Anti social behaviour

[Chris Pink]

Well of course there is a flow, water runs downhill.

 

The implication by the gentleman with the throat infection was that this flow was designed in and amounted to 1 mph. The study he produced contradicted this but still showed a flow of .16 mph in places and other where the net flow was zero. It is also true that water conservation was paramount so flow = bad. With a few exceptions exemplified by the llangollen.

 

That is what he has been ridiculed for - albeit in a very polite and compassionate way.

 

But the canal is not stagnant.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Chris Pink

[Cosmic]

...Untreated sewage is a fertiliser...

Untreated human waste cannot be used as a fertiliser because it contains bacteria and parasites harmful to humans:

 

Wikipedia

Humanure handbook

[sueb]

Water flows both ways past our boat depending which locks are being used or which way boats are travelling. Expecting a flow to remove effluent is being optimistic

Sue

[magnetman]

Water flows both ways past our boat depending which locks are being used or which way boats are travelling. Expecting a flow to remove effluent is being optimistic

Sue

 

certainly true and people who suggest there is a flow of water on the cut are forgetting the dead pounds without bywashes or lock paddle windows.

[Nightwatch]

I think,,,,, that this thread has reached it's destination.

 

Only to add, that I would be interested in the response from this, if true, disgusting human being that has done this.

 

There is ample muck spreading without the forum being torn apart by personal opinions. There you go,another

 

NOT ACCEPTABLE!

 

Martyn.

[soldthehouse]

As I cycled home I have just witnessed a liveaboard emptying his porta-potti off the back deck of his boat.

 

 

What do you think I should do about this?

Surely the police could dna him if they can recover some of the offending waste, they are keen enough it seems to dna folk for anything else.

[magnetman]

As I cycled home I have just witnessed a liveaboard emptying his porta-potti off the back deck of his boat.

 

 

What do you think I should do about this?

 

Don't cycle on the towpath

[David Schweizer]

Why are people making such a fuss about water flow on canals. I made it clear in my earlier post that there is often movement of water near locks, by weirs and back pumps, but that is not a flow. On our moorings the water will be seen to move in one direction if there is a lot of lock actuivity half amile away, but then when the back pumps kick in, the water moves in the other direction. This is not flow but merely water moving back and forth.

 

Flow is where the water consistentltly and continuouisly moves in one direction from an upper level to a lower level, I have yet to see any evidence that this actually happens.

[weeble]

As I cycled home I have just witnessed a liveaboard emptying his porta-potti off the back deck of his boat.

 

 

What do you think I should do about this?

 

Deck him!

[journeyperson]

Why are people making such a fuss about water flow on canals. I made it clear in my earlier post that there is often movement of water near locks, by weirs and back pumps, but that is not a flow. On our moorings the water will be seen to move in one direction if there is a lot of lock actuivity half amile away, but then when the back pumps kick in, the water moves in the other direction. This is not flow but merely water moving back and forth.

 

Flow is where the water consistentltly and continuouisly moves in one direction from an upper level to a lower level, I have yet to see any evidence that this actually happens.

 

It will vary from one canal to another and also water levels, but the Llangollen has a considerable flow and hirers are advised to allow more time on the way up than on the way down because of it. I have never moored anywhere along it and not been aware of the water flowing, always in one direction. I have even read that it has a faster flow than the River Severn but I have no idea whether that is true.

 

The Shropshire Union north of Audlem also flows continuously northwards, unless I'm imagining it. On both the Llangollen and the Shroppie the bye-washes are usually flowing strongly.

Edited March 26, 2010 by journeyperson

[magnetman]

Why are people making such a fuss about water flow on canals. I made it clear in my earlier post that there is often movement of water near locks, by weirs and back pumps, but that is not a flow. On our moorings the water will be seen to move in one direction if there is a lot of lock actuivity half amile away, but then when the back pumps kick in, the water moves in the other direction. This is not flow but merely water moving back and forth.

 

Flow is where the water consistentltly and continuouisly moves in one direction from an upper level to a lower level, I have yet to see any evidence that this actually happens.

