Grand Union Transfer Scheme

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

what’s the general opinion on this then?:

 

Grand Union Canal Transfer Scheme Hi Glenn, A consultation is underway about the Grand Union Canal Transfer Scheme. This is a vital new scheme to move water from the Midlands to the Southeast. It is needed to secure future drinking water supplies. The scheme will also help to protect the environment, ensure future water availability for canal navigation, and unlock investment in local communities. What is the Grand Union Canal Transfer Scheme? Although it’s a joint water transfer project between two water companies, Severn Trent and Affinity Water, and us. Ensuring navigation is core to the design of the scheme. More than that though it also brings two other crucial benefits. Firstly, because the Coventry and Grand Union canals will be moving water year-round, including the summer, it will add to their resilience during hot spells when feeder reservoirs might be getting low on water. Secondly, this scheme not only brings us an income which we can spend on maintenance, it also underlines the point to those in power that canals, and the network at large, have a vital role to play in modern daily life. How will it work? It will use a combination of new pipelines, water treatment plants and other infrastructure, as well as the canals themselves to transfer water from one region to another. There are three main geographical areas of the scheme: Northern section – transferring water from a proposed new Advanced Water Treatment Plant at the existing Minworth Wastewater Recycling Centre, to the Coventry Canal at Atherstone via underground pipeline. Canal section – using the existing canal network to transfer water by building some new infrastructure such as pumping stations and gravity bypasses, alongside adapting some of the existing structures. Southern section – transferring water into a proposed water treatment works and water storage, before it is transferred by underground pipeline to Affinity Water’s customers You can find out all about the proposals and where we might need new infrastructure on our website: www.guctransfer.co.uk The consultation Consulting with boaters and local communities is a central part of the planning process and we encourage people to share their thoughts and opinions on this ambitious and transformative project. These comments will help us understand the views of all those who use the waterway as well as local communities, along with any potential impacts the proposals may have. Boaters, local communities and interested parties can take part in the consultation in the following ways: Online: complete and submit a feedback form on our website: www.guctransfer.co.uk/haveyoursay Email: email your feedback to contact@guctransfer.co.uk Freepost: post a hard copy feedback form or a written response to Freepost GRAND UNION CANAL TRANSFER (no stamp required). There’ll also be a series of consultation events and pop-up events at various locations. Get in touch If you have a question about the scheme, if you need hardcopy documents or have any other queries, please do get in contact at any time by emailing contact@guctransfer.co.uk, or calling 0121 270 5920. The consultation runs until 25 October. Canal & River Trust Copyright © 2024 Canal & River Trust, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you either opted in at our website or purchased a boat licence from us. Our mailing address is: Canal & River Trust National Waterways Museum Ellesmere Port South Pier Road Ellesmere Port, Cheshire CH65 4FW United Kingdom Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list

[Hudds Lad]

Unsure if i'm honest. Strikes me it will need a whole lot of infrastructure to get the water up from Atherstone to above Braunston locks, who pays for all that? But it could improve water levels for places like Atherstone or the Ashby and maybe keep things better maintained like they have to on the Llangollen.

Dunno, needs better brains than mine to puzzle the pros and cons.

[Lady M]

Bearing in mind the flow effect in tunnels on the Llangollen Canal, I am currently pondering the likely effect of this on the GU tunnels.  Wondering how it could affect widebeam transit times or if it will be more difficult to pass oncoming boats.

[magpie patrick]

Overall, our waterways need purpose if they are going to survive - and ideally purpose that pays for their upkeep. I'm looking at this elsewhere with a derelict but in water (and just about navigable to canoes) canal that may become part of a storm water relief scheme - if it does the canal will have to kept clear to have the conveyance, and this means it will also be navigable at least by small boats - if it doesn't happen my guess is nature will take over and eventually it will be lost. 

 

This is similar but on a much bigger scale - the water company won't want a weeded up undredged canal, and thus there is a wider incentive to keep it going. 

 

7 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

Unsure if i'm honest. Strikes me it will need a whole lot of infrastructure to get the water up from Atherstone to above Braunston locks, who pays for all that?

 

Why would it be anyone other than the water company? 

 

One of the (very few) benefits of both privatisation of utilities and the denationalisation of CRT is that there can be some serious horse-trading on matters like this, whereas the treasury used to be against payments from one government body to another even when one was benefiting the other hard up.

[john6767]

I looked at this a while ago when it was first made public, and have just filled out the consultation.

