into the system, dredging to
original profile isn't going to happen, not even bit by bit. Adrian has
been flogging this idea for years, and he hasn't got anywhere with it
yet. Why would those in authority change their views now when finance is
getting tighter and tighter?

Whilst I accept that the idea is sound, it will never happen, because
nobody in CaRT will ever be persuaded to look at the long term
investment or effect of what they do. It is far too late for that. They
will always go for the cheapest option and make the same mistakes over
and over again. Just look at the failures in coir and woven piling as an
example. They will spend as little as possible on dredging, to keep as
much of the system open to narrowboats as they can. Fact.

Even that won't be enough. Eventually weeded and silted up branches will
fall into disuse because boaters won't want the aggro of going there.
Within the 30-40 years mentioned above the navigable system will
truncate to three or four major rings, that will be funded by the richer
boaters for their own pleasure. Un-navigale branches will be sold off to
be filled in and built upon by developers, to fund these rings.

Poorer boaters (like me and many of my friends) will be priced off the
cut to the applause of the rich.

Fortunately I won't be here to see it. I've worked for, and seen the
best of it since the 50s, and for that I'm very glad to have been able
to do my bit. Enjoyed every minute. The great highlight was running trip
boats and giving commentaries on a canal I had helped restore.

As NABO Vice-Chair for three years nearly, I fought against BW being
changed into a trust because I knew what this would mean for the future
funding of the system. It happened anyway. It had been planned for at
least 10 years.

The main financial concern is not dredging. It is repairing breaches
when they happen. And when eventually they can't afford to repair them
any more, then that section of canal will remain dry.

In fact, the future prospect for the system in England is not much
different at the beginning of the 21st century than it was at the
beginning of the 20th. The only chance for the system now, is for a
future enlightened government to fund it as a public amenity once more.
But that would be living in cloud cuckoo land.

Or for volunteers to take over the whole system, CaRT as well. But with
present health and safety legislation in a litigative society, that is
most unlikely.

(How much are we paying those at the top in CaRT, compared with the NT?
And for what?)

Tone

[c...@isbd.net]

canaldrifter <canald...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> Whilst I accept that the idea is sound, it will never happen, because
> nobody in CaRT will ever be persuaded to look at the long term
> investment or effect of what they do. It is far too late for that. They
> will always go for the cheapest option and make the same mistakes over
> and over again. Just look at the failures in coir and woven piling as an
> example. They will spend as little as possible on dredging, to keep as
> much of the system open to narrowboats as they can. Fact.
>

But, as Adrian keeps trying to point out, it doesn't work. The canals
silt up. This you have admitted in the paragraphs I've snipped.

You may well feel that no one will listen to what Adrian is saying but
that doesn't stop it making sense.

So shouldn't we all try and speak with one voice to CART and tell them
the error of their ways? :-)


--
Chris Green
·

[Denis McMahon]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 00:23:38 +0000, canaldrifter wrote:

> On 03/11/2014 09:46, c...@isbd.net wrote:
>> As you say, there may be a big 'step' dredge required to get back to
>> original profile but it would surely be reasonable to dredge enough to
>> maintain profile plus a couple of percent extra.
>
> That is where, quite frankly, you are not thinking reasonably. Who is
> going to pay for this huge step? How much will it cost, including the
> transportation and disposal of what is now classified as contaminated
> spoil?

I don't think anyone is proposing the massive step dredge, they're all
agreeing it's not affordable.

> I agree that theoretically the idea is good*, but in practice, in the
> current financial environment, when keeping ANY part of the system open
> is doubtful, how can you suggest that your ideals are a reasonable
> proposition? Dredging to original profile hasn't been a reasonable
> financial prospect for years.

What's being suggested (as I understand it) is as follows:

Based on the assumption that 1000 tons of silt falls accumulates in this
here 10 Km metres of canal every year,

And that the incremental cost of dredging 1100 tons instead of 1000 tons
is pretty minimal, because all the people and equipment is already here
anyway,

Lets dredge 1100 tons instead of 1000 tons, and then over time perhaps
we'll restore the profile here to original.

i.e. Not to dredge the big step to original profile everywhere, but where
dredging is taking place, to at least dredge a bit more than the break
even amount of total deposit since last dredge, so that over time the
profiles improve.

