From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

Cross posted from uk.rec.waterways to uk.railway

On 04/07/2025 07:02, Martin Nicholas wrote:

Latest: https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-admits-significant-challenges-maintaining-sliding-canal-bridge-after-recent-failures-03-07-2025/

The canal towpath goes over the bridge*, so the structure can be closely examined by walkers.

* Vazon Sliding Railway Bridge, Keadby, Scunthorpe, on the South Humberside Main Line over the Stainforth and Keadby Canal.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

On 04/07/2025 22:15, Roger wrote:

Cross posted from uk.rec.waterways to uk.railway

On 04/07/2025 07:02, Martin Nicholas wrote:

Latest:
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-admits-significant-challenges-maintaining-sliding-canal-bridge-after-recent-failures-03-07-2025/

The canal towpath goes over the bridge*, so the structure can be closely examined by walkers.

* Vazon Sliding Railway Bridge, Keadby, Scunthorpe, on the South Humberside Main Line over the Stainforth and Keadby Canal.

Wouldn't the answer be to put a drop lock each side of the bridge to
drop boats below the level of the tracks, similar to the ones on the Forth-Clyde canal at Dalmuir.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 04/07/2025 22:15, Roger wrote:

Cross posted from uk.rec.waterways to uk.railway

On 04/07/2025 07:02, Martin Nicholas wrote:

Latest:
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-admits-significant-challenges-maintaining-sliding-canal-bridge-after-recent-failures-03-07-2025/

The canal towpath goes over the bridge*, so the structure can be closely
examined by walkers.

* Vazon Sliding Railway Bridge, Keadby, Scunthorpe, on the South Humberside >> Main Line over the Stainforth and Keadby Canal.

Wouldn't the answer be to put a drop lock each side of the bridge to
drop boats below the level of the tracks, similar to the ones on the Forth-Clyde canal at Dalmuir.

Two Falkirk Wheels, one either side of the railway and a short bit of canal above the railway joining the two :)
Then you have a tourist attraction as well.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 04/07/2025 22:15, Roger wrote:

Cross posted from uk.rec.waterways to uk.railway

On 04/07/2025 07:02, Martin Nicholas wrote:

Latest:
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-admits-significant-challenges-maintaining-sliding-canal-bridge-after-recent-failures-03-07-2025/

The canal towpath goes over the bridge*, so the structure can be closely
examined by walkers.

* Vazon Sliding Railway Bridge, Keadby, Scunthorpe, on the South Humberside >> Main Line over the Stainforth and Keadby Canal.

Wouldn't the answer be to put a drop lock each side of the bridge to
drop boats below the level of the tracks, similar to the ones on the Forth-Clyde canal at Dalmuir.

Despite at one time being actively involved in Waterway restoration I think with situations like this there needs to be good think questioning if navigation in the immediate future needs to be retained.
It is a big waterway that was used for commercial coal transport until
fairly recent times that naturally has now ceased, so it sits there with
the cost of maintaining an opening bridge for leisure boaters.
I wonder what their numbers are , its not like the Grand Union or Oxford
which due to location and links run through nice countryside and are key connections in the linked network.
Much of the value for retaining a waterway is its amenity value to walkers, anglers ,wildlife ,drainage etc non of which need an opening bridge. So it just the boat users who need catering for.
Perhaps the cost to retain passage for them is just too much.
Its not a view that is popular but I often had debates with boat users (
and I was one myself at the time) that compared to enthusiasts of branch
line railways they were very fortunate . How so ? they asked. I argued on
the lines of
Well , when a railway lost its traffic it was closed . To get it open again people had to buy it ,buy the trains, and man it and then maintain it .
In comparison though many canals did close the 1950’s waterway movement was pretty successful
at keeping many open at government expense purely for leisure use as the commercial traffic faded.
Naturally there robust retorts that canals were an amenity for the
activities previously mentioned,
yes , I would argue . “ but you don’t need it to be open for through navigation for most of them, just keep the water clear enough for small
boats like canoes or rowing boats and run public trip boats on some
interesting sections . The latter does happen in some places.
Since the time I frequently met other canal the government has reduced
its commitment by transferring the former BWB waterways to the Canal and
River Trust so my argument may not hold as much water,, but because funds
to the trust are not sufficient neither do some canals.

GH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

On 05/07/2025 10:24, Marland wrote:

Despite at one time being actively involved in Waterway restoration I think with situations like this there needs to be good think questioning if navigation in the immediate future needs to be retained.

