New canals 2

[pirate paul]

The general idea is to design a new canal in a loop right round Britain linking the canals that we have, not by removing them or building over them but by building locks to link at least some of them to the new canal.

The proposed new canal THE NEW GREENBELT could incorporate an underground new road/ rail system. Housing, schools, shops and offices can be built like steps into cuttings and aqueducts in such a way that the garden of a house on the second floor is on the roof of the house on the first floor grass roofs etc an access road at the bottom of the garden could be lined with trees. The view from the air or any view point would be one of trees, an aqueduct would look like a wooded hillside with two canals running along the top. A cutting would look like two canals in a wooded valley.

The proposed rout is above the M1,M8,M74,M6,M5,M4. The motorways and railtrack can be rebuilt in an underground tunnel. The idea is to channel wind in behind the traffic increasing MPG sucking it out via biological filters which absorb CO2.

The canal would comprise of two level canals side by side with a central reservation and wild life corridor.Water can be made to flow in in the canals at no more than aprox 4MPH one canal flowing north, one flowing south. Water can be made to flow by channeling it in from higher ground and opening computer controlled ground paddles at the right time and place, by vertical axis wind turbines directly driving pumps or simply electricity from the grid..By planting trees in rows at 45 degrees to the canals along the banks, and across the central reservation wind can be channeled behind the boats in both canals at once ie. north blowing in the north bound canal, and south blowing in the south bound canal. As the water is moving it can be filtered by passing it through reed beds, pure clean clear water for use in dry areas in the summer.

The lock spec would need to be big enough to take barges carrying standard road containers with the doors open. The locks would be aprox 72 x 14ft.

It would be possible for narrow boats to use the New Green Belt.

This is the way forward for the canal system in my opinion.

 

The new system must be payed for, there is enough money in selling the high value real estate to pay for the project.

Most if not all of us wil notl live to see the finished project but I hope something along these lines will be built in time.

 

Do any members have any constructive comments or ideas for improvement.

 

LESS OF THE SPAM PLEASE.

[County4x4]

Haven't we tried this thread already fairly recently?

 

There are no doubt many people on here who are wondering if you're being serious - I'm one of them i'm afraid!

 

Have you costed out the bill for re-building most of the UK motorway network - oh - in a tunnel as well?

 

I don't think any of this is any more realistic than many of those "artists impressions" of "the future" I used to get in Speed and Power magazine as a young lad to be honest.

 

Sorry.

 

Andy

[TheWilk]

You know how children have loads and loads of energy that they seem to get from nowhere? Why can't we hook them up to the national grid? Eh?

[pirate paul]

Haven't we tried this thread already fairly recently?

 

There are no doubt many people on here who are wondering if you're being serious - I'm one of them i'm afraid!

 

Have you costed out the bill for re-building most of the UK motorway network - oh - in a tunnel as well?

 

I don't think any of this is any more realistic than many of those "artists impressions" of "the future" I used to get in Speed and Power magazine as a young lad to be honest.

 

Sorry.

 

Andy

Its just as realistic as building the motorways in the first place, if we went to breath air in the future 4x4s to name but one must be redesigned, run in a gas regulated enclosure or taken off the road.

[County4x4]

Its just as realistic as building the motorways in the first place, if we went to breath air in the future 4x4s to name but one must be redesigned, run in a gas regulated enclosure or taken off the road.

 

Oh right - but why stop at 4x4's? Why not all these horrible vintage diesels on canal boats puthering fumes out all day? Why not all these horrible modern diesels on boats being used for pleasure purposes god forbid!

 

I could also argue that MY 4x4 is only a 4x2 unless I select otherwise, and that being that it's thirteen years old, I have saved a lot of carbon by keeping it going and not destroyed it in order to replace it with a brand new vehicle that would need a big technical backup to replace the "use once and throw away" nature of modern computer controlled vehicle systems. I mend my van myself with my own tools. Etc etc.