 

Where have you done your studies? That there are places on some canals where flow does indeed occur. The tennis ball test combined with the very thin fishing line around the paddles to confirm the lack of boats passing through locks test does prove that this is the case in some places.

 

I would not suggest that the presence of a 'flow' is an excuse to empty containers of human byproducts directly into a canal.

[magpie patrick]

It will vary from one canal to another and also water levels, but the Llangollen has a considerable flow and hirers are advised to allow more time on the way up than on the way down because of it. I have never moored anywhere along it and not been aware of the water flowing, always in one direction. I have even read that it has a faster flow than the River Severn but I have no idea whether that is true.

 

The Shropshire Union north of Audlem also flows continuously northwards, unless I'm imagining it. On both the Llangollen and the Shroppie the bye-washes are usually flowing strongly.

 

Yes but the Llangollen flow is the result of 6 million gallons a day drinking water for the citizens of Chester, a practice which started in the 1930s, and the Shroppie takes Wolverhampton's sewage. Yes the Llangollen flows faster than any river I've been om, or appears to, that said, it takes us four hours from Gloucester to Upper \Lode Lock and 2 1/2 back so the Severn flow may be faster than I think (fourteen miles with an hour and a half difference?)

 

The Shroppie has a flow coz its so damn busy, but it still isn't much, the pound from Wheaton Aston to Tyrley has a fall of three inches in seventeen miles. Most rivers fall at least seventeen feet in that distance, which is why they need locks

 

PS, Smelly/Dan, I think your comment was a compliment but I'm not sure

Edited March 26, 2010 by magpie patrick

[alan_fincher]

Given this, i assume that now you agree with the consensus view that throwing shit in the canal (or even s**t = what on earth is s**t Alan?) contributes to low water quality and is therefore Not a Good Thing.

I'm kind of surprised you could not work out my intended meaning from the context, Chris.

 

I used "s**t", because use of "shit" clearly offends some people, and even though I don't really understand why it does, I don't come on here with the intention of offending people.

 

If I use "s**t", then I can't imagine that most people can be in any doubt of my meaning, my point is still made, but some sensitive types may be happier than if I used the unedited "shit" form throughout.

 

I can't win though, as you are clearly unhappy with the form with the asterisks!

 

Alan

[alan_fincher]

For more than two centuries, most canals when in operation do have a modest flow and I know of at least one example where water is extracted from a canal to serve as a public water supply. Certainly I have often noticed a slow but fairly constant flow past our boat when tied-up - perhaps Alan is always in too much of a hurry to notice these minimal flows. Also, and I am not advocating the disposal of such waste into the canal but there is already a great deal of animal, bird and fish waste (and more than a few of their corpses) rotting away in the murky water.

 

If you look at my post that you quoted, you will see that I explicitly acknowledged the case(s) where a canal is used as part of a water supply. However these are clearly very much exception cases, and few canals are used in this way.

 

I also acknowledged that use of the canal by boats locking through will cause water in a pound to move. That's clearly not the same thing as "flow", because when no boats are locking through, then there often is no flow at all.

 

Obviously in cases where by weirs or by-washes have been provided at locks, it is possible that water being let down to keep levels up further down will cause a flow, but it is ridiculous to suggest that a 1 mph flow is built into the design of canals.

 

Obviously this differs from canal to canal, but I do spend a great deal of time observing canals, and not necessarily whilst travelling at lightening speeds where Doppler effect may come into play.

 

Our local canals regularly have pounds that are well less than full, so no water will flow over the overflows at ground paddles, or over gate tops in these circumstances. Therefore there is in steady state, much of the time, no flow whatsoever, other than caused by leakage through gates, (usually of very minimal impact). If you take the time and trouble to observe, many, many canals are like this, (but clearly if you traverse somewhere like Delph locks you see strong local exceptions to it).

 

I still stick to my guns that the majority real canals in England, not designed as water supplies, and not being canalised rivers, have very little flow.

 

A canal that flowed at 1mph would be a disaster, in most cases, as it's highly unlikely that enough water could be found from reservoirs and aquifers to keep it operating.