I would think it has to be an attraction that brings tourists into the
area and not just something just for a handful of local people with
canal boats even if they live on board.







--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

On 05/07/2025 08:46, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 04/07/2025 22:15, Roger wrote:

Cross posted from uk.rec.waterways to uk.railway

On 04/07/2025 07:02, Martin Nicholas wrote:

Latest:
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-admits-significant-challenges-maintaining-sliding-canal-bridge-after-recent-failures-03-07-2025/

The canal towpath goes over the bridge*, so the structure can be closely
examined by walkers.

* Vazon Sliding Railway Bridge, Keadby, Scunthorpe, on the South
Humberside
Main Line over the Stainforth and Keadby Canal.

Wouldn't the answer be to put a drop lock each side of the bridge to
drop boats below the level of the tracks, similar to the ones on the Forth-Clyde canal at Dalmuir.

Probably easier and cheaper to operate if they lifted the railway to
give enough headroom.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

On 05/07/2025 14:03, John Williamson wrote:

On 05/07/2025 08:46, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 04/07/2025 22:15, Roger wrote:

Cross posted from uk.rec.waterways to uk.railway

On 04/07/2025 07:02, Martin Nicholas wrote:

Latest:
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-admits-significant-challenges-maintaining-sliding-canal-bridge-after-recent-failures-03-07-2025/

The canal towpath goes over the bridge*, so the structure can be closely >>> examined by walkers.

* Vazon Sliding Railway Bridge, Keadby, Scunthorpe, on the South
Humberside
Main Line over the Stainforth and Keadby Canal.

Wouldn't the answer be to put a drop lock each side of the bridge to
drop boats below the level of the tracks, similar to the ones on the
Forth-Clyde canal at Dalmuir.

Probably easier and cheaper to operate if they lifted the railway to
give enough headroom.

By the way, the dropped locks (or the "Falkirk wheels") would also need
to be bypassed to allow enough water to flow for the cooling of the
local power station. The channel is legally required to provide enough
for for that purpose.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

On 05/07/2025 08:46, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 04/07/2025 22:15, Roger wrote:

Cross posted from uk.rec.waterways to uk.railway

On 04/07/2025 07:02, Martin Nicholas wrote:

Latest:
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-admits-significant-challenges-maintaining-sliding-canal-bridge-after-recent-failures-03-07-2025/

The canal towpath goes over the bridge*, so the structure can be closely >>> examined by walkers.

* Vazon Sliding Railway Bridge, Keadby, Scunthorpe, on the South
Humberside
Main Line over the Stainforth and Keadby Canal.

Wouldn't the answer be to put a drop lock each side of the bridge to
drop boats below the level of the tracks, similar to the ones on the
Forth-Clyde canal at Dalmuir.

Probably easier and cheaper to operate if they lifted the railway to
give enough headroom.

To the full 3m (?)airdraught that was required for the commercial traffic
or a compromise that would let reasonable size leisure craft pass. The
latter would upset those owners of historic craft or those who have
imported Dutch Barges etc, OTOH. some of those only need 2m with a low or descending wheelhouse so would still allow some reasonably large craft.

GH
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

On 05/07/2025 10:24, Marland wrote:

Despite at one time being actively involved in Waterway restoration I think >> with situations like this there needs to be good think questioning if
navigation in the immediate future needs to be retained.

I would think it has to be an attraction that brings tourists into the
area and not just something just for a handful of local people with
canal boats even if they live on board.

Its difficult, the waterway concerned is a bit isolated from the main
system so not easy to reach from the Midlands canal system with its ring
routes which suit tourists and is accessed by River Navigations one of them being the Trent which can be tricky at times especially for inexperienced Holiday boaters. And scenically it hasn’t got the heart of England look of the narrow midland canals or the spectacular views of the Caledonian or
the Trent and Mersey .
With the other broad waterways in the area they form a little network of
their own but getting enough visitors to cover their costs must be
difficult, and boat owners can only afford so much in fees.




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

On 05/07/2025 14:42, Marland wrote:

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

On 05/07/2025 10:24, Marland wrote:

Despite at one time being actively involved in Waterway restoration I think >>> with situations like this there needs to be good think questioning if
navigation in the immediate future needs to be retained.

I would think it has to be an attraction that brings tourists into the
area and not just something just for a handful of local people with
canal boats even if they live on board.

