I was somewhat taken aback by your piece of 12/02/25 and, in the interests of accurately correcting your perspective, I thought it worth sharing it with the Inland Waterways Freight Group before replying, writes Jonathan Mosse.
They started by politely pointing out that the piece contained a number of erroneous assumptions and oversights, viz:
The drive to move more freight by inland waterway relates primarily to the 600 miles of large scale waterways, not the smaller leisure ones although some, like the Grand Union in London, do offer niche opportunities.
That already around 8 million tonnes of cargo are moved each year on the UK inland waterways by coastal shipping and barges.
That new traffics are being developed, with a wharf in Rotherham re-opened, and a new wharf in Leeds opening during March (in addition to the proposed Port Leeds), and a new aggregate flow from Wakefield plus one expected on the River Weaver.
That a new inland waterway operator, Casper River & Canal Transport ( a subsidiary of Casper Chartering) has invested heavily in a refurbished. 600 tonne barge to operate to Rotherham and Leeds from the Humber.
That the barges being used for inland waterway traffic are, for the most part, between 150 and 600 tonne capacity – 1500 tonnes on the Thames – and can take up to 20 HGV lorries off the road per load (or more) where two crew on a barge can move goods far more efficiently than one driver with an HGV even of the largest size of 29 tonne capacity, 44 tonne gross.
That barges over 50 tonne capacity use approximately 20% of the fuel per tonne/mile compared to an HGV with consequent savings in exhaust emissions, road and tyre wear, brake dust emissions and accidents and congestion.
The reference to the River Severn related to a project by Cemex to move aggregate to a wharf in Gloucester - this was frustrated by a road scheme which blocked access to the wharf. However, around 250,000 tonnes of aggregate are still transported along the Severn each year.
No new terminal has been constructed or even started in Nottingham.
Stoppages on the major waterways are planned well in advance and can be accommodated—unplanned ones (of any consequence) do happen but are rare.
There is no major issue with depth on the waterways generally - on CRT Commercial Waterways dredging is carried out as required to maintain depth e.g. on the South Yorkshire Navigation and the Weaver navigation.
I can add that there are several other waterway freight flows in the pipeline but due to commercial sensitivity I can't expand on them further at this point in time.
So, altogether, a fairly healthy picture as far as freight moving on UK inland waterways: a total tonnage, in fact, somewhat greater than that carried by the railways!
I must point out that some of this is inaccurate particularly your statement: Stoppages on the major waterways are planned well in advance and can be accommodated—unplanned ones (of any consequence) do happen but are rare.
This is a ridiculous statement as stoppages are certaainly not planned in advance with last year there were 226 unplanned stoppages between May and November on the canals and rivers, some lasting many months—10 in one case!
And there certainly is a problem with depth on the waterways.
As to the rivers the Weaver was closed numerous times and the Severn for weeks. And 1,500 tonnes on the Thames? Not on its non-tidal. Not such an healthy picture.—Editor.