Early in May this year 5 narrowboats met in Picadilly Basin, Manchester with the intention of cruising the Rochdale Canal. The canal is notoriously short of water as several of the summit reservoirs were disposed of when the canal closed. Now it has been restored to full use. British Waterways therefore had a restriction on the number of boats that can cross the summit and had just increased the limit to six boats. However, additionally with this year's dry spring and the water shortage a restriction had been announced at Tuel Lane with stringent booking requirements and finally the imposition of an almost complete shutdown. Faced with this potential obstruction at the opposite end of the canal, two boats decided to cancel, but the remaining three saw it more as an adventure and had no deadlines to meet, so, on the appointed day, waited at the bottom by lock 83 for the BW staff to unlock the canal and let us in. From the time we started up, until Littleborough, we only saw three other moving boats on our first day and none the second with no moored boats anywhere. For the first day, through Newton Heath, the canal was dirty and full of rubbish needing several visits to the weed hatch fleeces seeming to be the most common problem, but blue rope,large plastic sheets and other rubbish all on the prop with lots of floating wood, cans and bottles in the water. More like an open sewer. In many areas the canal is quite open, perhaps making the deprivation more evident than were it enclosed in greenery. For us, water availability was never a problem, but in places shallow. Between locks 68 & 69 there was only a small channel carved through the mud marked by metal pins protruding from the water. The three boats we passed were on their way down from the top reporting point where the BW staff were waiting to secure the lock up after us. Best moorings at the Rose of Lancaster were after the aqueduct round the corner, elsewhere too shallow. Day 2 saw us find one low pound for no obvious reason and yet with bywashes running. More rubbish in the water again at Rochdale with an underwater obstruction at the entrance to the top lock and total immobilisation of the propulsion with rubbish. The small amount of mooring space at Littleborough was congested, as it is at a convoy crossing point. Climbing to the summit (after a hilarious evening at the Summit Pub by the way) we were welcomed by two of the lengthsmen, Darren & Lee, who accompanied us through to the summit itself and then again at Tuel Lane. There was plenty of water up here with the feeders running constantly. After a call to the BW office at Red Bull we learned that one locking per day at Tuel Lane was to be allowed with the same strict booking requirement, so we stood a chance of getting through eventually even if it meant over two days. Once over the top there was water everywhere, even a bit of flooding in places. At Walsden, the bywash could be heard running all night. In fact there was so much coming down at Todmorden, weiring over the top gates, that the pressure sensor in the bottom guillotine gate would not allow it to be lifted until the flood subsided, caused largely by the second locking of the third boat from above. The last lock before Tuel Lane has suffered from subsidence to such an extent that two narrowboats will jam in the chamber and each has to go through singly. So for each pair of boats, two lockfulls of water enter the Tuel Lane pound. So there should in theory never be a problem at Tuel Lane, which was a recontruction replacing two locks. The problem is evidently leakage testified by piles of puddling clay on the bank and bankside. Theoretically, then, the more boats that use this section the less significance the leakage will have. It was also startlingly obvious that there was no rubbish in the water on the Yorkshire side and the water quality was good. At Tuel Lane we met Darren & Lee again, who on the appointed next morning, with no sign of low water levels, arranged to lock us all through, fortunately as it turned out, because the boat waiting to come up later lifted the top gate of lock 1 off its post and the lock was subsequently closed for 10 days for repairs.
Two questions remain, therefore. Firstly why is the Lancashire side of the canal so filthy and full of obstructions. Secondly, does the convoy system itself mitigate against saving water, or is it the few locks on each side of the summit that are not wide enough to take two boats, doubling the flow at these points and therefore taking more water from the summit. As the convoys come up to the summit, they leave full locks behind. Then the next morning, the pounds having been topped up, they empty one lock into the next, into the next into the next etc. producing a torrent lower down. Is this why so much water appears always to be flowing over the gates of the "Rochdale 9" in Manchester? Would a more random and balancing flow of boats be more economical?
Finally, this is when all is said and done a beautiful canal for the most part, more so perhaps on the eastern side. Don't be put off by all the stories. We had no problems other than below the water surface. Everyone we came across was friendly and helpful. Here is a canal, recently restored, which seemingly has a "no go" section on the western side which obviously puts people off and can, therefore, bring little economic benefit to the area which so badly needs it. It's a bit of a catch 22. Dredging and a major cleanup with provision of safe moorings is the only way to break the vicious circle. Later in our cruise we were surprised by the cleanliness of the water through Rotherham into Sheffield. So it is not just an urban canal problem. Remarking this to the Tinsley Lockkeeper, he said it was down to management. Was that water management or "the management"?