On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:12:09 -0000, "peteuk" <[email protected]> wrote:
>--- In [email protected], Adrian Stott <re...@...> wrote: >> I do think, though, that it would be worthwhile extending navigability >> from Froghall, rather than creating restored but isolated lengths >> further down first. >> >> Adrian >> >> >I cannot agree. > >You are far better doing the bits that you can get at, both financially and >practically. > >All canal building and restorations have been done that way. > >The "railhead" system was exceptionally only suited to the wild west ! Up to a point, Lord Copper. Railroad companies in North America did use a system of extending the track when they built their lines. For example, the Canadian Pacific had a mobile (on wheels) settlement for the construction crew called "End of Track", consisting of bunkhouses, cookhouses etc. which would move up to the (new) end of the line daily. IIRC, a train would arrive every day with all the supplies (rail, ties, spikes, etc.) needed for the next day's building. In the 1880s, CPR achieved the world record, building about 10 km of new track over virgin ground on the prairies in one day. However, this worked only in relatively easy terrain. Through mountains, or at other locations where major works (bridges, cuttings, tunnels) were involved, work was carried out separately and simultaneously on a number of sites well in advance of track laying. However, IIRC they usually pushed forward from each end of the line all the time. BTW much of "the wild west" was/is difficult terrain for railroad building. The engineer responsible for building the CPR through British Columbia described his territory as "a sea of mountains". On many derelict waterways, navigability from the network currently ceases at a difficult obstacle (e.g. a lowered bridge, a building on the line). Of course, it is easier work to put off dealing with that obstacle, and to fix isolated lengths further along. However, I think that, in the end, this delays completion of the restoration. Until that first blockage is overcome, and then the next one along etc., the credibility of the whole project can remain in doubt. Also, except for trail and trip boats etc., no craft can use the isolated bits, and they often start to decay again. On the other hand, if progress can be seen to be occurring continuously on extending navigation from the network, the interest of the boating community will be increased. Also, boaters will want to use the newly-reopened bits as soon as they become available, boosting the evidence of demand for completion of the restoration of the route and thus the attractiveness of the project to funding and political support.. Think of the K&A. Although some lengths remained navigable but cut off, it was the extension of navigability from Reading that attracted the traffic (that from Bath lagged considerably IIRC) and gave the feeling of progress. I once cruised to Ufton when that was the head of navigation, to see what the K&A was like. By all means start work on some easy bits of the Uttoxeter. But also start pushing for resolution of the first impediment from Froghall (and of the tunnel). Adrian Adrian Stott Tel. UK (0)7956-299966
