Ridgacre Branch, A Lost Cause?

[Hairy-Neil]

Here's my least favorite photo taken at the weekend.

 

 

40 minutes later we had navigated to the end of the branch in a 70ft boat and have photos to prove it. The Ridgacre Arm unnavigable? Pah!

 

 

The closure was due to contaminated sediment, as in 2001 when it killed most of the fish.

 

Andrew

 

 

If that's the case then surely the whole of the BCN should be closed forthwith

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but surely the BCN Challenge originally came about because the Ridgacre Branch was trunkated to build a new road. Are we now to loose it all over again without a fight?

 

Up and down the country, volunteers, local authorities and even BW are working to conserve and restore many miles of derelict canals, yet what we have already navigable is at serious risk of being 'lost' through neglect, official discouragement and apathy.

 

Does anybody care?

[Chris Pink]

Does anybody care?

 

 

Any idea who put up the sign? It obviously has no 'official' backing.

[RLWP]

Any idea who put up the sign? It obviously has no 'official' backing.

 

Now that's an interesting question. We assumed that it was the BCNS.

 

Richard

[Hairy-Neil]

Any idea who put up the sign? It obviously has no 'official' backing.

 

The official BW line would seem to be to let nature take over and the arm become unnavigable through neglect (I'm aware of the terms of the 1968 Transport Act).

 

The pollution may well kill the fish but the weed seems to be thriving on it. There is a stretch of about 100 yards with perhaps a 4ft strip of clear water between the weed/reed growth that the boat forced a path through. We also had to cut back overhanging trees as the weed made it impossible to steer round them. Any photos Richard???

 

I was last up the arm about 3 years ago and the cut has deteriorated considerably in that time. It can only get worse.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Hairy-Neil

[Odana]

BW put up the sign. I was having a chat with the BW guys who came to rescue us from the Ryders Green flight on Monday morning. If I recall the conversation correctly, they said they'd put up those signs at late notice (ie Fri night/Sat am) when they'd know about the challenge, as there are nesting birds and also the fish were killed a few years ago by stirring up the silt up there (I know there always used to bea foul smell when youwent past the arm - I'm impressed you risked the miasma!).

 

I'm not sure how I feel about the balance on these little arms between navigation and nature. As a boater there's a bit of me that thinks it's my right(or duty) to maintain navigability on as many miles as possible and I'd have gone up there with you and loved it. On the other hand, if nature is happily doing its stuff in a bit of the polluted BCN, and people around are, in theory or practice, getting benefit from being near that nature (without boats), should a handful of boaters a year be encouraged to potentially kill off that nature in order to boat up the arm just because it's there. Who loses what for what gain? If there's any chance of a through route, then I'll fight for navigation. But if the polluted silt in an arm that nobody except the fish and the ducks want to get to is not damaging anyone/anything by being left undisturbed at the bottom, then I'm inclined to let it lie there and focus limited money and effort on more important bits of navigation like the Lichfield and Hatherton links, the Droitwich, or any arm you can build some decent moorings in!

[Hairy-Neil]

If there's any chance of a through route, then I'll fight for navigation.

 

The Llangollen is our busiest canal and it's a dead end......

 

So let's shut all the dead ends to navigation......

 

The rivers Lee and Stort, Wey, Higher Thames, Ouse Great and Yorkshire, Rippon, Lancaster, Llangollen, Erewash, Basingstoke, Kennet and Avon.....

 

and loads more dead ends that nobody wants.

 

 

..... or any arm you can build some decent moorings in!

 

Why not the Ridgacre? People are happy to live amongst the factories of the Engine Arm so why not..... The terminus is not an unpleasant place. certainly has a handy pub....

 

I believe the smell at the junction comes from the adjacent works and not from the canal itself.

[MartinClark]

Here's my least favorite photo taken at the weekend.

Yes, it's shocking, isn't it? They've spelt "Ridgacre" wrong!