Its difficult, the waterway concerned is a bit isolated from the main
system so not easy to reach from the Midlands canal system with its ring routes which suit tourists and is accessed by River Navigations one of them being the Trent which can be tricky at times especially for inexperienced Holiday boaters. And scenically it hasn’t got the heart of England look of the narrow midland canals or the spectacular views of the Caledonian or
the Trent and Mersey .
With the other broad waterways in the area they form a little network of their own but getting enough visitors to cover their costs must be
difficult, and boat owners can only afford so much in fees.

Under the agreement made when the railway was built, maintenance of the
bridge and ensuring that it does not impede navigation is the railway's responsibility. CRT are not responsible for anything other than making
sure the canal remains navigable and enough flow is maintained for the
power station cooling. Part of the problem is that trains are heavier
and faster than they used to be.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:

John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

On 05/07/2025 08:46, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 04/07/2025 22:15, Roger wrote:

Cross posted from uk.rec.waterways to uk.railway

On 04/07/2025 07:02, Martin Nicholas wrote:

Latest:
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-admits-significant-challenges-maintaining-sliding-canal-bridge-after-recent-failures-03-07-2025/

The canal towpath goes over the bridge*, so the structure can be closely >>>> examined by walkers.

* Vazon Sliding Railway Bridge, Keadby, Scunthorpe, on the South
Humberside
Main Line over the Stainforth and Keadby Canal.

Wouldn't the answer be to put a drop lock each side of the bridge to
drop boats below the level of the tracks, similar to the ones on the
Forth-Clyde canal at Dalmuir.

Probably easier and cheaper to operate if they lifted the railway to
give enough headroom.

To the full 3m (?)airdraught that was required for the commercial traffic
or a compromise that would let reasonable size leisure craft pass. The
latter would upset those owners of historic craft or those who have
imported Dutch Barges etc, OTOH. some of those only need 2m with a low or descending wheelhouse so would still allow some reasonably large craft.

GH

Nothing a couple of Brusio spirals wouldn’t fix :)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

On 05/07/2025 14:07, John Williamson wrote:

On 05/07/2025 14:03, John Williamson wrote:

On 05/07/2025 08:46, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 04/07/2025 22:15, Roger wrote:

Cross posted from uk.rec.waterways to uk.railway

On 04/07/2025 07:02, Martin Nicholas wrote:

Latest:
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-admits-significant-challenges-maintaining-sliding-canal-bridge-after-recent-failures-03-07-2025/

The canal towpath goes over the bridge*, so the structure can be
closely
examined by walkers.

* Vazon Sliding Railway Bridge, Keadby, Scunthorpe, on the South
Humberside
Main Line over the Stainforth and Keadby Canal.

Wouldn't the answer be to put a drop lock each side of the bridge to
drop boats below the level of the tracks, similar to the ones on the
Forth-Clyde canal at Dalmuir.

Probably easier and cheaper to operate if they lifted the railway to
give enough headroom.

By the way, the dropped locks (or the "Falkirk wheels") would also need
to be bypassed to allow enough water to flow for the cooling of the
local power station. The channel is legally required to provide enough
for for that purpose.

As it is a wide canal, it's probably possible to keep a level channel to maintain the water supply while still allowing space for a drop-locked
route for boats to pass under the railway. It is already narrowed to
reduce the bridge length.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

On 05/07/2025 15:32, Tweed wrote:

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:

John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

On 05/07/2025 08:46, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 04/07/2025 22:15, Roger wrote:

Cross posted from uk.rec.waterways to uk.railway

On 04/07/2025 07:02, Martin Nicholas wrote:

Latest:
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-admits-significant-challenges-maintaining-sliding-canal-bridge-after-recent-failures-03-07-2025/

The canal towpath goes over the bridge*, so the structure can be closely >>>>> examined by walkers.

* Vazon Sliding Railway Bridge, Keadby, Scunthorpe, on the South
Humberside
Main Line over the Stainforth and Keadby Canal.

Wouldn't the answer be to put a drop lock each side of the bridge to
drop boats below the level of the tracks, similar to the ones on the
Forth-Clyde canal at Dalmuir.

Probably easier and cheaper to operate if they lifted the railway to
give enough headroom.

To the full 3m (?)airdraught that was required for the commercial traffic
or a compromise that would let reasonable size leisure craft pass. The
latter would upset those owners of historic craft or those who have
imported Dutch Barges etc, OTOH. some of those only need 2m with a low or >> descending wheelhouse so would still allow some reasonably large craft.