 

I don't see that it is "just as realistic as building the motorways in the first place". The resources required to replace the whole network and put it in tunnels would be way beyond staggering - you may be better building a bridge to a different planet!

 

Andy

[Graham Davis]

I know lets spout some more economic, unresearched drivel and then come to the crux of the matter and blame 4x4's for all the ill's of the world.

 

GET A LIFE

4x4's are no worse than millions of other cars, and lots better than some.

[mayalld]

Do any members have any constructive comments or ideas for improvement.

 

Yes, cut down on the drugs.

 

LESS OF THE SPAM PLEASE.

 

Do you actually have the first idea what "spam" is?

 

Free clue for the day, it doesn't mean "posts that disagree with my ideas"

[carlt]

"THE PLANE! THE PLANE!!"

[RLWP]

"THE PLANE! THE PLANE!!"

You can borrow mine:

 

Richard

 

Pirate Paul.

 

I'm not really sure what you are trying to achieve with your posts. Several times you have described some incredibly ambitious schemes for canals and seem to be trying to recruit people to do something - although I'm not sure what that is. These schemes usually include building something vast and new or radically modifying the historic canals that already exist.

 

You will have found that the members of this forum enjoy the existing canals as they are now, or want to put back more of the historical features. If you really are campaigning for radical modernisation of the canal network or construction of major new canals, then I'm afraid you are on the wrong forum.

 

We have one member - Parsons Dubai - who is involved in building new waterways in Saudi-Arabia. Perhaps you could PM him to see if there are any openings for you working with him. He has recruited here before.

 

Richard

[pirate paul]

You can borrow mine:

 

Richard

 

Pirate Paul.

 

I'm not really sure what you are trying to achieve with your posts. Several times you have described some incredibly ambitious schemes for canals and seem to be trying to recruit people to do something - although I'm not sure what that is. These schemes usually include building something vast and new or radically modifying the historic canals that already exist.

 

You will have found that the members of this forum enjoy the existing canals as they are now, or want to put back more of the historical features. If you really are campaigning for radical modernisation of the canal network or construction of major new canals, then I'm afraid you are on the wrong forum.

 

We have one member - Parsons Dubai - who is involved in building new waterways in Saudi-Arabia. Perhaps you could PM him to see if there are any openings for you working with him. He has recruited here before.

 

Richard

The new canals are in my opinion the way forward, the canals in my area the Forth and Clyde canal. and the Caledonian canal do not link up with the rest of the network I think they should.

It is not possible for you to come here or me to go there by boat without going on the sea.

The objective is to put forward ideas as to how this can be rectified. I wish to discuss this with like minded individuals, and intend to do so.

Of the several hecklers who have already made this and my other thread difficult to read the first one was at least on topic, this one seems at least polite. The same few people are simply changing the subject.

I also wish to promote barge trade, a popular subject on this site, speeding up passage on at least some canals such as the Leeds Liverpool is a part of that.

Enabling boats to move around the UK is for the benefit of those using this site and others, a worth while goal.

Thats apart from the obvious green advantages.

[RLWP]

The new canals are in my opinion the way forward, the canals in my area the Forth and Clyde canal. and the Caledonian canal do not link up with the rest of the network I think they should.

It is not possible for you to come here or me to go there by boat without going on the sea.

The objective is to put forward ideas as to how this can be rectified. I wish to discuss this with like minded individuals, and intend to do so.

Of the several hecklers who have already made this and my other thread difficult to read the first one was at least on topic, this one seems at least polite. The same few people are simply changing the subject.

I also wish to promote barge trade, a popular subject on this site, speeding up passage on at least some canals such as the Leeds Liverpool is a part of that.

Enabling boats to move around the UK is for the benefit of those using this site and others, a worth while goal.

Thats apart from the obvious green advantages.

 

Hi Paul,

 

Within the context of this forum I don't think you are likely to get much support for these ideas.

 

The Forth and Clyde canal is over a hundred miles north of any current canal, and the Caledonian further still. It would cost many, many Billions of pounds to connect them to the network. There is no money or desire for schemes like this, let alone the ability to construct such canals.