 

40 minutes later we had navigated to the end of the branch in a 70ft boat and have photos to prove it. The Ridgacre Arm unnavigable? Pah!

 

How did you manage to get the boat across the new road? You can boat almost to the end of the Wednesbury Old Canal, just before the site of Swan Junction, but the whole of the Ridgacre Branch is on the other side of the Black Country New Road!

 

Don't take any notice of Nicholsons - that incorrectly labels the part of the Wednesbury Old Canal beyond Ryder's Green as the "Ridgeacre Branch".

[Odana]

The Llangollen is our busiest canal and it's a dead end......

 

So let's shut all the dead ends to navigation......

 

The rivers Lee and Stort, Wey, Higher Thames, Ouse Great and Yorkshire, Rippon, Lancaster, Llangollen, Erewash, Basingstoke, Kennet and Avon.....

 

and loads more dead ends that nobody wants.

 

 

 

 

Why not the Ridgacre? People are happy to live amongst the factories of the Engine Arm so why not..... The terminus is not an unpleasant place. certainly has a handy pub....

 

I believe the smell at the junction comes from the adjacent works and not from the canal itself.

 

Being pedantic, surely there's a difference between a half-mile diversion off an already little-used route in the Black Country and somethign with even slight potential for a cruising route. Though as I said I'm as keen as any boater to get up there and explore (that and the other derelict arms off that route that I was eyeing up for exploration by canoe, if not narrowboat).

 

With an unlimited budget it'd be great to do everything and please everyone and achieve that elusive balance between people, nature and economics. With a limited budget, everything around it in dire need of maintenance and even the lavishly 'regenerated' Walsall basin sadly underused, the Ridgacre wouldn't be my priority. I'd support any use of it - I did a study a few years back trying to work out a way of doing waste transfer to a new facility by water up the Ridgacre via the BCN - sadly the new road cutting it off from the final destination made road transport win out again. And I think those moorings up at Tat branch, the Engine Arm, Ocker Hill (and my beloved Hockley Port, or course), are a brilliant use of otherwise abandoned arms! In various planning projects and canal restoration studies I've been involved in I've pushed to get just that kind of thing included - and to locate marinas in places that will encourage people to use bits of restored canal to get to them.

 

I'm not saying these nooks and crannies should be abandoned - even if they're not used for boats they should be treasured for their heritage value and, increasingly, as habitats. I am wary, though, of stirring up contamination in the meantime that, if it's left undisturbed, doesn't do any harm to wildlife or to us.

 

If BW's sign, rather than laying down the 'unnavigable' challenge, had explained a bit more and said "please don't go up here for environmental reasons - we have a contamination issue", would/should Team Tawny Owl have gone up? That's NOT a criticism, I'm genuinely interested in hearing others' views on this (as a break from a life in environmental planning consultancy, I'm currently doing a PhD related how people have valued the 'services' delivered by urban waterways over time, and how that links with social/environmental conditions and waterways management decisions. So debates about the 'right' way to treat waterways fascinate me!)

[RLWP]

If BW's sign, rather than laying down the 'unnavigable' challenge, had explained a bit more and said "please don't go up here for environmental reasons - we have a contamination issue", would/should Team Tawny Owl have gone up?

 

The trouble with the sign and the situation with the arm is that both are ill-defined.

 

The sign refers to the BCN challenge so I guess that it was posted by the BCNS to stop challenge boats going up the arm. I haven't checked the rules yet to see if this was a scoring section. The sign doesn't say that it was put up by BW.

 

The sign says the arm is un-navigable. In practice there is a good navigable length all the way along the arm. Over 3' most of the way (I gauged it with a pole). But the arm will soon be un-navigable because the channel between the weeds is just under a boat width now. By the end of the summer, who knows?

 

If the sign was clearly a genuine BW sign and asked us not to enter because of contamination, I would have stopped Team Tawny Owl at the bridge. But we were cruising on the day after the BCN challenge and were interested in how un-navigable the arm was.

