|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Aug 19, 2022 7:29:19 GMT
I think it appropriate to separate this subject from the Winter CC in the NW thread.
Much confused, uninformed and unhelpful content has been heaped on top of what was already a rather confused subject in the Winter CC in the NW thread -- not least of all, in the general lack of clarity as to what the Ribble Link actually is, . . and precisely where it begins and ends. It will, no doubt, come as a surprise to some that it does NOT begin or end - depending on the direction of travel - at Tarleton Lock, on the Leeds & Liverpool's Rufford Arm.
It begins, or ends - depending on the direction of travel - at a Half-tide Barrier, approximately half a mile downstream of the A583 Blackpool Road Bridge, in what is known locally as Savick Brook -- a land drainage watercourse, with its outfall into the tidal River Ribble, that was widened and deepened sufficiently to allow the passage of small pleasure craft, 'canalised' by means of locks, and opened to pleasure craft traffic in July 2002. The other end of the Ribble Link - approximately 4 miles from the half-tide barrier/gate is the canal basin, off the Lancaster Canal, on the outskirts of the town of the Lancashire town of Preston.
There are many questions to be answered with regard to how - to give it its full title - the Millenium Ribble Link is operated, maintained and financed. Is it feasible to increase the numbers of pleasure craft using it, for instance, and why is there a nonsensical obligatory one-way only working regime imposed on what is, when all's said and done, simply a 4 mile long, non-tidal, small scale canalised river navigation ?
Why does the Canal & River Trust [C&RT] - the navigation/competent harbour authority for the Ribble Link - impose such an amateurish, ill-conceived tidal passage planning/scheduling regime between Tarleton Lock, where the Leeds & Liverpool's Rufford Arm meets and joins the tidal River Douglas, and the half-tide gate/barrier, situated close to the A583 road bridge over the Savick Brook, . .where the navigation - the Ribble Link - becomes semi-tidal for approximately half a mile before becoming non-tidal at Lock No.8 for the remaining three and a half miles to the canal basin where it joins the Lancaster Canal ?
Why does the C&RT persist with outdated and unnecessarily costly annual maintenance dredging methods on the Ribble Link in preference to adopting the much less costly, and more operationally practical and effective, plough dredging methods used nowadays by other harbour authorities and port operators to maintain berths and navigation channels at the required least depths ?
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 19, 2022 7:38:26 GMT
You’ve still been insulting to people Tony, if you choose to remember it or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2022 8:22:54 GMT
This preposterous practice perpetrated by CRT is shocking. You should do something about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 19, 2022 8:24:09 GMT
This preposterous practice perpetrated by CRT is shocking. You should do something about it. He has, he’s sent emails. I’m sure crt are quaking in their boots. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 19, 2022 8:52:28 GMT
I think it appropriate to separate this subject from the Winter CC in the NW thread. Much confused, uninformed and unhelpful content has been heaped on top of what was already a rather confused subject in the Winter CC in the NW thread -- not least of all, in the general lack of clarity as to what the Ribble Link actually is, . . and precisely where it begins and ends. It will, no doubt, come as a surprise to some that it does NOT begin or end - depending on the direction of travel - at Tarleton Lock, on the Leeds & Liverpool's Rufford Arm. It begins, or ends - depending on the direction of travel - at a Half-tide Barrier, approximately half a mile downstream of the A583 Blackpool Road Bridge, in what is known locally as Savick Brook -- a land drainage watercourse, with its outfall into the tidal River Ribble, that was widened and deepened sufficiently to allow the passage of small pleasure craft, 'canalised' by means of locks, and opened to pleasure craft traffic in July 2002. The other end of the Ribble Link - approximately 4 miles from the half-tide barrier/gate is the canal basin, off the Lancaster Canal, on the outskirts of the town of the Lancashire town of Preston. There are many questions to be answered with regard to how - to give it its full title - the Millenium Ribble Link is operated, maintained and financed. Is it feasible to increase the numbers of pleasure craft using it, for instance, and why is there a nonsensical obligatory one-way only working regime imposed on what is, when all's said and done, simply a 4 mile long, non-tidal, small scale canalised river navigation ? Why does the Canal & River Trust [C&RT] - the navigation/competent harbour authority for the Ribble Link - impose such an amateurish, ill-conceived tidal passage planning/scheduling regime between Tarleton Lock, where the Leeds & Liverpool's Rufford Arm meets and joins the tidal River Douglas, and the half-tide gate/barrier, situated close to the A583 road bridge over the Savick Brook, . .where the navigation - the Ribble Link - becomes semi-tidal for approximately half a mile before becoming non-tidal at Lock No.8 for the remaining three and a half miles to the canal basin where it joins the Lancaster Canal ? Why does the C&RT persist with outdated and unnecessarily costly annual maintenance dredging methods on the Ribble Link in preference to adopting the much less costly, and more operationally practical and effective, plough dredging methods used nowadays by other harbour authorities and port operators to maintain berths and navigation channels at the required least depths ? Ok so you are generally pissed off with CRT, we know that, we agree with some of your concerns. Can't we just have a technical discussion on how it might work, without the tedious name calling? |
|
|
|
Post by pearley on Aug 19, 2022 12:08:21 GMT
When we used the link some years ago we had a pilot provided by the boatyard at Tarleton. His name was Jim Wilkinson and had spent most of his working life at Preston Docks and on the Ribble and said he was involved with setting up the Link.
