Jump to content

Peak Forest Bridge 24


jam

Featured Posts

From CRT Website

 

"7th January 2015 at 13:00

Wood End Lift Bridge No.24

until further notice
Navigation Closure

The bridge has been damaged and is inoperable due to safety reasons and has been taken out of action. Therefore the canal is closed to navigation. The towpath remains open.

Engineers are assessing the damage to put together a package for repairs and we will update further as soon as we have more information."

 

Not much fun for those trapped at the end of the line.sad.png

Wonder who hit that one then?

Edited by jam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

From CRT Website

 

"7th January 2015 at 13:00

Wood End Lift Bridge No.24

until further notice
Navigation Closure

The bridge has been damaged and is inoperable due to safety reasons and has been taken out of action. Therefore the canal is closed to navigation. The towpath remains open.

Engineers are assessing the damage to put together a package for repairs and we will update further as soon as we have more information."

 

Not much fun for those trapped at the end of the line.sad.png

Wonder who hit that one then?

 

Given the number of massively overweight lorries using that bridge I wouldn't be looking at a boat having damaged it.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

From CRT Website

 

"7th January 2015 at 13:00

Wood End Lift Bridge No.24

until further notice
Navigation Closure

The bridge has been damaged and is inoperable due to safety reasons and has been taken out of action. Therefore the canal is closed to navigation. The towpath remains open.

Engineers are assessing the damage to put together a package for repairs and we will update further as soon as we have more information."

 

Not much fun for those trapped at the end of the line.sad.png

Wonder who hit that one then?

 

 

As George said, there has been an ongoing problem at this bridge for many years.

 

It is a farm accomodation bridge, providing access to land adjacent to the towpath from the A6.

 

It appears that the landowner uses the bridge for heavy lorries, far in excess of its capacity, and it has been damaged previously. When that happened, BW fitted bollards to restrict the width that could be accomodated, and fitted signage.

 

It appears that we have a landowner who wants to get heavy lorries to his land, and is unwilling to see that he bought a piece of land that has not access for heavy lorries.

 

As can be seen from the picture, this lift bridge is one that formerly had a high level footbridge alongside (the stone steps remain, and there is still a girder for pipes to cross).

 

It may even be that at one time the lift bridge was removed, and was restored because BW were obliged to provide it (but not for heavy vehicles).

 

If the landowner has damaged the bridge again, I would hope that CRT would re-instate the pedestrian bridge (to fulfil their obligation to provide for a public footpath), and remove the damaged parts of the lift bridge to allow for navigation until such time as the landowner pays for the damage. Unfortunately, the missing high level bridge means that they are somewhat over a barrel regarding the footpath.

 

http://canalplan.org.uk/photo/pu_m6h

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It appears that the landowner uses the bridge for heavy lorries, far in excess of its capacity, and it has been damaged previously. When that happened, BW fitted bollards to restrict the width that could be accommodated, and fitted signage.

 

 

Of course, those bollards have been bent outwards so a 16t lorry can fit between them.

 

The weight restriction plates are mounted at such a height that they cannot be reached from the ground. However they have been sprayed over with grey primer. A convenient way of reaching those signs to paint them is by leaning out of the cab of a 16t lorry!

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is correct large heavy lorries have damaged the bridge, the tipping must be illegal as many mature trees are bring killed by the massive stockpile of tipped material from demolition sites etc. yet CRT or the environment agency do not take any action when complaints and information is given to them. It is not the farm that the road along the side of the canal leads to, they suffer by bring trapped in their house now.... It is a local farm that produces chickens in the shell !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought about the fly tipping. Would your local authority be interested? In Scotland we have the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) which is very hot on fly tipping and presumably you have something similar in Englandshire. Between SEPA and local authorities they are making a difference.

 

haggis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I hope a solution is found within a couple of months. I operate the day boat 'Phoenix' out of Whaley Bridge. Given that the next winding hole back towards Whaley is very often taken out of use by inconsiderate mooring it would mean the boat is limited to only going as far as New Mills. I should disclose this to potential renters, I'm sure it would affect business.

 

It's a little off topic but would you expect CRT to erect 'no mooring' signs opposite a winding hole, if the towpath directly opposite is regularly used for mooring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bridge 24 is in Cheshire East (as opposed to Stockport MBC or High Peak, which account for the rest of the Upper PFC). That being so there's not much chance of the local authority being interested.

 

 

(ETA - I've just checked where the boundary is)

Edited by Machpoint005
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ćheshire East council do not do anything, and the Environment Agency are not bothered. I met a solicitor walking his dogs, he advised if a response is required from them you have to have a disability or be in a wheelchair ..... then, maybe, they will jump into action... Did not feel like ringing up and lying !

Edited by Dottyshirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This stoppage has a significant impact on my business, so after just returning from holiday yesterday we've spent the day trying to get some sense out of CRT. Yesterday they told us that they were awaiting an engineers inspection. Today they say they can do nothing until they have a meeting on Monday. Right up to the waterways manager we are getting no satisfactory response to what the problem really is or how they plan to reopen the navigation on a temporary or permenant basis.