 

My concerns are mainly around the impact on navigation of the flow.  On the Llangollen flowdoes have a very noticeable impact and I would assume this to be at least that level of flow, perhaps more I don’t know.  Braunston tunnel could become quite interesting when passing boats, and you wonder if a one way system may well need to be introduced.

 

I also don’t like the idea of raising the canal edges, although I suspect this will be limited otherwise and can’t see the project being viable.

 

And of course on the finances CRT need to play hard ball with the water companies, to ensure that they are getting an appropriate revenue stream from this, which is after all from CRT's perspective is the only reason for doing it.  I would like to see CRT present the figures on this to demonstrate that is will address this current financial shortfalls, and also on how the water companies will provide advance payments before the scheme going live in 2032.

[IanD]

Just now, john6767 said:

I looked at this a while ago when it was first made public, and have just filled out the consultation.

 

My concerns are mainly around the impact on navigation of the flow.  On the Llangollen flowdoes have a very noticeable impact and I would assume this to be at least that level of flow, perhaps more I don’t know.  Braunston tunnel could become quite interesting when passing boats, and you wonder if a one way system may well need to be introduced.

 

I also don’t like the idea of raising the canal edges, although I suspect this will be limited otherwise and can’t see the project being viable.

 

And of course on the finances CRT need to play hard ball with the water companies, to ensure that they are getting an appropriate revenue stream from this, which is after all from CRT's perspective is the only reason for doing it.  I would like to see CRT present the figures on this to demonstrate that is will address this current financial shortfalls, and also on how the water companies will provide advance payments before the scheme going live in 2032.

 

That is exactly the problem, the current has to be kept down to keep the canal usable for navigation. The Llangollen is a relatively small feeder as far as water capacity goes, much more is needed for the proposed transfer scheme, and one decent-sized pipeline could transfer far more water than the GU unless it was widened (impossible) or dredged back to much closer to its original depth (very difficult) or the water level raised by building up edges (ditto). The numbers in the documents sound big (115M litres!) but these are still pretty small compared to the demand, or the amount that would need to be transferred to make a significant difference.

 

I would love to see some real numbers based on realistic assumptions for all these factors, rather than the vague handwaving optimism which is all that they seem to have right now. If it does turn out to be feasible and cost-effective then of course it would be a great idea, but I expect after proper analysis the idea will fade away and disappear, like last time it was proposed...

[Pluto]

Why not move the people and jobs to areas where there are suitable natural resources? It would seem a much better than having to pump such large volumes of water. I did some calculations, it would have been on the back of a fag packet if I smoked, and they seem to be talking in terms of a similar volume to that which leaks from the current system.

[cuthound]

Perhaps time to resurrect the Grand Contour Canal, which would minimise the amount of pumping needed to transfer water.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Contour_Canal

[GUMPY]

Oh this chestnut rearing it's head again. 

First saw it mentioned 30 years ago and nothing happened.

Would be far better replacing the Thames and Severn canal and bringing the water over that to the new reservoir TW said they were building. 

Oh wait a minute,🫣 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 hours ago, Hudds Lad said:

Unsure if i'm honest. Strikes me it will need a whole lot of infrastructure to get the water up from Atherstone to above Braunston locks, who pays for all that? But it could improve water levels for places like Atherstone or the Ashby and maybe keep things better maintained like they have to on the Llangollen.

Dunno, needs better brains than mine to puzzle the pros and cons.

I dunno either,

But hoping it could be a very good earner for CRT,

They need something. 

 

[Tacet]

2 hours ago, john6767 said:

 

I also don’t like the idea of raising the canal edges, although I suspect this will be limited otherwise and can’t see the project being viable.

 

And of course on the finances CRT need to play hard ball with the water companies, to ensure that they are getting an appropriate revenue stream from this, which is after all from CRT's perspective is the only reason for doing it.  I would like to see CRT present the figures on this to demonstrate that is will address this current financial shortfalls, and also on how the water companies will provide advance payments before the scheme going live in 2032.

If you don't see the project as being viable, it is rather unrealistic to expect it to fund all CRTs current woes.

[David Mack]

3 hours ago, Lady M said:

Bearing in mind the flow effect in tunnels on the Llangollen Canal, I am currently pondering the likely effect of this on the GU tunnels.  Wondering how it could affect widebeam transit times or if it will be more difficult to pass oncoming boats.

If my quick calculation is correct, 115 million litres per day, if constant over 24 hours, would equate to an average water speed of about 0.5 mph through the tunnels (which for my calculation are assumed to be of rectangular cross section below water level 4m wide by 1.5m deep).