 

Promoting barge traffic has been a popular topic within the waterways movements since the 1960's but the reality is there is no commercial desire for it, so it doesn't happen.

 

Speeding up traffic on canals. If you want to do that by reinstating doubled locks or lost connections, you will find support here. If you want to demolish and rebuild locks, in my opinion you won't find support.

 

If, as you say, you want to discuss these schemes with like-minded individuals I really don't think you are going to find them on this forum. This is why you are getting such weird and poor responses to your threads.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Richard

[mayalld]

The objective is to put forward ideas as to how this can be rectified. I wish to discuss this with like minded individuals, and intend to do so.

 

You can intend all you wish.

 

However, the chances of you finding a "like minded individual" here is nil.

 

You ideas aren't just pie in the sky (which is welcomed here), they are plain barking..

[RLWP]

You can intend all you wish.

 

However, the chances of you finding a "like minded individual" here is nil.

 

You ideas aren't just pie in the sky (which is welcomed here), they are plain barking..

 

You are clearly being a little more forthright than I was.

 

Richard

[Proper Job]

You are clearly being a little more forthright than I was.

 

Richard

You need to be a bit more honest with some people than others

[mayalld]

You are clearly being a little more forthright than I was.

 

Richard

 

No sense in beating about the bush here!

 

Paul, please put on the tinfoil hat, they really are reading your mind (although it has been found to contain less original thought than NarrowMindedWorld)

[Graham Davis]

Paul, your ideas are possibly worth discussing, but you have antagonised people by picking on the 4x4 owner for no good reason.

What is it with the "greens" that they have to blame 4x4's for all the sins of the world?

Perhaps if you hadn't done that you "might" have got somesensible replies.

[mayalld]

Paul, your ideas are possibly worth discussing, but you have antagonised people by picking on the 4x4 owner for no good reason.

What is it with the "greens" that they have to blame 4x4's for all the sins of the world?

Perhaps if you hadn't done that you "might" have got somesensible replies.

 

The problem is that his ideas depend on ficticious technology at every stage.

[pirate paul]

Paul, your ideas are possibly worth discussing, but you have antagonised people by picking on the 4x4 owner for no good reason.

What is it with the "greens" that they have to blame 4x4's for all the sins of the world?

Perhaps if you hadn't done that you "might" have got somesensible replies.

I have a Landrover badge on my transome and a P6 in the engine bay, the reduction of greenhouse gases along with building new canals is a worth doing.

[mayalld]

I have a Landrover badge on my transome and a P6 in the engine bay, the reduction of greenhouse gases along with building new canals is a worth doing.

 

But you don't actually present a way of doing it!

 

You invent fantasy technologies that don't exist, and where you haven't managed to invent a fantasy technology, you airily announce that a new technology will be invented to deal with that issue.

[Hairy-Neil]

However, the chances of you finding a "like minded individual" here is nil.

 

You ideas aren't just pie in the sky (which is welcomed here), they are plain barking..

 

He'll have little trouble finding a good many here who are barking....

[mayalld]

He'll have little trouble finding a good many here who are barking....

 

But not to his own standards of complete fruit-cakery

[Strads]

Ummh..

 

I think the "concept" in terms of blue sky thinking - eg if a perfect world dosnt sound so bad....

 

however reality will show that any scheme, how ever well intended and beneficial needs to have a basis for success in solving issues or re-alinging things to be better for the next few generations ( victorian sewers and the railways and indeed the orginal canals) all built with for sight for the future benefit of health and commerce..

 

I dont thing many people would object to better designed motorways / railway links and indeed canals.

aside from the nimbies, (many out there ) there is the real question of how you would build such canals, at the same time as burying motorways / rail ways etc.