 

There are many hundred of tonnes of hardcore & rubble now stored on the far side of the bridge brought ovet the 3t limit bridge by lorry. Also CRT's contractors have recently established a worksite on the far side of the bridge incuding large storage containers, site access cabins, skips etc all which must have been brought over the lift bridge by large crane lorries significantly in excess of 3t. (note there doesn't appear to be a height restriction on the bridge, only 3t weight & 8' 6" width restrictions).

 

These manual hydraulically operated bridges occasionally fail & BW/ CRT usually then operate a booked passage, where 2 members of their staff attatch ropes/ chain to the bridge & operate the bridge by the original method of heaving on the chain to counterbalance the bridge. CRT say this is not possible as the bridge frame is damaged.

 

After a long day of road deliveries today I've visited the bridge tonight. I can see no evidence of recent major damage to the structural frame of the bridge & I believe that the bridge would operate safely by the traditional manual counterbalance method ( the hydraulic pump had been disconected to stop boaters trying to operate it).

 

Anyway I remain frustrated by CRT's slow response to resolving this problem & will endevour to deliver to my customers on the Peak Forest as soon as possible.

 

Cheers, Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This stoppage has a significant impact on my business, so after just returning from holiday yesterday we've spent the day trying to get some sense out of CRT. Yesterday they told us that they were awaiting an engineers inspection. Today they say they can do nothing until they have a meeting on Monday. Right up to the waterways manager we are getting no satisfactory response to what the problem really is or how they plan to reopen the navigation on a temporary or permenant basis.

 

There are many hundred of tonnes of hardcore & rubble now stored on the far side of the bridge brought ovet the 3t limit bridge by lorry. Also CRT's contractors have recently established a worksite on the far side of the bridge incuding large storage containers, site access cabins, skips etc all which must have been brought over the lift bridge by large crane lorries significantly in excess of 3t. (note there doesn't appear to be a height restriction on the bridge, only 3t weight & 8' 6" width restrictions).

 

These manual hydraulically operated bridges occasionally fail & BW/ CRT usually then operate a booked passage, where 2 members of their staff attatch ropes/ chain to the bridge & operate the bridge by the original method of heaving on the chain to counterbalance the bridge. CRT say this is not possible as the bridge frame is damaged.

 

After a long day of road deliveries today I've visited the bridge tonight. I can see no evidence of recent major damage to the structural frame of the bridge & I believe that the bridge would operate safely by the traditional manual counterbalance method ( the hydraulic pump had been disconected to stop boaters trying to operate it).

 

Anyway I remain frustrated by CRT's slow response to resolving this problem & will endevour to deliver to my customers on the Peak Forest as soon as possible.

 

Cheers, Brian

 

Hi Brian, hope you've recovered from your long trip back!

 

I was just wondering: It seems that the bridge could possibly be opened and left in that position, allowing boat traffic through. Obviously no vehicles (or pedestrians) could then cross. CRT could then possibly be sued for denying that access but the damage appears to have been caused by the party requiring vehicular access. CRT could request that the causer of the damage pay to have the bridge repaired. The causer might be quite keen to do this quickly. Pedestrians would also be denied access, but how would this balance against boat licence payers being denied access? Just thinking aloud really.

 

On a lighter note, at least there will be another available mooring spot at Poynton for a little while :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hi Brian, hope you've recovered from your long trip back!

 

I was just wondering: It seems that the bridge could possibly be opened and left in that position, allowing boat traffic through. Obviously no vehicles (or pedestrians) could then cross. CRT could then possibly be sued for denying that access but the damage appears to have been caused by the party requiring vehicular access. CRT could request that the causer of the damage pay to have the bridge repaired. The causer might be quite keen to do this quickly. Pedestrians would also be denied access, but how would this balance against boat licence payers being denied access? Just thinking aloud really.

 

On a lighter note, at least there will be another available mooring spot at Poynton for a little while :)

Thanks Rich, I'm a bit jet lagged but not too bad.

 

CRT say they have no evidence of who damaged the bridge, though they have been told about the lorries crossing the bridge & it's obvious who's doing this.

 

As I see it, CRT are just taking their usual line of least resistance & closing the navigation, whilst they have a long slow think about what to do next! At the end of the day there's no rush for them as there is no financial loss to them as everyone still pays they're licence. CRT especially in the Manchester & Pennine area don't even seem to think they have customers. If this bridge was over a public road stuck in the raised position it would have been temporarily operated to back sure that road traffic was allowed. Canal traffic carries no such priority.

 

I get you're subtle hint about the mooring, so at least I'm not the only one keen to get the lift bridge re-opened ;-).

 

Cheers, Brian

Oh bugger so that's the breach at Anderton and now the Peak Forest... So there is little chance of getting to Manchester from Nantwich at the moment - hope it's sorted soon - especially for the canal businesses such as NB Alton

Heidi, don't worry this stoppage is on the Upper Peak Forest, between Marple & Whaley Bridge, so it doesn't effect the Cheshire Ring.

