Visionary Val

[Heartland]

In April 2005 Waterways World published a spoof or, at least. hopeful article on the Cromford Canal where restoration was intended by 2020 including  an image of a narrow boat passing towards a navigable Butterley Tunnel (following restoration in 2015 and the move of a portal from Sapperton to adorn the entrance!). Inspired by the restoration of the Huddersfield and Rochdale Canal, the scheme was said to be part of an intended British Waterways plan. April Fool, or not, restoration of the  Cromford Canal has proceeded sluggishly and in fact the momentum of canal restoration across the country appears to be in reverse gear now. So what will happen to the Cromford in the real world? And, indeed, the rest of the restoration schemes?

 

[magpie patrick]

At the risk of stating the obvious - money is the problem, although the Cromford is beset with more problems that that. The earliest restoration schemes generally needed little more then neglect to be undone, even the Kennet and Avon had not been destroyed in any way, it was just very long and thus took a long time. The earlier schemes had everything from unified land ownership to a water supply in place

If you look at the Coal Canal, and I do that quite a lot, a crude estimate for restoration would suggest £60 million. To do that over ten years means finding £6 million a year for ten years, and the Coal Canal is one of the simpler ones, we haven't any serious physical obstacles, very little has been built over it. Even with the money we have to negotiate a water supply and deal with 84 different land owners. One reason I think the Stockport Canal is a contender from Clayton to Gorton reservoir is unified land ownership, another is no particular engineering issues, it's filled in but no one has built houses across it, and it also has a water supply.  

The Cromford would be relatively straightforward to Ironville, although there is not much left of it, but once at Ironville the top lock has been turned into the spillway for Codnor Park Reservoir, and the Pinxton branch infilled over the headbank - the easiest solution to those would be for boats to enter the reservoir (which is also proposed at Gorton on the Stockport Branch) otherwise one is messing about with a reservoir headbank and discharge which gets very expensive very quickly

Beyond this Butterley Tunnel is only the start of the problem - Of the canal tunnels that have been restored they generally have needed little attention, Butterley might well be cheaper to build a new tunnel or go over the top given the subsidence that affected it even when it was open over 100 years ago. Then the canal is largely absent until Ambergate - I recall looking at one location where an aqueduct over the railway was needed and due to modern requirements for clearance we were contemplating whether a carbon fibre aqueduct might work - carbon fibre to keep the structure depth as small as possible. 

Against that, the Wey and Arun have been quietly getting more and more canal open, ten years ago there was three miles and three locks downstream from Loxwood, now there is the same upstream and a new bridge by the Onlsow Arms, and Compasses bridge has been reopened. Even more impressive they have done this without major funding from the usual sources such as the Lottery. 

My own view, for what it's worth, is that simpler* local schemes will progress in the next ten years based on local benefits, which might not be what the typical IWA boater wants - so what if we reopen Paulton Basin for rowing boats? It's a benefit. The Wilts and Berks has picked this up with the Melksham Link, promoting the benefits of part of the overall scheme. 

*"simple" is relative, none are simple in the way the the Caldon or the Stourbridge restorations were 40-50 years ago

[Neil2]

I think MP sums it up quite well.  Plus, a lot of recent restoration projects have been dreamed up by people who really don't know much about the localities the proposed schemes affect.  

I reported for Waterways World some years ago on the proposal to restore the Northern Reaches of the Lancaster canal.  From the very start I could see that it was never going to happen, yet BW and the IWA were whipping up interest in it with ridiculous "estimates" of how much money, employment etc it would bring to the area.  I was rounded on by John Fletcher then Chair of the IWA at a public meeting for daring to ask basic questions like where was the money coming from.  Of course in the wake of the Foot & Mouth epidemic they just assumed the government would throw money at any old scheme that had a connection to areas affected by the outbreak. They were even talking about employing an "artist in residence" for pity's sake. 

Personally I don't think any scheme which involves restoring a dead end canal is worth pursuing.  The only ones that have a hope of succeeding are those that create a new link/ring, and I think it's a shame that in some way we can't pool resources and concentrate on a small number of worthwhile projects eg the Rother Valley link.  Even then, because they are pretty much totally reliant on public funding you can't see much happening on the lines of previous restorations for a very long time.

  

 

[Athy]

As a member of the Wilts & Berks and Cotswolds societies, I wonder if Mr. Land is painting too sombre a picture. Now, I have not yet visited either project, but each quarter I receive their magazines which are adorned with photos of chaps in hard hats smiling and shaking hands in front of a bridge/ lock/ pound which they've just completed work on, so from afar it looks as if restoration is proceeding well. Were I to visit the work sites, would I get a less optimistic impression?

[magpie patrick]

7 minutes ago, Athy said:

As a member of the Wilts & Berks and Cotswolds societies, I wonder if Mr. Land is painting too sombre a picture. Now, I have not yet visited either project, but each quarter I receive their magazines which are adorned with photos of chaps in hard hats smiling and shaking hands in front of a bridge/ lock/ pound which they've just completed work on, so from afar it looks as if restoration is proceeding well. Were I to visit the work sites, would I get a less optimistic impression?