GH

Nothing a couple of Brusio spirals wouldn’t fix :)

https://www.amusingplanet.com/2015/02/the-inclined-boat-lifts-of-elblag-canal.html
--
Arthur Figgis
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 18:47:17 +0100, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:

On 05/07/2025 15:32, Tweed wrote:

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:

John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

On 05/07/2025 08:46, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 04/07/2025 22:15, Roger wrote:

Cross posted from uk.rec.waterways to uk.railway

On 04/07/2025 07:02, Martin Nicholas wrote:

Latest:
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-admits-significant-challenges-maintaining-sliding-canal-bridge-after-recent-failures-03-07-2025/

The canal towpath goes over the bridge*, so the structure can be closely >>>>>> examined by walkers.

* Vazon Sliding Railway Bridge, Keadby, Scunthorpe, on the South
Humberside
Main Line over the Stainforth and Keadby Canal.

Wouldn't the answer be to put a drop lock each side of the bridge to >>>>> drop boats below the level of the tracks, similar to the ones on the >>>>> Forth-Clyde canal at Dalmuir.

Probably easier and cheaper to operate if they lifted the railway to
give enough headroom.

To the full 3m (?)airdraught that was required for the commercial traffic >>> or a compromise that would let reasonable size leisure craft pass. The
latter would upset those owners of historic craft or those who have
imported Dutch Barges etc, OTOH. some of those only need 2m with a low or >>> descending wheelhouse so would still allow some reasonably large craft.

GH

Nothing a couple of Brusio spirals wouldnÆt fix :)

https://www.amusingplanet.com/2015/02/the-inclined-boat-lifts-of-elblag-canal.html

Along similar lines (sorry) but never completed: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chignecto_Marine_Transport_Railway>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

On 05/07/2025 16:25, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 05/07/2025 14:07, John Williamson wrote:

On 05/07/2025 14:03, John Williamson wrote:

On 05/07/2025 08:46, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 04/07/2025 22:15, Roger wrote:

Cross posted from uk.rec.waterways to uk.railway

On 04/07/2025 07:02, Martin Nicholas wrote:

Latest:
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-admits-
significant-challenges-maintaining-sliding-canal-bridge-after-
recent-failures-03-07-2025/

The canal towpath goes over the bridge*, so the structure can be
closely
examined by walkers.

* Vazon Sliding Railway Bridge, Keadby, Scunthorpe, on the South
Humberside
Main Line over the Stainforth and Keadby Canal.

Wouldn't the answer be to put a drop lock each side of the bridge to
drop boats below the level of the tracks, similar to the ones on the
Forth-Clyde canal at Dalmuir.

Probably easier and cheaper to operate if they lifted the railway to
give enough headroom.

By the way, the dropped locks (or the "Falkirk wheels") would also
need to be bypassed to allow enough water to flow for the cooling of
the local power station. The channel is legally required to provide
enough for for that purpose.

As it is a wide canal, it's probably possible to keep a level channel to maintain the water supply while still allowing space for a drop-locked
route for boats to pass under the railway. It is already narrowed to
reduce the bridge length.

Or move Keadby Lock about 200 yards westwards?
At the railway's expense of course!

Chris
--
http://www.Deuchars.co.uk
Author & Publisher: "A Boaters Guide to BOATING"
Mixing old and new waterway techniques. ISBN 9780953151202
Details: http://www.deuchars.co.uk/publication/

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 17:51:02 +0100, chrisnd @ukrw wrote:

On 05/07/2025 16:25, Graeme Wall wrote:

As it is a wide canal, it's probably possible to keep a level channel
to maintain the water supply while still allowing space for a
drop-locked route for boats to pass under the railway. It is already
narrowed to reduce the bridge length.

Or move Keadby Lock about 200 yards westwards?
At the railway's expense of course!

Not sure that would help. Keadby lock has gates facing both ways, and
looks to be more about keeping the changes in level in the Trent (which is tidal here) out of the canal than difference in heights. If the lock was
moved above the railway and the bridge fixed, boats would only be able to
pass the bridge when the Trent was low.

Mike
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

In message <104etnh$2fovn$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:35:29 on Sun, 6 Jul
2025, Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> remarked:

On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 17:51:02 +0100, chrisnd @ukrw wrote:

On 05/07/2025 16:25, Graeme Wall wrote:

As it is a wide canal, it's probably possible to keep a level channel
to maintain the water supply while still allowing space for a
drop-locked route for boats to pass under the railway. It is already
narrowed to reduce the bridge length.