 

So, the arm says the arm is un-navigable. Who says so and why.

 

The arm is navigable now, but for how much longer?

 

Richard

 

Let's be clear, the Ridgacre arm was as easy to cruise as the Bradeley arm.

[MartinClark]

Let's be clear, the Ridgacre arm was as easy to cruise as the Bradeley arm.

 

But... but... that wasn't the Ridgacre Branch you went up but a part of the Wednesbury Old Canal!

The Ridgacre doesn't start until the other side of the new road! Oh, the woes of being a pedant....

 

I'm disappointed with this thread - I thought Hairy-Neil was going to start a campaign to build a bridge to raise the Black Country road over the canal so that the Ridgacre could be opened up to navigation again, along with digging out the Balls Hill, Dartmouth and Halford Branches! Surely that wouldn't be a lost cause, would it? If those waterways were in any other part of the country there would be a society actively campaigning to do some of that!

[RLWP]

But... but... that wasn't the Ridgacre Branch you went up but a part of the Wednesbury Old Canal!

The Ridgacre doesn't start until the other side of the new road! Oh, the woes of being a pedant....

 

I'm disappointed with this thread - I thought Hairy-Neil was going to start a campaign to build a bridge to raise the Black Country road over the canal so that the Ridgacre could be opened up to navigation again, along with digging out the Balls Hill, Dartmouth and Halford Branches! Surely that wouldn't be a lost cause, would it? If those waterways were in any other part of the country there would be a society actively campaigning to do some of that!

 

I suspect that if this was a branch of a Pennine canal that was rapidly disappearing under weed and was carrying signs telling people not to go you would be more vocal than Hairy-Neil.

 

Last year we cruised up to Titford Pools. This year we gave up at the winding hole after disturbing 'things' on the bottom. I wouldn't willingly do the Bradeley Arm or the "Ridgeacre" again except as part of a challenge. And I'm an adventurous boater.

 

Richard

[Hairy-Neil]

Let's be clear, the Ridgacre arm was as easy to cruise as the Bradeley arm.

 

I'd say it was easier than Bradley, Bradley having the 'wrong' sort of weed though we were determined to see it through to the end, along with at least one other boat we made it to Bradley Works. Richard got the weed hatch down to a fine art on our trip up the Wednesbury Oak Loop.... However, others I spoke to over the weekend had all given up on it. The Ridgacre on the other hand was free of that problem, I don't remember a prop foul on the whole of the branch.

 

 

I wouldn't willingly do the Bradeley Arm or the "Ridgeacre" again except as part of a challenge. And I'm an adventurous boater.

 

Richard

 

Shhhh. Don't mention the Bradley Arm.......

 

 

Don't take any notice of Nicholsons - that incorrectly labels the part of the Wednesbury Old Canal beyond Ryder's Green as the "Ridgeacre Branch".

 

In my copy it also calls the Ellesmere Canal the Llangollen.....

[Hairy-Neil]

Would be nice to have the official line here. Shame Eugene Baston has gone....

 

I'll see what I can find out.

[Chertsey]

Yes, it's shocking, isn't it? They've spelt "Ridgacre" wrong!

Edgeware!

 

(it's a bit like Mornington Crescent...)

[tony collins]

When I last did the BCN Challenge (1999) we took our boat up the branch as far as the "truncation" and presented ourselves at the hotel/pub over the road for breakfast. I seem to remember that it was a bit smelly even then. ( the branch - not the pub. The brekfast smelt delicious)It was a filthy day and we were consequently soaked through. The looks we got as we dripped into the restaurant at 8 o'clock on the Sunday morning were well worth the excellent fry up we received.

