Mike Todd

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

I only used the very generic Laws of Physics not the so called Classical laws, which almost by definition , are an imperfect description - as indeed are all if them. It is a common philosophical error to assert that any Law controls behaviour. Any scientific law is a distillation of observations, they simply describe how things behave.

Of course that statement is true, but only in the sense that 'laws of physics' apply universally, there is no class distinction. However, they impact differently depending on the circumstances. AFAIK, most heat in domestic 'radiators' is dispersed around a room by convection. (I don't know about the very small distance from the surface of the radiator and the room air - is guess that is conduction). The nearest to radiation heating that I know is that favoured a few decades back for the space heating of churches - ie high level electric bars designed to maximise the amount of the energy emitted as radiation. The idea was that they only heated where it was needed rathe than the enormous cavern that comprises most traditional church/chapel buildings. The problem has been that they are indeed very focussed and you only have to move a few inches sideways to go from toast to iced tea. In addition they do not create in human bodies a feeling of being warm and, as a result, feel unsatisfactory. But they are cheap (ie less expensive) to install and to run, so long as you ignore cost/benefit!

And could not be thinner . . .

Somewhat stylised (and impractical) canal!

Physics?

Last autumn there was another spillage of something that spread on the surface. It was surprising just how many miles it spread, from somewhere in Southall to Bulls Bridge and even for a short distance up the Grand Union. A bird charity was checking near where we first saw the spillage but it seems otherwise not too much harm to wildlife (if there is any left in that stretch!)