Although I suspect that doing so may just become an excuse to delay the
next dredge further down the line .... :(

--
Denis McMahon, denismf...@gmail.com

[Dr Nick]

Another approach - which wouldn't help Adrian and folk like him - would
be to dredge to profile but only when it would currently be dredged. I
suspect that moving the gear, getting permission for dumping the silt,
getting it analysed for contaminants, clearing moored boats and overhead
trees out of the way etc takes a significant chunk of the dredging
budget. So dredging everywhere less often, but more thoroughly when you
do so, would be a cheaper way of doing it.

OTOH we couldn't just adopt this now, because while we were doing this
some areas would silt up entirely.

[Adrian]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 19:40:52 +0000, canaldrifter
<canald...@gmx.com> wrote:

>Unless some charitable
>multi-millionaire chucks a few billion into the system, dredging to
>original profile isn't going to happen, not even bit by bit.

Not true.

C&RT appears to have too little revenue to maintain the network it now
has. So, if it is going to retain that whole network in navigable
condition, it must either increase revenue, or reduce cost, or both.

It is looking for ways to increase revenue, and there are several
available. I expect some successes here.

It is also looking for ways to reduce cost. Vince Moran, the Trust's
dredging czar, believes this can be done substantially for dredging,
not least by attacking spoil disposal expense. Note this is *not* the
same as reducing the amount of dredging, but is actually doing the
same or more dredging for less money.

Also, dredging is an annual cost. Yes, there is a capital backlog to
be addressed, but this would be done over a 20 to 40 year period. The
capital would not be needed, or spent, all at once.

> Adrian has been flogging this idea for years, and he hasn't got anywhere with it
>yet. Why would those in authority change their views now when finance is
>getting tighter and tighter?

Also not true.

For several years I was the person in the National Inland Navigation
Forum (a now-disbanded discussion and coordination group whose members
where many of the waterways associations). We lobbied BW for some
time, and eventually Stewart Sim (BW's dredging czar) endorsed
original profile dredging as the way to go, and Dave Fletcher (then BW
chairman) pledged that that was how it would always do its dredging in
future. I call that "getting somewhere".

Of late, Vince Moran has, to my great regret, cancelled that pledge,
but believes (I'm interpreting here, after discussions with him) that
his anticipated dredging cost/T reductions will before long allow
total dredging per year to exceed average total silt deposited per
year. At that point, I maintain he will be able to agree to return to
the original profile policy. However, I remain to be convinced that
he will reach that point.

>Whilst I accept that the idea is sound, it will never happen, because
>nobody in CaRT will ever be persuaded to look at the long term
>investment or effect of what they do.

Again not true. C&RT looks at long term investment all the time,
because the waterways are a long-term liability. How do you think it
plans its structural maintenance and replacement?

>Eventually weeded and silted up branches will
>fall into disuse because boaters won't want the aggro of going there.

That *is* true. That's what happens if you get dredging wrong. As I
believe C&RT has at present.

>Poorer boaters (like me and many of my friends) will be priced off the
>cut to the applause of the rich.

Boating is a luxury leisure pastime, a non-necessity requiring
significant private and public expense. Sorry, Tony, but it isn't
something a poor person can expect to be able to afford (except
perhaps by trail boat). Who can justify the government's creating a
"boating benefit", or an equivalent C&RT subsidy, to cover it?

I'm afraid there is a lot of woolly thinking, and basic
misunderstanding of economics, in some parts of the waterways
community. That does not help the waterways.

[canaldrifter]

On 05/11/2014 08:18, Adrian wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 19:40:52 +0000, canaldrifter
> <canald...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> Unless some charitable
>> multi-millionaire chucks a few billion into the system, dredging to
>> original profile isn't going to happen, not even bit by bit.
>
> Not true.
>

Yes it is. Every word of it. Dredging to original profile hasn't and
won't ever happen unless there is a huge injection of new money
ear-marked for that purpose.

>
>> Adrian has been flogging this idea for years, and he hasn't got anywhere with it
>> yet. Why would those in authority change their views now when finance is
>> getting tighter and tighter?
>
> Also not true.

Yes it is. All you ever had was a mumbled verbal agreement and a nod to
shut you up in meetings that had other things to discuss.

>
> For several years I was the person in the National Inland Navigation
> Forum (a now-disbanded discussion and coordination group whose members
> where many of the waterways associations). We lobbied BW for some
> time, and eventually Stewart Sim (BW's dredging czar) endorsed
> original profile dredging as the way to go, and Dave Fletcher (then BW
> chairman) pledged that that was how it would always do its dredging in
> future. I call that "getting somewhere".