Certainly not on the Cotswolds - the lengths being worked on are going well, although that still leaves a lot to do

I don't know whether progress on the W&B is one scheme or disparate locations - if the latter the impact will be less obvious

As I mentioned, the Wey and Arun is going great guns

[Heartland]

If finance was the only obstacle, I would think more progress might have been made. Besides, there is a certain appeal in restoring dead end waterways. If this had been frowned upon, the Llangollen would be still simply a reservoir feeder.

Rip off ecologists are one factor that delay reconstruction. In one piece for the RCHS Modern Transport Newsletter, I include details of the construction company Buckingham who included in their costs for the improvement to the Oxford- Bicester route, the charges made for plant, bird, animal and invertebrate surveys. This is quite a regular thing, and where factored in construction costs perhaps acceptable. In the case of Buckingham it was Network Rail that paid the additional charges. We as tax payers, of course subsidised the pay for the ecologists. Though this sentiment is most important in the modern way of things (some may disagree), I cannot help feeling that the commercial charges made, can make a difference to those who can least afford it. Especially if preservation schemes have within their membership those who could undertake such tasks for the good of the restoration scheme. This is exactly what happened on the Llangollen Railway extension to Corwen East, where members assisted with the protection of nesting birds and help avoid the regular and expensive ecologist consultations.

Patrick also touched on the diverse issue of land ownership, but political support is also important. The difficulties the Rochdale and Huddersfield encountered were partly smoothed over by assistance from many quarters. This assistance helped the relocation of roads and the building of new bridges and tunnels   

Edited October 25, 2017 by Heartland

[Neil2]

15 minutes ago, Heartland said:

If finance was the only obstacle, I would think more progress might have been made. Besides, there is a certain appeal in restoring dead end waterways. If this had been frowned upon, the Llangollen would be still simply a reservoir feeder.

Rip off ecologists are one factor that delay reconstruction. In one piece for the RCHS Modern Transport Newsletter, I include details of the construction company Buckingham who included in their costs for the improvement to the Oxford- Bicester route, the charges made for plant, bird, animal and invertebrate surveys. This is quite a regular thing, and where factored in construction costs perhaps acceptable. In the case of Buckingham it was Network Rail that paid the additional charges. We as tax payers, of course subsidised the pay for the ecologists. Though this sentiment is most important in the modern way of things (some may disagree), I cannot help feeling that the commercial charges made, can make a difference to those who can least afford it. Especially if preservation schemes have within their membership those who could undertake such tasks for the good of the restoration scheme. This is exactly what happened on the Llangollen Railway extension to Corwen East, where members assisted with the protection of nesting birds and help avoid the regular and expensive ecologist consultations.

Patrick also touched on the diverse issue of land ownership, but political support is also important. The difficulties the Rochdale and Huddersfield encountered were partly smoothed over by assistance from many quarters. This assistance helped the relocation of roads and the building of new bridges and tunnels   

I'm puzzled by that comment.  

Pretty much everything comes back to the money, and the lack of it just throws all the other issues into sharper focus.   

[Heartland]

I will repeat, if finance was the only obstacle, as although it is the most essential factor (that is if not sufficient less would get done), there have been other factors that delay construction or reconstruction. Moving roads is one and throwing money at the scheme may not get it done, or even done correctly. With the Droitwich a major obstacle was the M5 which eventually was done through converting the brook culvert under the M5 into a navigation. But took time and engineering surveys to achieve. Some boaters may even now consider it not enough!

With the Lichfield & Hatherton the essential tunnel under the Cross City Line will be a factor that is in effect a make or break situation. It has reached this stage through careful negotiation and political lobbying. Now finance is needed, as it was for the M6 toll aqueduct. The amount of money already spent far exceeds what is needed for this stage, but needed it is.

The reason for the earlier comment is related to wasting funds and finance where not needed and with rip off ecologist, rip off solicitors and rip off land owners, it is a sad fact of restoration. Perhaps most sad are the parts not restored because of such parasites.

But then on the other side of the coin are such restorations needed ?  Maintaining the waterway is also done at a cost. Yet, with rising boat numbers on our waterways, such restored sections are useful places for mooring as well as cruising 

[magpie patrick]

10 minutes ago, Heartland said:

 

But then on the other side of the coin are such restorations needed ?  Maintaining the waterway is also done at a cost. Yet, with rising boat numbers on our waterways, such restored sections are useful places for mooring as well as cruising 

That, in a nutshell, is what I said at the World Canals Conference... I hope that view will gain traction and more waterways be opened or reopened such that there are more places for boats to simply be as well as more water to cruise

[nebulae]

I enthusiasticaly support the Cotswold Canals restoration(From an armchair).  We have walked the Stroudwater Canal and Thames and Severn Canal as far as the tunnel,several times. The length now restored is one of my favorite walks. Much new housing stimulated by the restoration. The key to the restoration is the partnership of promoters,particularly Stroud District Council. The re instatement of the canal canal below Walbridge Upper Lock is one of the wonders of the waterways,in my opinion.

[archie57]

Is it really worth restoring these canals if they are linked to linear  housing developments - what with that and endless linear moorings the time will come when you won't see any cows or sheep!

[nebulae]

No linear moorings on the Stroudwater. Cant see anything wrong with stimulating new housing, if the area was a dump before. Depends on the quality of the development.