|
|
| Volume 5, Number 8 - Spring 2004 | |
|
|
A Mersey Waterways Vision: Some Personal IdeasPut forward by John Pomfret, Chair of the Inland Shikpping Group of the IWA Background to this note: As I understand it, the Runcorn Campaign Rally 2004 has as a principal aim the restoration of Runcorn Locks old line. ResCom [IWA's Restoration Committee] recently held a meeting at Runcorn and I understand from their Chairman that the plan is also to highlight the importance of protecting the remaining parts of the Runcorn & Weston Canal, with a view to its restoration/replacement. This would provide a through route between the bottom of Runcorn Locks and the Weston Canal and onwards to the Weaver, avoiding the main line of the Manchester Ship Canal. However, there are other potential subsidiary aims tied in with waterway development proposals on the other side of the main inland waterways in the area (the Mersey and the MSC), such as the Sankey Canal restoration and the new link at Liverpool. The Runcorn Rally was mentioned in reports at the NW Region AGM, where I was a speaker, and I raised the suggestion that the Rally should also present a wider 'vision' for the Mersey based waterways. As the IWA Region boundary between NW and Western Regions runs roughly along the MSC and the Mersey, this would need to involve both Regions and potentially three Branches (Manchester, Merseyside & W Lancs and Chester & District). ISG, ResCom and NavCom (regarding issues of navigating tidal waters) may also have a useful input. I suggest that it would be a good idea to put something forward at the Rally, even if some of it is in the form simply of highlighting possibilities and seeking people's views, rather than coming up with a definitive plan. I would be happy to contribute on behalf of ISG and NavCom interests and I imagine ResCom would be willing to advise too. It should obviously also involve local societies such as SCARS. I put this forward for a view from the Region and Branch Chairmen. If it were thought to be a good idea, I would be happy to come and discuss it in more detail if that would be useful. Please let me know. Below I have set out some of my ideas for a Mersey Vision, although I have to admit that I have not yet navigated the Mersey upstream of Eastham so cannot claim direct practical experience here (although I have navigated plenty of tidal and marine waters elsewhere). However, Neil Arlidge on NavCom has recently navigated by narrow boat onto the Sankey Canal, so would be able to advise if need be. Obviously some SCARS members and local boat club members must know the waterway well too. A vision for the MerseyContext: The current waterway development schemes going on around the Mersey present both problems and opportunities. The Mersey and the Manchester Ship Canal (MSC) are the key arterial waterways in the area but the MSC Co is not keen on pleasure craft. Runcorn Locks restoration: Restoration of Runcorn Locks would clearly be a good thing in revitalising the end part of the Bridgewater Canal through Runcorn but this will only be realised if there is somewhere to go at the bottom of the locks. While some craft will be happy to make arrangements with the MSC and comply with their requirements for passage along the Ship Canal, this requires pre-planning and is somewhat restrictive. A through route free of the MSC main line would be beneficial, so reinstatement of a route to the Weston Canal via the line of the former Runcorn & Weston Canal would be a great benefit. I understand that this is already accepted as a campaign aim of the Rally. However, additional benefit would also be achieved by establishing a direct route to the Mersey waterway, providing an easy and safe link (at slack HW) to the Sankey Canal. However, additional benefit would also be achieved by establishing a direct route to the Mersey waterway, providing an easy and safe link (at slack HW) to the Sankey Canal. This could be achieved by reinstatement of access via one of the former side locks on the MSC, either through Runcorn (Old Quay) Lock, three quarters of a mile upstream of the bottom of Runcorn Locks (old line), or Bridgewater Lock, half that distance downstream. Maybe Old Quay lock would be the better, in that it would give access to the Mersey upstream of the Runcorn-Widnes bridge, providing a safer passage to the Sankey (and the upper Mersey). There is unlikely to be any benefit for freight vessels, so the new lock could be made smaller than the original (Old Quay Lock was 76m x 13.7m, while Bridgewater Lock was 123m x 13.7m). Clearly there would need to be lots of discussion (probably very protracted) with the MSCCo to achieve such a link but this should not stop us putting it forward as a long-term aim. Issues to be resolved would obviously include: who would build the lock and who would own and operate it, could it (and should it) be user operated, lay-by facilities at the top (or opposite), tidal mooring facilities below, access for operators if staffed (small boat from Runcorn?), control of craft making the 10 minute passage, etc. However, none of these should be insuperable. I would envisage a system whereby boaters would have to report in (by phone or radio) at the start and end of each passage, with passage only permitted when there was no ship approaching for say the next half hour. Proposal: A long-term aim of restoring a direct link between the bottom of Runcorn Locks and the Mersey should be part of the campaign for restoration of Runcorn Locks. Sankey Canal The Sankey Canal already has operational links with the Mersey waterway at Widnes and Fiddlers Ferry and completion of restoration between these two points is not far off. This will provide an alternative route to the upper Mersey (a short Upper Mersey Ring - everyone seems keen on rings!) and a safe haven (with good moorings and attractive pub) en route up to Warrington. The Sankey restoration should of course feature at the Runcorn Rally. The proposed link to the Leeds & Liverpool opens up the possibility of an interesting circular cruise via Manchester. Proposal: The Sankey Canal Restoration should be seen as part of a wider Mersey waterways vision. Warrington Warrington is growing rapidly in importance and, while canal boat facilities are available (but threatened) on the Bridgewater Canal at Stockton Heath, I am sure there is an opportunity for further development in Warrington itself, which could be accessible to river and seagoing boats with greater air draught, as well as to canal craft. The reinstatement of a through route to Walton or Rixton would also provide an access to the Sankey Canal from the east for vessels which do make arrangements with the MSC Co. The simplest way of achieving both of these objectives would be reinstatement of Walton Lock and restoration