But they never did it, did they?

>
> Of late, Vince Moran has, to my great regret, cancelled that pledge,

That is not getting you anywhere, is it? My point exactly.

> I'm afraid there is a lot of woolly thinking, and basic
> misunderstanding of economics, in some parts of the waterways
> community. That does not help the waterways.

Agreed.

Tone

[canaldrifter]

On 04/11/2014 23:32, c...@isbd.net wrote:

>>
> But, as Adrian keeps trying to point out, it doesn't work. The canals
> silt up. This you have admitted in the paragraphs I've snipped.
>
> You may well feel that no one will listen to what Adrian is saying but
> that doesn't stop it making sense.
>
> So shouldn't we all try and speak with one voice to CART and tell them
> the error of their ways? :-)
>
>

What do you think NABO has been trying to do during the past 20 years?
What was Save Our waterways trying to do, before the active part of the
movement got spiked by its own inventor for some political reason?

Boaters notoriously DON'T stick together. NABO has always struggled for
membership. Save our Waterways even more so. The vast majority of the
IWA aren't even boaters.

But do BW/CaRT listen and then act anyway?

They have to listen. Consultation is in their job description, but all
too often in my experience, their consultations and user meetings have
just been going through the motions. They still go off and do what they
were going to do in the first place.

It seems, even more so now than before.

Tone

[canaldrifter]

On 05/11/2014 05:00, Denis McMahon wrote:

>
> What's being suggested (as I understand it) is as follows:
>
> Based on the assumption that 1000 tons of silt falls accumulates in this
> here 10 Km metres of canal every year,
>
> And that the incremental cost of dredging 1100 tons instead of 1000 tons
> is pretty minimal, because all the people and equipment is already here
> anyway,
>
> Lets dredge 1100 tons instead of 1000 tons, and then over time perhaps
> we'll restore the profile here to original.
>
> i.e. Not to dredge the big step to original profile everywhere, but where
> dredging is taking place, to at least dredge a bit more than the break
> even amount of total deposit since last dredge, so that over time the
> profiles improve.
>
> Although I suspect that doing so may just become an excuse to delay the
> next dredge further down the line .... :(
>

Of course, that is what would happen, if original profile dredging took
place at all. But it won't. In their thinking CaRT will say, what's the
point of dredging a shorter stretch of canal to original profile if the
rest of it is silting up? Plus boat movement will soon cause some of the
deeper silt to be deposited in the length dredged.

The only practical way to go is to dredge places that are seriously
silted up, deep enough to maintain the passage of narrowboats, who are
the vast majority financial contributors to the system and therefore
should benefit the most.

Tone

[canaldrifter]

On 05/11/2014 08:18, Adrian wrote:

>

> Boating is a luxury leisure pastime, a non-necessity requiring
> significant private and public expense. Sorry, Tony, but it isn't
> something a poor person can expect to be able to afford (except
> perhaps by trail boat). Who can justify the government's creating a
> "boating benefit", or an equivalent C&RT subsidy, to cover it?
>

I refer you to Deacon Blue's song 'Dignity'.

When I started boating the rich didn't want anything to do with canals.

Nasty smelly ditches.

Boater communities were friendly places where everyone looked out for
each other and helped each other. Mooring restrictions were unknown.
Licence and mooring fees minimal. BSS and H&S hadn't been invented, and
going anywhere long distance was a real adventure, requiring the use of
tarpaulin sheets to get through some leaking locks and a great deal of
bow-hauling along neglected towing paths, carrying fuel in cans from the
nearest garage, and water (and beer) from the nearest pub.

But it was fun.

I guess it might return to that in another 50 years or so, when posh
boaters are eventually priced off the cut, and CaRT is disbanded.

Lets hope the canals are not filled in and turned into long distance
cycleways, like many of our old railways.

Tone

[Peter & Jeanne]

>"canaldrifter" wrote in message news:m3csim$a0u$1...@dont-email.me...

"The only practical way to go is to dredge places that are seriously
silted up, deep enough to maintain the passage of narrowboats, who are
the vast majority financial contributors to the system and therefore
should benefit the most.

Tone"

Tone

Your comments do little to foster a united boat users full-frontal point of
view
which is clearly the best way to confront any shortcomings of our masters.

Divided we fall - united we stand - so true.

Danger - you want X dredging system - Adrian wants Z dredging system.

