magpie patrick

The paper you quoted had three "lowest recorded flow measurements" of zero. But perhaps if I say negligible flow, and that which does occur isn't by design but a feature of their operation, I think that pretty much sums it up. There are exceptions, the Tavistock Canal has a gradient of 1 in 6000 and a significant flow, while the Glamorgan Canal had a flow as a result of the round-the-clock operation of it's lock, this was a nuisance as it mean boats going upstream could carry less than boats going downstream

Could start a whole new thread here Chris answer one, we don't know, but as the canal closed in 1898 it seems unlikely although there was at least one iron maintenance boat on the canal. we believe containers were used when the canal had two branches both with inclined planes, Benjamin Outram is recorded as having recommended the system which was also in use on the peak forest canal at the time, but the Paulton branch incline was replaced by locks in 1805 and the Radstock Branch was converted to tramway in 1812. If containers were used, we don't know whether they continued to be used once the double transhipment ceased. the boats were actually slightly smaller than midlands and GU narrow boats because they were agreed with the K and A as being a half width K and A boat, so they were six foot ten by 69 feet Any information gratefully received

An interesting paper, obviously more concerned with water quality, however, I can't find where it says that canal flows but I can find these two statements under hydraulic issues "unlike rivers, canals have a ... lack of longitudinal bed slope" and "unlike rivers, canals do not lose water by longitudinal flow". It also contains a table with flows on the Union canal, the highest they found across four sites was 0.168 mph (I've converted their 75 millimetres per second figure), this was near the feeder where the paper admits the flow will be highest. The lowest at three of the four sites was zero, and at the fourth it was 1 millimetre per second, or 0.002 miles per hour. And the paper seems to have a running theme of just how awful the water quality in a canal can be due to the lack of flow

Thanks Chris, yes a disappointment but not a surprise

Really? tell me more!

I don't want to hijack Chris's thread, so if we take this debate further, lets move to another thread, but canals did not have a gradient designed into them. They get one if you use the locks or there is surplus water running weir, but throw a stick into a canal where no boats are moving and the stick doesn't move Aside from anything else this means the guy tipping his turds into the cut will find them hanging around his own boat for a while

That's the best piece of fiction I've read this week, 1mph would be a heck of a rate of flow on a canal, and they weren't designed with such a flow, in fact, you can often observe canals flowing backwards, i.e upstream if the wind is in the right direction. Back to the point. Chris, I take my hat off to you, send the letter

While I can understand your point about advertising these actions being a good way to give ammunition to the anti-boater brigade, I really can't see where Chris has used obscene language. His letter seems extremely articulate and measured to me

If it's the guy I'm thinking of, he shares his name with a mean sax player (deceased) what we need to watch, though, is that this doesn't become a case of BW losing half it's grant and then being told to bid for it from myriad sources

It's for several reasons but the biggest factor is lack of money, it is run on a budget per mile about a fifth of BWs. It doesn't help that it's not managed very well either, you have to book entry to the canal even if you've got a licence, and English Nature (as they were) put a ridiculous level of restriction on, given that before the canal was restored it was a stagnant ditch, and because it's hardly used, local communities don't perceive any benefit in it being navigable

No they won't because they won't own them, the charitable trust will own them However there must be a risk that canals will end up in the same state as the Basingstoke Canal - unnavigable for much of the time

good points well made, Sir Frank Price would not have stood for this, but then Robin Evans was given the job for a reason BTW I once applied to be a member of the board, it was 30 days work a year for about ten grand, and my employers were in principle happy for me to take 30 days unpaid leave to allow me to do it, but during the process it quickly became apparent that they didn't want someone who knew something about canals.

It almost certainly will but there are other ways as well a certain well know canal restoration scheme that BW pulled out of was due to have volunteer input under their stewardship, this would have been to the value of £76,500. Under the local authority that has now taken it on the value is £1 million, a fair percentage off a £25 million job, and this is canal restoration, where certain things like building highway bridges are expensive and off limits

Because an internet forum is a way of testing whether your feelings are justified. Not a very good one admittedly, I'm sure (I haven't checked) that there are forums somewhere discussing the wisdom of having sex with your mother in law, and on them there will be some nutter shouting "go for it" When I've been aggrieved I've sometimes looked for reassurance that I wasn't in the wrong, if my ex-wife had done the same we might still be married, as I got several "she's got a point you know" comments back and she remained convinced of her rightness. I know what you are now going to say, MD remains convinced anyway, but to be honest, so do you. Dave made his point over the pillaging Vikings, you are being argumentative. So am I, but at least I acknowledge it, and Dave's, deliberate exaggeration of your perspective made me smile, shame you didn't see it.

Can't find the article on NBW, anyone point me the right way?