 

The current widening of the core motorways sucha s the M25 / M1 / M6 in recent/current times shows the disruption / impact and cost for just short stretches,

are very high, with people questioning the value of these projects in some cases, the costs would no doubt be 10's of millions per mile ( to buy the land build landscape / compensate,... I cant guess the actual costs but these would need paying for by either the government through taxes, of by charging for use,

 

seeing how many people dont like paying for the current tolls on bridges and M6 (useage i beleive has dropped since the charges went up) I dont see general travlling public willing to pay tolls for tunnelled motorways..

 

then there is the commercial cost of additional time of goods in transit, additional transhipment, ( each move/element adds cost) that needs to be paid for and the costs end up in the finished goods price, which we all pay.

 

Maybe "green" reality will mean we do indeed need to pay more to eleimate pollution, get greener transport, but would the "green cost " of the actual building this proposal be...?

 

I think there is a better discusion to ensure that additional rail capacity is provided ( revive the old great central line) for freight capacity to get a much greater percentage of the container traffic (from the major ports) onto the trunk line to the market areas,

 

Whilst re-building taking the advantage to a, electrify the line, ensuring it can take the weights /heights needed, but also intall in the build additional pipe lines for water and fuel distribution.

These would use some existing land / infrastructures and probably take many trucks of the road..

 

 

................. always interesting to discuss,

 

off for another coffee..

[Proper Job]

But you don't actually present a way of doing it!

 

You invent fantasy technologies that don't exist, and where you haven't managed to invent a fantasy technology, you airily announce that a new technology will be invented to deal with that issue.

To be fair........ That was pretty much how NASA got a man on the moon

[pirate paul]

Ummh..

 

I think the "concept" in terms of blue sky thinking - eg if a perfect world dosnt sound so bad....

 

however reality will show that any scheme, how ever well intended and beneficial needs to have a basis for success in solving issues or re-alinging things to be better for the next few generations ( victorian sewers and the railways and indeed the orginal canals) all built with for sight for the future benefit of health and commerce..

 

I dont thing many people would object to better designed motorways / railway links and indeed canals.

aside from the nimbies, (many out there ) there is the real question of how you would build such canals, at the same time as burying motorways / rail ways etc.

 

The current widening of the core motorways sucha s the M25 / M1 / M6 in recent/current times shows the disruption / impact and cost for just short stretches,

are very high, with people questioning the value of these projects in some cases, the costs would no doubt be 10's of millions per mile ( to buy the land build landscape / compensate,... I cant guess the actual costs but these would need paying for by either the government through taxes, of by charging for use,

 

seeing how many people dont like paying for the current tolls on bridges and M6 (useage i beleive has dropped since the charges went up) I dont see general travlling public willing to pay tolls for tunnelled motorways..

 

then there is the commercial cost of additional time of goods in transit, additional transhipment, ( each move/element adds cost) that needs to be paid for and the costs end up in the finished goods price, which we all pay.

 

Maybe "green" reality will mean we do indeed need to pay more to eleimate pollution, get greener transport, but would the "green cost " of the actual building this proposal be...?

 

I think there is a better discusion to ensure that additional rail capacity is provided ( revive the old great central line) for freight capacity to get a much greater percentage of the container traffic (from the major ports) onto the trunk line to the market areas,

 

Whilst re-building taking the advantage to a, electrify the line, ensuring it can take the weights /heights needed, but also intall in the build additional pipe lines for water and fuel distribution.

These would use some existing land / infrastructures and probably take many trucks of the road..

 

 

................. always interesting to discuss,

 

off for another coffee..

 

 

 

Yea some interesting stuff your self.

 

Rail, road ,canals, water and wild life are I hope here to stay, there will be infrastructure in the coming centuries, the question is what form will form will it take, what routs will it take, what hight shall it be, who is going to pay for it and how much will it cost?

 

A few options ....

By building housing into the project and selling it to private investors, fish farming, tourism of the top of my head money can be raised The value of the housing runs into billions + fish farming is worth billions.. Any bright ideas?

 

The new system must be level, we must decide the hight of grid, road rail and canal.

Another rout option is the rout taken by rail track.

[carlt]

And the environmental cost of such a huge (and ridiculous) scheme?