[email protected] wrote:
> David/all
> I've struggled to find up-to-date information on the Montgomery
> restoration during my visit.
With the provisos (provisoes? provisi?) that I'm not particularly close to the
Mont restoration either physically or politically, I'll try to help a little...
There are a number of interpretation panels
> (of various ages) along the line and quite a bit of general stuff
> available on line but I found nothing that explains what the big current
> issues are
I would say that there's currently one single big issue, and it's money. It
will cost an (easily) eight-figure sum to get the English and Welsh navigable
lengths connected together, there aren't that size of wads of cash around for
restoration at the moment, and so it will have to be done in smaller chunks.
and when anything significant, like when the reopening of
> some/all the closed section for example, might happen.
When somebody can find the money somewhere. Not very helpful I know, but see
below...
I can see that
> there are dropped bridges all over the place but I'm curious about where
> plans are at in doing something about such things.
As far as reopenings are concerned, the key seems to be identifying
'destinations' such that you can justify the cost of restoring to that point to
the people who you are asking (Heritage Lottery Fund, local authorities,
regeneration bodies, Welsh national assembly, EU funds etc) to stump up the
money.
The first destination (which should see a reopening in the next year or two) is
Crickheath Wharf, a mile and a quarter from the current limit of navigation. It
will be possible to wind, there will be a picnic site and visitor moorings on
the restored wharf, and there's a pub within walking distance. OK not
particularly exciting, but not terribly expensive either - and a lot of the
work is capable of being (and is being) done by volunteers.
Second one will be Llanymynech - much more important as a destination
(industrial heritage site, useful town with pubs and shops, and very
significant as it's on the Welsh border and getting the canal open into Wales
is likely to get the Welsh bodies more keen on funding further work). But also
much more expensive because there's a lengthy dry section (the 'Pant dry
section' which has led to various WRG jokes about Pant-wetting and Pant-liners)
needing some serious work to waterproof it, plus one or two lowered bridges to
rebuild.
The third one is the big one - linking up to the 12-mile navigable Welshpool
length. Easy to see the attraction, but several more lowered bridges to deal
with, and therefore very expensive. However, possibly much easier to justify
once the canal's open to Llanymynech.
Going beyond to (or close to) Newtown is more tricky, as getting right back
into the town is probably impractical, but stopping just outside is less likely
to look like money well spent to the major funders. One suggestion is for a new
aqueduct over the Severn to a new terminal basin on the south east side of the
town - but that would be seriously pricey.
> I was a little surprised to see serious work going on down at Brynderwyn
> on Monday (presumably paid contractors rather than volunteers if it's a
> weekday?)
The locks down there were largely rebuilt by SUCS volunteers, but it may be BW
contractors doing some maintenance? I don't know.
when there seems little chance of boats getting there for many
> years. Surely a significant part of any money spent now on doing up
> sections that can't be used is wasted, isn't it?
I think the reasoning behind volunteers restoring the locks at the far end (at
a time when the chances of 'big bang' funding to get through to Welshpool
looked a lot higher) was (a) to ensure that the power that be didn't regard
opening to Welshpool (and on to Refail) as being the end of the Mont
restoration. ("Come on, guys, there's another ten miles to Newtown - and look,
we've already started it!") and (b) because it was suitable work for
volunteers, all the other locks on the canal having already been restored.
The condition of the
> lock gates at Carreghofa (replaced in 1982, never used and now in a poor
> state) and the lack of depth and huge amount of weed growth in the open
> stretch illustrate that to my eyes, but maybe I'm missing something.
Putting gates in on a lock that isn't going to be used for a long time is
always a problem. Many restorations avoid it - well over 90 per cent of the
work in restoring a lock is usually the chamber repairs, which won't decay
again as long as you visit it periodically to apply some light maintenance, so
why not leave it at that until you're ready for boats? If you want to re-water
immediately, you can always put stop-planks in.
But to Joe Public (and Joe Councillor) it's putting the gates in that turns it
into a 'real' canal lock, and the temptation is to spend the money on new gates
to make your lock look finished. One or two have even put in scrap ex-BW gates
just as a 'cosmetic' effect to make it look like a proper lock, with a view to
replacing them before the boats arrive.
That's a general view - I don't know what the arguments were in the case of
Carreghofa. I suspect that to a certain extent restoring and regating was a bit
of an act of defiance when the PTB allowed the demolition of the nearby
Williams Bridge - the last one to be lowered on the canal, in the late 1970s or
early 1980s.
The restored locks at the far end do at least see occasional boats - the annual
Dinghy Dawdle sometimes involves small boats using them.
Hope some of this helps.
Martin