Please try and compromise with the Y (yes) solution (:-)

Pete

[canaldrifter]

Peter, CaRT aren't asking us how to dredge their canals. Whatever we
want, they will still do what they want to do, regardless of our
suggestions, because in their eyes they are the experts. They have a
financial agenda beyond boating, and we are just licence fee fodder.

As I keep saying, Cart will take the cheapest short-term solution to
silting, because their main concern is having enough money in the kitty
to tackle the next major breach, especially if it is on a popular ring
and washes away a Sustrans towing path cycle track.

Such breaches are caused directly by them sacking local lengthsmen who
knew their patch and knew the signs and replacing them with a man and a
van who doesn't. More cost-cutting resulting in more expense later, but
they won't learn from their past mistakes.

You want a middle road? You won't get it unless boaters all stick
together and refuse to pay their licence fees until CaRT fall into line.
Will that happen? Never!

Most boaters don't mind somebody else protesting on their behalf, but
they are too lazy, comfortable or cowardly themselves, or too old in my
case now, to stand up and be counted. Believe me I know. I've been
there, campaigned for it, and was warned off by the then
chairman/founder of Save Our Waterways, who promised me he would back
another protest, but didn't. Those protests were making the press, so
they had to be stopped, and they were. Why? Because suddenly it was
decided that protest didn't work. Only negotiation would. Where did that
pressure to stop protests come from? We can only surmise, but I have my
suspicions. And looking back, where did subsequent negotiation get us?
Nowhere.

It was in-yer-face protest that was the lever that kick-started the IWA
and got things done. Have we forgotten that?

So, no matter what bright ideas we present for the future of our
waterways, they will fall on deaf ears in CaRT unless we somehow force
them to listen and act on what we say. Some hopes.

Tone

[Ian McCarthy]

On 11/5/2014 3:48 PM, Peter & Jeanne wrote:

>
> Divided we fall - united we stand - so true.
>
> Danger - you want X dredging system - Adrian wants Z dredging system.
>
> Please try and compromise with the Y (yes) solution (:-)

C&RT are dredging to full profile as the norm, as policy. The man at the
top, Mr Parry, has said so on, several occasions in my presence, this year.
This is because
A) its the best value for money
B) best for boaters
c) and most of all it is the best for the aquatic life in the canal.
There have been several studies on this over the years the most recent
conducted by Liverpool University, which discovered that Maximum bio-
diversity exists in a full profile dredge canal 5 years after dredging.
It then tails of inverse exponentially over time, dependant on the
siltation rate.

On an average, piece of canal requires dredging once about every 40
years to restore it to original profile, however there are special
places where local siltation takes place, they need to be spot dredged
as required.

The worse length of canal in my opinion in the country is the Lower Peak
Forest. This has not been profile dregdged, certainly from 1920's The
restoration in the 1970's only spot dredged, and that has been repeated
a couple of times since. Its dreadful currently. There are other
northern waterways which have not yet been fully restored. The Rochdale
and the Huddersfield, neither of which were properly dredged before
reopening, which is why they have gained there current reparations for
being slow and shallow, but they are not as bad as the LPF.

In my opinion the rest of the system is in the best state I can ever
remember it, The Summit of the W&B going into Brum needs sorting big
style. There are a few spot places which require local attention, the
Bottom of Spon Lane locks being the worst, this is the only really
important one that springs to mind. The Hatton pound if they are going
to continue to run it about 9inches off weir would also be good, but
they could just fill it with water! The branch out to Anglesey Basin
could also do with a looking at.

If The local authorities can find the money, Titford pools, and the
Ridgeacre Branch to the Spine road, need a really good coat of looking
at. The rest of the BCN isn't too bad, I beleieve they have actually
dredge the Mainline, recently. (I don't know about the Tame Valley
between Rushall to TVJ as I hav'nt done that recently)

The Chesterfield could do with having its channel widened so that one
doesn't have to crawl along, but its good for depth, as far as Morse
Lock, which is still narrow (ie not the standard gauge - 7ft &1/2inches)
so don't know above there. A bit of spot dredging in Worksop would not
go amiss, but that's it.

The top of the Erewash could do with dredging, but I believe that's due
to happen, if not already happened.

A couple of pounds on the Leicester section could do with some attention.

Many of the locks on the southern end of the T&M need their lower
approaches to be dredged, seems to be a section thing, because to the
north of Harecastle its fine.