 

Good Luck with the new boat ;-)

 

Cheers, Brian

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Rich, I'm a bit jet lagged but not too bad.

 

CRT say they have no evidence of who damaged the bridge, though they have been told about the lorries crossing the bridge & it's obvious who's doing this.

 

As I see it, CRT are just taking their usual line of least resistance & closing the navigation, whilst they have a long slow think about what to do next! At the end of the day there's no rush for them as there is no financial loss to them as everyone still pays they're licence. CRT especially in the Manchester & Pennine area don't even seem to think they have customers. If this bridge was over a public road stuck in the raised position it would have been temporarily operated to back sure that road traffic was allowed. Canal traffic carries no such priority.

 

I get you're subtle hint about the mooring, so at least I'm not the only one keen to get the lift bridge re-opened ;-).

 

Cheers, Brian

 

Heidi, don't worry this stoppage is on the Upper Peak Forest, between Marple & Whaley Bridge, so it doesn't effect the Cheshire Ring.

 

Good Luck with the new boat ;-)

 

Cheers, Brian

 

CRT get their money anyway: But if they issue a commercial licence (such as yours and mine) could an argument not be made that 'free passage' is, in legal speak, the very essence of the agreement? In your case, you'll struggle to service a fair percentage of your established customer base. In my case I'll only be able to offer day boat trips that range an hour and a half down the canal. Both of us will suffer financially because of this. Why should CRT be pressure free and have no time pressures that could lead to them losing chunks of licence fees, at least? This is perhaps covered in t&c's but if terms are not reasonable they can be challenged. Just think out loud again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

CRT get their money anyway: But if they issue a commercial licence (such as yours and mine) could an argument not be made that 'free passage' is, in legal speak, the very essence of the agreement? In your case, you'll struggle to service a fair percentage of your established customer base. In my case I'll only be able to offer day boat trips that range an hour and a half down the canal. Both of us will suffer financially because of this. Why should CRT be pressure free and have no time pressures that could lead to them losing chunks of licence fees, at least? This is perhaps covered in t&c's but if terms are not reasonable they can be challenged. Just think out loud again!

All "Rights of Navigation"/free passage was lost in the 1968 Transport Act. BW/CRT since then are under no legal obligation to maintain the system for ANY type of boating,be it commercial as in your case, or leisure. They can use any excuse they like to stop navigation and take as long as they like to sort it out.

Whether they have a moral obligation is open to debate.

It's taken them about 4 years to even start work , by contractors, repairing Bridge 9 near Woodley, where most of the bridge parapet was chucked in the canal and was causing problems for bigger boats (Alton included). The winding hole at Woodley is unusable by 70ft boats now due to silting up and others on the Peak Forest are getting that way as well.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRT brought their maintenance items off the strines road and through the farm road to the compound. The bridge is used by a private property with no connection to the tipped material or the land it is situated on. The problem that I saw with the bridge is that when it is lowered it does not seat properly and remains about 8" proud, once a vehicle passes over it the bridge is persuaded into it's down position, obviously a vehicle can only do this if it is passing over in the right direction. The bridge does not seat correctly because it has become distorted by the excess weight that has passed over it by the contractor who tipped the spoil, believed to be a skip firm from Whaley bridge. The framework of the bridge causes a height restriction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hi Brian, hope you've recovered from your long trip back!

 

I was just wondering: It seems that the bridge could possibly be opened and left in that position, allowing boat traffic through. Obviously no vehicles (or pedestrians) could then cross. CRT could then possibly be sued for denying that access but the damage appears to have been caused by the party requiring vehicular access. CRT could request that the causer of the damage pay to have the bridge repaired. The causer might be quite keen to do this quickly. Pedestrians would also be denied access, but how would this balance against boat licence payers being denied access? Just thinking aloud really.

 

On a lighter note, at least there will be another available mooring spot at Poynton for a little while smile.png

 

As I said above, I would have no issue with the removal of the bridge deck if all that was affected was the access to the premises of the culprit.

 

However, that isn't the case here.

 

Firstly, there is pedestrian access, which could be maintained by reinstating the high level pedestrian bridge.

Secondly, there is the farm by bridge 23, whose road access is along the towpath from 24 (there is no road access to 23), who is an innocent party here.

Finally, there is a farm (Chicken Farm?) halfway between the canal and Strines Road, which appears to have the bridge as one of its access routes. I don't know if the Chicken Farm is connected to the tipper?

 

If the roadway through the Chicken farm is a public road, then the farm at bridge 23 could use it as its access, but otherwise CRT's hands are rather tied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How hard would it be to reconnect the pump to raise the bridge...or just raise the bridge & leave it open to make a point? Not that I would suggest such a thing obviously!

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

CRT have said that the damage includes split welds in the lifting framework and they fear for the integrity of the bridge if it is lifted in that condition.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

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.