Jump to content

Stonehouse to Bowbridge


magpie patrick

Featured Posts

On Friday last week I was fortunate enough to cruise from Storehouse Ocean to Bowbridge. A couple of pics, more to follow. First time I've been through a lock that has scaffolding in it! (Wallbridge Lower) . Pics of Ryeford Double and Wallbridge Lower Locks

Edited to add - Wallbridge Lower is the first lock on the Thames and Severn Canal, and Friday last week was the first time a boat had been through it for many years.

20171110_132553.jpg

20171110_115848.jpg

20171110_132400.jpg

Edited by magpie patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We got as far as Bowbridge Lock, which was all we needed to do for grant assessment purposes. There was no water above this lock so we couldn't go through it. In another twelve months further progress should be possible. Indeed it would have been possible two days earlier but the canal dried up again! These photos are from the phone, more when I get round to sorting the camera pictures out.

20171113_195146.jpg

Edited by magpie patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

We got as far as Bowbridge Lock, which was all we needed to do for grant assessment purposes. There was no water above this lock so we couldn't go through it. In another twelve months further progress should be possible. Indeed it would have been possible two days earlier but the canal dried up again! These photos are from the phone, more when I get round to sorting the camera pictures out.

Really good to see this, have been working on Bowbridge Lock with WRG for the last year or so, it is great to see a lock in use so soon after finishing it's restoration. Below is a picture of WRG in action at Bowbridge:

 

IMG_5374.JPG

Edited by Tim Lewis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

We got as far as Bowbridge Lock, which was all we needed to do for grant assessment purposes. There was no water above this lock so we couldn't go through it. In another twelve months further progress should be possible. Indeed it would have been possible two days earlier but the canal dried up again! These photos are from the phone, more when I get round to sorting the camera pictures out.

20171113_195146.jpg

Interesting diagonal planking  Wonder if it will be a problem for full length boats stem fenders? For see bent handrails also Seems a nice job though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, X Alan W said:

Interesting diagonal planking  Wonder if it will be a problem for full length boats stem fenders? For see bent handrails also Seems a nice job though

It's a historical feature of the gates and the HLF bid was centered on heritage (I think). 

Different lock, same canal but you get the idea

4542_450.jpg

Edited by IanM
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IanM said:

It's a historical feature of the gates and the HLF bid was centered on heritage (I think). 

Different lock, same canal but you get the idea

4542_450.jpg

Yes, HLF did insist on authentic detail where appropriate. When I first appraised the grant (in about 2004?!) as project monitor I suggested that this scheme could, and should, be an exemplar of heritage authentic restoration. The actual cost of these details was probably a few tens of thousands of pounds (paddle gear was cast locally to replicate, as near as possible, the original for example) but this helped justify a grant of £12 million.

Edited by magpie patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://cotswoldcanals.com/silt-removal-report/

While on the subject of the Cotswold Canals restoration, I was disappointed to read that the depth they were dredging to was only 1.5 metres. Was this the depth the canal was originally built to, or are they short-sightedly cutting corners and only doing half a job? Perhaps this depth is ok on a utopian canal, but have they not heard of low pounds, through leaking gates or whatever, and people throwing rubbish in?  Dredging to something like 2m has got to be more like it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, X Alan W said:

Interesting diagonal planking  Wonder if it will be a problem for full length boats stem fenders? For see bent handrails also Seems a nice job though

Why would it be, care to elaborate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MJG said:

Why would it be, care to elaborate?

If the locks are of a length as per the "main" system a full length boat if going uphill on it's own will more than likely position itself on the gate mitre if the lock is one that draws the boat forwards on to the top gate the stem would slide up the mitre & if a coir piece of tyre around stem fender is fitted could be forced up the gap between the diagonal boards & possibly jam more so with the current set up of chains/rigging screws same applies to the in gear/tickover top gates riders whilst hands will be wrung & cries of it should not be done over time it will be,  if the water level is of a height to bring a town class GU motor in contact with the curls on the inner ends of the handrails they more than likely will be bent/damaged a wait & see syndrome until boats pass through the system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, archie57 said:

http://cotswoldcanals.com/silt-removal-report/

While on the subject of the Cotswold Canals restoration, I was disappointed to read that the depth they were dredging to was only 1.5 metres. Was this the depth the canal was originally built to, or are they short-sightedly cutting corners and only doing half a job? Perhaps this depth is ok on a utopian canal, but have they not heard of low pounds, through leaking gates or whatever, and people throwing rubbish in?  Dredging to something like 2m has got to be more like it!