of its approach channel from the Mersey. Again the lock could be reduced from its current size of 48m x 9 m, subject to a review of freight potential. The former timber pond above the lock would make a good flood- and tide-free location for a boatyard/marina. Could the timber pond be extended? It was formerly much longer. Reinstatement of the Mersey & Irwell Navigation through Warrington Lock (Howley) would be straightforward. This would give access to an area where attractive riverside moorings could be made alongside Victoria Park. Restoration of Latchford (Manor) Lock (which is apparently still there but buried) and a section of the Mersey & Irwell 1803 line (the Black Bear Canal) could provide a marina in the park. Complete restoration of this line, including Twenty Steps Lock, would give an alternative route from the tidal river to the reach at Howley and Victoria Park, involving a short passage of only half a mile on the MSC for which special arrangements could perhaps be negotiated. Further upstream, restoration of the Mersey and Irwell route through to Rixton Junction using Woolston New Cut would be easy to achieve and would provide a further section where moorings could be made available protected from floods, as well as opening up attractive river sections. The copings of Paddington Lock are still visible and it may be that the lock is still there but buried. The New Cut is still extant and clearance would be straightforward. Woolston Lock is not readily discernible but there are no significant obstructions to its reinstatement. The area near the guard weir at the site of Woolston Lock is run down, with several derelict houses (possibly some with waterway connections), and may provide an opportunity for redevelopment as a waterway related facility. Woolston New Cut is part of the Mersey Way and gives access to Paddington Meadows and the Woolston Eyes SSSI, which comprises former MSC dredgings disposal beds, which are being developed to maximise the nature conservation interest (mainly birds). These could provide an attraction for passing craft. The Old Woolston Cut has recently been rewatered by construction of a new weir, to make an island of part of Woolston Eyes. This part is now a restricted access nature reserve. Proposal: Warrington should be developed as a boating destination for craft which can navigate the Mersey (from Liverpool, the Sankey Canal, the Weaver and from Runcorn Locks). Options that could be investigated include:
Liverpool: The new canal link proposed by BW between the Leeds & Liverpool Canal and the south docks will attract more boaters to Liverpool and add to the prosperity of the former docks area. The increased boating activity there and the availability of the Sankey Canal and other developments, such as those proposed above, will result in an increased demand for passage out onto the Mersey. I understand that reopening of the Salisbury Barge Lock entrance is now part of the BW scheme and this is to be welcomed. Alternatively, after the link is complete, I assume passage will be possible through to Brunswick Lock at Liverpool Marina (am I correct here?). Better facilities for suitable boats to pass between Liverpool and the upper Mersey should be seen as a key part of the Mersey Waterways Vision. Proposal: Improved access from the L&L Canal to the Mersey at Liverpool should be a key feature of the Mersey Waterways Vision. Partners: Partners should be sought to promote a Mersey Waterways Vision. Clearly the local navigation authorities are key (BW, MSC, Upper Mersey Navigation Acting Conservator, MDHCo), as are the local authorities. Local canal societies, marina operators and yacht/boat clubs are also obvious supporters. Other NGOs should also be brought in, particularly the Mersey Basin Campaign, who manage to attract a lot of funding. Proposal: The idea of a Mersey Waterways Vision should be floated with key potential partners at an early stage. Advice: IWA should be playing a key role in providing advice on safe navigation on all inland waterways, including tidal inland waterways. Launch of some such advice could be tied in with the launch of something like the Mersey Vision. IWA needs to be actively chasing more members on the tideways - to counter the RYA push to capture more members further inland. The more members the stronger our voice. There are various restorations ongoing where links to everywhere else are via tidal waters (e.g. Sankey, Monmouthshire, Herefs & Glos, Pocklington, Chesterfield, S Wales canals etc) and we should be in a position to encourage access and use by suitable craft. We should also be aiming to facilitate safe use of short tidal passages for the widest possible audience. For example, from Old Quay Lock to Widnes (Spike Island) should be safe enough at the end of the flood/slack water and would only take 10-15 minutes. We need to think how we can encourage use of such waterways, while ensuring safety of those who are inexperienced and willing to take advice but discouraging the foolish. Advice on navigation generally is being talked about at NavCom as a possible IWA campaign issue and we will no doubt be coming up with some ideas on how to proceed. Proposal: IWA should promote good navigation advice in a high profile way, as a campaigning and recruiting tool. This should include advice on navigating tidal waters. Well, there are a few ideas to kick about - over to the local IWA activists for a reaction. John Pomfret, 15/3/04 SCARS' COMMENT: We are very pleased that John has decided to open this discussion on the ways in which the region's canals can inter-link and contribute to one another's success. We are particularly pleased that he has highlighted the Sankey in many of his remarks. His article is reproduced here as received by ourselves, in its entirety, without comment on individual issues, and there may be some matters of fact which need clarifying, but we are impressed with his overall grasp of the issues, and of his central assertion that far more of the potential value of our local waterways could be realised than has so far been envisaged.
Left: One of the sites in John Pomfret's Vision - the lock from the Bridgewater Canal's Runcorn Flight into the Manchester Ship Canal. The Ship Canal itself is less crowded than in 1900 when this view was taken - maybe leaving room for a more relaxed policy towards pleasure boating on the Ship Canal?
Index for this issue Index of all Canal Cuttings issues Home Page Site design and content © 2002 - 2005 Sankey Canal Restoration Society |
Our executive will be discussing his paper in greater detail soon, and we look forward to the debate which we hope will ensue both within the waterways groups and within and between the others John hopes will join the partnership to exploit our wonderful waterway resources.