Can't speak of the southern waterways such as the K&A, or the Southern
Oxford, as we haven't done them in 10's of years, but I'm guessing they
aren't too bad, they weren't 40 years ago, and they have been maintained.

I also can't speak for the L&L, short boat bit, as I hav'nt taken a
Short boat over there in ages either, but friends have, and they say its
not too bad.

--
cheers Ian Mac

[Adrian]

On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:38:08 +0000, canaldrifter
<canald...@gmx.com> wrote:

>On 05/11/2014 08:18, Adrian wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 19:40:52 +0000, canaldrifter
>> <canald...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Unless some charitable
>>> multi-millionaire chucks a few billion into the system, dredging to
>>> original profile isn't going to happen, not even bit by bit.
>>
>> Not true.
>

>Yes it is. Every word of it. Dredging to original profile hasn't [happened]

Factually incorrect.

Original profile dredging was BW's policy and practice for over 15
years, and was C&RT's until quite recently. Just as a couple of
examples, I was involved with BW in a couple of dredging projects
(Stort above Sawbridgeworth, and GU near Stoke Bruerne) discussing how
to verify what the original profiles on those lengths were/are to
develop the specification to be given to the dredging contractors.

> and won't ever happen unless there is a huge injection of new money
>ear-marked for that purpose.

Please read my previous email, where I debunked this statement.

>>> Adrian has been flogging this idea for years, and he hasn't got anywhere with it
>>> yet.

See my paragraph above starting "Original profile ...".

> Why would those in authority change their views now when finance is
>>> getting tighter and tighter?

Because it is the most cost-effective way to dredge. C&RT is keen on
being cost-effective.

>>
>> Also not true.
>
>Yes it is. All you ever had was a mumbled verbal agreement and a nod to
>shut you up in meetings that had other things to discuss.

See my paragraph above starting "Original profile ...".

David Fletcher, as Chief Exec. of BW, and I think Robin Evans too, on
several occasions made public statements (at, e.g. BW annual meetings)
affirming the pledge always to dredge to original profile.

>> For several years I was the person in the National Inland Navigation
>> Forum (a now-disbanded discussion and coordination group whose members
>> where many of the waterways associations). We lobbied BW for some
>> time, and eventually Stewart Sim (BW's dredging czar) endorsed
>> original profile dredging as the way to go, and Dave Fletcher (then BW
>> chairman) pledged that that was how it would always do its dredging in
>> future. I call that "getting somewhere".
>
>But they never did it, did they?

Yes, they did. See my paragraph above starting "Original profile ...
...".

> Of late, Vince Moran has, to my great regret, cancelled that pledge,
>
>That is not getting you anywhere, is it? My point exactly.

As previously stated, Vince believes he can get dredging costs / T,
and third party financial contributions, to the point where the C&RT
dredging budget will allow the removal annually of more silt than is
deposited in the waterways. I hope he's right, but I remain to be
convinced. Pending that, he is reducing profiles as a measure to cut
short term costs (while still incurring the long-term ones). I
disagree with that approach, and remain confident that OP dredging wil
be reinstated when the problems of Vince's approach become apparent.

Sorry to confuse you with facts, Tony. But perhaps you should cosider
reviewing your opinions on this, which are unsupported by reality.

[canaldrifter]

Time will tell.

Tone

[Adrian]

On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 10:02:22 +0000, canaldrifter
<canald...@gmx.com> wrote:

>The only practical way to go is to dredge places that are seriously
>silted up, deep enough to maintain the passage of narrowboats,

This is known as "spot dredging", and generally acknowledged to be an
inefficien (i.e. costly /T) way of doing it. General adoption of it
would result in a substantial increase in the shallowing of the
network.

> who are
>the vast majority financial contributors to the system and therefore
>should benefit the most.

Those with narrow boats have a built-in targeted benefit. 1/4 of the
UK network (or about 1/3 of the C&RT network) by route length is
narrow-gauge waterways, which only they can use, and so are maintained
just for them.

Also, on the whole UK network, I would guess that about 1/3 of the
craft are wider than narrow gauge, and I believe that proportion is
increasing as more people want to escape the accommodation
inconveniences etc of the narrow boat. If the broad and wide
waterways were properly maintained (and the Leicester line summit
became usable by broad craft), I'm sure that the increase would be
quite a lot faster.

[canaldrifter]

Enough Adrian. This is getting really tedious now.

As I said, time will tell whether you are right or wrong in practice.
History has already made the point.

Tone