Grand Union Canal water transfer scheme latest

[Tim Lewis]

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/mott-macdonald-to-aid-grand-union-canal-water-transfer-scheme-progress-15-06-2023/

[Stilllearning]

That's an interesting read, but I'm not sure it actually says much of any substance, other than naming a few names.

[cuthound]

According to CRT the Llangollen transports 13 million litres per day https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/34901-llangollen-canal-fact-file.pdf?v=79aca5 so this GU scheme will transport 115 million litres per day or almost 10 times as much.

 

Boats on the Llangollen already struggle a bit to go through the tight spots at Whitehorse Tunnel and the Aqueducts, so I imagine that boats trying to get from London to Birmingham will really struggle. However boats going from Birmingham to London can expect to have a day or two taken off their transit time...

 

Perhaps the idea isn't so bad after all as it will help to keep the London boats where they are and should stop widebeams from being able to transit the Blisworth and Braunston tunnels...   

 

[Graham_Robinson]

“With a relative abundance of water in the north and west of England compared to the south and east, water transfers will form an important part of making England’s water supply resilient," she  said.
 

Edited June 15, 2023 by Graham_Robinson

[Ewan123]

7 minutes ago, Graham_Robinson said:

“With a relative abundance of water in the north and west of England compared to the south and east, water transfers will form an important part of making England’s water supply resilient," she  said.
So how do we propose to get water from say the L&L or Rochdale to the GU @ Brum?

Bear in mind also the state of CRT's reservoirs....all of them never mind Toddbrook
And haven't we been here before? 1976 Denis Howell Minister for drought?
I would also like to inform viewers in the South that in the past few years there has been an almost unprecedented spate of housebuilding or so it seems and as far as I know no new sources of water have been added to the existing supply.
We do need the occasional use of a tap up here as well, sometimes.

What do the L&L and Rochdale have to do with it? The proposed scheme is about sending treating wastewater (product of Brum) along the Coventry, Oxford and Grand Union to the Leighton Buzzard (then distributed after further treatment).

 

CRT should stand to secure significant funding towards the maintenance of those reservoirs as well as the waterways concerned.

 

It wouldn't be in the interest of the water companies to cause a lack of water around Brum, so it stands to reason that they've identified a significant volume of treated wastewater which is surplus to requirements there.

 

As someone living on the waterways, I'm keen for pretty much any idea that can contribute towards securing their future, so maybe I'm biased towards optimism here...

4 hours ago, Tim Lewis said:

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/mott-macdonald-to-aid-grand-union-canal-water-transfer-scheme-progress-15-06-2023/

Good to see it progressing.

[Hudds Lad]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-65901948

 

Yes, total abundance of water up North

[Ewan123]

11 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-65901948

 

Yes, total abundance of water up North

What does Cumbria have to do with it? They're planning to take water from Birmingham. That's the Midlands, not up North.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Ewan123

[Hudds Lad]

1 minute ago, Ewan123 said:

What does Cumbria have to do with it? They're planning to take water from Birmingham. 

Well, if the supposed wettest place in the country hasn't got any abundance, what chance the Midlands?

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

Well, if the supposed wettest place in the country hasn't got any abundance, what chance the Midlands?

If you actually read the article, it says that Brum has a surplus of treated waste water which could indeed be useful Dahn Sarf... 😉

[Ewan123]

2 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

Well, if the supposed wettest place in the country hasn't got any abundance, what chance the Midlands?

That's just not really how it works, one area can suffer extreme variation while another doesn't. This also isn't about a river that relies on natural replenishment of water, it's about an urban area producing surplus treated wastewater that could be used elsewhere.

[Graham_Robinson]

Ffs

Edited June 15, 2023 by Graham_Robinson

[BEngo]

If my fag packet is accurate,  115 million litres a day from the Coventry to Lygetune Beaudesert  will need  about a 1/2  a mile per hour southbound  current in Blisworth tunnel.

 

I am sure that the cost of pumping it all up Hillmorton, Braunston and from Fenny to Leighton will not be cheap.

 

N

[Ewan123]

2 minutes ago, BEngo said:

If my fag packet is accurate,  115 million litres a day from the Coventry to Lygetune Beaudesert  will need  about a 1/2  a mile per hour southbound  current in Blisworth tunnel.

 

I am sure that the cost of pumping it all up Hillmorton, Braunston and from Fenny to Leighton will not be cheap.

 

N

It certainly won't be cheap, but in the context of alternatives I suspect it might not be the most expensive option.

