BELLE

The following dialogue has taken place regarding the maintenance issues raised in the BW Maintenance Log:

CW1 – Hunts Lock Erosion

British Waterways - This lock has been in a similar condition to this for at least the past 6 years.  The recent cold weather we had over the winter has just caused the face of the bricks to perish by the freeze-thaw process.  There is no concern that the lock is ‘failing’.

My Response - I sense that BW does not regularly apply the concept of preventative maintenance and tends more towards an approach based on corrective maintenance, i.e. if it isn’t completely bust, then don’t fix it.  I appreciate and understand that the loss of brickwork at Hunts Lock to date is the start of an erosion process.  I propose to you however that BW should really, as a rule, be making good the loss of brickwork suffered to date.  This is on the basis that it will be far more cost effective in the long run to carry out remedial action now than it would be to bear the costs and front the disruption caused whilst implementing a far more rigorous repair after the erosion has become more extensive.

———-

CW2, CW5 and CW6 – Collapsing Walls

British Waterways -  The collapsing walls you mention are usually only erosion pockets and are quite common in rural locations. Our inspection team check these monthly and there are some notification works raised to deal with some of these. I am pleased to report that a temporary Waterpoint has been installed outside the Fradley office to ease the problems experienced following the collapse of the wharf wall after the severe weather this winter.

My Response – I was bemused by your use of the term ‘only erosion pockets’.  I propose to you that these so called ‘erosion pockets’ are actually extensive and that they signal the impending collapse of the entire stretch of canal retaining wall at the locations I have highlighted.  Notwithstanding the localised erosion of the ground structure that forms the path behind the line of the wall and the contribution that this erosion makes to the silting up of the canal generally, the rather substantial wall stones that have collapsed into the canal actually represent a significant hazard to the navigation.  I am sure that those boaters that have passed one another at these locations will testify to this effect.  Indeed, it is conceivable that a wooden hulled or GRP hulled craft could suffer a rupture of the hull as a result of impacting one of these wall stones.  Hit in the right place, maybe even a steel hulled craft could suffer serious damage.  Unfortunately, I was unable to take a photograph at one or other of these locations during the winter months (when the canal water was much clearer) when you could easily see these wall stones lurking on the bottom of the canal at quite some distance away from the water’s edge.  I still maintain that BW should be much more pro-active regarding these issues and should rank them as high-priority and, put simply, should get on with the remedial works more or less immediately.

Regarding the temporary water point.  I propose that valuable BW time and money has been misspent messing about erecting ineffective wooden fencing around the proper water point whilst installing a temporary water point some 15-20m away, instead of just getting on with the task of repairing the collapsed wall.  Despite having recently erected several signs instructing boaters not to tie up to this wooden fencing, boaters are doing exactly the opposite (e.g. whilst waiting for another boat to clear this temporary water point).  Kids are climbing on this wooden fencing – and falling off.  It’s just a matter of time before there is another injury incurred.  Thinking laterally; how is it I am asking myself that a contractor can install around 80m of steel piling, as well as cap this piling with brickwork, over a period of about 6-weeks at a location a bit further up the Trent & Mersey Canal near Kings Bromley, whilst BW has spent roughly the same period achieving substantially much less progress? What’s stopping BW piling the wall at this water point at Fradley Junction, even if it is classed as ‘temporary’ whilst BW time/resource is found to re-build the stone wall (should this be deemed necessary)?  

———-

CW3 – Road Markings

British Waterways –  These road markings have been planned into programmed works for some time and were deemed necessary following a traffic management audit which raised concerns for the need to separate pedestrians and vehicles at this increasingly popular destination site and to clearly mark parking and no parking areas to ease the traffic flow on both sides of the canal.

My Response - I propose to you that, whilst a ‘traffic management audit’ may have revealed the need for better separation of pedestrians and vehicles (I can agree with that!), painting a plethora of white and yellow lines in this area will achieve virtually no benefit in this respect.  I wonder; was the pedestrian-vehicle separation actually measured by those that carried out this audit?  Has another audit been carried out since the line painting took place and has an improvement actually been realised / proven?  My perception is that folks are still mingling with the traffic in pretty much the same way as they have been here for years.  I maintain my view that this spend on BW’s part is wasteful.

———-

CW4 – Talking Information Points

British Waterways - Im sorry to hear you feel these are wasteful. We have had very good positive feedback from these points which were sourced following a funding application to the Heritage Lottery Fund to increase the attraction for visitors at Fradley and to include visitors with sighted impairments, I feel these points are of good value to the site and do enhance the visitor experience, judging by the use of them over this bank holiday weekend.

My Response – You can read an article about this wasteful expenditure on the Narrowboatworld website if you so wish; Wildlife plan will do more harm than good…. Might I add that, even if one or more other organisations contributed to the funding of this development, BW’s involvement in expending resources in this way is in my view highly irresponsible.  At very best, this development could only be classed as a ‘nice to do’ and not a ‘must do’.  I am absolutely baffled as to how BW can allow what has been reported to be circa £100,000 to be spent on a venture such as this when there are so many must do’s outstanding.  Make no mistake; this area would have been absolutely stacked with visitors at Easter regardless of the introduction of these new talking information points and a sculpted dragonfly, etc.!

———-

CW – General Critique 

You have probably gathered by now that I will not be fobbed off with what I perceive to be vague and ineffective explainations.  Moving on (and with nothing other than a sincere wish that BW will ‘raise its game’ when it comes to the preservation and development of the waterways as a whole), may I be so bold as to suggest that you and your colleagues should  stand back and take a long hard look at what is actually going on.  I propose that a ‘reality check’ is in order.  Dont feel that you should just take my word for it – I mentioned Narrowboatworld above – please spend a while looking at some of the articles on this website with a view to taking on board the critique offered by many others in this respect.

The saga will no doubt continue