He said the same as Tony. CRT could double the number of crossings if they allowed two way working.
On the question of dredging he told me that originally there was a large hole in the river bed downstream of the river gate to trap any silt coming down the river with the intention that the silt was removed by dragline or JCB every winter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Aug 19, 2022 14:42:11 GMT
I think it appropriate to separate this subject from the Winter CC in the NW thread. Much confused, uninformed and unhelpful content has been heaped on top of what was already a rather confused subject in the Winter CC in the NW thread -- not least of all, in the general lack of clarity as to what the Ribble Link actually is, . . and precisely where it begins and ends. It will, no doubt, come as a surprise to some that it does NOT begin or end - depending on the direction of travel - at Tarleton Lock, on the Leeds & Liverpool's Rufford Arm. It begins, or ends - depending on the direction of travel - at a Half-tide Barrier, approximately half a mile downstream of the A583 Blackpool Road Bridge, in what is known locally as Savick Brook -- a land drainage watercourse, with its outfall into the tidal River Ribble, that was widened and deepened sufficiently to allow the passage of small pleasure craft, 'canalised' by means of locks, and opened to pleasure craft traffic in July 2002. The other end of the Ribble Link - approximately 4 miles from the half-tide barrier/gate is the canal basin, off the Lancaster Canal, on the outskirts of the town of the Lancashire town of Preston. There are many questions to be answered with regard to how - to give it its full title - the Millenium Ribble Link is operated, maintained and financed. Is it feasible to increase the numbers of pleasure craft using it, for instance, and why is there a nonsensical obligatory one-way only working regime imposed on what is, when all's said and done, simply a 4 mile long, non-tidal, small scale canalised river navigation ? Why does the Canal & River Trust [C&RT] - the navigation/competent harbour authority for the Ribble Link - impose such an amateurish, ill-conceived tidal passage planning/scheduling regime between Tarleton Lock, where the Leeds & Liverpool's Rufford Arm meets and joins the tidal River Douglas, and the half-tide gate/barrier, situated close to the A583 road bridge over the Savick Brook, . .where the navigation - the Ribble Link - becomes semi-tidal for approximately half a mile before becoming non-tidal at Lock No.8 for the remaining three and a half miles to the canal basin where it joins the Lancaster Canal ? Why does the C&RT persist with outdated and unnecessarily costly annual maintenance dredging methods on the Ribble Link in preference to adopting the much less costly, and more operationally practical and effective, plough dredging methods used nowadays by other harbour authorities and port operators to maintain berths and navigation channels at the required least depths ? Ok so you are generally pissed off with CRT, we know that, we agree with some of your concerns. Can't we just have a technical discussion on how it might work, without the tedious name calling? What tedious name calling ? There isn't any name calling, . . tedious or otherwise, in the post you quoted and replied to. Have you mistaken, or misread, the term - "competent harbour authority" - for something other than its actual meaning ? I would be delighted to have a technical discussion on this or any other appropriate or suitable subject, . . but to do so it's essential that all would be participants take the trouble to properly read, and to fully understand, the posts they reply to, BEFORE replying. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Aug 19, 2022 15:41:14 GMT
