Mike Todd

"Characterful Stone Detached Residence": characterful = semi derelict "For many, the dream of living with the peace and serenity" - fails to mention that it is v close to motorway and dual carriageway roads and shares a site/access with a former industrial activity of undisclosed nature Who'd be an Estate Agent?

Arguably, the error was a 'Freudian slip' . . .

That's what I was suggesting, really. It might also help to have a subdivision into historical and current - but then we'd all argue about when does current become historical . . . (but life is always better when there is something whose outcome is unimportant about which to argue!)

Almost the same as I was about to suggest (without comment on the merits or otherwise of the thread) - I was intending to invite the Mods to consider creating a new section (like Stoppages) which is more suggestive of the evolved intent of the thread and more consistent with its durability - everything else on General has lifetimes approaching that of a Mayfly - and properly so. The other sections are more about matters that are inherently enduring - and folk do seem to have a lasting desire to take and share good pictures.

Going by the state of the bow paint, perhaps we can guess how it manages . . .

Remember that when the canal was dug (and then improved) soil mechanics was in the future. Canal engineers were very much in the business of trial and error - sometimes the errors were more spectacular than others and sometimes they 'learnt lessons'. The regular problems with deeper cuttings, especially here and on quite a bit of the Shroppie, also had to face strenuous commercial pressures to contain construction costs - removing earth for a cutting was not cheap! (Just a team of several thousand of labourers and their supporters) I do not know exactly, but I am led to believe that, if built today, these cuttings would have had to be very much wider at the top than they are. As a result there is always a risk of slippage. I also wonder how far the (very) modern trend to allowing vegetation to decorate canals banks is a factor. Many pictures from some time back show canals very shorn of trees and undergrowth. I also am aware that there seems to be two schools of thought: keep them clear to avoid storm damage when trees are brought down, the other that growth helps to bind the soil together and reduce erosion. I don't know enough to assess the balance. The current 'political' context favours greenery at any price - sometimes the longer term cost is now being shown to be greater. But I speculate.

I too have that memory - I was really disappointed when I went through after the works had been demolished! and only black and white . . .

Sadly for conspiracy speculators, it pre-dates Brexit - see here from 2016 and a less clear one from 2008 when it seems that central Brum had yet to de-metricate whilst the rest had returned to the main stream!

Feargal Sharkey does, of course, have an agenda but quoting absolute profit or dividend figures on their own goes nowhere near showing whether or not they are reasonable or a rip off. The only fact that they do demonstrate is that utilities have become very large businesses and hard hard to resist (unless you can supply your own rainwater!) But they are not too big to fail as Thames is now demonstrating. (Although the Govt does seem able to bail them out without too much detriment to the directors and it also looks as if they very keen to protect shareholders with customers and taxpayers providing the money)

o n the BCN there are very few places where I could not moor - in Manchester there are similarly few places where I can moor.

add reference to where HW can be obtained (and make it clear where it is measured)

Just consolidate the surcharge into the fees for everyone?

Some people, I understand, devise their own device to insert into the hole near to the rim which acts as a handle to make turning somewhat less of a chore! Just so that you can send the appropriate crew member to work it?

I think dentists use the same idea for certain fillings.

I am not sure that it is right (even if beloved of politicians) to say that the taxpayer has 'saved' money - it has simply spent it. 'Saved' implies getting what you originally wanted but for lower cost. In the case of the canal network, the fundamental issue, as with rather a lot else, is the absence of a basic principle on which to make decisions - does the public want a viable network and on what basis? (ie for boats, walkers, fisherfolk, neighbours with a view) If so, at what price does support change to not support? As is the fashion at the moment, reducing spend whilst alleging waste seems to be acceptable - no mention of the waste associate with ventures such as PPI! Perhaps MP's should be paid on a performance basis . . . with OBR assessing the degree of success of each promise. One of my long term grips is that so many projects (public or private) are justified on a cost saving or cost benefit basis. But when the next idea comes along, well before the predecessor has paid back its cost with savings or benefits, that 'loss' is ignored.

But at that time the Gov was also promising to keep, with the help of the Bank of England, to keep inflation to levels that now seem almost mythical. Hence the bargain was broken long ago.

As I said, that's not road access

I thought that cost was also the original reason for building most of them at the outset. The other upset to the calculations at Droitwich is the problem with the 'tunnel' that has led to one paddle being locked off to reduce flow. Also note that two locks with a short pound between will vary in their water consumption, depending on the state of the pound and the willingness of boaters to follow the rule about setting the lock ahead to avoid, if possible, water going over the weir. However, I do recall that many, if not all, canals were built on the assumption that water would be fed downhill fairly continuously. Without this, lower stretches risk running dry if traffic is unduly asymmetric.

That's the view I checked before posting!

I seem to remember that this one was referenced a short while back with the caution that it has no immediate road access.

As mr parry implied in his piece, when you have less money than is really needed, then you gave to make judgement calls in what has to be omitted. In this case they cut it too fine but CaRT are really not where the buck should stop - the real decision lies with the Gov, proxy for the Great Britushh Public. Same goes for many if the long term non-maintenance problems in Local councils. Gov has been forcing councils to cut maintenance budgets to fund tax cuts for decades. They oft try away with it because the time lag before the impact us felt is too much for mist folk to join the dots.

Long term member here?

More to do with supposed contaminating back flow than anything I suspect. At many places the flow is now even slower than the worst cited above!

see https://captainahabswaterytales.blogspot.com/2020/05/pensnett-branch-canal.html for interesting pix

You are not the first to ask . . . ! and https://narrowboatworld.com/3674-another-marina-rejected