The original depth for most* of the Stroudwater was 6’ 6”. I assume the same would apply to the Thames & Severn up to Brimscombe. I believe the depth was a bit less for the rest of the T&S but can’t remember what it was. 

I recall being told that it wasn’t being dredged to the original depth to save on costs. The Cotswold Canals Trust owns its own dredger and the idea is to sort out the shallow bits later on.

*The pound between Ryeford Double Lock and Dudbridge was originally 8’ and the pound from Dudbridge to Stroud was originally 10’. The reason being that the top two pounds were to act as reservoirs as the T&S wasn’t there at the time to feed more water into the Stroudwater. I would imagine that after the T&S was built they didn’t bother in maintaining the extra depth of the top two pounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Water supply to the Stroudwater section isn't an issue as after the canal was abandoned in 1954  streams that used to flow under the canal in culverts were diverted into it as part of a flood prevention scheme.  The Thames and Severn used lots of small connections with the River Frome all the way up the Golden Valley but as restoration hasn't got that far yet there isn't much of a supply above Bowbridge.  A new supply from an old mill pond has/is being constructed to feed the restored section.

I'm not sure what the problem is with dredging to 1.5m as that's only just over a foot off the original depth and I'm not sure what boat will be using the part restored canal that needs 6' in depth anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of old boats draw 3 feet, and if the pound drops off 12 inches it doesn't leave much to play with - anyway, if going to the trouble of dredging, why not do it properly? Also with a deeper channel there is less of a likelihood of bank erosion from passing craft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where are these deep drafted boats going to come from?  The canal is not as yet connected to the network so why waste time and money on dredging it to a full depth when nothing but a few boats with fairly shallow draft are going to use it.  Far better to do an acceptable job in order to allow what boats there are to be able to use that section and save resources for more restoration.

As I previously mentioned, there is floating plant available that can sort out any shallow sections causing a problem.  Even CRT do spot dredging more than whole pounds at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, archie57 said:

Where is the water supply coming from for the restored canal -  and wouldn't it be better now to dredge to maximum depth to act as a  reservoir?   Any dredging with a floating machine at a later date will probably never happen!

 

11 minutes ago, archie57 said:

A lot of old boats draw 3 feet, and if the pound drops off 12 inches it doesn't leave much to play with - anyway, if going to the trouble of dredging, why not do it properly? Also with a deeper channel there is less of a likelihood of bank erosion from passing craft.

Several points

There is a finite budget which has now been spent (and actually overspent) dredging costs money per cubic metre even when plant is already on site: what would you suggest was dropped to allow this dredging?

There is an efficient level of dredging, beyond which one would have to work quite hard to maintain the depth because the sides would keep slumping in. In many places it has not been possible to dredge the full width because of land ownership issues on the off-side - if the main channel is overdredged the undredged area will simply slump into it, in extremis this can cause the far bank to slump

The 1.5m had to be adhered to - past the Cheapside Landslip there was a suggestion of less draft over a greater width (because a compromise of some kind was necessary) but the 1.5m was maintained with an approx 6m channel, which allowed the toe of the slip to be protected and thus guard against further slips, whilst still allowing 1.5m depth

How much of the main system is dredged beyond 1.5m? Other than the commercial waterways I'll venture none

There is in fact one constraint that reduces draft to just 0.5m at present, below Wallbridge Lower Lock - however the sewer is due to be lowered in 2020 and thus rather than create an expensive solution now we decided to live with this for a couple of years 

1.5m is very roughly five feet, it will be some years before silt builds up enough to make a 3 foot draught boat struggle - we can't really justify dredging to allow shopping trolley clearance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just noticed that the CCT have uploaded some pictures to their Flickr account this afternoon which basically shows the before and after of the dredging.

One side of Stanton's Bridge has been dredged, the other hasn't.

38405984762_98855ea606_c.jpgAP7A1253 by Cotswold Canals Trust, on Flickr

38381265336_c38ae35ec3_c.jpgAP7A1252 by Cotswold Canals Trust, on Flickr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

Several points

There is a finite budget which has now been spent (and actually overspent) dredging costs money per cubic metre even when plant is already on site: what would you suggest was dropped to allow this dredging?