When we used the link some years ago we had a pilot provided by the boatyard at Tarleton. His name was Jim Wilkinson and had spent most of his working life at Preston Docks and on the Ribble and said he was involved with setting up the Link. He said the same as Tony. CRT could double the number of crossings if they allowed two way working. On the question of dredging he told me that originally there was a large hole in the river bed downstream of the river gate to trap any silt coming down the river with the intention that the silt was removed by dragline or JCB every winter. Thanks for that Pearley, . . very interesting to read about Jim Wilkinson's views, and what he said to you about two-way working, . . and the intentions from some 20 years ago to accomplish annual maintenance dredging by cleaning out a big deep hole in the bed of Savick Brook to trap silt accumulations in the vicinity of the half-tide gate, . . which is exactly where C&RT have just admitted to having the worst of the silting and depth problems at present, . . and in previous years ! Until maintenance dredging was consigned to the history books by British Waterways, standard practice on commercial river navigations was not to dredge whole lengths of the navigable channel, but to concentrate for long periods on the spots where the river's width together with its natural current or tidal flow pattern and speed, always caused the fastest and the worst build-ups of silt, mud, or in some places sand and gravel, . . and then at those known spots to dredge out a nice big deep hole for the river current, or the current plus the tide's help, to dump large amounts of waterborne sediments into. On the lower Trent, from Newark to Gainsborough, . . the dredgers would spend several months at a time - sometimes a year, or more - stationed and working at only one place, such as for instance -- the top end of Winthorpe Rack, roughly halfway between Crankley Point and Winthorpe Bridge, . . then move to Spring Head, . . then to Pinfold, . . then to Castle, . . then finishing up, say, round Cheese House and Lea Marshes area, . . by which time the big hole at the top end of Winthorpe Rack was full-up and ready for attention again. Good system, . . saved no end of time, and cost, that would otherwise spent in transporting the dredgings from anywhere along the whole length of the river, . . and having to keep moving and resetting-up the (bucket)dredgers every few days. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Aug 19, 2022 19:33:34 GMT
Yesterday, C&RT finally got round to sending a written reply to my 1 August request for heights in relation to Ordnance Datum Newlyn [ODN] for the half-tide gate and the outer cill of Lock No.8 in Savick Brook, and a figure for least depth in the navigation channel of the semi-tidal pound between the half-tide gate and Lock No.8.
The heights for the half-tide gate and the outer cill of Lock No.8 should of course have been specified as a figure above or below ODN (AODN or BODN), . . but C&RT being C&RT, I think we'll have to work with what we've got. It isn't in fact too much of a problem, for reasons I'll explain later.
There is, however, no excuse for ever expressing the height of something relative to ODN without specifying that the height is either above or below the nominated datum. To do so is sloppy, to say the least, . . and it could potentially render the supplied information completely useless. It does, however, speak volumes as to the calibre of the C&RT engineers who supplied the figures, the standards to which their employers are content for them to perform down to, . . and the worth of the records the information was obtained from.
Here is the e-mail, . . from the Boating & Customer Service Manager for the C&RT's NW Region : -
tonydtrent@gmail.com
Thursday 18 August 2022
Dear Mr Dunkley,
Thank you for taking my call last week, it was great to speak with you and learn more about your expertise.
I have spoken with our engineers who have looked over our records and have answered the following:
1) Effective height in relation to Ordnance Datum Newlyn [ODN] of Half-tide Barrier on the Ribble Link
when in fully raised/closed position. 3000mm ODN
2) Height in relation to ODN of the lower/outer cill of Lock No.8 on the Ribble Link. 1500mm ODN
3) Least depth of water in navigation channel between the Half-tide Barrier and the tail of Lock No.8
when the Half-tide Barrier is in the fully raised/closed position. 900mm
As discussed in our telephone call, any boats wishing to travel along the Ribble Link, with a draught larger than
the advised 2ft 3”, will do so at their own risk. Our experienced lock keepers on the Ribble Link can help advise
days where passage is more suitable for larger crafts to prevent the risk of grounding which may prevent other
customers using the link.
