|
Post by brummieboy on Aug 9, 2021 21:12:01 GMT
What if CaRT decide not to repair swing bridges/locks because it is not needed for canoes so they can still use the water. Thats only an extension of not dredging to the stated depth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2021 21:22:32 GMT
Yes but is the stated depth on the A&CN 8ft6 or 6ft?
According to the OP CRT were going to dredge to 6ft but have been apparently forced by a commercial operator to go to 8ft6.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2021 21:53:21 GMT
The canals should be deep enough to accept a fully-laden coal boat, lined with caviar and filled with vintage Scotch. Personally I won't settle for anything less.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 9, 2021 22:22:40 GMT
Nobody expects Tony Dunkley ! Rog Except his mother.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2021 22:36:35 GMT
Last seen re-planking a wooden boat and muttering to himself.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 9, 2021 23:05:37 GMT
Well, good for him but who will pay for the cost of this dredging? Who payed for the improvements that allowed heavier lorries to be used on the roads ..... it sure as hell wasn't the RHA
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 9, 2021 23:14:06 GMT
Yes but is the stated depth on the A&CN 8ft6 or 6ft? According to the OP CRT were going to dredge to 6ft but have been apparently forced by a commercial operator to go to 8ft6. 8'6" CRT were trying to reduce it to 6' because they'd been failing in their maintenance for years and 6' would have suited then for now
They are going to reduce it again when it gets full of mud but as long as it stays above 15" I will still be able to use it with my yoghurt pot ....... so sod people with potato boats
I am beginningh to think the owner of said potato coffin wishes the canals to be allowed to silt up completely as long as the tow paths are kept in suitable condition for racing funky yellow mopeds
|
|
|
Post by patty on Aug 10, 2021 4:32:06 GMT
Wikipedia tells me.... Canals were needed for the Industrial Revolution which was creating huge amounts of heavy produce which had to be moved. Roads simply could not handle such weights and the vehicles needed to move this produce did not exist. Canals were the answer to moving heavy objects large distances
The fact that the canal network is no longer required to move such heavy loads does not mean that it should be allowed to fall into disrepair Dredging to an adequate depth to allow transportation of loads is something that should be done to allow those who still use this method to transport goods Roads are strengthened for ever increasing loads on our lorries so I cannot see why the canals should be exempt from maintaining depth for commercial use They did not come into being for the leisure boater...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2021 7:11:45 GMT
To be fair, Mr Stabby makes a valid point about commercial use, however I believe C&RT's role should be to maintain all the system they adopted. Otherwise it would be like the NT knocking down the least visited sites each year to save money. Rog
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Aug 10, 2021 7:23:43 GMT
Well, good for him but who will pay for the cost of this dredging? Who payed for the improvements that allowed heavier lorries to be used on the roads ..... it sure as hell wasn't the RHA When I ran my own truck, I used to pay around Β£70,000 per annum in fuel duty alone. That's how roads are funded.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2021 7:29:40 GMT
That's a lot of diesel you vomit inducing inconsequential planet-destroying nobody !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 10, 2021 7:32:33 GMT
As in the title, just came across it www.facebook.com/groups/NarrowboatOwnersGroup/permalink/3028337477444520/GOOD NEWS John Branford barges at Goole on the Aire n Calder has won the case against C&RT . C&RT tried to force the dry cargo barges to run at 6β draft making it uneconomical to operate.His solicitor fought the case and won.So C&RT now have to maintain 8β 6βcanal depth .C&RT do not want commercial barges trading on the cut .Another one C&RT LOSES . Well done Mr Branford π All I can get to from that link is some Faceache group that appears to want to exclude everyone apart from its members from getting to know what its saying or doing. This could be some confused reporting of old news from last year in connection with the pressure John Branford was putting on C&RT after he'd lost patience with them and the CBOA over several years of farting about and inventing obstacles to getting the sea dredged sand traffic from Hull to Leeds started. The depth in some places along the canal to Leeds had reduced to around 6' since the cessation of the Trent (Besthorpe) sand and gravel traffic in July 2013, and dredging back to (a minimum of) 8' 6'' was needed prior to the start of the new Hull - Leeds traffic. C&RT didn't want to do any dredging, although they were legally obliged to under S.105 of the Transport Act 1968, and in the event C&RT's token re-arranging of the sand and silt that had built up since 2013 in some places on the river sections of the A&C led to the first few already light loads having to be lightened even more to get the boats to Knostrop. I hope that yesterday's Faceache announcement isn't presaging some imminent revelation that C&RT have made another one of their customary balls-ups of the leak repairs near New Bridge, . . leaving a navigable depth of only 6' there with the Goole - Sykehouse - Pollington pound on weir !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2021 7:42:35 GMT
That's a lot of diesel you vomit inducing inconsequential planet-destroying nobody ! Hey ! He's the prostitute murdering, Yorkie chomping, Goon squad leader . I'm the vomit inducer ... focus lad, focus ! Rog
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 10, 2021 7:43:59 GMT
As in the title, just came across it www.facebook.com/groups/NarrowboatOwnersGroup/permalink/3028337477444520/GOOD NEWS John Branford barges at Goole on the Aire n Calder has won the case against C&RT . C&RT tried to force the dry cargo barges to run at 6β draft making it uneconomical to operate.His solicitor fought the case and won.So C&RT now have to maintain 8β 6βcanal depth .C&RT do not want commercial barges trading on the cut .Another one C&RT LOSES . Well done Mr Branford π All I can get to from that link is some Faceache group that appears to want to exclude everyone apart from its members from getting to know what its saying or doing. This could be some confused reporting of old news from last year in connection with the pressure John Branford was putting on C&RT after he'd lost patience with them and the CBOA over several years of farting about and inventing obstacles to getting the sea dredged sand traffic from Hull to Leeds started.Β The depth in some places along the canal to Leeds had reduced to around 6' since the cessation of the Trent (Besthorpe) sand and gravel traffic in July 2013, and dredging back to (a minimum of) 8' 6'' was needed prior to the start of the new Hull - Leeds traffic.Β C&RT didn't want to do any dredging, although they were legally obliged to under S.105 of the Transport Act 1968, and in the event C&RT's token re-arranging of the sand and siltΒ that had built up since 2013 in some places on the river sections of the A&C led to the first few already light loads having to be lightened even more to get the boats to Knostrop. I hope that yesterday's Faceache announcement isn't presaging some imminent revelation that C&RT have made another one of their customary balls-ups of the leak repairs near New Bridge, . . leaving a navigable depth of only 6' there with the Goole - Sykehouse - Pollington pound on weir !Β Β No problem at all joining the group Tony, it's sometimes neccessary to keep idiots from posting.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 10, 2021 7:47:53 GMT
To be fair, Mr Stabby makes a valid point about commercial use, however I believe C&RT's role should be to maintain all the system they adopted. Otherwise it would be like the NT knocking down the least visited sites each year to save money. Rog Mr Shit-for-Brains doesn't make any valid points about anything, . . and C&RT didn't "adopt" anything ! Legal responsibility for maintaining the "in Public ownership" waterways previously under BWB control to the standards laid down under Section 105 of the Transport Act 1968 was taken on by the C&RT under the British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012.
|
|