There is an efficient level of dredging, beyond which one would have to work quite hard to maintain the depth because the sides would keep slumping in. In many places it has not been possible to dredge the full width because of land ownership issues on the off-side - if the main channel is overdredged the undredged area will simply slump into it, in extremis this can cause the far bank to slump

The 1.5m had to be adhered to - past the Cheapside Landslip there was a suggestion of less draft over a greater width (because a compromise of some kind was necessary) but the 1.5m was maintained with an approx 6m channel, which allowed the toe of the slip to be protected and thus guard against further slips, whilst still allowing 1.5m depth

How much of the main system is dredged beyond 1.5m? Other than the commercial waterways I'll venture none

There is in fact one constraint that reduces draft to just 0.5m at present, below Wallbridge Lower Lock - however the sewer is due to be lowered in 2020 and thus rather than create an expensive solution now we decided to live with this for a couple of years 

1.5m is very roughly five feet, it will be some years before silt builds up enough to make a 3 foot draught boat struggle - we can't really justify dredging to allow shopping trolley clearance

Back in the day when BW did their own dredging, we had long-serving staff who knew about canals, and  much of what was done in my part of the world (Braunston area) was carried out by ex-boatmen who realised the value of taking out as much as possible. This has clearly paid dividends as what they did at that time remains good today. Otherwise today it seems CRT use any excuse to avoid any dredging, often showing themselves up by saying it isn't necessary when clearly it is, and when grudgingly they do any it is the bare minimum, just a groove up the middle. As regarding the slides slumping in, you wouldn't expect to dredge to any depth next to the bank unless piled, horse boat canals only had deep edges at wharves etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, archie57 said:

Back in the day when BW did their own dredging, we had long-serving staff who knew about canals, and  much of what was done in my part of the world (Braunston area) was carried out by ex-boatmen who realised the value of taking out as much as possible. This has clearly paid dividends as what they did at that time remains good today. Otherwise today it seems CRT use any excuse to avoid any dredging, often showing themselves up by saying it isn't necessary when clearly it is, and when grudgingly they do any it is the bare minimum, just a groove up the middle. As regarding the slides slumping in, you wouldn't expect to dredge to any depth next to the bank unless piled, horse boat canals only had deep edges at wharves etc.

Not a BW waterway and never has been, it has also been closed 100 years or so thus no one has experience of "this"waterway

I'm not talking about dredging up to the sides, but that part of the channel can't be dredged at all

Your BW experience predates all the extra work and resultant costs now associated with dredging, especially on a long closed canal - temporary storage whilst drying, transport, land aquisition and agreement to put it somewhere, relevant consents. "Back in the day" BW just got agreement from an adjacent land owner and tipped it, we can't do that so easily now, especially with the amount that came out. 1.5m depth is generally 1.5m deeper than the canal was before we started.

And as Ian M pointed out, this waterway is landlocked - how are those deep draughted boats going to get there?

As you've chosen to come back, what would you have left out to pay for the extra dredging?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm well aware that this was never a BW canal. I think the point is that having got all the plant there and set up they could have taken that extra bit out!  I can't comment on how the money has been spent elsewhere.  What's that old saying about a job worth doing....!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As MP has said, taking out any more would have caused them problems in some areas, would have cost them more to dispose of, and they are dredging to a similar depth of many other navigations. They didn't have a bottomless pit of money and have done the best for a navigation that didn't exist as such 20 years ago.

They have done an excellent job dispite your last gibe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/11/2017 at 10:53, magpie patrick said:

Yes, HLF did insist on authentic detail where appropriate. When I first appraised the grant (in about 2004?!) as project monitor I suggested that this scheme could, and should, be an exemplar of heritage authentic restoration. The actual cost of these details was probably a few tens of thousands of pounds (paddle gear was cast locally to replicate, as near as possible, the original for example) but this helped justify a grant of £12 million.

Good about the paddle gear as a few years ago they were coming up with all sorts of wonderful designs using modern engineering

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Good about the paddle gear as a few years ago they were coming up with all sorts of wonderful designs using modern engineering

 

Unfortunately, in my opinion and having used it, it is so over-engineered with bearings, etc. it may look like the original but runs so freely it is quite dangerous. If ones hand slipped off the windlass the paddle would drop so much quicker than any other I’ve seen before.

There were several examples of original gear laying around for years but it was deemed old fashioned and could be improved upon so the original was ignored.

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.