Jump to content

Crowland Buffalo DUG UP


Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, monty2 said:

Amszing condition after 75 year 

Yes , that's what I thought - no great signs of corrosion.   Lincolnshire , apparently BIGgest county in England , lots of water & canals like Holland. Possibly no oxygen down at that depth & ground drier than what you would expect  ?   All that 'grey' must be intact paint  ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, ruxy said:

Yes , that's what I thought - no great signs of corrosion.   Lincolnshire , apparently BIGgest county in England , lots of water & canals like Holland. Possibly no oxygen down at that depth & ground drier than what you would expect  ?   All that 'grey' must be intact paint  ?

Not so much drier but no oxyen gets to it like the vehicle from swamps in Eastern Europe 

Edited by monty2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I only noticed one man in the trench with what looked like a harness and rope. I actually thought to my self that someone had done a risk assessment stipulating minimum people in the trench for the minimum amount of time (or ALARP as I know it). I also noticed some shoring at the rear (bank side). I didn’t think it was a death trap but any excavation has its risks which need to be managed and I thought from the little that I’ve seen, it was done quite well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there were 30, 2 washed out to sea, 2 washed into the fish pits (whatever they are), 16 or so ended up in the flood defences and left and the rest I guess, went back to store.

They weren’t just used as a lump to fill the gap, they were used to ferry people, tools, Earth, stone etc. around the floods and transport to the breach.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

16 “or so” makes more sense. It’s just that all reports seem to be taking the figure of 16 as the gospel truth. Sorry, the pedant in me is taking over again!

Edited by ltwtbarmy
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Chris Hall said:

I think there were 30, 2 washed out to sea, 2 washed into the fish pits (whatever they are), 16 or so ended up in the flood defences and left and the rest I guess, went back to store.

They weren’t just used as a lump to fill the gap, they were used to ferry people, tools, Earth, stone etc. around the floods and transport to the breach.

In fact, having access to facebook, the crowland lvt group have a copy of an old newspaper article up, which says that nearly 30 Buffalos were used. 16 were used on the first try, and after 3 were washed away, more were brought in to shore up the gap.

 

Something which occurred to me, but were all the 30 or so used Buffalos? Could it be that 16 Buffalos were used first and then another amphibious type used, possibly “Neptunes” (see shortcut below) bringing the said total to 30 or thereabouts? The picture in the shortcut below seems to point to other types used, apart from Buffalos.
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/history/fight-survival-year-great-flood-12720587

I just went into eddy8men’s thread on the subjeft, and yes, Neptunes were also used. So, it could be that 16 Buffalo type were used, and then augmented with Neptune LVTs. 

 

Edited by ltwtbarmy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/2/2021 at 10:06 AM, ltwtbarmy said:

Care to qualify that statement?

1.   No shoring to two near vertical sides.
2.  Excavated material placed close by so it is
    surcharging sides.
3.  Made up ground
4. Large body of open water within close proximity of excavation.

_118269455_mediaitem118269454.jpg

Edited by XS650
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No but it adds to the risks.

Perhaps my original statement was a little blunt but I was genuinely shocked when I saw the  photographs.

I worked in the construction industry for many years and if a HSE Inpector saw an unsupported excavation like that he would issue a Prohibition Notice.

The man in the picture above holding  the ranging rod in photo above is in real danger if the ground next to him collapsed.

By all means excavate the AFV's but a lot more attention should be given to shoring.

Edited by XS650
Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE.     Ref to HSE Inspector and issue of a Prohibition Notice .

Yes , he most certainly would. 

--------------

A operation like this ,  even if the heavy plant were NOT  hired in for  £ reward.   IMHO  - it would be difficult to claim  just a  DIY project.

I would say , that  Reg. 2 was applicable .

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1713/note/made

Also the bloke in charge  ?    should have been competent in trench shoring procedures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, XS650 said:

No but it adds to the risks.

Perhaps my original statement was a little blunt but I was genuinely shocked when I saw the  photographs.

I worked in the construction industry for many years and if a HSE Inspector saw an unsupported excavation like that he would issue a Prohibition Notice.

The man in the picture above holding  the ranging rod in photo above is in real danger if the ground next to him collapsed.

By all means excavate the AFV's but a lot more attention should be given to shoring.

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...