Grand Union Canal water transfer scheme latest

[Tim Lewis]

On 19/06/2023 at 08:57, BEngo said:

Depends on the relative levels of Minworth sewage and Braunston summit.  Minworth is about 13 locks up from Fazeley so probably higher than the top of Atherstone.   If so a pipeline might not need pumping from Minworth  to Hawkesbury, depending on size,  desired flow rates and head losses etc.

N

 

A quick look on nils maps shows that Atherstone top lock is on the 300ft contour, the canal at Minworth is also at 300ft with the sewage works slightly lower

[BEngo]

2 hours ago, Tim Lewis said:

A quick look on nils maps shows that Atherstone top lock is on the 300ft contour, the canal at Minworth is also at 300ft with the sewage works slightly lower

Thanks Tim.

 

Assuming they dont pipe it to somewhere, with the pump at Minworth sewage works, Minworth to Fazeley by gravity flow then Glascote, Atherstone,  Suttons, Hillmorton and Braunston are going to need pumping. Going to be interesting finding space for what will be  a fairly big pump at Glascote.  There is an existing, fairly new back-pump at Braunston which AFAIUI  cannot be used because there is not enough power available at Bottom Lock to drive the thing, and nowhere for CRT to accept a transformer box to upgrade the power. 

 

N

 

 

[dixi188]

The whole point of this is for Mott MacDonald  and other CONsultants to make a lot of money while doing nothing of any use for the country.

[Tacet]

57 minutes ago, dixi188 said:

The whole point of this is for Mott MacDonald  and other CONsultants to make a lot of money while doing nothing of any use for the country.

Agreed.  Those privatised water companies are renowned for spending shareholders cash on upgrading the infrastructure, for no good reason.

 

And what's the point of resilient water supplies anyway?

[dixi188]

2 hours ago, Tacet said:

Agreed.  Those privatised water companies are renowned for spending shareholders cash on upgrading the infrastructure, for no good reason.

 

And what's the point of resilient water supplies anyway?

Sorry, you missed my point.

The consultants will spend millions to work out that the canal system is not suitable for moving large quantities of water and we need a pipeline.

It's a waste of money and kicks the can down the road.

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, dixi188 said:

Sorry, you missed my point.

The consultants will spend millions to work out that the canal system is not suitable for moving large quantities of water and we need a pipeline.

It's a waste of money and kicks the can down the road.

It shouldn't need a lot of expensive consultants to work out where pumping would be needed how much this would cost to install and run, it's a simple back-of-envelope calculation.

 

I expect that the cost of installing running and maintaining the pumps would make the whole thing economically unviable, even ignoring other issues like water flow speed, weed blocking pumps...

[Dave123]

On 15/06/2023 at 15:56, 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

Aren't there already back pumps at most of those locks? If they went via Warwick and Napton then certainly there are back pumps all the way at each lock flight.

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

Aren't there already back pumps at most of those locks? If they went via Warwick and Napton then certainly there are back pumps all the way at each lock flight.

There's a big difference between the small back pumps needed to restore water levels (typically 240k litres/lockful for broad locks, 140k for narrow) and the huge ones needed for water transfer (115M litres/day)...

Edited June 22, 2023 by IanD

[Ewan123]

1 hour ago, dixi188 said:

Sorry, you missed my point.

The consultants will spend millions to work out that the canal system is not suitable for moving large quantities of water and we need a pipeline.

It's a waste of money and kicks the can down the road.

Only if we assume that the layman opinions here are better informed and more capable of assessing the scheme than the professionals...

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Ewan123 said:

Only if we assume that the layman opinions here are better informed and more capable of assessing the scheme than the professionals...

I don't think they need to be better informed and more capable, even to someone less well informed and capable it should be obvious that the idea is impractical.

 

But if somebody high-up has got it into their head that this would be a great idea, it'll take an expensive report from consultants to convince them that they're wrong... 😉

[dixi188]

 My view of consultants is that they make the process as complicated as possible and gold plate any projects that go ahead because they are on a percentage of the final cost.

Look at HS2.

[Dave123]

42 minutes ago, IanD said:

There's a big difference between the small back pumps needed to restore water levels (typically 240k litres/lockful for broad locks, 140k for narrow) and the huge ones needed for water transfer (115M litres/day)...

True. 

I'm in two minds about this. Having a high flow rate on these canals would cause navigational issues and structural ones (eg errosion of banks; CRT blamed the Middlewich breach on someone opening all the paddles on a lock and causing a high flow on the canal).

Equally, anything that gives the canals increased relevance and funding is a good thing.

Boats manage on the Llangollen and also some of the narrower faster parts of the K&A, eg Theale VMs and below Thatcham

[Pluto]

0.115 billion litres a day is suggested for the new supply, with London currently using 2.6 billion litres per day, so the proposed supply is around 2% of the total currently supplied. I suspect investment in leakage prevention would produce a better return

[IanD]

2 hours ago, dixi188 said:

 My view of consultants is that they make the process as complicated as possible and gold plate any projects that go ahead because they are on a percentage of the final cost.

Look at HS2.