Yours sincerely,
Liam Cooper
Boating & Customer Service Manager
Canal & River Trust, North West
_____________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Aug 20, 2022 15:25:23 GMT
Yesterday, C&RT finally got round to sending a written reply to my 1 August request for heights in relation to Ordnance Datum Newlyn [ODN] for the half-tide gate and the outer cill of Lock No.8 in Savick Brook, and a figure for least depth in the navigation channel of the semi-tidal pound between the half-tide gate and Lock No.8. The heights for the half-tide gate and the outer cill of Lock No.8 should of course have been specified as a figure above or below ODN (AODN or BODN), . . but C&RT being C&RT, I think we'll have to work with what we've got. It isn't in fact too much of a problem, for reasons I'll explain later. There is, however, no excuse for ever expressing the height of something relative to ODN without specifying that the height is either above or below the nominated datum. To do so is sloppy, to say the least, . . and it could potentially render the supplied information completely useless. It does, however, speak volumes as to the calibre of the C&RT engineers who supplied the figures, the standards to which their employers are content for them to perform down to, . . and the worth of the records the information was obtained from. Here is the e-mail, . . from the Boating & Customer Service Manager for the C&RT's NW Region : - tonydtrent@gmail.com Thursday 18 August 2022
Dear Mr Dunkley,
Thank you for taking my call last week, it was great to speak with you and learn more about your expertise.
I have spoken with our engineers who have looked over our records and have answered the following:
1) Effective height in relation to Ordnance Datum Newlyn [ODN] of Half-tide Barrier on the Ribble Link
when in fully raised/closed position. 3000mm ODN
2) Height in relation to ODN of the lower/outer cill of Lock No.8 on the Ribble Link. 1500mm ODN
3) Least depth of water in navigation channel between the Half-tide Barrier and the tail of Lock No.8
when the Half-tide Barrier is in the fully raised/closed position. 900mm
As discussed in our telephone call, any boats wishing to travel along the Ribble Link, with a draught larger than
the advised 2ft 3”, will do so at their own risk. Our experienced lock keepers on the Ribble Link can help advise
days where passage is more suitable for larger crafts to prevent the risk of grounding which may prevent other
customers using the link.
Yours sincerely,
Liam Cooper
Boating & Customer Service Manager
Canal & River Trust, North West _____________________________________________Would it not be reasonable to assume that as the numbers given for (1) are positive numbers they are above ODN and if below ODN they would have given negative numbers? |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Aug 20, 2022 18:17:19 GMT
On Aug 19, 2022 12:00:09 GMT; Telemachus said (on another thread) : -
Yes clearly the canalised portion which as you say is the actual “link” could be bidirectional, but the whole route from Tarleton to the junction with the Lanc has to be bidirectional for there to be any point to it. As I said before, some of the brook looks very narrow and thus “one way” and the upper reaches of the Douglas might be pretty narrow in terms of the navigable channel width at intermediate tide states. But you would think it would be possible to avoid opposite direction traffic at each end, because the journey generally centres around high tide and thus boats would pass on the Ribble or at worst the lower reaches of the Douglas, which surely can’t constitute any sort of hazard beyond normal boating. So it is a bit hard to see what the problem is.
_______________________________________________________________________
Two-way working through the Ribble Link - that's the canalised Savick Brook from the canal basin to the half-tide gate - is perfectly feasible, . . although there are a couple of short sections - very short - in which meeting and passing another boat wouldn't be possible. For the rest of the 4 or so miles there's no problem whatsoever.
There are in fact occasions when two-way working is put into operation, not as a matter of routine, but out of necessity when scheduled passages cancelled due to adverse weather conditions in the Ribble bring about the need for the weather affected cancelled bookings to make passage on the same days as bookings scheduled for other days, . . irrespective of whichever direction they're going.
The 'official' C&RT explanation for the one-way only working restriction is "safety concerns" in the tidal river sections of the journey, . . in both the Ribble and the Douglas, . . nothing to do with the canalised brook section at all. The whole one-way only working nonsense is just another example of why the C&RT management aren't fit to be in charge of anything more than a kiddies park boating lake.
One particularly amusing aspect of all this is the fact that around the time of the Shit-for-Brains epoch-making voyages into the ununderstood, C&RT had in fact suspended the ridiculous one-way only working restriction in favour of a timed organized two-way operation, in order to clear a back-log of booked passages arising from pre-booked passages cancelled due to adverse weather conditions in the Ribble.
As the authoritative expert on the Ribble Link that Alice insists he is, . . you would have expected Shit-for-Brains to have noticed what was happening, . . and to include a mention of it in the drivel he's posted on here.