Or move Keadby Lock about 200 yards westwards?
At the railway's expense of course!

Not sure that would help. Keadby lock has gates facing both ways, and
looks to be more about keeping the changes in level in the Trent (which is >tidal here) out of the canal than difference in heights. If the lock was >moved above the railway and the bridge fixed, boats would only be able to >pass the bridge when the Trent was low.

You can already only use the lock to the tidal Trent at certain times,
to co-ordinate with those times Cromwell Lock is also open to traverse
to/from the non-tidal Thames. It's not recommended to try to moor
overnight on the tidal section.

I went through there exactly 50yrs ago (almost to the day). We were
doing a three-week narrowboat cruise from Shropshire via Nottingham, the Trent, Leeds and the Leeds/Liverpool Canal, to Manchester, the Ship
Canal and back to Shropshire via Chester. I'll be posting some photos in
my Facebook group "canal trips 50ys ago" in the next few days.

To exit the tidal Trent it was necessary to go slightly past the lock entrance, with the tide. Then do a u-turn and FULL SPEED ahead into the
tide, turning right. Luckily the boat's maximum water speed was slightly greater then the tidal flow, otherwise we'd have ended up in the Humber
near Hull.

My concern about closing that route to navigation is that it's the last
resort to return to the main inland waterways from the north, if there's problems elsewhere. Two years ago we were on the Leeds and Liverpool
going east (another 50yr anniversary trip) and there were numerous
closures due to lack of water and maintenance.

The boat was slightly too big to return to Manchester via the
Huddersfield Canal, and there were again sporadic stoppages on the
Rochdale Canal.

I had to bail out at Wakefield (close to Kirkgate station), having
originally planned - in the time available - to get at least to Rochdale itself. The remaining crew did eventually get as far as a marina in
Droylsden, where the boat languished for a couple of months because all onwards routes to the south were blocked. It spent the winter near
Anderton, and finally made it home to Litchfield in the Spring.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

On 07/07/2025 07:40, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <104etnh$2fovn$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:35:29 on Sun, 6 Jul
2025, Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> remarked:

On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 17:51:02 +0100, chrisnd @ukrw wrote:

On 05/07/2025 16:25, Graeme Wall wrote:

As it is a wide canal, it's probably possible to keep a level channel
to maintain the water supply while still allowing space for a
drop-locked route for boats to pass under the railway. It is already
narrowed to reduce the bridge length.

-a Or move Keadby Lock about 200 yards westwards?
At the railway's expense of course!

Not sure that would help. Keadby lock has gates facing both ways, and
looks to be more about keeping the changes in level in the Trent
(which is
tidal here) out of the canal than difference in heights. If the lock was
moved above the railway and the bridge fixed, boats would only be able to
pass the bridge when the Trent was low.

You can already only use the lock to the tidal Trent at certain times,
to co-ordinate with those times Cromwell Lock is also open to traverse to/from the non-tidal Thames. It's not recommended to try to moor
overnight on the tidal section.

I went through there exactly 50yrs ago (almost to the day). We were
doing a three-week narrowboat cruise from Shropshire via Nottingham, the Trent, Leeds and the Leeds/Liverpool Canal, to Manchester, the Ship
Canal and back to Shropshire via Chester. I'll be posting some photos in
my Facebook group "canal trips 50ys ago" in the next few days.

To exit the tidal Trent it was necessary to go slightly past the lock entrance, with the tide. Then do a u-turn and FULL SPEED ahead into the tide, turning right. Luckily the boat's maximum water speed was slightly greater then the tidal flow, otherwise we'd have ended up in the Humber
near Hull.

I am familiar with the tidal Trent - but only as far north as far as Stockwith. However I am aware that entry into Keadby has always been 'tricky'! My comment was therefore partly tongue in cheek but also semi-serious because having, in effect, a long entry to the lock this
would also present a 'deceleration zone' (akin to Torksey? <G>) for
those needing to make a speedy approach. On the other hand it might also
be prone to greater siltation?

I am not familiar either with the relative heights of the waterways but
do know that there is considerable rise and fall in the Trent, due not
only to tides but also flood waters. It just seemed to me easier to
move a single lock than consider the drop lock that has been suggested.

At the end of the day however, this is a railway problem - which is
impacting as a waterways/navigation problem. I am surprised that,
despite the uniqueness of this railway bridge, the engineering is
proving so difficult to sort out.* It really isn't rocket science after
all!