 

If you look at the history of the GJC in the Hemel Hempstead area, water shortages were so severe in the early days, that they chose to rebuild a line with 4 locks to one with 5 , to minimise the water used each time boats locked through. It is unimaginable, given that canals like this had regular stoppages because of drought, that anybody would have "designed in" a 1 mph flow.

 

Note also a 1mph flow would mean a boat going against it would travel 1mph slower in terms of speed over land, and one travelling with it would go 1 mph faster. Are we really saying on most canals that "downhill" boats travel 2mph faster than "uphill" boats. Of course not - plainly poppycock!

[FrigateCaptain]

Dumping the contents of your crap box in the cut is pure ming.

 

Tell me who it was chris and I'll go drop my arse in his gas locker

[carlt]

snip..................Of course not - plainly poppycock!

Whilst agreeing with all of your post, Alan, isn't "poppycock" derived from the Dutch word for "shit"?

 

Bearing this in mind, could you please edit your post to read "p*ppyc*ck"?

[NB Alnwick]

>snipped<

 

I still stick to my guns that the majority real canals in England, not designed as water supplies, and not being canalised rivers, have very little flow.

 

>snipped

 

That isn't what you (and others) stated - so not exactly sticking to the guns!

 

I accept that what flow exists may be barely discernible (not with some of the fierce bye-washes on the Oxford after heavy rain) but the water in each pound has to come from somewhere and by the very act of introducing a supply, a 'flow' is created.

 

Canals are frequently used for taking away excess water from the surrounding land and numerous farmers field drains, ditches and small streams run into the canal system. Also during the industrial age numerous mills, foundries and processing plants were given licences to extract water or discharge waste water using the canal system - this would have required and also generated a degree of 'flow'.

 

At the end of the day a barely discernible 'flow' is a 'flow' and it cannot be correct to say that there is "no flow" at all.

 

Perhaps the exception will be the stagnant and disused basin at the end of an old industrial arm - where we have explored some these you can really see (and smell) the difference that results from no flow at all.

[journeyperson]

>snip<

 

Perhaps the exception will be the stagnant and disused basin at the end of an old industrial arm - where we have explored some these you can really see (and smell) the difference that results from no flow at all.

 

That's how I would have described the top of Castlefield Basin beneath the church, but we were moored there one night in June 2008 when there was a heavy rainstorm and the River Medlock flooded into the canal there. In the middle of the night all sorts of things were rushing past the boats as the water covered the mooring rings. I don't know how often the basin gets a good flush like that.

[blackrose]

If you do read the books you'll know that the Llangollen is unusual, in that it has a flow, whereas the others, apart from the trickle of leaky locks, are essentially stillwaters.

I always thought that the canals had become an integral part of the relief and drainage system of the country, with rivers flowing in and out? It certainly is where I am - the river Brent flows in & out of the canal eventually draining into the Thames.

 

Edit: After periods of heavy rainfall we can sometimes have flows of 3 or 4 knots on this section of the southern GU.

Edited March 26, 2010 by blackrose

[mykaskin]

If you look at the history of the GJC in the Hemel Hempstead area, water shortages were so severe in the early days, that they chose to rebuild a line with 4 locks to one with 5 , to minimise the water used each time boats locked through. It is unimaginable, given that canals like this had regular stoppages because of drought, that anybody would have "designed in" a 1 mph flow.

 

 

Alan - you probably know this already, and I don't want to take away from your cause, but:

 

If you are taking about the bit I think you are talking about you are talking about the "new 'uns". This section is fed from a river, and since long standing mills were annoyed about the reduction of water available to turn their wheels got the Grand Junction Canal Company to rebuild a section with smaller drop locks to reduce the water usage. I suspect the river used to flow quite well, and still doesn't do bad even with all the extraction you get on rivers and the water table these days. However it is probably only in bridge holes where the flow increases to 1 mph!

 

There are many canals which are fed from rivers, streams, and form part of the drainage of the area where good flows can be generated especially during periods of high rain fall - the GU was flowing well in parts last weekend for example. However you will normally notice that sections fed in such ways tend to soon drop the excess into local streams again via bywashes. The reason being that water is an important resource, and would be needed for farms and mills downstream.