 

Our crew consisted of myself, a work colleague and his young son (who incidentally picked up the steering of the boat very quickly). During breakfast, my crew's wife called and asked the inevitable question "where are you?" Which earned the reply "In a pub." "What? You have my seven year old in a pub at eight o'clock on a sunday morning? How long have you been there?" I urged him to say "Umm... Can't remember..." But he chicked out and told the truth - Damn!

 

Tony.

Edited June 8, 2009 by tony collins

[stort_mark]

Oh, the woes of being a pedant....

Yes, we all heard you. We all know.

[stort_mark]

...are a brilliant use of otherwise abandoned arms! In various planning projects and canal restoration studies I've been involved in I've pushed to get just that kind of thing included - and to locate marinas in places that will encourage people to use bits of restored canal to get to them.

...

If BW's sign, rather than laying down the 'unnavigable' challenge, had explained a bit more and said "please don't go up here for environmental reasons - we have a contamination issue", would/should Team Tawny Owl have gone up? That's NOT a criticism, I'm genuinely interested in hearing others' views on this (as a break from a life in environmental planning consultancy, I'm currently doing a PhD related how people have valued the 'services' delivered by urban waterways over time, and how that links with social/environmental conditions and waterways management decisions. So debates about the 'right' way to treat waterways fascinate me!)

 

I took issue with your earlier post about this, but understand where you are coming from. Actually I believe that unless there is fairly urgent action, closure of a lot of arms is almost inevitable soon. There simply isn't the money and there is certain to be huge cuts coming to all government budgets in the next few years.

 

There are two issues here: should boats go up the Ridgacre (yes, Martin, we hear you; everyone knows what we are talking about and it’s easier than talking about the Ridgacre than the ‘remainder of the Wednesbury Old Canal, north-east of Ryders Green' every time) and valuing the environmental services of the canals.

 

BW have a mechanism for stopping boats using a canal. They have not used it for this canal; ergo it is open for navigation. Should there be significant concern over pollution then they, Sandwell Borough Council or the Environment Agency can all effect closure. The authorities are actually well aware of the sediment, having successfully prosecuted a riparian landowner. A bigger concern is whether the substantial fine from that prosecution was ever used to remediate the situation in the canal.

In the long -term the best hope for the entire system may well be an electoral guarantee by all three major political parties that all revenue generated from the canals will be reinvested directly. This would make it worthwhile pursuing a whole load of opportunities and would encourage volunteer efforts.

 

If a canal is open, it is reasonable to be able to use it. Claiming a canal to be unnavigable when it is actually not is disingenuous and counter-productive. Indeed, the BCN Marathon Challenge originally existed to save this very stretch of canal, so it is perhaps particularly apt for boats to be encouraged to use it during this event. Also, it is equally counter-productive for the BCN Marathon Challenge to explicitly discourage navigation to the very extremities of, among others, the Cannock Extension and the Engine Arm. While I appreciate that there are residential boats in these places, the event is only over one weekend annually and attracts a relatively small number of boaters. There may come a time soon when closure beckons for these little arms and branches, and these very residents may expect the wider waterways community to rally to save them; this is considerably more likely if those arms and branches are considered part of the network rather than private property.

 

On the second issue of the valuation of environmental services, it’s not just a question of environmental services. Canals have been shown to have a significantly higher value in urban regeneration than almost any other factor; possibly the only more important element is iconic architecture and canals often have this as well – plenty of examples of that around the country.

When it comes to canals, some towns – Swindon and Stroud – are desperate to get canals back and, in Swindon’s case are even proposing to have a canal where none have gone before. Sadly, in the West Midlands, I get a strong sense that canals are used as the magnet for property development but thereafter there is an active drive to remove the very community who through the last 50 years have kept these waterways open and alive.

It’s still fairly shocking that property developers pay absolutely nothing for waterway frontage other than a premium to the previous owner which they pass on to subsequent users, yet contribute absolutely nothing to the canal or waterways communities.