I note that the new pipeline from Minworth to Atherstone would be 1m diameter. So pumping at uphill locks will presumably need the same size pipes, and bywashes at the downhill locks will need to be substantial. Those won't all fit under the towpath, so it is likely some offline pipelines will be needed.

[matty40s]

My worry is that this Southern pumping will take priority over the pumping back from the Great Ouse to the Leicester Summit in dry years.

Especially when chatting to one of the surveyors last year on the Buckby flight who didn't even know that this took place already!! 

 

[Tonka]

So who has priority to the water. During a long hot summer with the water company pumping water up Braunston Flight, will the 20 boats awaiting to come down the flight be allowed to come down thus bringing the water back down that the water company has spent all day pumping up.

[JoeC]

Costs. I remember watching a program once that talked about water companies using canals to move their water - it said that it was a hell of a lot cheaper and quicker to get operational than if they had to lay pipes to do the job. The canal infrastructure is already there which means less pipe laying, planning applications, objections, court hearings etc.

[SLC]

What concerns me is that water will need to be transferred during the period when the canals are busiest and that boats will be of secondary importance especially when CRT would argue that it is the price to pay for getting enough income to maintain (some of) our canals.

I have heard that initial work will be limited, experimental and really a feasibility study before any large scale work is done.

[matty40s]

6 minutes ago, SLC said:

 

I have heard that initial work will be limited, experimental and really a feasibility study before any large scale work is done.

Well if they are using volunteers to carry buckets of water up Braunston, what happens when they get to Lock 2, most of them dont know there are another 4 locks...

[dmr]

There will likely be some compromise and conflict between water supply and navigation, and despite any agreements that might be made the water companies just can't be trusted and will walk all over CRT. They are happy to break the law and dump raw sewage into our rivers so blocking navigation will be no problem at all to them, they will just claim they don't have the money to sort things out.

[IanD]

Just now, dmr said:

There will likely be some compromise and conflict between water supply and navigation, and despite any agreements that might be made the water companies just can't be trusted and will walk all over CRT. They are happy to break the law and dump raw sewage into our rivers so blocking navigation will be no problem at all to them, they will just claim they don't have the money to sort things out.

I don't think there's any point worrying about this, I'm pretty sure when they dig into the practicalities and cost-effectiveness of it -- how much water can realistically be moved this way, and how difficult and expensive it will be to adapt the canals to do this -- the idea will quietly get shelved. Just like all the previous times it was proposed... 😉 

[NB Alnwick]

In theory it is an excellent solution to many challenges and I don't think a modest amount of flow will impede navigation.

Unfortunately we live in an age where we just cannot trust government departments and greedy companies to get it right.

[Ewan123]

Giving the canals new/additional purposes (especially those as vital this one) seems like a good way to secure their future.

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, Ewan123 said:

Giving the canals new/additional purposes (especially those as vital this one) seems like a good way to secure their future.

Agreed, but only if they're actually workable in real life as opposed to on a Powerpoint presentation... 😉 

[Tonka]

12 minutes ago, Ewan123 said:

Giving the canals new/additional purposes (especially those as vital this one) seems like a good way to secure their future.

Not if the lawyers give up boaters rights. Like what happened when BW/CRT sold off Chasewater Reservoir. (Water can't be used for the canal) Startops Reservoir at Marsworth ( CRT can't extract the water below a certain level because of the angling society)

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Not if the lawyers give up boaters rights. Like what happened when BW/CRT sold off Chasewater Reservoir. (Water can't be used for the canal) Startops Reservoir at Marsworth ( CRT can't extract the water below a certain level because of the angling society)

I think you're doom-mongering/CART-bashing here -- CART have to keep the canal navigable according to their statutory duties, they can't give that "boaters right" away.

 

So what "boaters rights" do you think they could give away?

 

None of which matters if it never happens, which I predict will be the case, just like all the other times this idea was proposed... 😉 

Edited September 18 by IanD

[Tonka]

15 minutes ago, IanD said:

I think you're doom-mongering/CART-bashing here -- CART have to keep the canal navigable according to their statutory duties, they can't give that "boaters right" away.

 

So what "boaters rights" do you think they could give away?

 

None of which matters if it never happens, which I predict will be the case, just like all the other times this idea was proposed... 😉 

Just look at the examples that I gave and you will see that what I have stated is correct. 

As I have said in this post who has priority to the water. On a hot summers day are the 20 boats going to be allowed down Braunston Flight when the water company a. Have spent all day pumping it up at great expense and then water is needed to go down Buckby flight. 

I am not doom mongering but quoting actual examples of where CRT lawyers have failed to put the boater first. 

Surly it is best to know what has gone wrong before so as not to make the same mistake again.