Except they're not. No matter how much you dislike consultants, feasibility studies like this are usually fixed fee, agreed beforehand -- at least, all the ones I've ever been involved in (from both sides) have been.

 

Of course you may know differently -- or be putting forward your evidence-free opinion as fact... 😉

Edited June 22, 2023 by IanD

[cuthound]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

There's a big difference between the small back pumps needed to restore water levels (typically 240k litres/lockful for broad locks, 140k for narrow) and the huge ones needed for water transfer (115M litres/day)...

 

Thee is also the pump duty to consider. Back pumps are unlikely to be rated for 24/7 duty (it costs more for no practical gain) whereas  water transfer pumps will need to be.

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Pluto said:

0.115 billion litres a day is suggested for the new supply, with London currently using 2.6 billion litres per day, so the proposed supply is around 2% of the total currently supplied. I suspect investment in leakage prevention would produce a better return

4.4%...

[BEngo]

3 hours ago, Dave123 said:

Equally, anything that gives the canals increased relevance and funding is a good thing.

When the  sh!t enters the air conditioning system, which do you think will be more important: maintaining a water supply to the Great Wen or continuing navigation?

 

I know where my money is.

 

N

[Ewan123]

3 minutes ago, BEngo said:

When the  sh!t enters the air conditioning system, which do you think will be more important: maintaining a water supply to the Great Wen or continuing navigation?

 

I know where my money is.

 

N

If it gets to that point, a canal which doesn't even offer value for water supply is going to be even less likely to be maintained. How would the canal not supplying water make it more likely to be maintained for navigation?

3 hours ago, dixi188 said:

 My view of consultants is that they make the process as complicated as possible and gold plate any projects that go ahead because they are on a percentage of the final cost.

Look at HS2.

We don't, I promise (at least the good ones don't). The process is made complicated by all of the planning and legislative hoops that need to be navigated for something like a DCO application (BTW: A Development Consent Order (DCO) is the means of obtaining permission for developments categorised as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP)). Unfortunately this process is so complex and requires such specialist skills and knowledge, that it's rarely practical for them to be undertaken 'in house' without seeking help from various consultants.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Ewan123

[Pluto]

5 hours ago, IanD said:

4.4%...

Sorry, but I have been in almost continual pain for the past few months, thanks to lack of staff in the NHS. It doesn't help concentration!

[Ronaldo47]

11 hours ago, dixi188 said:

 My view of consultants is that they make the process as complicated as possible and gold plate any projects that go ahead because they are on a percentage of the final cost.

Look at HS2.

My experince of consultants (in the post-Weinstock era of Marconi) was less than good: our Office Manager's view was that his recommendation to anyone whose company was being investigated by that particular  consulting firm,   was to take them up on the roof of their highest building and kick them off.

 

A number of evidently wet behind the ears graduates came in for a couple of days to take a superficial look at what we did, and produced a recommendation to completely change  our structure to one which was clearly impractical and apart from anything else, would have resulted in our part-qualified trainees never being able to become fully qualified had they remained in the company. The changes never got implemented as Marconi started going down the pan before it got going in earnest, and the report strongly smelled of an exercise in providing  justification for what the directors wanted to do. A scandal subsequently led to the consulting firm stopping trading.

 

On the other hand I am sure there must (somewhere) be consulting firms who do do  excellent work because they do actually understand the businesses they are looking at,  and can give unbiassed objective opinions, rather than just trotting out something supporting what the client wants to hear.  Or am I being naive? 

[BEngo]

OT, but there are consultants and there are consultants.  One group is those who have a specialist expertise, such as those that work in the NHS, planning consultants  specialist engineering consultants like Mott McD, Arup, our own  Magpie Patrick and many others.  They tend to be called in for their expertise and experience.  Stafeed by people with more than a few grey hairs.

 

Then there are the Management Consultants.  Usually subsidiaries/ spin offs/ spin outs from large accountancy firms.  Tend to be staffed by young  wizzards with three management degrees and an MBA at 25, but little real experience.  Get called in when management needs a shield to hide behind.  The best ask the existing staff what is wrong and why.  The worst are there to push a pet theory.

 

N

[oboat]

On 15/06/2023 at 10:46, Stilllearning said:

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

It's just an infommercial. 

[LadyG]

On 15/06/2023 at 15:40, IanD said:

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

Yes, to be converted in to drinking water. 

I now buy my drinking water from the mountains of Scotland, I am trying to avoid the mains water supply which is increasingly dependent on recycling without, to my knowledge, removing all nasties: pesticide residues, drug residues, heavy metals. Even beer is probably made with mains water, once upon a time it would be sourced from boreholes, but not convinced that happens nowadays.

[oboat]

On 15/06/2023 at 15:40, IanD said:

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

One has to ask! Where is it going now? Down the Seven, Trent ? Be very interested to know.

[LadyG]

2 minutes ago, oboat said:

One has to ask! Where is it going now? Down the Seven, Trent ? Be very interested to know.

Birmingham draws its water from reservoirs in Wales rather than the Lickey Hills ..... That's the reason they have a "surplus"