 

We, boaters and anglers (and some specific industries and utilities), are the only part of society that pay directly for the waterways, and society in general is paying, in real terms, less every year for the upkeep while putting ever increasing pressure on the system. Furthermore, despite contributing nothing, most new property developments actuallhy put big signs up saying "No Mooring". Given that I am actually paying along with every other boater, for the water to be alongside those luxury apartments, I should be able to moor where I damn well please! In fact, it would be quite a nice idea to encourage new developers to start voluntarily putting some cash into the canals to avoid unwanted derelict boats being moored with mud anchors six inches off their property. (Now there's a campaigning thought!)

 

If there was a more equitable financing structure for all the environmental services, landscape services, and tourism and social services performed by the canals, many of our long closed canals would still be open and many restoration projects would get the money needed overnight. The potential value added by canals in an aging population is considerable and even the unloved, grimy corners may one day have a part to play. Have a look at old photographs of the Trent & Mersey, Caldon, Gas Street and many others to see that the eventual transition from industry to leisure and beauty is not an impossible dream.

 

If the Ridgacre/Wednesbury Old Canal has contaminated silt in it, then the authorities should get rid of it. It is not acceptable to say that BW cannot afford it, because even if the canal is closed and filled in, it will still require environmental remediation. The difference being that closure and in-fill would require remediation before further use, whereas remediation of a canal can be done over time, bit by bit.

 

So whatever anyone thinks of the situation, the Ridgacre should be cleaned up because one way or the other it will have to be done anyway, and the cheapest option is to do it as a canal. Then maybe one day in fifteen years or so, we can perhaps see something that reattaches the Balls Hill Branch, the Ridgacre, the Halford, the Dartmouth and the Jesson to the network.

Edited June 15, 2009 by stort_mark

[stort_mark]

Photos requested. By Neil perhaps? Can't remember. Sequence of photos of Tawny Owl carefully navigating the Wednesbury Old Canal to EoN.

Apologies for the washed out, 1960s look of them; the camera setting must have been switched over to 'Crap Photo' mode.

After Phoenix Street bridge. Old Swan Foundry site, to right, now gone completely. Entrance to Phoenix Tube basins under footbridge ahead to left. Site also completely gone, and no trace of basins.

 

Looking back towards Phoenix Tube site - actually on both sides of canal here. Second of two footbridges over basins visible.

 

Great Bridge Street bridge, looking north east

 

Wednesbury Old Canal, End of Navigation

 

Carlyle Business Park on west/north bank, by end of navigation

 

NB Tawny Owl at absolute end of navigation (TNC-style photo!)

 

Derelict Rudge Littley industrial site, south bank of Wednesbury Old Canal

 

Looking back towards Phoenix Tube site (now long gone) north of Great bridge Street bridge; entrance bridge to basin visible

Edited June 14, 2009 by stort_mark

[MartinClark]

(snippety)

So whatever anyone thinks of the situation, the Ridgacre should be cleaned up because one way or the other it will have to be done anyway, and the cheapest option is to do it as a canal. Then maybe one day in fifteen years or so, we can perhaps see something that reattaches the Balls Hill Branch, the Ridgacre, the Halford, the Dartmouth and the Jesson to the network.

Well said - all of it. Sorry if my earlier frivolity caused any irritation.

 

Photos requested. By Neil perhaps? Can't remember. Sequence of photos of Tawny Owl carefully navigating the Wednesbury Old Canal to EoN.

Loved the photos, thanks. It looks quite nice on a sunny day!

 

Last time I went up there we encountered a reef of trolleys in a line across the canal under Great Bridge Street bridge!

[stort_mark]

Another very good reason for saving this stretch of canal is that it is the oldest in the Black Country.

 

The very first stretch of the Birmingham Canal was from the ten collieries by Tipton Forge to Birmingham, so the upper part of the Wednesbury Old Canal was where the BCN all started. And the first commercial load of canal was on 7th November 1769, 240 years ago this November.