 

The Grand Junction keeps joining and leaving the river, but you will notice the main flow never stays with the canal for long. There are many other canals which do similar (Trent and Mersey at Arewas for example), and while water is run down (there is a sluice set at Wychnor Lock ) the flow is minimal and usually just enough to get pounds along the length up to level over night.

 

Areas which aren't directly river/stream fed and therefore have to rely on reservoirs tend to be still fed with a regular flow (set with paddles, or pumps) so that pounds can self level, but in times of drought this can be reduced or rationed so that pounds never get back to level. In this case the flow is neglibible.

 

Odd canals now have flows, and as far as I know were never built with a flow in mind. The two I can think of is the Shropshire Union which takes Wolverhampton's sewage away, and the Llangollen which feeds water to Hurlston. The Llangollen while river fed would have had a minimal flow before the 1930's I presume, and as Alan says would have made boating difficult (at least upstream). I know that bywashes had to be redesigned, and levels altered when the Llangollen started being used for water transfer.

 

There is often a noticeable flow of water on the Paddington Arm, and since it is also present all night, and during winter periods is not down the lock usage. It is nearly always in the same direction as the wind however, and since it is such a long pound probably slops up and down with air pressure changes. I also think it is only the surface that moves, and when a local business produced a water flow meter, tested it at Northolt and found no measurable flow (they had to walk up and down the cut to test it in the end!).

 

At the end of the day, the flow rate doesn't matter. Emptying large amounts of sewage into a water course at once is not good, and would be far better off in a field at least! Some of us have to enter the water from time to time to remove rubbish on the prop, and I don't want to be swimming through that sort of stuff!

 

Cheers,

 

Mike

[luctor et emergo]

Whilst agreeing with all of your post, Alan, isn't "poppycock" derived from the Dutch word for "shit"?

 

 

The Dutch word for shit is 'stront'.

 

Or 'poep', if you want to be polite..

 

If you need any translation to, or from Dutch, do not hesitate to ask..

[Chris Pink]

I'm kind of surprised you could not work out my intended meaning from the context, Chris.

 

I used "s**t", because use of "shit" clearly offends some people, and even though I don't really understand why it does, I don't come on here with the intention of offending people.

 

If I use "s**t", then I can't imagine that most people can be in any doubt of my meaning, my point is still made, but some sensitive types may be happier than if I used the unedited "shit" form throughout.

 

I can't win though, as you are clearly unhappy with the form with the asterisks!

 

Alan

 

 

You make i laugh. How very english to imagine that writing 's**t' is less offensive the writing 'shit'. Are you postulating that people offended by the latter will say 'o that's ok I haven't a clue what s**t says so i won't be offended.' ?

 

Perhaps there's one of your 'sensitive types' around that could explain this as I am really not getting it.

[Laurie Booth]

So it was you doing a pump out in that manner on the Trent & Mersey last year

I am not accusing you but someone was, just below a lock as well.

Sue

I'll make sure no one is about next time.

[Hairy-Neil]

I always thought that the canals had become an integral part of the relief and drainage system of the country, with rivers flowing in and out? It certainly is where I am - the river Brent flows in & out of the canal eventually draining into the Thames.

 

That would be the case on river fed canals like the Southern Grand Union. However, once above Berko, the GU is fed from reservoirs, the sumit level at Tring being one of them...

 

The Shroppie has a 'permanent' flow. A major feeder is the outfall from Wolverhampton's sewage treatment works....

[alan_fincher]

You make i laugh.

 

Well if I have cheered someone up, then it's all been worthwhile.

 

How very english to imagine that writing 's**t' is less offensive the writing 'shit'.

 

I'm not sure I do, but clearly some people do, and I don't have a problem humouring them, if, as you rightly say, the word I actually mean is still abundently clear.

 

Perhaps there's one of your 'sensitive types' around that could explain this as I am really not getting it.

 

Indeed - perhaps I'm wrong, So, although we are now a long way "off topic" anyone does feel that they prefer to see the "s**t" form to the "shit" form, then please explain why this is!