[PNB116]

Given the water companies inability or reluctance to treat sewage waste, one worries that they might try to save some more money and just pump the water as sewage into London?

[BEngo]

It will be much cheaper in running costs to operate a suitably  sized pipeline.  There are no artificial  restrictions on  flow velocity, no losses to evaporation and you can take advantage of the siphon effect to reduce pumping costs as far as Fenny Stratford.

 

Capex will be a bit perky  though!

 

N

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Ewan123 said:

It certainly won't be cheap, but in the context of alternatives I suspect it might not be the most expensive option.

If it takes power to pump the water uphill, you could get some of that back with water turbines where it goes downhill...

2 minutes ago, BEngo said:

It will be much cheaper in running costs to operate a suitably  sized pipeline.  There are no artificial  restrictions on  flow velocity, no losses to evaporation and you can take advantage of the siphon effect to reduce pumping costs as far as Fenny Stratford.

 

Capex will be a bit perky  though!

 

N

Not just capex -- which is investment in infrastructure, which this government is famously averse to -- but also finding a route to dig and lay a pipeline through prime NIMBY-land... 😞

[Tracy D'arth]

7 minutes ago, PNB116 said:

Given the water companies inability or reluctance to treat sewage waste, one worries that they might try to save some more money and just pump the water as sewage into London?

A wonderful idea, that will sort out the permanent non CCers!  Would that notice the difference? 

[Ewan123]

36 minutes ago, BEngo said:

It will be much cheaper in running costs to operate a suitably  sized pipeline.  There are no artificial  restrictions on  flow velocity, no losses to evaporation and you can take advantage of the siphon effect to reduce pumping costs as far as Fenny Stratford.

 

Capex will be a bit perky  though!

 

N

Creating that new pipeline would be a pretty huge cost though, at least with the GU proposal they won't generally have to deal with hundreds of grumpy landowners (a process that sucks a lot of time and money from any such project).

Also, shhh We want more money spent on maintaining the waterways, right?

[cuthound]

47 minutes ago, IanD said:

If it takes power to pump the water uphill, you could get some of that back with water turbines where it goes downhill...

Not just capex -- which is investment in infrastructure, which this government is famously averse to -- but also finding a route to dig and lay a pipeline through prime NIMBY-land... 😞

 

And the ongoing current account expenditure for maintenance which gets overlooked on many projects.

[ditchcrawler]

Cotswold Canal trust are having similar conversations 

[BEngo]

I can't see a water transfer scheme causing any more money to be spent on waterway maintenance.  The locks are not essential to a water transfer scheme, and might even be an inconvenience as they use water that has been expensively pumped up to the summit.  Leaks will be another loss so if they get too expensive, close the navigation, abandon the uphill locks and weir the down hill locks.  Pounds would probably get just as much maintenance as now- the bare minimum.

 

A pipeline, OTOH could be put in the bed of the canal on long pounds and under the towpath on short pounds and lock flights.   Braunston and Blisworth tunnels would be more difficult, but there is already a path across both, so a shorter route negotiation.

 

You can also be certain that any real income from water transfer will be at least matched by a reduction in public funding.

 

Cynical?  Moi?  I prefer realistic.

 

N

[Pluto]

2 hours ago, BEngo said:

A pipeline, OTOH could be put in the bed of the canal on long pounds and under the towpath on short pounds and lock flights.   Braunston and Blisworth tunnels would be more difficult, but there is already a path across both, so a shorter route negotiation.

They should have put the pipeline under HS2.

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Pluto said:

They should have put the pipeline under HS2.

Wrong place -- you do know that PLUTO = PipeLine Under The Ocean? 🙂

[magnetman]

4 hours ago, BEngo said:

If my fag packet is accurate,  115 million litres a day from the Coventry to Lygetune Beaudesert  will need  about a 1/2  a mile per hour southbound  current in Blisworth tunnel.

 

I am sure that the cost of pumping it all up Hillmorton, Braunston and from Fenny to Leighton will not be cheap.

 

N

Nice to see someone else who knows the real name of LB :)

[PeterF]

4 hours ago, BEngo said:

If my fag packet is accurate,  115 million litres a day from the Coventry to Lygetune Beaudesert  will need  about a 1/2  a mile per hour southbound  current in Blisworth tunnel.

 

N

I did a calc and agree with the 0.5mph. However, put put a full sized wide beam in the tunnel taking up lets say 75% of the available flow area and if the widebeam is stationary the current will be 2mph to get around the boat let alone make any headway. Therefore, the boat will not make any progress at low cruising revs. Has CRT thought about this yet or have I got something wrong.