Chris

*I suspect that the re-engineering, which seems to have involved large
amounts of concrete added to existing foundations, has proved to heavy
for the existing soil structure** below and has sunk as a result. ***

** This is little more than peaty fenland as I recall?

*** ie someone messed up the calculations and is being very careful not
to admit it?
--
https://www.Deuchars.org.uk
Author & Publisher: "A Boaters Guide to BOATING"
Mixing old and new waterway techniques. ISBN 9780953151202
Details: https://www.deuchars.org.uk/publication/

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

In message <hppTufRmv2aoFA9D@perry.uk>, at 07:40:38 on Mon, 7 Jul 2025,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:

In message <104etnh$2fovn$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:35:29 on Sun, 6 Jul
2025, Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> remarked:

On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 17:51:02 +0100, chrisnd @ukrw wrote:

On 05/07/2025 16:25, Graeme Wall wrote:

As it is a wide canal, it's probably possible to keep a level channel
to maintain the water supply while still allowing space for a
drop-locked route for boats to pass under the railway. It is already
narrowed to reduce the bridge length.

Or move Keadby Lock about 200 yards westwards?
At the railway's expense of course!

Not sure that would help. Keadby lock has gates facing both ways, and
looks to be more about keeping the changes in level in the Trent (which is >>tidal here) out of the canal than difference in heights. If the lock was >>moved above the railway and the bridge fixed, boats would only be able to >>pass the bridge when the Trent was low.

You can already only use the lock to the tidal Trent at certain times,
to co-ordinate with those times Cromwell Lock is also open to traverse >to/from the non-tidal Thames.

<cough> Trent.

It's not recommended to try to moor overnight on the tidal section.

I went through there exactly 50yrs ago (almost to the day). We were
doing a three-week narrowboat cruise from Shropshire via Nottingham,
the Trent, Leeds and the Leeds/Liverpool Canal, to Manchester, the Ship >Canal and back to Shropshire via Chester. I'll be posting some photos
in my Facebook group "canal trips 50ys ago" in the next few days.

To exit the tidal Trent it was necessary to go slightly past the lock >entrance, with the tide. Then do a u-turn and FULL SPEED ahead into the >tide, turning right. Luckily the boat's maximum water speed was
slightly greater then the tidal flow, otherwise we'd have ended up in
the Humber near Hull.

My concern about closing that route to navigation is that it's the last >resort to return to the main inland waterways from the north, if
there's problems elsewhere. Two years ago we were on the Leeds and
Liverpool going east (another 50yr anniversary trip) and there were
numerous closures due to lack of water and maintenance.

The boat was slightly too big to return to Manchester via the
Huddersfield Canal, and there were again sporadic stoppages on the
Rochdale Canal.

I had to bail out at Wakefield (close to Kirkgate station), having >originally planned - in the time available - to get at least to
Rochdale itself. The remaining crew did eventually get as far as a
marina in Droylsden, where the boat languished for a couple of months >because all onwards routes to the south were blocked. It spent the
winter near Anderton, and finally made it home to Litchfield in the Spring.

--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

On 07/07/2025 13:44, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <hppTufRmv2aoFA9D@perry.uk>, at 07:40:38 on Mon, 7 Jul 2025, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:

In message <104etnh$2fovn$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:35:29 on Sun, 6 Jul
2025, Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> remarked:

On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 17:51:02 +0100, chrisnd @ukrw wrote:

On 05/07/2025 16:25, Graeme Wall wrote:

As it is a wide canal, it's probably possible to keep a level channel >>>>> to maintain the water supply while still allowing space for a
drop-locked route for boats to pass under the railway. It is already >>>>> narrowed to reduce the bridge length.

-a Or move Keadby Lock about 200 yards westwards?
At the railway's expense of course!

Not sure that would help. Keadby lock has gates facing both ways, and
looks to be more about keeping the changes in level in the Trent
(which is
tidal here) out of the canal than difference in heights. If the lock was >>> moved above the railway and the bridge fixed, boats would only be
able to
pass the bridge when the Trent was low.

You can already only use the lock to the tidal Trent at certain times,
to co-ordinate with those times Cromwell Lock is also open to traverse
to/from the non-tidal Thames.

<cough> Trent.

We know what you meant :-)

Chris
--
https://www.Deuchars.org.uk
Author & Publisher: "A Boaters Guide to BOATING"
Mixing old and new waterway techniques. ISBN 9780953151202
Details: https://www.deuchars.org.uk/publication/

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2