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 20, 2022 18:30:02 GMT
Anybody want to bet how long it is before crt terminate this email communication with Tony?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Aug 20, 2022 21:31:02 GMT
Here is the e-mail, . . from the Boating & Customer Service Manager for the C&RT's NW Region : - tonydtrent@gmail.com Thursday 18 August 2022
Dear Mr Dunkley,
Thank you for taking my call last week, it was great to speak with you and learn more about your expertise.
I bet they were pissing themselves in the Leeds office when he wrote that. I've never seen a more diplomatic way of telling someone they are a pompous know-nothing gobshite. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Aug 21, 2022 8:34:24 GMT
Yesterday, C&RT finally got round to sending a written reply to my 1 August request for heights in relation to Ordnance Datum Newlyn [ODN] for the half-tide gate and the outer cill of Lock No.8 in Savick Brook, and a figure for least depth in the navigation channel of the semi-tidal pound between the half-tide gate and Lock No.8. The heights for the half-tide gate and the outer cill of Lock No.8 should of course have been specified as a figure above or below ODN (AODN or BODN), . . but C&RT being C&RT, I think we'll have to work with what we've got. It isn't in fact too much of a problem, for reasons I'll explain later. There is, however, no excuse for ever expressing the height of something relative to ODN without specifying that the height is either above or below the nominated datum. To do so is sloppy, to say the least, . . and it could potentially render the supplied information completely useless. It does, however, speak volumes as to the calibre of the C&RT engineers who supplied the figures, the standards to which their employers are content for them to perform down to, . . and the worth of the records the information was obtained from. Here is the e-mail, . . from the Boating & Customer Service Manager for the C&RT's NW Region : - tonydtrent@gmail.com Thursday 18 August 2022
Dear Mr Dunkley,
Thank you for taking my call last week, it was great to speak with you and learn more about your expertise.
I have spoken with our engineers who have looked over our records and have answered the following:
1) Effective height in relation to Ordnance Datum Newlyn [ODN] of Half-tide Barrier on the Ribble Link
when in fully raised/closed position. 3000mm ODN
2) Height in relation to ODN of the lower/outer cill of Lock No.8 on the Ribble Link. 1500mm ODN
3) Least depth of water in navigation channel between the Half-tide Barrier and the tail of Lock No.8
when the Half-tide Barrier is in the fully raised/closed position. 900mm
As discussed in our telephone call, any boats wishing to travel along the Ribble Link, with a draught larger than
the advised 2ft 3”, will do so at their own risk. Our experienced lock keepers on the Ribble Link can help advise
days where passage is more suitable for larger crafts to prevent the risk of grounding which may prevent other
customers using the link.
Yours sincerely,
Liam Cooper
Boating & Customer Service Manager
Canal & River Trust, North West _____________________________________________Would it not be reasonable to assume that as the numbers given for (1) are positive numbers they are above ODN and if below ODN they would have given negative numbers? The making of assumptions has no place in matters such as this. The essential point here is the fact that, when asked to provide figures for heights of waterway structures relative to a specific datum, the navigation authority has demonstrated that it's either incapable of doing so, . . or unwilling to do so. In this instance the heights wanted were of the Half-tide gate, in the raised/closed position, and the outer/lower cill of Lock.No.8 - the actual sea/tide lock at the seaward/lower end of the Ribble Link - heights that determine and control the minimum depth of the navigation at any time, and at any state, or height, of the tide in the River Ribble. The minimum depth of the navigation between the Half-tide gate and the tail of Lock No.8, and the depth over the cill of Lock No.8 at any time, and at any state, or height, of the tide in the River Ribble, is the crucial factor that determines for how many hours during each day the Ribble Link is useable by craft of the maximum draught the waterway can accommodate from the Half-tide gate to the Lancaster Canal. Given that C&RT, apparently, cannot provide anything apart from incomplete information as to the figures that determine for how many hours during each day the Ribble Link is useable by craft of the maximum draught the waterway can accommodate from the Half-tide gate to the Lancaster Canal, . . one has to ask just how did C&RT arrive at the times it publishes for the Ribble Link being open for navigation ? Were those published opening times the product of inspired guesswork as to these crucial figures having a positive or a negative value, . . or is C&RT, at least partially, withholding vital information for which it has been asked. |
|
|
|
Post by pearley on Aug 21, 2022 9:45:35 GMT
Looks like we were lucky to be allowed to cross with a draught of 30 inches but not sure they asked 11 years ago.
|
|
